the cultural aspects of change for sustainable development

7
Eco -Management and Auditing Eco -Mgmt. Aud. 7, 53–59 (2000) THE CULTURAL ASPECTS OF CHANGE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT David Ballard* Centre for Action Research in Professional Practice, University of Bath, UK Achieving sustainable development is possibly the largest change challenge in human history. This article argues that success almost certainly requires managing change at the level of shared underlying assumptions, the so-called second level of learning. The relevance of cultural analysis to change at this level is demonstrated. A five level model of culture is introduced, providing a framework for the investigation of this field. Experience from a simulation exercise is introduced and is shown to be relevant to the investigation of culture. Several cultural blockages to change for sustainable development are identified. These include behaviour that is unnecessarily competitive, insular and secretive and that suppresses moves towards useful co-operation. A number of limiting assumptions underpin these behaviours – for instance that participants are powerless to change the outcome of the exercise, that success is determined competitively, that there is an inevitable trade-off between financial success and wider system health and that there will be adequate warning of problems. The paper concludes by suggesting some ways of leading change at the second level in this context. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. Received 1 February 2000 Accepted 10 February 2000 INTRODUCTION C an we move nations and people in the direction of sustainability? Such a move would be a modification of society comparable in scale to only two other changes: the Agricultural Revolution of the late Neolithic and the Industrial Revolution of the past two centuries. These revolutions were gradual, sponta- neous and largely unconscious. This one will have to be a fully conscious opera- tion, guided by the best foresight that science can provide ... . If we actually do it, the undertaking will be absolutely unique in humanity’s stay on the Earth. This reflection by William D. Ruckelshaus 1 (quoted by Meadows et al., 1992, p 218) is a stark reminder of the scale of the challenge of sustainable development. Recent work by the present author (UK Round Table for Sustain- able Development, 1998) showed that this view is widely shared among leading UK * Correspondence to: David Ballard, 18 Swan’s Close, Rams- bury, Marlborough, Wiltshire SN8 2PH, UK. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. 1 Formerly EPA Administrator in the USA under Presidents Nixon and Reagan.

Upload: david-ballard

Post on 06-Jun-2016

213 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The cultural aspects of change for sustainable development

Eco-Management and AuditingEco-Mgmt. Aud. 7, 53–59 (2000)

THE CULTURAL ASPECTS OFCHANGE FOR SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT

David Ballard*

Centre for Action Research in Professional Practice, University of Bath, UK

Achieving sustainable development ispossibly the largest change challenge inhuman history. This article argues thatsuccess almost certainly requiresmanaging change at the level of sharedunderlying assumptions, the so-calledsecond level of learning. The relevance ofcultural analysis to change at this levelis demonstrated.

A five level model of culture isintroduced, providing a framework forthe investigation of this field. Experiencefrom a simulation exercise is introducedand is shown to be relevant to theinvestigation of culture.

Several cultural blockages to changefor sustainable development areidentified. These include behaviour thatis unnecessarily competitive, insular andsecretive and that suppresses movestowards useful co-operation. A numberof limiting assumptions underpin thesebehaviours – for instance thatparticipants are powerless to change theoutcome of the exercise, that success isdetermined competitively, that there isan inevitable trade-off between financialsuccess and wider system health andthat there will be adequate warning ofproblems.

The paper concludes by suggestingsome ways of leading change at thesecond level in this context. Copyright© 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERPEnvironment.

Received 1 February 2000Accepted 10 February 2000

INTRODUCTION

Can we move nations and people inthe direction of sustainability? Sucha move would be a modification of

society comparable in scale to only twoother changes: the Agricultural Revolutionof the late Neolithic and the IndustrialRevolution of the past two centuries.These revolutions were gradual, sponta-neous and largely unconscious. This onewill have to be a fully conscious opera-tion, guided by the best foresight thatscience can provide . . . . If we actually doit, the undertaking will be absolutelyunique in humanity’s stay on the Earth.

This reflection by William D. Ruckelshaus1

(quoted by Meadows et al., 1992, p 218) is astark reminder of the scale of the challenge ofsustainable development. Recent work by thepresent author (UK Round Table for Sustain-able Development, 1998) showed that thisview is widely shared among leading UK

* Correspondence to: David Ballard, 18 Swan’s Close, Rams-bury, Marlborough, Wiltshire SN8 2PH, UK.

