Authors: Lisa Morschheuser, July, 2025
1 Introduction
“There is no bigger challenge for organizational change management in the contemporary world than achieving greater sustainability” (De Matos & Clegg, 2013, p. 382).
Technological advancements, shifting workforce dynamics, intensifying competitive pressures, and the accelerating pace of globalization are among the various drivers compelling organizations and their members to implement and manage planned change (Stouten et al., 2018, p. 752). Simply surviving disruption is no longer the goal; to meaningfully contribute to sustainable development in the 21st century, companies must undergo significant transformation far from being limited to isolated processes, as the underlying issue is that “the organisations we are familiar with today have not been designed with sustainability in mind” (Newman, 2012, p. 67). Organizational change is increasingly integrated into strategic decision-making, influencing not only operations but also deeper elements such as structure, leadership, behavior, culture, and stakeholder alignment (Lozano, 2024, p. 2). Change management is no longer merely a reactive response to disruption, or an operational necessity. Instead, it has become a core element of organizational strategy, used for shaping long-term direction and success (By, 2005, p. 369). This stems from the growing recognition that sustainability and change are fundamentally linked. Figuratively, they have become “two sides of the same coin” (Thakhathi et al., 2019, p. 2). Consequently, organizations are compelled to reduce costs, enhance the quality of their products and services, pursue new avenues for growth, and boost overall productivity (Kotter, 2012, p. 11). Accordingly, the concept of change management for sustainability has emerged. As Ha (2014) defines it, organizational change management (OCM) refers to the process of “planning, organizing, leading and controlling a change process in an organization to improve its performance and achieve the predetermined sets of strategic objectives” (p. 1).
Yet, despite the growing recognition, the execution of successful change management initiatives often falls short. While some organizations have successfully improved their competitiveness and strategic positioning through major change efforts, many others have experienced disappointing outcomes (Kotter, 2012, p. 11). With a reported failure rate of around 70% of all change programmes initiated, a central question arises: Why do so many efforts fail, and what distinguishes the 30% that succeed (By, 2005, p. 370)? Which frameworks guided their efforts, what strategies proved to be effective, and which conditions allowed change to not only take place, but to be established?
While many practitioners continue to rely on change management literature for widely known management models, they tend to be grounded more on expert opinion than scientific evidence. This tendency has been linked to the lack of a clear academic consensus on fundamental change management processes and principles, making it difficult for organizations to implement meaningful changes (Stouten et al., 2018, p. 752). The purpose of this thesis is to provide a critical review of commonly applied frameworks and approaches to change management. Whilst keeping a holistic perspective, it aims to bring clarity by evaluating the most influential models to determine which approaches are not only theoretically sound but also practically effective, particularly in the context of sustainability-driven transformation. The relevance of this research is underlined by the growing urgency to understand and manage change in response to the complex challenges of sustainability. As previously established, change is unavoidable due to the continuous evolution of both internal and external environments. Failing to adopt these shifts not only threatens business survival, but can also intensify existing problems and negatively affect society and the environment (Ha, 2014, p. 4). This thesis responds to an increasing demand for practical approaches that connect change management with sustainability initiatives, while also contributing to the development of frameworks and strategies. By examining this intersection, the work aims to advance both theoretical understanding and guidance for applied practice.
The structure of this thesis is designed to move from a theoretical approach to a practical application. The chapter Methodology outlines the systematic approach to the literature review, describing the research focus, search process, and evaluation criteria. The Theoretical Background chapter offers a comprehensive review of the change management literature and its connection to sustainability. It introduces key models such as Lewin’s Three-Step Model or Kotter’s Eight-Step Model and explores the integration of sustainability through frameworks such as Doppelt’s Wheel of Change or Sancak’s Sustainability Transformation Model. Additionally, the chapter highlights current limitations in the literature and suggests directions for future research. Ultimately, the chapter Practical Implementation demonstrates the practical application of the Sustainability Transformation Model (STM), using best-practice-examples to illustrate how these tools are applied. It explores drivers and barriers of change and assesses alternative change management approaches.
2 Theoretical Background
This chapter serves as the literature review and establishes the theoretical foundation of the thesis. It begins with a definition and historical background of change management, followed by a review of established change management models. The focus then shifts to the intersection of change management and sustainability, where relevant definitions and models tailored to sustainability contexts are examined. Building on this, the chapter analyzes key mechanisms that facilitate organizational change management for sustainability: leadership and governance, organizational culture and employee engagement, and sustainability assessment and reporting. The chapter then concludes by outlining current gaps in the academic literature and identifying directions for future research.
2.1 Change Management
2.1.1 Definition & History of Change Management
In order to survive, organizations must change (Phillips & Klein, 2023, p. 189).
While early theories of organizational change indicated that routine was a prerequisite for effectiveness, suggesting that constant change would undermine performance, this view shifted as scholars began to recognize the necessity of continuous adaptation to internal and external conditions, understanding that a constant state of change can evolve into a new routine in itself (Rieley & Clarkson, 2001; Burnes, 2004; Luecke, 2003). Since change is increasingly shaping the day-to-day operations of a business, it demands a structured approach to effectively manage these transformations. Such techniques, known as change management, emphasize the human factor at their core (Lauer, 2021, p. 3). More precisely, change management refers to the structured and dynamic process through which organizations shift from their current state to a more desirable one, encompassing both minor adjustments and radical transformations (Lozano, 2024, p. 79). It is recognized as a “complex and non-linear endeavor” that requires creativity, imagination, and patience (Newman, 2012, p. 68). If it is anticipated, prepared for, and effectively managed, change can be an opportunity (European Commission, 1998, p.170). Conversely, the failure to adapt to emerging technologies, processes or opportunities can cause significant economic losses, which is why financial benefits often play into the motivations for organizational change (Cannon, 1994). Furthermore, organizations that resist to change expose themselves to the risk of being overtaken by external forces, including regulatory shifts, technological advancements, evolving customer demands, changes in the labor market, and intensifying competition (Lozano et al., 2016, p. 170).
As Lauer (2021) notes, successful change depends on the active support of employees, each of whom brings unique needs, experiences, and expectations, that may not align with existing organizational structures (p. 4). Thus, managing change is a complicated undertaking that must start addressing three points: the individuals affected, the organizational structures, and the underlying corporate culture (see Figure 3.1). As Ha (2014) emphasizes, “all changes must involve and engage with all internal and external stakeholders whose businesses or interests will be impacted upon by changes” (p. 3). Imposed without proper involvement and communication, change can significantly increase the likelihood of resistance.
Figure 1: Starting Points for Change Management, Own illustration based on Lauer (2021)[1]
Although there are various approaches to handling change, each requires change managers, also known as change agents, to adopt tailored strategies that foster acceptance and minimize resistance. As Phillips and Klein (2023) explain, a change agent is responsible for “planning, developing, leading, evaluating, assessing, supporting, and sustaining a change implementation” (p. 189). At the core of these change efforts, change management provides structured models and strategies to guide organizations and their employees through the adaptation of new developments. Accordingly, change management is primarily directed inward, toward the members of the organization, or the company undergoing change (Lauer, 2021, p. 4). Thus, organizations must consider tangible assets, such as financial and physical resources, and intangible assets, including human capital, trust, and knowledge, all of which contribute to the development of core competencies and a competitive advantage (Ha, 2014, p.4). Generally, the purpose of OCM is to ensure the internal implementation of optimal adaptations to external changes. Therefore, change management not only requires a comprehensive understanding of an organization’s internal environment, but also of its external environment. This includes both the general environment, referring to “political, economic, sociocultural, technological, legal, and environmental (PESTLE) factors; and […] the specific environment, which includes suppliers, customers, competitors, and pressure group (SCCP) elements” (Ha, 2014, p. 4).
2.1.2 Models of Change Management
Change management is grounded in theories of models and strategies designed to guide organizations and its employees with new developments (Phillips & Klein, 2023, p. 189). When characterized by how change comes about, the literature identifies several approaches, with planned and emergent approaches being the most prominent (By, 2005, p. 373). The planned approach views change as a linear process, whereas the emergent approach views change as a continuous and adaptive process, shaped by shifting internal and external conditions (Stouten et al. 2018, pp. 753-754; Burnes, 1996). Instead of relying on predefined plans, the latter perspective emphasizes responsiveness to complexity and unpredictability, highlighting the role of learning and interaction between organizational variables (By, 2005, p. 375). With many different change management models developed over the years, each offers a different approach towards the understanding and guidance of organizational transformation. While they might differ in methodology, structure, and theories, they also share notable similarities.
Figure 3.2 (see p. 10) offers a comparative overview of popular change models that reflect both the historical evolution and the variety of approaches used to guide organizational transformation: Lewin (1948), Beer (1980, 2009), Cooperrider and Srivastva’s Appreciative Inquiry (AI) (1987), Judson (1991), Kanter et al. (1992), Kotter (1996, 2012), Hiatt’s ADKAR (2006), Stouten et al.’s Summary of Change Steps (SRC) (2018), as well as French (1969) and Schein’s (1985) Action Research Model. These models were chosen based on their foundational relevance, varying structural emphases, and applicability to different change contexts, particularly in relation to sustainability-oriented transformation.
