Moving Beyond Sustainability : Change Agents Perceptions on a Regenerative Transition

Moving Beyond

Sustainability

Change Agents Perceptions on a Regenerative Transition

BACHELOR THESIS WITHIN: Business

Administration

NUMBER OF CREDITS: 15

PROGRAMME OF STUDY: Sustainable Enterprise

Development

AUTHOR: Mikaela Kristensson & Sandra Pettersson GROUP: 47

i

Acknowledgments

Before commencing this thesis, we wish to give a special thanks to everyone that has shown support and significantly contributed to this bachelor thesis. First, we would like to express our gratitude to our tutor Michal Zawadzki for his very insightful perspectives, support, and guidance throughout the entire process. Secondly, we would like to thank the groups that have offered constructive recommendations. Thirdly, we are grateful to the interviewees since it would not have been possible to conduct this research without them. Last but not least, we wish to thank Mark Edwards and Jenny Jakobsson for inspiring and introducing us to the topic of regenerative sustainability.

We are truly grateful!

ii

Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration

Title: Moving Beyond Sustainability: Change Agents Perception on a Regenerative Transition

Authors: Mikaela Kristensson & Sandra Pettersson

Tutor: Michal Zawadzki

Date: 2021-05-24

Key terms: Organizational change, Change agents, Regenerative sustainability, Regenerative change

Abstract

Background Climate change has become the most pressing challenge of our time. Current business approaches to sustainability are instrumental that may portray sustainability as a source of corporate profit rather than acting for change beyond mitigation and adaptation. A regenerative approach to sustainability challenges current practices and aims to create and strengthen environmental and social well-being.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to deepen the understanding of how change agents can be a part of a regenerative sustainability transition. This is done by investigating the attitudes of change agents to such a transition. The aim is to contribute to theoretical and practical implications of organizational change theory, addressing the phenomena of organizational regenerative sustainability.

Method The paradigm of this study is of critical realist nature with an exploratory research design. An abductive model inspired the research approach, and semi-structured interviews were performed to collect primary data. A thematic analysis was then performed to draw conclusions from this study.

Results The analysis uncovered both welcoming and reluctant attitudes toward a regenerative transition. The welcoming attitudes were inherently more optimistic toward a regenerative

iii

transition, whereas change agents with reluctant attitudes identified more challenges and barriers for implementing a regenerative transition simultaneously as their perspectives were more business-centered. When weighing the evidence, it appears that the welcoming attitudes are relatively more likely to have a positive impact on implementing regenerative change as well as succeed with the initiation.

iv

Table of Content

2.2 Organizational Change for Sustainability ... 6

2.3 Change for Corporate Sustainability ... 7

2.4 Challenges of Organizational Change for Sustainability ... 8

2.5 Values and Change for Sustainability ... 8

2.6 Culture and Organizational Change ... 9

2.7 Change Agents for Sustainability ...10

2.8 Organizational Resistance ...10

2.9 Theoretical Summary ...11

3. Methodology & Method ...11

3.1 Methodology...12 3.1.1 Research Paradigm ...12 3.1.2 Research Approach ...13 3.1.3 Research Design...14 3.2 Method ...14 3.2.1 Data Collection ...14 3.2.2 Sampling Criteria ...15 3.2.3 Interview Design ...15 3.3.1 Credibility ...17 3.3.2 Validity ...17 3.3.3 Reliability ...18 3.4 Data Analysis...18 3.5 Ethical Considerations ...18 4. Empirical Findings ...19

v

4.1 Prohibitors & Enablers for Regenerative Change ...20

4.2 Perceptions on Essential Factors for Regenerative Change ...22

4.3 Business-centered Approach ...25

5. Analysis ...28

5.1 Perceived Inhibitors and Enablers to Regenerative Change ...28

5.1.1 Resistance & Barriers for Regenerative Sustainability ...28

5.1.2 Triggers and Drivers for Regenerative Change ...29

5.2 Perceptions on Essential factors for Regenerative Change ...30

5.2.1 Values and culture ...30

5.2.2 Responsibility ...32

5.2.3 Social and Ecological Sustainability ...33

5.3 Business-centered Approach ...34 5.3.1 Monetary incentives ...34 5.3.2 Instrumental Approaches ...35 6. Conclusion ...35 7. Discussion ...36 7.1 Theoretical Contributions ...36 7.2 Practical Implications ...37 7.3 Limitations...37 7.4 Future Research ...38 8. References ...40 9. Appendices ...45

9.1 Appendix 1: Interview Questions ...45

1

1. Introduction

The following chapter presents the background and problem discussion that introduces the phenomena regenerative sustainability. The chapter concludes with the statement of purpose and the developed research questions.

1.1 Background

Climate change has become the most pressing challenge of our time since the past decades of pursuing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of reducing environmental degeneration have failed despite technological innovation, policy, regulatory development (Plessis et al., 2017) and corporate commitment (Landrum, 2018). Businesses have a pivotal role in climate change as they contribute to escalating greenhouse gas emissions simultaneously as they can provide innovative methods to decarbonize our economies (Wright & Nyberg, 2017). However, business schools have also failed to appropriately address the implementation of the SDGs by emphasizing sustainability issues as instrumental approaches that may portray sustainability as a source of corporate profit rather than acting as a catalyst for real change (Moratis & Melissen 2021). Although the commitment to sustainability among businesses increases (Landrum, 2018), their primary focus is subsequently on harm reduction and damage limitation to improve competitiveness, reputation, and survival (Branzei et al., 2017). These corporate responses to climate change and sustainability are far from enough (Plessis et al., 2017; Landrum, 2018) since reducing unsustainability is not equivalent with sustainability (Landrum, 2018). As a result, these approaches are prolonging environmental degradation rather than finding solutions that improve the social and ecological systems (Robinson & Cole 2014). The current status quo of business is, as such, deteriorating the socio-ecological spheres (Plessis et al., 2017). Rather than solely decreasing the climate-related risks, firms must also adopt more effective approaches beyond mitigation and adaptation to directly undertake the roots of climate-related issues by the organization (Branzei et al., 2017). Thus, if we want to achieve a peaceful and thriving future as described in the SDGs, a more radical transformation is needed (Plessis et al., 2017).

