Change management for sustainability tool - The Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Patricia Berghoff, Kristina Karstensen, Lennard Hohmeier
Edited by:
Last updated: June 18, 2026

Executive summary

Sustainability-oriented change management helps organizations respond to environmental, social, regulatory, technological, and competitive pressures while strengthening long-term resilience. The article explains that sustainability transformation is not only a technical challenge but also an organizational one: companies must adapt structures, cultures, governance systems, behaviors, and decision-making routines so that sustainability becomes embedded in everyday work rather than treated as a temporary initiative.

Organizational Change Management for Sustainability (OCMS) focuses on moving organizations from their current state toward a more sustainable one. It differs from conventional change management because it integrates environmental, social, and economic dimensions and addresses soft factors such as leadership mindsets, values, employee empowerment, communication, and culture. The article highlights that sustainability strategies may be easy to formulate, but implementation is difficult without a structured roadmap, credible leadership, and broad organizational engagement.

Several existing frameworks inform the proposed template. The Triple Layered Business Model Canvas helps organizations map economic, environmental, and social value creation. Doppelt’s framework emphasizes leadership, cross-functional teams, shared vision, communication, and institutionalization. Ha’s work stresses the importance of leadership competencies, resistance management, cultural change, and holistic thinking. Sancak’s Sequential Sustainability Transformation Model offers a detailed, evidence-based sequence that emphasizes governance, diagnosis, measurable goals, monitoring, and embedding sustainability into organizational culture. Upward and Jones provide a stronger conceptual foundation by redefining value and success in terms of economic, social, and ecological flourishing.

Building on these approaches, the article introduces a six-step Sustainability Change Management Template. The process begins with developing a legitimate and capable change team, including sustainability champions, clearly defined roles, decision rights, governance routines, and ambassador networks. It then assesses the baseline by gathering data, mapping stakeholders, identifying risks and opportunities, evaluating readiness, defining indicators, and benchmarking performance. The third step defines an ambitious sustainability vision and measurable goals grounded in long-term thinking and scientific principles.

The fourth step starts the transition process by mobilizing resources, removing barriers, piloting solutions, prioritizing actions, addressing root causes, aligning governance with operations, and building employee capabilities. The fifth step develops, reinforces, and monitors change through shared language, HR alignment, innovation, short-term wins, KPIs, feedback systems, compliance checks, and performance reporting. The final step institutionalizes sustainability by embedding new behaviors into culture, incentives, leadership practices, communication channels, risk management, and innovation processes.

The template is designed to be adaptable across sectors and organization sizes, but the article notes limitations. Its general nature may not fully address sector-specific challenges, regional regulations, cultural differences, or the limited resources of smaller organizations. Future work could develop sector-specific versions, simplified SME versions, culturally adapted templates, and digital tools for baseline assessment, KPI tracking, and benchmarking.

1 Motivation and background

Nowadays, companies are facing increasing pressure to adapt to changing conditions to gain competitive advantages. In this context, change can be seen as an opportunity, but it requires anticipation, preparation, and management. Conversely, neglecting to adjust to changing processes, technologies, and opportunities heightens the likelihood of economic losses.¹^,² Additionally, adapting and transforming often helps companies to reduce the risk of failure caused by external events such as new government regulations, technological innovations, or competition. According to Lozano (2024), these external events force companies to make organizational changes.²

At the same time, corporate responsibility is increasingly coming to the forefront of the sustainability debate, especially regarding large corporations that significantly contribute to environmental and social problems. It is becoming clear that the economic, environmental, and social dimensions are closely intertwined and cannot be viewed in isolation. This has led to a broader understanding of corporate responsibility, which involves taking the needs of current and future stakeholders into account equally without endangering the company’s long-term ability to act.³ Therefore, responding to the challenges of sustainable development necessitates that companies undertake structural and impactful changes. This is precisely where Change Management (CM) comes in because how organizational changes are implemented is key to increasing sustainability as well as long-term competitive advantages. Wiesner et al. (2018) describe CM as “the process of continually renewing an organization’s direction, structure, and capabilities to serve the ever-changing needs of external and internal customers” (p.153f.).⁴ Thus, effective planning and management are essential for successfully implementing changes.⁵

The concept of CM in an organizational context was already introduced in academic literature in 1967 when the figure of project managers in companies arose. But in recent years, the concept of CM has often been discussed beyond the organizational level, with particular attention to its relevance in addressing global environmental challenges. In this context, integrating adaptation into corporate development planning is considered essential as it reduces both risks and vulnerabilities associated with environmental change and evolving social dynamics.⁵ Hence, organizational changes refer to the proactive transformation process from a current state to a more desirable one.¹ which can be either radical or incremental.²

