The Action Logics of Environmental

Leadership: A Developmental Perspective

Olivier BoiralMario Cayer

Charles M. Baron

ABSTRACT. This article examines how the action

logics associated with the stages of consciousness devel-

opment of organizational leaders can influence the

meaning, which these leaders give to corporate greening

and their capacity to consider the specific complexities,

values, and demands of environmental issues. The article

explores how the seven principal action logics identified

by Rooke and Torbert (2005, Harvard Business Review

83(4), 66–76; Opportunist, Diplomat, Expert, Achiever,

Individualist, Strategist and Alchemist) can affect envi-

ronmental leadership. An examination of the strengths

and limitations of these action logics reveals the relevance

of the so-called post-conventional stages of consciousness

to the recognition and effective management of complex

environmental issues. Suggestions are also made for pro-

moting organizational contexts conducive to the devel-

opment of a post-conventional environmental leadership.

KEY WORDS: environmental leadership, consciousness

development, corporate greening, social and environ-

mental responsibilities, post-conventional stages

Introduction

The environmental challenges currently faced by

organizations call for the active involvement of

managers to adapt their strategies, management sys-

tems, and in-house practices to address ecological

concerns. More often than not, the scope and com-

plexity of these challenges require sweeping changes

that are not limited to a specialized environmental

service, but encompass all activities within the orga-

nization and imply widespread employee mobiliza-

tion. The emphasis on environmental leadership in

studies of the promotion of sustainable development

demonstrates the direct responsibility of management

in getting organizations attuned to the values and

ecological expectations of society (Anderson and

Bateman, 2000; Bansal, 2003; Cordano and Frieze,

2000; Flannery and May, 2000).

These studies of environmental leadership have

been focused mainly on the role of management

and the motives underlying their commitment,

including those related to ethical considerations.

Generally speaking, effective environmental leaders

are described as more aware of ecocentric values,

more attentive to stakeholders’ expectations, and

personally committed to organizational change

through various approaches, such as pollution pre-

vention, implementation of management systems like

ISO 14001, and heightened employee awareness

(Bansal and Roth, 2000; Delmas, 2001; Henriques

and Sadorsky, 1999; Sharma, 2000). The importance

of mobilizing individuals and developing a pro-

environmental vision are often emphasized as well.

Thus, environmental leadership, as defined by Egri

and Herman (2000, p. 2), is ‘‘the ability to influence

individuals and mobilize organizations to realize a

vision of long-term ecological sustainability.’’

Although the ecocentric characteristics of this vision

and the paradigm shifts involved have often been

highlighted, the personal capacities that are required

to alter the ways of thinking and acting within

organizations have remained largely unexplored.

These capacities depend not only on the acceptance

of ecocentric values and an ecological vision, but also

on the way managers themselves see, think, and act.

Paradoxically, few studies have attempted to

understand the action logics of managers and how

they can influence environmental leadership within

their organization. In general, environmental lead-

ership has been viewed as monolithic and homo-

geneous, as if all green managers spontaneously

shared the same values, the same worldview, and

Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 85:479–499 � Springer 2008DOI 10.1007/s10551-008-9784-2

the same way of managing environmental issues.

However, addressing these questions requires abili-

ties and a management style that may vary consid-

erably from one individual to the other. The

complexity of environmental issues, their interdis-

ciplinary and global nature, the surrounding societal

pressures, and the internal transformations they

necessitate all create the need for specific skills,

changes, and approaches for which managers may

be prepared to differing degrees (Boiral, 2006;

Fernandez et al., 2006; Sweet et al., 2003). Thus, in

addition to their personal ecological values, manag-

ers may have action logics that favor or, conversely,

limit their capacity to exhibit committed, efficient,

and adapted environmental leadership.

The purpose of this article is to analyze the action

logics underlying managers’ environmental leadership

from the standpoint of the stages of consciousness

development described by Cook-Greuter (1990,

1999, 2004) and Torbert (1987, 2004; Fisher and

Torbert, 1991; Rooke and Torbert, 1998, 2005).

These stages may be defined as ‘‘coherent systems of

meaning making [that shape] the way people know

and experience reality’’ (Cook-Greuter, 1999, p. 15).

Organized as increasingly complex, inclusive, and

differentiated worldviews, the stages of consciousness

development are associated with specific action logics

and management skills (Torbert, 2004). Among other

findings, research on their impacts on management

has revealed that managers who have reached more

advanced stages are more adept at recognizing and

managing complex organizational problems, as well as

mobilizing employees (Bushe and Gibbs, 1990; Fisher

and Torbert, 1991; Rooke and Torbert, 1998). Thus,

this analytical framework affords a broad under-

standing of how managers construe and respond to the

challenges they face, including environmental issues.

This article will attempt to shed new light on the

ways that different action logics influence how

managers give meaning to environmental challenges

and address them within organizations. This analyt-

ical framework makes it possible to examine differ-

ent ways of perceiving and managing environmental

issues, from the standpoint of the abilities and limi-

tations specific to each action logic. This analytical

approach also revisits the monolithic view of green

leaders – as contrasted with other managers – by

demonstrating the existence of diverse ways man-

agers may interpret and manage environmental

issues. Finally, this article raises wider questions

regarding the causes of environmental problems and

the conditions needed for managers to deal with

them effectively and comprehensively.

Toward those ends, we first review the leading

studies of the characteristics and ethical aspects of

environmental leadership. This analysis will serve to

highlight the oft-neglected importance of managers’

capacities, skills, and meaning systems in addressing

environmental issues. Second, the relevance of

developmental approaches to understanding manag-

ers’ capacities, how they construe ecological issues,

and the different forms of environmental leadership

will be examined. A description of these forms of

leadership based on the seven action logics described

by Rooke and Torbert (2005) will serve to demon-

strate how personal development stages of managers

can influence on how environmental concerns are

addressed. Methods of promoting the emergence of

post-conventional environmental leadership will also

be described. Finally, the conclusion will explore

different avenues of research on the complex con-

nections between the action logics of managers and

management of environmental issues.

Corporate greening through leadership

The environmental commitment of organizations has

often been linked to that of its leaders and managers,

considered the prime instigators of green initiatives

and environmental performance (Anderson and

Bateman, 2000; Bansal, 2003; Cordano and Frieze,

2000; Dechant and Alman, 1994). Thus, the envi-

ronmental concerns voiced by leaders and managers

usually seem to be both the driving force and the

indicators of the integration of such considerations

within organizations. Although the characteristics and

capacities of green leaders remain relatively unknown,

the presence of such leaders is viewed in many studies

as a prerequisite for promoting substantial environ-

mental initiatives within organizations (Egri and Frost,

1994; Egri and Herman, 2000; Fernandez et al., 2006;

Kerr, 2006; Shrivastava, 1995). For the most part, this

research has focused on the role of environmental

leadership and its motivations.

The role of environmental leadership in the

promotion of sustainable development mainly stems

from the powers and responsibilities of managers in

480 Olivier Boiral et al.

the process of organizational change. Thus, envi-

ronmental management is usually construed using a

top–down logic, in which a clear commitment from

senior management is the prime mover for change

(Anderson and Bateman, 2000; Branzei et al., 2004;

Crane, 2000; Winter, 1995). This top–down logic is

clearly evident in most environmental management

systems, especially the ISO 14001 standard. The first

measure recommended by this standard involves

senior managerial commitment by means of the

development of an environmental policy that meets

specific requirements (Standards Council of Canada,

2004). The standard also requires that managers

marshal the human, organizational, financial, and

technological resources needed to achieve environ-

mental objectives. Finally, managers must ensure

follow-up of environmental performance, periodic

reviews of the ISO 14001 system, and organizational

commitment to continuous improvement. The

emphasis on the managers’ driving role in the pro-

motion of environmental management practices

often results in the idealization of green leaders, who

are frequently considered as the charismatic leaders

behind the economic and environmental success of

their organizations. Thus, Ray Anderson, Interface

chairman and CEO, Anita Roddick, founder of

Body Shop, and Georg Winter, former CEO of

Ernst Winter & Sohn, are often cited as examples

of successful environmental leaders (Stubbs and

Cocklin, 2006; Fowler and Hope, 2007; Winter,

1995). This said, effective environmental leadership

is not limited solely to senior management. Indeed,

environmental initiatives are also dependant on

champions of environmental causes within organi-

zations who are capable of introducing a new vision,

initiating change, and mobilizing resources for their

cause (Anderson and Bateman, 2000; Branzei et al.,

2004). These champions of the environment play a

crucial role in identifying, structuring, and promot-

ing environmental issues within the organization and

particularly among senior management, who are in a

position to prioritize and act on selected issues.

The central role of managers’ commitment to

address environmental issues has led to many studies of

the nature and origins of their motivations to under-

take changes and promote initiatives. The most

frequently described motivations are the search for

social legitimacy, a response to stakeholder expecta-

tions, the identification of economic and strategic

opportunities, and the managers’ own values. Among

these, the search for social legitimacy appears to be one

of the main motivations for environmental initiatives,

often in response to external coercive or regulatory

pressures (Boiral, 2007; Christmann, 2004; Christ-

mann and Taylor, 2006; Hoffman, 1999; Rugman

and Verbeke, 1998). Similarly, addressing the expec-

tations of stakeholders requires managers to consider

and deal with the views of citizens, governments,

shareholders, environmental groups, and others

(Bansal and Roth, 2000; Delmas, 2001; Henriques

and Sadorsky, 1999). In order to effectively demon-

strate their commitment, organizations must be

proactive and anticipate emerging environmental

pressures, because seemingly passive reactions to

existing pressure may tarnish the corporate image

and give the impression of a lack of environmen-

tal leadership (Aragon-Correa, 1998; Sharma and

Vredenburg, 1998; Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-

Benito, 2006). Environmental leadership may also be

motivated by the hope of gaining economic and

strategic benefits, such as higher productivity, reduced

material and energy costs, or an improved corporate

image (Christmann, 2000; Hart, 1995; Hawken et al.,

1999; Porter and van der Linde, 1995). Finally, the

managers’ own environmental values and ethics may

also play a determining role, especially when they are

in sync with the organizational culture and societal

expectations (Bansal, 2003; Bansal and Roth, 2000;

Sharma, 2000).