This is where a regenerative sustainability approach comes in. A regenerative approach challenges the current paradigms and beliefs that human activity is inherently destructive; instead, it sees the possibility of creating and strengthening environmental and human well-being. Thus, regenerative sustainability focuses on restoring and regenerating ecosystems in

2

symbiosis with humans (Robinson & Cole 2014) simultaneously as businesses are managed within the limits of the planetary boundaries (Wright & Nyberg, 2017). Moreover, organizations within the regenerative model go beyond consumption and growth; they adapt limits to growth, carrying capacity, as well as planetary boundaries in their operations and are, therefore, pursuing a qualitative development (Landrum, 2018). Current regenerative methods, such as regenerative design and development, as well as regenerative sustainability, offer frameworks for action while catalyzing new ways to transformation (Camrass, 2020). Rather than doing less bad, businesses need to ask themselves how they can do more good and positively impact the social-ecological systems where life can thrive (Plessis et al., 2017).

1.2 Problem Discussion

Human beings have created a new geological epoch portrayed by unsustainable practices and exploitation called the Anthropocene (McIntyre‐Mills, 2020). The Anthropocene represents a radical new era of Earth history initiated when human activities started to have a substantial global impact on the Earth's geology and ecosystems (Sonetti et al., 2019). The ramifications of our systematic thinking and behavior have, thus, led us to this new era of climate change, social inequalities, and pandemics (McIntyre‐Mills, 2020). As such, there is an immense urgency to start thinking in a revolutionary context about practices that impact this Earth with a regenerative transformation (Sonetti et al., 2019). Scholars need to consider how organizations develop how society acknowledges and responds to this new era. Thus, the Anthropocene requires new reflections on ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions (Wright et al., 2018).

COVID-19 is a system failure and the direct outcome of businesses exploiting the natural world due to organizational analysis and decisions made in oblivion to the socio-ecological interconnections (Bansal et al., 2021). Since humanity struggles to control the virus and create a more resilient economy while confronting an even more critical challenge posed by climate change, these problems has never been more significant for organizational scholars (King & Carberry, 2020). However, the environmental consequences of our actions have been neglected in the light of the prevailing paradigm focusing on socio-economic development (Rockström et al., 2009). Even the socio-economic aspects of the SDGs have been overemphasized to the expense of the environmental SDGs during the past decades. Practices that aim to achieve the socio-economic goals without respect to the planetary boundaries have, in turn, allowed business-as-usual to sustain (Randers et al., 2019). Continuing on the same path characterized

3

by business-as-usual practices presents a disheartening outlook for the future in the Anthropocene era (McIntyre‐Mills, 2020). As long as the environmental SDGs and the planetary boundaries are excluded and viewed as autonomous from the other systems, the degradation of the ecological systems will continue (Randers et al., 2019). However, business approaches to realizing the SDGs is through cherry-picking sustainability issues, often based on stakeholder relevance, short-term or long-term financial risks, and to what extent the issues are relevant for the company (Moratis & Melissen, 2021).

Furthermore, over the past century, research has helped businesses accumulate enormous wealth simultaneously as it has created systems imbalances. The wealth and affluence organizations have generated over the last century are at risk of being eradicated in one decade due to the exploitation of natural spaces that otherwise prevent pandemics and reinforce ecological resilience, supporting economic activity (McIntyre‐Mills, 2020). The way organizations interact with ecological systems can reinforce the resilience of an already worrisome socio-ecological state and lock development into a sensitive pathway without realizing it. Managers disregard risks of unforeseen abrupt declines of socio-ecological repercussions due to the lucrative opportunities natural resources offer. However, this is only making the socio-ecological spheres more vulnerable (Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2019), which will lead to social, ecological, and financial collapse (Dauvergne & Lister, 2012). It entails that the sustainability paradigm is facing a crisis as it is suffering from a general inadequacy of problem-solving force. The sustained pursuit of details in an attempt to apply sustainability to numerous cases further discloses anomalies within the paradigm. This calls for an urgent need for scientific progress within sustainability through critically reviewing the concepts underlying assumptions (González-Márquez et al., 2020). This creates a substantial confusion of understanding sustainability from a corporate perspective and what is actually critical to solving the world's most pressing sustainability challenges (Moratis & Melissen, 2021). Suppose businesses want to avoid future pandemics and ensure survival. In that case, organizations must acknowledge that there are limits to growth and unpredicted repercussions of exceeding planetary boundaries while exploring alternatives to the growth paradigm: a paradigm that links organizational practices with the regenerative capacity of the natural world (Bansal et al., 2021). The pandemic has demonstrated that rapid transformation is possible to flatten the curve of the virus. Now it is time to flatten the carbon footprint to prevent further climate-related repercussions and crises from emerging at an unprecedented scale. Instead of resuming to business as usual, better ways of interacting with the natural world should be

4

pursued to create opportunities for all, focusing on positive cascading effects rather than exploitation and profit maximization (McIntyre‐Mills, 2020).

1.3 Purpose

This study primarily aims to investigate change agents attitudes to a regenerative sustainability transformation. The authors seek to understand what change agents believe is needed to move beyond reducing unsustainable practices towards adapting a regenerative sustainability approach, as literature on organizational change theory emphasises instrumental approaches to sustainability rather than contributing to social- and ecological well-being. The aim is to derive valuable insights from change agents´ perspectives about a regenerative sustainability transformation to deepen the understanding of how they can be a part of such transformation. Thus, the purpose of this study is to contribute to theoretical and practical implications of organizational change theory through addressing the phenomena of regenerative sustainability.

1.4 Research Questions

The following research questions have been developed to fulfill the purpose of the study:

1. What are change agents’ attitudes to a regenerative sustainability transition?

2. What are the reasons behind the attitudes and how do they affect a regenerative

transition?

The existing literature covers organizational change for sustainability. However, there is a need to move beyond the phenomena since the identified gap depicts a business-centered focus, in which change for sustainability is viewed as a means for corporate matters rather than for achieving social and ecological sustainability. Therefore, the first research question was derived to deepen the understanding of change agents’ attitudes and perceived barriers and opportunities towards a regenerative transition. The idea is to obtain new knowledge through exploring attitudes to discover what is needed to move towards a regenerative organization. Thus, the second research question was developed to bring new observations from these attitudes on how these might affect the implementation of regenerative sustainability, drawing on organizational change theory with a focus on organizational change for sustainability. The research questions aim to contribute to the research field, which hopefully can lead to future research on how established companies can implement change for regenerative sustainability.

