# CHAPTER ONE

****INTRODUCTION

**1.1 Background to the Study

In the last few decades, the concept of organizational sustainability has gained prominent attention in both academic and non-academic circles. This is so because in recent years, the context in which organizations exist has changed. Trends such as climate change, globalization, demographic change and social inequality have created a significant challenge to the traditional business model with its focus on shareholder value (Blaga, 2013). However, over the years, defining, conceptualizing and measuring organizational sustainability have to a large extent been a herculean task. Researchers among themselves have different opinions and definitions. For example, Colbert and Kurucz (2007) defined organizational sustainability as being able to *“keep the business going”.

For Boudreau and Ramstad (2005), organizational sustainability involves *“achieving success today without compromising the needs of the future”.

In contrast, the Charter of the Sustainability Committee created by the Board of Directors at Ford focuses on sustainable growth, which it defines as *“the ability to meet the needs of present customers while taking into account the needs of future generations” (Ford, 2012).

Organizational sustainability encompasses a business model that creates value consistent with the long term preservation and enhancement of financial, environmental and social capital. According to Eccles et al., (2011), the essence of sustainability in an organizational context is *“the principle of enhancing the societal, environmental and economic systems within which a business operates”.

This introduces the concept of a three-way focus for organizations striving for sustainability. This is reflected also by Colbert and Kurucz (2007), who stated that sustainability *“implies a simultaneous focus on economic, social, and environmental performance”.

Clearly, there is one common component in all the views on organizational sustainability. They all talk about maintenance, sustenance or continuity of a certain resource, system, condition or relationship, in all cases, the goal is keeping something at a certain level, of avoiding decline.

Regardless of the varying views on organizational sustainability, contemporary firms are increasingly engaging in it as part of their business model due to the perceived importance to both the organization, and the society at large. For example, in the internal sphere of a company, direct benefits from being sustainable are seen as improvements in the commitment of employees and learning processes which raise the skill level and effectiveness of employees. At the same time organizational sustainability makes a company more attractive and therefore attracts a larger number of higher qualified applicants. This increases the average skill level of employees that transcends into a higher work effectiveness, improved communication, enhanced green production processes and improved relations with suppliers that ultimately results in an increase in operational effectiveness (Kanter, 2011). These positive direct internal effects in turn result in fundamental cost savings (cost of recruitment, worker turnover, penalty payments for non-compliance with environmental and labour laws, labour disputes, accidents, supervision, advertisement, production and tax payments). At the same time, value is created in terms of innovation by releasing the innovative potential of employees through learning and commitment, and implementing up to date environmental practices, as well as incorporating societal challenges. Thanks to a higher level of operational effectiveness, organizational commitment of employees and learning, the productivity of a company can be increased, errors reduced and quality improved, while adherence to environmental standards enhances product safety (Carroll, 2008).
In the external sphere, a positive reputation and publicity resulting from sustainability engagement reflects the improved public perception of socially responsible companies and increases legitimacy. The incorporation of stakeholders’ expectations, improving labour practices and adhering to fair operating practices create trust and improve relationships with external and internal stakeholders. Enhanced relationships along the supply chain help to ensure supply chain stability. Improved reputation, publicity and good stakeholder relationships result in an overall positive company image and enhance brand identity. These direct external benefits in turn enable such companies to gain better capital and market access. With growing consumer demand for the implementation of social and environmental standards, companies certified based on international voluntary standards can achieve price premiums. Enhanced product quality and safety further promote customer satisfaction. As organizational sustainability deepens the relationships with internal and external stakeholders, it helps to avoid conflicts between companies, employees, communities and the society and thereby reduces the risk of distraction and increases the stability of business operations. Furthermore, contributions of a company to the development of the local economy enhance the general business environment through synergetic value creation.
The above paragraph has clearly illustrated the importance of organizational sustainability; hence, the need for organizations to attain this status. In the light of this, over the years, several scholars have proposed several ways of achieving organizational sustainability. For example, Ouchi (1981) proposed that organizational culture is a double-edged sword that could either predispose an organization to ills or benefits, depending on the nature of the culture. He further asserted that by adopting the right cultural practices, an organization could operate sustainably. For Wales (2013), the human resource management practices adopted by an organization significantly affects its level of sustainable operations. Shrivastava (2014), further asserted that *“it is essential for organizations to respond to environmental, social and economic challenges with creative, eco-efficient and eco-effective innovations which help conserve and improve natural, social and financial resources”.

This, he argued, could help organizations to cope with the risks and challenges of the market, and of workers, consumers and public demands for protecting the environment for present and future generations. Consequently, Dissanayake and Semasinghe (2015) argued that *“sustainability is ensured by a high level of opportunity recognition by ventures”.

This implies that high opportunity recognition which is one of the key attributes of an entrepreneurial firm is vital in achieving organizational sustainability.
An in-depth review of related literatures indicates that several studies have examined ethical practices and the concept of organizational sustainability in relation to other variables and within varied context, but none has examined ethical practices and organizational sustainability within the domain of oil companies in the Nigerian context. The knowledge gap therefore, is that there is a lack of literature specifically showing the relationship between ethical practices and organizational sustainability of selected oil companies in Port-Harcourt, Nigeria. This study therefore seeks to fill this lacuna identified in literature.