These previous studies of the roles of environ-

mental leadership and the determinants of managerial

commitment to environment issues have provided a

better understanding of the causes and consequences

of the attention that organizations devote to these

issues. However, in most cases, these studies reflect

classical managerial approaches to improving social

legitimacy, taking stakeholders into account,

responding to opportunities and external threats,

giving importance to values, and so on. Moreover,

these approaches tend to impart a relatively instru-

mental and impersonal vision of environmental

management. Indeed, less emphasis is placed on

understanding the meaning of environmental action

to managers, than on replicating management models

that support the dominant economic rationale (Crane,

2000). Consequently, managers appear to be sub-

jected to this economic instrumental rationality.

Thus, in most studies, environmental leadership does

The Action Logics of Environmental Leadership 481

not seem to require specific qualities, skills or action

logics. That said, a few studies emphasize the existence

of differences among environmental leaders and green

companies, especially in terms of their values (Shriv-

astava, 1994; Egri and Herman, 2000). These specific

differences are usually associated with the general

adhesion to a new environmental paradigm differing

from the dominant socio-economic paradigm.

The values of environmental leadership

The core values of environmental leaders are often

assumed to be derived from a new ecological para-

digm, one that brings changes to the frame of refer-

ence and practices of managers. This new ecological

paradigm (NEP) is generally at odds with the domi-

nant social paradigm (DSP), characterized by confi-

dence in the virtues of economic growth, free

enterprise, and technological progress (Catton and

Dunlap, 1980; Egri and Herman, 2000; Shafer, 2006).

The characteristics of this dominant paradigm closely

mirror the concept of the cowboy economy proposed

by Boulding (1969) in his criticism of the blind pursuit

of progress and economic growth without consider-

ation for the limits of natural resources. In general, the

theory and practice of management are aligned with

this DSP insofar as they are centered primarily on

improved economic performance, the search for

innovation, and the satisfaction of human needs

regardless of ecological limits (Gladwin et al., 1995;

Shrivastava, 1995). Paradoxically, most approaches to

environmental management and leadership also rep-

licate this DSP, as evidenced by the emphasis placed in

the literature on the economic benefits that may result

from environmental actions taken by organizations

(Hart, 1995; Porter and van der Linde, 1995).

According to Crane (2000), environmental leadership

could even be characterized by a process of amoral-

ization and loss of meaning caused by the predomi-

nance of an economic rationality in the statements

made by management and in the environmental

management systems that are implemented. Conse-

quently, environmental questions are rarely consid-

ered in relation to moral and ecological issues; rather,

attention is given to their economic, strategic, and

technical implications.

In contrast to the DSP, the NEP is based on

values that reflect major environmental concerns and

that challenge confidence in economic progress

(Egri and Herman, 2000; Shafer, 2006). The values

characterizing the NEP have been examined using

various measurement scales, based for the most part

on the scale developed by Dunlap and Van Lierre

(1978). These scales are primarily concerned with

ecosystem equilibrium, limitations to growth, and

the relationship with nature (see Table I).

Several studies using this type of instrument have

illustrated the roles played by these two paradigms in

how organizations take environmental issues into

account. The predominance of the NEP in personal

value systems has been associated with the promotion

of ecological values in organizations, support for mea-

sures that further management accountability, the

emergence of champions of the environment, and

concerns for global warming (Anderson and Bateman,

2000; Dispensa and Brulle, 2003; Ebreo et al., 1999;

Shafer, 2006). More generally, many studies have

stressed the importance of management’s adopting a

more ecocentric vision characterized by openness to

major environmental issues, the promotion of sustain-

able development, and a reconsideration of the domi-

nant anthropocentric perspective (Gladwin et al.,

1995; Purser et al., 1995; Shrivastava, 1995).

Although this ecocentric perspective can shed

some light on the general values that may be asso-

ciated with an environmental ethic and its impor-

tance to management, it remains too nonspecific to

really elucidate the modes of thought and action of

environmental leaders. First, the contrasts made

between the NEP and the DSP, or between eco-

centric and anthropocentric perspectives, are quite

arbitrary and fail to account for all types of envi-

ronmental behavior. As several studies have shown,

the pursuit of profits and the promotion of new

technologies are not necessarily incompatible with

the development of environmental initiatives by

management (Christmann, 2000; Hawken et al.,

1999; Porter and van der Linde, 1995). In order to

coexist, the concern for profits of the first paradigm

(DSP) must be transcended and integrated into the

second (NEP). Thus, adherence to the NEP is nei-

ther essential to organizational environmental

actions, nor does such adherence necessarily lead to

concrete propositions to help management handle

environmental issues better. As suggested in some

studies, statements on environmental values and

sustainable development may even be a politically

482 Olivier Boiral et al.

correct facade or smokescreen behind which the

status quo can be maintained (Boiral, 2007; Crane,

2000; Harris and Crane, 2002; Howard-Grenville,

2006; Springett, 2003). Second, comparisons

between the DSP and the NEP are based on an

analytical framework of environmental values

established some 30 years ago (Dunlap and Van

Lierre, 1978), which is not anchored in the real,

current experiences of managers. Thus, these para-

digms cannot easily account for the complexity of

environmental issues faced by organizations, the

diversity of approaches used to contend with them,

or the concrete concerns of management. Clearly,

for managers to effectively address environmental

issues, certain personal qualities and skills are

required, including the ability to transform their

ways of thinking and acting within the organization.

These qualities cannot be reduced to a single model

or to predefined ecological values.

The capabilities of environmental leadership

Just as research on the values associated with envi-

ronmental leadership has thus far been somewhat

limited and incomplete, the capabilities required

for such leadership remain equally unexplored

(Fernandez et al., 2006; Sweet et al., 2003). Never-

theless, some general characteristics that favor envi-

ronmental leadership can be defined. Aside from

sharing common values or values compatible with the

NEP, managers must be able to: (i) deal with the

complexity of environmental issues; (ii) integrate

seemingly contradictory outlooks; (iii) understand

and address the expectations of a wide range of players;

and (iv) profoundly change organizational practices.

First, the integration of environmental concerns

in daily management calls for a systemic, complex,

and inclusive worldview. Environmental challenges

are interdisciplinary and characterized by the com-

plex interactions among a diverse array of regulatory,

technological, human, social, ethical, and political

factors (Bansal, 2003; Gladwin et al., 1995; Purser

et al., 1995). In fact, responsible environmental

management implies taking these interdependent

issues into account and thus cannot rely on any one

discipline or specialization, but rather requires a

combination of many skill and knowledge sets. The

concept of sustainable development itself is based on

the interdependence of environmental, economic,

and social issues and the consequent search for

balance among them (Henriques and Richardson,

2004; Marrewijk, 2003; Springett, 2003). Promoting

this concept within organizations thus entails specific

TABLE I

Comparison of DSP and NEP (according to Dunlap and Van Lierre, 1978; Shafer, 2006)

Dominant Social Paradigm (DSP) New Ecological Paradigm (NEP)

Humans have the right to modify the natural envi-

ronment to suit their needs

We are approaching the limit of the number of people

the earth can support

Humans were created to rule over the rest of nature The balance of nature is very delicate and easy to upset

Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by

humans

When humans interfere with nature it often produces

disastrous results

Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make

the earth unlivable

To maintain a healthy economy we will have to develop

a ‘‘steady-state’’ economy where industrial growth is

controlled

The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just

learn how to develop them

Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to

survive

The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with

the impacts of modern industrial nations

The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and

resources

The so-called ‘‘ecological crisis’’ facing humankind has

been greatly exaggerated

There are limits to growth beyond which our industrial

society cannot expand

Humans will eventually learn enough about how

nature works to be able to control it

Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist

The Action Logics of Environmental Leadership 483

and varied measures that involve not only ecological

questions, but also questions of corporate responsi-

bility, the promotion of ethical investments,

community involvement, and improved working

conditions, among others (Marrewijk, 2004;

Marrewijk and Werre, 2003). The concept of sus-

tainable development may in fact be addressed at

different levels of complexity and from different

perspectives, depending on the extent of organiza-

tional openness (Marrewijk, 2003). The complexity

of environmental issues is further reinforced by the

surrounding uncertainties and ambiguities, especially

those related to scientific and technical aspects, due

to ongoing debates about the toxicity of certain

products, the consequences of global warming, the

questionable efficiency of certain technologies, and

so on (Boiral, 2006). Furthermore, to be effective in

addressing environmental issues, managers must be

able to tolerate the additional uncertainty stemming

from external pressures, such as pending regulations

and public policies, stakeholders’ attitudes, or public

reaction to industrial investments.

The ability or inability of managers to integrate

apparently conflicting or contradictory viewpoints is

in part the result of the complexity of the environ-

mental issues themselves. These issues are often bound

up with economic, social, and political problems and

consequently require negotiation, compromise, and

the ability to manage paradoxes and conflicts. For

example, because environmental and economic goals

may at times seem incompatible – an impression

reinforced by comparisons of the DSP and the NEP –

effective green managers must go beyond this type of

opposition by proposing integrative viewpoints and

solutions. A number of approaches – pollution pre-

vention, industrial ecology, showcasing ecological

actions – can help to reconcile economic and envi-

ronmental concerns (Boiral, 2006; Christmann, 2000;

Hart, 1995; Shrivastava, 1995). These approaches

require that organizational compartmentalization be

set aside in favor of an interdisciplinary approach

involving specialists from various departments

including production, marketing, and purchasing. In

order to take into account different ways of thinking

and acting, managers have to be open, flexible, and

capable of dealing with the conflicts that may result

from defending narrow viewpoints or particular

interests. The same applies to manage relations with

diverse stakeholders, who may have positions, view-

points, and interests that are difficult to reconcile

(Bansal and Roth, 2000; Henriques and Sadorsky,

1999). Thus, managers must understand the expec-

tations of governments, environmental groups, and

citizens, and find the middle ground between those

expectations and organizational activities. Reaching

such compromises implies having the interpersonal

skills needed to: (i) explain the corporate point of

view; (ii) take stakeholders’ views into consideration

in implementing environmental policies; and (iii)

promote a cooperative – rather than a confrontational

– approach. It also implies a great capacity for empathy

and consideration of the emotional aspects that are

often overlooked in environmental leadership (Crane,

2000).

