Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Stream: Sustainability and Social Issues in Management
Competitive Session
Systemic and institutional barriers to core sustainability: Tackling the elephant in the room.
Ms Elizabeth R. Skringar
School of Management, Faculty of Business
University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia
Email: [email protected]
Mr Peri Makris
School of Geography & Environmental Studies, Faculty of Science, Engineering & Technology
University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
Email: [email protected]
Dr Stewart Williams
School of Geography & Environmental Studies, Faculty of Science, Engineering & Technology
University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
Email: [email protected]
Systemic and institutional barriers to core sustainability: Tackling the elephant in the room.
ABSTRACT: The electricity industry has at its core a non-renewable resource (coal) germane to the industrial revolution, but still used globally as a primary fuel source to provide energy for fabricating consumer goods and a medium for their consumption. Economic (dis-)incentives are not hastening change, suggesting inefficiencies can no longer be driven out of the system, noting fiscal controls only work if competition prevails. A pilot case study shows free market dynamics, operating in one part of the system, can dictate directionality and set priorities for the entire system, in the process either co-opting or denuding governance, rendering regulators powerless and annulling market contestability thereby disempowering consumers whilst delaying adoption of alternative forms of energy.
Keywords: Sustainability, managing for the common good, cross-discipline, codes of conduct, ethics, corruption.
We present preliminary findings of a pilot study, as part of an ongoing, interdisciplinary
collaboration between business and environmental science, investigating systemic barriers to fossil
fuel replacement in the Australian electricity generation and supply industry. This seminal ‘essential’
service industry has at its core a non-renewable resource viz., coal - germane to the industrial
revolution, but still used globally as a primary fuel source to generate energy. It is now recognised as
the greatest contributor, by far, to anthropogenic carbon emissions, associated with global warming
and unprecedented extreme weather events characteristic of climate change.
The states of Victoria and Tasmania were selected for the pilot study to test the methodology for
ensuing and more comprehensive Australia-wide investigation. Each state offers unique characterises
for investigation such as different market forms (unregulated and regulated) and interactional
dynamics, extremes of non-renewable and renewable fuel use (brown coal in Victoria and hydro in
Tasmania) and unique economies of varying size and scale (consumer and company populations).
The paper begins by defining the parameters of sustainability and juxtaposing incomplete and/or
divergent terms and concepts used variously in the discreet domains of business and environmental
science. We thereby raise attention to some inherent, apparently irreconcilable paradoxes that
otherwise thwart any joint pursuit of sustainability, including creating compatible and effective tools
to collectively tackle sustainability issues, given the central need for a basic shared understanding
from which to begin. Fundamental principles in business and environmental management praxis are
called into question and emergent themes are discussed. For example, in the former, complex market
dynamics and extolled tenets of competitive strategy conspiring to form systemic barriers to timely
operationalisation of sustainability mandates (irrespective of market structure). Likewise, in the latter,
adaptive instruments and mitigation strategies not often appropriately scaled nor adequately targeted
for optimum environmental outcomes. Following a critique utilising preliminary findings from the
industry case study, we make suggestions towards a tentative and pragmatic convergence in the
pursuit of sustainability by actors in business and environmental management. The analytic tools and
methods used in the pilot will be redeployed in a subsequent larger study and so any limitations are
duly recognised with a view to refinement.
SUSTAINABILITY’S ‘TOWER OF BABEL’
Metaphors, mimetics and memes only assist in transferring concepts from unfamiliar to familiar
domains if they are not stretched so as to pervert original intent and do not create paradoxes. Both
science and business use such heuristic and co-optation devices. However, so as to achieve relevance
and fit, terms are interchanged and syllables recombined; semantics are altered, important theoretical
premises and modelled semiotics are skipped; and, etymology, original intent and historical evolution
are overlooked. Transmogrified concepts are then re-translated and built upon, potentially
compounding the aforementioned problems whilst providing false comfort of deep understanding.
Examples in business include Hannan and Freeman’s (1977) Population Ecology model from
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and Romanelli and Tushman’s (1994) Punctuated Equilibrium model
from Palaeobiology’s exposition of the fossil record (Gould & Eldredge, 1977). Science coined the
term ‘Natural Capitalism’ (Hawken et al, 1999; 2010) - an extension of ‘capital’ redefined and
prefixed with ‘natural’, incorporating the environment and people. Evidence of failure in conceptual
transference is business’ self-selecting, piecemeal adoption of only one of four principles initially
proposed by Hawken et al (Moscardo et al, 2013) as shown in Table 1. Herein contrasts are made in
use of terms and concepts pertaining to sustainability across disciplines together with convergent
alternatives which seek to avoid paradoxes and create a basis for a much needed Lingua Franca.
[Insert Table 1 here]
The evolution of discourse on ‘sustainability’ in science began with defining ‘unsustainability’
a priori. The concept was later introduced into business as ‘sustainability’ a posteriori. However,
where science defined the object of sustainability falsifiably, business has not, thus embracing
sustainability as a process - a means to an end and an adjective, rather than an end in itself and a verb
or noun. It must be noted though that some environmental scholars have shared this stance in their
critique of sustainability’s limited, instrumental use in the pursuit of ‘business as usual’ (Raffaelle et
al, 2010; Davidson, 2000). Similarly business scholars have cautioned against over-extension of bio-
mimetics on the grounds that a biological organism cannot determine its own existence, divest ‘bits of
itself’ nor merge select parts with other organisms like organisations, social and economic systems and
technology can (Donaldson, 1995). Such mixing of ‘socially-constructed’ concepts with concrete
physical reality is further illustrated in business literature by the convention of including the
environment alongside political, legal and technological elements, to elucidate open systems
interaction within an organisation’s macro-environment (Skringar & Stevens, 2008). Science’s caveat
here reflects the laws of thermodynamics: excepting solar radiation, the planet is essentially a closed
system - there is no net loss nor gain - matter and energy are just transformed from one state to another
in a cyclical fashion. Thus, if an adult today were atomised to their chemical elements “they…would
probably…[be]… made up of bits of the Black Sea, extinct fish, mountain ranges and the exhalations
of Jesus and Buddha…[not meaning]…twenty centuries from now, our…descendants will…be built
from pieces of polystyrene cups…[I-tech devices]…, and Reebok cross-trainers…these goods do not
naturally recycle” (Hawken et al, 2010: 49) rather they accumulate as waste replacing nature. It is
accepted fact in science natural resource use has exceeded its rate of regeneration such that global
humanity’s collective rate of consumption now requires us to have access to an additional 1.5 Earth’s
and in the vicinity of 4.51 if all humanity lived the same manner as a middle-class US or UAE citizen
(Ewing et al, 2010). ‘Sustainable Growth’ in business infers long-term viability (Springett, 2003) but
in the scientific vernacular this is oxymoronic as continual growth cannot happen in a closed system or
1 The equivalent to 4 Earth’s would be required to support a global population consuming at the same rate as Australians (SGV, 2013).
