1. Sustainability Leadership towards
Strategic Sustainability: Examining
Brazilian Organisations
Cássia Ayres
Master in Social Science
MSc Social Responsibility and Sustainability
Supervisor: Josie Kelly
September, 2015

2.
2
The flying V formation of some birds, like geese, allow the whole group
to add 71 per cent of flying range compared to if the bird flew isolated.
Flying together also protects a goose when it gets sick, tired or shot
down. When it happens, at least two geese fly down and support the
bird till it is able to fly back with the group or dies. The V formation is
due to the leadership position, which is seen with respect by the group
since it is not comfortable for a goose to fly faster while facing the air
resistance. Hence, the leader always counts on the back geese’s honk to
be encouraged and keep its speed in order to ensure advantages for
the whole group. Frequently, the leader has to give away its position, to
allow other birds experience to lead as well as to follow (Glouberman,
2003).

3.
3
Table of Contents:
Acknowledgment
6
Abstract
7
CHAPTER 1: This project
8
1.1 Introduction 8
1.2 Aim and objectives 9
1.3 Research Question
1.4 Significance and inspiration
10
CHAPTER 2: Literature Review 12
2.1 Part A Strategic Sustainability 12
2.1.1 Evolution and motivations 12
2.1.2 Causes of inefficiency 14
2.1.3 Transitional and transformational 15
2.1.4 Sustainability Value Framework 16
2.1.5 SVF through transformational approaches 18
2.1.6 Evaluation of SVF’s 20
2.1.7 Corporate sustainability in Brazil Corporate sustainability in 21
2.2.4 Part A summary
23
2.2 Part B Sustainability leadership 24
2.2.1 New ways to lead are required 24
2.2.2 Definition of sustainability leadership 26
2.2.3 Streams of sustainability leadership 26
2.2.3.1 Behaviour orientated leadership 26
2.2.3.2 Technical-instrumental or task oriented 36
2.2.3 Trends in sustainability leadership 38
2.2.4 Part B summary 40

4.
4
2.2.5 Gaps in the literature
40
CHAPTER 3: Methodology
41
3.1 Chapter introduction 41
3.2 Overview of research methodology 41
3.3 Samples 42
3.4 Data Collection process 44
3.4.1 Interviews 45
3.4.2 Case study method 45
3.5 Data analysis 47
3.6 Chapter summary 48
CHAPTER 4: Findings
49
4.1 Chapter introduction 49
4.2 Case studies presentation 49
4.2.1 Duratex SA 49
4.2.2 Votorantim Metals 52
4.2.3 AES Brasil (Eletropaulo) 56
4.2.4 Tetra Pak
59
4.3 Data analysis process 63
4.4 Summary of key findings 67
4.6 Chapter summary 67
CHAPTER 5: Discussion
68
5.1 Chapter introduction 68
5.2 Discussion of the drivers and supporting findings 68
5.2.1 Strategic sustainability 74
5.3 Implications of this study 76
5.4 Limitations of this study 79
5.5 Recommendations for further research 80
4.6 Recommendation for the organisations 81
Conclusion
82
References 83

5.
5
Appendices 94
Appendix (A) Denominations of sustainability Leadership 94
Appendix (B) Coded quotes from sustainability managers 95
List of figures
1 Sustainability Value Framework 17
2 The Buzzword Sort 18
3 Sustainability critical issues 25
4 The Seven Action Logics 31
5 LDF applied to sustainability 34
6 Relationship between mindsets and the five Gears 35
7 CPSL model of leadership 39
8 Analysis process 47
9 Summary of key findings 65
10 Sustainability Leadership Framework 78
List of tables
1 Elements categorized into two major topics 64
2 Conceptualization of elements. 66

6.
6
Acknowledgments
This project culminates with the completion a significant journey of my masters at Aston
University in the UK. More than an examination of topics, this project has tested my
knowledge about sustainability acquired so far, and also inspires my next steps in this
field. From the point in which I took my decision to return to the classrooms in Luanda, I
would like to thank special friends, Cyla Weihsmann, Dr. José Octávio Van-Dúnem and
Dr. Cláudio Cardoso and for their warm motivation. This project effectively counted on
the support of my supervisor Josie Kelly for her meticulous inputs towards high
academic standards, she incentivised me to achieve with this project. I also want to
thank to Dr. Chinny Nzekwe-Excel for her precious support during my learning process
in each step of this project.
This topic was successfully accomplished thanks to Ricardo Voltolini, and his robust
and pioneering work about sustainability leadership in Brazil, and for the valuable
resources that he made available to me. In the view of this, I also express my special
thanks for the Brazilian organisations that voluntarily participated: Duratex, Votorantim,
AES Brasil and Tetra Pak. A sustainability representative from each organisation took
part in this project. These four knowledgeable professionals, which for ethical reasons I
will keep in anonymity, cooperated enormously with their time, informing me about
technical information as well as subjective impressions which were crucial for this
project contextualization.
I thank all my course colleagues for their input, continuous cooperation in person and
our digital conferences. I also wish to thank all my dear friends for their emotional
support when I needed it the most.
Lastly and from my core and spirit I thank God and to Saint Anthony, my guardian, for
illuminating me everyday during my path. I thank my mum, Joana Angélica for her
example of strength and persistency and to my father, Evandro Ayres, (in memorian),
my beloved environmentalist, for his eternal inspiration that I will use to pursue a better
society.

7.
7
Abstract
This study examines how sustainability leadership drives strategic sustainability by
using four large Brazilian organisations as a sample to analyse how this relationship
happens, and the implications of it. The results show that there is a positive influence
from this leadership towards corporate sustainability strategies when three main factors
are in place: (1) Support of top leadership through its projection of vision, motivation
and risk-taking in a innovative way; (2) Skilled leaders which are highly knowledgeable
about their business and sustainability as well being able to possess emotional
competence; (3) Leadership with a system thinking approach, comprising a holistic
vision and co-participation of different actors. The main implication of this study is that
developing the leadership in the mentioned factors would lead to improvement of these
organisations’ sustainability practices, and possibly towards more transformational
ones. Therefore, it is suggested that leadership programmes work to develop the
elements found in the model proposed systematically. Eventually, this model and these
recommendations can be adapted to the realities of other organisations that resonate
with the characteristics found in the sample.
Key words: sustainability leadership, strategic sustainability, leadership development,
action-logics, transitional sustainability, transformational sustainability, Brazil,
sustainable development.

8.
8
CHAPTER 1: This project
1.1 Introduction
Our society is currently living in an inversion of patterns of scarcity when compared to
the Industrial Revolution two centuries ago. During that period, there was a shortage of
people’s capabilities to deal with the machines and a profuse source of natural
recourses available. By contrast, today the workforce has been replaced by modern
systems and the natural capital is in deep deficiency and shows the boundaries of
economical growth related to Earth’s carrying capacity (Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins,
1999). Practically, society has been not only postponing to tackle this problem
effectively, but has also been depleting resources rapidly. Both facts associated have
been stressing the resilience ability of ecosystems and decreasing species,
exterminating habitats and damaging the health of human beings as a result of the sick
planet we are living in (Hawken, 1995).
Korten (2001) argues that private organisations are directly part of the problem and
have become the most powerful institutions worldwide. Therefore, organisations should
be part of the solution, using their power to turn damaging corporate systems into
reconstructive ones, enabling natural resilience and meeting the needs of society.
Indeed, there is a stream of cutting edge organisations with authentic commitment in
changing the current paradigm, but the problem is that the amount of actions is not
enough related to the challenges that the planet is currently facing. Clean technologies,
for example, have been more frequently used to cooperate with nature’s resilience
capacity. Nevertheless, the amount of development owned by organisations is still
disproportional when compared to the effects of an unsustainable world: exponential
population growth, scarcity and extinction of natural resources, loss of biodiversity
habitats destruction and extreme poverty (Stahel, 2007).
Despite many other drivers, such as market and governmental incentives, human
psychology and absence of sustainability vision, lack of participatory corporate
leadership is one of the factors which seriously accentuates these symptoms. (Borland
and Paliwoda, 2011). In fact, the way that leaders use their power to make
transformations happen is crucial and is in the core of the debates today (Korten,
2001). Presence of leadership orientated to sustainability may explain why some

9.
9
companies are able to understand the sustainability challenges as opportunities to
develop internal capabilities and generate advantages for their businesses, for society
and for the environment while others are not able (Doppelt, 2010). Hence, the answer
for some organisations to foster corporate sustainability or sustainability embedded into
business strategies often starts when the leadership is convinced and committed to
implement it (Ferdig, 2007; Borland, 2009).
For those leaders who understand that fostering sustainability is a paramount condition
for all species survival, but are not convinced that they are the generation to play the
role, the issue reveals a permanent defect in mind-set change and lack of participatory
leadership (Starkey and Welford, 2001). Consequently, if strategic sustainability
represents a gear in which organisations can operate to generate business profitability
without leaving behind wellbeing in a long-term perspective by restoring the
environment and improving human conditions (Bennett and James, 1998; Borland,
2009), leadership orientated to sustainability or sustainability leadership is therefore a
fuel to move this gear, with fundamental roles. These roles encompass support towards
other leaders to act upon their corporations, shift mindsets and consumer patterns and
partner with governmental structures and other relevant stakeholders in order to focus
on common environmental and societal goals (Ferdig, 2007).
1.2 Aim and objectives
The predominant aim of this project has been to better understand how sustainability
leadership drives strategic sustainability, by identifying and interpreting factors that can
be observed through this relationship. This purpose unfolds into the observation of
sustainability strategies performed in four Brazilian organisations, and the
characteristics of sustainability leadership that is in place in this given environment. This
explorative and interpretative study has been focused on the way this leadership has
been shaping these organisations and moving beyond its borders of strategic
sustainability practices.
In complement to this aim, the project has three objectives:
• To explore strategic sustainability and sustainability leadership concepts and
distinct approaches
• To analyse case studies from the perspective of both aforementioned topics
• To draw conclusions and produce recommendations to further studies