For example, Lewin’s Three-Step Model is considered the theoretical cornerstone of planned change management (Lauer, 2021, p. 145). This model includes the following three steps: (1) unfreezing, (2) transitioning to a new stage, and (3) refreezing (see Figure 3.2). The first phase includes the establishment of a clear change vision and the development of a change plan, enabling the organization to let go of existing behaviors or structures. This prepares the organization for the second phase, where new systems, procedures, or behaviors are introduced and implemented. It is important to note that these changes can be short-lived if they are not supported by ongoing positive reinforcement. Thus, the third phase proposes the consolidation of the new changes, embedding them into the organization (Stouten et al., 2018, pp. 753, 754).
Another one of the most widely cited frameworks for managing planned organizational change is Kotter’s Eight-Step Model. As illustrated in Figure 3.2, the process begins by (1) creating a sense of urgency to make stakeholders aware that change is necessary. (2) Next, a guiding coalition is formed to (3) develop the change vision. (4) This vision is then communicated to all relevant stakeholders and (5) the coalition and stakeholders are developing change plans to remain involved in the change process. (6) Short-term wins should be promoted to reinforce the change implementation, followed by, (7) the consolidation stage in which additional changes are made that have not been implemented yet, though they align processes in the organization with the initial change vision. (8) Finally, the change must be institutionalized through alignment with the organizations’ systems and structures (Stouten et al., 2018, p. 755; Ha, 2014, p. 29).
Although other prescriptive models have been developed, many build upon Lewin’s framework by expanding its phases into more detailed steps. For instance, the unfreezing phase aligns with the first four steps of Kotter’s model, transitionwith the following three steps, and refreezing with the final, eighth, step.
Figure 2: Summary of Prescriptive Change Models, Own illustration based on Stouten et al. (2018)[2], Ha (2014)[3]
Overall, the table reveals a notable consistency among the prescriptive models, which follow a planned, stage-based logic, while simultaneously illustrating the Action Research Model (ARM) as a more iterative and participatory approach. This can be traced back to the distinction between planned and emergent approaches, as mentioned earlier. The prescriptive models are rooted in the planned change approach due to their sequence of steps, linear progression, and managerial control. The ARM leans toward an emergent change perspective. Rather than suggesting a linear path, it emphasizes iterative cycles, where solutions are created through participation and learning (Ha, 2014, p. 26). Its inclusion in the table may seem misfit at first, however, it serves an important function. Not only does it broaden the overview of change models presented, but it also expands the comparative analysis by introducing a methodologically diverse, yet structurally coherent model. It challenges assumptions about linearity and participatory nature, while reinforcing shared principles of assessment, learning, implementation, and evaluation, placing stakeholder feedback at its centre. Overall, it aids in the investigation of various organizational change management models to identify the most important factors influencing change management success.
On a conceptual level, despite some differences in terminology, the prescriptive models share structural homogeneity. Most begin with some form of diagnosis or preparation for change, followed by an implementation phase, and conclude with the institutionalization of new behaviors and systems, leading the change management literature to consider these steps as a key factor of change success. What stands out, however, is the difference in emphasis. Kotter, for example, places a strong focus on urgency and vision building early in the process, while the ADKAR model centers the employees’ beliefs, empowerment, knowledge, and individual needs at the heart of change (Stouten et al., 2018, pp. 754, 755). The Appreciative Inquiry Model (AI), on the other hand, places significantly greater emphasis on the participation of change recipients than the other models, while presenting change as a positive opportunity for growth and improvement (Stouten et al., 2018, p.754). Differences also emerge in the level of abstraction and specificity of each model. While models such as Lewin’s three phases, or AI offer broad conceptual guidance, others like Kotter’s eight steps or Kanter et al.’s ten commandments provide a more specific roadmap.
In comparison, the ARM disrupts the structural paradigm. It is neither following a rigid linear structure, nor is it purely conceptual. Instead, it is methodological in nature by promoting cycles of inquiry. While prescriptive models allow reapplication if the current state of the organization does not improve, or new changes are needed due to new arising issues, they are typically structured as forward-moving sequences, aiming towards a defined outcome (Phillips & Klein, 2023, p. 190). By contrast, the ARM is built on iteration as a defining mechanism, not as a fallback. The model is designed not just to react to problems, but to guide organizational development through continuous leaning and adaptation (Ha, 2014, p. 26). What sets it apart is its collaborative nature where change agents and stakeholders work together to shape the process. This approach resonates with Burnes’ (1996) angle that success in change efforts depends less on detailed plans and more on a deep understanding of strategic, structural, and cultural dynamics by focusing on readiness and adaptability over predetermined steps. After all, selecting an appropriate change management model requires an understanding of both its practical value and the challenges practitioners face.
2.2 Change Management for Sustainability
2.2.1 Definition of Change Management for Sustainability
Not only is change essential for organizational survival, but modern organizations must also acknowledge the interdependence between society, the environment, and their economic objectives (Thakhathi et al., 2019, p. 1). Sustainable development has become one of the most significant forms of organizational change that institutions nowadays are faced with. As the world shifts toward an era defined by sustainability, organizations face a dual imperative: navigating new challenges while also seizing opportunities for long-term viability. They play a key factor in the realization of sustainable development, yet, in order to properly contribute, they must undergo drastic changes themselves. Meeting these demands requires a specialized approach of change, one that embeds sustainability principles into the core of corporate strategy and operations: Change management for sustainability (Benn et al., 2014).
As previously stated, change management refers to the dynamic and systemic approach that enables organizations to move from their current state to one that is more desirable (Lozano, 2024, p. 72). In the last decade, there has been a growing focus on applying this approach specifically within the context of sustainability, giving rise to the field of organizational change management for sustainability (OCMS). OCMS places emphasis on “soft issues” such as values, visions, philosophies, policies, and the empowerment of employees (Lozano et al., 2016, p. 170). It also considers behavioral and organizational change management practices, exploring key drivers of sustainability efforts, as well as barriers that hinder change (Lozano, 2024, p. 79). Addressing sustainability within organizations is inherently complex, as it involves navigating a web of interrelated system elements. Therefore, achieving lasting sustainability-related change requires a holistic perspective that integrates and balances the economic, environmental, social, and temporal dimensions of sustainability (Lozano, 2024, p. 78).
Internal organizational change for sustainability follows two primary approaches: (1) Top-down: stressing management, control, and measurement, and (2) Inside-out: prioritizing internal transformation and innovation (Lozano et al., 2016, p. 170). With much of the existing literature focusing on the top-down control mechanisms, only few explore the internal changes. Based on the works of Bennis et al. (1969), Lewin (1947), Anderson and Ackermann Anderson (2001), and Luthans (2002), Lozano (2012) proposed a framework (see Figure 3.3, p. 14) in order to assist with an explanation of the dynamics of organizational changes for corporate sustainability (CS). The model suggests that orchestrated and deliberate change efforts can disrupt the existing status quo (SQ) and guide the organization toward a more sustainability-oriented state (MSOS) through a continuous, iterative process (Lozano, 2012). The entire system, including its various elements, must be considered. Central to this process is the need to nurture the drivers of change and implement appropriate strategies to overcome barriers (Lozano, 2024, p. 80). The institutional framework plays a critical role in maintaining stability during these changes, thereby supporting the institutionalization of CS. As change progresses, the organization enters a transitional period before reaching the MSOS (Lozano, 2024). After the establishment of new structures and goals, the MSOS starts functioning as the new status quo, also known as status quo novo (SQN) (Lozano et al., 2016, p. 170). This cycle restarts after each phase of stabilization, given the dynamic nature of sustainability.
Figure 3: Organizational Change for Sustainability Framework, Own illustration based on Lozano (2024)[4]
2.2.2 Models of Change Management for Sustainability
As OCMS is a multifaceted and complex process that requires careful coordination of various elements, such as people, practices, attitudes, behaviors, strategies, processes, structures, and systems, it is very important to understand the key stages involved, and to establish the necessary conditions for an effective transformation of change initiatives (Ha, 2014). Research shows that leading organizations in this field often rely on a uniquely tailored version of a theory or model of change, presenting how success can be achieved (Doppelt, 2010, p. 100). Though leaders may not initially begin their sustainability efforts with a defined strategy, they learn through experience and invest significant efforts evaluating how a transformation can be carried out. Most importantly, they try to consider all aspects and components involved in their system of success. This commitment to understanding how each step in the change process connects with others to create a reinforcing loop is what ultimately builds the foundation for a long-term, sustainable impact (Doppelt, 2010, p. 100). In contrast to the conventional change management models (as discussed in chapter 3.1.2), sustainability-oriented change management models tend to be even more prescriptive in nature, focusing specifically on aligning organizational systems, structures, and behaviors with long-term environmental, social, and governance goals (ESG). Figure 3.4 illustrates examples of three different models that offer a structured approach toward change management for sustainability: Doppelt’s wheel of change toward sustainability (2010), Ha’s change management framework (2014), and Sancak’s sustainability transformation model (STM) (2023). These models were selected for their relevance in academic literature, and the depth of procedural guidance they provide.
Each of these models stems from a different background. Doppelt’s model was developed to illustrate the greatest leverage points for change toward sustainability in a social system, to resolve seven mistakes that hinder the progress, and to prevent the reoccurrence of new problems (Doppelt, 2010, p. 106). As such, the model was conceived as a response, with each component representing a targeted solution to one of these errors. Every component influences and is influenced by the rest, illustrating a natural progress, despite change not being linear (Doppelt, 2010, p. 106). If any intervention is weak or underdeveloped, it can hinder the overall progress or even lead to failure of the entire initiative. Therefore, each element must be sufficiently completed to serve as a foundation for the next. Because the process of change is circular, organizations may start at any point on the wheel of change. However, for the sake of coherence, the seven solutions will be illustrated in linear fashion in the table.