finite world (Hopwood et al, 2005), thus environmental scholars have long debated contradictions and
contestation inherent in this notion (Raffaelle et al, 2010; Jacobs, 1999)
LOOKING BACK TO SEE THE WAY FORWARD
Historical reinterpretation is blessed with the wisdom of hindsight wherein the deeds of
individuals alternate from infamy to admiration - Adam Smith is one such individual. Smith (1776), a
moral sentimentalist philosopher, inspired by French physiocrats (Yefimov, 2013; Boutillier, 2011),
penned ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations’ prompted by the oppressive,
inequitably socially stratified society around him. He fundamentally argued everyone should be
entitled to ‘ownership’, paid a reasonable wage for their labours and/or compete freely for an income.
Historical exemplars of ‘unsustainable’ human activity rarely need reinterpretation as history is awash
with them from collapse of empires to famine and spread of disease (Hugé, 2012). ‘Sustainability’ as a
discrete concept was not formally recognised until such publications as, conservationist and marine
biologist Carson’s (1962) ‘The Silent Spring’ chronicled the pathogenic consequences of pesticides
(DDT) and, ecologist, Hardin’s (1968) ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ on individual self-interest usurping
common resources to the detriment of individuals themselves (Tuazon et al, 2013; Hugé, 2012; Du
Pisani, 2006). Themes in these books encapsulated pre-industrial, industrial revolution (circa 1760 -
1840) and post-industrial thinking (Tuazon et al, 2013; Waas et al, 2011; Hugé, 2012; Du Pisani,
2006). Malthus (1798) wrote on exponential population growth outstripping linear food production
capacity. Later Jevons (1865), a UK-based physical scientist, invoking Malthus (1798) and citing
German-based, thermodynamics founder Clausius, argued the unsustainability of coal and need to find
alternative energy sources (i.e. wind/water/tidal mills to power ‘magneto-electric machines’). Despite
gaining full knowledge of non-renewable resource exhaustibility, the issue still remains irresolute.
Extending Adam Smith’s (1776) sentiments Veblen (1899) wrote of ‘conspicuous consumption’
amongst the leisure classes, revisited by Galbraith (1958) reflecting on US affluence. Veblen (1904)
also theorised about the formation of business enterprise - latterly recognised as evolutionary
institutional economics (Potts, 2007; Wray, 2007; Hodgson, 2007) aligning him with the views of
Keynes (1936) whose ideas made way for the Bretton-Woods Accord, IMF2 and GATT3. The latter
was subsequently dismantled by global, pro-Smith liberal democracy commencing in 1979 (Skringar
& Stevens, 2008), concomitant with Porter’s (1980) writings on the competitive diamond strategy
model followed by ‘The Competitive Advantage of Nations’ (1990) in which he asserted wealth is
created by choice not national endowments (i.e. raw resources and other factors) thus debunking Smith
(1776). Ironically, these machinations, ruled rather by the ‘invisible hand’ than by fate, are illustrated
in 2002 where a count of the 100 largest global economies, revealed the majority (51%) were
corporations, not nation states (Hertz, 2002). Forbes’ (2013) ranked list of the largest global public
corporations, calculated using 4 composite metrics ($ value of sales, profit, assets and market value)
shows of the top 25 companies, 36% are banks, 44% involve fossil fuel either as a producer (32%) or
downstream electrical/automotive products supplier (12%) and 16% are non-material service
organisations (ITC, non-banking services).
In 1972 ‘sustainability’ was ratified in the UN4 ’s agenda as it appeared in the Stockholm
Declaration (Hugé, 2012; Waas et al, 2011) setting a politico-social precedent of import for non-
renewable resource industry participants and the onus for associated environmental damage. Prima
facie undermining sovereignty of oil-producing nations (Scott, 2002), along with US withdrawal from
the Bretton-Woods Accord in 1971 (changing oil currency to USD), contributed to the 1973 energy
crisis spearheaded by OAPEC5 and OPEC6 members. The actions of these ‘cartels’ had significant
future ramifications in suring up national energy security providing context to Porter’s model of
competitive strategy and future renunciation of national endowments being the harbinger of wealth.
Notably since the 1970’s, electricity doubled its share in the energy market whilst share of all other
energy sources declined (barring nuclear energy), and now accounts for 17% of the total global energy
market, marginally behind oil (Lenzen, 2010). In 2006 fossil fuels accounted for 67% of global
electricity generation comprising coal (41%), gas (20%) and oil (6%) followed by nuclear fuel (15%),
and renewables at 18%, led by hydro (16%) with coal and nuclear fuels used for base loading and gas
2 International Monetary Fund 3 General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs 4 United Nations 5 Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries 6 Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
and oil as back-ups, to offset peaks and cater to dispersed (regional) load requisites (Lenzen, 2010).
Whilst international support for nuclear R&D rose sharply between 1974 and 2002 (IPCC, 2007),
fossil-fuel energy is expected to retain primacy until at least 2030 (Lenzen, 2010).