From the broader concept of CM focused on sustainability, the specialized field of Organizational Change Management for Sustainability (OCMS) has emerged. Sustainability changes differ from other organizational changes because they consider environmental, social, and economic elements from an integral and holistic perspective within the change processes.⁴ OCMS distinguishes itself from other approaches by explaining how organizations can realize the transformation to become more sustainable rather than just focusing on technocentric solutions for sustainability. OCMS addresses so-called soft issues, such as visions, values, policies, as well as behavioral changes and employee empowerment. In doing so, it extends its scope to all aspects of the organizational status quo that are disrupted and require a transition toward a more sustainable state by institutionalizing changes.¹^,²

Most companies do not initially embody a comprehensive commitment to sustainability but rather need to undergo a transformation toward it. While sustainability strategies are often relatively clear to formulate, the actual process of transformation and implementation is far more complex.⁶, which underscores the need for a structured roadmap to guide business organizations. In the past, the sustainability discourse was often framed within a win-win logic, suggesting that sustainability initiatives would only be worthwhile if they simultaneously generated profit or competitive advantage. However, more recent contributions highlight that environmentally friendly or so-called green innovations do not automatically lead to improved financial performance. While many organizations report tangible economic benefits from their sustainability efforts, the pursuit of an environmental sustainability pathway does not necessarily result in positive outcomes for every individual firm implementing such changes. Against this background, it becomes evident that CM in the context of sustainability cannot be confined solely to initiatives with direct economic returns but must also encompass broader organizational transformations that address environmental and social dimensions.⁴ On the other hand, literature suggests that sustainability efforts can also generate long-term economic benefits, as they encourage product, process, and business model innovations while simultaneously reducing risks, strengthening corporate reputation, and creating growth opportunities.⁶

Despite the evidence of the importance of OCMS and the necessity of organizational adaptation, academic literature on the subject remains relatively underdeveloped.⁴ Research focuses more likely to focus on hard, technocentric, or managerial issues and approaches tend to be descriptive, addressing measures such as minimizing negative impacts or enhancing operational efficiency and overall effectiveness.³ According to Wiesner et al. (2018), there is little focus on internal OCMS and only a few holistic models exist.⁴ Consequently, the literature provides limited guidance on how OCMS can be implemented concretely in practice, leaving change managers without the necessary tools to effectively drive organizational transformation. This gap is further highlighted by the fact that only a small number of organizations have successfully embedded sustainability into their structures and cultures in a lasting and systematic way. Even the companies themselves increasingly require graduates to possess expertise in sustainability, reflecting a growing demand for knowledge and skills in this field.³ Additionally, Lozano (2024) states that “changes in organizations tend to be complex” (p.72).², which also emphasizes the need for a structured OCMS and guidance for companies.

To address the recognized gap between the growing demand for practice-oriented approaches to OCMS and the limited guidance provided by existing literature, this work aims to make a contribution by developing a practical template for sustainability-driven organizational change. The template is designed to draw on existing frameworks and incorporating their most effective elements and is intended to serve as a structured guide, helping organizations systematically plan, implement, and institutionalize sustainability-oriented change.

The following section presents existing templates that serve as the foundation for the newly developed Sustainability Change Management Template. Each template will be described in terms of its structure and application, with particular attention given to its strengths and weaknesses. Subsequently, the new template will be introduced, accompanied by detailed explanations and justifications for each step. Additionally, potential limitations of the newly developed template, as well as avenues for future work, will be discussed. Finally, suggestions for improvement from three existing Wiki entries will be presented.

2 Existing templates

Joyce and Paquin (2016) expand the classic Business Model Canvas into the Triple Layered Business Model Canvas (TLBMC), which consists of economic, environmental, and social layers. Each of the three layers contains nine building blocks to represent how a firm creates value across different dimensions. The economic layer corresponds to the original canvas and focuses on value creation and revenue generation. The environmental layer applies a life-cycle perspective to assess the ecological footprint of products and services. The social layer draws on stakeholder management principles to capture how business activities affect different groups. The purpose of the TLBMC is to make hidden interdependencies explicit, foster sustainability-oriented innovation, and provide a practical framework for both mapping existing business models and exploring new, integrated solutions. By encouraging companies to evaluate costs and benefits across financial, ecological, and social dimensions, the tool supports the design of more comprehensive and sustainable strategies.⁷

Doppelt’s “Leading Change Toward Sustainability” framework (2010/2017) is a CM model built around a seven-step “wheel of change” intended to overcome common organizational failings known as the seven sustainability blunders. These include issues such as complacency, siloed thinking, and failure to institutionalize change. The wheel prescribes interventions such as shifting leadership mindsets by framing sustainability as a core strategic imperative, building cross-functional teams, creating a shared vision, adapting governance structures, and strengthening communication. Later steps emphasize rewarding learning and innovation to reinforce positive feedback loops, and ultimately embedding sustainability in organizational systems, policies, and routines so it becomes standard practice rather than an add-on. The framework highlights that genuine sustainability transformation requires cultural and structural change, ensuring that sustainability is integrated into the organizational core instead of being treated as temporary programs.⁸

