Critical management in a global context

CORPS 5068: Critical management in a global context
Advancing the sustainable
development agenda
Nicholas Black
p1111111
Sustainable development
Sustainable development was
defined in terms of 17 goals and the
discussion was about:
1) What goals have been
achieved
2) What goals still need to be
achieved
3) How to achieve these goals in
the future
These 17 goals were decided at the UN summit and are
believed be able to transform the world by 2030
Identities of the panellists
Background
based on small
charities from the
third world and
areas within
Africa.
Marginally antibusiness and the
need for self-help
and direction.
Marginalised and
for an inferior
position.
Background
based on
business and
strong advocate
of safety.
Very highly paid
CEO and focuses
on how
businesses help
society
economically.
Background
based on politics
(ex-prime
minister) and
senior positions
of charities.
Slightly
hypocritical as
leader of a
country but did
not enact
legislation when
in a position to do
so.
Background
based on
business (CEO)
and strong
advocate of CSR.
Talks about
Unilever and their
provisions as a
positive case
study. Although,
does not mention
facing
shareholder
revolt
Panel discussion
Agreement with issues
• Importance of sustainability agenda and goals
• Key role of private corporations in solving social problems
• The need to listen to stakeholder and form partnerships with
communities
• Alignment between goals and benefits from the community
Conflict over issues
• Help yourself vs helping from others
• Acceptance of the stakeholder perspective by businesses
Ignored issues
• Are all the goals naturalised by the community
• All the goals are equally as important
• Businesses accept these goals
Narratives used by the panel

Unitary ideology
The universal and neutral acceptance of the 17 sustainable
development goals is problematic because it is functionalist:
• UN institutional body is equated with community acceptance which is
conflating the macro with the micro and undermining democracy with
autocracy. Setting the agenda is a top-down process is justified as
bottom-up and natural (Levy, 2008).
• Assimilated economic language in accordance with the dominant
scientific economic paradigm. Debates are based on scientific facts and
methodologies which is measured by the ethic of finance as opposed to
ethics of values and diversity (Fergus & Rowney, 2005).
• Sustainable development is economical not ecological – nature of
modern economic thought is engrained and it threatens to colonize
spaces and sites – which prioritizes efficiency because of the nature of
the capitalization (Banerjee, 2003)
Unitary ideology
The underpinning ideology supports markets and corporations which
is problematic because of their private accountability and a lack of
information:
• Corporations promote unequal power relationships within poor
communities; social-epistemological hierarchies between the poor and
outsiders who administer poverty-reduction interventions; and local
vulnerabilities induced by global currents in products, services,
information and ideologies (Arora & Romijn, 2011)
• Sustainable development integration is simply defending value regimes
and an effort to assimilate and adapt to potentially disruptive challenges
(Levy et al, 2015). Is it preventing more radical ideologies that are
necessary to solve these problems.
• Partnership is a ideological buzzword – not neutral management tool –
which supports political processes (Contu & Girei, 2013). It is bridging
the dominant market-led and state-led ideologies (Brown, 1991)
Conclusion
• SDGs ignore conflict and assume there is an unitary perspective
and the goals are intertwined. The acceptance of frameworks
and the problem with lack of implementers and businesscentred moral leadership.
• The panellists are dominated by the business perspective and
acceptance of stakeholders and community. Economic
rationality and consumers is the reason for engaging in SDGs.
The problem is a lack of awareness and belief rather than reality
is itself cultural hegemony.
• Solution is reformulating capitalism and looking for alternatives
such as neo-Marixism. More state involvement and relationships
based on humanity rather than transactions
Bibliography
Arora S and Romijn H. (2011) The empty rhetoric of poverty reduction at the base of the pyramid.
Organization 19(4): 481-505.
Banerjee SB. (2003) Who Sustains Whose Development? Sustainable Development and the
Reinvention of Nature. Organization Studies 24(1): 143-180.
Brown LD. (1991) Bridging Organizations and Sustainable Development. Human Relations 44(8): 807-
831.
Chiapello E and Fairclough N. (2002) Understanding the new management ideology: A transdisciplinary
contribution from critical discourse analysis and new sociology of capitalism. Discourse & Society 13(2):
185-208.
Contu A and Girei E. (2013) NGOs management and the value of ‘partnerships’ for equality in
international development: What’s in a name? Human Relations 67(2): 205-232.
Fergus AHT and Rowney JIA. (2005) Sustainable Development: Lost Meaning and Opportunity?
Journal of Business Ethics 60(1): 17-27.
Girei E. (2015) NGOs, Management and Development: Harnessing Counter-Hegemonic Possibilities.
Organization Studies 37(2): 193-212.
Gladwin TN, Kennelly JJ and Krause T-S. (1995) Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development:
Implications for Management Theory and Research. Academy of Management Review 20(4): 874-907.
Levy D, Reinecke J and Manning S. (2016) The Political Dynamics of Sustainable Coffee: Contested
Value Regimes and the Transformation of Sustainability. Journal of Management Studies 53(3): 364-
401.
Levy DL. (2008) Political contestation in global production networks. Academy of Management Review
33(4): 943-963.
Shevchenko A, Lévesque M and Pagell M. (2016) Why Firms Delay Reaching True Sustainability.
Journal of Management Studies 53(5): 911-935.