The notion of sustainability that prevails today was enshrined in the World Conference in
Environmental Development and specifically the Brundtland report that espoused its global agenda for
change (WCED, 1987). It is committed to intergenerational equity and more explicitly sustainable
development acknowledging “present state of technology…social organization” (WCED, 1987: 4) and
poignantly biophysical capacity for renewal. The IPCC7 was formed in 1988 by UNEP8 and WMO9.
With members in 195 countries, it is a global suppository for climate knowledge volunteered by
thousands of research scientists and publishes its assessments (now in their 5th iteration) in a
transparent participatory process. Four base future scenarios have been formulated (IPCC, 2000) and
expanded revolving around economic growth and environmental focus interpolated with scale
emphasis (globalisation/regionalisation) (see Figure 1) yielding numerous extrapolations of ‘current’
trajectories coupled to future outcomes. Scenario B1 or B2 is favoured, resulting in decreasing
anthropogenic GHG10 emissions - foremostly carbon released by burning fossil fuels such as coal.
[Insert Figure 1 here]
The IPCC scenarios are intended as a reference for discourse and metrics and wherein
economics and the environment appear divergent, the scientific and environmental literature
emphasises evolution towards conciliation (see Figure 2).
[Insert Figure 2 here]
Sustainable environmental management in various guises has had at its disposal three policy-
drivers embodied in climate change mitigation instruments: 1) economic (subsidies, taxes including
exemptions and credits); 2) regulatory (mandated targets, minimum performance standards, auto-
exhaust emission control); and 3) consultative/voluntary processes (information dissemination,
strategic planning, community/stakeholder consultation/volunteerism, (in-)formal agreements) (IPCC,
2007). Progression towards positive change using these three levers has not reached desirable targets. 7 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 8 United Nations Environment Programme 9 World Meteorological Organization 10 Greenhouse gas
Findings from the pilot study and reviewed literature indicate this failure may be due to paradoxes (see
Table 1) and consequent misconstruals and miscommunications between business and science of their
understandings and activities resulting in misaligned efforts. Not aiding the cause is adoption and
reworking of past ideas conditional on their contemporary social re-constructability thus, in reality
very few, if any environmental sustainability issues have been resolved than have been exacerbated.
INDUSTRY CASE ANALYSIS
Burning brown coal to generate electricity emits one third more GHG’s than black coal, three
times more than natural gas (the lowest of all non-renewable fuels) and sixty two times more than
current renewable fuels (Tarlo, 2002). In Australia domestic reliance on brown coal switched from
black coal coinciding with the global energy crisis in 1973 (ABREE, 2012a). Driven by global energy
(oil) insecurity and shifting demand, black coal became a high value commodity export which now
accounts for 61% of Australian energy commodity exports, outstripping uranium (25%), natural gas
(8%) and oil (7%) (ABREE, 2012b). Brown coal surpassed black coal for domestic use in 1986/87
and has remained unchallenged since (ABREE, 2012a). From 2007 to 2011 use of natural gas
increased by 7% to 21%, offsetting a fall in coal of 10% to 56%, although coal still accounts for 78%
of base load; of renewables, hydro fell by 3% to 16% and wind increased by 2.5% to 4% (AER, 2007;
2011). Coal-fired electricity generation trumps alternate energies as it is cheaper to generate and
allows control in supply continuity, noting electricity storage technology does not yet exist (Trainer,
1995). Barriers to adopting alternative energies include the need and time lag involved in constructing
and operationalising infrastructure mitigating against attaining equivalent economies of scale;
problems with grid integration (wind); geographical mismatch (water catchments for hydro, carbon
capture/storage, biomass variability); diminishing resources (uranium, water loss for hydro due to
aridification); cost (photovoltaic, solar concentrating technologies); and, reliance on constant weather
conditions, now in an increasing state of flux (Lenzen, 2010; Trainer, 1995).
Victoria and South Australia are the only states using brown coal (accounting for 92% and 26%
of generation respectively) (ABREE, 2012c) and are also the only states in which the industry is
unregulated. Renewable hydro accounts for 82% of generation in Tasmania, which is fully regulated
(AER, 2011). Generation from renewable fuels accounts for 5.4% in Victoria and 86% in Tasmania.
In 2010-11 Victoria’s total consumption of electricity was four times that of Tasmania however, the
former generated a surplus and the latter a deficit (ABREE, 2012d). Conventional coal-fired power
stations in the La Trobe Valley (significantly containing 25% of global brown coal reserves) supply
67% of Victoria’s electricity exclusively from adjacent coal mines. To add context to scale, Loy Yang
A, one of four power stations, uses 60,000 tonnes of coal extracted in 24 hour shifts, along with
1million litres of water per hour (Loy Yang Power, 2011). Figure 3, commencing with generation,
summarises the industry supply chain for both Tasmania and Victoria, gleaned from systematic review
of Governmental and regulatory bodies and annual company reports, topical to the following analysis.
[Insert Figure 3 here] Competitive dynamics
Around 60% of Victoria’s electricity industry is foreign-owned, albeit variously in generation
(67%), transmission (100%), distribution (53%) and retail operations (25%). La Trobe Valley contains
both the least and most efficient power stations, viz. foreign-owned Hazelwood (GDF Suez
International UK) and Australian-owned Loy Yang A (AGL Ltd). Vertical and horizontal cross-
ownership is evident in the supply chain. For example, CLP Holdings Hong Kong, an Asian-based
electricity generator, transmitter and retailer, has 24% share of generation and 25% of retail
operations. Temasek, a Singaporean based investment bank, holds 100% of transmission and a 33%
stake in distribution (via 3 trading entities). It is “governed by the…Singapore Companies Act
(Temasek, 2012b) and invests in “transforming economies…growing middle income populations…[in
a portfolio of]…telecommunications, media, financial services, real estate, transportation, logistics,
energy, resources, infrastructure, engineering, technology, bioscience, healthcare” (Temasek, 2012a).