# 1.2 Statement of the Problem

According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report in 2011, oil companies systematically contaminated a 1,000 square kilometers area of Ogoni land, a pollution that left the land uninhabitable, and would cost over $1billion and take up to 30years to clean up. The “crime scene” of environmental despoliation is intensifying throughout the Niger Delta, and less than one percent of environmental justice cases make it to the Nigerian courts. One of the major dilemma facing most corporate institutions is the obvious need to be seen as socially responsible enough to sustain their environment. This is because being socially responsible creates a good public image that further increases customer patronage. However, very few businesses are willing to take this step to sustain their environment, primarily because it is associated with a short term cost to the organization. For example, in Rivers state, the oil exploration, especially the spills and other environmental threats associated with oil production in the state have tremendously caused disruption of the ecosystem stability and traditional livelihood structures of the host communities (Zabbey, 2005). Despite their awareness of this situation, most oil companies either pay lip service or make very negligible efforts to correct this problem and sustain the environment. This is because they feel that being socially responsible to situations like this will cut the profit of the organization. However, they fail to realize that they cannot exist in the air, but need a host community to function; hence, if they continuously carry out their activities in a non-sustainable manner, a day will come that they would have totally destroyed their host communities, and will no more have a place to operate. This line of thought has prompted several scholars to search for ways to compel oil firms to operate sustainably.
Over the years, several scholars have proposed various ways of achieving organizational sustainability. For example, Ouchi (1981) opined that the adoption of appropriate organizational culture can enhance organizational sustainability, while Wales (2013) opined that organizational sustainability can be enhanced by adoption of right human resource management practices. Shrivastava (2014) further suggested that organizational sustainability can be achieved by eco-efficient and eco-effective innovations. Although these approaches have been relatively helpful, there still exists so much room for improvement. A review of related literature indicates that there is a knowledge gap in literature in terms of lack of available literature showing the relationship between ethical practices and organizational sustainability of selected oil companies in Port-Harcourt. It therefore behooves on the researcher to undergo this study in order to fill this lacuna in literature.


# CHAPTER TWO

**2.0 Introduction

This chapter focuses on the review of related literature on ethical practices and organizational sustainability. Here, the contributions and findings of previous researchers and scholars were reviewed to provide theoretical foundation for the study. The literature review covered:
1. Theoretical framework
2. The concept of ethical practices
3. The dimensions of ethical practices
4. The concept of organizational sustainability
5. The measures of organizational sustainability

# 2.1 Theoretical Framework

Two theories are applied in this work; the Classical view (Shareholder theory) and the Stakeholder theory (Curran, 2005).Shareholder theory holds that the firm is (and shouldbe) managed in the interests of the firm's shareholders. According to this theory, the purpose of the company is to provide return on investment for shareholders and thus corporations are seen as instruments of creating economic value for those who risk capital in the enterprise. It is believed that the sole constituency of business management is the shareholders and the sole concern of shareholders is profit maximization. Any activity (whether ethical or not) is justified if it increases the value of the firm to its shareholders and is not justified if the value of the firm is reduced.
Lantos (2001) has identified two perspectives in the classical view: the “pure profit-making view”; and the “constrained profit-making view”. The distinctive feature of this perspective is that some degree of unethical practices is acceptable because business people have a lower set of moral standards than those in the rest of society. He compared the ethics of business to those of the poker game. The major proponent of the “constrained profit making view” is Friedman (2008), who believed companies should behave honestly: that is, they do not engage in deception and fraud. This economist argues that the purpose of the company is to make profits for shareholders. The only responsibility of business is to use its resources to engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game. Because managers are agents of the shareholders they have a responsibility to conduct business in accordance with their interest. This is generally to make as much money as possible and maximize their wealth. Under this view, because shareholders are the owners of the company and therefore the profits belong to them, requiring managers to pursue socially responsible objectives may be unethical, since it requires managers to spend money that belongs to other individuals. Asking companies to engage in social responsibility activities is considered to be harmful to the foundations of a free society with a free-enterprise and private property system. Social problems should be left for the state to address.
The Stakeholder theory has emerged as an alternative to shareholder theory. The term stakeholder explicitly and intended represents a softening of (if not a fundamental challenge to) strict shareholder theory. This theory recognizes the fact that most, if not all firms have a large and integrated set of stakeholders to whom they have an obligation and responsibility (Spence, 2001). This theory challenges the view that shareholders have a privilege over other stakeholders. In essence, stakeholder theory is a rhetorical response to financial theories that assert that firms should focus only on maximizing the economic interests of shareholders, the residual owners of the firm. Shareholders, it is argued, are merely one of the several claimants on the firm. Thus, stakeholder theory embodies the need to balance the claims of shareholders with these of other stakeholders. According to Kaler (2003) the stakeholder approach involves a basic reformist stance toward shareholder theory, seeking to move it in the direction of greater equity and a less single-minded concentration on owner’s interests rather than replacing it entirely. Stakeholder theory identifies a complex relationship and responsibility network in which the corporation is embedded, and suggests that a corporation has to integrate its multiple responsibilities within the corporate strategic framework.