Ha (2014) provides a comprehensive overview of CM in the context of sustainability, framing it as a complex, ongoing process that affects all parts of the organization and requires specific leadership competencies. Rather than proposing a single prescriptive model, Ha identifies the key aspects that leaders must address, including clarifying why change is necessary, what needs to change, who is involved, and how and when the process should unfold. She emphasizes that sustainability-oriented change must be approached holistically, as all stages are interdependent and require alignment across structures, resources, and people. Leadership plays a central role in tackling resistance, reshaping organizational culture, and embedding innovation into everyday practices. Ha argues that without a shift in mindsets and culture, even well-designed strategies are likely to fail. She underlines the importance of integrating sustainability into management practices, strategy, organizational design, and innovation, while balancing economic, environmental, and social goals simultaneously.⁹

Sancak (2023) develops the Sequential Sustainability Transformation Model (STM), a structured framework based on evidence from CM research and explicitly aligned with dimensions of Environmental, Social, and Governance. The STM builds on the ten-step model of Stouten, Rousseau, and De Cremer (2018), which synthesizes established change theories, and adapts it into a sustainability-focused sequence of around 50 specific actions. The process begins with a thorough diagnosis of sustainability-related challenges, risks, and opportunities using reliable data and scientific expertise, followed by the creation of a strong guiding coalition and a clear sustainability vision with guiding principles. Subsequent steps involve planning and implementing structural and procedural changes, generating early successes, continuous monitoring, and embedding sustainability into organizational culture. A key feature is that each step is explicitly classified under environmental, social, or governance dimensions, ensuring all three are addressed systematically. Empirical analysis highlights governance as the decisive factor, since without strong governance structures, leadership commitment, and policies, environmental and social initiatives lack consistency. The STM’s strength lies in combining established theory with sustainability-specific demands, offering companies a rigorous, evidence-based roadmap for transformation.⁶

Upward and Jones (2016) take a different approach by focusing on the conceptual foundations of sustainable businesses. They argue that conventional business model frameworks are inadequate because they prioritize profit and ignore environmental and social dimensions. To address this, they develop an ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models (SSBM), which defines the constructs and principles that an enterprise must meet to be genuinely sustainable. Their ontology reframes key concepts. Value is defined as the fulfillment of human and ecological needs, while profit is redefined as “tri-profit,” meaning net positive outcomes across economic, social, and environmental dimensions. The ontology requires businesses not only to minimize harm but also to regenerate ecological systems and deliver social benefits, all while maintaining economic viability. It also broadens system boundaries to include the wider ecological and social contexts in which a business operates and stresses ethical decision-making and meaningful stakeholder engagement. Unlike the TLBMC, which is a practical mapping tool, the SSBM ontology is normative and abstract, offering a theoretical language and logic for embedding sustainability into the very definition of a business model. It provides a foundation for designing “flourishing” enterprises aligned with ecological and social realities, complementing more applied tools such as the TLBMC.¹⁰

All of the frameworks share the overarching goal of embedding sustainability into the heart of business strategy and organizational change, but they differ in their scope and methodological approach. A central commonality is their holistic orientation. Each seeks to move beyond the narrow focus on short-term profit and to integrate wider impacts. Joyce and Paquin’s TLBMC and the ontology of Upward and Jones both respond to the limitations of the original Business Model Canvas by explicitly incorporating environmental and social aspects alongside the economic dimension. The TLBMC does this in a practice-oriented way by adding two extra layers, which allow economic, environmental, and social elements to be displayed and analyzed together. In contrast, Upward and Jones adopt a more conceptual approach, redefining the fundamental elements of a business model to include ecological and societal outcomes as conditions for success. Both approaches therefore aim to foster a systemic, multi-capital understanding of value creation. Their difference lies mainly in focus and depth. The TLBMC serves as a hands-on tool for workshops and collaborative exploration, helping participants to visualize connections and brainstorm innovations, while the SSBM ontology acts as a theoretical foundation that provides criteria to evaluate whether business models align with strong sustainability principles. In practice, the TLBMC can be applied to generate ideas, and the ontology can be used to assess whether those ideas meet robust sustainability standards.¹⁰

A parallel comparison can be made between the CM-oriented models of Doppelt, Ha, and Sancak. All three stress the need for broad engagement and cultural change to achieve sustainability. Doppelt’s “wheel of change” and Sancak’s STM both underscore leadership commitment, vision, and stakeholder involvement as critical early steps.⁶^,⁸ Likewise, Ha (2014) notes that without aligning people and organizational culture with the sustainability objectives, even a well-structured change plan may falter.⁹ There is also consensus on the idea that sustainability transformation is not a one-time fix but a continuous journey. Doppelt employs the wheel metaphor to illustrate an iterative process driven by continuous feedback and learning, while Sancak conceptualizes transformation as a protracted ‘long march’ composed of numerous steps that demand sustained effort. Another commonality is that both organizational structure and mindset need to change. Doppelt addresses this via specific interventions, while Ha discusses it in general terms of planning, coordinating, and the need to tackle resistance and modify corporate culture.⁸