5

1.5 Delimitations

As covered within the background of this thesis, all organizations must strive for sustainability. However, the scope of this study is limited and focuses on researching change agents’ perceptions towards a regenerative sustainability transition. Thus, the data is also limited to the focus of the study. Furthermore, this study involves a small sample size of 5 participants as these were decided as suitable for the research questions.

2. Frame of Reference

The purpose of the frame of reference is to present the theoretical background of organizational change theory in which the authors aim to contribute to. The literature on organizational change is thus introduced in this chapter. Existing theories and relevant literature are reviewed to provide a premise for the empirical research presented in this thesis.

The frame of reference outlines the thesis and literature review structure by presenting the theory the authors aim to develop. The structure in this chapter intends to portray what the literature states about organizational change and organizational change for sustainability to illustrate the general emphasis on organizational objectives rather than social and ecological recovery. Thus, organizational change is first introduced and then presented through the lens of sustainability which provides a relevant overview of the applied theory and the phenomena under investigation.

2.1 Organizational Change

Organizational change is essential to understand organizations (Tilt, 2006). Organizational change is a response to external conditions such as environmental, social, and economic factors to gain a competitive advantage (Harden et al., 2020). Organizations must manage change to retain a competitive advantage. Today's global business environment is characterized by a continuous change that challenges organizations, making flexibility and adaptability essential for business survival (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). The need for organizations to be able to rapidly respond to change in the environment is also stated by Hughes (2018) affirming that organizational change can be related to the environment in which it operates. Hughes (2018) further highlights that organizations change what they choose to do over time, where the drawing of comparisons between organizations, also known as benchmarking, can lead to the adaptation of other organizations’ behaviour and cause change.

6

According to Al-Haddad & Kotnour (2015), to understand organizational change, it is essential to note that drivers of change are correlated and affect each other. The correlation of change drivers makes it so that any change within the organization can have chain reactions that impact the whole organization. The major reason change initiatives fail is due to a value clash between the adopted change and the organization itself. One of the main arguments to why organizations effectively manage change according to Burnes & Jackson (2011), is that goals and values are shared by both the leaders and employees of the organization. Furthermore, the values are aligned with the behaviors and values that the organization aims to promote. In turn, the values will influence the firm's behavior and determine the amount of effort put in to pursue the new goals. The degree of alignment between organizational values and the object of change, and the values themselves, base the change approach. Due to these factors establishing the change approach, this is likely a significant aspect of the probability of success. It is further stated that the likelihood of success through a change process also varies between entities since it is dependent on organizational structure, strategies, systems, and human resources, which vastly differ between different organizations (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015). Prior research on organizational change examined two realms: cause of change and consequences of change, that is the effect of performance on change (Ozawa, 2020). The presented literature on organizational change depicts a gap since it generally provides an understanding of the phenomena in order to retain competitive advantage in the changing environment, with a primary focus on business success.

2.2 Organizational Change for Sustainability

Several organizations need to change toward more sustainable practices long before corresponding regulations are implemented (Kump, 2021) since resistance to change might invite more risks and less resilience toward external forces (Sroufe, 2017). Thus, sustainable development is the primary organizational change firms nowadays face as they no longer can operate without acknowledging the interrelation between the economic, environmental, and social realms of sustainability (Thakhathi et al., 2019). Although an increasing number of organizations acknowledge the significant interconnections between the sustainability dimensions, the realms must also be recognized within the organization´s core purpose (Lozano, 2018). Otherwise, organizations may fail to realize change to their core business and miss the opportunity to capture the full value of sustainability (Sroufe, 2017) while

7

unsuccessfully contributing to sustainable development (Kiesnere & Baumgartner, 2019). Achieving organizational sustainability requires drastic changes (Buhusayen et al., 2021; Thakhathi et al., 2019) in which sustainability is embedded throughout all aspects and levels of the organization, culturally as well as structurally (Kiesnere & Baumgartner, 2019). Organizational change for sustainability also requires new perspectives and reasoning that emerge from the ethical, cultural, social, religious, political, civil, and legal changes related to sustainability problems (Thakhathi et al., 2019). If sustainability change is to be long-lasting, more holistic perspectives are needed (Lozano & Garcia., 2020). Although the literature acknowledges the importance of sustainability, organizational change for sustainability builds upon organizational change theory in which the literature primarily emphasizes change as a business objective.

2.3 Change for Corporate Sustainability

Change and sustainability are synonymous phenomena for contemporary organizations, often recognized as organizational change for corporate sustainability (CS) (Thakhathi et al., 2019). Change for CS is influenced by internal and external factors including stakeholders (Lozano & Garcia., 2020; Sroufe, 2017). The internal drivers of sustainability may concern proactive leadership, principles to protect the environment, organizational culture, moral obligations, and risk avoidance (Sroufe, 2017). Therefore, managers must understand the cultural and psychological barriers of organizational change to implement CS (Appelbaum et al., 2016a). Moreover, the external drivers for change depend on the firm size and industry but generally include customer demand for transparency, reputation, and societal awareness. Consumer demand for transparency also amplifies drivers for environmental and social performance (Sroufe, 2017). Key stakeholders further drive CS since they reward or penalize organizations depending on their CS practices, threatening the firm's survival. Managers are subsequently focusing more on resources assessing and reporting CS performance. However, sustainability performance for the same company may differ depending on the CS instrument used for the assessment (Antolín-López et al., 2016). Thus, the research on CS offers persuasive evidence on pursuing sustainability through economic performance such as accounting metrics or stock market analysis (Bettinazzi et al., 2020). The scholarly contributions additionally provide an understanding for the adoption drivers of corporate sustainability practices and how CS is managed within organizations (Antolín-López et al., 2016). However, these statements further indicate that primary emphasis on change for CS is put on instrumental approaches focusing on economic and sustainability performance within the organization.