Finally, addressing environmental issues presumes

that managers develop the ability to manage change

and mobilize employees. On the one hand, environ-

mental management is marked by continuous change

related to mounting pressure from ecologists, scien-

tific advances, the emergence of new standards,

environmental incidents, and so on. These changes

require that managers have a well-developed capacity

to anticipate and adapt, in order to be prepared for the

emergence of new trends, constraints, and opportu-

nities (Boiral, 2006; Sharma, 2000; Sharma and

Vredenburg, 1998). On the other hand, the integra-

tion of environmental concerns into daily manage-

ment involves global and cross-departmental change

within the organization through questioning pro-

duction practices, installing less energy-consuming

equipment, introducing more environmentally

friendly products, implementing new work proce-

dures, among other measures. For example, pollution

prevention requires wide-ranging changes in work

habits and operations at the source of contaminant

discharges (Boiral, 2005; Hart, 1995; Ruiz-Quinta-

nilla et al., 1996). These changes are not limited to the

environmental service alone, but involve all of the

organization’s activities and divisions. They also

require the development of specific skills and group

learning of new ways of doing things that are likely to

improve organizational productivity and competi-

tiveness (Hart, 1995). More generally, environmental

leadership implies the mobilization of all employees,

in particular those whose daily work may have a sig-

nificant impact on the natural environment (Bansal,

2003; Boiral, 2005; Ruiz-Quintanilla et al., 1996).

This mobilization is needed to: (i) inventory sources of

484 Olivier Boiral et al.

pollution; (ii) make use of technical and tacit

environmental knowledge; and (iii) change specific

behaviors. It is also needed to gather suggestions to

help in improve practices and prevent the occurrence

of incidents or environmental crises. The contribution

of this participative approach to the improvement of

environmental performance has been demonstrated in

a number of studies (Boiral, 2005; Ruiz-Quintanilla

et al., 1996). Yet, this approach presupposes effective

leadership from managers to promote environmental

values and the transformation of in-house practices.

These various capacities go beyond mere support

for predefined values and environmental manage-

ment practices; above all, they depend on the action

logics of managers, their systemic viewpoints and

their ability to integrate the complexity of envi-

ronmental problems. These observations lead us to

hypothesize a close relationship between the way

managers address environmental issues and their

stages of consciousness development, which we will

explore in the next section. By analyzing this rela-

tionship from the perspective of developmental

studies, we hope to develop a better understanding

of the worldviews, action logics, and personal

capacities that may influence the form and efficacy of

the environmental leadership exhibited by managers.

Developmental approaches to leadership

In contrast to traditional approaches to leadership,

which are largely focused on interpersonal skills and the

ability to mobilize others, developmental approaches

concentrate on the stages of consciousness develop-

ment achieved by managers. As indicated earlier, these

stages determine not only how managers see them-

selves, others, and the world, but also the action logics

and skills they habitually use (Torbert, 2004).

According to McCauley et al. (2006), the so-called

constructive-developmental theories – including the

managers’ action logics analyzed by Torbert – share

certain basic propositions:

– Reality is constructed by individuals.

– It is possible to identify different levels of con-

sciousness, development, and construction of

reality.

– Each level of development includes the preced-

ing levels, but is not necessarily better.

– Generally, individuals progress toward more

advanced levels.

– This progression is characterized by a more

comprehensive and complex understanding of

problems.

– Development from one stage to the next is dri-

ven by the need to surpass one’s personal limita-

tions and understand reality from an increasingly

broad and complex perspective.

– Stages of consciousness development affect what

individuals can become aware of, the way they

construe reality and the way they act.

These basic propositions are also central to

Kohlberg’s (1969) moral development theory, which

is often used in research on business ethics (Forte,

2004; Guerette, 1986; McCauley et al., 2006; Teal

and Carroll, 1999). Although these approaches to

consciousness development are based on relatively

similar typologies, they are not limited to the moral

aspects of development, but extend to different

dimensions such as worldviews, action logics,

meaning-making systems, personal capacities, and so

on. These dimensions offer a broader conceptual and

interpretative framework for analyzing the human,

organizational, and systemic aspects of how manag-

ers address environmental issues. The approach to

stages of consciousness development formulated by

Loevinger (1976; Loevinger and Wessler, 1970) and

subsequently taken up by Cook-Greuter (1990,

1999, 2004) and by Torbert and collaborators (1987,

1991, 2004; Fisher and Torbert, 1991; Rooke and

Torbert, 1998, 2005) appears to be the best docu-

mented empirical and one of the most studied in

management. Working in tandem with Torbert’s

group, Cook-Greuter (1994, 1999, 2000) was able

to improve the instruments used to measure the later

stages of consciousness development identified by

Loevinger, as well as our understanding of them. In

contrast, the theory of value systems made popular

by Beck and Cowan (1996) has not been subject to

large-scale empirical validation or validation specific

to the field of management.

As is the case with Kohlberg’s (1969) theory of

moral development, the work of Cook-Greuter and

that of Torbert subdivides the stages of consciousness

development into three levels categorized as pre-

conventional, conventional, and post-conventional.

The pre-conventional stages are generally associated

The Action Logics of Environmental Leadership 485

with impulsive and opportunist thinking, and with

behavior characterized by a low level of psycho-

logical maturity. The conventional stages are marked

by the integration of the dominant social conven-

tions and the search for efficacy within a framework

of established social norms. Finally, the post-con-

ventional stages are characterized by a reappraisal of

accepted conventions, a better understanding of

the complexity and interdependence of problems,

and an interest in both individual and societal

transformation.

Although relatively few in-depth studies have

been conducted on managerial applications of these

models, the post-conventional stages in managers are

associated with a style of leadership that is more

effective, more respectful of different points of view,

and more likely to promote individual, organiza-

tional, and social transformation through a collabo-

rative learning process (Cayer and Baron, 2006;

Rooke and Torbert, 2005; Young, 2002). Some

studies have also established a connection between

post-conventional stages and transformational lead-

ership characterized by the ability to mobilize indi-

viduals by means of a vision, patterns of behavior,

and ethical values that are viewed as ideals to achieve

(Cayer and Baron, 2006; Young, 2002; McCauley

et al., 2006). Nonetheless, the leading studies of

managerial applications of developmental approaches

have focused on analyzing action logics associated

with stages of consciousness development. These

studies by Torbert and his associates (Fisher and

Torbert, 1991; Rooke and Torbert, 1998, 2005;

Torbert, 1987, 1991, 2004) have documented the

impact of the stages of consciousness attained by

managers on various aspects of management and

leadership, including management styles, managerial

performance, ways of construing problems, and

relationships with subordinates. The framework used

by Torbert links the seven most frequent stages of

consciousness observed in managers – Opportunist,

Diplomat, Expert, Achiever, Individualist, Strategist

and Alchemist – with the dominant action logics that

influence various managerial capacities. As used in

this article, the concept of action logic is thus seen as

the managerial manifestation of the stage of con-

sciousness development.

The Opportunist action logic corresponds to a pre-

conventional stage and accounts for about 5% of the

group of managers studied by Rooke and Torbert

(2005). For the most part, Opportunists seek personal

gain through manipulative conduct and conflictual

relationships resulting from non-compliance with

established norms.

The next three stages correspond to the conven-

tional level of consciousness achieved by about 80%

of managers according to Rooke and Torbert

(2005). Diplomats are characterized by conforming

to the expectations of those around them, conflict-

avoidance, and their search for social approval.

Experts basically exert their influence through their

specific skills, attention paid to formal information,

and a rational way of thinking that is often closed to

other forms of reasoning. Achievers appear con-

cerned primarily with the pursuit of well-defined

objectives, the efficient integration of the demands

of many organizational functions, and reaching a

position in which they feel in control of events.

Finally, the last three stages correspond to a post-

conventional level of consciousness and are attained

by about 15% of managers according to Rooke and

Torbert (2005). Individualists have a more flexible and

systemic way of thinking that recognizes diverse and

relative viewpoints and that finds expression in crea-

tive initiatives that go beyond established frameworks.

Strategists evince more concern for long-term col-

lective development and apply themselves to support

individual and organizational transformation toward

this end. Finally, Alchemists can be distinguished by

their acute awareness of the limitations and paradoxes

inherent in procedures and conventions, by their

alignment with higher values, and by their involve-

ment in organizational, social, and humanitarian

development (Cook-Greuter, 2000).

Progression through these action logics is mani-

fested as a broadening of the range of concerns and

the development of new capacities to manage

complex issues that go beyond the immediate

interests of the organization or the individual

through personal transformation and changes to

established norms. These capacities, exhibited espe-

cially by post-conventional managers, seem partic-

ularly suited to the demands of environmental

leadership, including the complexity of environ-

mental issues, the need to integrate different view-

points and approaches, and the importance of

individual environmental mobilization. However,

the relationship between the stages of consciousness

development and how environmental issues are

486 Olivier Boiral et al.

addressed remains largely unexplored. Although the

developmental approach described here is centered

on personal transformation and increasing openness

to broader issues that transcend one’s own imme-

diate interests, thus far it has adopted an anthropo-

centric perspective, neglecting the relationship

between humans and the natural environment. The

absence of environmental concerns in the evaluation

and interpretation of developmental stages is due in

part to the use or adaptation of measurement

instruments developed during an era when ecolog-

ical issues were less salient. However, because

environmental concerns define humans in relation to

a much broader context, entail individual and col-

lective change, and are subject to multiple inter-

pretations, it is reasonable to surmise that the ways

managers construe environmental concerns should

be linked to their personal stages of development.

Although, to the best of our knowledge, these

connections remain unexplored, a few studies have

described the relationship between the development

of an individual’s value system and their concern for

the environment. Kohlberg’s (1969) model has been

used to analyze environmental perceptions and reac-

tions to pressure from ecologists. In general, post-

conventional ethics levels appear to be associated with

a much broader concept of environmental concerns

and the implementation of proactive policies within

organizations (Guerette, 1986). Marrewijk and Werre

(2003) have also shown the connection between

Graves’ values scale and different types of corporate

policies on sustainable development. This analytical

framework makes it possible to reconsider the domi-

nant vision of sustainable development as homoge-

neous and unchanging (Marrewijk, 2003, 2004) and

to differentiate various levels of integration of envi-

ronmental issues, varying from reactions to external

pressures to more holistic approaches. It also serves to

highlight the existence of different levels of environ-

mental concerns and to analyze them using a frame-

work of values that can be applied to individuals,

organizations, and societies. However, this frame-

work and its application within organizations have not

been explored by in-depth empirical studies. Most

research using this type of approach has been restricted

to the analysis of general values, which does not allow

any existing links between environmental leadership

and the capacities associated with different action

logics to be examined.