10.
10
This project considers two assumptions confirmed through data collection:
1- The sample performs strategic sustainability as part of its corporate orientation,
being reflected into its vision, mission and daily practices.
2- The leadership orientated to sustainability performed in all four organisations
has been contextualized in this study as sustainability leadership.
1.3 Research Question
How does sustainability leadership drive strategic sustainability?
This is the main question that this project wants to answer in order to reveal and
improve understanding of what factors are connected to sustainability leadership and
how they lead to strategic sustainability. This question unfolds into a secondary
question: which sort of sustainability leadership has been used to address strategic
sustainability?
1.4 Significance and inspiration
Despite an abundance of natural resources and biodiversity, Brazil has been
dramatically loosing these resources over the last 30 years. Together with this fact,
social inequalities are still a major problem in the country that primarily leads to a
chronic economic inefficiency and a lack of wellbeing. This scenario requires, therefore,
strong corporate policies in place that are associated to public ones to ensure people’s
basic needs are met: education, health, safety, decent income as well as nature’s
preservation in a long-term view (Barata, 2007). Positively, with a gradual access to
products and services for the low middle class and those considered as in the poverty
line in the last decade, the corporate’s mission to assume a responsible posture and
help to meet the needs of almost 108 million people, or 54% of the population,
proportionally increases. Therefore, this new corporate posture concretized in
sustainability strategies has a great challenge in Brazil to learn from an empirical
process and succeed (Eight, 2014). Currently, there is a wave of sustainability leaders
changing their organisations through these strategies and influencing other
organisations to follow the same path (Voltolini, 2011). The inspiration of this project
derives from this significant movement where Brazilian corporations are involved,
creating and sharing strong business cases and therefore impacting society. Its
significance arises from the novelty of the topics discussed in this study and the effects
it could have for the academic literature and also for other organisations, as per

11.
11
increasing awareness about these topics in this particular context and motivating
positive corporate decision making-processes.

12.
12
CHAPTER 2: Literature Review
Chapter introduction
This chapter addresses the understanding of two major topics of this dissertation:
strategic sustainability and sustainability leadership. Shared into two parts, this
literature review will examine in depth the concepts and approaches of both topics,
discussing its limitations and directing the focus to comprehend the relationship
between these topics in order to create a theoretical background to respond the
research questions.
2.1 PART A – Strategic sustainability
This section describes the evolution of strategic sustainability, reveals the causes of its
inefficiency and underlines the difference between transitional to transformational
sustainability. Later, this section analyses the Sustainability Value Framework from the
view of new sustainability approaches and observes the development towards strategic
sustainability within a Brazilian context.
2.1.1 Evolution and motivations
The origins of Strategic sustainability can be found in the expression Sustainable
Development from The Brundtland Report (Galpin and Whittington, 2012). This term
refers to sustainable development as the ability of humans to satisfy their needs without
inhibiting the ability of other humans (WCED, 1987). At the time it was launched, this
document represented a call for action, finally embracing corporations to participate
together with the public and non-profit sector by setting strategic goals to maintain food
security, water supply, natural resources and biodiversity preservation, as well as
tackling over population, pollution control, climate change among other challenges
within its operations (Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins, 1999).
Today, strategic sustainability has different but converging definitions among scholars.
Its meaning tackles issues without dissociating from profitability (Galpin and
Whittington, 2012). For Stead and Stead (2010) Strategic sustainability, or sustainable
strategic management, embraces a set of corporate processes and strategies that
orientate the organisation’s mission, vision, values and culture, and therefore set

13.
13
practical direction on profitable practices which keep the equilibrium of nature and
humankind wellbeing. According to Elkington (2004), corporate sustainability is the
incorporation of the Triple Bottom Line (economy, environment and social) into
corporate priorities aiming sustainable development and profitability. Similarly for Hart
(2012, p. 19), strategic sustainability represents an opportunity for the organisations “to
make money and to make the world a better place” by developing internal capabilities
associated to the context in which they operate. Berns et al (2009) argue that these
abilities are also motivational factors for the organisations to pursue strategic
sustainability, since they also enable the companies’ development against challengers,
such as: capacity to work in a system wider basis with society and environment, ability
to respond positively to a long-term system thinking, capacity to re-think and re-design
its business models (including financial, products and services), and finally, ability to
communicate and partner with a wide range of stakeholders.
In practice, these capabilities allow the company to move from early stages of
performing in a responsive and incremental way, merely integrated to the operations, to
a broader perspective in which the company understands itself as part of an
interconnected system within nature and society in which it relies upon to prosper
(Stead and Stead, 2010). SustainAbility (2004) demonstrates the evolution of strategic
sustainability and acquisition of corporate capabilities in four stages as follows:
• 1st
stage - Compliance (commitment with regulations)
• 2nd
stage - Profit-orientated/ (integrated into the operation for cost reduction
and risk minimization)
• 3rd
stage - Integration with stakeholders/partner (beyond legal commitment
and profit orientation)
• 4th
stage - Re-engineer/holistic (as a result of co-participation, the organisation
expands business models, products and services)
Complementary to this overview, Hart (2010, p. 16) summarized these stages of
corporate sustainability to demonstrate this evolution through the last 60 years as
follows: “Stage 1- Pollution Denial (1945 – 1960s); Stage 2 – End-of-pipe regulation
(1970–1980s); Stage 3 – Greening (mid-1980s–1990s); Stage 4 – Beyond Greening
(1990s–present).” The term “Greening” is used to refer to continuous improvement in
incremental or transitional phases.

14.
14
Hence, corporate internal motivations are migrating from cost reduction, risk
management and profit maximization, towards marketing differentiation, brand image,
stakeholder recognition and lastly, reputation in advanced stages (Porter and Kramer,
2006; Marrewijk, 2003). Despite these internal motivations, the evolution of strategic
sustainability has been driven also for external motivations from environmental stresses
already referred together with stakeholders’ pressure, such as: government legislation,
consumers concerns, employee’s interests and social licence to operate from
communities (Berns et al, 2009; Stead and Stead, 2010; Porter and Kramer, 2006).
In other words, all these motivations demonstrate the levels of an organisation’s
commitment with stakeholders spheres beyond its limits, being often translated into
external direct impacts such as: stakeholder value-creation, responsible and
differentiated markets, customer trust, employees satisfaction, sustainable supply
chain, communities wellbeing and environmental preservation (Porter and Kramer,
2006; Marrewijk, 2003; Berns et al. 2009). Consequently, since late of the last Century,
strategic sustainability has been part of corporate agenda, no more as an only
differential element for market advantages, but mainly as an essential factor for
business survival in a long-term view. (Galpin and Whittington, 2012; Blowfield, 2013).
2.1.2 Causes of inefficiency
The process towards strategic sustainability is not always successful for organisations
and its stakeholders, displaying weaknesses and inconsistences (Porter and Kramer,
2006). The pressure levels and the short-termism view often leads to uncoordinated
sustainability activity, ‘‘disconnected from the firm’s strategy, that neither make any
meaningful social impact nor strengthen the firm’s long-term competitiveness’’ (Porter
and Kramer, 2006 p. 4). In other cases, poor performances and irregular commitments
are due to a lack of authenticity in this process since the practices are not genuinely
sustainable and seems to exist only to satisfy corporate communications, which are
motivated by stakeholder’s influences for the company to state a sustainable policy at
the same level or above its peers in the market (Blowfield, 2013; Marrewijk, 2003).
In addition to that, Berns et al (2009) comprehend the existence of other factors
associated to the weak corporate performances: ignorance and lack of understanding
of what sustainability is, difficulty to adapt sustainability into a business model, lack of
action, poor measurement and finally, difficulty to pursue a business case. Some other

15.
15
scholars justify that the cause of fragile performances are due to the company
persistence in transitional stages of sustainability strategies, which are no longer
enough to address social and environmental issues (Hart, 1997; McDonough and
Braungart, 2002). Rather, corporate views require a radical step forward towards
transformational strategies added into business which comprises not only reductions
and minimising devastation of natural resources, pollution and waste, but also
eliminating waste and going beyond simply greening the operations (Hart, 2012; Stead
and Stead, 2010).
2.1.3 Transitional and transformational sustainability
Even tough scholars agree that many important advances were made since
sustainability started to be incorporated into business strategies. One of the most
important discussions today is about how organisations can act by doing more than just
reducing problems they create, through using less raw materials or preventing pollution,
but being regenerative to environment and to tackle social problems such as poverty,
food, water, jobs, education and high consumption patterns (Blowfield, 2013).
Traditional approaches of reuse, reduce and recycle are not meeting those last issues,
but rather, just “doing less bad”. Hence, some responses include a shift from
transitional approaches to transformational ones (McDonough and Braungart, 2002, p.
45). Stead and Stead (2010) defend that restorative organisations should be seen from
the perspective of close loops systems, incorporating waste back to production, since
they are part of an open loop, coexisting with society and environment. Thus, in this
permanent interaction with other systems, instead of generating outputs that
ecosystems cannot assimilate or social consequences that society alone cannot deal
with, companies should be able to learn how to cohabit by making a business
ecosystem dedicated to sustainability as the superior purpose.
This superior purpose is observed in Hart (1997) as reaching a superior performance by
developing a unique value preposition, which is “valuable, rare, difficult-to-imitate and
non-substitutable” (Hart, 2010, p. 45). From these viewpoints transformational
approaches allow organisations to develop new capabilities through breakthrough
strategies that generate new markets oriented to solving social and environmental
problems while operating, rather than merely decreasing impacts of its operations (Hart,
1997; Hart, 2010; Stead and Stead, 2010).