8

2.4 Challenges of Organizational Change for Sustainability

Although several organizations need to change toward more sustainable practices (Kump, 2021), initiating change for sustainability is a complex and multidimensional process with significant challenges (Lozano, 2018). This is partially due to the lack of adequate definitions of the sustainability phenomena (Lozano, 2018) and standardized measures resulting in ambiguous interpretations (East, 2020). The increasing importance of sustainability and the value it has grown to have for businesses have also increased the challenge of capturing its value within a definition (Sroufe, 2017) simultaneously as sustainability involves multiple levels and attitudes for it to be included as an organizational value (Lozano, 2018). Thus, implementing sustainability concerns several theoretical methods as well as practical methods (Lozano, 2018), and one of the most challenging factors in organizational change is attitudes of change resistance (Vodonick, 2018). Integration of sustainability within a company's strategy has, in many cases, come alongside the difficulties of obtaining support from the board of directors. Short-term objectives combined with uncertain financial gain and lack of expertise impede the integration of sustainability within the business strategy. Enabling the organization for sustainability outcomes is strengthened through interactions between organizational units, cross-functional teams, and different positions of hierarchy, i.e., practices that allow the company to implement sustainable strategies through promoting the organizational culture (Kisnere & Baumgarter, 2019). Thus, difficulties in selecting change strategies and leadership that result in sustainable performance add to the complexity of the phenomena (Buhusayen et al., 2021). The presented challenges illustrates the focus on strategies, methods and leadership with the objective of sustainability performance, however, sustainability performance may be perceived as ambiguous whereas it is unclear if sustainability is viewed as an instrument or as a contribution to actual sustainable development.

2.5 Values and Change for Sustainability

Personal values are crucial in organizational change for sustainability since they act as guiding principles to achieve desirable goals. When values are objectified and threatened, they can also function as requisites to action. That is, behavioral change is significantly driven by threats to personal values. However, managers' personal values can be confined by organizational values that encourage managers to fulfill business goals rather than reduce environmental harm paradoxically, as managers' sustainability efforts can still be seen as valid in the organization (Kump, 2021). The degree of congruence between corporate and individual values is essential

9

as it decides an employee's commitment (Weerts et al., 2018). Organizational change for sustainability is not limited to but can be realized when managers believe that their companies are susceptible to threats, in which the threats are taken seriously simultaneously as the perceived benefits exceed the perceived risks. External factors that imply a need for change can also trigger change since concrete beliefs may be essential for initiating organizational change for sustainability (Kump, 2021). Thus, an organizational culture in which values, norms, and principles reinforce considerate behavior towards environmental and social problems are essential to developing sustainable organizations (Lozano, 2018).

2.6 Culture and Organizational Change

Organizational culture is a major issue discussed in organizational theory and is a central factor to all aspects of an organization (Hughes, 2018). The following definition of culture is used by Hughes (2018, p. 78), "The culture of a group can now be defined as a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems." Cultural change is a challenge to managers as it is not an organizational variable; it is the organization. People create culture, and therefore it requires collective action through intellectual and determined execution by people to be changed (Hughes, 2018).

Change is a part of the environment businesses operate within, and attitudes towards change are essential for success (Vodonick, 2018). Welcoming attitudes towards change within the organization will help accommodate the needed change. Successive processes of change and learning of sustainability are initiated when sustainability qualifications are embedded in the personnel and the organizational culture. Thus, the organizational culture has to be aligned with the implemented change, which points to the need for sustainability to be implemented in all layers of the organization (Kiesnere & Baumgartner 2019). The path to sustainability is, therefore, appropriately viewed as an initiative for change, opting to transform the organizational culture as well as its external relationships (Appelbaum et al., 2016b). Organizations that adopt sustainability should view change as an opportunity rather than a problem that needs to be dealt with (Vodonick, 2018).

10

2.7 Change Agents for Sustainability

Change agents for CS often embody the role of sustainability leaders as they undertake responsibility for implementing and acknowledging complex sustainability challenges. Thus, a sustainability leader might be anyone who demonstrates responsibility for such challenges regardless of what position or role they hold within the organization. That is, sustainability leaders see themselves as a component of an integrated whole where they share their learnings with others. Although, this requires sustainability leaders to maneuver complex and intersectional problems while initiating and creating a dynamic open for organizational change. Managers who have gone through a paradigm shift and transformed their perspective to become sustainability leaders have, thus, given up the need to be right and instead follow personal ethics beyond self-interest. Humbleness combined with an eagerness to acquire new information is important for such processes. What depicts sustainability leaders is their inclusiveness and acceptance toward uncertainty and change since they choose to see the opportunities and benefits for the company and its stakeholders (Thakhathi et al., 2019). However, change initiatives often fail due to imbalances between the initiative and the people undertaking it (Appelbaum et al., 2016a). A major challenge for change agents is thus the recipient's resistance to change, which often is assumed to be due to personal characteristics or lack of motivation. Nonetheless, the change agents can themselves contribute to recipients' resistance by violating agreements, overemphasizing change, or breaking trust (Vos & Rupert. 2018). Additionally, change agents may also experience difficulties in larger organizations where change may conflict with politicized resistance from internal or external stakeholders (Thakhathi et al., 2019).

2.8 Organizational Resistance

Organizations depend heavily on the willingness of employees to induce in behavior that supports the organizations as it is a cooperative system. An important objective for leadership is to entice employees to support and put effort into the goals of the organization. Employees are responsible for implementing the strategy of the organization. Therefore, when dealing with a change strategy, employees play a key role in implementing that proposed change. Leaders in organizations have the responsibility to build employee beliefs that the change is acceptable and motivate them to implement the desired change (Furst & Cable, 2008).

11

Harden et al., (2020) state that micro factors are known to affect how employees deal with change. Change can create a strain on employees due to uncertain circumstances, and the ability to handle that strain is dependent on the psychological deposition of the employee. An employees’ intolerance of ambiguity has negative effects on tension related to work and the ability to deal with change. Harden et al. (2020) further note that macro factors have an influence on how employees deal with change. Specifically, strong social exchange relationships can help employees reduce stress by open communication between parties. Social exchange theory which is explained by Harden et al. (2020) as the exchange of material, information, or emotional support, can affect employee behavior. Social support such as from managers and peers has an effect of reducing stress on employees, and there is a strong link between individuals’ ability to deal with potential difficulties and strong social support.