Ha’s framework consists of five steps, drawn upon theories from a variety of models [such as those proposed by Kotter (1996), Lewin (1951), Waddell et al. (2011), Cummings and Worley (2009), and Kezar (2001)], as well as public policy theories and formal models in strategic business management (Robbins et al., 2011; Hanson et al., 2011). While it is designed to address the mission, vision, and both external and internal factors, sustainability is placed at its core.
The STM, developed by Sancak (2023), builds directly on the ten-step SRC model by expanding it with fifty transformation steps (TS). Each of these TS is further classified in terms of E, S, and G factors.
Figure 4: Summary of Models of Change Management for Sustainability, Own illustration based on Doppelt (2010)[5]; Ha (2014)[6]; Sancak (2023)[7]
All three models share a foundational structure in their guidance toward sustainability. They each offer a multi-phase progression that starts with some form of initial diagnosis or assessment, and concludes in institutionalization. However, the ways they approach change management phases reveal certain differences.
As a shared similarity, each model includes a preparatory or diagnostic stage, an implementation strategy, mechanisms for communication and engagement – for example through the formation of a formal and committed group to guide the change – evaluation, and monitoring mechanisms, and, finally, institutionalization. Furthermore, the models also emphasize the need for the formulation of a vision to define clear goals to the organization and stakeholders involved, as well as continuous learning improvement through feedback loops and the promotion of change-related knowledge.
The models’ differences lay in their structure and emphasis. Doppelt’s model deliberately resists sequential framing, stressing that change can begin at any point in the cycle and evolve iteratively (Doppelt, 2010, p. 107). However, it places strong emphasis on shifting the dominant mindset as a foundational requirement for successful sustainability-oriented change. Overall, it treats change as a complex systemic shift rather than a sequence of managerial actions. Ha’s framework, by contrast, is more linear and managerial. It bridges classical change management models with sustainability related concerns but remains primarily internally oriented. Unlike Doppelt or Ha, Sancak’s STM operationalizes transformation through ESG materiality mapping, KPIs, regulatory tracking, and performance evaluations. It offers a general level of detail that the other models do not. Moreover, it aims toward the empowerment of others by encouraging risk-taking, which cannot be found in the other two models. It also emphasizes sustainability communication, investor alignment, and cross-functional governance, making it the most externally integrated model out of the three.
These differences provide valuable insights for practitioners who are seeking to select a change management model for sustainability that aligns with their organizations’ circumstances. Since no two companies are alike, a variety of models with varying structures or emphases can allow organizations to choose an approach that best complements their existing strengths and weaknesses (Ha, 2014).
2.2.3 Change Management Mechanisms for Sustainability
2.2.3.1 Leadership & Governance
Having explored a range of change management frameworks, two elements stood out in connection to the successful implementation and institutionalization of change: the presence of strong leadership and a well-aligned governance system.
Changes are designed to challenge general assumptions and reshape the organizations’ fundamental system. Consequently, this triggers anxiety, confusion, disturbances in the operations, and temporary declines in productivity (Cowan-Sahadath, 2010, p. 397). Thus, leaders are required to step up and guide the organization and its members through these changes, and away from initial feelings of resistance. In the past, many CEOs thought of sustainability as an added cost with little benefit to their business. Today, this perspective has changed significantly. Business leaders increasingly recognize sustainability as a main factor of competitive advantage, and both a source of opportunities and potential risks (Millar et al., 2012, p. 490). Accordingly, they acknowledge that their response to sustainability challenges will have a considerable effect on their company’s competitiveness and future success.
For an organization to really transform toward sustainability, power and authority need to be thoughtfully distributed amongst employees and stakeholders through effective decision making, information sharing, and resource allocation mechanisms (Millar et al., 2012, p. 491). Clearly, this is an issue for leaders of an organization. In general, leadership plays a vital role in providing purpose and direction within an organization (Lozano, 2024, p. 94). It defines and communicates the vision and values that guide decision-making and culture (Gill, 2003; Waddock & Bodwell, 2007). Leaders shape the institutional framework or governance, create meaning and mission, foster knowledge-sharing, create an environment which stimulates action and provides tools, advance change efforts and creativity, and reinforce organizational values (Lozano, 2024, p. 94). To effectively sustain the organization in a dynamic environment, leaders must engage with three core elements of the change process: establishing a framework to navigate the political dynamics of change, generating motivation for change, and managing the changing phase (Ha, 2014, pp. 54,55).
Senior-level commitment is crucial to the success of organizational change initiatives. When leaders actively endorse and participate in the change process, they signal to others within the organization that the change is necessary and justified (Cowan-Sahadath, 2010, p. 398). Therefore, it is very important for leaders to practice what they are preaching with their own actions. If sustainability vision and principles are clearly communicated, and upper management actively models the behaviors themselves, employees are more likely to adjust their thinking, attitudes, and actions accordingly (Doppelt, 2010, p. 149). In contrast, if the vision is unclear, or leadership fails to set a consistent example, change efforts are unlikely to succeed (as will be elaborated in chapter 4).
In that regard, it is important to note that the concept of sustainability leadership has evolved beyond just top management positions (Thakhathi et al., 2019, p. 5). Emerging views from organizational theory, particularly within the strategy-as-practice perspective, challenge this top-down approach by acknowledging that middle managers and technical staff can play an important role in advancing sustainability agendas as well (Thakhathi et al., 2019, p. 5).
But, once sustainability leaders take on that responsibility, what do they actually do? They (1) actively participate in the change process, (2) communicate persuasively through various communication channels, (3) manage internal and external communication by gathering information, (4) use human resource management practices to reinforce and embed change, (5) use diffusion practices to introduce change gradually, for example with pilot projects, (6) create rites and ceremonies as symbolic acts to share meaning and reinforce commitment, and, lastly, they (7) institutionalize change through formalizing activities (Thakhathi et al., 2019, pp. 9-17).
And yet, organizations cannot change based on leadership efforts alone (Lozano, 2024, p. 94). To transform organizational culture toward sustainability, change leaders must identify key leverage points: places in a system where small changes in one area will lead to big changes across the system (Doppelt, 2010, pp. 96-97). However, finding these levers in complex systems is challenging and managers tend to focus on superficial or reactive measures, which do not address the root causes in the organization. Successful transformation requires going deeper. It requires finding the greatest overall organizational leverage: Governance (Doppelt, 2010, pp. 96, 97).
Governance refers to the structures and processes by which decisions, control, and rewards are allocated within and between organizations. It shapes how information is generated and shared, how decisions are made and enforced, and how resources and wealth are distributed (Doppelt, 2010, p. 96). Because organizations are social systems, each of these elements of governance influence each other, while each factor influences the distribution of power and authority in an organization (Doppelt, 2010, p. 96). Governance and the institutional framework establish the norms and shared values, contributing to overall stability (Lozano, 2024, p. 96). The crucial role of governance is further supported by empirical findings. A study carried out by Sancak (2023) examining fifty sustainability transformation steps (known as the STM in Figure 3.4), found that governance emerges as the most critical and influential factor within the ESG factors (Sancak, 2023, p. 7). While environmental concerns often serve as the initial driver of sustainability efforts, it is governance that consistently dominates the transformation process within organizations (Sancak, 2023, p. 7).
In seeking to understand why some organizations succeed while others do not, Doppelt (2010) observed that in nearly all cases he examined, the absence of effective governance structures or strong leadership resulted in organizational cultures to remain anchored in the traditional “take-make-waste production” and habitual, hierarchical structures (p. 37). Consequently, the shift toward a more sustainable route will be hindered, regardless of the introduction of new technologies, tools, or expert opinions. Essentially, the success of sustainability transformation is directly linked to governance.
2.2.3.2 Organizational Culture & Employee Engagement
Often, an organization’s primary focus lies in making money (Doppelt, 2010, p. 150). However, this approach rarely generates long-term success. Instead, lasting success is more often found in organizations that prioritize continuous learning, have a strong sense of identity, embrace the uncertainty of innovation and change, and use financial resources wisely (Doppelt, 2010, p. 151). All of these qualities present deeply rooted organizational values.
Hence, another fundamental determinator of success or failure in change management for sustainability is the organizational culture (Ha, 2014, p. 78). Organizational culture is “a system of shared meaning held by members that distinguishes the organization from other organizations” (Robbins et al., 2011, p. 466). It touches on beliefs and behaviors that are shared by the majority of members. While it is often shaped by top management and founders in its early stages, it can reinforce itself over time (Ha, 2014, p. 77). Organizational culture can act as a social glue that binds members together, since culture influences the way people feel, think, and act. Therefore, it can shape individual performance, which, in turn, impacts overall organizational performance. However, because culture is deeply imbedded within a social system, it operates beneath the surface and can be difficult to directly observe (Doppelt, 2010, p. 92). As a result, it can go unrecognized and unchallenged for years. Also, because culture is long-lasting and slow to adapt, change agents need certain skills to gradually shift cultural norms within a given timeframe (Ha, 2014, p. 77).