16.
16
In other words, to point out the main difference between transitional and
transformational approaches, the first are considered incremental because they are
short-lived, or just efficient, such as: reduction or minimisation of ecological inputs and
outputs back to nature and also tackle superficially social interventions, such as
philanthropy and charity. The later approaches, however, have a problem-solve
perspective towards nature and people in a permanent way such as: waste and
pollution elimination or transformation into new inputs for production as well as more
permanent social outcomes, such as people empowerment. Therefore they are
considered effective (Blowfield, 2013; Hart, 2010; Stead and Stead, 2010).
2.1.4 Sustainability Value Framework (SVF)
Considering the evolution from transitional to transformational approaches in
sustainability as well as emerging market opportunities for organisations, this project
will discuss the Sustainability Value Framework (SVF) created by Hart and Milstein
(2003), a comprehensive model created to suggest corporative solutions based on both
approaches. In order to make SVF even more practical, this project proposes a critical
reflection on the application of this model in the light of four transformational
sustainability approaches: Cradle-to-Cradle, Circular Economy, Biomimicry and Base of
Pyramid.
This framework presents business opportunities to companies to develop their
sustainability performance considering internal and external expectations as well as
short and long-term perspectives, represented as “today” and “tomorrow”, or transitional
and transformational sustainability, respectively. Focusing on transformational
strategies, Hart and Milstein (2003) defend that they enable organisations to develop
advanced market competences beyond operational ones, which leads to more
profitability. From this viewpoint, Hart (2010) argues that organisations that are
profoundly reliant on fossil fuels, raw resources and toxic materials, for example, would
have potential opportunities to acquire new skills by using clean technologies and
create a unique differentiation for business and society. Successful cases are already
emerging from the automobile, chemical and plastic sector. Observing the external
environment of “tomorrow”, the same firms should be able to increase and deepen a
relationship with their stakeholders where they become part of the company’s co-
creation of products and services; therefore they are integrated into the business
process of generating product stewardship. More than creating responsible products
and services, the evolution of this process towards social solutions allows organisations

17.
17
to think and perform business models, which can address society’s needs with regards
to poverty and other social inequalities. The focus proposed in this frame is to deliver
new business solutions from the base of the pyramid model. From the viewpoint of the
organisation, this framework increases legitimacy and reputation as per a deeper level
of stakeholder engagement and can turn traditional business models into social
oriented business as Hart exemplifies through Grameen Bank in Bangladesh and
Hewlett-Packard (Hart, 2010; Mirchandani and Ikerd, 2008).
Complementary, Hart (2010) describes the strategies from SVF, which composes this
model: The Buzzword Sort. Both frames can be visualized in the figures 1 and 2 below.
Figure1. Sustainability Value Framework. Source: Hart and Milstein (2003).

18.
18
Figure 2. The Buzzword Sort. Source: Hart (2010)
2.1.5 SVF through transformational approaches
Cradle-to-Cradle
Examining Hart’s model through Cradle-to-Cradle, from pollution prevention to evolved
stages of clean technology it represents an added value from eco efficiency to eco
effectiveness (Kumar and Putnam, 2008). In Cradle-to-cradle, systems are designed to
consider waste as a nutrient in two ways: biological or technical. Therefore, instead of
saving resources in an eco efficient way or cradle-to-grave, cradle to cradle approach
proposes an upgrade in the life cycle analysis, by closing the loop of production
(McDonough and Braungart, 2002). On the one hand, the advantages are that nature
can digest biological materials. On the other hand, industry can decompose chemical
materials into technical closed cycles, permanently reusing and generating a limited
amount of waste as possible, reaching therefore eco effectiveness (McDonough and
Braungart, 2002). However, some weaknesses of cradle-to-cradle were observed in

19.
19
Kumar and Putnam (2008). Large products such as cars or electro materials would
have limitations performing through cradle-to-cradle, as there would be drawbacks in
reverse logistics since it is difficult and expensive to pick up products either at B2B or
B2C levels. Additionally, there is a lack of robust supply chain, making it difficult to
disassemble and re-assemble materials because they were not designed for this new
purpose.
Circular Economy
From the view of circular economy product stewardship through stakeholder
participation would enable the change from a linear model, or “end of life”, to a circular
one. In this circular model innovative solutions to deliver products and services affects
not only production with close loops and zero waste, but also changes the relationship
of products and its consumption. This suggests new ways of acquisition and usage,
such as shared ownership or transforming tangible products into services also known
as servitasation, eg. leasing. Organisations like Xerox, Renault, Ricoh, IKEA and
Unilever developed this approach in their production and commercialization: leasing
their products and receiving them back to the industry until the end of its line
(MacArthur, 2013).
The common benefits experienced by these companies are: it enables industry
innovation, job creations, capital efficiency, and a more resilient economy in the long-
term with new ways of consumption instead of traditional consume-dispose (MacArthur,
2013).
The limitations of circular economy are associated to its novelty rising from the current
capitalism system. Xu and Wu (2009) argue that scaling up, especially in developing
countries, would depend upon a very conductive public policy and change in the
legislation framework, by first reinforcing compliance, and later generating incentives for
technological investments, research and development and know how transfer.
Leadership is a paramount key to catalyze this process.
Biomimicry
Disruptive clean technologies are the target of Biomimicry as an innovative way of
designing product systems considering nature as an inspiration in its conception of
industrial systems and manufacturing products as well as implementing solutions in
agriculture, chemical science, and nanotechnology among others (Benyus, 1997). For
this purpose biomimicry imitates nature in its features such as: use of renewable

20.
20
energy, decomposable characteristics of materials, permanent use of all types of waste
as nutrients to feed systems and make use of diversity to constitute strong partnerships
in order to ensure resiliency. Health, transportation and IT sectors are benefiting from a
biomimicry approach (Benyus, 1997). Criticisms of biomimicry relate to the high level of
resistance or corporate facing the risk of not having return on investment after
transforming the industrial clean design into products in which the market is not ready
to absorb. Hence, consumer mindset shift should move in parallel with research and
development (Volstad and Boks, 2012).
Bottom of the Pyramid
Lastly, the Bottom of the Pyramid or BoP approach applies to a high population living in
poverty and other social inequalities. According to Prahlad (2005) it is possible to
eradicate extreme poverty and to generate sustainable development with solutions to
poor people with added value and low costs of acquisition. These solutions would bring
profitability to investors in the long term considering the high volume of purchases, even
with small profit margins and also in the supply chain value, by generating jobs and
qualifications. Telecoms, cosmetics and large food organisations are among the main
pioneers adding value to their business in developing countries (Prahlad, 2005).
However, BoP also has some drawbacks that can potentially damage small business
and intimidate income generation of other entrepreneurs. It can also contribute to
waste generation if clean technologies are not associated to this business model,
creating a reverse of its original aims (Warnholz, 2007).
2.1.6 Evaluation of SVF’s
Hart’s model has a broad approach that provides opportunities for companies to
develop capabilities and improve performance in different stages of development in
strategic sustainability. It has been a useful resource to identify the approaches used by
Brazilian companies and to understand the developmental stage. However, the
complexity of this model resides in being put in to practice for more advanced
approaches, as the novelty ais perceived with excitement and reluctance at the same
time by the market, especially in developing countries where strategic sustainability is a
relative new topic, as will be shown in the next section. Scholars suggest that the
reasons for resistance that is delaying more advanced approaches are, on one hand, in
the amount of investment in research and development versus the uncertainties of
return on investment and, on the other hand, the lack of corporate and political

21.
21
leadership to foster innovation into the mainstream.
2.1.7 Corporate sustainability in Brazil
In order to have a clear understanding of corporate sustainability in contemporary Brazil
it is necessary to follow the evolution of historical factors from the 1970s to present day
in which society and organisations have been gradually incorporating sustainability into
their mindsets and business operations (Paro and Boechat, 2008; Barata, 2007; Gife,
2013). During the 1970s the government was the main inductor of social and
environmental investments. However, in the beginning of the 1980s the civil society
played a role with social movements against hunger, combating poverty and ensuring
basic education. As a result of these social inequalities, individuals and organisations
started to act on a philanthropic basis (Young, 2004).
In the 1990s firms established a systematic support delineating the first steps of
corporate social responsibility, or CSR. This CSR was accelerated by the pressure from
stakeholders, consumers, clients, media, and NGOs among others and initiated a
response to shortages of natural resources (Young, 2004). Hence, increasing diversity
of private actors has allowed perfecting corporate mechanisms to support society’s
needs (Paro and Boechat, 2008). One of these models which derives from CSR that
gradually gained relevancy since the 1990s was the Private Social Investment, or PSI,
in which privative organisations directly intervene in social and environmental issues
through investing in foundations and institutes’ programmes in a more strategic
manner, as PSI involves metrics of evaluation of return over investment and is more
associated to the core business of a company (Gife 2013).
Some figures reveal the evolution of organisations and investments that evolved from
philanthropy stages to strategic CSR and PSI from the 1980s up to present day. With
regards to CSR, Ethos Institute, the main organism, which disseminates and
incentivizes CSR culture nationally, congregated 11 organisations when it was founded
in 1998. Today, the institution has 586 associated organisations (Ethos, 2015; Young,
2004). On behalf of PSI, more than U$ 833 billion was invested in 2013 by
organisations into foundations and institutes aligned its business targets (Gife, 2013).
This optimistic scenario in the private sector opens a perspective to the corporate
involvement in environmental and social issues through strategic sustainability, the next
level of organisational’s intervention according to Eight (2014).