The implications of action logics for

environmental management

Given their application to organizations and valida-

tion by many empirical studies, the action logics

identified by Rooke and Torbert (2005) offer a par-

ticularly relevant analytical framework for the exam-

ination of the approaches to environmental leadership

that may correspond to the main stages of con-

sciousness development. Table II summarizes each

action logic in terms of its prevalence among managers

according to the observations of Rooke and Torbert

(2005), possible implications for environmental lead-

ership, and their strengths and limitations. The analysis

of these implications is based on the characteristics, the

capacities, and the limits associated with each action

logic according to empirical observation. These

implications are neither systemic nor predefined;

rather, they reflect a system of meanings and capacities

that enable, to a greater or lesser extent, understanding

and management of the complexity of environmental

issues.

The Opportunist action logic is clearly the least

favorable for the emergence of environmental lead-

ership. Indeed, the predominance of egocentric

and confrontational tendencies seems diametrically

opposed to openness toward environmental issues,

which are by their very nature wide-ranging,

demanding the ability to listen to stakeholders and a

collaborative rather than confrontational logic. The

search for individual gain and opportunities to exploit

also favors the pursuit of immediate economic inter-

ests and the view that environmental issues are con-

straints to avoid or fight against. Opposition to and

lobbying against certain environmental issues and the

accompanying social pressures may also be encour-

aged by Opportunist logic, which is apparently,

a priori, more in line with DSP rather than NEP

values. However, Opportunist logic is not necessarily

incompatible with taking environmental issues into

account within organizations. Since the beginning of

the 1990s, environmental issues have generally been

viewed as economic opportunities, and many studies

have shown that environmental commitment is often

linked to strong general performance by organizations

– and thus by their managers (Hart, 1995; Hawken

et al., 1999; Porter and van der Linde, 1995). Then

again, environmental action can contribute to

improve the image of management, bolster their

The Action Logics of Environmental Leadership 487

TA

BLE

II

The

seven

action

logic

sof

envir

onm

enta

lle

ader

ship

Act

ion

logic

,fr

equen

cy,

and

worl

dvie

wac

cord

ing

to

Rooke

and

Torb

ert

(2005)

Poss

ible

implica

tions

for

envir

onm

enta

l

lead

ersh

ip

Str

ength

sLim

itat

ions

Opport

unist

(5%

of

man

ager

s)

Little

sensitivity

toen

vir

onm

enta

lissu

es

exce

pt

when

they

repre

sent

ath

reat

or

fore

-

seea

ble

gai

nfo

rth

em

anag

er;

resist

ance

to

pre

ssure

from

stak

ehold

ers,

who

are

vie

wed

asdet

rim

enta

lto

econom

icin

tere

sts;

visio

nof

the

envir

onm

ent

asa

collec

tion

of

reso

urc

es

toex

plo

it(D

SP);

spora

dic

and

short

-ter

m

mea

sure

s

May

seiz

ece

rtai

nen

vir

onm

enta

lopport

uni-

ties

or

reac

tquic

kly

ina

crisis;

super

fici

al

actions

may

be

show

case

din

opport

unistica

lly

Purs

uit

of

indiv

idual

inte

rest

s

without

regar

dfo

ren

vir

on-

men

tal

impac

ts;

com

pre

hen

-

sion

of

envir

onm

enta

lissu

es

lim

ited

toim

med

iate

ben

efits

or

const

rain

ts

Dip

lom

at

(12%

of

man

ager

s)

Support

sen

vir

onm

enta

lques

tions

due

to

conce

rnfo

rap

pea

rance

sor

tofo

llow

atr

end

ines

tablish

edso

cial

conven

tions;

conce

rned

with

sooth

ing

tensions

rela

ted

toen

vir

on-

men

tal

issu

esw

ithin

the

org

aniz

atio

nan

din

rela

tions

with

stak

ehold

ers

Rea

ctiv

eat

titu

de

with

resp

ect

toen

vir

on-

men

tal

pre

ssure

s;co

nsider

atio

nof

regula

tory

const

rain

tsan

dth

eim

pac

ton

the

org

aniz

a-

tional

imag

e

Super

fici

alco

nfo

rmit

yto

exte

rnal

pre

ssure

s;ab

sence

of

real

reap

pra

isal

of

how

thin

gs

are

done,

stat

emen

tsoften

contr

adic

tac

tions

Exper

t

(38%

of

man

ager

s)

Consider

sen

vir

onm

enta

lissu

esfr

om

ate

ch-

nic

al,

spec

ialize

dper

spec

tive;

rein

forc

emen

t

of

exper

tise

of

envir

onm

enta

lse

rvic

es;

seek

s

scie

ntific

cert

itude

bef

ore

acting;

pre

fere

nce

for

pro

ven

tech

nic

alap

pro

aches

Dev

elopm

ent

of

envir

onm

enta

lknow

ledge

within

the

org

aniz

atio

n;

imple

men

tation

of

envir

onm

enta

lte

chnolo

gie

s

Lim

ited

visio

nan

dla

ckof

inte

gra

tion

of

envir

onm

enta

l

issu

es;

den

ial

of

cert

ain

pro

b-

lem

s;has

difficu

lty

with

collab

ora

tion

Ach

iever

(30%

of

man

ager

s)

Inte

gra

tion

of

envir

onm

enta

lissu

esin

to

org

aniz

atio

nal

obje

ctiv

esan

dpro

cedure

s;

dev

elopm

ent

of

envir

onm

enta

lco

mm

itte

es

inte

gra

ting

diffe

rent

serv

ices

;re

sponse

to

mar

ket

conce

rns

with

resp

ect

toec

olo

gic

al

issu

es;

conce

rnfo

rim

pro

vin

gper

form

ance

Effi

cien

tim

ple

men

tation

of

ISO

14001

type

man

agem

ent

syst

ems;

follow

-up

of

envir

on-

men

tal

per

form

ance

;m

ore

wid

espre

adem

-

plo

yee

involv

emen

t;pra

gm

atism

Difficu

ltques

tionin

gm

an-

agem

ent

syst

ems

inpla

ce;

conven

tional

envir

onm

enta

l

goal

san

dm

easu

rem

ents

;la

ck

of

critic

aldet

achm

ent

with

resp

ect

toco

nven

tions

Indiv

idual

ist

(10%

of

man

ager

s)

Incl

ined

todev

elop

ori

gin

alan

dcr

eative

envir

onm

enta

lso

lutions,

toques

tion

pre

-

conce

ived

notions;

dev

elopm

ent

of

apar

tic-

ipat

ive

appro

ach

requir

ing

gre

ater

emplo

yee

involv

emen

t;m

ore

syst

emic

and

bro

ader

vi-

sion

of

issu

es(N

EP)

Act

ive

consider

atio

nof

the

idea

san

dsu

g-

ges

tions

of

div

erse

stak

ehold

ers;

per

sonal

com

mitm

ent

ofth

em

anag

er;

more

com

ple

x,

syst

emic

and

inte

gra

ted

appro

ach

Discu

ssio

ns

that

may

som

e-

tim

esse

emlo

ng

and

unpro

-

duct

ive;

idea

lism

that

may

lack

pra

gm

atism

,use

less

ques

tionin

gof

issu

es;

poss

ible

conflic

tw

ith

Exper

tsan

d

Ach

iever

s

488 Olivier Boiral et al.

TA

BLE

II

continued

Act

ion

logic

,fr

equen

cy,

and

worl

dvie

wac

cord

ing

to

Rooke

and

Torb

ert

(2005)

Poss

ible

implica

tions

for

envir

onm

enta

l

lead

ersh

ip

Str

ength

sLim

itat

ions

Str

ateg

ist

(4%

of

man

ager

s)In

clin

edto

pro

pose

apro

-envir

onm

enta

l

visio

nan

dcu

lture

for

the

org

aniz

atio

n,

more

in-d

epth

tran

sform

atio

nof

in-h

ouse

hab

its

and

val

ues

;dev

elopm

ent

of

am

ore

pro

active

appro

ach

conduci

ve

toan

tici

pat

ing

long-

term

tren

ds;

mar

ked

inte

rest

for

glo

bal

envi-

ronm

enta

lissu

es;

inte

gra

tion

of

econom

ic,

soci

alan

den

vir

onm

enta

las

pec

ts

Chan

ges

inval

ues

and

pra

ctic

es;

har

moniz

a-

tion

of

the

org

aniz

atio

nw

ith

soci

alex

pec

ta-

tions;

real

inte

gra

tion

of

the

pri

nci

ple

sof

sust

ainab

ledev

elopm

ent;

long-t

erm

per

spec

tive

Appro

ach

that

may

seem

dif-

ficu

ltto

gra

span

dim

pra

ctic

al;

risk

of

disco

nnec

tw

ith

pre

s-

sure

sto

pro

duce

short

-ter

m

pro

fits

;sc

arci

tyof

Str

ateg

ists

Alc

hem

ist

(1%

of

man

ager

s)R

e-ce

nte

ring

of

the

org

aniz

atio

n’s

mission

and

voca

tion

with

regar

dto

soci

alan

den

vi-

ronm

enta

lre

sponsibilitie

s;ac

tivist

man

ager

ial

com

mitm

ent;

involv

emen

tin

var

ious

org

a-

niz

atio

ns

and

even

tspro

moting

har

monio

us

soci

etal

dev

elopm

ent;

support

for

glo

bal

hum

anitar

ian

cause

s

Act

ive

involv

emen

tin

the

com

pre

hen

sive

tran

sform

atio

nof

the

org

aniz

atio

nan

dso

ci-

ety;

conce

rnfo

rau

then

tici

ty,

truth

and

tran

spar

ency

;co

mple

xan

din

tegra

ted

visio

n

Risk

of

scat

teri

ng

man

ager

ial

and

org

aniz

atio

nal

effo

rts,

to

the

ben

efit

of

the

com

mon

good;

losing

touch

the

pri

-

mar

yvoca

tion

of

the

org

ani-

zation;

extr

eme

rari

tyof

Alc

hem

ists

The Action Logics of Environmental Leadership 489

prestige and power within and outside the organiza-

tion. In this context, environmental action may be

seen as an opportunity to seize, quite apart from their

ecological benefits.