# 2.2 The Concept of Ethical Practices

The word ‘ethic’ comes from the Greek word ethos, which means “the character, custom or a set of moral behavior that is accepted extensively.” According to Solomon (2009), the etymology of ethics suggests its basic concerns are:
(1) individual character, including what it means to be “a good person,” and
(2) the social rules that govern and limit our conduct, especially the ultimate rules concerning right and wrong, which we call morality.
Ethics also can be defined as the conception of what is right and fair conduct or behavior. Ethics is the concept of morals; one’s ability to choose between right and wrong, good and bad, acceptable and unacceptable (Desjardins, 2009).
The concept of ‘Ethical Business Practices’ has come to mean various things to various people. Velasquez (2009) identified it as a specialized study of moral right and wrong; whereas Garrett (2012) defined it as the relationship of business goals and techniques to specific human ends. It studies the impacts of acts on the good of the individual, the firm, the business community, and society as a whole.
According to Weihrich and Koontz (2004), business ethics is concerned with truth and justice and has a variety of aspects such as the expectations of society, fair competition, advertising, public relations, social responsibilities, consumer autonomy, and corporate behavior in the home country as well as abroad. Ethical business practices are the standard of conduct and moral values governing actions and decisions in the work environment and it is based on broad principles of integrity and fairness and focuses on stakeholders’ issues such as product quality, customer satisfaction, employee wages and benefits and local community and environmental responsibilities. In business organizations, managers debate on this issue because there is no single satisfactory standard of ethical action agreeable to everyone that a manager can use to make specific operational decisions (Laczniak, 2003). However, there are people who see business ethics as important as the profit the organization derives. Besides, many people believe that talking about ethics, values, integrity, fairness is not only acceptable in the business community but it is practically required. Consequently, management practitioners should continue to focus attention on the ethics climate in their organizations because of their unique responsibilities.
The term "ethical business practices" is used in many different ways. It is a form of applied ethics that examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that arise in a business environment. It also deals with ethical questions in the field of technical, legal, business, and medical ethics (Preston, 1997). It applies to all aspects of business conduct and is relevant to the conduct of individuals and business organizations as a whole (Donaldson, 2002). Ethical business practices consist of a set of moral principles and values that govern the behavior of the organization with respect to what is right and what is wrong (Seglin, 2003). It contains the prohibitory actions at the workplace (Duska, 2007). It is the behavior that a business adheres to in its daily dealings with the world. The ethics of a particular business can be diverse. They apply not only to how the business interacts with the world at large, but also to their one-on-one dealings with a single customer (Beauchamp, 2004). Many businesses have gained a bad reputation just by being in business. To some people, businesses are interested in making money which is called capitalism in its purest form. Eventually, many of them have been fined millions for breaking ethical business laws (Cory, 2005). In the end, it may be up to the public to make sure that a company adheres to correct business ethics. If the company is making large amounts of money, they may not wish to pay close attention to their ethical behavior. There are many companies that pride themselves in their correct business ethics, but there are very few in numbers (Lee, 2009). In the 21st century marketplaces, the demand for more ethical business processes and actions (known as ethicism) is increasing. Simultaneously, pressure is applied on industry to improve business ethics through new public initiatives and laws. Businesses can often attain short-term gains by acting in an unethical manner (Sunstein, 2009); however, such behaviors tend to undermine the economy over time. Today, most major corporations put their emphasis on commitment in promoting non-economic social values under several headings such as ethics codes, social responsibility charters etc. These values are the roots of what we call “ethics”. Businesses view ethics as having a big impact on their brands and reputations as well as on customer trust and investor confidence which in turn, is not only about “doing the right thing” or even avoiding the kind of scandals that can devastate a company.
The role of ethics as a component of business affecting organizational effectiveness is essential. Ethics in business is related to national factors as well as global perspectives, varies from country to country, and potentially it is affected by many factors including the strength of legal, business regulation and human characteristics such as ethnicity, gender, level of education and socio-cultural environment. There is often a conflict between the pursuit of profit and the exercise of ethical conduct in business as managers pursue profit to maximize returns to investors and often to maximize their own self-interest. Carr (2004) argues that most executives are mostly compelled in the interests of their companies or themselves, while negotiating with customers, dealers, labor unions, or governmental officials. Ahmed (2009) describes this as a moral hazard that arises when managers are tempted to act in their own self-interest and not those of the principal.
By studying the moral judgments of Chinese and American Managers, Ford et al. (1997) found that the moral judgments of Chinese managers are significantly more dependent on group norms than were the American managers due to their preference and attachment to collectivism. With similar pace, Jackson and Artola (2007) compared the ethical beliefs of managers from France, Germany, the USA and Israel in which findings eventually summarizes that the ethical practices vary between the countries, deep rooted in the cultural background of the individuals. The United Nations (UN) has produced a document proclaiming norms for conduct and operations of transnational corporations and other business enterprises. These norms cover general obligations to promote recognizing international and national law, including the rights of indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups such as consumers and workers, and also have regard to environmental protection. Ferrell et al. (2004) suggest that business ethics comprises moral principles, values and standards that guide behavior in the world of business. Thus, ethics in business is directly related to social values, norms and global business trends and is negatively related to corruption in society. Trevino and Nelson (1995) define ethics as the principles, norms and standards of conduct governing an individual or group. They also comment that two types of factors influence ethical practices: characteristics of the individual and the characteristics of the organization. Gano (2009) suggests that ethical decisions are made by business people, based on the following considerations:
(1) how employees can feel fulfilled professionally;
(2) how customers can be satisfied;
(3) how profit can be assured for the stakeholders or shareholders; and
(4) how the community can be served. Trevino and Weaver (2007) linked the matter of concern about ethics in business practices to three factors:
(1) ethical failures diminish reputation;
(2) articulating ethical standards now makes it easier to respond to criticism later; and
(3) adoption of ethical standards is a hallmark of a profession. Chaddha (2005) suggest that organizations need to deal with the sources of ethical dilemma to address the problem. A better process for understanding and dealing with ethical dilemmas faced by managers stems from the development and use of codes of conduct, where relationships, situations and decisions are viewed from a variety of stakeholders’ perspectives, and consideration is given to the interactions of multiple systems that exist within an organizational and institutional context that reflects contemporary society.