22.
22
Strategic corporate sustainability is a topic that has progressively been part of the
agenda of large organisations in Brazil due to a combination of specific drivers:
leadership awareness, scarcity of material resources, public pressure, risk management
and reputation and legitimacy (Barata, 2007; Lourenço and Branco, 2013). Some
indicators which will be examined in detail below point out this increasing trend:
changes in the Brazilian stock market, increasing practices of accountability reporting
and change in businesses and consumers mindset (Paro and Boechat, 2008; Exame
2013).
The first factor, which incentivizes corporate sustainability, is the Sustainability Index
created by São Paulo Stock Exchange-Bovespa that was launched in 2005 aiming to
rate the interest of listed organisations committed to sustainability. Similar to other
mechanisms such as Down Jones Sustainability Index and FTSE4Good in London
Stock Exchange, the Brazilian version is comprised of 40 organisations engaged in 19
different sectors (Bovespa, 2015).
The second factor refers to accountability and reporting as a trend, which confirms the
increasing commitment of businesses. In this area, 160 Brazilian organisations are
currently reporting using Global Reporting Initiative - GRI framework. This number
increased from 74 in 2014, placing Brazil as 4th
in the international ranking.
Furthermore, 11% of worldwide organisations reporting with Integrated Reporting
Council – IIRC are Brazilian, placing Brazil in third place, after the United Kingdom and
the Netherlands (IR, 2015; GRI, 2015; Exame 2013).
The third factor that indicates a conductive environment for strategic sustainability is the
Brazilian society mindset. According to Gife (2013), Brazilian expectations of ethical
conduct of organisations act beyond their goals and financial and legal responsibilities.
Currently most of the public (52%) require business ethics that transcends the classical
responsibilities of the private sector. Similarly, environmental issues are part of
Brazilian’s concern in which three out of four companies expect a high degree of
interest in the environmental behavior of companies. Finally, consumer behavior is also
evolving towards responsible choice patterns. According to Gife (2013) 60% of
consumers consulted in surveys believe that the power of individual’s choices for
ethical products support environmental balance, while 68% agree that they need to
consume less in order to increase environmental resilience for future generations, and
the other 54% would pay more for sustainable products (Gife, 2013). In complement to

23.
23
that Eight, (2014, p. 24) states some main trends of consumers are influencing
organisations to meet their needs are: collectivism, servitasation or dematerialization of
products, shared values and digital competence.
Despite of the drivers and positive indicators mentioned, Paro and Boechat (2008)
argue about the need of Brazilian organisations to refine sustainability, considering its
core business against local needs. In other words, there are disconnections and a lack
of alignment between strategies and core business and these lead to poor results to
both sides in Brazil (Paro and Boechat, 2008). However, weakness and strengths
reflect opportunities and challenges in which Brazilian society is evolving as a result of
joined efforts with companies and its stakeholders (Lourenço and Branco, 2013). In
complement to these opportunities, Hart (1996, p. 70) argues that emerging economies
are mostly using incremental approaches to tackle pollution, depletion and poverty
challenges. However, they should take the lessons not learnt from developed nations
and can “not afford to repeat these mistakes”.
Part A summary
Sustainability embedded into business strategies or strategic sustainability is the next
level in which companies can create policies and act and manage results in a
responsible manner for society, the environment and the economy. The current
scenario described so far requires much more than transitional solutions, but also
transformational ones. Hart’s framework suggests advanced approaches in this
direction, but it also has drawbacks and difficulties to be implemented in developing
nations. The Brazilian context has been evolving from philanthropy to strategic
sustainability driven by organizational and consumer awareness. This represents
opportunities to engage and perfect sustainability approaches. However, these
advanced stages of sustainability are mainly restricted to large organisations as per
influence of leadership and finance resources combined.

24.
24
2.2 Part B Sustainability Leadership
Introduction
Part B of this chapter dedicates attention to explain the purpose of sustainability
leadership and its concepts that are relevant for the research question of this project. It
starts by examining classical approaches of sustainability leadership and controversial
points and critiques. Then, the section follows scrutinizing this leadership according to
its different streams thoughts: task and behavior orientated. In both streams, this
section displays concepts and models and analyses limitations, which represent an
opportunity for this study to address. Finally, this section examines new trends in
sustainability leadership, stating a multiple factor approach, including contextual factors
into the two existing streams and broadening the meaning of sustainability leadership
which can respond to current challenges.
2.2.1 New ways to lead are required
Leadership is widely recognized as one of the successful factors leads organisations to
good performances. It has been described in extant literature as a practice which
involves, influences, defines results, accomplishes goals and engages teams to fulfill
their potential (Northouse, 2007; Yukl, 2013; Whatmore, 1999). However, the dynamic
panorama of business today has been changing from the traditional pattern of produce,
consume and dispose, to sustainable ways of using raw resources, manufacturing and
consuming (Hart, 2010; Mc Donough and Braungart, 2010). Hence, as it is so important
to have physical infrastructures, innovation technology and applied knowledge
available, it is needed to count on a leadership which can commit and encourage new
behavior patterns and implementing strategies to thrive positive impacts for three
systems: organisations, societies and environment, translating sustainability challenges
into practical actions (Visser, 2008; Benn, Dunphy and Griffiths, 2014). Consequently,
scholars are currently dedicating efforts to apply leadership to sustainability issues,
therefore impacting the society positively (McEwan and Schmidt, 2007; Galpin and
Whittington, 2012; Ferdig, 2007).
The pressure for this type of leadership originates from facts associated to limited
progress in corporate sustainability (Bendell and Little, 2015; Sustainability, 2012).
According to Accenture (2013) 1/3 of 1,000 corporate leaders recognize that the efforts
have not been enough to achieve societal goals. This resonates with scientific data

25.
25
revealed in thematic events since Rio 92 to Rio+20 in 2012. Recent evaluations of the
sustainable development agenda showed that a poor progress was done in comparison
with negative figures with regards to shortages of clean water and its pollution,
exhaustion of natural resources, loss of biodiversity, and climate change, demonstrated
in figure 3 (Sustainability, 2012). This disproportional balance added to the low speed of
leaders providing solutions revealed the need for a catalytic leadership applied to
sustainability, having a singular ability to cross public sector, business and civil society,
building coalitions and sharing responsibilities towards sustainable development
(SustinAbility, 2012; SustinAbility, 2015; Benn, Dunphy and Griffiths, 2014).
Figure 3. Sustainability critical issues (source: SustainAbility, 2012)

26.
26
2.2.2 Definition of sustainability leadership
Sustainability leadership emerged in parallel with sustainable development’s collective
discussions aiming to tackle complex issues aforementioned, therefore its different
designations were developed having the sense of purpose and change as a main
background (Brown, 2011). Yet, sustainability leadership is not a pure approach, but it
derives from conventional leadership classical theories: grounded, situational and
individual (Bendell and Little, 2015). In additional to that, there are more than 20 types
of different terms for this leadership since academics investigated this topic from
different viewpoints, generating an overlap of meanings (Brown, 2011). Despite
exploring all these terms which are displayed in appendix 1, this project has focused on
the two major classifications of this leadership which will set a background for further
discussion: (1) values-orientation, based on behaviour and personal traits; (2) technical-
instrumental” or task orientated (Bendell and Little, 2015 and Blowfield, 2013).
Definitions of sustainability leadership from the development of leader’ behaviours are
seen in Bendell and Little (2015, p. 4) as “the ethical intention of helping groups of
people to achieve environmental or social outcomes”. Similarly, Metcalf and Benn
(2013) describe it as a process that requires agents’ abilities to predict and act in a
complex scenario, engaging teams and adapting constantly. Lastly, Schein (2015)
centred sustainability leadership in a leader’s ability to have an ecologically orientated
worldview, combined to long-term view and critical capacity, which enables
organisations to implement and succeed sustainability practices.
Inversely, attributing less emphasis on the leader’s behaviours, yet focusing on power
decentralization and purpose, sustainability leadership is seen by Foster (2015) as a
collective act which results in a group agreement towards a shared purpose. Hence,
this leadership “is extended to anyone who seeks sustainable change regardless of role
or position”, therefore the role of the leader is to engage others to seek fundamental
changes (Ferdig, 2007, p. 3).
2.2.3 Streams of sustainability leadership
2.2.3.1 Behaviour oriented leadership
This first stream encompasses the way the leader’s personal characteristics are
conductive to sustainability results. This project will present some of the main classical
approaches recognized by its importance for sustainability leadership and the recent
perspective of leadership development based on traits and behaviors applied to

27.
27
sustainability: Leadership Development Framework (LDF) as per its relationship with
the two topics of this study.
Classic approaches:
Transformational Leadership
Transformational leadership is based on the belief that leaders and followers can
support themselves mutually and progress with motivation, having the leader as a
charismatic figure who motivates not only for the accomplishment of the task, but also
to excel expectations by the leader’s accurate vision, coaching, integrity, ethical values,
commitment and enthusiasm (Avolio and Bass, 1995). This style recognizes differences
between individuals and improves their capabilities in order to reach higher levels of
performance (Avolio and Bass, 1999). Bass and Avolio (1993) defined the basilar
characteristics of transformational leaders, denominating them as the 4I’s: Influence,
inspiration motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration.
Because of its relevance and focus on personal leaders’ qualities mentioned above,
transformational leadership has been largely utilized to define leaders whose
challenges encompass sustainability (Hay, 2010; Hargreaves and Fink, 2012;
Timmermans, van der Heiden, and Born, 2014). Common characteristics found on
sustainability leaders that echo on transformational leadership are: create a vision of a
desirable future, valorise relationships that contribute to mutual development, learn by
coaching and systematic reflection (Vinkhuyzen and Vinkhuyzen, 2014; Benn, Dunphy
and Griffiths, 2014).
Authentic Leadership
Authentic leadership is grounded on the principle of authenticity, which means that
these leaders are genuine with themselves. Indeed, this principle orientates the
authentic relationships as a fundamental value of this model and relies upon social
justice, equality, honesty, trustworthiness and responsibility (Avolio and Gardner, 2005).
The authentic leaders have an important concern of the way that they are perceived by
others, being aware about their moralities, beliefs and visions as well as their own
values in the context in which they work. These concerns confer to the leader a high
level of self-awareness and self-regulation on an individual level.
Connections between authentic leadership’s characteristics and capabilities required for
project sustainability managers roles are shown in Lloyd-Walker and Walker (2011).