Underlying the structural layering and trading entities in Victoria (impacting Tasmania via
Basslink) is horizontally integrated, foreign and non-foreign, cross-ownership concentration at crucial
leverage points in the supply chain (i.e. transmission><distribution; generation><retail) and
horizontally integrated cross-ownership in fuel types (i.e. non-renewable and renewable alternatives to
brown coal). Retailing in multiple fuels is evident amongst 3 of 5 retailers, collectively holding 80%
share of the voluminous residential and small business markets. However, two of these retailers (AGL
Ltd and Australian Energy owned by CLP Holdings Hong Kong) who hold 50% share in these
markets, sell both non-renewables (coal and gas) and renewables, but are themselves coal-fired
electricity generators, supplying over one third of coal-powered electricity in Victoria. Indeed, AGL
Ltd owns the brown coal mine supplying various generators in the La Trobe Valley.
Pricing
The highest price increases across the supply chain in 2011-12 were recorded amongst
distributors SP AusNet at 23.5% (51% owned by Temasek and 49% by private direct shareholders);
Jemena at 10.5% (100% owned by SPI, in turn 100% owned by Temasek); then, United Energy at
9.6% (34% owned by Jemena which is 100% owned by SPI, in turn 100% owned by Temasek) (AER,
2011). Collectively these entities represent 61% of all distributors in Victoria whose customers are
defined as ‘connections’, in turn serviced by retailers - the interface for consumers, who meter and bill
customers adding their on-costs and margins - as such, there is a highly interdependent relationship
between distributors and retailers but no direct relationship between distributors and consumers.
Composition of residential electricity bills (AER, 2011; AEMC, 2011; United Energy, 2012b;
Aurora, 2012a) shows the proportional contribution of wholesale electricity costs in Tasmania (hydro)
is the same as Victoria (coal-powered) (34%) and Tasmania’s green costs (carbon emissions/
efficiency schemes) significantly exceed Victoria’s (11% cf. 3%). This is also the case for distribution
cost contributions (48% cf. 36%) despite Victoria’s larger population size. Victoria’s retail cost
contributions far exceed Tasmania’s (27% cf. 8%) due to its larger population size.
Financial Performance/Investment
Using revenue, profit and asset utilisation as indicators from annual company and other reports,
a comparison between Victoria’s, AGL Ltd (generation/retail businesses) and Tasmania’s Aurora
Energy (generation/transmission/ distribution/retail) and Hydro Tasmania (generation/minor other
activity) shows AGL’s brown coal-powered generation activity alone recorded greater revenue in 2012
than did Aurora and Hydro Tasmania together ($3,2126M cf. $1,493M and $1,051M respectively). It
is unsurprising given the difference in customer numbers. However, whilst Hydro Tasmania, with one
sixth the asset base of AGL’s generation business performed twice better than AGL in capitalising its
assets to create total revenue (even when paying 7 times more tax), AGL is actually five times more
profitable overall and three times better at turning a profit from its coal-power assets. Aurora recorded
one third more revenue than Hydro Tasmania, but performed 20% to 30% less well in respect to
utilising its assets to generate revenue and turn a profit.
Government Initiatives/Activity
In 2012 the New South Wales, Victorian and Federal Governments bought into the Victorian
electricity market by launching hydro power from Snowy Mountain Hydro. Momentum (the trading
arm of Hydro Tasmania) retained by the Tasmanian Government bought hydro into the Victorian and
South Australian electricity markets retailing under purchased licence agreements. Although Hydro
Tasmania (2012) does not explicate “direct operating expenses” in its annual financial reports, via a
process of exclusion, it is assumed the figure of $101.9 M cited in a footnote is wholly or partly
attributable to Momentum’s retail operations.
During the 2011-12 financial year Aurora (Hydro Tasmania’s bill collector) reported a tenfold
increase in hardship payments by customers from an almost zero base, costing $326K and impacting
2,451 customers (Aurora Energy, 2012a). In the same financial year, Aurora incurred no tax, its
revenue and underlying profit reached a four year peak as did dividends paid to the Tasmanian
Government, yet its capital expenditure was the lowest in four years.
An initiative to convert brown coal into non-conventional crude oil to process into diesel, jet
fuel and petroleum has been funded by the Federal Government. It comprises the Victorian
Government, international parties from Japan, Australian companies in joint international venture,
CSIRO, a university and CPL Holdings Hong Kong. The relative investment value of brown coal is
thus poised to skyrocket from its current low base reflecting a shift in value based on desirability
expecting to rival oil (Grant Thornton, 2010) guaranteeing an increase, not lessening in its use.
Commitment to Sustainability
Comparison across corporate statements allied to annual reports of reviewed operating entities
in Victoria and Tasmania reveals complete omission by Temasek of any statement on the environment
or sustainability - in lieu, complete focus on shareholder returns. Of all reports reviewed, Hydro
Tasmania’s (2009) is outstanding as it goes beyond a statement (and platitudes) to an action plan and
evaluation of it. Its commitment to the environment is fortified by its investment and activity of its
consulting arm Entura (2010).
DISCUSSION - SOME STEPPING STONES
We initially raised paradoxes and terminological issues as they represent a limitation to
interdisciplinary study, discourse and joint action on sustainability. After defining the concept we
tangibly demonstrated tensions between fossil fuel’s menacing contribution to global climate change
effects begging “nothing short of an energy revolution” (Lenzen, 2010: 475) and the reality of locked-
in thinking and action, as palpable as the physical infrastructure to which it capitulates. Escalating
global oil and gas prices will again place reliance on coal - anticipated to increase to 46% by 2030
(Lenzen, 2010) on top of a volumetrically expanding energy demand base11. These forecasts, together
with dominance of banks in the world’s top public companies and our preliminary findings suggest a
very strong institutional economic agenda, as propagated by Veblen (1904) driving the sustainability
mandate. It also portends the IPCC’s A1FI scenario as an increasing likely and persistent reality. That
economic incentives are not hastening change suggests we may have reached the point where
inefficiencies can no longer be driven out of the system (Galbraith, 1952) noting monetary controls
only work if competition prevails. Capitalising on efficiency (per ‘Natural Capitalism’) is thus
anathema if business feeds off and thrives on institutionalised inefficiency. Oligopolies operating at
the root of the electricity supply chain around which multifarious supporting industries have formed
and congealed, collectively lock out alternatives. Oligopolists maximise profit via price setting,
significantly impacting others around them and downstream of the supply chain. A small number of
players are a surety if entry barriers are dictated by economies of scale, viz. the ability to marshal
sufficient capitalisation to acquire substantial assets and also withstand lengthy marginal cost pricing.