But how exactly can organizational culture be changed? Simply enhancing management systems is not going to be enough. Achieving change toward sustainability requires a transformation of the norms and values concerning environmental and socio-economic-wellbeing (Doppelt, 2010, p. 93). Change occurs when managers and employees start to develop new values, such as environmental care, social responsibility, and community wellbeing, and no longer accept values that do not align with that. Just like the failure to modify underlying thought patterns, behaviors, and outlooks of employees in strategic planning or re-engineering, for example, will lead to no success in the implementation, sustainability initiatives will also not be successful long-term if they do not challenge and transform existing cultural traits that support unsustainable practices (Doppelt, 2010, p. 89). Genuine sustainability change goes beyond improved recycling or public displays of sustainability goals; it surpasses the patterns created by status quo (Doppelt, 2010, p. 93). Without shifting these core patterns of thinking, change efforts will be undermined by old habits and decision-making processes (as will be elaborated in chapter 4). Consequently, failed sustainability efforts will lead to frustration, cynicism, and declining employee morale, and sometimes even leave organizations off worse than before (Doppelt, 2010, p. 89).
Resistance is present in any organizational change process, which is why the engagement of employees is a commonly used mechanism to drive change management (Ha, 2014, p. 80). It needs to be managed early on, considering both cultural and individual differences, as well as the perceived costs and benefits that are associated with the change (Ha, 2014, p. 74). Essentially, leaders and change agents need to involve as many employees as possible in the change process and carefully consider both the supporting and opposing forces (Ha, 2014, p. 71). Leaders who empower employees and stakeholders create a strong sense of purpose and collective commitment (Doppelt, 2010, p. 151). This shared sense of mission inspires members to contribute to outcomes that are meaningful not only to the organization but to society at large (Doppelt, 2010, p. 151). Moreover, when members are consulted or actively participate in shaping the changes, they are generally more receptive and supportive to it (Ha, 2014, p. 74).
However, this is easier said than done, as employee engagement is a common challenge in the field of people management, which becomes even more difficult when sustainability is involved. This is because, as mentioned above, sustainability efforts often require a fundamental shift in mindset toward a more environment-friendly consumption. Also, sustainability may not be a subject of interest for many employees, especially those in lower levels of the organization who may lack understanding of the topic and its long-term importance for future generations (Ha, 2014, p. 71). It is through well-developed strategies, education, training and development programs, effective communication, and the reward of positive behaviors, that employee engagement can be generated (Ha, 2014, p. 74).
2.2.3.3 Sustainability Assessment & Reporting
As stakeholder demands for transparency grow, organizations face increasing pressure to improve how they assess and report on sustainability performance (Sroufe, 2017, p. 324). Traditional financial metrics like Net Present Value (NPV) and Return on Investment (ROI) fail to capture the short- and long-term importance, risks and values of social and natural capital (Sroufe, 2017, p. 324). Though many companies collect data on natural and social resources, this information is often underutilized in strategic decision-making. Effective integration takes into account the factors that drive activities aligned with sustainability and organizational characteristics to guide performance measurement (Sroufe, 2017, p. 324). Over the past two decades, different voluntary guidelines and standards have been developed to support this process. Among the most widely adopted are: the ISO 14000 series, the EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), the AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard from Account Ability, the Social Accountability 8000 (SA8000) standard, and, one of the most recognized guidelines available, the Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) (Lozano, 2024, p. 98). This growing number of global reporting frameworks reflects a shift, as they monitor multiple sustainability measures (Sroufe, 2017, p. 324). Generally, trends show a shift towards the integration of annual sustainability and financial reports into a single comprehensive report (Sroufe, 2017, p. 317).
Sustainability Assessment and Reporting (SAR) serves as a starting point on sustainability for OCMS (Lozano, 2024, p. 97). It is a process designed to (1) evaluate an organization’s current progress towards sustainability, (2) communicate economic, environmental, and social performance to stakeholders, (3) evaluate sustainability performance over time, (4) benchmark against other organizations, (5) demonstrate the influence of sustainable development expectations, (6) support management in sustainability-related decision-making, and (7) serve as a foundation for sustainability planning (Lozano, 2024, p. 97). According to Dalal-Clayton and Bass (2002), there are three different approaches to assessing and reporting sustainability, which can either be applied individually or in combination: (1) the accounts approach, which involves compiling raw data and converting them into a common unit, such as monetary value, (2) the narrative assessment, which combines texts, maps, tabular data, and graphics, without using indicators as a cornerstone, and, lastly, (3) the indicator-based approach, which also includes a variety of formats, but is structured around measurable indicators to guide the analysis and reporting process. In relation to that, there are several tools for the assessment and reporting process on the different dimensions of sustainability and the interconnections within and across them. For example, the “basic model of the sustainability assessment tool” for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), which is built upon 133 indicators, or the Graphical Assessment of Universities (GASU), which graphically assesses sustainability efforts in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) across various dimensions, benchmarking it against other HEIs (Lozano, 2024, pp. 98, 99).
Additionally, Sustainability Reporting (SR) can be approached from two perspectives: the “inside-out” perspective, driven by the company’s internal business strategy, and the “outside-in” perspective, shaped by stakeholder demands for reporting and communication (Domingues et al., 2017, p. 293). Various factors motivate an organization’s decision to publish sustainability reports, for example its size and its perceived corporate impact (Domingues et al., 2017, p. 293). SR can also facilitate the communication of sustainability initiatives across the organization and therefore help reduce resistance to change, despite its challenges of building the necessary understanding of sustainability, as well as the additional resources for data collection and stakeholder engagement (Domingues et al., 2017, p. 293). Altogether, it can be driven by a range of internal and external motivations (Lozano, 2024, p. 98).
Overall, SAR has emerged as a valuable tool for enhancing organizational performance and fostering change toward sustainability. Regulatory reporting enables organizations to monitor sustainability performance, identify potential barriers, and develop targeted strategies for improvement (Domingues et al., 2017, p. 300). SR enhances transparency for both internal and external stakeholders and should be integrated into organizational change planning to support data-driven decision-making (Domingues et al., 2017, p. 300).
2.3 Limitations & Future Research
As this chapter draws on a wide body of literature to explore change management and its application to sustainability, certain limitations arise in relation to the body of knowledge
One of the biggest limitations is the lack of solid empirical evidence supporting widely used change management models. As Stouten et al. (2018) has pointed out, many practitioners rely on frameworks that are popular and grounded more in expert opinion instead of scientific evidence (p. 752). Despite their popularity, there is no clear consensus on fundamental change processes, and few studies have tested the practical applicability.
In contrast, certain sustainability-focused change literature draws from corporate case studies, sometimes falling victim to common challenges such as subjectivity, limited replicability and generalizability, potential researcher bias, and lower statistical power compared to quantitative approaches in identifying broader trends, or dependence on a single respondent (Sroufe, 2017, p. 327). Phillips & Klein (2023) explicitly acknowledge the limitation of a methodological bias in their study’s design, as the change management models and strategies used in the review were drawn exclusively from academic sources and selected websites, deliberately excluding materials from practitioner-focused change management organizations (p. 196). As a result, the strategies identified in the review may disproportionately reflect academic or theoretical preferences, rather than those actually used or developed by practitioners in the field. Moreover, participants in this study were not given standardized definitions of the strategies, leaving room for interpretations that may not align with academic literature.
Furthermore, the literature remains fragmented, with a focus on isolated aspects, such as leadership, organizational culture, or sustainability reporting. This fragmentation often stems from whether the authors approach the subject from psychological and social sciences or from a business management background (Lauer, 2021, p. 8). In particular, many publications focus narrowly on individual methods or elements, often close to interpretation, while others approach the subject from a highly theoretical and abstract level, especially in academic contexts (Lauer, 2021, p. 8). This neglects the holistic approach that is necessary for a comprehensive overview and structured presentation of the contents of the complex aspects of change management for sustainability. Lozano (2024) highlights this gap in the literature by further arguing that there is no existing framework that offers a rapid, balanced, and holistic approach to assessing sustainability that is applicable across all types of organizations and accounts for both positive and negative impacts (p. 99).
On top of that, a limitation in both the literature and its applied frameworks is their lack of contextual sensitivity. Majority of change models were developed with large, often Western, corporate settings in mind. They do not sufficiently account for the constraints of SMEs, which typically operate with fewer resources, flatter hierarchies, and more informal systems (Wiesner et al., 2018, p. 154). Additionally, the literature shows a gap in studies related to the very important institutionalization process of change management (Stouten et al., 2018, p. 768). Despite the recognized importance of a guiding coalition in planned change, this concept receives little empirical or conceptual attention in academic work (Stouten et al., 2018, p. 778). There is limited research that shows how such coalitions should be formed, who should be included, what role top managers should play, or how members should be trained. These current theories of planned change often provide limited insights into the capabilities needed across different organizational levels to effectively implement change, such as relevant skills, support systems, and motivational dynamics operating among individuals, teams, and the organization in general. Altogether, much of the existing literature remains overly managerial and prescriptive, often overlooking the perspectives of employees and other stakeholders, as it is largely directed at senior managers and executives (Stouten et al., 2018, p. 753). Also, change acceptance among top and middle managers remains underexplored, despite the evidence that employees often respond more positively to change when it is accepted and supported by their immediate supervisors (Stouten et al., 2018, p. 778). Yet, it is crucial to develop an understanding how these groups perceive and interpret the need for change in order to capture the full complexity of the change management process. Moreover, despite the widespread agreement on the importance of having a compelling vision, the empirical research in this area is still scarce as well. While much of the literature focusing on preparing for change, it tends to overlook how organizations sustain momentum and engagement over time as new challenges arise (Stouten et al., 2018, p. 778).
Collectively, these limitations reveal important gaps in the existing literature on change management for sustainability. In order to address these gaps, future research is needed by advancing both theoretical clarity and empirical understanding.