# 2.3 Dimensions of Ethical Practices

* 2.3.1 Integrity

A substantial proportion of scholars argue that organizations need integrity to function effectively. They find support for their arguments in the works of authors such as Covey (2002). Covey (2002), for example, argues that followers of leaders without integrity sense the leaders’ “duplicity and become guarded” and describes integrity as “honestly matching words and feelings with thoughts and actions, with no desire other than for the good of others.” Gardner (2003) argues that managers of organizations need to demonstrate trust and reliability because people “cannot rally around a manager if they do not know where he or she stands.” Other participants argue that talk about integrity is nice but that most leaders follow a more Machiavellian view. By this they mean that in the end only results matter. Machiavelli himself put it quite eloquently when he wrote that a prince “should appear a man of compassion, a man of good faith, a man of integrity, a kind and a religious man. In the actions of all men, and especially of princes, where there is no court of appeal, one judges by the result. The common people are always impressed by appearances and results.” While the debate continues in seminars around the world (and many news and talk shows), few researchers have attempted to empirically explore the role that integrity plays in organizational sustainability. The current study takes a small step toward providing empirical evidence by examining the impact integrity has on people’s perceptions of sustainability in a sample of public sector managers. Before we turn to the study and its results, we discuss some of the conceptual work on integrity.
Becker (2008) reviews much of the work on integrity and finds that no standard definition is used. One of the main problems he cites is that integrity is treated as synonymous with honesty and fairness. Although no clear definition exists, integrity is supposed to be good for the organization. People high in integrity make excellent candidates for leadership positions because they will not steal organizational resources, treat others unfairly, or deceive themselves or others. This view is consistent with the notion that value driven leaders make decisions in line with the purported values of the organization, and with Artola’s (2007) emphasis on congruence, consistency, morality, universality and concern for others in their description of integrity. Covey (2002) emphasizes principle-centered leadership, which he sees as the foundation of all leadership activities. Becker further believes that most current tests of integrity do not measure integrity as he defines it. Becker (2008), for example, defines the concept of Behavioral Integrity (BI) as “the perceived degree of congruence between the values expressed by words and those expressed through action. It is the perceived level of match or mismatch between the espoused and the enacted. BI, however, does not consider the morality of principles, but rather focuses on the extent to which stated principles match actions.” Since integrity tests tend to invoke social desirability responses (i.e., who would like to say they lack integrity?) and because of the emphasis on action, Becker suggests we obtain assessments of integrity from others, such as supervisors or peers. Some researchers have examined the concept of integrity or concepts that are closely related to integrity such as trust or ethics in organizational contexts. Garrett (2012) studied the professional values of soldiers, which included loyalty to the US Army and integrity among others. They used regression analysis to find that the best indicators of loyalty to the Army were not integrity, as was expected, but rather military bearing and job commitment. Kaptein (2003) developed a model called the Diamond of Managerial Integrity, which he argues can be used to assess and improve the integrity of managers. Morrison (2001) explores the role of integrity in leading global companies and states that “Without integrity, managers will never engender the goodwill and trust of the organization, both essential for effective leadership.”
Davis et al. (2000) analyze the relationship between employees’ trust of a restaurant’s general manager and its operational results. They analyzed mean differences between restaurants with high versus low levels of trust. They found that restaurants with high levels of trust had significantly higher sales and higher profits, and had marginally but statistically significant lower staff turnover. They also focused on the concept of ethical leadership. They were interested in very senior executives, both board and non-board members, because these leaders “create the ‘tone at the top’ that shapes the ethical climate and ethical culture of the organization as well as the organization’s strategy” and therefore impact the ethical culture of the entire organization. Their goal was “to inductively define the content domain of ethical leadership based on a qualitative interview-based investigation”. One of their conclusions is that “People perceive that the ethical leader’s goal is not simply job performance, but performance that is consistent with a set of ethical values and principles; and ethical leaders demonstrate caring for people (employees and external stakeholders) in the process.”
There have been few empirical studies on integrity, and of the ones that exist, only three have examined the relationship between integrity and organizational sustainability. Craig and Gustafson (2008) developed a 31-item scale to measure employees’ perceptions of their leaders’ integrity. The resulting instrument – the Perceived Leader Integrity Scale (PLIS) – was then used to study the relationships between perceived integrity and organizational sustainability. They found significant positive correlation between the PLIS and organizational sustainability. Kaptein (2003) used a revised version of the PLIS to analyze the relationship between Simons’ (1999) concept of behavioral integrity and organizational sustainability, as well as qualities that make up transformational leaders and qualities that make up transactional leaders. Among other things, they found that there is a significant positive correlation between the concepts of perceived integrity and organizational sustainability. Morgan (2009) derived leadership assessment scales, including one on integrity, and then analyzed their relationship to organizational sustainability. Using regression analysis on the constructed scales, he found that integrity was the most important variable related to organizational sustainability (Morgan, 2009).