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

1 Formerly EPA Administrator in the USA under PresidentsNixon and Reagan.

Page 2: The cultural aspects of change for sustainable development

D. BALLARD

practitioners in the field of sustainable develop-ment. A more formal study (Macnaghten et al.,1995) suggests that the population at large islargely in agreement2.

Starting from this position, the first sectionof the paper demonstrates the relevance ofcultural analysis to change for sustainable de-velopment. The second section introduces a fivelevel approach to cultural analysis. The thirdsection describes Fishbanks Ltd., a simulationaddressing sustainable development issues. Itdescribes the typical course of such a simulationand identifies some of the factors that seem tomake a difference to the outcome. The fourthsection uses the experience of the game and theauthor’s experience in the field of sustainabledevelopment to identify some cultural issuesthat may impede our progress on sustainabledevelopment. While neither claiming to becomplete, nor definitive, the analysis does iden-tify important aspects of culture that meritattention by anybody that wishes to contributetowards this transition. The final section looksbriefly at some of the options for working withcultural issues in this context.

RELEVANCE OF CULTURALANALYSIS TO CHANGE FORSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

There is a great deal of theory on change at theindividual and organizational level. (Argyrisand Schon, 1996; Torbert and Fisher, 1995;Lievegoed, 1993; Wilber, 1995, 19963). Kuhn(1962) gives a well-known and highly influen-tial account of transformation within the scien-tific community.

Briefly, a human being, a scientific commu-nity or an organization typically works withina framework of assumptions that serve it wellin its everyday tasks. Because they are normallytaken for granted, a useful shorthand develops.For instance, colleagues do not need to explainwhy a high level of debt is a problem – theycan get on with reducing it. Progress within adevelopmental stage is usually continuous im-

provement that does not challenge these as-sumptions.

Transformational change occurs when criti-cal underpinning assumptions are underminedand replaced by new, more helpful ones. Kuhn(1962) gives a series of accounts of this happen-ing in the physical sciences4. To underminethese key assumptions or paradigms is a radicalact: the way that scientists see the worldchanges totally. Torbert (1991) describes howthe individual is unable to solve key problemsuntil a stage transition has been made and goesinto considerable detail on how to assist thesetransitions to happen.

This process is often uncomfortable. Criticalproblems do not go away no matter how hardone tries. This is because corrective actions willoften be driven by the assumptions that needto change. Influential people often resist aban-doning key assumptions. A try-harder pathol-ogy can easily develop. There are often attemptsto downplay the significance of the presentingproblems. Breakthroughs to new and morehelpful sets of assumptions often happen out-side the mainstream and then face rejection byit.

The parallel with the challenge of sustainabledevelopment is clear. The presenting problemsare huge. We are stuck trying harder5. Day to daypolitics continues without significant referenceto the issue. Powerful groups, particularly inAmerica, deny the validity of the problems.

It appears likely that it is worth exploring theso-called second level of learning – learning at thelevel of key assumptions6 (Bateson, 1964; Ar-gyris and Schon, 1996) in looking for a wayforward. This is the domain of cultural analysis.

A FIVE LEVEL MODEL OF CULTURE

A useful multi-layered approach to analysingculture in depth has been developed by the BathConsultancy Group (Hawkins, 1997)7.4 For instance with the Michelson–Morley experiments andother events that eventually undermined Newtonian physics.5 See, for instance, Klaus Topfer’s recent comments on progresson global warming: 1999. UN Report warns of world’s unsus-tainable future. The Independent 16 September.6 The key underlying assumptions have been described as thecore of a culture (Schein, 1992).7 It owes a great deal to Schein (1992) and to Bateson (1964). Inan earlier incarnation, the present author assisted with thedevelopment of this model.

2 In the county of Lancashire, UK.3 Wilber (1995) and Torbert and Fisher (1995) both give exten-sive references to the literature on developmental stages.