Especially attractive is little or no product differentiation such that end-users cannot contest price on
product quality nor ‘knowable’ costs (Redmond, 2013). Contestation is negated by gaps between
consumers and cost leveragers (i.e. distributors) exacerbated by regulations sanctioning transfer of
“costs to consumers and taxpayers” (Lenzen, 2010: 468) throughout the supply chain so cost
apportionment is less transparent, counter-intuitively levelised or justified. History reveals at points in
industry evolution characterised by acquisitions/mergers and/or significant mutual interdependencies
that collusive behaviour naturally occurs engulfing entire supply chains (Redmond, 2013). Vertical 11 Energy demand in Australia is increasing at a rate of 2% per annum (Trainer, 2012).
integration allows cost control via ‘cherry-picking’ one’s own supply chain (promoting ‘skimming’)
and horizontal integration allows ‘milking’ profit from existing (cash cow) business activities thus
promoting control over profit-sapping change to alternatives. Collectively, this delays adoption of
alternative forms of energy, annuls market contestability and renders regulators powerless to prove
individual cases of anti-competitive conduct. Capitalisation to acquire and/or develop substantial
essential service assets and infrastructure has doubtless attracted (and will attract) distinct prospective
- in Australia’s case - foreign buyers buoyed by desirable conditions of scarcity and high demand. In
this sense it is to be expected oligopolies will proliferate, perhaps globally, in essential services. The
question is how does one regulate ‘imperfect’ oligopolistic competition - especially as the most
capitalised entities in the world are, in fact, corporations and not nation states?
‘Perfect competition’ is non-collusive as Federal regulations target anti-competitive practices,
but ‘imperfect competition’ (i.e. oligopolies) is not as clear. Whilst, uncompetitive behaviour arising
between sellers is directly addressed, between sellers and buyers ‘contestability’ is implied by
consumer choice, however such contestability naturally favours sellers as consumers rarely have
information to wage a contest. Thus information (and informed choice) takes precedence which is
embodied in fair trading legislation (usually at state-level) (Redmond, 2013). Competition between
buyers (e.g. auctions), occurs on the basis of wants underpinned by aspirational affluence - the heart of
the marketing function - which is not directly addressed in any legislation12. Such competition has the
potential to spur conspicuous over-consumption, especially of downstream products, sold by
supporting industries which, in this instance, fuels energy demand and consumption. Clearly de-
consumption, voluntary or otherwise, will not and cannot occur in this scenario if electricity costs
increase - rather it may create an aspirational ‘luxury’ out of energy consumption (already the case
amongst high per capita energy consuming nations).
Competition inherently involves secrecy, capital-raising and monopolistic self-interest which,
for government translates to lack of transparency, gouging tax payers to raise funds and sanctioning
vertical/horizontal integration. The case study illustrated that free market dynamics, operating in one
part of the system, can dictate directionality and set priorities for the entire system, in the process 12 Barring some pertaining to children
either co-opting or denuding governance and disempowering consumers. Governments, charged with
developing and enforcing legislation are not primed to compete with the private sector, mandated in
the Australian Constitution, but facilitated nonetheless by an overhaul in competition policy in 1993,
spawning the ACCC13 and splitting administrative and government business activity, simultaneous to
investiture of privatisation in Australia. It is now evident the ‘rule-makers’ have become players - or at
least, part of the game - much the same as has occurred on a global scale. Presently reliance on de-
railed/denuded governance remains unworkable.
Findings of our pilot study involving two states in Australia revealed systemic barriers to fossil
fuel replacement addressing the core of sustainability issues. Supported by interdisciplinary
knowledge and collaborative scholarship we now embark on broader explorations with anticipation of
unearthing national and international implications of import.
13 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
TABLE 1: Notional Semiotic Comparison of Generic and Specialised Terms and Concepts in “Sustainability” in Science and Business
Term/Concept Business characterisation/definition Science characterisation/definition Sustainability definition should…
Scarcity A highly desirable state primed for investment - when coupled with demand it is a “perfect storm” to initiate business activity &/or for growth.
A state of crisis - when coupled with demand a precursor of systemic collapse e.g. depletion of: water resources; minerals from soils (which food crops are reliant on), forests (vital to replenish oxygen and make medicines) etc.
Default to science as exploiting scarcity (coupled with demand) will ultimately result in systemic collapse (e.g. overfishing). Establishing & monitoring thresholds & tipping points is vital. Exploiting or artificially creating scarcity presages social inequality & inequity in access (affordability of & access to water, food, medicines etc.).
Renewable & Non-renewable
Non-renewable resources/commodities (e.g. oil, coal) are finite thus implicitly hold most value due to monetisability, tradability (acquire/divest), transactionability (currency), commodifiability & bankruptability. Renewable resources/ commodities are in infinite supply & are less valued.
Renewable resources (e.g. water) - used &/or extracted which may become commodities - hold most value as they are infinitely cycling and maintain biophysical equilibrium and feedbacks (recycling). Non-renewable (finite) resources hold less value.
Default to science as depletion of non-renewable, finite resources causes biophysical disequilibrium and breaks ‘environmental value chains’ increasing potential for whole of system collapse. Pivotal to ‘environmental’ business activity (e.g. eco-tourism for protected areas) invokes value- ‘abilities’ (re. trade, commodification, bankruptcy etc).
Shareholder Individual/entity that invests in a business enterprise who is entitled to a return (gain or loss) in direct proportion to their original investment based on the activities and output of the business.