* 2.3.2 Justice Practices

The study of justice or fairness has been a topic of philosophical interest that extends back since Plato and Socrates. Efforts to explain the impact of justice on effective organizational functioning have come under the rubric of organizational justice research (Kaler, 2003). Justice is a kind of socially perceived approach to come up with a conclusion, what is right and what is not right related to things happening in the organization. Kaler (2003) described organizational justice as a literature "grown around attempts to describe and explain the role of fairness as a consideration in the workplace". This literature includes both field and laboratory research, and organizational justice has been among the most frequently researched topics in industrial organizational psychology, human resource management, and organizational behavior over the last decade (Preston, 1997).
Organizational justice refers to an individual’s perceptions of and reactions to fairness in an organization. Prior research has conceptualized organizational justice along three primary dimensions: distributive, procedural, and interactional. Distributive justice refers to the equity of distribution of resources and decision outcomes, while procedural justice concerns the perceived fairness of processes that lead to outcomes (Curran, 2005). The third dimension, interactional justice, deals with the perceived fairness of treatment received by an individual. Interactional justice is conceptualized along two sub-dimensions: informational and interpersonal. Informational justice focuses on the degree to which individuals are provided with adequate information that explains decisions made or actions taken, while interpersonal justice captures the degree to which individuals are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect. The view of Lee (2009), what people were concerned about was not the absolute level of outcomes per se but whether those outcomes were fair. Adams's theory advocated the use of an equity rule to determine fairness, several other allocation rules have also been identified, such as equality and need. Studies have shown that different contexts (e.g., work vs. family), different organizational goals (e.g., group harmony vs. productivity), and different personal motives (e.g., self-interest motives vs. altruistic motives) can activate the use or primacy of certain allocation rules. Leventhal and colleagues can be credited for extending the notion of procedural justice into non-legal contexts such as organizational settings. In doing so, Leventhal and colleagues also broadened the list of determinants of procedural justice far beyond the concept of process control.
Leventhal's theory of procedural justice judgments focused on six criteria that a procedure should meet if it is to be perceived as fair. Procedures should be applied consistently across people and across time such as to be free from bias (e.g., ensuring that a third party has no vested interest in a particular settlement, ensure that accurate information is collected and used in making decisions, have some mechanism to correct flawed or inaccurate decisions, conform to personal or prevailing standards of ethics or morality, and ensure that the opinions of various groups affected by the decision have been taken into account. Donaldson (2002) referred to these aspects of justice as "interactional justice." More recently, interactional justice has come to be seen as consisting of two specific types of interpersonal treatment. The first, labeled interpersonal justice, reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect by authorities or third parties involved in executing procedures or determining outcomes. The second, labeled informational justice, focuses on the explanations provided to people that convey information about why procedures were used in a certain way or why outcomes were distributed in a certain fashion. In this research, the impact of organizational justice on organizational sustainability is examined.

* 2.3.3 Accountability

Accountability is a complex and multi-faceted concept that is made operational through relationships between individuals and organizations (Ahmed, 2009). While accountability may be difficult to define, there is a consensus that it involves a rendering of an account and therefore the provision of information. Underpinning the concept of accountability is the notion that one person is responsible to another, and is obliged to render an account of their decisions and actions to another party. Spence (2001), is of the opinion that accountability is an obligation to present an account of an answer for the execution of responsibilities to those who entrusted those responsibilities. Accountability is thus established when an agent accepts resources and responsibilities entrusted by the principal.
Beauchamp (2004) argue that accountability is, broadly speaking, the process via which a person or group can be held to account for their conduct. However, the concept of accountability has numerous facets (Curran, 2005) and is complex and not easy to define. The essence of accountability, argue Craig and Gustafson (1998), has always been the obligation to render an account for a responsibility that has been conferred. Accountability according to Lantos (2001) involves the giving and demanding of reasons for conduct and occurs in various social structures, such as within families, friendship groups, and within and between organizations.
Lee (2009) argue that there are, broadly speaking, two aspects of accountability; public/political accountability that involves the public as principals and is concerned with issues of democracy and trust; and managerial accountability that is concerned with day-to-day operations of the organization and can be equated with Preston (1997) concepts of process, performance and program accountabilities.
Preston (1997) argue that, under managerial accountability, the provision of detailed information is not directed to being more accountable to the public but rather it is an attempt by the principals (elected representatives) to control the agents (managers), and to legitimize past decisions and justify future ones. The provision of annual financial statements is an example of legitimizing past decisions. Friedman (2008) argues that accountability can be achieved best by the use of contracts. This relies on the ability to reduce all accountability relationships to ones of obligation, where there is a principal/agent relationship. So long as the contract is clear then the obligations under the relationship are clear as are the information needs to monitor the performance of the contract. However, principal/agent relationships are complicated by information asymmetry and power differentials. It is argued that some relationships cannot be accurately defined by a contract and therefore, to define accountability in contractual terms limits our understanding of the concept. Seglin (2003) suggest that there are also social contracts that are important for accountability and which go beyond the legalistic approach suggested by Bell (2003). The production of annual accounting and performance reports exemplifies a concern with the managerial aspect of accountability rather than public or political accountability. Collier (2005) questions the appropriateness of conventional accounting in providing information for public sector accountability. In effect, he is arguing that the provision of traditional accounting reports is only a part of what constitutes accountability. This is because accounting defines, and limits, the context in which subordinates must explain their actions to their managers.