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Eco-Mgmt. Aud. 7, 53–59 (2000)

54

Page 3: The cultural aspects of change for sustainable development

CULTURAL ASPECTS OF CHANGE

� Artefacts. These are physical manifestationsof underlying assumptions, signalling howwe are expected to behave and what isseen as important – the layout of buildingsand offices, status symbols, dress codes,policies framed on the walls, photographs,even the organization chart. In a fire ser-vice headquarters, for instance, all the pho-tographs were either of men in uniform orof blazing buildings. Easy to deduce thatthe service had some difficulties valuingfire prevention!

� Patterns of behaviour. How do people get onaround here? How do you get somethingdone? How is conflict handled? What hap-pens when something goes wrong? Howdo people keep in touch? In a manufactur-ing organization, for instance, the way toget things done was to find (if necessaryeven quietly create) a crisis, argue for re-sources and then use them to the originalend. This rather harmed an organizationalquality initiative!

These two levels of culture can be directlyobserved but are usually manifestations ofdeeper levels. These need to be accessed forsignificant change to be possible.

� Mindset. This includes the culture’s values,its core assumptions, its theories in use etc.This level is often regarded8 as the mostimportant, for it generates behaviours. In ahospital, the common mindset included ‘ifsomething goes wrong, it must be some-body’s fault’. Perhaps helpful in encourag-ing people to care for patients, it made ithard for them to accept failure and led toinappropriate blaming behaviours.

� Motivational roots. This is where peoplefind meaning in their work together, beingwhere the organization’s mission or evenspiritual purpose (Hawkins, 1991) is lo-cated. Motivational roots are often carriedby the older members of the organization.In a large computer company, for instance,younger managers shared little at thislevel. A older manager smiled ‘We thoughtwe could change the world!’ This organi-zation needed to reinterpret its mission fora world that had changed.

� Emotional ground. This is the feeling base ofthe culture, often barely articulate. Feelingsof anger or depression are common, lesscommonly feelings of euphoria and excite-ment. The apparently negative feelings canbe a result of unprocessed reactions tomajor changes (Kubler-Ross, 1973). Theycan also be a consequence of the work ofthe organization itself (Hawkins andShohet, 1989). The helping professions of-ten experience burnout at the emotionalground.

Taking these five levels together, there can besignificant inter-relationships. What is done atone level may well have consequences at adifferent level. If we do anything important, itis almost certain to have such repercussions.Changes need to be worked through at sev-eral levels and blockages can very possiblysurface at any of them.

USING SIMULATIONS TO ACCESSCULTURE

I have played Fishbanks Ltd.9, a simple butpowerful sustainability simulation, manytimes with MBA students and others. Partici-pants are divided into fishing fleets. Theirtask is to maximize their assets over the life ofthe game. To do this they have to catch andsell fish. They are briefed on their roles in thefleets and are also given a lot of informationabout the two fishing systems in which theyare operating.

In a typical game, participants expandquickly into the more productive fishery.Catches are good and fleets grow. The catchlevels off but this warning sign is ignored.Occasionally there are moves towards co-operation at this stage but usually too little isproposed and even this is not accepted bymost participants. The next year the catchcollapses. The pattern is then repeated in thesecond fishery.

9 The game was developed under the supervision of ProfessorDennis Meadows at the University of New Hampshire. It isbased on observed interrelationships. It can be purchased atlow cost and is excellently supported for use with groups usingpersonal computers.8 For instance by Schein (1992).

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Eco-Mgmt. Aud. 7, 53–59 (2000)

55

Page 4: The cultural aspects of change for sustainable development

D. BALLARD

Over the years that I have played this gameI have changed my facilitation style to reducemy own influence on the outcome. For in-stance, I share more information and some-times give clues about what a good outcomewould be. I will sometimes refuse to accept amove, inviting the group to think again. I ammore explicit about the group’s need both tooptimize and to avoid disaster. None of thesechanges has had the slightest effect on theoutcome, as far as I can tell.

Even knowing the numerical ‘answer’ doesnot guarantee success. It is often the case thata participant or sub-group works it out – thisis never enough. On one occasion the wholegroup came to discover it before the gameeven started: it crashed the fish stocks evenmore dramatically than most groups!