One priority in this is to deepen understanding of how corporate sustainability can be integrated into strategic management systems. As Sroufe (2017) notes, this requires frameworks that align with organizational objectives, while also redefining performance boundaries (p. 327). Research should focus on developing valid, measurable constructs of integration that account for the interaction and balancing of ESG dimensions – not just conceptually, but in ways that can be measured across different sectors and contexts (Sroufe, 2017). Scholars should additionally explore the operationalization of sustainability in multinational firms – in particular, how strategies translate from corporate vision to measurable performance results. Reporting mechanisms like SAR should be connected more explicitly to these organizational change efforts to strengthen strategic relevance. In general, to build a coherent, actionable body of knowledge, there is a clear need for systemic reviews and meta-analyses that consolidate findings and support a more evidence-based approach to change management.
Beyond structural and strategic concerns, as indicated previously, a more behavioral and human-centered research approach is needed (Stouten et al., 2018, p. 778). This includes examining how individuals perceive problem identification, evaluate leadership credibility, and emotionally navigate transitional periods. Sustaining motivation over time, especially during long or complex transitions, should also be included, as well as the way values, incentives, habits, and identity interact to reinforce change. It is important to raise broader questions around stakeholder representation in the change process, such as whose voices are included, and how different interests are integrated into the creation of a shared change vision. Furthermore, generalizability across industries, regions, and organizational sizes should be tested systematically. Comparative studies (for example SMEs vs. large corporations, or Western vs. non-Western cultures) are essential for identifying which mechanisms succeed or fail under certain conditions. Multi-method designs, such as the combination of case studies, interviews, and more, could offer promising approaches to build a broad contextual understanding.
Ultimately, advancing this field will require not just better empirical tools but also an expansion of the underlying assumptions of change management research, for progress depends not only on new answers, but also on new questions.
3 Practical Implementation
This chapter focuses on the practical application of change management for sustainability, using the STM as a guiding framework. It outlines key steps and tools, supported by best-practice examples, including both drivers and barriers to implementation. The STM is then briefly compared to Lewin’s and Kotter’s change management models to highlight its advantages and disadvantages. Overall, the chapter explores how sustainability can be implemented effectively, which tools can be applied, and what factors influence success or failure in practice.
As established in the previous chapter, sustainability transformation remains a relatively new and underdeveloped area in both theory and practice. While the urgency for sustainability is well documented, the path toward effective implementation is often unclear (Sancak, 2023, p. 1). To gain insights into effective change management practices, it is necessary to look at real-world examples of organizations that have successfully navigated and implemented change initiatives. By studying these cases, organizations can learn from the experiences of others, recognize best-practices, and implement them to support their own change initiatives. Choosing the right change management approach is crucial for organizations undergoing transformation. With many models and methods to consider, it is important to choose an approach that aligns with the organization’s own goals, culture, and needs. Nonetheless, it is important to note that, instead of applying theories in a rigid way, change managers are encouraged to adapt their approach to the specific context in which change is taking place in their organization. Different stakeholders may move through the change process at different speeds, making flexibility essential, even if the overall strategies remain consistent across frameworks (Phillips & Klein, 2023, p. 190).
The STM was selected as the foundation for this chapter because it offers a uniquely comprehensive and actionable structure, specifically designed with sustainability in mind. Unlike other frameworks that remain abstract or overly generalized, the STM addresses the full range of transformation and offers a step-by-step guidance. As it stands out for its integration of multiple dimensions (environmental, social, operational, and strategic), the STM remains flexible enough to adapt to different organizational contexts as well.
3.1 Establishment of Change Foundations
The first step an organization should take when initiating change management for sustainability is to thoroughly assess the problems, risks, and opportunities (Sancak, 2023, p. 2). This analysis should be carried out by professionals. According to the STM, the process therefore begins with the sourcing of consultancy to develop a solid understanding (Sancak, 2023, p. 2). After that, organizations should take a closer look at the facts to understand whether change is needed, and make other stakeholders believe in its legitimacy and urgency (Sancak, 2023, p. 2). This can be seen in an example of Unilever, a multinational company that produces consumer goods, including food, beverages, cleaning products, and personal care items. In the early 2000s, the company, recognized for its longstanding commitment to social responsibility, found itself at a critical turning point. Despite having a wide array of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and sustainability initiatives, they lacked a coherent strategy that unified its efforts across brands, functions, and geographies (Mirvis, 2011, pp. 46). This limited their impact and left executives calling for a common denominator to integrate their sustainability work more meaningfully into the core business. To address this, their then CEO commissioned a comprehensive review of Unilever’s role in society, as he was very aware of the fact that the company was under pressure to expand and include social and environmental aspects in its reporting (Mirvis, 2011, pp. 46, 47). A team lead by an executive, alongside internal experts and external advisors, conducted interviews with top leadership and benchmarked best practices in the industry. Their findings made the case for urgency clear, as two major threats were assessed: Unilever’s reliance on agricultural raw materials, which posed environmental risks amongst projected growth, and rising global health concerns, including obesity and undernutrition (Mirvis, 2011, p. 47). Additionally, there was a growing competitive gap with firms like Procter & Gamble and Nestlé, which had begun integrating sustainability more aggressively (Mirvis, 2011, p. 47). Ultimately, Unilever acknowledged the need towards a sustainable strategy and, more importantly, established a sense of urgency in the organization.
A need for change can not only be found by assessing facts, but it can also be generated through the creation of scenarios. General Motors (GM), an American automotive company that designs, manufactures, and sells vehicles and its parts, is an example of this. In 1995, GM carried out a “scenario-building process” to anticipate and prepare for possible future developments that could impact the company (Doppelt, 2010, p. 118). One of these scenarios, called “environmental domination”, imagined a world in which environmental concerns would significantly influence consumer choices, regulations, and business practices. Although initially met with skepticism by executives, one senior leader encouraged the group to seriously consider the scenario’s implications by asking “what if it does happen?” (Doppelt, 2010, p. 118). His persistence helped shift the mindset of the leadership team, leading them to invest in cleaner propulsion technologies, despite no immediate regulatory demand at the time (Doppelt, 2010, p. 118).
In contrast, IKEA, a Swedish company known for designing and selling furniture, home goods, and accessories, experienced urgency for change through external pressures. A series of environmental and labor-related crises, including product recalls due to toxic emissions, and public backlash over child labor, exposed critical risks and caused internal reflection (Doppelt, 2010, pp. 111, 112). These events forced senior leadership to reevaluate the company’s practices toward a more sustainable approach.
Therefore, regardless of the chosen approach or reasoning behind, it is essential that stakeholders recognize the presence of immediate threats or potentially significant risks in the near future, if the organization fails to shift towards a sustainable direction. After this urgency is established, organizations should then determine their change readiness (Sancak, 2023, p. 2). An essential component of readiness is the ability of senior leadership to execute and guide the change effectively, as leadership emerges as one of the most important drivers of change toward sustainability (Thakhathi et al., 2019, p. 3). BMW’s leadership through its “honeybee” leadership philosophy, which emphasizes long-term value creation, stakeholder engagement, and systemic thinking, is an example of this (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011, pp. 12-14). During the global financial crisis in 2008, BMW, a German company that manufactures premium automobiles and motorcycles, demonstrated this commitment by safeguarding jobs and maintaining environmental standards. Sustainability has been embedded in its operations since the 1970s, guided by a leadership culture that rewards performance and fosters collaboration (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011, pp. 12-14). Consequently, in order to lead successfully, BMW was able to determine the type of change that was required and identify a strategy that fit the company.
Darcy Winslow, former head of sustainability at Nike, a leading global sportswear and footwear company, is another example of impactful leadership. She identified four roles: acting as a driver to maintain focus and momentum, a connector to bridge gaps and connect people, a translator to communicate sustainability into a language that was understandable for every member on her team, and a choreographer to anticipate future needs (Doppelt, 2010, p. 121).
To further advance sustainability transformation, organizations must identify which ESG issues are most important to their business by developing an ESG materiality map (Sancak, 2023, p. 2). This lays the groundwork for defining key performance indicators (KPIs), such as green turnover or asset ratios, which are measurable indicators used to assess a company’s sustainability performance (Sancak, 2023, p. 2). These metrics allow companies to track progress and set measurable targets, which should include a clear base year for consistent monitoring (Sancak, 2023, p. 3). Additionally, organizations must align their efforts with applicable national or regional regulations, as regulatory requirements, such as the EU’s climate law and reporting requirements, often shape the trajectory of sustainable strategies (Sancak, 2023, p. 3). A deep understanding of ESG dynamics, supported by strong leadership and governance, can significantly improve the success of the transformation (Sancak, 2023, p. 3).
A leading example is Morgan Stanley, a global investment bank, which has embedded ESG oversight into its board-level responsibilities. Since 2011, its Governance and Sustainability Committee has overseen firm-wide ESG initiatives, while the Risk Committee specifically monitors climate-related risks (Morgan Stanley ESG Report, 2023, p. 61). Operationally, the firm’s Environmental and Social Risk Management (ESRM) Group leads the identification and evaluation of environmental and social risks in transactions, client relationships, and strategic decisions (Morgan Stanley ESG Report, 2023, p. 64).