# 2.4 The Concept of Organizational Sustainability

The concept of organizational sustainability originates from the broader concept of sustainability, which itself was shaped through a number of political, public and academic influences over time. These influences include the conservation movement of the early twentieth century, the environmental and counter technology movements in the 1960s and, the ‘‘no growth’’ philosophy which emerged in the 1970s, as well as contributions from the discipline of ecology. During the 1980s, social issues became more prominent, including human rights, the quality of life as well as poverty, especially in less developed countries. Public pressure increased for new approaches to environment and development, and to integrate environmental protection with a development that would ultimately lead to an alleviation of poverty. The concept of sustainability became known on a global level through the report “Our Common Future” by the World Commission on Environment and Development, an entity of the United Nations also known as the Brundtland Commission. The WCED related sustainability to environmental integrity and social equity, but also to corporations and economic prosperity by coining the term sustainable development, defined as ‘‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’’. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro resulted in widespread acceptance of this definition by business leaders, politicians and NGOs. For organizations, it implied the challenge to simultaneously improve social and human welfare while reducing their ecological impact, and ensuring the effective achievement of organizational objectives.
Based on the WCED definition, as well as on influences from the strategy and management literature, a variety of subsequent definitions emerged of sustainability in relation to organizations, also, referred to as organizational sustainability. These definitions vary on the degree to which they classify organizational sustainability as either mainly an ecological concern or as social responsibility of an organization (Carroll, 1999), or broaden the concept of organizational sustainability to integrate corporate economic activities with organizational concern about the natural and the social environment (Gitlow, 2005). Some scholars also use the term ‘‘corporate social responsibility’’ to describe the integration of social, environmental, and economic concerns into an organization’s culture, decision-making, strategy, and operations. The resulting variety of definitions has created confusion and impediments in the pursuit and implementation of corporate sustainability, as organizational members find it difficult to interpret and operationalize the term. While there is not only disagreement concerning the concept of organizational sustainability, there is also a lack of clarity on how to best implement organizational sustainability in organizational practice. Past research has mainly focused on the overall adoption of sustainability practices by firms and related classifications schemes. The primary drivers behind this adoption process were thought to be factors external to the organization, such as environmental regulation and standards set by governments, or pressures resulting from customers’ groups and the community. The organization itself, however, was largely treated as a ‘‘black box’’.
Several recent studies have pointed to internal organizational pressures for the adoption of sustainability practices, such as staff turnover due to decreasing firm loyalty and workplace satisfaction. These studies identify internal organizational factors, such as top management support, human resource management, environmental training, employee empowerment, teamwork and reward systems, as important aspects for achieving corporate hisustainability. Other authors argue that more far-reachingchanges in employee values and underlying assumptions arerequired for organizations to truly achieve corporate sustainability. Together, these studies suggest thatorganizational sustainability is a multifaceted concept that requires organizational change and adaptation on different levels.On a surface level, the adoption of organizational sustainability principles becomes visible through technical solutions, the publication of corporate sustainability reports, the integration ofsustainability measures in employee performance evaluation, or employee training. This provides the context for the adoption of sustainability practices. On a value level, theadoption of organizational sustainability principles takes place throughchanges in employees’ values and beliefs towards more ethical and more responsible values. On an underlying level, the adoption of organizational sustainability principles requires a change in core assumptions regarding the interdependence of human and ecological systems. The different levels of organizational sustainability suggest a parallel to the different dimensions of organizational culture: the observable culture (the visible organizational structure, processes and behaviors),espoused values (strategies, goals and philosophies), and underlying assumptions (unconscious beliefs and perceptions which form the ultimate source of values and action).

# 2.5 The measures of organizational sustainability

* 2.5.1 Financial Sustainability

The key to organizational survival is the ability to acquire and maintain resources. Financial resource acquisition has always been a priority for business organizations as they try to acquire funds to implement their business plan. It is widely accepted in the business research community that the most fundamental and critical challenge that non-profit America has confronted is a significant fiscal squeeze. Lane (2006) defined financial stress as an imbalance between revenue and expenses that threatens a business’s effectiveness in goods and service delivery, and even the organization’s survival. According to Salamon (2003), “fiscal distress has been a way of life for myopic organizations throughout history.” He easily found stories of fiscal stress and failure of some business organizations, particularly of some prominent ones.It is not difficult to find some “hard data” to empirically support this scholarly perception. In their 2003 report on the Indiana profit sector, Gronbjerg and Clerkin (2003)identified top three “major challenges” for different groups of business organizations.“Obtaining funding” was the most visible challenge across the board: it was the top one challenge for human service sector (76%) and mutual benefits sector (100%);number two challenge for health sector (73%), and arts, culture, and humanities sector (80%); and number three challenge for education sector (48%). As the American business organization is now trying to survive the most critical economic recession it has ever faced, obtaining sufficient funding is of even more particular importance. In a 2009 survey by McLean and Brouwer, more than half of organizations reported having experienced a decrease in contributions during the period from October 2008 to February 2009, compared to the same period a year earlier. Eight percent of responding organizations were having trouble making their ends meet and were “in imminent danger of closing their doors because of a lack of financial resources.
As the country is experiencing the current economic downturn, it is a good time to revisit some important questions in financial management, such as:
1. What sources of funds are businesses relying on?
2. How difficult it is for businesses to obtain and secure these funding sources?
3. And what are effects of these sources on an overall revenue structure as well as organizational sustainability?