What characterizes the relatively successfuloutcomes is a change to the way that sub-groups interact. This may be by setting up aseparate strategy sub-group, by appointing aprocess observer, by monitoring the moves ofother groups and challenging them, by askingwhy a sub-group is behaving as it is andengaging with it. The more successful suchmoves are, the better the results. Almost in-variably one person has to take some personalrisk (in terms of credibility etc). For this tohelp, the other participants in their turn needto recognize and respond to the call tochange. This is quite rare: only once in myexperience has a group come close to maxi-mizing assets and on only about 10% of occa-sions does a group do respectably well.

After the game participants come to appre-ciate that their own experience is likely togive clues as to what is causing some of theworld’s problems. We then go on to look atthe cultural patterns that lay behind thegroup’s behaviour.

OUR CULTURE AND SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT

My observations about patterns of behaviourand mindset have been discussed and devel-oped with many of the groups that haveplayed the game. I will add some rather moresubjective observations about what may be

going on at the emotional ground. I have notlooked in detail at the artefacts or motiva-tional roots.

Patterns of behaviour

� Little co-operation or communication betweensub-groups. Almost all the activity takesplace within sub-groups. Little or nonetakes place at the level of the wider sys-tem. This blocks the development of a co-herent framework within which groupscan operate effectively.

� People who suggest co-operation are ridiculedor ignored. Ridicule is often a sign that acultural norm has been breached.

� Mental models are only rarely shared. Thisprevents people challenging assumptionsand correcting errors and holds back thegroup from assessing its own implicitstrategy.

� People only rarely ask for help when they donot understand. The question ‘Does anyoneunderstand what is going on here, becauseI don’t?’ would probably avert the crashmore times than not. People who speakalmost invariably do so from a position ofalready knowing what is going on, but bythen it is usually too late.

� Participants follow the emergent behaviour ofthe other groups. Very frequently, evengroups that begin cautiously will be af-fected by the behaviour of other groups. Adominant style quickly emerges and israrely challenged.

� Actions are predominantly short term. Partici-pants spend more time trying to predictwhen the crash will occur for tactical rea-sons than trying to avoid it.

Mindset

� Success means beating the other fleets. Partici-pants usually want to see who has ‘won’. Itcan be a profound moment when theyrealize that this assumption has condi-tioned much of their behaviour.

� Doing well financially is at odds with thehealth of the fisheries. Participants assumethat the fisheries are bound to collapse and

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Eco-Mgmt. Aud. 7, 53–59 (2000)

56

Page 5: The cultural aspects of change for sustainable development

CULTURAL ASPECTS OF CHANGE

so their actions become very short term.The opposite assumption – that financialsuccess is inextricably linked to the healthof the fisheries – is much more useful.Assets can only be maximized over thesimulation’s duration by adopting this as-sumption and by encouraging others to adoptit as well.

� Information and ideas should not be shared.Information is rarely shared with otherparticipants, even when the sustainablefleet is being exceeded. Indeed sometimesthe people holding this information exceedthe overall sustainable fleet size in theirown fleet, driven by the point above. Con-sequences are that incorrect assumptionsby other fleets are never corrected and noinformed discussions ever take place aboutthe consequences of overall group be-haviour on the fisheries.

� When a problem becomes apparent, there willbe time to act. By the time that it is clearthat there is a problem, it is already toolate for a fully effective response. Maxi-mum catch for the more productive fisheryis typically achieved with the fish popula-tion already significantly depleted. By thetime the first reduction in catch is ob-served, the population is normally around15% of its starting level. This is a commonfeature of systemic problems. Such mis-leading signals often lead fleets into a fatalincrease of effort that completely wipes outremaining stocks. The simulation showsthat strategy must be driven by a keenappreciation of the health of the systemwhich produces the operating results, thatthese results are a very poor indicator ofhealth and that they therefore need carefulinterpretation.

� Leadership of the whole system is not permit-ted. Only rarely is an attempt made toinitiate discussions across different fleets.Even more rarely do they succeed. Asnoted, participants often make fun of theinitiator, leaving them feeling disempow-ered by their colleagues, caricatured asslightly idealistic and ridiculous. Theyrarely try again.