28.
28
This study reveals characteristics that the current generation and the next generation of
leaders should possess in order to satisfy growing demands across organisations,
society and environment: value driven, relationship centered, realistic and confident,
positive, visionary and resilient.
Visionary Leadership
Visionary leadership has been constantly discussed in the literature as the leader’s
capacity of inspiring and compelling a vision in which followers can personally identify
and pursue. These elements enable organizational change and lead to performance
effectiveness (Groves, 2006; Robertson, 2002; Waite, 2013). Visionary leadership
applies to uncertain corporate environments and external crises that demand re-
organisation of structures in a dynamic way having in visionary leaders a source of
robust effort, personal commitment and emotional intelligence. Strong traits that are
based on visionary leadership are: self-awareness, communication capacity, positive
thinking, determination and consistency (Groves, 2006).
Characteristics of visionary leadership play an important role in advanced phases of
implementing sustainability such as proactivity and sustaining the corporation targets.
In these stages the leader is required to work in a more complex scenario where radical
changes in the mindset inside and outside the organization and re-thinking systems and
processes are needed (Benn, Dunphy and Griffiths, 2014). In these stages, a personal
commitment active network and engagement, enabling third parties’ power constitutes
the set of the leaders’ profile.
Critiques of classic approaches
Despite the personal characteristics in transformational, authentic and visionary
leadership mentioned above being conductive towards strategic sustainability, there are
many weaknesses and limitations when using solely these approaches (Benn, Dunphy
and Griffiths, 2014; Bendell and Little, 2015). The ground for these limitations relies on
two views that these approaches are primarily based on: the dominant Western culture
and the anthropocentric paradigm. The first view argues that these leaderships have
been predominantly influenced by Western culture, which frequently stereotypes the
leader as a hero figure, a self-centered powerful man (Mirvis et al, 2010; Quinn and
Dalton, 2009;). The leader’s robust traits of personalities and characteristics enable him
to lead from a top-down hierarchical and command and control perspective that the
media glamourizes and perpetuates (Mirvis et al, 2010; Higgs, 2009;). Therefore, this

29.
29
over attribution of power and self-centrism, undermines changes towards sustainability
since the leader’s narcissistic view ignores collaboration and incentivizes competition,
eventually leading to corruption and illegal activities, bullying, coercion, and bias with
gender (Gregory Stone, Russell and Patterson, 2004; Wood, 2007; Van Wart, 2013).
The second view, the anthropocentric paradigm, has basis in the scientific revolution
during the Renaissance (Schein, 2015) and it influences the leadership overview by
stating that nature is a mere instrument for humans to achieve their personal aims,
therefore it implicates vulnerabilities of natural resources. Hence, instead of being
holistically orientated, including wellbeing of other species at the same level of human
issues, this paradigm concerns create ways to control nature in an instrumental manner
and using it for granted (Schein, 2015 Foster, 2015).
Leadership Development Framework (LDF)
A group of scholars in this field: Cook-Greuter (2004) and Rooke and Torbert (2005)
agree that good leaders are developed rather than born as leaders. Consequently, the
human development unfolds in specific phases from an egocentric perspective to a
more holistic one, thus there are two types of development that occur simultaneously
and that shape the human mindset: horizontal and vertical. On one hand, the horizontal
development is improved along the life through theoretical knowledge and technical
abilities, such as those related to formal traditional studies and work skills. On the other
hand, the vertical development is formed by a broader capacity of self-awareness and
understanding about others and the context where the person is part of; therefore the
assimilation of varieties increases the level of consciousness and culminates with
transformations of a determined pattern.
From this perspective, David Rooke, William R. Torbert and Suzanne Cook-Greuter
dedicated 25 years of research on this subject matter. The research included surveys
with thousands of managers in different contexts, and as a result of these findings they
developed the Leadership Development Framework (LDF) where seven mindsets were
primarily identified and then tested against the capacity to transform their organizations,
called “Seven Actions Logics: Opportunist, Diplomat, Expert, Achiever, Individualist,
Strategist, and Alchemist”. Characteristics are shown in detail in figure 4 (Rooke and
Torbert, 2005, p. 43). With this study that originated this framework Rooke and Torbert
(2005) concluded that Diplomat, Expert, or Achiever, action-logics are functioning in
conventional stages, representing the majority of society (75-80%), while the other
action logics: Individualists, Strategists and Alchemists are in post-conventional levels

30.
30
of consciousness, representing only 15-20% of society, being the ones able to
implement robust changes as they possess a more developed meaning-making
systems (Brown, 2011).
LDF applied to sustainability
Utilising this LDF background, a study conducted by Avastone Consulting called
Mindsets in Action concluded that levels of development in sustainability can be directly
linked to leaders’ mindsets (Mc Ewan and Schmidt, 2007). This study was a positive
contribution considering that there is a lack of studies aimed at the understanding of the
relationship between leadership and sustainability results (Voltolini, 2011). In the first
part of this study, Mc Ewan and Schmidt (2007) state that the mindsets characteristics
found in Rooke and Torbert (2005) are connected to a set of cognitions that enable
sustainability contributions. Mindsets in Action brings the original percentages in the
survey’s finding conducted by Rooke and Torbert (2005) during more than two decades
and starts with the Diplomat, evolving up to the Achiever mindset. This is not
considering the Opportunist, as it is not a significant contribution in sustainability. At the
core, the study demonstrates that the leader can improve his/her ability to implement
changes, enable processes and integrate all sorts of resources towards sustainable
development, depending on the mindset he/she possesses. The LDF application to
sustainability is described in detail in figure 5 below.

31.
31
Figure 4 - The Seven Action Logics
Source: Rooke and Torbert (2005)
LDF associated to the Five Gears
The second part of Mindsets in Action, which complete this framework, is to outline the
relationship of these mindsets with the five gears or levels in which an organisation can
achieve corporate sustainability. The relationship between these two elements allows
comprehension on the ways that leadership is, in practice, applicable to sustainability
based on which mindsets are more likely to provoke in profound transformations
(McEwan and Schmidt, 2007; Voltolini, 2011).

32.
32
Before presenting the link between these two elements, it is relevant to describe each
gear individually and what they represent with regards to strategic sustainability. The
gearing up is a framework created by SustainAbility (2004) and integrates five phases
that denominates progress that organisations do in response to sustainability
challenges, orientated to strategies. Each of the gears are described as follows
according to McEwan and Schmidt (2007) and SustainAbility (2004).
The
Five
Gears
Framework
Gear
1:
Comply
–
The
company
has
a
limited
perception
of
strategic
sustainability,
and
still
demonstrates
presence
in
philanthropy
activities
and
compliance
with
regulatory
framework
and
defensive
attitudes
guide
most
of
the
strategies.
Gear
2:
Volunteer
-­‐
The
firm
aims
to
have
a
more
proactive
behavior
beyond
the
law
obedience,
sustainable
development
issues
are
gradually
incorporated
to
processes,
but
in
management
and
operations
the
main
issues
are
risk
management
eco-­‐efficiency.
Prevention,
cost
reduction,
or
benchmark
with
the
peers
is
in
this
stage
of
the
main
drivers.
Gear
3:
Partner
–
At
this
level
the
company
commences
to
incorporate
sustainability
in
a
business
perspective.
The
engagement
with
volunteering
mechanisms
such
as
GRI
and
Global
Compact
evaluate
performance
based
on
the
social
environmental.
Gear
4:
Integrate
-­‐
Gradually,
the
business
strategies
incorporate
the
sustainability
agenda
and
this
reflects
in
the
company
business
cases.
The
board
and
other
top
leaders
are
now
involved
and
the
emphasis
is
to
include
sustainability
in
business
portfolio
and
all
processes.
However,
as
much
as
the
complexities
are
happening,
the
organization
still
fluctuates
between
radical
changes
and
traditional
business.
Gear
5:
Re-­‐engineer
-­‐
This
stage
means
that
the
organization
is
ready
to
focus
on
new
markets
and
business
models
and
to
engage
with
other
leaders.
Sustainability
shifts
to
sustainable
operations
such
as
close
loops
and
models
that
re-­‐think
patterns
of
ownership
such
as
servitization,
working
with
external
integration,
through
coalition
and
a
multi
stakeholder
approach,
therefore
incorporating
sustainability
not
only
in
operations,
but
within
the
purpose
of
the
company.