2.9 Theoretical Summary

The existing literature on organizational change theory discusses internal and external factors linked to an increased probability for change initiatives to be successful. However, the research about organizational change is centered around the importance for companies to implement sustainability within their core business to capture the full value of the phenomena. In contrast, a holistic perspective that includes the socio-ecological stakeholders is barely mentioned despite being dependent on the functions of these realms. Rather than viewing organizational change for sustainability as vital for socio-ecological systems to recover and thrive, the literature mainly considers change necessary for businesses to adapt and survive. Thus, there is a distinct gap that neglects the interdependence between the sustainability realms and the responsibility of businesses to change to restore the damage they have caused. Regenerative sustainability addresses these issues but is not highlighted within the literature on organizational change or organizational change for sustainability. Therefore, there is a need to develop a deeper understanding of regenerative change since the current paradigm lacks problem-solving force for a global crisis in which organizations are deeply involved.

3. Methodology & Method

This chapter first presents the methodology of the applied research paradigm, research approach, and the derived research design. Thereafter, the research's qualitative method is described, which includes data collection, credibility, data quality, and data analysis. The chapter is then concluded with a discussion on research ethics.

12

3.1 Methodology

Methodology refers to the ways the phenomena under study can be investigated (Sliwa et al., 2017). The choice of approach to study the phenomena of a regenerative change transition within organizational change theory will be presented in this section.

3.1.1 Research Paradigm

A paradigm is the set of beliefs that establish profound rules of a worldview. Within research, a paradigm defines what the research is and what exists within and outside the limits of the study (Coşkun, 2020). In other words, research paradigms refer to the philosophical frameworks used to guide and conduct scientific research (Collis & Hussey, 2014). Before conducting research, it is important for the researchers to understand underlying paradigms and assumptions they apply in the study (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018) as the same phenomena can be investigated differently based on various perceptions of reality. The research philosophy is, thus, based on the perception of reality which outlines the strategies and methods for data collection and analysis (Collis & Hussey, 2014). A research paradigm can be divided into three elements; ontological, epistemological, and methodological dispositions. The ontological belief generates epistemological assumptions, subsequently resulting in problems related to methodological assumptions (Coşkun, 2020).

Critical realism (CR) is the chosen paradigm as it separates the study of being from the nature of knowing, thus, separating ontology that questions what is, from epistemology that questions how we know (Armstrong, 2019). Simultaneously, the philosophy combines a realist ontology with an interpretive epistemology (Hoddy, 2019). CR concludes that dimensions of subjective reality exist parallel to an objective reality beyond human consciousness. Thus, the paradigm suggests a middle ground between the constructed (interpretivist) and objective (positivist) reality. CR recognizes that structures and mechanisms in nature exist and act autonomously of the conditions that allow humans to access them (Prasad, 2019). Thereof, the paradigm exhibits a “depth ontology” that includes experienced events (empirical) based on physical, social, and cognitive entities that can create observable events through the functions of mechanisms (Armstrong, 2019). That is, CR essentially views social perceptions as a form of reality without reducing objectives such as anthropogenic climate change. Theories that neglect the objective reality of climate change while exploring the phenomena contradict themselves as they deny the existence of the real (Price & Lotz-Sisitka, 2020). Moreover, CR establishes

13

interdisciplinary methods fundamental to undertake complex problems (Armstrong, 2019). The phenomena regenerative sustainability transition and the sustainability paradoxes and insufficient approaches this thesis is based upon fit the CR paradigm with its interdisciplinary and complex characteristics. That is, the objective reality and mechanisms of continuous environmental degradation exist parallel with its impeding efforts constructed by businesses' subjective realities. The identified gap further portrays the disconnect between the subjective and objective reality since the current literature views sustainability as means to profit rather than solving social and ecological issues. CR is applied as it acknowledges existing gaps between the subjective and objective reality. The aim of the study further motivates the choice of the paradigm since it depends on the observer to interpret the phenomena subjectively in order to derive useful insights that can assist in a qualitative transformation that impacts the objective reality. Critical realism is, therefore, adopted as the research paradigm for this study.

3.1.2 Research Approach

The two basic models of social science research are deductive and inductive research approaches (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). Deductive research refers to a study in which a hypothesis is created by developing a theoretical structure that is then tested through empirical observations. Inductive research is a method that produces a theory from the reality of the empirical evidence (Collis & Hussey, 2014). Additionally, there is abductive research, in which empirical evidence is used to create a basis for understanding the subject under study (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). The choice of research approach for this study is inspired by an abductive model as the study is not inherently deductive or inductive, since the study started with an incomplete set of observations and an inability to draw specific conclusions. Organizational change for sustainability focuses on instrumental approaches to the phenomena and is neither related to social and ecological issues nor equipped to solve them. This disconnection distinguishes the theoretical gap this study seeks to address through an abductive approach, a complementary process of explorations of situations and evidence where findings within research are abductively analysed. The evidence is then used to indicate a direction to any new knowledge from an analysis characterised by conversation between empirical findings and theoretical propositions (Earl Rinehart, 2021). This approach aligns with the exploratory design of this study which will be covered in the following section 3.1.3.

14

3.1.3 Research Design

The research design represents decisions made within methodologies and methods to fulfill the purpose of the study. Exploratory research is conducted into a research problem or issue when there are little or no existing studies conducted previously from which information about the research problem or issue can be gathered. The aim of exploratory research is to search for knowledge from patterns and ideas and develop a hypothesis rather than test one. This design does mostly not result in conclusive answers and rather provides direction for future research. Thus, the research design of this study is exploratory since questions will be thoroughly examined to discover new findings, which can result in further investigation for future research (Collis & Hussey, 2014). As there is currently little research conducted of regenerative sustainability transitions within the field of organizational change theory, an exploratory design was applied as the study add to the existing literature by bringing new observations and understandings.

3.2 Method

Quantitative and qualitative methods are the two primary approaches in which research is conducted. In quantitative research, large amounts of data are collected and statistically tested, whereas qualitative research is performed with the aim of analyzing a phenomenon through the perceptions of respondents. Qualitative research is both applicable and appropriate for this study as it depends on the human experience and respondents' perception of the phenomena in which the researchers mainly seek to understand (Collis & Hussey, 2014). Therefore, a qualitative method is used for this thesis since the purpose is to understand change agents' attitudes towards a regenerative sustainability transition. To gather and analyze data of change agents’ perceptions, a qualitative data set is required to address the identified gap within organizational change theory.