� It is not our fault that the system is behavingthe way that it is, and we are powerless to

improve it. This may be the most perniciousassumption of all. A good result requiresthat participants accept that they co-createthe system of which they are victims. Thisbrings with it a recognition that change ispossible and that no-one else can be ex-pected to make it happen.

Emotional ground

The relative safety of simulations makes themgood at revealing behavioural patterns andmindset, but emotions may be less extreme.Experience from the Fishbanks game is en-riched by my personal experience as an envi-ronmental manager, consultant and cam-paigner.

� People playing the Fishbanks game are nor-mally very wary. They tend not to trust themotives of any person who tries to im-prove the overall situation. This is often afatal blockage to efforts to improve thesituation. This lack of trust is rarely openlyacknowledged. People typically want to beseen to be nice, and this stops them fromdoing the verifying that might be appro-priate to build up trust.

� Feelings of powerlessness are very strong.Most people feel victims of the situationand this prevents them from being able todo anything much about it.

� People will often go to considerable lengths toremain powerless. When action is sug-gested10 many reasons will normally begiven that action is not possible for thegroup in question and that another groupshould act. In my opinion this is an uncon-scious attempt to avoid taking on the bur-den of leadership in this area.

� There are very strong feelings under the sur-face. For instance strong anger sometimesbreaks out. As an example, a showing of afilm (about damage being done to Ladakh)to a different MBA group led to a near-riot.The public anger sometimes shown overthe export of live animals may be seen as away in which people are beginning to ex-press their emotions over the wider issueof sustainability.

10 This is a comment from outside the Fishbanks game.

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Eco-Mgmt. Aud. 7, 53–59 (2000)

57

Page 6: The cultural aspects of change for sustainable development

D. BALLARD

� These feelings are very often suppressed. Emo-tions in this area are often not owned. Thismakes communication difficult and rela-tionships fragile.

Some general conclusions

There are clear interrelationships between thelevels of culture in these examples. For in-stance, the feelings of powerlessness mightclearly be expected to have an impact at themindset level (‘Leadership of the whole sys-tem isn’t permitted’) and would lead to cer-tain patterns of behaviour (staying safe anddoomed at the sub-group level, for instance).At the very least, this suggests that someattention should be paid to the deeper levelswhen considering how to make improve-ments at the behavioural level, both in thegame and – I would suggest – more widely.

SO WHAT CAN BREAK THE GRIPOF CULTURAL PATTERNS?

The Fishbanks game gives helpful insights intowhich cultural patterns may be blockingchange for sustainable development but itwould be fanciful to think that a simulationcan give many insights into how to behave onan issue of such scale. Nonetheless, there are afew lessons that it is worth noting.

� Spreading information and sharing mentalmodels is helpful even if they are ‘wrong’– doing so can stimulate others to respondand so can assist group understanding.

� It is unwise to condemn an initiative byanother person as foolish. This may be asign that we are encountering our owninternal barriers to change.

� It is not enough to act at the level of one’sorganization. It is also necessary to findways of influencing the larger systems ofwhich it is a part.

� A key assumption which we may need toquestion is that protecting the environmen-tal and social systems of which we are partis necessarily at odds with our organiza-tion’s interests.

Speaking more generally, it is helpful torecognize that this is a huge change challengeand that this almost certainly means changein taken for granted assumptions. Because allof us are part of what is now an increasinglycommon culture, this applies to each of us tosome extent – to me as author of this articleas well as to you, the reader, to environmentalactivists as much as to our political leaders.There is no outside expert to whom we can gofor advice – it is up to us. If we think that wehave it sorted in our minds, that may be themost dangerous assumption of all.

The act of naming unhelpful assumptions isitself a helpful step. To do so requires us torecognize that they are unhelpful. That meansrecognizing that things are going wrong be-cause of how we think about them, not justbecause others are irresponsible. This is noteasy, particularly where much of political pro-cess consists of point scoring. So another seri-ously unhelpful assumption that we can putaside is the expectation that a good leader willalways know the answer.