Not used in environmental science. Those reaping returns of environmental interventions and/or actions are placed in the same group (i.e. original land owners plus the community plus society plus the media plus the supply chain etc.).
Default to business so that the “environment” and “people” are actually deemed shareholders along with those who directly invest capital - thus, securing environmental and social returns on investment - sharing in gains not just losses.
Stakeholder A person/entity/group who has a vested interests in part or whole of business activities and outcomes and who stand to benefit (e.g. supply chain) or add leverage to the same (e.g. media, government via lobbying).
Anyone party to the outcomes of environmental issues/initiatives (irrespective of positive or negative impact).
Default to business so that escalation of the environmental “cause” can be achieved through leveraging (which serves to empower those who have a direct investment in outcomes, viz. the environment and those impacted (e.g. original land owners).
Natural Capitalism Backfilling business operations/activities to attain cost-efficiencies, leverage productivity gains and increase profit margins (Dunphy et al 2007).
Coined from ‘natural capital’ meaning “water, minerals, oil, trees, fish, soil, air…” Hawken et al (1999; 2010), it has 4 core principles - 1) same per business; 2) re-engineering production & extraction processes, re-using waste & by-products; 3) reinvest in nature & 4) producers & consumers benefit/profit from durable, quality and re-usable products.
Default to science as business’ definition equates to ‘business as usual’ re. avoiding costs. Any ‘conservation measures’ will again be exhausted in future (i.e. if energy for a given output was decreased by one third per IPCC14, 2007 targets, but output increased by 3% annually due to productivity and efficiency gains - in 14 years we’d be back to current consumption levels and dilemmas (Trainer, 1995).
14 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Term/Concept Business characterisation/definition Science characterisation/definition Sustainability definition should…
Adaption/ Adaptation
Generic terms commonly employed in discussion of internal and external (macro- & operating environment) pressures for organisational change (e.g. Ansoff’s (1990) Turbulence model; Hannan & Freeman’s (1977) Population Ecology model; Greiner’s (1972) organisational life-cycle model; & dialectic/political process perspectives: Pugh, 1997; Benson, 1977; Weber, 1947a & 1947b).
Barring Population Ecology, techniques can be employed by management assuring resilience/ fortification against destabilising change (challenging, driving, matching or embracing it via transformational or incremental interventions).
Reflexive individual, inter- & intra-organisational & combinations are recognised as effective resilience-building measures (see Skringar & Stevens, 2008, p. 386; Argote & Ophir, 2005; Schulz, 2005; Ingram, 2005; Tainio et al, 2001; Antal et al, 2001; Child & Heavens, 2001; Senge, 1990; Argyris & Schon, 1978) .
The process by which an organism &/or ecosystem attempts to achieve a better fit in the system/natural environment it is part of in the presence of long-standing biophysical change and/or disturbance for the sake of its survival.
(Anthropogenically induced change poses an extra burden in addition to naturally occurring biophysical change)
Default to science as, in reaction to anthropogenically caused change (i.e. practices not in harmony with the rate at which the planet is able to renew and thus regulate itself), the environment adapts in ways which are deleterious for human society.
It is not and will not be possible for human society to adapt to escalating countervailing environmental threats (e.g. extreme weather events) and thus requires society to re-organise itself, as soon as possible, so as to align with the actual biophysical limits of the planet and its ecosystems for the survival of society.
Resilience The ability of an organism to cope with induced biophysical change and/or disturbance to its natural environment - “the extent to which a system can absorb recurrent natural and human perturbations and continue to regenerate without slowly degrading or even unexpectedly flipping into undesirable states” (Folke et al, 2005, pp. 442-3).
Default to science as resilience begins with accurate understanding of critical factors including tight feedbacks allowing detection of thresholds before they are crossed, in order to heighten reflexive learning and to better plan and adaptively manage the process which leads to better alignment of policy, structures, institutions and most importantly societal values to new realities.
Economic Growth
Envi
ronm
enta
l Foc
us
Low
Low
High
Global
Regional
Scale Emphasis
High
FIGURE 1: IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (2000) - Four Base Scenarios Current to 4th Assessment (2007) & Modelled Impacts
Modelled Impacts ~ Scenarios A1 & A2 ~
Eco-system adaptation capacity exceeded by 2100
+ Freshwater systems compromised – water scarcity & inaccessibility
+ GHG emissions alter climate – increased temperatures & extreme weather events 20-30% species extinction once temperatures rise 2o-3oC above pre-industrial levels
o Decreased cereal crop & pasture yields due to soil degradation & water depletion
o Rapid increase in marine-life extinctions & significant biodiversity loss
+ Coastal erosion due to climate change induced, sea level rise & extreme weather events Increase in disease/change in disease vectors due to food scarcity/dietary shifts, weather events, water impurity & poor air quality Population migration/relocation from damaged/unhealthy areas
+ Infrastructure failure to cope with climate change & extreme weather (e.g. fire, floods) & escalating remediation costs
------------------
+ Relevant currently to 2030 in Australia o Future indications for Australia Australia New Zealand Problem hotspots: S-West WA Northland Bay of Plenty
Kakadu Eastern seaboard Tropical & S-East QLD Alpine zones Murray-Darling Basin
A1 Scenario World: market-oriented; regional convergence Economy: fastest per capita growth; â regional differences in per capita growth Population: 2050 peak, then decline Governance: strong regional interactions; á cultural/social interactivity Energy Technology: sub-scenario groups -
A1F1: fossil intensive (assumed 33% â by 2100) * A1T: non-fossil energy sources * A1B: balanced across sources
* contingent on introduction of unknown technologies
A2 Scenario World: differentiated; heterogenous & self-reliant Economy: regionally oriented/(low trade flows); Lowest per capita growth; sustained per capita income gap between industrialised & non-industrialised regions Population: continuously increasing Governance: self-reliance with preservation of local identities Energy Technology: slowest and most fragmented development
B1 Scenario World: convergent (globalised) Economy: rapid growth due to economic restructuring; âmaterialism; á focus in service & information services; lower growth than A1 Population: same as A1 Governance: equitable global solutions to economic, social & environmental sustainability Energy Technology: clean & energy resource efficient
B2 Scenario World: divergent (localised) Economy: intermediate growth Population: continuously increasing at lower rate than A2 Governance: equitable local & regional solutions to economic, social & environmental sustainability Energy Technology: more rapid than A2; less rapid, more diverse than A1/B1
Adapted from: IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Working Group II, Fourth Assessment. Geneva, Switzerland.
