A Case Study on Philippine Sustainable Enterprises Aligned with the Quantum Sustainable Organizing Theory (QSOT)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11594/ijmaber.04.08.35Keywords:
Business ethics, Business innovation, Corporate Governance, Corporate social responsibility, Corporate social initiatives, Entrepreneurship, humanistic managementAbstract
The research aims to build on Dyck and Greidanus’ (2016) study on the Quantum Sustainable Organizing Theory (QSOT) by analyzing Philippine sustainable enterprises and how they adopt and execute the principles of QSOT into their organization. The data gathered from the multiple-case study were collated and used to promote sustainability and build knowledge on the contemporary theory. The research utilized a qualitative embedded multiple-case study design in investigating the exhibition of QSOT in Philippine sustainable enterprises.
Through in-depth interviews with three (3) Philippine sustainable enterprises or potentially QSOT organizations, the paper identified and illustrated QSOT-aligned business practices, operations, and functions. Among the three Philippine sustainable enterprises studied, two were identified as fully QSOT-oriented companies. The researchers note that QSOT can be operationalized in the country; however, the success of adoption and integration is dependent on the industry, ability to innovate the business structure, entanglement of “external” entities, and financial capacity.
The study framed sustainable organizing practices in a manner that is concrete and specific—practices that enhance social and ecological well-being were elaborated. As the Quantum Sustainable Organizing Theory (QSOT) is a contemporary theory, more research is needed to understand the concept, especially in the Philippine context.
Downloads
References
Banerjee, S., & Arjalies, D. (2021). Celebrating the end of enlightenment: Organization theory in the age of the anthropocene and gaia (and why neither is the solution to our ecological crisis) https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211036714
Blonkowski, N., Jones, D., Naik, S. & Raman, S. (2014). The value of the sustainable sup-ply chain: what do consumers think? Re-trieved from http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/Accenture-The-Value-of-the-Sustainable-Supply-Chain.pdf
Bradshaw, C., Ehrlich, P., Beattie, A., Ceballos, G. Crist, E., Diamond, J., & Blumstein, D. (2020). Underestimating the challenges of avoiding a ghastly future. Frontiers in Conservation Science. 1. 615419. 10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419
Carpenter, S. (2002). Ecological futures: Build-ing an ecology of the long now. https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2069:EFBAEO]2.0.CO;2
Deng, X., Kang, J.K., & Low, B.S., (2013). Cor-porate social responsibility and stake-holder value maximization: Evidence from mergers. J. Financ. Econ. 110 (1), 87e109.
Dentoni, D., Pinkse, J., & Lubberink, R. (2020). Linking sustainable business models to socio-ecological resilience through cross-sector partnerships: a complex adaptive systems view. Business & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650320935015.
Dyck, B., & Greidanus, N. (2016). Quantum sus-tainable organizing theory: A study of or-ganization theory as if matter mattered. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1-15. DOI: 10.1177/1056492616656407
Francis, P. (2015). On care for our common home. Rome: Vatican Press. http://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/fran-cesco/pdf/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si_en.pdf
Iver, J. (2007). Organizational ecology: A theo-retical framework for examining collabo-rative partnerships. 31(4), 7-19. https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v31n04_03
Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Rubel, H.; Reeves, M., & Fuisz-Kehrbach, S.K. (2014). Sustaina-bility’s next frontier: Walking the talk on the sustainability issues that matter most. http://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/sustainabilitys-next-frontier/
Lewis, K. V., Cassells, S., & Roxas, H. (2015). SMEs and the potential for collaborative path to environmental responsibility. Business Strategy And the Environment, 24(8), 750–764. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1843
Meima, R., & Welford, R. (2016). The ecologi-cal challenge in organization theory and organizational behavior. 6(2), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315825113
Nguyen, D. K., & Slater, S. F. (2010). Hitting the sustainability sweet spot: having it all. Journal of Business Strategy, 31(3), 5-11. doi 10.1108/02756661011036655
Osterwalder, A., and Y. Pigneur. (2010). Busi-ness Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Chal-lengers. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Popper, K. (1982). The Open Universe: An ar-gument for indeterminism. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-07865-2
Roxas, B., & Chadee, D. (2012). Environmental sustainability orientation and financial resources of small manufacturing firms in the Philippines. Social Responsibility Journal, 8(2), 208-226. https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111211234842
Roxas, H., Ashill, N., & Chadee, D. (2015). Ef-fects of entrepreneurial and environmen-tal sustainability orientations on firm
performance: A study of small businesses in the Philippines. Journal of Small Busi-ness Management. Forthcoming. 10.1111/jsbm.12259.
Savitz, A.W. & Weber, K. (2006), The triple bottom line: How today’s best-run com-panies are achieving economic, social, and environmental success – and how you can too, Jossey-Bass, Hoboken, NJ.
Schrödinger, E. (1935). Discussion of probabil-ity relations between separated systems. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cam-bridge Philosophical Society, 31(4), 555-563. doi:10.1017/S0305004100013554
Shepherd, D. A. & Patzelt, H. (2011). The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship: Studying entrepreneurial action linking “what is to be sustained” with “what is to be developed. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, January, 35(1), 137-163. doi 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00426.x
Sparviero, S. (2019). The Case for a Socially Oriented Business Model Canvas: The So-cial ENterprise Model Canvas, Journal of Social ENtrepreneurship, DOI: 10.1080/19420676.2018.1541011.
Tsalis, T. A., Nikolaou, I. E., Grigoroudis, E., & Tsagarakis, K. P. (2013). A framework development to evaluate the needs of SMEs in order to adopt a sustainability-balanced scorecard. Journal of Integra-tive Environmental Sciences, 10(3–4), 179–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2013.858751
Why brands and retailers are running with the ‘slow fashion’ movement. (2020). Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciaadamczyk/2014/11/20/why-brands-and-retailers-are-running-withthe-slow-fashion-movement/#1b1266906505
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th Ed.). California: SAGE Publications, Inc. ISBN 978-1-4129-6099-1
Young, C. & Tilley, Fiona. (2006). Can busi-nesses move beyond efficiency? The shift towards effectiveness and equity in the corporate sustainability debate. Business Strategy and the Environment. 15. 402-415. 10.1002/bse.510.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See the Effect of Open Access).