Finally, promoting a common sustainability language across all organizations integrates ESG into the business (Sancak, 2023, p. 3). A best-practice example of this can be seen in the case of Interface, a global flooring company, under the leadership of Ray Anderson. To embed sustainability into the organizational culture, he prioritized consistent communication and the flow of sustainability-related information throughout the company (Doppelt, 2010, p. 199). Anderson repeatedly brought up environmental responsibility in staff meetings, ensuring that it was positioned as a central business imperative (Doppelt, 2010, p. 199). Interface also created an annual executive communication program in which discussions about shared values, including sustainability, began with top management and extended to every organizational level (Doppelt, 2010, p. 199). This helped establish sustainability as a common language across the firm, by reinforcing its importance in daily operations, as well as long-term strategic thinking.
Once the organization has established its foundational readiness, they should select and support a guiding change coalition (Sancak, 2023, p. 3). These coalitions benefit from the diversity of perspectives and experiences among its stakeholders, which can improve problem diagnosis and decision-making (Sancak, 2023, p. 3). Including individuals in the coalition signals organizational commitment and helps build internal consensus around the sustainability agenda. Conversely, failing to form a powerful enough guiding coalition is a common reason why transformation efforts fail (Sancak, 2023, p. 3). Accordingly, the STM outlines three transformational steps: effective leadership, establishing a formal, high-level committee, and forming a sustainability team that drives implementation (Sancak, 2023, p. 3).
A practical illustration of this is Herman Miller, a global manufacturing company for office furniture, where mid-level employees initiated environmental reform by challenging the use of endangered materials (Doppelt, 2010, p. 121). Their efforts led to the formation of a cross-functional steering committee, which evolved into a powerful driver of environmental policy (Doppelt, 2010, p. 121). This bottom-up effort succeeded largely due to the company’s open governance culture, demonstrating the importance of empowering employees at all levels to voice sustainability concerns.
Similarly, Patagonia, an outdoor apparel company, illustrates the importance of broad coalition-building through its transition to organic cotton. To manage this shift, Patagonia formed the “cotton education team”, a cross-departmental group that educates the other departments and individuals within the firm about the reasons of the changes and its implications (Doppelt, 2010, pp. 137-138). The transformation required contributions from every department, ranging from supply chain and production to marketing and accounting (Doppelt, 2010, p. 138).
3.2 Formulation of a Vision and Communication
At the heart of any successful sustainability transformation lies the formulation of a clear vision for sustainability, offering direction, purpose, and alignment of stakeholders around shared sustainability goals (Sancak, 2023, p. 3). It is necessary to create alignment with global sustainability anchors, such as the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), global standards, national and regional regulations, such as the GRI, and sector specific principles (Sancak, 2023, p. 3). These form the foundation for developing a strategy document, and ultimately lay the groundwork for a detailed vision statement.
Unilever’s previously mentioned experience demonstrates how a well-articulated corporate vision and mission can unify sustainability efforts. Under the guidance of the marketing executive, the organization introduced a new corporate identity, aiming to bring together its home, personal care, and food-and-beverage brands under a common umbrella (Mirvis, 2011, pp. 50, 51). The result was the launch of the “vitality mission” (Mirvis, 2011, pp. 50, 51). This mission marked a turning point for Unilever, positioning sustainability, not as a side issue, but as central to business success. Their study team proposed integrating sustainability and CSR into this mission, as well as aligning brands and business strategies accordingly (Mirvis, 2011, pp. 50, 51). In Unilever Asia, for example, this catalyzed a four-dimensional change effort: engaging management, translating the mission into organizational practices, adjusting branding and product content, and strengthening engagement with customers and communities (Mirvis, 2011, p. 63). This effort was complex and called for continuous feedback loops – entirely different from the mechanical approach of “unfreezing, transitioning, and refreezing” found in the change management literature (see Fig. 3.2, see p. 10).
Another practical demonstration can be seen in the stated example of GM. However, faced with the growing relevance of environmental concerns, leadership used a different approach. Instead of relying on forecasting to make slight improvements to their existing vehicles, they used backward thinking: starting with the ideal outcome and working backward to identify actionable steps (Doppelt, 2010, p. 155). Their vision centered around creating a vehicle that would produce no emissions and, ideally, be fully recyclable. This pushed the company beyond business-as-usual. Though the ultimate product did not yet exist, GM identified hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as a step toward that vision and invested into their development (Doppelt, 2010, p. 155).
Once a vision is established, it needs to be communicated (Sancak, 2023, p. 4). This involves more than just sharing information, it requires consistent, multi-channel messaging that is repeated over time and supported by strong evidence. Successful communication includes internal channels like newsletters and workshops, as well as public declarations through campaigns and press events, helping stakeholders to understand the change early on (Sancak, 2023, p. 4). As previously established, tools such as integrated reporting, which combines financial and ESG data, enhance transparency and help demonstrate progress to investors and other stakeholders. Overall, ESG reporting itself can act as a driver of change management (Sroufe, 2017, p. 317).
This can be seen in the example of Accenture, a professional services company specialized in consulting, technology, and outsourcing. The company’s ESG reporting has evolved from a compliance-focused activity into a strategic driver of organizational change. By launching the “360° Value Reporting Experience”, they began integrating financial and ESG metrics to reflect its overall performance (Accenture ESG Report, 2024). This approach positions sustainability as a core element of competitiveness and growth, aiming to incorporate it into all operational and client service aspects.
Given that transparency is a key driver of change management, Patagonia serves as another example. Initially finding traditional sustainability reports ineffective in reaching their community, the company shifted its strategy by launching their “Footprint Chronicles”, a platform that discloses detailed supply chain information, including the locations and practices of their textile mills, factories, and farms (Patagonia, 2012). This radical transparency allowed external stakeholders to scrutinize the brand’s best practices, even offering critical feedback. Patagonia used this input to improve operations, enforce fair trade standards, and refine supplier selection (Kesavan et al., 2013). The Footprint Chronicles not only improved traceability and accountability, but also served as a powerful educational tool, engaging consumers on environmental issues (Kesavan et al., 2013). This strategy boosted Patagonia’s credibility and even doubled sales, driven by customers’ willingness to support brands they perceive as environmentally and socially responsible (Kesavan et al., 2013).
Another example of effective communication comes from General Electric (GE), a diversified company known for its operations in energy, aviation, healthcare, and industrial technologies. During former CEO Jack Welch’s leadership, the company implemented the “Work-Out” model to foster employee involvement, break down hierarchies, and promote a culture of openness and continuous improvement (Ocasio & Joseph, 2008). By giving employees a voice and involving them directly in decision-making, GE improved communication and broke down barriers between various levels and departments. This not only improved trust across the company, but also empowered employees to take ownership of change. Furthermore, the program cultivated a mindset of ongoing improvement by encouraging innovation and challenging outdated practices (Ocasio & Joseph, 2008). As a result, GE was able to enhance their performance and drive positive transformation throughout the company.
3.3 Mobilization of Change
The organization now possesses a renewed vision, defined strategy, and committed change coalition. What is still missing are concrete, clearly articulated implementation plans, known as the mobilization of energy for change (Sancak, 2023, p. 4). Therefore, to address certain risks, organizations must take deliberate steps to translate their vision into action. This begins with the development of a clearly structured roadmap that outlines specific implementation steps aligned with the strategic vision, as well as a clear allocation of roles within the organization and preparation of appropriate resources (Sancak, 2023, p. 4).
With that in mind, empowering others to act is crucial in order to move from planning to active engagement (Sancak, 2023, p. 4). At this stage, organizations must translate strategy into action by enabling employees and stakeholders at all levels to take ownership of change. To facilitate this, it is necessary to assign new responsibilities, titles, and units to ensure clear accountability, eliminate barriers to change, as well as structures that undermine the vision, and encourage risk-taking (Sancak, 2023, p. 4). Resistance to change is a natural and often unavoidable response when organizations face changes that threaten the SQ (Lozano, 2024, p. 129). Such resistance can arise at all levels, from individuals or groups to entire sectors, and may be open or covert (Lozano, 2024, p. 129). Several sources of resistance are known, some examples being the fear of losing power, control, or benefits, and an unwillingness to adapt (Ha, 2014, pp. 62-64). There are three key types of barriers: informal (such as lack of understanding), emotional (such as fear), and behavioral (such as workload stress) (Thakhathi et al., 2019, p. 3). Other barriers include ineffective communication, an unclear vision, poor leadership, or lack of planning (Blanco-Portela et al., 2017, pp. 573, 574). In order to manage resistance to change, stakeholder expectations need to be addressed. It is important for leaders and change agents to communicate the goals and anticipated outcomes of the change early and consistently to all parties involved (Ha, 2014, p. 69). Conversely, organizations that ignore or fail to acknowledge these barriers often struggle to implement effective sustainability transformations.
The importance of empowerment can be seen in the example of Microsoft, a global technology company. Faced with an increasingly competitive and fast-evolving tech landscape, the company installed a “growth mindset” across the organization, encouraging agility, experimentation, and learning from failures (Sherer et al., 2003). This mindset enhanced innovation efforts and boosted employee engagement by encouraging a sense of empowerment and collective responsibility. To support this shift, Microsoft restructured teams to foster collaboration across departments, streamline communication, and enhance decision-making (Sherer et al., 2003). These changes helped the organization become more agile and integrated. At the same time, Microsoft invested heavily in learning and development, ensuring employees could continuously improve their skills to match the company’s evolving digital priorities (Sherer et al., 2003). Through the transformation of its Azure platform, Microsoft was able to reposition itself as a leader in Cloud services (Sherer et al., 2003). In addition to financial benefits, the company experienced a significant impact on its organizational culture, embedding innovation and a customer centered focus.