Extracted from: IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Working Group II, Fourth Assessment. Geneva, Switzerland.
FIGURE 2: Evolution of Environmental Sustainability Models cited in the Literature
Adapted from: Multiple sources in general literature.
Present
Environment
Economy
Society
Three Pillars Model (convergence represents
‘sustainability space’)
Three Nested Ring Model (componential, ‘Russian Doll’ cored/anchored by economy)
Nested Dependencies Model (ecologically-bounded
hierarchy ordered)
*Mickey Mouse Model (economic primacy flanked by
‘heeding’ offshoots)
* Included for illustration purposes only.
Generation
Victoria - La Trobe Valley Power stations (% generated for VIC1 & % ownership 67% foreign owned
• 24% - Loy Yang A + mine - 100% AGL Ltd • 16 % - Yallourn - 100% ‘Australian Energy’ (100% CLP Holdings Hong Kong) • 17% - Hazelwood - 100% GDF Suez International U.K. • 11% - Loy Yang B - 92% GDF Suez International U.K.
GDF Suez International U.K. - 43% (horizontally integrated generation) CLP Holdings Hong Kong - 24% (vertically integrated generation and retail)
___________
Tasmania - (% generated1 & % ownership) - 100% Government owned • 86% - Hydro Tasmania (hydro-powered) - 100% Tasmanian State Government • 14% - Aurora Energy (hydro + gas powered*) - 100% Tasmanian State Government
*Tamar Valley powered by gas sourced from Victoria; Bell Bay is hydro
Transmission
Victoria - ( % ownership) 100% foreign owned
• Basslink Interconnector (TAS + VIC) - 100% CitySpring Infrastructure Fund
(28% Temasek Holdings Singapore + 72% Investors via Temasek portfolio)
• SPI Power Net Pty Ltd (VIC network) - 100% SPI ‘Singapore Power International’ (100% Temasek Holdings Singapore)
Temasek (direct & indirect) - 100% (vertically & horizontally integrated transmission & distribution)
___________
Tasmania - 100% Government owned • Aurora Energy - 100% Tasmanian State Government • Transend - 100% Tasmanian State Government
Distribution
Victoria - (% share of customer connections2, ‘trading name’ & % ownership) 53% foreign owned
• 27% - ‘Powercor’ - 51% Cheung Kong Infrastructure/Power Asset Holdings
+ 49% Spark Infrastructure • 24% - ‘SP AusNet’ - 51% SPI (100% Temasek Holdings Singapore) + 49%
Institutional, retail & high net worth individual investors • 25% - ‘United Energy’- 66% DUET Group + 34 % Jemena (100% SPI = 100%
Temasek Holdings Singapore) • 12 % - ‘Citipower’ - 51% Cheung Kong Infrastructure/Power Asset Holdings
+ 49% Spark Infrastructure • 12% - ‘Jemena’ - 100% SPI = 100% Temasek Holdings Singapore
Temasek - 33% (vertically & horizontally integrated transmission & distribution)
Cheung Kong Infrastructure - 20% (horizontally integrated distribution)
___________
Tasmania - 100% Government owned
• Aurora Energy - 100% Tasmanian State Government
Retail
Victoria - (% market share of residential & small business customers3 & % foreign ownership) 25% foreign owned
• 25% - AGL Ltd (vertically integrated generation & retail; horizontally integrated electricity, gas & renewables) • 30% - Origin Energy (horizontally integrated electricity, and gas) • 25% - Australian Energy (100% CLP Holdings Hong Kong) (vertically integrated generation & retail; horizontally
integrated electricity, gas & renewables) • 15% - Others (including Tasmania’s ‘Momentum’) • 5% - Victorian Government
CLP Holdings Hong Kong - 25% (vertically integrated generation and retail) ___________
Tasmania - 100% Government owned • Aurora Energy - 100% Tasmanian State Government (fully vertically integrated; horizontally integrated
electricity & gas+) • Momentum* - 100% Hydro Tasmania (100% Tasmanian State Government) (via Hydro Tasmania vertically
integrated with hydro-electricity generation & renewables) + Competes with Tas Gas & LPG suppliers. * Retails hydro-powered energy to small-medium businesses and residents in Victoria.
FIGURE 3: Industry Supply Chain
(Victoria & Tasmania), November, 2012
Data sources: Company reports & websites (see references) Energy & Water Ombudsman Victoria (2012)
1 AER (2011) p. 103; Snowy Hydro Ltd (2013); AGL Ltd (2012a); GDF Suez Energy International, 2012 2 AER (2011) p. 56 3 AER (2011) p. 56
REFERENCES
AGL Energy (2012a). AGL Energy Corporate Website. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www .agl.com .au/
AGL Energy (2012b). AGL Energy Annual Report. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.agl .com.au/ Downloads/ASX %20-%20Annual%20Report%202012.pdf
AGL Energy (2012c): ASX and Media Releases, AGL completes purchase of Loy Yang A power station and adjacent mine, Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.agl.com.au/about /ASXandMedia/Pages/ AGLcompletespurchaseofLoyYangApowerstationandadjacentmine.aspx
Ansoff, I. H. (1990). General management in turbulent environments. Practising Manager, 11, 6-27.