# 2.5.2 Strategic Sustainability

Organizations are increasingly inclined to integrate society’s expectations into their business strategies, not only to respond to rising pressure from consumers, employees and other stakeholders but also to explore opportunities for creating competitive advantage. To this end, management researchers are seeking to identify a set of factors with the potential for facilitating effective integration of sustainability into organizational practices. Leadership has been recognized as an important factor, promoting the commitment of organizations as a whole, driving cultural values towards such commitment rather than a form of control. Likewise, Garrett (2012) describes a set of ideal types of organizations, and for each type elaborates a system of values and related institutional structures, such as governance and the role of leadership. Laczniak (2003) discusses the role of leadership in the process of change, pointing out that green practices take place when managers cultivate employee commitment to belonging to a socially responsible organization. In short, leadership appears to play an important role in the corporate adoption of sustainability practices.

Other factors recognized as promoters of sustainability initiatives are institutional mechanisms such as communication and training. Stone (2006) points out that, in order to achieve a high degree of organizational commitment and to remove obstacles to changes of attitude and involvement, well-defined training and communication plans are key factors in promoting a clear understanding of the role and importance of sustainable practices for organizational strategy and goals.
In a different approach, Tregiga (2006) analyze corporate reports with a view to understanding the emergence and development of the discourse of sustainability. They discussed the role of communication and reporting mechanisms in building and legitimizing corporate sustainability initiatives and helping to reduce the sense that sustainability and businesses are incompatible. From this standpoint, corporate reports may be seen as a tool for promoting adequate education and information, as pointed out by Stone (2006).
Bansal (2009) proposes that organizational commitment to sustainability is facilitated when top management buy the concept, but also when lower organizational levels engage in sustainability, i.e., when there is congruence between employees’ concerns and organizational values. Agents of change can be internal, like those noted so far, or external, such as investors, suppliers, regulatory agencies, and even customers. Bansal(2009) associate management’s perception of stakeholders' pressures with more proactive undertakings towards environmental commitment. Broadening this study, Sharma (2005) proposed a typology linking different types of stakeholder influence strategies with various sustainability practices adopted by organizations. They not only confirm that stakeholders do have an influence on sustainability practices, but also point to different pressures exerted by stakeholders that affect such practices.
Our literature review suggests that although researchers are attempting to identify and understand factors that might influence the integration of sustainability into strategy by today’s firms, very few studies, if any, have proposed a more integrated view of these factors. The recent article by Sharma (2009) is one of the rare few that go further in this direction, considering internal and external influences, proposing a group of cognitive, linguistic and conative dimensions in order to identify an organization’s intrinsic orientation toward the adoption of CSR. The cognitive dimension has to do with aspects involving corporate identity, orientation and legitimacy, organizational
beliefs and values regarding the adoption of sustainability. The linguistic dimension involves organizational modes of justification and is directly related to considerations of transparency and communication. The conative dimension concerns the way organizations tend to behave, involving coherence among (and by means of) practices and strategic policies and degrees of commitment (Bansal, 2003).
While the three dimensions of Palazzo (2008) encompass a collection of factors that have garnered support in previous research, we still identify a gap when it comes to understanding better exactly how these factors interact as an influence on the incorporation of sustainability into business strategies. Furthermore, the bulk of research into sustainability focuses on developed countries. Our research has, therefore, two aims: firstly, to make conceptual advances in the area of the integration of sustainability into firms’ business strategies; secondly, to promote a better understanding of how successful companies operating in an African context – more specifically, in Nigeria – have been in promoting such integration.

# 2.5.3 Project/Program Sustainability

The concept of sustainability has been recently been implemented in the project management knowledge area, while sustainability and project management are in contrast to some extent. In order to translate the main criteria of sustainability concept into capability of companies there are some indicators that can be utilized by companies to assess their current levels in different perspective and also facilitate to bridge the gap between actual and desired levels. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) that is an organization pioneer in sustainability reporting has developed a checklist for considering sustainability in projects and project management. The main principles of sustainability that can be a guideline in the implementation of sustainability concept in project management are the following:
1) Sustainability is about harmonizing social, environmental and economic pillars and companies should try to satisfy all of them. The project management perspective focuses on the triple constraints (time, cost and scope) or in other words just profit (P).
2) Sustainability focuses on the long term as well as short term goals.
3) Companies are under influence of international stakeholders, so sustainability is related to both local and international orientations.
4) Sustainability is about consuming incomes and natural capitals remains intact. Moreover, a company should manage their social and environmental capitals as well.
5) Transparency and accountability are important components of sustainability. Companies need to prove clear and regular report concerning their decision and social and environmental effect of their actions to all potential stakeholders. Also, the company accepts responsibility for its actions and polices.
6) Sustainability is not a fixed goal. It is a direction of movement and a key element of sustainability is “change” towards a more sustainable business, therefore personal value and ethics are critical elements.