As established already, sustainability transformation is a complex and long effort, therefore requiring the development and promotion of change-related knowledge and ability (Sancak, 2023, p. 5). Effective change management builds on continuous learning, and stakeholders must be able to understand and act within its context, especially in relation to ESG. However, knowledge must go beyond theoretical understanding. It must be developed through training, workshops, coaching, and peer exchange (Thakhathi et al., 2019, p. 12). In principle, evidence-based insights into environmental and social conditions can be won through texts, documentaries, and discussions. But nothing compares to the experience of being physically present and witnessing events firsthand in order to add depth to this knowledge, create lasting impressions, and foster greater awareness of the broader world (Mirvis, 2011, p. 65).
A practical example of this can be found, yet again, at BMW. In their Group Report, the company highlights its strong commitment to developing and promoting change-related knowledge and capabilities within its workforce. Specifically, the report states that 415 million € were invested in employee training and development (BMW Group Report, 2024, p. 12).
Moreover, the sustainability vision must be aligned with the human resource policy to take into account social factors (Sancak, 2023, p. 5). Organizations should also embed circular economy principles in operations, moving from a “take-make-waste” model to “borrow-use-return” to reduce emissions and cut costs (Sancak, 2023, p. 5). Ultimately, change-related knowledge must be embedded in organizational culture. This means “walking the talk” through visible behavioral shifts, especially by leadership. When learning becomes a habit, transformation becomes a norm.
3.4 Reinforcement of Progress
In sustainability transformations, identifying and using short-term wins as reinforcement plays a crucial motivation and strategic role, as it can help persuade skeptics within the organization who may be unsure of the change process (Sancak, 2023, p. 5). Without visible, early results, employees may become disheartened and go back to old ways (Sancak, 2023, p. 5). However, Kotter (2012) points out that early wins should only be seen as a sign that the transition is on the right path, not the end point. Keeping this distinction helps keeping the focus on long-term goals and sustain momentum. This aligns with the generation of short-term wins through the use of pilot projects within smaller subunits of the organization (Thakhathi et al., 2019, p. 13). Introducing sustainability initiatives on a small scale first allows the company to gain practical insights, refine strategies, and demonstrate early impact (Thakhathi et al., 2019, p. 13).
As KPMG (2024) – a global firm offering audit, tax, and advisory services – suggests, corporates can begin by embedding ESG into selected units or functions, using the pilot phase to strengthen competence and maturity (KPMG International, p. 21). Once established, these practices can then be scaled across the organization, enabling a smoother transition while gradually decentralizing ESG responsibilities in line with evolving capabilities.
Once a sustainability transformation has been initiated, ongoing monitoring and periodic assessment becomes essential to ensure commitments are met (Sancak, 2023, p. 6). Monitoring involves tracking progress through KPIs and target values established earlier in the process, while also assessing the organization’s changing levels of commitment, competence, and effectiveness over time (Stouten et al., 2018). This also includes regularly verifying compliance with evolving laws, regulations, and industry standards (Sancak, 2023, p. 6). To avoid internal biases and keep a broad perspective, organizations could engage third-party ESG assurance providers (Stouten et al., 2018). After all, effective monitoring should strengthen the sustainability transformation process.
The 2024 BMW Group Report once again offers a best-practice example, this time in terms of continuous monitoring and periodic assessment in an organization. BMW actively tracks its environmental and social performance targets that are aligned with the 1.5°C pathway of the Paris Agreement for its CO2 emissions and the Well-Below-Two-Degree approach for CO2 emissions from the supply chain and the usage stage of automobiles, and reports them annually (BMW Group Report, 2024, p. 91). The company also ensures alignment with regulatory frameworks and global standards, including the EU Taxonomy, SASB, and the German Corporate Governance Code, which form the basis of its periodic compliance evaluations (BMW Group Report, 2024). To strengthen the credibility and objectivity of its sustainability disclosures, BMW engages PwC as an independent third party to audit its non-financial statements (BMW Group Report, 2024, p. 17). This form of external assurance helps minimize internal evaluation bias and reinforces trust in the reported data. Furthermore, BMW does not treat the results of its assessments as static. The company positions its ESG reporting within a broader “360° sustainability perspective”, indicating that sustainability monitoring is integrated into strategic planning processes (BMW Group Report, 2024, p. 91).
3.5 Institutionalization of Change
Finally, organizations must institutionalize change within company culture, practices, and management succession(Sancak, 2023, p. 6). This institutionalization ensures that the transformation becomes lasting and not just a temporary initiative, as illustrated in the earlier example of Microsoft. As Kotter (2012) emphasizes, change can fail if it is not anchored in corporate culture. However, shifting values and behaviors across an entire organization can be challenging. Attachment to existing norms, subcultures, and resistance may hinder deeper change (Lauer, 2021, p. 29). Many leaders don’t fully recognize the necessity of a fundamental shift in thinking, and few know how to drive broad cultural change (Doppelt, 2010, p. 33).
An example of poor leadership, due to patriarchal thinking that led to a false sense of security and disrupted sustainability efforts, can be seen in the case of B&G Power Tools (Doppelt, 2010, p. 45). Unfortunately, the name of the real company has been changed by the author, Bob Doppelt, to protect the identity. Although the company had positioned itself as environmentally responsible by publishing a sustainability report and engaging in compliance-based recycling, it failed to address deeper operational risks. Warnings from a supervisor about unreliable pollution controls were dismissed by management, which prioritized quick profitability over environmental integrity (Doppelt, 2010, pp. 45-47). This negligence resulted in a major toxic spill, causing reputable damage and a significant financial penalty. Despite corrective measures afterward, the leadership’s defensive posture remained, leaving the organization vulnerable to future crises (Doppelt, 2010, p. 47). Furthermore, B&G Power Tools failed at the institutionalization. While the company publicly embraced sustainability in its mission statement, its vision and internal actions sent a contradictory message. Instead of reinforcing environmental priorities through its strategic choices and leadership, B&G appointed a senior executive who showed little interest in sustainability (Doppelt, 2010, p. 54). This move signaled to employees that environmental concerns were not genuinely embedded in the company’s core values or long-term direction. Without consistent alignment between its stated mission and internal structures, B&G undermined its transformation efforts, ultimately failing to align its structures and systems with sustainable development.
Additionally, organizations should have a cautious approach towards risk management in the final stage, while also being able to recognize opportunities and yielding innovations (Sancak, 2023, p. 7). For example, Procter & Gamble (P&G), an international consumer goods company, was able to use change management to foster innovation. In order to enhance its innovation processes by collaborating beyond internal teams, the company adopted the „Connect and Develop” model (Andrișan & Modreanu, 2022). Rather than relying solely on in-house research and development, P&G created open innovation platforms to engage with external partners, including startups, as well as academic and research institutions (Andrișan & Modreanu, 2022). Beyond tangible product outcomes, the implementation of the initiative resulted in a more collaborative and innovative culture in the organization.
3.6 Framework Comparison
Having applied the STM, it is worth considering whether alternative models found in the change management literature could have been equally as appliable. Lewin’s three-step change model (see Fig. 3.2 on p. 10), for instance, presents a potential alternative. At first glance, it offers a straightforward and functional framework for understanding organizational change through its three stages. Its simplicity and long-standing presence in the literature make it an accessible starting point (Lauer, 2021, p. 145). However, Lewin’s model lacks the depth required for managing complex, multi-dimensional transformations, like those associated with sustainability (Stouten et al., 2018, p. 757). In comparison to the STM, it does not account for the dynamic and iterative nature, nor does it provide specific guidance on stakeholder management, long-term learning, or integration of ESG factors. While the STM addresses these aspects in a structured, step-by-step format, Lewin’s model risks oversimplifying change as a linear and universal process.
Given the need for a more detailed, step-by-step framework, Kotter’s eight step model (see Fig. 3.2 on p. 10) could have served as an alternative approach. It emphasizes leadership, urgency, and engagement throughout the process and introduces concepts, such as building a guiding coalition, creating and communicating a change vision, or enabling participation – all elements that the STM advocates for as well (Stouten et al., 2018, p. 755; Ha, 2014, p. 29). In the early 1990s, for example, IBM, an international technology company, applied Kotter’s model to guide their transformational journey. As their leadership recognized the need to adapt to the evolving market dynamics, they established a sense of urgency for change (Balgobin & Pandit, 2001). A guiding coalition of influential leaders from multiple departments was formed to ensure alignment around a clear, shared vision for the company’s future (Balgobin & Pandit, 2001). Employee involvement played a central role in the change process as well, as IBM encouraged cross-functional collaboration and empowered staff at all levels (Balgobin & Pandit, 2001). This shift helped reshape IBM’s internal dynamics, moving the company from a traditional hardware focus toward a more diversified business model centered around software, services, and consulting. Employing Kotter’s Eight-Step Model led to significant growth and a sustained leadership position for IBM in the industry.
Nonetheless, in contrast to the STM, it lacks a strong emphasis on an initial diagnosis on how to actually generate continuous learning, or adaptive capacity, which are all crucial components when navigating the complexities of sustainability transformations (Stouten et al., 2018, p. 765). The STM offers transformation steps that integrate organizational learning, ESG alignment, and long-term cultural embedding more explicitly. Moreover, similar to Lewin’s model, Kotter assumes a linear process driven mainly by top-down leadership, which could undermine the iterative and participatory nature of sustainability transformations.