3.2.1 Data Collection

The data collection for this study will include the collection of secondary as well as primary sources. The secondary sources utilized and reviewed for this study are articles, journals and books covering the field of study, organizational change theory and regenerative sustainability transition. The secondary sources also served as a way to gain theoretical insights that could be compared to the findings. Primary data is data collected directly from the source of origin

15

(Collis & Hussey, 2014). The primary data for this study was conducted through interviews with change agents.

3.2.2 Sampling Criteria

The sampling criteria for this study were change agents that had relevant experience with sustainability in an organizational context. Furthermore, the sampling criteria were set prior to conducting the interviews. Since the participants were chosen based on their required and relevant experience related to the study of the phenomena, a purposive sampling method was used to collect the primary data for this study (Collis & Hussey, 2014). Convenience sampling was also applied as it allows for selecting the authors to contact potential participants through direct and indirect connections (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).

Finding and selecting candidates who were willing to engage in an interview was challenging due to several factors influencing the potential candidates, such as time and lack of interest. Five interviewees eventually agreed to an interview, consisting of a CEO, a sustainability group director, and three sustainability managers. These candidates were chosen as they were found to be relevant change agents in terms of sustainability with perspectives that could be useful in the study of this thesis. Although none of the participants were formally positioned as a change agent, their assigned role within respective companies encompassed characteristics of a change agent. This study seeks to investigate change agents' attitudes, and since all respondents seek to lead change within an organizational and societal context, all participants can be viewed as such. The different positions can be favorable to derive more diverse and valuable insights about change.

3.2.3 Interview Design

Interviews are used to collect primary data. A sample of interview participants is asked questions for the researchers to gather data on perceptions, understandings, attitudes, and opinions (Collis & Hussey, 2014). Two interviewers conducted the interviews within this research to ensure that all relevant issues were fully explored and that notes were taken on nuances and gestures that cannot be captured on the voice recording to be able to capture a comprehensive interpretation.

16

In a semi-structured interview, some questions are prepared by the researchers beforehand in order to encourage the participant to talk about the relevant topics, at the same time as it allows for the researchers to develop other suitable questions as the interview is conducted (Collis & Hussey, 2014). The interviews conducted for this study are semi-structured, as shown in table 1, to allow for the appearance of other relevant information than what the prepared questions could bring forward. The questions might require adaptation for the different respondents to be suitable for the particular participant and to gain the most relevant information from the specific interview.

The aim of collecting interviews was to gather the perceptions about motivations and obstacles towards a regenerative business transitioning. Particular attention in this study was paid towards exploring incentives behind organizational change / initiating organizational sustainability. Furthermore, the perceptions of possibilities, obstacles, and motivations for other companies to pursue such an approach were examined.

Participant Interview length Date

1 20 min 24/3-21

2 30 min 7/4-21

3 45 min 12/4-21

4 35 min 12/4-21

5 30 min 22/4-21

Table 1. Table of interviewees.

3.3 Data Quality

Data quality concerns the level of trustworthiness of research. Credibility, validity, and reliability were addressed to strengthen data quality for this study.

17

3.3.1 Credibility

Credibility involves if the research is conducted in a way that identifies and describes the subject under analysis in a correct way. Credibility in research concerns the extent of trustworthiness of that research (Collis & Hussey, 2014). To increase credibility in this study, multiple sources were used in the secondary data collection process. Furthermore, credibility is strengthened if the researchers study the topic for a long period of time, according to Collis & Hussey (2014). This is a factor that has been considered in this study as the researchers have gained deep knowledge of the topic from their education as well as from gathering literature for this study. Particular importance was put on the authors having a deep understanding of the frame of reference to develop interview questions that avoid bias. Additionally, all questions in the interviews except the introductory questions were open-ended for the respondents to elaborate their own views.

3.3.2 Validity

Validity concerns the extent to which the subject under study is measured and analyzed in a way that captures what the researcher has the intent to measure and analyze. It refers to if the data collected show a legitimate representation of the matter under inquiry (Collis & Hussey 2014). Construct validity refers to what extent the measurement used in the study actually measures what is intended to be measured (Ginty, 2013). For this study, a frame of reference collected key findings of books, journals and peer-reviewed articles that define the concepts and frameworks relevant to the study and built the theoretical foundation. The secondary data collected was to strengthen the construct validity of the study, where they were used to build a frame of reference for the primary sources. It was also made sure that the interviewees filled the requirements of eligibility to participate in the study. Transferability is a term that refers to external validity in qualitative research and concerns the extent to which the findings of the conducted research can be applied in a broader context (Bhandari, 2020). This qualitative study entails a smaller sample size which is a factor acknowledged by the researchers and addressed through clearly communicating the research questions, data collection, analysis, as well as method.

18

3.3.3 Reliability

Reliability concerns the level of accuracy and precision of the study. The subject of measurement has to be measured and represented in a reliable way. The purpose of reliability is to increase understanding (Collis & Hussey, 2014). The authors of this study have reported the research process comprehensively in order to attempt to increase the reliability of the study. Since the data has been derived from first-hand sources, the interviews have been recorded, transcribed, and coded in order to attempt to increase reliability.

3.4 Data Analysis

The empirical data collected for this study was analyzed in a thematic approach that considers all possible theoretical interpretations, whereas the most plausible interpretation is to be pursued (Charmaz, 2006). The data was firstly conducted through interviews. The interviews were recorded in order to be transcribed, allowing for the researchers to familiarise themselves with the data. The next step performed was generating initial codes to the data, where features of data with potential significance were identified. Followingly, the different codes were searched through in order to find relevant categories and themes.

The next step performed was the reviewing of themes. Here the themes were refined, and codes reviewed to make sure they provide accurate reflections of the data set. Defining and naming themes was done followingly, where each theme was analysed in section 5. Lastly, producing the report and writing the final analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). A thematic analysis was therefore used as shown in figure 1, as the data analysis focused on identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns that were found within the data (Bennet et al., 2019).

Figure 2. Process of data analysis.

