Sustainable Leadership Practices Research Articles

How BMW successfully practices sustainable leadership principles

PurposeThis BMW case aims to show how many of the company's practices that accord with principles espoused in the authors' sustainable leadership model contributed to its recovery after the global financial crisis (GFC).Design/methodology/approachThis case illustrates how BMW institutes the 23 honeybee leadership principles and practices described in the authors' 2011 article “Sustainable leadership: practices for enhancing business resilience and performance” in Strategy & Leadership.FindingsThe examples provide a glimpse into the honeybee practices that enabled one firm to emerge successfully from the GFC. Regarding the five performance outcomes on the sustainable leadership pyramid, BMW clearly exceeded expectations in 2010 on financial returns and shareholder value.Practical implicationsClearly BMW provides long‐term value for all its stakeholders – suppliers, shareholders, employees and customers – as is expected of a sustainable enterprise. BMW's business model, innovative approach to problem‐solving and adherence to sustainable leadership practices underpin a capacity to survive crises such as the GFC.Originality/valueThis is a rare case study of corporate‐wide sustainability practices and principles in operation. Informed by the examples of best practices at BMW, managers at other companies can envision how honeybee management might be implemented at their firm.

Sustainable leadership practices for enhancing business resilience and performance

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present an alternative leadership model to the prevailing shareholder‐first approach that research, management experts and practice indicate can lead to higher performance and resilience of a firm.Design/methodology/approachThis conceptual paper is based on published literature, empirical research, and observations conducted in firms worldwide.FindingsAvery and Bergsteiner's 23 principles differentiate sustainable or “honeybee” practices from shareholder‐first or “locust” leadership. Sustainable practices are arranged in a pyramid with three levels of practices and five performance outcomes at the apex. A total of 14 foundation practices can be introduced immediately. At the next level in the pyramid, six higher‐level practices emerge once the foundations are in place. Finally, three practices cover the key performance drivers of innovation, quality, and staff engagement – all of which end customers' experience. Together the 23 practices influence five outcomes, namely brand and reputation, customer satisfaction, operational finances, long‐term shareholder value, and long‐term value for multiple stakeholders.Practical implicationsGiven that research and practice show that operating on sustainable principles enhances business performance and resilience, executives are urged to adopt these practices over business‐as‐usual. If self‐interest does not motivate this change, as it appears to have already done at Wal‐Mart, then major stakeholders or legislators can be expected to force such changes in the future.Originality/valueThis paper provides an answer to the question of whether there is there an alternative to the shareholder‐first leadership model. Its response is: yes, a demonstrably effective alternative already operates among many successful enterprises around the world.

Sustainable leadership in a Thai healthcare services provider

Rhineland leadership practices contrast sharply with the prevailing Anglo/US business model of short-term maximization of profitability, and are said to lead to greater corporate sustainability, at least in highly developed economies. However, the applicability of Rhineland leadership to less developed economies has not yet been demonstrated. This paper sets out to compare the business practices of a social enterprise that delivers healthcare services in Thailand and Avery's 19 sustainable leadership practices derived from Rhineland enterprises. Adopting a case study approach, multi-data collection methods included non-participant observations made during visits to the enterprise, and reference to internal and published documentation and information. Semi-structured interview sessions were held with many stakeholders, including top management, staff, patients and a former consultant. In the Thai healthcare organization studied, evidence was found for compliance with 15 of Avery's 19 sustainable leadership elements, but to varying degrees. The elements were grouped into six core sets of practices: adopting a long-term perspective, staff development, organizational culture, innovation, social responsibility, and ethical behavior. One element was found to be not applicable, and no evidence was found for conformity with Rhineland principles on the remaining three sustainable practices. The paper concludes that Avery's 19 Rhineland practices provide a useful framework for evaluating the corporate sustainability of this Thai enterprise. Healthcare enterprises in Thailand and possibly in other Asian countries that wish to sustain their organizational success could adopt Avery's 19 Sustainable Leadership Grid elements to examine their leadership practices, and adjust them to become more sustainable. The relevance of Rhineland sustainable leadership principles to enterprises in less developed economies remains to be investigated. This study attempts to uncover this unknown.