33.
33
As figure 6 shows, at the point where the correlation is made there is a clear hierarchy
in the mindsets combining with the gears, which refers to the levels of complexity while
evolving from gear 1 to gear 5 in sustainability, associated to the capacity of the leader
to assume and perform according to this increasing complexity. Therefore requiring a
more holistic approach, creativity and innovation from the leaders profile (McEwan and
Schmidt, 2007). This model will be considered further in the discussion of findings to
combine the main topics of this study.

34.
34
Figure 5: LDF applied to sustainability
Source: McEwan and Schmidt’s (2007)

35.
35
Figure 6: Relationship between mindsets and the five Gears
Source: McEwan and Schmidt’s (2007)

36.
36
Evaluation of behaviour stream
LDF applied to sustainability integrated to the Five Gears has points of convergence
with this study when it observes the relationship between sustainability leadership and
levels of strategic sustainability. Its contribution to this study consists of clarifying which
type of profile or action logic could lead to corporate sustainability progress and
understanding a set of conductive traits and behaviours necessary to sustainability
leaders from the classical approaches. However, as the focus of this framework is
restricted to only one factor: the traits and behaviours, it restricts the observation of the
leader’s tasks, roles and situational factors, therefore limiting the purpose of this study
which is to verify how leadership drives to sustainability. Hence, if the leadership is
narrowed to some factors it will not result in broader comprehension as an important
driver. Schein (2015) reinforces this limitation of the behavioural stream, arguing that
these traits cannot be generalized since they depend upon a given context to develop,
therefore a restricted use of these approaches can fall in bias by the imposition of the
Western paradigm.
2.2.3.2 Technical-instrumental or task oriented
This second stream focuses on the ways that sustainability leadership responds to
challenges through orientated and structured corporate actions (Blowfield, 2013). This
stream has its basis on sustainability management. This project grouped three different
views aiming to compare and contrast them and reflect about the limitations.
Leading Change Towards Sustainability
While leading towards strategic sustainability, Doppelt (2010, p. 101) proposes a deep
organisational reform, which firstly requires a shift in the internal corporate mindset in
which the organization was founded. Secondly, it rearranges the staff structure by
selecting people with complementary skills and reorganizing the way that they interact
and get results. Thirdly, the leadership should change the organisational goals focused
on staff demands as well as all the stakeholders and environmental needs; orienting
performance criteria. Finally, the leadership should tackle communication, adjusting the
flow of information, conveying a unified sustainability corporate message from outside
in and from inside out.

37.
37
Task Leadership Framework
This model was created as a result of a study conducted with US leaders, which are
formally implementing sustainability in their organisations in different levels of
achievements. The aim was to enable co-creation and co-participation with other
relevant actors within the sustainability agenda. It summarizes three main tasks among
the leaders’ roles: “setting direction, creating alignment, and maintaining commitment”
(Quinn and Dalton, 2009, p. 24). Setting direction defines purpose and vision while
initiating sustainability into the organization. The second task, creating alignment,
relates to the implementation of strategies and policies to ground the vision and
objectives, therefore this task involves creation of sustainable products and services,
staff education, stakeholder engagement and communication of results. Lastly, the third
task, maintaining commitment, embraces the way the leader keeps processes ongoing
by treating the employees and other stakeholders as a true asset, empowering them
and valorizing their direct effort and co-leadership (Quinn and Dalton, 2009).
Responsible Leadership
This model proposed by Mirvis et al (2010) tackles the main leaders’ task, power
decentralization empowerment and collaboration as elements of leadership. From this
view, numerous actors across organisations are needed to foster collective actions
instead of individual efforts to engage a large number of stakeholders. The rationale of
this model can be summarized by the expression: “from Me to We to All of Us”. (Mirvis
et al, 2010, p. 35 -39). This model allows value creation by embedding distinct spheres
of society, reflecting the mutable and global, decentralizing decisions and making local
connections to perform with other powerful agents. Therefore, responsible leadership is
synonymous of shared leadership with emphasis to bottom-up decisions, integrative
capacities and shared tasks in a cross-functional way without the hierarchy divisions.
Some business cases were built based on this model represented by Interface, The
Body Shop, Novo Nordisk, Oxfan and Unicef (Mirvis et al, 2010).
Evaluation of task orientated leadership
From the three views presented the authors agree on the role of the leader towards
engaging staff and other stakeholders in order to co-create and cooperate. The
decentralization of power is emphasized on the last two approaches while the
importance to have a clear vision about future and set-directions based on this is
accentuated in the first two. Points of contrast were not found among them, rather the

38.
38
three views are complementary, since the first two are broadly strategic whilst the last
one is focused on strict leadership and followership relationship. The importance to this
project is to explore the aspects of the leadership tasks’ against the findings.
However, despite of the advantages of the focus on tasks that are orientated to the
purpose while complementing leader’s traits and behavior with meaningful tasks, some
weaknesses about this stream are detected in Kopnina, and Blewitt (2014); Banerjee
(2008) and Blowfield (2013) with regards to lack of ethical values. This may lead to bad
leadership practices in two ways: the use of business cases as a main expression of
corporate success and back of transactional school of leadership to assess
effectiveness. In the first, an indication of accomplishment, the case studies can be
easily manipulated into greenwashing practices to be used as part of corporate PR
strategies to promote company visibility and increase reputation through lying behind
and fantasying successful stories (Kopnina, and Blewitt, 2014; Banerjee, 2008). In the
second, the tools used for tasks assessment are still hugely associated to the tripod:
quantification, motivation and reward/punishment and that contrasts to sustainability
while setting innovative goals (Blowfield, 2013). Hence, this approach likely requires the
complementing personal characteristics embedded in the leader to ensure ethical
conduct of these roles.
2.2.3 Trends in sustainability leadership
No single leadership style seems to be enough to face times of uncertainty and different
types of leadership could be either appropriate or inappropriate to different types of
decision making processes (Blowfield, 2013). In addition to this, Foster (2015) argues
that leadership oriented to sustainability simply inserted into the current economic
paradigm would not be enough for unknown consequences with regards to
environmental destruction and social conflicts. Foster further states that the evolution of
leadership from “hard control” during the Industrial Revolution to the “soft control” of
modernity and current sustainability leadership towards the “beyond control” stage
where a “post-sustainability leadership” should be seen as a collective where the
individual leader perspective should replace a team and contextual exercise (Foster,
2015, p. 2). Therefore, the leader could lead with others, instead of or “over others”
(Ferdig, 2007, p.3). Bendell and Little (2015, p. 11) forecast sustainability leadership as
a result of “critical sociology, deeper psychological reflection and inspiration from wild
nature”.

39.
39
To summarize these different views of sustainability leadership, the Cambridge
Programme for Sustainability Leadership (CPSL) has a model that embraces individual
characteristics, actions and contexts in a cause-effect relationship with mutual
influences as demonstrated in figure 4 below (CPSL, 2011). These contexts consider
both internal or organisational aspects, such as a corporate governance model,
organisational culture and characteristics of the company’s sector together with external
factors such as political, economical, ecological and community.
Evaluation of new trends
The convergence of leader’s behaviour and tasks viewed above into the context in
which sustainability leadership takes place, and together with sociology and
environmental sciences seems to form the concept of sustainability leadership with
relevant breadth that this study project aims to consider. More comprehensive and
complete, the addition of the third element of context, appears to close the gap of
fragmented views aforementioned.
Figure 7: CPSL model of leadership (2011)
Figure 7: adapted from CPSL (2011).

40.
40
2.2.4 Part B summary
This section examined two different streams and its approaches in sustainability
leadership. Due to the limitations in each of these approaches and streams, this study
considered new trends in sustainability leadership towards more complex and
contemporary challenges that are a blend of theories from human to environmental
sciences. The Cambridge model represented a comprehensive summary of many
relevant characteristics for this project observed including contexts, individual traits and
actions.
2.2.5 Gaps in the literature
Despite that the contribution of leadership is recognized as a factor that drives
organisational policies towards strategic sustainability to be a consensus between
scholars, there is a lack of social and environmental sciences disciplines incorporated
into the business curriculum that clarifies the comprehension of sustainability leadership
applied to business strategies (Schein, 2010). Therefore, the relationship between both
issues and the mutual influence that they play still remains in early stages of research,
consisting of a gap in the extant literature (Quinn and Dalton, 2009; Brown, 2011).
Moreover, this gap applies to critiques and possible negative issues associated to this
relationship. Rather, mostly the positive side is evidenced (Quinn and Dalton, 2009).
The literature also ignores the roles of sustainability leaders and that despite extensive
evidence that they are in position to influence policies and improve organisational
performance, scholars have failed to examine the effectiveness of their practices to
organisation and societal results and observe closely their values, mindsets and
motivations to foster sustainability (Angus-Leppan, Metcalf and Benn; 2010; Sharma
and Starik 2002; Visser and Crane, 2010).

41.
41
CHAPTER 3: Methodology
3.1 Chapter introduction
This chapter describes the research methods for this project. The general research
methodology is examined first. The following steps explain the rationale for a qualitative
methodology, describe the samples and reason for its selection, and follows with a
description of data collection, analysis process and observation of ethical issues.
3.2 Overview of research methodology
This exploratory and interpretive character of this project has identified drivers of
sustainability leadership and has revealed how they act towards strategic sustainability.
This fact leads to the use of qualitative methodology, specifically due to four factors:
First, because of the nature and purposes of this study has intended to observe a social
phenomena and a production of explanations of facts from real life expressed in
actions, events, social actors, social constructions and interactions (Denzin, 2010,
Mason, 1996); Second, because sustainability is a topic that does not have a single and
rigid working methodology but encompasses flexibility, the use of qualitative methods
are appropriate (Dalton, 2009). Third, because the research questions related to
leadership and sustainability constitutes a new field of studies in Social Science, still in
an exploration stage, therefore making qualitative methodology more suitable (Conger,
1998). Finally, qualitative methodology was also appropriated because it permitted a
subjective observation of the participant’s experience (Conger, 1998). Supported in this
last factor, qualitative methodology also allowed the investigation of the whole picture of
the social context in which companies are involved in Brazil and revealed multiple
realities and viewpoints of the interviewees as part of a study instead of a single
perspective.