3.5 Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations refer to morality and principles that are applied when conducting the research. Bell & Bryman (2007) states principles such as avoiding harm of participants in the

19

study, avoiding causing anxiety and discomfort of participants in the study, protecting the privacy and anonymity of participants, the need for trust and openness in collecting information, reciprocity of the research and avoiding misrepresentation of research findings (Collis & Hussey, 2014). When conducting the primary data for this study it was important to consider the dignity of the companies participating. Therefore, all participants were anonymous. Importance was put on being respectful yet truthful in the analysis of the study. To establish trust and create a solid base for collaboration, clear communication on how the researchers would be treating the data was implemented with respect to confidential treatment of the interview data. The participants were fully informed of their rights to withdraw their contributions at any time.

4. Empirical Findings

This section presents the empirical findings collected through the interviews. The empirical findings consist of views and experiences of the respondents related to the phenomena under study. The empirical findings are divided into following themes: Perceived Inhibitors & Enablers for Regenerative Change, Perceptions on Essential Factors for Regenerative Change, & Business-centred Approach.

20

Figure 3. Overview of Thematic Analysis. The figure displays how the codes created seven

categories, summarized within three themes.

4.1 Prohibitors & Enablers for Regenerative Change

The first theme includes empirical data on perceived challenges and drivers for change. When discussing possible challenges for a regenerative transition, different barriers and challenges were presented by the respondents. External factors as uniting the industry towards approaching an extensive change were perceived by interviewee 2 to be the most significant challenge. The perspective on external factors was partly shared with interviewees 3 and 4. These respondents also highlighted the extent of the internal factors as a challenge for a regenerative transition, in which interviewee 3 acknowledge the extent to which sustainability issues reaches, along with the difficulties of producing products that are truly sustainable:

"But we can absolutely do that more or move more towards that path even more, absolutely (...) so I think that the external factors are more difficult because we have to join forces there in a way and together be responsible for changing the debate, and I think that is more difficult

than the internal work" ( Interviewee 2)

Moreover, interviewee 3 brings up the factor of time. Governance in a large organization makes the process to implement new things timely and involves a great deal of convincing. How the bureaucracy in a large organization needs to change is further mentioned, as faster decision-making is necessary. Many meetings and discussions are common surrounding the implementation of new things. It is further stated by interviewee 3 that no one wants to take responsibility for certain change initiatives, which prolongs the process. Respondent 3 does on the other hand also state that sustainability is a broad topic and that the organization they work at cannot address everything.

“ I would say the bureaucracy that you have in organizations, that is something we need to

change. We need to be much faster in making decisions, investing in the right things, testing different things as well.” (Interviewee 3).

“We need to look where can we have the biggest impact, because sustainability is a very broad topic, and we cannot address everything.” (Interviewee 3)

21

Another issue perceived by respondent 3 is the lack of standardized measures for handling issues such as the planetary boundaries and ecological factors in operations. Respondent 3 highlights the need for guidelines and standards on how to perform such assessments; however, they acknowledge that they have not looked for such guidelines either.

“So if we would like to know talk about the planetary boundaries, then then I would expect that there is a guidelines, maybe there are I haven't been looking because we are not discussing in that level, but I would expect that there are guidelines, or a standard, how you will need to do this kind of assessment. And then we will, then we will do it.” (Interviewee 3)

Interviewee 4 brings up the difficulties of making other people understand the topic of sustainability. Sustainability awareness is seen as a challenge as it is a long process of educating others. The respondent discusses the difficulties of meeting resistance where people have a hard time seeing the benefits, which is stated to make the process timely.

“But that's also kind of like a bubble. So many other people might have never heard about it [sustainability]. So you really need to make them understand first, and that's really a long

process.” (Interviewee 4).

Political regulations are something all respondents acknowledge the impact of. Respondent 4 highlights the importance of political decisions speeding up the process of making organizations more sustainable, as there is not much time for a slow change, where the role of policymakers is substantial. Interviewee 3 and 5 express experiencing an increased need for organizations to be more sustainable where political regulations have pressured for that change.

"…there is a lot that is happening in the in the regulation environment, especially in the EU level" (Interviewee 3)

To be attractive for investors and employers, respondent 1 has experienced a shift where it is now more essential for companies to put internal sustainability goals beyond what is demanded by environmental regulations. Interviewee 3 also mentions that s(he) has experienced an increased engagement among organizations. Earlier, regulations and upcoming regulations triggered sustainable shifts within organizations, whereas sustainable shifts in operations now originate from the organizations themselves. Respondent 2 mentions an increased maturity

22

within the industry their organization operates in. Interviewee 5 further expresses that the increased demand for companies to integrate sustainability is influenced by expectations from the public alongside the political regulations.

“I think that is the biggest change I have been seeing, is that it is not regulations anymore, (...) but more engagement.” (Interviewee 3)

"So of course, I think the call for sustainability, especially the calls from society and from

politics, has been getting louder and louder (…) So of course, we feel more pressured to be even more sustainable. But we're not afraid of that. I think it's a very good thing. I think

sometimes you need a little push to become more sustainable." (Interviewee 5)

Additional external factors influencing change for regenerative sustainability was according to interviewee 3, consumer behavior and demand. The interviewee perceived demand as a driving factor for companies to change; that is, companies will not change unless there is a significant change in consumer demand. Interviewee 1 instead recognized their own business operation as a way to indirectly influence their customers to have a positive impact:

"But it's the consumers and customers that those are the only ones that can fire the companies. So if the customers don't want to buy something anymore, that will have a big impact on the company. And that will be the game changer for companies to transform their business, to please the customer. And until we are still consuming in the same way, then the

change will not not happen." (Interviewee 3)

"... we also look on that we exist through our customers (...) and there I believe we can have indirect effects that are not directly related to our solution." (Interviewee 1)

4.2 Perceptions on Essential Factors for Regenerative Change

The second theme uncovered empirical data surrounding values and culture, responsibility, and ecological sustainability. Firstly, values and organizational culture are something that all respondents acknowledge the significance of. Respondents 2, 4, and 5 all express that their intrinsic values motivated them to work in a position related to sustainability. These three respondents all emphasized the long-term perspective of sustainability. Respondent 4 says how because of their sustainability interest, s(he) wanted to find a job with a purpose. S(he) also

23

discusses how essential it is for leaders to carry out the values set within an organization, as this sets a good example for other employees who can follow their lead. Interviewee 2 speaks of values and culture being an important consideration when evaluating the employment s(he) holds at the time of the interview. From another perspective, respondent 3 discusses the importance of finding passionate people when implementing sustainability within an organization, which will be a driving force for change.