Although the models share common ground, they differ in scope and level of prescriptiveness. Doppelt’s framework is primarily diagnostic and strategic, developed from practice-based insights into why sustainability programs often fail and what successful organizations have done to overcome those barriers. It offers a clear structure and is especially valuable for organizations that need to reform governance and strengthen internal engagement.⁸ By contrast, Sancak’s STM is research-oriented and highly detailed, building deliberately on seven established CM models to cover all relevant aspects.⁶ The STM presents a stepwise and comprehensive sequence that is more thorough than Doppelt’s approach but also less flexible. Whereas Doppelt highlights the cyclical and iterative character of change, Sancak insists on a scientific, linear progression. For companies seeking a highly structured, project-based path to sustainability, the STM is particularly appropriate, as it integrates tools such as Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) materiality mapping and key performance indicators (KPI) from the beginning. Doppelt’s model, on the other hand, may be more appealing to leaders aiming to build cultural momentum and foster participation, since it provides guidance on shifting mindsets and creating coalitions in a more adaptable manner. Governance is another area where the models diverge. While Doppelt includes it as one of several considerations, Sancak places it at the center, presenting empirical evidence that governance is the decisive factor for ensuring environmental and social changes endure. In this way, Sancak reinforces Doppelt’s emphasis on leadership and system alignment, but does so through a more data-driven rationale.⁶^,⁸

Ha’s contribution stands somewhat apart, offering a broader and more educational perspective. Rather than presenting a stepwise model, it provides the conceptual foundations that the other frameworks build upon.⁹ Ha highlights different forms of change and explores the issue of resistance, thereby shedding light on the human dimensions that both Doppelt and Sancak also confront in their work. Put simply, Ha addresses the why, what, and how organizational change is challenging, and which aspects require attention, while Doppelt and Sancak focus more on the how, namely the concrete steps of leading the transformation.⁶^,⁸^,⁹

3 New sustainability change management template

This template is designed for companies of any size, sector, or organizational structure that aim to make their operations more sustainable. It provides a structured approach to OCMS, guiding organizations step by step through the transformation process. The template is intentionally adaptable so that it can be applied to different industries, business models, and contexts. It contains six different steps, which are broken down into several sub-steps, sometimes accompanied by further explanation or helpful tools. Each OCMS step is presented on an individual Excel sheet, including implementation details for the sub-steps. In addition, further explanation and helpful tools are hyperlinked within the sheets, allowing users to directly access more detailed guidance and resources as needed. A more detailed explanation of how to use each step is integrated directly into the template itself. This ensures that organizations can not only follow the framework but also immediately understand its application in practice.

Step 1 – Developing a change team

In contrast to other frameworks, our template places the creation of a change team at the very beginning of the OCMS process. The reason is straightforward: without a capable and legitimate coalition, no initiative can gain momentum or credibility. Building the right team is, therefore, a decisive factor for success, as it ensures that all further steps are coherent, widely supported, and firmly anchored within the organization.⁹

The process begins by identifying sustainability champions at all levels of the organization. These individuals demonstrate commitment and serve as role models who inspire others to follow.⁹ Once the right people are in place, the team needs to define its core purpose and values, while also developing a shared vision of sustainability that provides orientation and motivation. Equally important is the clarification of roles and responsibilities. Clear distinctions between sponsors, advocates, agents, and recipients help to avoid confusion, while ensuring that both formal leaders and informal actors are represented.⁸ A cross-functional composition further strengthens the team by ensuring diversity of perspectives and innovative potential.⁹

For the team to function effectively, decision rights must be clearly mapped. Establishing categories such as decision makers, consultants, informants, and approvers prevents misunderstandings and ensures accountability.¹⁰ Governance and operating models, including communication routines and reporting structures, provide additional stability and coordination.⁸

Equally important is the development of a strong team culture. Trust-building and constructive collaboration improve the quality of decisions and enhance long-term results. Beyond the formal structure, an ambassador network can help to spread sustainability thinking across the organization and create informal momentum. Finally, embedding sustainability into existing policies and standard procedures ensures that change becomes permanent rather than remaining a temporary initiative.¹¹

By combining these elements, the change team becomes a strong and legitimate foundation for the entire transformation process. It not only provides direction and credibility but also guarantees that sustainability initiatives are supported throughout the organization and withstand the test of time.