42.
42
3.3 Samples
This project has investigated four large Brazilian organisations from different sectors
described in this section, which have sustainability embedded in its business strategies,
having initiatives towards economical, social and environmental development confirmed
on primary and secondary data collection. The selection of these organisations are due
to two main reasons: First, due to high relevance they demonstrate strategic
sustainability through corporative sustainability reports, volunteering commitment,
awards and recognition from the specialized media (Exame, 2013; Voltolini, 2011).
Second, because the presence of leaders which put a personal commitment, having
singular aspects in their leadership style that all of them have in common (Voltolini,
2011; 2014).
The justifications of choosing these four companies are as follows:
Duratex
Duratex SA is a Brazilian private and publicly traded company, and is the largest
producer of wood panels and floors, porcelain and metal fittings in the Southern
Hemisphere. Duratex is a leader in the Brazilian market with a portfolio of brands
including Durafloor, Duratex, Deca and Hydra. Headquartered in São Paulo, it has
approximately 12,000 employees and 15 plants strategically located in seven Brazilian
states (Duratex, 2015).
Main highlights in sustainability
• Duratex was the first Latin American organization to concur the FSC certification
• It is the only Latin American company to join the Dow Jones index Sustainability
• Holds an Environmental Management System certified according to ISO 14001
• Holds 260,000 hectares of planted forests, conservation areas Is founding
member of the Green Building Council (GBC Brazil), whose mission is to
develop a sustainable industry in the country

43.
43
Votorantim Metals
Votorantim metals and mining division is part of a large Brazilian conglomerate known
as Votorantim Industrial (VID). It was founded more than a century ago and employs
44,000 people in 19 countries. The metal sector was created in 1996 and currently
extracts: aluminum, zinc, nickel, copper, silver, metallurgical coal and other minerals
that are sold for the transformation industry (Votorantim, 2015)
Main highlights in sustainability
• In 2013 Votorantim Metals was voted the most sustainable company in the
sector by Exame magazine with the reuse of wastes of industrial processes as
fertilizer for agricultural activities, making a successful business case (Revista
Exame, 2013)
• Up to 87% of the energy consumed in Brazil comes from self-production
• The company occupies the 13th position among the Brazilian companies with
the best reputation
• Votorantim protect and restored 2.6 million hectares of ecosystems
• R$ 76.5 / US$ 25.3 million invested in social and culture for communities
AES Brasil (Eletropaulo)
AES Eletropaulo is an electricity distributor that is part of the of AES Brasil Group which
is Brazil’s largest electricity provider in terms of distributed energy, representing 34.1%
in São Paulo Estate directly serving 20.1 million people with 46,415.3 GWh of energy.
The company has 6,152 direct employees and 8,798 contractors and participates in the
supply of 9.8% electricity consumed in Brazil (AES Brasil, 2015).
Main highlights in sustainability:
• The AES Brasil was elected by Exame Magazine as one of 20 model companies
in sustainability in Brazil in 2013 (Exame, 2013)
• The company is member of Sustainability Index Stock Exchange BM&
FBovespa. Portfolio 2015: inclusion in the portfolio for the 10th consecutive year

44.
44
• Invested R$ 220 million or approximately U$73 million in smart grids to avoid
losses of energy
• Created programmes of education with the consumer towards behaviour change
in safety and energy saving
Tetra Pak
Privately held, Tetra Pak is part of the Swedish group Tetra Laval. The Brazilian unit is
the second largest operation of the Tetra Pak Group. Headquartered in São Paulo,
Tetra Pak holds a portfolio of more than 30,000 different types of packages that are
used for food and drinks, ensuring that these products will reach the final consumer
with its original taste and nutritional values preserved. In the past two years, Tetra Pak
has produced more than 25 billion packages, reaching about 95% of Brazilian homes.
In addition to the factories, Tetra Pak has several other regional sales offices and
technical assistance, employing 2,615 people in Brazil (Tetra Pak, 2015).
Main highlights in sustainability:
• Elected in 2013 as one of the 20 most sustainable companies in Brazil by
Exame Magazine (Exame, 2013)
• Production of fully recyclable packaging and certified by Forest Stewardship
Council - FSC
• Recycle up to 23% of the packages, being the second branch worldwide in sales
and revenue
• Built the first factory worldwide dedicated to reusing its packages, popularly
known as “long life packaging” type
3.4 Data collection process
The data for this project was obtained through two main sources: primary and
secondary. For the primary data, semi-structured interviews were conducted via Skype
with four representatives in sustainability departments in the organisations
aforementioned. The process related with the interview is further detailed in this section.
For the secondary data, the study utilized sources of data collected in the period
between March to July of 2015. This source included corporate sustainability reports,

45.
45
websites, magazine articles, videos of leaders in story telling format on behalf of
Sustainable Leadership Platform, or originally, (Platform Liderança Sustentável)
available on the Internet, and relevant facts about the organisations published in
Voltolini (2011; 2014).
3.4.1 Interviews
The interviews utilized were semi-structured with five open-ended questions directed
with purpose to guide the conversation to answer the main research question displayed
in the introductory chapter. This type of interview was adopted due to its flexibility
(Denzin and Lincoln, 2005). This character of flexibility was used because it allowed the
interviewer to have an in depth comprehension of the topic by adding complementary
questions depending on the response of the participants, re-ordering the questions
according to the conversation flow and extracting more complete answers by
elucidating doubts of participants during the process (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005;
Silverman, 2010; Saunders et al., 2007).
The interviews happened one-on-one via Skype calls using audio and video systems in
order to increase the interaction with the participants, facilitating the observation of the
non-verbal communication and to ensure descriptive integrity (Mann and Stewart,
2000). This communication also meant a maximised quality of the relationship, allowing
the interviewees to be more comfortable in a face meeting environment (Cassel and
Symon, 2004). The Internet and the Skype platform were useful resources that
minimized costs considering the geographic distance between the interviewer and the
interviewees. In some cases, some additional questions requiring further data were
sent via e-mail as per complement of the interview, reinforcing completeness and
validity aspects of data generation. All the conversations were kept confidential and
voice recording with leaders happened with their permission, the interviews had
approximately 60 minutes each.
3.4.2 Case study method
The case study is a method of empirical inquire appropriated to “understand complex
social phenomena” by permitting the researcher to have a broader view of features of
real events (Yin, 2014 p. 4). It is widely suggested for research questions which raises
description of social occurrences starting with “ how” or “why” for a determined event
aiming to explain, describe, demonstrate or clarify causes in existent environments
(Cassel and Symon, 2004). Both definitions support the reason for selection of the case

46.
46
study approach for this study. Indeed, the case study created a truthful description of
the different aspects of the leaders identified in the data collection and the intersection
of these characteristics to strategic sustainability. In addition to this factor, the case
study also permitted that an amount of subjective and objective content from the data
collection containing evidences of real facts from the leaders and their organisations
could be object of discussion in the extant literature.
In this project the case studies have a descriptive and exploratory character, aiming to
understand to what extent the leaders are influencing a social process: strategic
sustainability. Therefore, the case studies represented in this research are a
fundamental tool to comprehend emerging human influence on organisational
processes and performances through the everyday practices linked with particular
behaviours (Yin, 2014).
For this purpose, the case studies were prepared according to a rigorous approach in
research design and avoided disadvantages common to case studies displayed in Yin
(2014). Firstly, it was written using a high level of impartiality, as a result of a data
collection free of personal influences, but using a variety of sources: interviews,
documents and observations. Secondly, different from a teaching purpose, in this
project the case study refers to sources, contain evidence and display data. Thirdly, the
case study has a medium length and uses sections that highlight the main evidence,
making it easy and pleasant to read, representing a robust summary of facts related to
the research questions and the main objectives of this project and ultimately building
each case study through a unique feature material. The construction of the case studies
followed the rationale of a chronological sequence of happenings, verifying a possible
cause-effect of leadership and strategic sustainability, facilitating the data analysis
process by collecting evidences.
Other aspects related to the validity and trustworthiness for cases studies (Eisenhardt,
1989) were also observed and applied in this study. Main actions included checking the
findings with participants in order to minimise mistakes in data and facts before closing
the case study and to search for more in depth evidences behind the relationship with
participants to confirm information from primary data.