Managers who exhibit the Diplomat action logic

seem slightly better prepared to address environ-

mental issues. Indeed, conformity with social norms,

a desire for consensus, and conflict avoidance may

lead to greater openness toward the environmental

concerns raised by others. Such concerns have

become the current dominant social norms, which

are thus difficult to oppose openly. Moreover,

avoiding conflict and trying to conform may even-

tually lead to better responses to stakeholder pres-

sures and regulatory restrictions. However, the

Diplomat profile is generally ill-equipped to manage

change effectively and tends to favor maintenance of

the status quo (Cook-Greuter, 2004; Rooke and

Torbert, 2005). In this context, it is very unlikely

that any consideration of environmental issues will

lead to a serious questioning of practices having an

impact on the environment. The response of the

Diplomat to environmental issues might well be

symbolic, ceremonial, and superficial, serving to

keep up appearances and project a semblance of

conformity with social expectations. Indeed, many

managers adopt new practices and concepts in re-

sponse to a need for acceptance and social legitimacy

rather than to improve performance (Bansal, 2003;

Hoffman, 1999; Rugman and Verbeke, 1998).

Several studies have shown that incorporation of the

ISO 14001 environmental management system or

the concept of sustainable development is often done

superficially, in order to improve the organizational

image and create a semblance of compliance with

external social pressures, but failing to lead to any

real change within the organization (Boiral, 2007;

Christmann and Taylor, 2006). This logic of sym-

bolic conformity, superficial consensus, and the sta-

tus quo is very revealing of the Diplomat action logic

and its unintended consequences.

Expert managers show more professionalism and

rigor than Diplomats in dealing with problems and

interpersonal relations. By emphasizing formal

knowledge, details, and the use of reliable informa-

tion, Experts are well-adapted to manage the technical

aspects of environmental management, such as

implementation of pollution control technologies,

conducting impact studies, measuring environmental

performance, and analysis of regulatory restrictions.

For a long time, these types of specific, technical

elements were the principal environmental measures

undertaken by organizations. Until recently, envi-

ronmental management within industrial corpora-

tions consisted of installing pollution control systems

downstream of production processes to respond to

specific regulatory constraints (Boiral, 2005; Hart,

1995). This palliative logic requires the development

of specialized expertise in the design, installation,

proper operation, and measurement of system effi-

cacy. Expert managers, who often work in technical

and engineering positions or businesses, are well

prepared, a priori, for this type of palliative approach.

However, the promotion of preventive policies aimed

at reducing pollution at the source requires a more

comprehensive and complex approach, as well as

greater employee collaboration (Boiral, 2005; Hart,

1995; Ruiz-Quintanilla et al., 1996). As they tend to

impose their viewpoint, ignore other opinions, and

avoid collaborative processes, Experts may well have

difficulties implementing preventive approaches that

require interdisciplinary teamwork and greater

employee involvement. The same applies to manage

relations with stakeholders who expect different

points of view to be listened to and considered

(Henriques and Sadorsky, 1999; Sharma, 2000;

Sharma and Vredenburg, 1998). Moreover, in their

search for certitude and technical expertise, Expert

managers may ignore the precautionary principle

when addressing environmental issues. According to

this principle, which has been adopted in numerous

countries, especially in Europe, a lack of scientific

certitude should not be used as a reason to postpone

measures likely to prevent serious and irreversible

damage to the environment (Immordino, 2003).

Generally speaking, the Expert action logic is not well

suited for managing the uncertainty of environmental

questions and their systemic, interdisciplinary, com-

plex, and multi-player character.

Achievers seem better prepared to face these

multidimensional challenges. These managers are

more adept at teamwork and encouraging collabo-

ration between different departments to improve

organizational efficacy (Rooke and Torbert, 2005).

In addition, Achiever action logic is centered on goal

attainment and continuous performance improve-

ment. This action logic is a good reflection of basic

management principles as taught in management

490 Olivier Boiral et al.

schools, such as improving organizational efficiency;

integrating the demands of different services; estab-

lishing goals and meeting them; and implementing

effective plans, structures and management systems.

These principles are also the basis for environmental

management systems such as ISO 14001, the goal of

which is to define and implement policies, objec-

tives, plans, and structures to improve environmental

practices and performance (Boiral, 2007; Standards

Council of Canada, 2004). Achievers appear well

prepared to use this kind of standard as an effective

management tool that promotes pollution preven-

tion and integration of these concerns into all

services within an organization. However, this sys-

tematic management style focusing on formal per-

formance often proves to have limited ability to

address the complexity and diversity of environ-

mental issues; these issues often require implemen-

tation of tailored solutions, as well as in-depth

changes to work methods. In fact, although

Achievers tend to apply conventional management

practices efficiently, they generally have a hard time

going beyond established structures and proposing

solutions that could conciliate organizational objec-

tives with environmental needs.

In principle, Individualist managers should have

greater aptitude than Achievers for questioning

established practices, proposing creative solutions,

taking other action logics into account and dealing

with uncertainty. This flexibility and non-con-

formism are useful when introducing more innova-

tive and better-adapted solutions to address the

specific environmental needs and problems faced by

organizations. For example, ISO 14001 certification

does not encompass potentially relevant discretion-

ary measures such as the diversification of environ-

mental performance indicators; better integration of

environmental, quality, and workplace safety pro-

grams; analysis of the ecological lifecycles of prod-

ucts; supplier selection based on ecological criteria;

and setting up collaborative programs with citizens

and ecological groups. This type of discretionary

measure requires non-conventional approaches that

are not limited to the smooth running of existing

management systems. The Individualist’s increased

awareness of the relativity and diversity of opinions is

also conducive to a more participative and creative

approach, one that makes better use of employee

suggestions, which are often prove quite pertinent to

improving environmental performance (Bansal,

2003; Boiral, 2005; Ruiz-Quintanilla et al., 1996).

The Individualist’s more systemic and broader view

of issues may also lead to taking the values of the

new environmental paradigm (NEP) into account.

However, any questioning of established conven-

tions and work habits may lead to tension with more

conventionally-minded employees, particularly

Experts who have difficulty accepting different

points of view. Such tension can be manifested as

debate and criticism that may seem unproductive.

Moreover, the development of unconventional

environmental practices may be the expression of an

idealism that does not necessarily lead to coherent,

integrated, and consistent policies.

Compared to Individualist managers who subscribe

to the preceding action logics, Strategists are generally

better prepared to deal with resistance to change and

conflicts arising from differences in opinion. The

Strategist’s sensitivity to different points of view and

their ability to revise their own opinions contributes

to more flexible interpersonal relations. In addition,

Strategists generally succeed in promoting a common

vision and mobilizing employees around new strate-

gies integrating more complex elements (Fisher and

Torbert, 1991; Rooke and Torbert, 1998). In light of

this, Strategists are expected to be more effective than

Individualists at developing coherent environmental

policies and building bridges between theory

and practice on complex issues such as sustainable

development. Indeed, statements about sustainable

development are often disconnected from practice

and may thus appear to be nothing more than a means

of legitimizing organizational activities (Harris and

Crane, 2002; Springett, 2003). In reality, the inte-

gration of the economic, environmental, and social

aspects associated with sustainable development is

particularly challenging. Among other capacities, it

requires a systemic way of thinking and acting, a

transcendence of organizational divisions and com-

partmentalization, an interdisciplinary approach, and

a new vision that gives equal priority to environmental

and economic issues (Gladwin et al., 1995; Henriques

and Richardson, 2004; Marrewijk, 2003; Shrivastava,

1995). Given their ability to coherently integrate

complex issues and transform organizations based on a

vision of organizational mobilization, Strategists seem

capable of implementing credible sustainable devel-

opment policies. Such implementation may follow

The Action Logics of Environmental Leadership 491

different courses, depending on the specific needs and

activities of the organization such as incorporation of

industrial ecology practices; listening to and consid-

ering stakeholder expectations by setting up citizens’

committees; and promoting employee involvement

in social and environmental community activities.

Strategists seem well equipped with the leadership

capacities needed to structure such unconventional

initiatives around a systemic and mobilizing vision.

However, this leadership profile is relatively rare, as it

is exhibited by only 4% of managers. In addition, the

approaches proposed by Strategists may appear diffi-

cult to follow and too far-removed from the short-

term practices and concerns of organizations.

Managers who exhibit the Alchemist action logic

are the most accomplished among all those presented

by Rooke and Torbert (2005). They stand apart due

to their holistic vision of problems, their keen

awareness of the limitations and paradoxes inherent

in procedures and conventions, and a greater talent

for managing complex situations (Cook-Greuter,

2000, 2004). Although few cases of this action logic

have been observed, it would appear that Alchemists

have a greater capacity than Strategists to: (i) deal

with a wide variety of situations at once; (ii) inte-

grate different levels of reality; and (iii) face both

long- and short-term challenges. Thus, it seems

reasonable to assume that Alchemists would be

better equipped than managers exhibiting other

action logics to integrate the diversity, complexity,

and multidimensional character of environmental

issues. Alchemists also seem particularly concerned

with seeking integrity, transparency, and truth

behind appearances. This search for authenticity

undoubtedly encourages the transmission of more

reliable and truthful information about the envi-

ronmental situation of organizations, including

statements about progress made and what remains to

be done; environmental violations and non-confor-

mity; and the objectives the organization plans to

achieve. Transparency regarding an organization’s

environmental situation and performance also con-

tributes to a rationale of management accountability.

Finally, the Alchemist’s commitment to social causes

and various external organizations favors closer col-

laboration with stakeholders. This kind of commit-

ment and collaboration may make the organization

an agent of social changes that require taking global

environmental issues into account by such activities

as participation in group action to reduce green-

house gases; public advocacy of ecological causes;

support for community projects aimed at improving

people’s quality of life; and encouraging employees

to participate in community activities as volunteers.

However, this type of broad commitment by man-

agers and the internal changes involved has the

potential to distract the organization from its normal

activities, even from its basic vocation. In addition,

the Alchemist profile is exceedingly rare.

Promoting a post-conventional approach

to environmental issues

The preceding analysis of the various action logics of

environmental leadership demonstrates that manag-

ers at every developmental stage can contribute to

addressing ecological issues. However, this contri-

bution will tend to be limited by the level of com-

plexity, the personal capacities, and the way reality is

viewed at each stage. As a rule, the pre-conventional

level of consciousness (Opportunist action logic) is

conducive to environmental actions imposed by

external constraints or in response to interests evi-

dent to the manager. Actions in this area tend to be

relatively limited and thus do not allow for real

integration of the environmental norms promoted

by society. The conventional level (Diplomat,

Expert, and Achiever action logics) favors such

integration through ways of thinking and acting that

conform to dominant social conventions and rec-

ognized approaches such as openness to stakeholder

expectations; the search for social legitimacy; the

exploitation of technical solutions and rational

measures; implementation of management standards;

and improvement of the corporate image. However,

conventional leadership is ill suited to questioning

the habits and the DSP that have contributed to the

current environmental crisis (Catton and Dunlap,

1980; Egri and Herman, 2000; Shafer, 2006).