Step 2 – Assessing the baseline/status quo

Unlike many change models that begin with vision-setting, our approach emphasizes that a robust baseline assessment must directly follow the creation of the change team. Without a clear understanding of the current state, sustainability initiatives risk being unfocused or misaligned.⁶

The process starts with engaging external experts to strengthen credibility and clarify the scope of sustainability across environmental, social, and governance dimensions. Baseline data is then collected through audits, benchmarking, and employee input to uncover performance gaps.⁶ Stakeholder mapping is crucial to identify influence, expectations, and potential resistance.¹² This also supports an assessment of organizational readiness and highlights cultural or resource barriers. To structure the findings, an ESG materiality map can be developed, followed by the selection of measurable indicators and the definition of a base year for tracking progress.⁶

Risk and compliance analysis forms another core element, addressing issues such as climate impacts, supply chain disruptions, and regulatory requirements.⁸ At the same time, it is necessary to evaluate financial, technical, and human resources to ensure realistic implementation capacity.⁹ The results should be benchmarked against peers to enable a gap analysis and highlight opportunities for improvement.⁸ These may include quick wins such as cost savings or longer-term innovations that open new markets.⁷ To avoid short-termism, a long-term horizon is needed, considering impacts over several decades.¹⁰

Finally, all findings must be consolidated into a structured baseline report that summarizes impacts, risks, opportunities, and recommendations. This ensures that the baseline serves not only as a technical audit but also as a strategic foundation for meaningful and lasting sustainability transformation.⁸

Step 3 – Vision/Goal

After building a strong change team and assessing the baseline, the next step is to define a clear vision and measurable goals. A vision provides the compass for transformation, combining inspiration with strategic direction. In OCMS, it must be ambitious, systemic, and rooted in scientific realities.

The process begins with a redefinition of success. Instead of focusing solely on financial growth, success is understood as enabling the long-term flourishing of both people and planet. This requires a broader view of value creation, which integrates social and environmental outcomes alongside economic ones, and a new perspective on profit as a balance of positive impacts across all three dimensions.¹⁰ To remain credible, the vision must be anchored in scientific principles and planetary boundaries, avoiding the trap of being merely “less unsustainable.”.¹⁰ This vision should be captured in a concise vision statement and a strategy document that translates abstract ideas into tangible guidance.⁶ An effective method is to think backwards from a sustainable future: imagining what the organization would look like in five, ten, or 25 years, what kinds of products and systems it would have, and how employees, stakeholders, and even the public would describe it.⁸

Once defined, the vision needs to be operationalized. Clear and measurable goals must be set, such as reducing emissions, improving energy efficiency, or increasing diversity.¹² Equally important is to communicate the vision consistently across different channels, from reports and workshops to campaigns and digital platforms, ensuring broad awareness and support. Embedding the vision into reporting and disclosure practices strengthens accountability and demonstrates alignment between aspiration and action.⁶

The result is a vision that is scientifically sound, strategically aligned, and widely shared. It serves as the guiding star for the sustainability transformation and provides both direction and legitimacy for all subsequent steps.

Step 4 – Start the transition process

Once a clear vision and measurable goals have been defined, the next step is to translate them into action. Starting the process requires both structure and flexibility: structure to allocate roles and resources, and flexibility to adapt and innovate along the way.

The first task is to mobilize the resources needed for the change process.⁶ At the same time, barriers to change need to be identified and removed, whether they are cultural, structural, or procedural. Encouraging experimentation through pilot projects and non-traditional ideas can help generate momentum and demonstrate early success.¹² A distinction between strategy and tactics is essential. Strategies provide the long-term direction and resource allocation, while tactical actions deliver short-term wins that build credibility. The root causes of problems should be uncovered using methods such as the fishbone analysis, ensuring that solutions address underlying issues rather than symptoms. The most effective solutions are source-oriented, redesigning products, processes, and services to eliminate negative impacts across the value chain rather than simply reducing or repairing them.⁸

Since sustainability transformation is systemic, governance reforms must align with operational changes. Actions should also be prioritized based on clear criteria such as risk reduction, resource availability, stakeholder support, and return on investment.⁸ A systemic perspective helps to map boundaries, stakeholders, and flows, ensuring that both operational and governance aspects are covered.¹⁰ Finally, employees must be equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge through training and capacity-building. Continuous communication of progress, challenges, and achievements helps maintain trust and engagement among stakeholders.⁹

In sum, Step 4 integrates structured planning, root-cause problem-solving, systemic design, and capacity-building. This ensures that the change process is strategically aligned, practically executable, and capable of building momentum for long-term sustainability transformation.

