Innovation and Changing Organizational Sustainability - Literature review Example

Title: Innovation and Industry Name Institution Literature review The world is every day in motion, as found by ecological modernization theory (EMT). It is apparent that organizations have evolved through various stages particularly in the last quarter of the 20th century (Benn and Baker, 2009). Innovation is recognized to be a key element impacting the growth, development and transformation of industries as well as how these companies enter and survive in the modern market (Foxon, 2014). Looking back to about 40 years ago, the progress in terms of outlook of society has been indeed impressive to the industries both in empirical and theoretical ranges. The changes brought by innovations to businesses and education are considered successful in most cases. However, it is very important to understand what is considered a ‘radical new knowledge’ that derives a so-called knowledge society (COHEN-ROSENTHAL, 2000). Considering the society being enlightened through this aspect of radical innovation, the modern environment perhaps will look amazing in terms of how things are done in the context of business and education (Daub and Ergenzinger, 2005). The success of every business or an organization in the current society is based on how the new knowledge is communicated to customers through products and services. It looks like customers (both internal-employees and external-buyers/consumers) have to embrace new knowledge that has been reflected through products and service for it to be considered successful (Consoli, 2008). Perhaps this situation makes innovation difficult and sometimes challenging. Innovation accommodates various elements that need to be incorporated effectively for it to be successful. It is a process that entails knowledge acquisition (perhaps through observation), knowledge abstraction and construction (comprehending), crafting new knowledge and making the knowledge appreciable at different context in the industry. This process is successfully achieved through learning which will be personified in the organization (Benn and Baker, 2009). This implies that when institutions that make up a society understand themselves as innovative society, then it will be easy to find a way of integrating new knowledge to all levels in the society, more particularly in education and business. As a result, there is a possibility that new knowledge developed within favourable conditions such as nurturing innovative ideas within the industry would possibly lead to ecological sustainability (Daub and Ergenzinger, 2005). This is to say that an organization can withstand itself in the modern environment through taking care of internal innovations. However, there is limited rationalization sometimes when it comes to how the organization is expected to merge with the industry for it to be considered a champion (Lloyd-Smith, 2009). It took about two decades for Fortune Company to challenge other companies in United States. The company reflected the role of innovation in evolutionary process of a business which will be translated into the industry. This scenario reflects the metaphorical ideology of Schumpeter (1939) of ‘creative destruction.’ This ideology echoed how successful innovations have replaced the processes in the Carbon old firms which are essential in conceiving capitalism at the same time stimulating the understanding of innovation within the industry (Malerba, 2006). However, despite his reflection on positive influence of innovation to firms, there are consequences associate with innovations (Peschl, 2008). The importance and consequences of innovation was extensively reflected by the work of Benn & Baker (2009). Benn and Baker argued that for an organization to gain sustainability in the current modern environment, it is very important to make essential changes within the business and work environment. According to Stuteville and Ikerd (2009), the elements that are affected during these changes include products and service redesign and processes. However, the collected works of previous researchers have not shown how to surpass nominal innovation and create change that is needed by ecological values in the society. Perhaps in reaction to this gap, researchers in the past three decades developed various frameworks to analyse the organizational change brought by innovation. YORK and ROSA (2003) explain why firms in the industry often diverse and change over time. Building on the rich intellectual inheritance of researchers findings on organizational change, sustainability in the environment looked to be the key reason why organizations keep on changing. Justifying this, Foxon, (2014) found that modern business environment experience high rate of entry of innovations which eventually shakeouts firms with limited new knowledge in the industry. Apparently, this calls for investigation on the link between innovation and organizational change as well as innovation and sustainability. Innovation and organizational change Organizational change is best described as the reformation of an institution so that it suits the pursuance of its mission and a goal as far as long-term success is concerned (Malerba, 2006). Change in most cases is achieved through use of behavioural knowledge science to produce a desired outcome. Benn and Baker (2009) claimed that change can also be achieved through action research and incorporation of ideas from teams within an organization. In order to approach change effectively, consideration of environmental interests is very important since the success of change is based on positive relationship between ecological elements and human capital in the organization. According to COHEN-ROSENTHAL (2000) ecology and human system in the business environment are dualistic entities that when handled appropriately, it leads to the achievement of pre-determined goals. There is a ‘complexity reality’ in implementing organizational change and perhaps several contingency factors such as downsizing need to be considered. Managers have been making an effort to deal with the eventually of