There are various disciplines that seemhelpful. My own preferences are for collabora-tive inquiry (Heron, 1996), for the discipline ofdialogue (see Jaworski, 1996; Bohm and Briggs,1989) – provided that it is grounded in action– and for the creation of parallel organizations– spaces where practitioners with very differ-ent viewpoints can step out of role to testassumptions. I also believe that there wouldbe great benefit to creative but disciplinedvisioning – again, provided that this leads toaction. Linking these is the discipline of actioninquiry (Reason, 1988). However I also recog-nize that my own perceptions may need tochange.

Widespread change at the second level oflearning is required. This requires people tolead such change. To do this requires personalchange at still deeper levels and this requiresencounter with the emotional ground in itsrawest form (Hawkins, 1991; Macy, 1983;Bateson, 1964). Macy suggests safe ways ofdoing this. Most usually it takes radical exter-nal change – divorce, bereavement, seriousillness – to force us into learning at this level.The evidence of the simulation is that wecannot wait until the need to change is

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Eco-Mgmt. Aud. 7, 53–59 (2000)

58

Page 7: The cultural aspects of change for sustainable development

CULTURAL ASPECTS OF CHANGE

inescapable. I believe that those who are capa-ble of leading in this area should now beginto look inwardly and very deeply.

REFERENCES

Argyris C, Schon D. 1996. Organizational Learning II:Theory, Method and Practice. Addison Wesley: Reading,MA.

Bateson G. 1964. The logical categories of learning andcommunication. In Steps to an Ecology of Mind, newedition 2000, Bateson G (ed.). University of ChicagoPress: Chicago; 279–308.

Bohm D, Briggs J. 1989. Dialogue as a path towardswholeness: can lessons learned from subatomic parti-cles help solve social problems? New Age Journal Sep-tember/October: 113–121.

Hawkins P. 1991. The spiritual dimension of the learn-ing organization. Management Education and Develop-ment 22: 3.

Hawkins P. 1997. Organizational culture: sailing be-tween evangelism and complexity. Human Relations50: 4.

Hawkins P, Shohet R. 1989. Supervision in the HelpingProfessions. Open University Press: Buckingham.

Heron J. 1996. Co-Operative Inquiry: Research into theHuman Condition. Sage: London.

Jaworski J. 1996. Synchronicity: the Inner Path of Leader-ship. Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco.

Kubler-Ross E. 1973. On Death and Dying. Routledge:London.

Kuhn T. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Uni-versity of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.

Lievegoed B. 1993. Phases: the Spiritual Rhythms of AdultLife. Anthroposophic Press: London.

Macnaghten P, Grove-White R, Jacobs M, Wynne B.1995. Public Perceptions and Sustainability in Lancashire.Lancashire County Council: Lancaster.

Macy J. 1983. Despair and Personal Power in the NuclearAge. New Society: Philadelphia, PA.

Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J. 1992. Beyond theLimits. Earthscan: London.

Reason P. 1988. Human Inquiry in Action. Sage: London.Schein E. 1992. Culture and Leadership. Jossey Bass: San

Francisco.Torbert WR. 1991. The Power of Balance. Sage: London.Torbert WR, Fisher D. 1995. Personal and Organizational

Transformations. McGraw Hill: Maidenhead.UK Round Table for Sustainable Development. 1998.

Monitoring and Reporting on Sustainable Development.UK Round Table: London.

Wilber K. 1995. Sex, Ecology, Spirituality. Shambhala:Boston.

Wilber K. 1996. A Brief History of Everything. Newleaf:Dublin.

BIOGRAPHY

David Ballard works as a consultant with theFord Partnership. He is studying for a Ph.D.at the University of Bath, UK, researchingTransformative Social Learning for Sustain-able Development at the Centre for ActionResearch in Professional Practice. He has wideexperience in mainstream managerial rolesand has specialized in recent years in organi-zational culture and learning. He has been asuccessful environment manager and consul-tant. He has been active for over a decade atnational and local levels on the challenge ofsustainable development.

He would welcome correspondence andfeedback on the ideas in this paper. Pleasecontact him directly at 18 Swan’s Close,Ramsbury, Marlborough, Wiltshire SN8 2PH,UK.Tel.: 01672 520561.E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Eco-Mgmt. Aud. 7, 53–59 (2000)

59