Finally, the post-conventional level (Individualist,

Strategist, and Alchemist action logics) encourages

more comprehensive organizational transformation

and consideration of greater complexity in envi-

ronmental management.

Although each stage presents specific characteristics,

advantages, and limitations, post-conventional action

logics appear best adapted to the promotion of

492 Olivier Boiral et al.

substantial and proactive environmental leadership. As

has been emphasized in developmental studies, each

stage of development includes the preceding stages but

allows the previous limits to be transcended. Conse-

quently, the characteristics andbenefits of conventional

action logics are included in the post-conventional

stage, which comprises wider potentialities. Further-

more, certain capacities vital to the effective consider-

ation of environmental issues by managers emerge

mainly at post-conventional stages, including more

well-developed abilities to manage complexity, inte-

grate contradictory points of view, consider the

expectations of a broader range of stakeholders, and

promote in-depth transformation of organizational

practices. Finally, the concept of environmental lead-

ership itself assumes an ability to mobilize employees

around a long-term ecological perspective (Egri and

Herman, 2000). However, the ability to promote a

mobilizing vision appears mainly during the post-

conventional stages, in particular among Strategists. In

light of this, it is reasonable to assume that the ability to

promote effective environmental leadership is associ-

ated with managers who have reached post-conven-

tional stages of consciousness.

Still, this developmental approach to environ-

mental leadership raises major challenges for organi-

zations and managers alike. To start, the post-

conventional profile is found in only a small per-

centage of managers. It would thus be unrealistic to

hope for the spontaneous emergence and widespread

use of a post-conventional approach to environmental

issues. In addition, at first sight it seems that a profound

change in managers’ action logics would be difficult

due to their deep roots in the history, values, and

background unique to each individual. As highlighted

by Rooke (1997), the passage from conventional to

post-conventional stages can represent a sort of

quantum leap. Several studies have nonetheless shown

that, to a certain extent, it is possible to support

managers in their progress toward post-conventional

stages. This support may involve participation in

dialogue or action inquiry groups (Torbert, 2004),

working with mentors who have reached post-con-

ventional stages (Rooke, 1997), or a commitment to a

process of self-examination such as keeping a journal

(Torbert and Fisher, 1992). Some training programs

have also demonstrated potential for supporting pro-

gression toward post-conventional stages (Cayer and

Baron, 2006; Manners et al., 2004). Nonetheless,

such change usually occurs over a long period of time

and cannot easily be planned.

Promoting a post-conventional approach to

addressing environmental issues may also be

accomplished through the development of an orga-

nizational context more conducive to the emergence

of this kind of approach. It is not a question of

transforming certain individuals, but of creating a

context that encourages actions, conduct, and values

in line with post-conventional action logics. Spe-

cifically, the selection of managers, their training,

reinforcement of their environmental accountability,

and the promotion of organizational citizenship

behaviors may contribute to such a context.

First, the selection and advancement of managers

should favor post-conventional action logics and take

into account their intrinsic qualities, including the

capacity to deal with complex problems, to integrate

contradictory viewpoints, to transform in-house

practices, to promote a mobilizing vision, and to

participate in improving society. The importance of

these qualities pertains not only to environmental

management; they are also relevant to the basic

responsibilities of managers who must bridge relations

with stakeholders, take socioeconomic trends into

account when developing strategies, encourage em-

ployee mobilization, and so on. Studies on managerial

action logics have shown that post-conventional

leaders perform better as a rule and are better agents of

change (Bushe and Gibbs, 1990; Fisher and Torbert,

1991; Rooke and Torbert, 1998). These leaders may

be identified by observing their management style,

achievements, and perception of global issues. Using

more specific tests to evaluate individual action logics

is theoretically feasible, but this approach may well run

into legal and ethical problems in the employee

recruiting process (Cook-Greuter, 2004). This kind

of testing may be accomplished by other measure-

ments that allow, among other things, evaluation of

managers’ awareness of environmental issues,

including such aspects as understanding of the concept

of sustainable development; attitudes with respect to

the NEP and the DSP; and views on the role of

business in the fight against global warming. In addi-

tion, organizations can recruit ecologists, researchers,

and other individuals likely to advocate non-

conventional views and action logics in addressing

environmental issues to fill positions on their execu-

tive committees and boards of directors.

The Action Logics of Environmental Leadership 493

Second, organizations can set up training

programs to encourage consideration of environ-

mental issues based on different action logics. The

emphasis in the literature on external constraints and

on the benefits of environmental management

(response to social and regulatory pressures, savings

incurred through pollution reduction, improve-

ments to the corporate image, benefits of ISO 14001

certification, etc.) tends to promote a conventional

carrot-and-stick approach. Although these aspects

should not be overlooked, environmental training

should also raise more complex and less conventional

issues such as the implementation of coherent

sustainable development strategies, the importance

of in-house participation in improving environ-

mental performance, the promotion of inter-

organizational collaboration, the development of

policies to respond to global warming, and corporate

commitment to the community. Management

training programs might also address the question of

developmental stages and their impact on manage-

ment practices, including such elements as confi-

dential feedback on participants’ action logics, ways

of transcending the limitations of these logics, and

the implications of specific action logics for envi-

ronmental leadership. However, participation in

such programs should be voluntary to avoid resem-

bling a method of control that might spark resistance

(Meehan Souvaine, 1999). Finally, organizations

might support and contribute to the development of

non-conventional training programs on environ-

mental issues within schools of management,

including, for instance, interdisciplinary approaches

and integration of courses on ethics, ecology, and

global ecological problems into the MBA program.

This approach would encourage the training and

hiring of managers who are already aware of envi-

ronmental issues within a broader and more systemic

perspective than the current emphasis on Achiever

action logic.

Increasing managerial accountability for sustainable

development through diversified criteria might also

contribute to the emergence of post-conventional

action logics. Standard accountability criteria are

limited to monitoring certain restricted financial

aspects, with the goal of verifying the conformity of

managerial conduct with respect to ethical, legal, and

economic issues (Painter-Morland, 2006; Parker,

2005; Rasche and Esser, 2006). The emphasis on

economic and financial performance tends to restrict

environmental action to profitable or mandatory

measures in response to regulatory and social pres-

sures. Extending the standard accountability criteria to

encompass the social and environmental responsibil-

ities of managers might favor less conventional action

logics. Indeed, the standard criteria for environmental

performance are often quite restrictive, being based on

ISO 14001 certification, compliance with regulations,

measures to control contaminant emissions with re-

spect to established norms, or the number of com-

plaints from the public. The evaluation of managers

and their contribution to sustainable development

should include less conventional criteria, such as the

commitment of managers and organizations to com-

munity projects; their contributions to research pro-

jects and university training; managerial involvement

in social and environmental networks; and initiatives

to instill a sense of responsibility in the business

community with respect to global warming issues.

Although these types of criteria are hard to measure

and do not necessarily reflect a particular action logic,

they can help to promote environmental leadership

that is broader and more in line with social concerns, as

would be associated with post-conventional stages.

One last measure might consist of promoting

organizational citizenship behavior. Post-conven-

tional action logics are characterized by transcendence

of established conventions and the development of

more independent, integrated, and proactive partici-

pation in improving society (Cook-Greuter, 2004).

This type of voluntary conduct is similar, in princi-

ple, to certain organizational citizenship behaviors

(OCBs), which are based on discretionary initiatives

that are not specified in job descriptions and that

contribute to improving organizational operations,

including such actions and behaviors as voluntary

initiatives, assistance, altruism, and an interest in per-

sonal development (Organ et al., 2006). The emer-

gence of OCBs in the environmental area is needed to

move beyond formal management systems and con-

ventional modes of action to incorporate such actions

as voluntary pollution prevention initiatives, taking

tacit knowledge into account, and development

of collaborative relationships to resolve environmen-

tal problems within and outside the workplace.

Encouragement of such discretionary, unplanned

behavior implies the style of leadership that is facili-

tated by post-conventional action logics, particularly

494 Olivier Boiral et al.

those of the Strategist and Alchemist, which involve

transformation of habits and behavior, development

of a pro-environmental vision and corporate culture,

and encouragement of cooperation rather than con-

frontation. Accordingly, emphasis on OCBs that

transcend formal management and reward systems is

likely to favor the emergence and recognition of

managers capable of promoting a post-conventional

form of leadership within the organization.

Conclusion

The main purpose of this article was to analyze the

demands of environmental leadership and the vari-

ous underlying action logics in order to elucidate the

capacities, skills, and personal limitations that may

determine how effectively ecological issues are

addressed by managers. The way these issues are

addressed does not depend solely on adhesion to

generally accepted ecological values or the adoption

of formal policies. It also depends on the personal

qualities of managers, their worldview, and their

ability to deal with complex situations and mobilize

others. Studies concerning developmental theories

and leadership have shown that these diverse quali-

ties are influenced in large part by the action logics

corresponding to different stages of consciousness

development. One of the main contributions of this

article is to show how these action logics can

influence the meaning and efficacy of environmental

leadership within organizations. Thus, each action

logic makes it possible to understand and manage the

complexity of environmental issues in a different

way. Action logics should not be viewed as mutually

exclusive, static or monolithic, but rather as rela-

tively broad, complex, and integrated systems for

understanding environmental issues.

The analysis of the ecological implications of each

action logic goes beyond the usual comparisons of

green leaders and those who are not, or comparisons

of the NEP and DSP, by proposing a broader

interpretive framework for approaches to environ-

mental management. This framework may also help

understand some differences in how environmental

issues are addressed, the efficacy of environmental

policies, and how proactive the attitudes of managers

are. Thus, the resistance of some companies with

respect to complex and broad environmental issues,

such as global warming, could be linked to the

prevalence of limiting conventional or pre-conven-

tional action logics. In contrast, the ability of some

companies to manage these issues more effectively

and proactively might be the result of the predom-

inance of post-conventional stages of development

in their managers. In light of this, promoting sus-

tainable development within organizations and

society as a whole presents more than just economic,

social, and environmental challenges. It also presents

challenges in terms of consciousness development

and the promotion of new action logics within

organizations.