47.
47
3.5 Data analysis
The data generated was analyzed using Thematic Analysis as part of the narrative
analysis method. This positivist method was a useful resource to encode and interpret
participants’ experiences through classification according to occurrences of patterns
(Boyatzis, 1998; Hinchman and Hinchman, 1997). This method was selected due to the
simplicity and straightforward character, which combine case studies with an inductive
approach of interpretation (Thomas, 2006).
The data analysis procedure encompassed the following stages: data transcription from
the interviews, data coding, data interpretation and conceptualization using the
literature review, and generation of themes or in the case of this project, drivers (Lindlof,
1995). The visualization of these stages is demonstrated in figure 8 below. Detailing
these stages: first, the raw data files from the voice recorder and hard copies from
secondary data were transcribed in a common format on Word document. Second, the
raw file was coded, using tags to identify the strategies of sustainability in practice by
the organisations and the leadership characteristics performed. Third, these findings
were interpreted in the extant literature supported by different frameworks and theories
in sustainability and leadership already discussed in the literature review chapter.
Finally, themes or drivers were identified and discussed generating the contributions of
this project.
Figure 8: Analysis process
Transcript
and
review
data
Code
transcripts
using
tags
in
the
two
major
topics
Interpret
data
by
using
literature
review
Identify
and
Rinalize
themes
or
drivers

48.
48
3.6 Ethical issues
This project will be conducted according to the principles of good practice in research
which include some obligations for the interviewer in relation to the participants: obtain
the interviewee’s informed agreement, be truthful about the planned use of the study,
avoid deceptions, do positive good, ‘do no harm’, not causing any embarrassment or
psychological risks for all the participants, respect confidentiality and anonymity of the
respondents (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
It is relevant to identify that there are no reputational risks involved for the organisation
or for the participants considering that there is no sensitive or unauthorized material
that will be used in this study. Rather, great part of the content produced apart from the
interview is considered public domain, since it has been published in open sources
authorized by the organisation such as corporate reports, media articles, books and
websites. With regards to the interview content, there was an agreement between the
researcher and the organisations respecting principles of data protection under the
1998 Data Protection Act. According to this principle, the respondents can renounce at
any time they decide to do so (Bryman and Bell, 2011).
3.7 Chapter summary
This chapter has explained the stages of research methodology for this project. A
qualitative methodology using case studies to communicate the findings and a thematic
analysis to interpret data were a suitable manner to conduct this study due to its
exploratory character and focus on a social phenomena. Finally, ethical aspects were
also carefully observed while conducting this project.

49.
49
CHAPTER 4: Findings
4.1 Chapter introduction
This chapter starts displaying full case studies with an overview of the organisations
exploring the topics, demonstrating the data analysis process and concluding by
revealing and summarizing the key findings that will be discussed in the next chapter.
4.2 Case studies presentation
4.2.1 Duratex SA
Process towards strategic sustainability
While developing sustainability, Duratex's leadership realized that the most important
challenge to implement consisted of changing the organizational culture. There was a
barrier in the perception of the issue by the majority of staff and it was necessary to
make a profound change across the enterprise from culture to management. Therefore
the following steps to constitute strategic sustainability happened in the management
process when Duratex created a committee in its administration board at the request of
the president in 2007. Later, in 2011, the company created a committee within the
executive board involving senior management to implement the board strategies. Thus,
from the governance model, a top down flow quickly reached all areas of business
involving other employees in managerial and operational levels, decentralizing
sustainability decision-making and evaluation processes.
As a result of this process Duratex launched in 2013 its Sustainability Platform,
containing objectives to focus and drive sustainability actions until 2016. The pillars of
this platform comprises to integrate sustainability into all of the company’s departments
and to improve relationships with stakeholders and to make them part of the decision-
making process. In order to comprise this platform, Duratex took into account seven
material themes after consultation with key stakeholders: People (workforce), Quality of
relationships (with a focus on suppliers, customers, communities and experts), Efficient
use of natural resources and energy, Quality and impact of products, Waste
management and emissions, Conservation and biodiversity, Integration of
environmental criteria in the management (Duratex sustainability report, 2014).

50.
50
Sustainability leadership characteristics
Duratex considers this leadership as a vital role in the successful implementation of
sustainability into its strategies. However, the sustainability manager appointed two
risks for performance through leadership: “Concentration of power in the person and
not in the process and traditional use of force in top-down approaches without
employees’ previous understanding about sustainability”. For this manager, the first risk
decreases performance when the leader for some reason leaves the company, while
the second risk affects the team’s engagement and continuity of initiatives.
In response to both risks Duratex believes that sustainability leadership should perform
from an open, co-creative and co-participative perspective where the engagement of
employees and other stakeholders influence the formulation of objectives, development
of strategies, validation and permanent performance evaluation. As an example,
Duratex has shared its sustainability platform throughout the company structure by
using internal communications that primarily allowed employees to acquire knowledge
on the subject, extrapolating their area of operation and having a more holistic view
about sustainability and how broadly it affects the organisation limits and beyond. Also,
external interactive communication is an ongoing process that enables the participation
of more stakeholders throughout the process. Using this participatory approach,
Duratex assumes to differ from the traditional hierarchical structures, characterized by
the use of the command and control towards a reticular perspective where sustainability
becomes “a meaningful experience related to stakeholders beliefs as well as to
organizational’s values” according to the sustainability manager.
Despite success of its initiatives, Duratex’s sustainability manager states that along this
journey things do not advance as expected and that “make[s] the leader and teams
loose some enthusiasm”, therefore emotional competences are crucial to allow people
to manage their dissatisfactions. Thus, “many times, the best move is to stop and wait”.
Key attributes of sustainability leaders
– Aptitude to be disruptive, to break paradigms and rethink organisation’s
directions
– Deep understanding of the business in order to make appropriate connections
between the organisation and social-environmental development
– Capacity to communicate clearly and engage with different stakeholders
– Ability to be resilient and persistent against negative answers

51.
51
– Maturity and emotional intelligence to define when to act and when to wait,
strategically
– Commitment to ethical values and self-motivation to ensure continuity in the
projects
Business cases
1. Power generation for domestic consumption
In 2013, the publication of Exame magazine chose Duratex as the most sustainable company of the
year in Brazil in the building materials sector. The case published in the magazine highlighted the
company's work to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, emphasizing the replacement of diesel
by residues of wood from pipeline as an energy source. This “indoor” solution allowed producing
65% of its energy from biomass eucalyptus since the company owns 23,000 hectares of eucalyptus
forests.
2. Eco-efficiency of products: Sustainable use of wood
The company states that the environmental impacts of production processes of Duratex in all areas
are monitored in a consistent and systematic way, with a focus on reducing the use of natural
resources and increasing production efficiency. A specific case illustrating this example is that the
wood used in the manufacture of boards and panels comes from 100% of the cases from forest
plantations, which are certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and ISO 14001. The
company has 260 thousand hectares of planted forests; conservation areas in the states of Minas
Gerais, Rio Grande do Sul and São Paulo (Duratex sustainability report, 2014).
3. Eco-efficiency of products: sustainable use of water
The Deca division brand of Duratex has an eco-efficient line with more than 150 products and items.
This includes basins, urinals, exhaust systems, showers and electronic and timed taps that allow
water as well as energy conservation . An example of products from this line are the showers, Deca
Balance, models with jets of 6 and 12 liters of water per minute, saving the resources without losing
the user’s comfort. This is due to a technology of air injection in the water jet, which generates a
feeling of greater volume of water even at low flow rates for the user (Duratex sustainability report,
2014).

52.
52
4.2.2 Votorantim Metals
Process towards strategic sustainability
Votorantim has started to approach sustainability within the environmental issues due
to the high impact the industry generates in its operations. From 2006 onwards, it
began to systematize processes that allowed standardized environmental indicators.
However, the environment team gradually realized that they needed to go beyond risk
assessment and started to evaluate opportunities to implement sustainability in a
broader sense. Hence, the higher leadership requested a study to define how
sustainability issues should be tackled from a proper department or from different
directions having specific roles and responsibilities related to those issues. The study
proved that having a department would be a better solution for defining policies,
monitoring indicators and developing the topic in the context of the company’s strategic
planning, transversally.
The sustainability department was constituted in 2009. The next steps towards strategic
sustainability happens as follows: first, the team defined what sustainability represented
for Votorantim in practice; Second, the department set strategic planning of
sustainability, detailing processes and projects connected to sustainability to the core
business and stakeholders expectations, through its material themes; Third, changing
the model of remuneration based upon sustainability performance, to generate
incentives for leaders. This full process was concretized with the 2020 Vision, the
updated version of Votorantim strategic planning validated by the sustainability
committee.
Sustainability leadership characteristics
The implementation of sustainability into Votorantim business happened as a result of a
combination of two factors: from influence of mid-managers and a final demand from
higher leadership. Considered as a top-down approach, the initial challenge of the
organisation was to make the rest of the corporation to understand sustainability from
Votorantim’s perspective and to be able to perfect its productive industrial processes
and foster innovation, therefore impacting transversely diverse businesses and
generate value not only for Votorantim’s operations but also for society as a whole.

53.
53
At the beginning some resistance due to misunderstandings and lack of technical
knowledge was faced by managerial structures. Education and communication from
sustainability leadership played a fundamental role to clarify concepts and show
directions. Therefore, leadership empowerment and capacity building were put in
practice from inside out at Votorantim and was extended to its stakeholders. The
sustainability manager stated that they had make sustainability more clear for all the
departments, “we coached teams and ensured that each one is playing their own role,
like an orchestra”.
In order to get 2020 Vision in place and exhibiting positive results, the sustainability
manager of Votorantim admitted that the department received support from the higher
leadership on the board. The sustainability manager stated that “without this support
the projects would not have been performed and even if there have been some in
progress, the performance would not have been sustainable since Votorantim could
have regressed to preview stages of compliance and behaved in reactive manner
rather them being innovative and progressive.”
Key attributes of sustainability leaders
- Capacity to communicate with diverse businesses and interests
- Competence of education about sustainability issues: transform complexity into
advantages
- Skills in mediate conflicts and misunderstandings along the journey
- Experience in engaging and building positive alliances
- Capacity to build knowledge from a holistic view and deliver tangible values for
society as a whole: capacity building for sustainable development
- Be guided by ethics