organizational change at various capacities. Innovation in this case looks synonymous since it produces change at the same time it (innovation) is used to manage change. The perspective of Daub and Ergenzinger, (2005) on this dualistic entity of innovation brought into focus the corporate social responsibility practices that are appropriate to confront organizational change risks. Modern institutions are characterized by changeable elements with coinciding hierarchies which comprise of people, processes and systems (Foxon, 2014). Within the metaphorical perspective of Schumpeter, organizational adaptations evolve with changes since systems, processes and people will seems to adapt to each other over time. Perhaps this may be achieved through development of actions such as incorporating training and development of people to fit the changing process brought by innovations. However, previous researchers did not seal the appropriateness and adequacy of how changed systems of the organization brought about the interconnection of people. Therefore, this paper will focus on dual entities of innovation when it comes to organizational change. Innovation and changing organizational sustainability Dialectical model According to Daub and Ergenzinger (2005), sustainability is a dialectical concept that balances the need for innovation with the environmental conservation and social equity. Drawing Malerba (2006) perspective, organizational change is a dialectical process where the result of the competition in the industry results to the creation of new organizations. According to dialectical model, the needs of the presented generation should be met without compromising the demands of the future generation. Therefore, sustainability will be only achieved when the elements of change (in this case resources invested, investment direction and technological development) works in harmony. The current and future human needs will be indeed met (YORK and ROSA, 2003). The use of dialectical model of change ensures that both the government and the industry play different important roles for the purpose of economic development. Basically, this model will offer recommendations on how to manage the relationship between social and environmental sustainability based on the mutual influence. As far as human-ecological sustainability is concerned, innovations, if allowed to take action within the rims of co-evolutionary framework, it will lead to ecological sustainability. However, it is important to consider the idea of Consoli (2008) that sharing on knowledge is ought to be in practice in order to promote consciousness of events within the rim of sustainability. Change approach The approach of dialectical model involves the duality of actions as well as structures. Sustainable change is a product of hybridization of teleological and dialectical drivers that will in turn develop significant organizational transitions especially in IT world (Foxon, 2014). The approach of dialectical undergoes three phases namely ‘confused reaction’, ‘creative destruction’ and ‘phoenix arise.’ The combination of teleological and co-evolutionary drivers perhaps shows how the imposition of state constrains and the impact of market forces within the environment of the organization lead to the creation of unpredictable situations in the environment (Stuteville and Ikerd, 2009). In case where spheres of organizational influence interact and it is noticed by actors particularly those who are less preferential to the existing arrangements, they will employ praxis to achieve change (Peschl, 2008). This is a model of collective action drawn from dialectical approach which entails the identification of key actors, activists, conflicts and crises of institutional change. Dialectical approach application seems significant since it enriches, ground it and provide theoretical information both before and during the implementation of organizational change. During dialectical approach, it is important to incorporate capacity building in order to ensure that there is effective dialectical interaction among all stakeholders concerned and can be supported by organizational development (Benn and Baker, 2009). Apparently, the main objective of this approach is to create a sustainability change through development of appropriate development of human systems so that they co-evolve at the same time with ecological systems. References Benn, S. and Baker, E. (2009). Advancing Sustainability Through Change and Innovation: A Co-evolutionary Perspective. Journal of Change Management, 9(4), pp.383-397. COHEN-ROSENTHAL, E. (2000). A Walk on the Human Side of Industrial Ecology. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(2), pp.245-264. Consoli, D. (2008). Systems of Innovation and Industry Evolution: The Case of Retail Banking in the UK. Industry & Innovation, 15(6), pp.579-600. Daub, C. and Ergenzinger, R. (2005). Enabling sustainable management through a new multi-disciplinary concept of customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), pp.998-1012. Foxon, T. (2014). Inducing Innovation for a low-carbon future: drivers, barriers and policies. A report for The Carbon Trust. United Kingdom: Imperial College Centre for Energy Policy and Technology. Lloyd-Smith, M. (2009). Information, power and environmental justice in Botany: The role of community information systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(4), pp.1628-1635. Malerba, F. (2006). Innovation, Industrial Dynamics and Industry Evolution: Progress and the Research Agendas. Revue de l'OFCE, 97 bis(5), p.21. Peschl, M. (2008). Emergent Innovation and Sustainable Knowledge Co-creation. A Socio-Epistemological Approach to “Innovation from within”. Stuteville, R. and Ikerd, J. (2009). Global sustainability and service-learning: paradigms for the future.International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 17(1), pp.10-22. YORK, R. and ROSA, E. (2003). Key Challenges to Ecological Modernization Theory: Institutional Efficacy, Case Study Evidence, Units of Analysis, and the Pace of Eco-Efficiency. Organization & Environment, 16(3), pp.273-288. Read More