This article offers a new examination of both

developmental approaches and the management of

environmental issues. Analyses of consciousness

development have been centered mainly on the

human being and his capacities and limits. This

anthropocentric perspective would certainly stand to

gain by being broadened to take into account more

comprehensive ecological elements concerning the

complex relationships between the individual, the

organization, the natural environment, and sustain-

able development. Likewise, studies of environ-

mental management would profit by considering the

influence of action logics on the behavior of man-

agers and how they address ecological issues. This

approach would make it possible to examine the core

debates on environmental leadership and its eco-

nomic implications from a different standpoint. For

example, the opposition between management

approaches that view environmental concerns as

sources of constraints and expense and those that view

environmental concerns as sources of improvement

and profit (Boiral, 2006; Hawken et al., 1999; Porter

and van der Linde, 1995) might be connected, to a

certain extent, to the breadth of understanding of the

environmental issues themselves. Thus, one might

presume that pre-conventional and conventional

managers might tend to view environmental issues

reactively, even as costs to avoid, while managers

with a more post-conventional profile might view

environmental concerns more proactively and as

sources of progress for the organization and for

society as well. Likewise, debates on the efficacy of

management systems, such as the ISO 14001 standard

might be enhanced by taking into account the action

logics underlying the implementation of this type of

system. Indeed, improvements attributable to ISO

The Action Logics of Environmental Leadership 495

14001 may depend less on the fact of being certified

and more on the way in which the standard is

implemented (Boiral, 2007; Christmann, 2004;

Christmann and Taylor, 2006). Once again, one may

assume that the action logics of managers play a sig-

nificant role and that to some extent environmental

issues represent challenges in terms of consciousness

development.

This article makes it possible to analyze why post-

conventional worldviews and action logics seem

better adapted to the complex demands of envi-

ronmental leadership and proposes various means of

encouraging their appearance within organizations.

However, this theoretical proposition remains to be

demonstrated empirically. To our knowledge, no

empirical study has analyzed the connection

between environmental leadership and managerial

action logics. Nonetheless, the relationships exam-

ined in this article suggest some interesting directions

and hypotheses for future research on the question.

In order to begin, empirical studies could com-

pare the level of environmental awareness of man-

agers according to their stage of consciousness

development. The hypothesis that post-conven-

tional managers are more open to environmental

issues might also be verified through tests conducted

on dominant action logics and adherence to either

the DSP or NEP. The connections between the

stages reached by managers and their different roles

in environmental leadership might also be examined.

Additional studies might review, for each action

logic, the prevalence of certain environmental

leadership practices and their efficacy. The rela-

tionships between action logics and OCBs, in the

form of discretionary pro-social initiatives, might

also be explored. As the action logics of the post-

conventional stages are determined less by external

pressure and more by consideration for the well-

being of the community, it seems logical to assume

that environmentally oriented OCBs (recycling,

pollution prevention initiatives, encouragement of

ecological actions, acquisition and sharing informa-

tion on ecological issues, etc.) would be more fre-

quently observed at the post-conventional rather

than the conventional or pre-conventional stages.

This hypothesis could be verified through testing to

evaluate action logics and measure different aspects

of OCBs and the underlying motivations (Organ

et al., 2006).

Additional studies might address managers’ envi-

ronmental commitment rather than their stages of

consciousness development. Thus, it would be

interesting to use targeted case studies to analyze the

action logics of managers recognized for their com-

mitment to the environment, support of the Kyoto

Protocol or their performance in this area. The con-

nections between the motivations underlying envi-

ronmental actions and the action logics of managers

might also be elucidated through studies of larger

samples. For example, one might suppose that

Opportunist managers would be more motivated by

external constraints and immediate economic benefits

than by the environmental issues themselves. In

contrast, post-conventional managers should theo-

retically be motivated by more far-reaching concerns,

such as the desire to contribute to the sustainable and

harmonious development of society, the promotion

of good corporate citizenship, the creation of an

ethical organizational environment, and so on.

The influence of the social and organizational

context on the emergence of different action logics

and environmental leadership also warrants exami-

nation. Indeed, the emphasis placed on these action

logics may lead to an idealization of post-conven-

tional managers, considered as intrinsically more

effective and better adapted to the challenges of

environmental leadership. Although stages of devel-

opment are linked to personal characteristics that go

beyond the workplace, it is probable that their

emergence is determined in part by contextual

aspects, including such factors as the local culture,

organizational background, intensity of external

pressures, stakeholder expectations, attitudes of

members of the board of directors, and the economic

soundness of the enterprise. These contextual aspects

may implicitly favor the selection and promotion of

managers with different profiles and partially deter-

mine the leadership style that corresponds to the

specific needs and realities of each organization. Thus,

it is possible that more conventional approaches to

environmental leadership may, in some cases, be

better adapted to the contingencies and the particular

context of an organization. Analyzing the connec-

tions between these contextual factors, the action

logics of the managers, and the characteristics of

environmental leadership could provide the basis for

modeling the causes and consequences of commit-

ment to corporate greening.

496 Olivier Boiral et al.

Finally, it would also be interesting to examine the

extent to which the emergence and promotion of

environmental concerns within organizations and

society as a whole may contribute to the development

of an individual consciousness by stimulating ways of

thinking that are more complex, more systemic, less

egocentric, and more focused on the long-term well-

being of the community. In fact, it is possible that the

current environmental crisis is contributing to a

broadening of both individual and community con-

sciousness through questioning and progressive

transformation of the predominant ways of thinking

and acting. This general broadening of consciousness

may also be one of the main pre-conditions needed for

the implementation of comprehensive environmental

solutions that are adapted to the magnitude of the

current ecological challenges.

References

Andersson, L. and T. Bateman: 2000, ‘Individual Envi-

ronmental Initiative: Championing Natural Environ-

mental Issues in U.S. Business Organizations’, Academy

of Management Journal 43(4), 548–570.

Aragon-Correa, J. A: 1998, ‘Strategic Proactivity and the

Firm Approach to the Natural Environment’, Academy

of Management Journal 41(5), 556–567.

Bansal, P.: 2003, ‘From Issues to Actions: The Impor-

tance of Individual Concerns and Organizational

Values in Responding to Natural Environmental

Issues’, Organizational Science 14(5), 510–527.

Bansal, P. and K. Roth: 2000, ‘Why Companies Go

Green: A Model of Ecological Responsiveness’,

Academy of Management Journal 43(4), 717–736.

Beck, D. and C. Cowan: 1996, Spiral Dynamics: Mastering

Values, Leadership, and Change (Blackwell Publishing,

Malden, MA).

Boiral, O.: 2005, ‘The Impact of Operator Involvement

in Pollution Reduction: Case Studies in Canadian

Chemical Companies’, Business Strategy and the Envi-

ronment 14(6), 339–360.

Boiral, O.: 2006, ‘Global Warming: Should Companies

Adopt a Proactive Strategy?’, Long Range Planning 39(3),

315–330.

Boiral, O.: 2007, ‘Corporate GreeningThrough ISO 14001:

a Rational Myth?’, Organization Science 18(1), 127–146.

Boulding, K. E.: 1969, Beyond Economics, Essays on Society,

Religion and Ethics (University of Michigan Press, Ann

Arbor).

Bushe, G. and B. Gibbs: 1990, ‘Predicting Organization

Development Consulting Competence from a Myers-

Briggs Type Indicator and Stage of Ego Development’,

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 26 (3), 337–357.

Branzei, O, T. J. Ursacki-Bryant, I. Vertinsky and W.

Zhang: 2004, ‘The Formation of Green Strategies in

Chinese Firms: Matching Corporate Environmental

Responses and Individual Principles’, Strategic Man-

agement Journal 25, 1075–1095.

Catton, W. R. and R. E. Dunlap: 1980, ‘A New Eco-

logical Paradigm for Post-Exuberant Sociology’,

American Behavioral Scientist 24(1), 15–47.

Cayer, M. and C. Baron: 2006, ‘Developing Post-Con-

ventional Leadership Through a Mindfulness Training

Program’, Revue Quebecoise de Psychologie 27(1), 257–271.

Christmann, P.: 2000, ‘Effects of ‘‘Best Practices’’ of

Environmental Management on Cost Advantage: The

Role of Complementary Assets’, Academy of Manage-

ment Journal 43(4), 663–680.

Christmann, P.: 2004, ‘Multinational Companies and the

Natural Environment: Determinants of Global Envi-

ronmental Policy Standardization’, Academy of Man-

agement Journal 47(5), 747–760.

Christmann, P. and G. Taylor: 2006, ‘Firm Self-Regu-

lation Through International Certifiable Standards:

Determinants of Symbolic Versus Substantive Imple-

mentation’, Journal of International Business Studies

37(4), 863–878.

Cook-Greuter, S.: 1990, ‘Maps for Living: Ego-Devel-

opment Stages from Symbiosis to Conscious Universal

Embeddedness’, in M. L. Commons, C. Armon, L.

Kohlberg, F. A. Richards, T. A. Grotzer and J. D.

Sinnott (eds.), Adult Development, Models and Methods in

the Study of Adolescent and Adult Thought (Praeger, New

York), pp. 79–104.

Cook-Greuter, S.: 1994, ‘Rare Forms of Self-Under-

standing in Mature Adults’, in M. Miller and S. Cook-

Greuter (eds.), Transcendence and Mature Thought in

Adulthood (Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD),

pp. 119–146.

Cook-Greuter, S.: 1999, ‘Postautonomous Ego Devel-

opment: A Study of Its Nature and Measurement’,

Unpublished dissertation, Harvard, Boston.

Cook-Greuter, S.: 2000, ‘Mature Ego Development: A

Gateway to Ego Transcendence’, Journal of Adult De-

velopment 7(4), 227–240.

Cook-Greuter, S.: 2004, ‘Making the Case for a Devel-

opmental Perspective’, Industrial and Commercial

Training 36(7), 275–281.

Cordano, M. and H. Frieze: 2000, ‘Pollution Reduction

Preferences of U.S. Environmental Managers: Apply-

ing Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior’, Academy of

Management Journal 43(4), 627–641.

Crane, A.: 2000, ‘Corporate Greening as Amoralization’,

Organization Studies 21(4), 673–696.

The Action Logics of Environmental Leadership 497

Dechant, K. and B. Altman: 1994, ‘Environmental Lead-

ership: From Compliance to Competitive Advantage’,

Academy of Management Executive 8(3), 7–20.

Delmas, M.: 2001, ‘Stakeholders and Competitive

Advantage: The Case of ISO 14001’, Production and

Operations Management 10(3), 343–358.

Dispensa, J. M. and R. J. Brulle: 2003, ‘Media’s Social

Construction of Environmental Issues: Focus on

Global Warming’, International Journal of Sociology and

Social Policy 23(10), 74–105.