Step 5 – Development, reinforcement, and monitoring of changes

After introducing the transition process, the next challenge is to develop and reinforce practices while systematically monitoring progress. A shared understanding of sustainability across the organization is a crucial foundation, as common language and skills promote long-term commitment. Because the social dimension is central to sustainability, Human Resources (HR) policies and personnel management must also be aligned with the organizational sustainability vision to ensure that new employees bring the right mindset, and existing staff are supported in adopting sustainable practices. At the same time, organizations need to encourage innovation and circularity, for example by promoting energy efficiency or new sustainable processes.⁶

To strengthen transformation, identifying and celebrating short-term wins is essential. These visible achievements help to convince skeptics and motivate employees. However, it is important to raise awareness that such early wins are not equivalent to long-term outcomes but serve as reinforcements along the path to sustainability.⁶ Progress should therefore be continuously evaluated through carefully selected KPIs. Both quantitative (e.g., energy use, CO₂ emissions) and qualitative (e.g., employee satisfaction, stakeholder trust) indicators are needed to demonstrate benefits and provide credible evaluation. To measure these, clearly structured monitoring and feedback systems should be adopted. The latter is critical here, as it helps organizations learn what works and avoid ineffective pathways. To ensure systematic evaluation and learning, monitoring systems should be explicitly included in work plans. This allows sufficient time to determine whether decisions and actions have produced the intended outcomes and to make timely adjustments when they have not.⁸

In addition to evaluating internal processes and outcomes, regulatory compliance and external assurance play an additional role. As regulations evolve, companies must regularly update their strategies to remain compliant.⁶ Finally, establishing a central sustainability repository ensures that data is stored, shared, and accessible. Publishing performance summaries for employees, regulators, and stakeholders fosters dialogue and drives continuous improvement.⁸

Step 6 – Institutionalization of changes in organizational culture

Institutionalization is the process by which new behaviors become ingrained within an organization.⁹ For successful sustainability transformation, it is crucial to establish structures that maintain new sustainable practices and embed them into the social norms and values of the company. Without such anchoring, the risk of transformation failure increases significantly.⁶

Therefore, it is essential to establish communication channels through which changes and progress can be presented. Communicating the benefits of sustainable practices and making performance improvements accessible and understandable for all employees is essential for institutionalization. When organizations consciously demonstrate how new approaches, behaviors, and attitudes contribute to improved performance, employees are more likely to internalize these behaviors and resistance to change can be reduced. This also ensures that the next generation of management will embody the new approaches, avoiding the risk that a single poor succession decision at the top could undermine years of transformation efforts.⁶

Second, commitment across all organizational levels is a key factor in embedding sustainability into organizational culture. Employees’ ability and competence to adopt new behaviors depend not only on their self-efficacy but also on the incentives and leadership exemplars present in the organization. Incentives can be intrinsic (e.g., autonomy, responsibility) or extrinsic (e.g., financial rewards, share options). By engaging leaders and managers as champions of change and implementing incentive systems, organizations create an environment in which sustainable behaviors are recognized, reinforced, and socially normalized, fostering the long-term nature of sustainability transformation.⁹

Institutionalization also requires continuous risk management and opportunity capture. Risks are dynamic, and reaching a certain level of sustainability does not imply that every activity is seamlessly aligned with sustainability goals. Iterative risk assessments allow organizations to identify emerging risks, such as greenwashing, and adjust practices accordingly. At the same time, transformation phases provide opportunities for innovation, including the development of new products, processes, and business models, which can improve both sustainability and financial performance, enhance corporate reputation, and establish credible growth paths.⁶

All in all, the newly developed OCMS template provides a structured and adaptable framework that supports the systematic implementation of sustainability transformation in organizations. However, some shortcomings can also be identified. One limitation lies in its generality. Since the template is designed to be applicable across all industries and company sizes, it sometimes lacks the specificity needed to address the unique sustainability challenges of particular sectors. A manufacturing company, for example, faces very different pressures and opportunities than a service-oriented firm. Related to this, the template pays only limited attention to organizational size and available resources. While it claims to be suitable for both small and large companies, the complexity of the framework may overwhelm small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with fewer capacities, while large corporations may require more advanced and specialized governance mechanisms than those provided here. Additionally, by aiming to cover all types of organizations in one framework, there is an inherent risk of oversimplification, which may lead to overlooking regional regulations or cultural differences. Another shortcoming is that the explanations of the steps are kept relatively brief, leaving organizations without prior expertise in sustainability or CM with little practical guidance on how to operationalize the recommendations.

Based on these limitations, several avenues for future work emerge. One promising direction would be to develop sector-specific templates that address the distinct challenges of industries such as finance, agriculture, or technology. Similarly, simplified and resource-efficient versions of the framework could be designed specifically for SMEs, with an emphasis on quick wins and low-cost strategies. Adapting the template to different regional and cultural contexts would ensure its relevance across varying regulatory environments and stakeholder expectations. Another important opportunity lies in integrating digital tools. The template could be transformed into an interactive platform that supports automated baseline assessments, KPI tracking, and benchmarking against peers, for example.