“I now realize how important it is that the leaders of the company carry those values, and they really live those values.”

(Interviewee 4)

“I have always been interested in sustainability (...) And just got in touch with the topic a lot. So that's when I decided that I really want to find a job with a purpose.” (Interviewee 4)

“So I always have been interested in sustainability, and also my personal life. I tried to be as sustainable as possible.” (Interviewee 5)

Interviewee 3 states their organization's ambition to be a sustainability leader within the industry, as that is key in attracting investors, key stakeholders, customers, and new employees. It is essential to not only be perceived as a sustainability leader but that it is also implemented in the operations. Interviewee 2 also brings up how sustainability values have to be applied practically in the organization and not only used for marketing purposes. The importance of including sustainability in all organization practices is further emphasized by respondent 2, where it is not only worked with but part of all operations in a natural way. Furthermore, s(he) remarks that the most important part of values and organizational culture is practicing them.

“We want to be seen as a sustainability leader when it comes to our industry. And we have been trying to prove that kind of message when we talk with investors and other key stakeholders, customers and new employees. And that's how we can attract them because they

want to work for a company that will be serious, and that we are walking the talk.” (Interviewee 3).

24

perhaps without it being called sustainability, but rather as a part of everything we do naturally.” (Interviewee 2)

Furthermore, education and awareness were something all of the respondents realized the importance of in a change process. Interviewee 3 and 5 mentions the significance of people management in implementing new ideas, where respondent 3 discusses how convincing central management or the board of an organization is a big part of carrying out change processes. Raising awareness and spreading knowledge is also considered to be highly relevant in engaging people to commit to change. Respondent 3 believes that finding passionate people is essential to implementing sustainability, where also the providing of proper training and engaging people is critical for such change implementation.

“It's a lot about raising awareness throughout the entire organization, explaining what our sustainability strategy behind what we are doing is, and how they can engage and how that department or area of responsibility can contribute. And it takes time to get there because it's

a lot of different maturity levels when it comes to sustainability.” (Interviewee 3) Responsibility was expressed in several ways to be of significance by the majority of the respondents. Respondents 2, 4, and 5 also viewed collaboration as an essential aspect of responsibility regarding the pursuit of change for sustainability. For example, interviewee 4 discussed the importance of using the power some companies hold in their supply chains to influence actors in developing countries to pursue more sustainable practices. A holistic view of sustainability where global efforts are necessary was emphasized. Interviewee 5 regards working conjointly with other actors in the same industry as their organization towards a more sustainable industry as significant to achieve this.

“So I think that for our industry, all in all it's very important that we work hand in hand towards the same goal, that is to make the industry more climate friendly”

(Interviewee 5)

The acknowledgment of the social and ecological realms impacts attitudes toward a regenerative transition. The participants addressing the limits of ecosystems and natural resources recognized that compensating and reducing unsustainable practices is not enough for sustainable development and the organization's objectives and survival. Participant 4 reveals concerns about the pace of change happening within the respective industry, whereas s(he)

25

recognizes the climate crisis and natural catastrophes as a threat to the organization and the natural world. Regarding factors important for change implementation, respondent 1 further believes that it is important for companies to strive for a goal aiming to create value without destroying resources:

“But I see it like this, if one can find an objective within a company to create value without destroying resources in some way.” (Interviewee 1)

"So we definitely like trying to remind our company on a regular basis, like, stop, we need to work more on these [planetary boundaries], because the resources are not

endless." (Interviewee 4)

Respondent 5 believe that there is insufficient knowledge about the interactions and functions of the ecosystems while interviewee 3 and 4 see the importance of knowledge and awareness to drive a regenerative transition:

"And maybe also the lack of knowledge on how to properly serve the ecosystems."

(Interviewee 5)

The social realms of sustainability were brought up by the majority of respondents who discussed the need to create a more inclusive workplace and tackle issues related to gender equality and racism since these problems intersect personal and professional aspects of life:

“But I think we need to talk more about the social matters, as well. So also, like gender diversity, the discussions about racism, they just don't stop at a business door, we need to take

all these matter into our business life as well. And I think we can really improve there. And I wish that we are just we are going to leave the whole industry towards a more sustainable

aviation industry.” (Interviewee 5)

4.3 Business-centered Approach

The third theme depicts a business-centered approach as an influencing factor for attitudes to regenerative change. A business-centered focus views sustainability as a business case to show how it can be financially beneficial. In order to influence people in the business world, interviewee 5 thinks it is important to have a business case that shows how sustainability will pay off. Respondent 4 further perceives the business world to be profit-driven and that there is

26

a need to balance profit and sustainability, although it is not always a win-win scenario. When initiating change for regenerative sustainability, interviewee 4 and 5 states:

“They see the business side of it, and they see it as if we can make money from this, we're going to keep doing this. But they also point out that a lot of times it's not a win win, we’re not a nonprofit organization. So we have to see the other side as well. Which is fair enough,

because you do have to combine both aspects of course, but there's definitely room for improvement.” (Interviewee 4)

"I think that's part of the business world, still you need to come up with good numbers. I think it's a myth that sustainability only costs money, and that you never will get anything back from it. That's something that is not true, it always pays off in some terms, and you need to show how it's going to pay off. So, you need to have proper business cases. And that's how you can really make some changes towards a more sustainable business." (Interviewee 5)

Monetary incentives are further recognized as a convincing enabler or inhibitor for regenerative change among the interviewees. Respondent 4 recognizes its organization as too immature for regenerative change due to the strong business focus, whereas interviewee 2 further reveals that the strong cost-focus within the industry affects the implementation of change initiatives:

“I think that many companies or my company are not ready to act as such and they are too business driven still." (Interviewee 4)

"If you look at my industry it is very price-pressed (…) and it is not always so easy to drive change because there is so much focus on costs." (Interviewee 2)

Concerning the business environment, a shift is mentioned by interviewees 1 and 3 where investors are including sustainability within their portfolios, resulting in increased expectations of organizations to work with sustainability. This shift is stated to be driven mainly by upcoming regulations:

"Banks, investors, and other companies have expectations that you have a policy which is thought through, you should work with sustainability and other perspectives, but then there