All aspects considered, what explains the central question of why some organizations succeed in managing change for sustainability, while others fail? Simply put: unlike traditional top-down governance models, organizations that have made significant progress toward sustainability recognize that changes require clear communication about the change, active involvement of both internal and external stakeholders across all levels of the organization, organizational culture, alignment of all actions with the organization’s mission and vision, and, lastly, the provision of encouragement and incentives to change (Phillips & Klein, 2023, p. 194). But, what ultimately sets these organizations apart, is their commitment to a greater purpose. Profit is viewed as a byproduct of organizational well-being, not its primary goal. This is because, usually, once a financial basis is secured, employees are often more driven by purpose and personal growth rather than by financial gain alone (Doppelt, 2010, p. 36).
Based on the insights presented in this thesis, one can reframe the opening quote. For there is no bigger reward for organizational change management in the contemporary world than achieving greater sustainability.
References
Accenture. Elevating Accenture’s ESG reporting https://www.accenture.com/us-en/case-studies/about/esg-reporting(2024) (accessed 12 June 2025).
Anderson, D. & Ackerman Anderson, L. Beyond Change Management. (Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 2001).
Andrișan, G. & Modreanu, A. Achieving Business Success in the Fourth Industrial Revolution: The Case of Procter & Gamble. Ovidius University Annals of Economic Sciences Series, 22, 4-11 (2022).
Avery, G.C. & Bergsteiner, H. How BMW successfully practices sustainable leadership principles. Strategy & Leadership, 39, 11-18 (2011).
Balgobin, R. & Pandit, N. Stages in the turnaround process: The case of IBM UK. European Management Journal, 13, 301-316 (2001).
Beer, M. Organization change and development: A systems view. (Goodyear, Santa Monica, CA, 1980).
Beer, M. Sustain organizational performance through continuous learning, change and realignment. In: Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior, 2nd edn., Locke, E.A. (ed.) 537-555 (Blackwell, Malden, MA, 2009).
Benn, S., Dunphy, D.C. & Griffiths, A. Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability (3rd ed. Routledge Taylor & Francis, Oxfordshire, 2014).
Bennis, W.G., Benne, K.D. & Chin, R. The Planning of Change. (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969).
Blanco-Portela, N., Benayas, J., Pertierra, L.R. & Lozano, R. Towards the integration of sustainability in higher education institutions: A review of drivers and barriers to organisational change and their comparison against those found in companies. Journal of cleaner production, 166, 563-578 (2017).
BMW Group. BMW Group Report 2024https://www.bmwgroup.com/content/dam/grpw/websites/bmwgroup_com/ir/downloads/en/2025/bericht/BMW-Group-Report-2024-en.pdf (2024) (accessed 1 July 2025).
Burnes, B. Managing change: A Strategic Approach to Organizational Dynamics (4th ed. Prentice Hall, 2004).
Burnes, B. No such thing as … a “one best way” to manage organizational change. Management Decision, 34, 11-18 (1996).
By, R. T. Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5, 369-380 (2005).
Cannon, T. Corporate Responsibility: A Textbook on Business Ethics, Governance, Environment, Roles and Responsibilities (Pitman Publishing, 1994).
Cooperrider, D.L. & Srivastva, S. Appreciative Inquiry in organizational life. In Woodman, R. W. & Pasmore, W. A. (eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development, 1, 129-169 (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1987).
Cowan-Sahadath, K. Business transformation: Leadership, integration and innovation – A case study. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 395-404 (2010).
Cummings, T.G. & Worley, C.G Organization Development and Change. (9th ed. South-Western Cengage Learning, Mason, OH, 2009).
Dalal-Clayton, B. & Bass, S. Sustainable Development Strategies: A Resource Book (Organization for Economic Co-operation and development, Ed., Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2002).
De Matos, J. A., & Clegg, S. R. Sustainability and organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 13, 382–386 (2013).
Domingues, A. R., Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K. & Ramos, T. B. Sustainability reporting in public sector organisations: Exploring the relationship between the reporting process and organisational change management for sustainability. Journal of Environmental Management, 192, 292-301 (2017).
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (2nd ed. Greenleaf Publishing, 2010).
European Commission. Managing Change: Final Report of the High-Level Group on the Economic and Social Implications of Industrial Change (1998).
French, W. L Organization development objectives, assumptions and strategies. California Management Review, 12, 23-34 (1969).
Gill, R. Change management – Or change leadership? Journal of Change Management, 3, 307-318 (2003).
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability (Business Expert Press, 2014).
Hanson, D., Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D. & Hoskisson, R.E. Strategic Management: Competitiveness and Globalization. In Pacific Rim. (4th ed. Cengage Learning Australia, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 2011).
Hiatt, J. M. ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government and our Community: How to implement successful change in our personal lives and professional careers. (Prosci Research, Loveland, CO, 2006).
Judson, A. S. Changing Behavior in Organizations: Minimizing Resistance to Change. (Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, 1991).
Kanter, R.M., Stein, B. A. & Jick, T. D. The Challenge of Organizational Change: How Companies Experience It and Leaders Guide It. (Free Press, New York, 1992).
Kesavan, R., Bernacchi, M. & Mascarenhas, O. Word of muse: CSR communication and the social media. International Management Review, 9, 58-66 (2013).
Kezar, A.J. Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century: Recent Research and Conceptualizations. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28 (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 2001).
KMPG International. Anchoring ESG in governance: How boards can embed ESG into the core of their business. KPMG 2024 https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2024/02/anchoring-esg-in-governance.pdf(2024) (accessed 14 April 2025).
Kotter, J. P. Leading Change. With a new preface by the author (Harvard Business Review Press, 2012).
Kotter, J.P. Leading Change. (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1996).
Lauer, T. Change management: Fundamentals and Success Factors. (3rd ed. Springer, 2021).
Lewin, K. Field Theory in Social Science. (Harper & Row, New York, NY, 1951).
Lewin, K. Frontiers in group dynamics. Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1, 5–41 (1947).
Lewin, K. Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics. (Harper, New York, 1948).
Lozano, R. Organizational Change Management for Sustainability (Springer, 2024).
Lozano, R. Towards better embedding sustainability into companies’ systems: An analysis of voluntary corporate initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 25, 14–26 (2012).
Lozano, R., Nummert, B. & Ceulemans, K. Elucidating the relationship between Sustainability Reporting and Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 125, 168-188 (2016).
Luecke, R. Managing Change and Transition (Harvard Business School Press, 2003).
Luthans, F. Organizational Behavior. (McGraw-Hill, 2002).
Millar, C., Hind, P. & Magala, S. Sustainability and the Need for Change: Organisational Change and Transformational Vision. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25, 489-500 (2012).
Mirvis, P.H. Unilever’s drive for sustainability and CSR – changing the game. Organizing for Sustainable Effectiveness, 1, 41-72 (2011).
Morgan Stanley. 2023 ESG Report. https://www.morganstanley.com/content/dam/msdotcom/en/assets/pdfs/Morgan_Stanley_2023_ESG_Report.pdf(2023) (accessed 3 July 2025).
Newman, J. An Organizational Change Management Framework for Sustainability (Greenleaf Publishing, 2012).
Ocasio, W. & Joseph, J. Rise and fall – or transformation?: The evolution of strategic planning at the General Electric Company, 1940-2006. Long Range Planning, 41, 248-272 (2008).
Patagonia. Our Footprint https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/ (2012) (accessed 16 April 2025).
Phillips, J. & Klein, J. D. Change Management: From Theory to Practice (Routledge, 2023).
Rieley, J. B. & Clarkson, I. The impact of change on performance. Journal of Change Management, 2, 160-172 (2001).
Robbins, S., Judge, T., Millett, B. & Boyle, M. Organizational Behavior. 6th ed. Pearson Australia Group, Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia (2011).
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: a model for business organizations. Journal of Environmental Management, 330 (2023).
Schein, E. H. Organizational Culture and Leadership. (Jossey-Bass, 1985).
Sherer, S. A., Kholi, R. & Baron, A. Complementary investment in change management and IT investment payoff. Information Systems Frontiers, 5, 321-333 (2003).
Sroufe, R. Integration and organizational change towards sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 315-329(2017).
Stouten, J., Rousseau, D.M., & De Cremer, D. Successful organizational change: Integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. Academy of Management Annals, 12, 752-78 (2018).
Thakhathi, A., le Roux, C. & Davis, A. Sustainability leaders’ Influencing Strategies for Institutionalising Organisational Change towards Corporate Sustainability: A Strategy-as-Practice Perspective. Journal of Change Management, 19, 96-116 (2019).
Waddell, D.M., Cummings, T.G. & Worley, C.G. Organization Change: Development and Transformation. Asia Pacific. (4th ed. Cengage Learning Australia Pty. Limited, Melbourne, Australia, 2011).
Waddock, S. & Bodwell, C. Total Responsibility Management (Greenleaf, 2007).
Wiesner, R., Chadee, D. & Best, P. Managing Change Toward Environmental Sustainability: A Conceptual Model in Small and Medium Enterprises. Organization & Environment, 31, 152-177 (2018).
[1] Lauer, T. Change management: Fundamentals and Success Factors (3rd ed.) Springer Verlag (2021).
[2] Stouten, J., Rousseau, D.M., & De Cremer, D. Successful organizational change: Integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. Academy of Management Annals, 12 (2018).
[3] Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability (Business Expert Press, 2014).
[4] Lozano, R. Organizational Change Management for Sustainability (Springer, 2024).
[5] Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (2nd ed. Greenleaf Publishing, 2010).
[6] Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability (Business Expert Press, 2014).
[7] Sancak, I.E. Change management in sustainability transformation: a model for business organizations. Journal of Environmental Management, 330 (2023).