Although it is necessary to be aware of the sustainability integration concept it is also important to move from theory into practice. To put sustainability concept into practice, basically three levels of integration can be considered: Personal (project manager) level, project level and organization level.
These sections focus on the case of project level: to answer how will it affect the project management processes. Based on the methodology of PMBOK standard, project management processes can be defined in five process groups: initiating, planning, executing, controlling and closing. According to a research done on a group of projects; for each process group the extent that scope and objectives of the project provide opportunities for integrating sustainability and also the opportunities that project provides for integration has been evaluated. Therefore, it revealed that although the potential of integration of sustainable development and project management exist in all process group, the area and the level of integrations varies. For instance, the initiating process has high potential to integrate the concepts of sustainability into the content (objective, intended result, deliverable) of the project, while the controlling process provide more opportunity for Integrating the concepts of sustainability in the process of the project.
In the same approach, the impact of the main sustainability principles on project management processes has been recognized. As it is expected, both transparency and accountability and Personal values and ethics have the most impact on project management process. In this pathway, Project managers are in the frontline of organizations to achieve sustainability. EU conference of PMI explained the importance of the issue that: ‟Corporate social responsibility is too big an issue to leave to someone else to address” and Project management will change from “doing things right” to “doing the right things right”. For this reason, integration of sustainability extends the system boundary of project management, in other words it emphasizes the idea of corporate social responsibility that full life cycle of project should be included and full life cycle of project basically include: project life cycle, asset life cycle and product life.
One of the most significant hindering forces in the integrating of sustainability is the difficulty of incorporation of social and environmental dimensions of sustainability in programs and projects. There have been some researches to develop a structure to fulfill this integration in the operational term. The Balanced Score card (BSC) that is one of the most popular performance measurement systems has been the most widely utilized and recommended tools between companies in order to translate the nonfinancial issues of sustainability into their objective. BSC define the goals that organization is going to monitor in four perspectives: financial, customer, internal and Learning & growth through defining performance indicators and proper targets. In addition, a main challenge is also that project management standards could not meet the sustainability needs. The most Well-known standards neither discussed the importance of sustainability nor the methods to implement or integrate. For instance, the construction (extension) guide to the PMBOK has reviewed the importance of environmental management briefly and mentioned three processes for environmental management superficially (environmental planning, environmental assurance and environmental control). The standards also sometimes try to take advantages of ISO 14000 standards while these series of ISO standards are faced with some weaknesses. It is expected that this integration change the Project management profession. The main challenging areas are:

* How to apply in practice the sustainability concept in project management?
* What are the implications of the integration for managers and organizations?
* And also, how to measure and monitor it further?

Raising organization awareness of environmental issues is an important step toward increasing sustainability measures in any company. Basically, Environmental learning process in an organization comprises of two main components: individual and social. Nevis (2006) explains that this learning process can occur in three phases: Acquisition, Distribution and Utilization of the knowledge.

# Discussion of Findings

* The findings revealed a significant relationship between integrity and financial sustainability. This was validated by the fact that sound principles guides their organization’s behavior, their organization does not mislead its stakeholders, their organization has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do and their organization can be relied on to keep its promises. Also, management ensures that funds are available when needed and that they are obtained and used in the most efficient and effective way to the benefit of all stakeholders, managing the movement of funds in relation to the budget is essential for my organization and financial planning in their organization seeks to quantify various financial resources available and plan the size and timing of expenditures. A substantial proportion of scholars argue that organizations need integrity to function effectively. They found support for their arguments in the works of authors such as Covey (1992) and Gardner (1993). Covey (1992), for example, they argued that followers of leaders without integrity sense the leaders’ “duplicity and become guarded” and describes integrity as “honestly matching words and feelings with thoughts and actions, with no desire other than for the good of others.” Lane (2006) defined financial stress as an imbalance between revenue and expenses that threatens a business’s effectiveness in goods and service delivery, and even the organization’s survival. This implies that when organization upholds integrity, financial sustainability of such organization will be in place. Therefore, this agrees with the findings of the present study.

* The significant relationship that exist between justice practices and strategic sustainability was validated by the fact that the respondents rating is based on the quality and quantity of their work and not their personality or position and their performance rating is based on how well they do my work . Also, there is sound organizational planning and the set-up and implementation of workable systems which can respond to, and overcome the financial challenges a firm may face. Greenberg (1990) described organizational justice as a literature "grown around attempts to describe and explain the role of fairness as a consideration in the workplace". Also, organizational justice refers to an individual’s perceptions of and reactions to fairness in an organization (Greenberg, 1987). Lane (2006) defined financial stress as an imbalance between revenue and expenses that threatens a business’s effectiveness in goods and service delivery, and even the organization’s survival .This interestingly implies that when justice is practiced in an organization, it will lead to sustainability of such organization. This confirms the findings of the present study.

* Furthermore, the study revealed a significant relationship between accountability and strategic sustainability. This was made possible because, the actions of my organization are closely scrutinized by one or more regulatory bodies, their company’s sustainability goal is integrated with their operations, processes and culture, their company’s sustainability goal receives sufficient focus from senior management, and all responsibilities and accountabilities are clear and their company has conducted a thorough assessment of the drivers of sustainability that present the greatest opportunities and potential risks to their businesses. Accountability is a complex and multi-faceted concept (Sinclair, 1995) that is made operational through relationships between individuals and organizations (Ebrahim, 2003). Organizations are increasingly inclined to integrate society’s expectations into their business strategies, not only to respond to rising pressure from consumers, employees and other stakeholders but also to explore opportunities for creating competitive advantage (Bonini& Oppenheim, 2006) .The implication is that strategic sustenance of any institution or organization will rely heavily on how accountable such organization is