References

1
Ceulemans, K., Lozano, R. & Alonso-Almeida, M. Sustainability Reporting in Higher Education: Interconnecting the Reporting Process and Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. Sustainability 7, 8881–8903 (2015). ↩︎
2
Lozano, R. Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-59622-3. ↩︎
2
Lozano, R. Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-59622-3. ↩︎
3
Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K. & Scarff Seatter, C. Teaching organisational change management for sustainability: designing and delivering a course at the University of Leeds to better prepare future sustainability change agents. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 205–215 (2015). ↩︎
4
Wiesner, R., Chadee, D. & Best, P. Managing Change Toward Environmental Sustainability: A Conceptual Model in Small and Medium Enterprises. Organ. Environ. 31, 152–177 (2018). ↩︎
5
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos et al. Theoretical Framework for Sustainability, Corporate Social Responsibility and Change Management. J. Sustain. Sci. Manag. 16, 315–332 (2021). ↩︎
5
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos et al. Theoretical Framework for Sustainability, Corporate Social Responsibility and Change Management. J. Sustain. Sci. Manag. 16, 315–332 (2021). ↩︎
1
Ceulemans, K., Lozano, R. & Alonso-Almeida, M. Sustainability Reporting in Higher Education: Interconnecting the Reporting Process and Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. Sustainability 7, 8881–8903 (2015). ↩︎
2
Lozano, R. Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-59622-3. ↩︎
4
Wiesner, R., Chadee, D. & Best, P. Managing Change Toward Environmental Sustainability: A Conceptual Model in Small and Medium Enterprises. Organ. Environ. 31, 152–177 (2018). ↩︎
1
Ceulemans, K., Lozano, R. & Alonso-Almeida, M. Sustainability Reporting in Higher Education: Interconnecting the Reporting Process and Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. Sustainability 7, 8881–8903 (2015). ↩︎
2
Lozano, R. Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-59622-3. ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
4
Wiesner, R., Chadee, D. & Best, P. Managing Change Toward Environmental Sustainability: A Conceptual Model in Small and Medium Enterprises. Organ. Environ. 31, 152–177 (2018). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
4
Wiesner, R., Chadee, D. & Best, P. Managing Change Toward Environmental Sustainability: A Conceptual Model in Small and Medium Enterprises. Organ. Environ. 31, 152–177 (2018). ↩︎
3
Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K. & Scarff Seatter, C. Teaching organisational change management for sustainability: designing and delivering a course at the University of Leeds to better prepare future sustainability change agents. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 205–215 (2015). ↩︎
4
Wiesner, R., Chadee, D. & Best, P. Managing Change Toward Environmental Sustainability: A Conceptual Model in Small and Medium Enterprises. Organ. Environ. 31, 152–177 (2018). ↩︎
3
Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K. & Scarff Seatter, C. Teaching organisational change management for sustainability: designing and delivering a course at the University of Leeds to better prepare future sustainability change agents. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 205–215 (2015). ↩︎
2
Lozano, R. Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-59622-3. ↩︎
7
Joyce, A. & Paquin, R. L. The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 1474–1486 (2016). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
10
Upward, A. & Jones, P. An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework Compatible With Natural and Social Science. Organ. Environ. 29, 97–123 (2016). ↩︎
10
Upward, A. & Jones, P. An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework Compatible With Natural and Social Science. Organ. Environ. 29, 97–123 (2016). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
10
Upward, A. & Jones, P. An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework Compatible With Natural and Social Science. Organ. Environ. 29, 97–123 (2016). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
11
Schaltegger, S., Girschik, V., Trittin‐Ulbrich, H., Weissbrod, I. & Daudigeos, T. Corporate change agents for sustainability: Transforming organizations from the inside out. Bus. Ethics Environ. Responsib. 33, 145–156 (2024). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
12
John P. Kotter. Leading Change. (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1996). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
7
Joyce, A. & Paquin, R. L. The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 1474–1486 (2016). ↩︎
10
Upward, A. & Jones, P. An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework Compatible With Natural and Social Science. Organ. Environ. 29, 97–123 (2016). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
10
Upward, A. & Jones, P. An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework Compatible With Natural and Social Science. Organ. Environ. 29, 97–123 (2016). ↩︎
10
Upward, A. & Jones, P. An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework Compatible With Natural and Social Science. Organ. Environ. 29, 97–123 (2016). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
12
John P. Kotter. Leading Change. (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1996). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
12
John P. Kotter. Leading Change. (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1996). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
10
Upward, A. & Jones, P. An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework Compatible With Natural and Social Science. Organ. Environ. 29, 97–123 (2016). ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎

1
Ceulemans, K., Lozano, R. & Alonso-Almeida, M. Sustainability Reporting in Higher Education: Interconnecting the Reporting Process and Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. Sustainability 7, 8881–8903 (2015). ↩︎
2
Lozano, R. Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-59622-3. ↩︎
2
Lozano, R. Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-59622-3. ↩︎
3
Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K. & Scarff Seatter, C. Teaching organisational change management for sustainability: designing and delivering a course at the University of Leeds to better prepare future sustainability change agents. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 205–215 (2015). ↩︎
4
Wiesner, R., Chadee, D. & Best, P. Managing Change Toward Environmental Sustainability: A Conceptual Model in Small and Medium Enterprises. Organ. Environ. 31, 152–177 (2018). ↩︎
5
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos et al. Theoretical Framework for Sustainability, Corporate Social Responsibility and Change Management. J. Sustain. Sci. Manag. 16, 315–332 (2021). ↩︎
5
Universidad Rey Juan Carlos et al. Theoretical Framework for Sustainability, Corporate Social Responsibility and Change Management. J. Sustain. Sci. Manag. 16, 315–332 (2021). ↩︎
1
Ceulemans, K., Lozano, R. & Alonso-Almeida, M. Sustainability Reporting in Higher Education: Interconnecting the Reporting Process and Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. Sustainability 7, 8881–8903 (2015). ↩︎
2
Lozano, R. Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-59622-3. ↩︎
4
Wiesner, R., Chadee, D. & Best, P. Managing Change Toward Environmental Sustainability: A Conceptual Model in Small and Medium Enterprises. Organ. Environ. 31, 152–177 (2018). ↩︎
1
Ceulemans, K., Lozano, R. & Alonso-Almeida, M. Sustainability Reporting in Higher Education: Interconnecting the Reporting Process and Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. Sustainability 7, 8881–8903 (2015). ↩︎
2
Lozano, R. Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-59622-3. ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
4
Wiesner, R., Chadee, D. & Best, P. Managing Change Toward Environmental Sustainability: A Conceptual Model in Small and Medium Enterprises. Organ. Environ. 31, 152–177 (2018). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
4
Wiesner, R., Chadee, D. & Best, P. Managing Change Toward Environmental Sustainability: A Conceptual Model in Small and Medium Enterprises. Organ. Environ. 31, 152–177 (2018). ↩︎
3
Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K. & Scarff Seatter, C. Teaching organisational change management for sustainability: designing and delivering a course at the University of Leeds to better prepare future sustainability change agents. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 205–215 (2015). ↩︎
4
Wiesner, R., Chadee, D. & Best, P. Managing Change Toward Environmental Sustainability: A Conceptual Model in Small and Medium Enterprises. Organ. Environ. 31, 152–177 (2018). ↩︎
3
Lozano, R., Ceulemans, K. & Scarff Seatter, C. Teaching organisational change management for sustainability: designing and delivering a course at the University of Leeds to better prepare future sustainability change agents. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 205–215 (2015). ↩︎
2
Lozano, R. Organisational Change Management for Sustainability. (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2024). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-59622-3. ↩︎
7
Joyce, A. & Paquin, R. L. The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 1474–1486 (2016). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
10
Upward, A. & Jones, P. An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework Compatible With Natural and Social Science. Organ. Environ. 29, 97–123 (2016). ↩︎
10
Upward, A. & Jones, P. An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework Compatible With Natural and Social Science. Organ. Environ. 29, 97–123 (2016). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
10
Upward, A. & Jones, P. An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework Compatible With Natural and Social Science. Organ. Environ. 29, 97–123 (2016). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
11
Schaltegger, S., Girschik, V., Trittin‐Ulbrich, H., Weissbrod, I. & Daudigeos, T. Corporate change agents for sustainability: Transforming organizations from the inside out. Bus. Ethics Environ. Responsib. 33, 145–156 (2024). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
12
John P. Kotter. Leading Change. (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1996). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
7
Joyce, A. & Paquin, R. L. The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 1474–1486 (2016). ↩︎
10
Upward, A. & Jones, P. An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework Compatible With Natural and Social Science. Organ. Environ. 29, 97–123 (2016). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
10
Upward, A. & Jones, P. An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework Compatible With Natural and Social Science. Organ. Environ. 29, 97–123 (2016). ↩︎
10
Upward, A. & Jones, P. An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework Compatible With Natural and Social Science. Organ. Environ. 29, 97–123 (2016). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
12
John P. Kotter. Leading Change. (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1996). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
12
John P. Kotter. Leading Change. (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1996). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
10
Upward, A. & Jones, P. An Ontology for Strongly Sustainable Business Models: Defining an Enterprise Framework Compatible With Natural and Social Science. Organ. Environ. 29, 97–123 (2016). ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
8
Doppelt, B. Leading Change toward Sustainability: A Change-Management Guide for Business, Government and Civil Society. (Taylor and Francis, London, 2017). doi:10.4324/9781351278966. ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎
9
Ha, H. Change Management for Sustainability. (Business Expert Press, New York, 2014). ↩︎
6
Sancak, I. E. Change management in sustainability transformation: A model for business organizations. J. Environ. Manage. 330, 117165 (2023). ↩︎

Executive summary

1 Motivation and background

2 Existing templates

3 New sustainability change management template

References

Your feedback on this article