Dunlap, R. E. and K. D. Van Liere: 1978, ‘The New

Environmental Paradigm: A Proposed Measuring

Instrument and Preliminary Results’, Journal of Envi-

ronmental Education 9, 10–19.

Ebreo, A., J. Hershey and J. Vining: 1999, ‘Reducing

Solid Waste: Linking Recycling to Environmentally

Responsible Consumerism’, Environment and Behavior

31(1), 107–135.

Egri, C. P. and P. J. Frost: 1994, ‘Leadership for Envi-

ronmental and Social Change’, Leadership Quarterly

5(3–4), 195–200.

Egri, C. and S. Herman: 2000, ‘Leadership in the North

American Environmental Sector: Values, Leadership

Styles and Contexts of Environmental Leaders and

Their Organizations’, Academy of Management Journal

43(4), 571–604.

Fisher, D. and W. Torbert: 1991, ‘Transforming Mana-

gerial Practice: Beyond the Achiever Stage’, Research in

Organizational Change Development 5, 143–173.

Fernandez, E., B. Junquera and M. Ordiz: 2006, ‘Man-

agers’ Profile in Environmental Strategy: A Review of

the Literature’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Envi-

ronmental Management 13(5), 261–274.

Flannery, B. L. and D. R. May: 2000, ‘Environmental

Ethical Decision Making in the U.S. Metal-Finishing

Industry’, Academy of Management Journal 43(4), 642–662.

Forte, A.: 2004, ‘Business Ethics: A Study of the Moral

Reasoning of Selected Business Managers and the

Influence of Organizational Climate’, Journal of Busi-

ness Ethics 51, 167–173.

Fowler, S. J. and C. Hope: 2007, ‘Incorporating Sus-

tainable Business Practices into Company Strategy’,

Business Strategy and the Environment 16, 26–38.

Gonzalez-Benito, J. and O. Gonzalez-Benito: 2006, ‘A Re-

view of Determinant Factors of Environmental Proactiv-

ity’, Business Strategy and the Environment 15(2), 87–102.

Gladwin, T. M., J. J. Kennelly and T. S. Krause: 1995,

‘Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development:

Implications for Management Theory and Research’,

Academy of Management Review 20(4), 874–907.

Guerette, R. H.: 1986, ‘Environmental Integrity and

Corporate Responsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics 5,

409–415.

Harris, L. C. and A. Crane: 2002, ‘The Greening of

Organizational Culture: Managers’ Views on the

Depth, Degree and Diffusion of Change’, Journal of

Organizational Change Management 15(3), 214–234.

Hart, S.: 1995, ‘A Natural-Resource-Based View of the

Firm’, Academy of Management Review 20(4), 986–1014.

Hawken, P., A. Lovins and L. H. Lovins: 1999, Natural

Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution (Little

Brown, Boston).

Henriques, A. and J. Richardson: 2004, The Triple Bottom

Line: Does It All Add Up? (Earthscan, London).

Henriques, I. and P. Sadorsky: 1999, ‘The Relationship

Between Environmental Commitment and Managerial

Perceptions of Stakeholder Importance’, Academy of

Management Journal 42(1), 87–99.

Hoffman, A. J.: 1999, ‘Institutional Evolution and Change:

Environmentalism and the U.S. Chemical Industry’,

Academy of Management Journal 42(4), 351–371.

Howard-Grenville, J. A.: 2006, ‘Inside the Black Box:

How Organizational Culture and Subcultures Inform

Interpretations and Actions on Environmental Issues’,

Organization and Environment 19(1), 46–73.

Immordino, G.: 2003, ‘Looking for a Guide to Protect the

Environment: The Development of the Precautionary

Principle’, Journal of Economic Surveys 17(5), 629–644.

Kerr, I. R.: 2006, ‘Leadership Strategies for Sustainable

SME Operations’, Business Strategy and the Environment

15, 30–39.

Kohlberg, L.: 1969, ‘Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive

Developmental Approach to Socialization’, in D.

Goslin (ed.), Handbook of Socialization: Theory and

Research (Rand McNally, New York).

Loevinger, J.: 1976, Ego Development: Conceptions and

Theories (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).

Loevinger, J. and R. Wessler: 1970, Measuring Ego

Development: Volume I. Construction and Use of a Sentence

Completion Test (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).

Manners, J., K. Durkin and A. Nesdale.: 2004, ‘Pro-

moting Advanced Ego Development Among Adults’,

Journal of Adult Development 11(1), 19–27.

Marrewijk, M. V.: 2003, ‘Concepts and Definitions of CSR

and Corporate Sustainability: Between Agency and

Communion’, Journal of Business Ethics 44(2/3), 95–105.

Marrewijk, M. V.: 2004, ‘A Value Based Approach to

Organization Types: Towards a Coherent Set of

Stakeholder-Oriented Management Tools’, Journal of

Business Ethics 55(2), 147–158.

Marrewijk, M. V. and M. Were: 2003, ‘Multiple Levels

of Corporate Sustainability’, Journal of Business Ethics

44(2/3), 107–119.

Mccauley, C. D., W. H. Drath, C. J. Palus, P. M. G.

O’Connor and B. A. Baker: 2006, ‘The Use of

Constructive-Developmental Theory to Advance the

498 Olivier Boiral et al.

Understanding of Leadership’, The Leadership Quarterly

17, 634–653.

Meehan Souvaine, E.: 1999, ‘Developmentally Construc-

tive Action: A Case for the Mutually Informing Potential

of Action Science and Constructive-Developmental

Theory’, Unpublished dissertation, Harvard, Boston.

Organ, D., P. Podsakoff and S. MacKenzie: 2006, Orga-

nizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents,

and Consequences (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks).

Painter-Morland, M.: 2006, ‘Redefining Accountability

as Relational Responsiveness’, Journal of Business Ethics

66(1), 89–98.

Parker, L. D.: 2005, ‘Social and Environmental Account-

ability Research: A View from the Commentary Box’,

Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 18(6), 842–

860.

Porter, M. and C. van der Linde: 1995, ‘Green and

Competitive: Ending the Stalemate’, Harvard Business

Review 73(5), 120–134.

Purser, R. E., C. Park and A. Montuori: 1995, ‘Limits to

Anthropocentrism: Toward an Ecocentric Organiza-

tion Paradigm?’, Academy of Management Review 20(4),

1053–1089.

Rasche, A. and D. E. Esser: 2006, ‘From Stakeholder

Management to Stakeholder Accountability’, Journal of

Business Ethics 65(3), 251–267.

Rooke, D.: 1997, ‘Organisational Transformation Re-

quires the Presence of Leaders who are Strategists and

Magicians’, Organisations and People 4(3), 16–23.

Rooke, D. and W. R. Torbert: 1998, ‘Organisational

Transformation as a Function of the CEO’s Devel-

opmental Stage’, Organizational Development Journal

16(1), 11–28.

Rooke, D. and W. Torbert: 2005, ‘Seven Transformations

of Leadership’, Harvard Business Review 83(4), 66–76.

Rugman, A. M. and A. Verbeke: 1998, ‘Corporate

Strategies and Environmental Regulations: An Orga-

nizing Framework’, Strategic Management Journal 19(4),

363–375.

Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A., J. Bunge, A. Freeman-Gallant and

E. Cohen-Rosenthal: 1996, ‘Employee Participation in

Pollution Reduction: A Socio-Technical Perspective’,

Business Strategy and the Environment 5(3), 137–144.

Shafer, W. E.: 2006, ‘Social Paradigms and Attitudes

Toward Environmental Accountability’, Journal of

Business Ethics 65, 121–147.

Sharma, S.: 2000, ‘Managerial Interpretations and Orga-

nizational Context as Predictors of Corporate Choice

of Environmental Strategy’, Academy of Management

Journal 43(4), 681–697.

Sharma, S. and H. Vredenburg: 1998, ‘Proactive Cor-

porate Environmental Strategy and the Development

of Competitively Valuable Organizational Capabili-

ties’, Strategic Management Journal 19(8), 729–753.

Shrivastava, P.: 1994, ‘Voices on Change. Ecocentric

Leadership in the 21st Century’, Leadership Quarterly

5(3/4), 223–226.

Shrivastava, P.: 1995, ‘The Role of Corporations in

Achieving Ecological Sustainability’, Academy of Man-

agement Review 20(4), 936–960.

Springett, D.: 2003, ‘Business Conceptions of Sustainable

Development: A Perspective from Critical Theory’,

Business Strategy and the Environment 12(2), 71–86.

Standards Council of Canada: 2004, Environmental Man-

agement Systems: Requirements with Guidance for Use

(CSA, Mississauga, Ontario).

Stubbs, W. and C. Cocklin: 2006, ‘An Ecological Mod-

ernist Interpretation of Sustainability: the Case of

Interface Inc.’, Business Strategy and the Environment, in

press, published online July 20, 2006.

Sweet, S., N. Roome and P. Sweet: 2003, ‘Corporate

Environmental Management and Sustainable Enter-

prise: The Influence of Information Processing and

Decision Styles’, Business Strategy and the Environment

12, 265–277.

Teal, E. J. and A. B. Carroll: 1999, ‘Moral Reasoning

Skills: Are Entrepreneurs Different?’, Journal of Business

Ethics 19, 229–240.

Torbert, W.: 1987, Managing the Corporate Dream:

Restructuring for Long-Term Success (Dow Jones-Irwin,

Homewood, IL).

Torbert, W.: 1991, The Power of Balance: Transforming Self,

Society and Scientific Inquiry (Sage, San Francisco).

Torbert, W.: 2004, Action Inquiry: The Secret of Timely and

Transforming Leadership (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco).

Torbert, W. and D. Fisher: 1992, ‘Autobiographical

Awareness as a Catalyst for Managerial and Organisa-

tional Development’, Management Education and Devel-

opment 23(3), 184–198.

Winter, G.: 1995, Blueprint for Green Management

(McGraw-Hill, Berkshire, UK).

Young, J. E.: 2002, ‘A Spectrum of Consciousness for

CEOS: A Business Application of Wilber’s Spectrum

of Consciousness’, International Journal of Organizational

Analysis 10(1), 30–54.

Management,

Laval University,

Pavillon Palasis-Prince, 2325 rue de la Terrasse,

Quebec, QC, Canada G1V 0A6

E-mail: charles.baron@mng.ulaval.ca

The Action Logics of Environmental Leadership 499