Antal, A. B., Dierkes, M., Child, J., & Nonaka, I. (2001). Organizational learning and knowledge: Reflections on the dynamics of the field and challenges for the future. In M. Dierkes, B. A. Antal, D. Child & Nonaka, I. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (pp. 921-939). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Argote, L. & Ophir, R. (2005). Intraorganizational learning. In J. A. C. Baum, (Ed.), The Blackwell
companion to organizations (pp. 181-207). Malden: Blackwell Publishers. Argyris, C. & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Aurora Energy (2012a). Aurora Annual Report 2011 – 12. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from
http://www.aurora energy.com.au/pdf/about_aurora/annual_report_2012/Aurora_Energy_Annua l_report_2012_full.pdf
Aurora Energy (2012b). Bills and payments - electricity cost breakdown. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.auroraenergy.com.au/your-home/bills-and-payments/your-bill-explained/ electricity-cost-break down/
Aurora Energy (2012c). About Aurora, Aurora Energy Corporate Website. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.auroraenergy.com.au/about/about-aurora/
Australian Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics. (2012a). Australia consumption of coal, by state – kilotonnes, Table D. Commonwealth of Australia, (ABBREE), Canberra. Retrieved October 29, 2012, from http://www.bree.gov.au/documents/publications/aes/data/2013/Table-D.xlsx
Australian Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (2012b). 2012 Australian energy statistics update. Commonwealth of Australia, (ABBREE), Canberra. Retrieved October 29, 2012, from http://www.bree. gov.au/documents/ publications/aes/BRE0133EnergyUpdate2012.pdf
Australian Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (2012c). Electricity generation, by fuel type - physical units, Victoria and Tasmania, Table O. Commonwealth of Australia, (ABBREE), Canberra. Retrieved October 29, 2012, from http://www.bree.gov.au/documents/publications/aes /data/2013/Table-O.xls
Australian Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (2012d). Australian consumption of electricity, by state, physical units, Table I. Commonwealth of Australia, (ABBREE), Canberra. Retrieved October 29, 2012, from http://www.bree.gov.au/documents/publications/aes/data /2013 /Table-I.xls
Australian Energy Market Commission (2011). Possible Future Retail Electricity Price Movements: 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2014, Final Report. Commonwealth of Australia, (AEMC), Canberra. Retrieved October 30, 2012, fromhttp://www.aemc.gov.au/Media/docs/Master%20document% 20-%20CoAG%20Pricing%202011%20-%20Final%20Report%20-%20EPR0025%20as%20at% 2012 %20December%202011-569fdd7a-1de6-433b-96b0-a0334d29095d-2.PDF
Australian Energy Regulator (2007). State of the energy market 2007. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Commonwealth of Australia (AER), Canberra. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http:// www.accc.gov.au/content /index.phtml/itemId/916636
Australian Energy Regulator (2009). State of the energy market 2009. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Commonwealth of Australia (AER), Canberra. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http: //www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/904614
Australian Energy Regulator (2011). State of the energy market 2011. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Commonwealth of Australia (AER), Canberra. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://transition.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=1021485&nodeId=12ce1 12c 9ab4f604e32df386ebfcda8e&fn=State%20of%20the%20energy%20market%202011%20-%20 complete%20report.pdf
Basslink (2012). The Basslink Interconnector. CitySpring Infrastructure Management. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.basslink.com.au/cms.aspx?Page=Home&Id=1
Benson, J. K. (1977). Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 1-22.
Boutillier, S. (2011). Ecology in economic thought: Analytical essay on the belated of realization of economists. In Sustainable development: Debates and controversies. French International Conference 15 and 16 December 2011, Blaise Pascal University, Clermont-Ferrand.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin/Mariner Books.
Child, J. & Heavens, S. J. (2001). The social constitution of organizations and its implications for organizational learning. In M. Dierkes, B. A. Antal, D. Child & Nonaka, I. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (pp. 308-326). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cho, D. & Moon, H. (2000). From Adam Smith to Michael Porter: Evolution of Competitiveness Theory. Asia-Pacific Business Series – Vol. 2. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific Publishing.
CitySpring Infrastructure Trust (2011). CitySpring infrastructure trust annual report – Providing essential services. CitySpring Infrastructure Management. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.cityspring .com.sg/annualreport/8%20%20%20Annual%20Report%202011.pdf
CitySpring Infrastructure Trust (2012). CitySpring Infrastructure Trust Corporate Website, CitySpring Infrastructure Management. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.cityspring.com.sg/
Davidson J. (2000). Sustainable development: Business as usual or a new way of living? Environmental Ethics 22, 25-42.
Donaldson, L. (1995). American anti-management theories of organization: A critique of paradigm proliferation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., & Benn, S. (2007). Organizational change for corporate sustainability: A guide for leaders and change agents (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Du Pisani, J. A. (2006). Sustainable development – historical roots of the concept. Environmental Sciences, 3, 83-96.
Energy and Water Ombudsman Victoria (2012). Electricity retailers. List of Energy Providers in Victoria. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.ewov.com.au/providers/energy
Entura (2010). Entura Corporate Website, Entura (Hydro Tasmania). Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http: //www.entura.com.au/
Ewing, B., Moore, D., Goldfinger, S., Oursler, A., Reed, A., & Wackernagel, M. (2010). The ecological footprint atlas 2010. Oakland: Global Footprint Network.
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441-73.
Forbes (2013). The world’s biggest public companies. Ranked list of the largest global public corporations. Retrieved July 13, 2013, from http://www.forbes.com/global2000/list/
Galbraith, J. K. (1952). American capitalism: The concept of countervailing power, Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Galbraith, J. K. (1958). The affluent society. New York. Houghton Mifflin Company.
GDF Suez Energy International (2012). Facts & figures – Report. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.iprplc-gdfsuez.com/~/media/Files/I/IPR-Plc/pdf-content/2012/company-brochure-nov 12.pdf
Gould, J. S. & Eldredge, N. (1977). Punctuated equilibria: The tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered, Paleobiology, 3, 115-151
Grant Thornton (2010). Ignite Energy Resources Limited: Independent Expert’s Report and Financial Services Guide 20 April 2010. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.4thstate process.com/ pdfs/4160497 1_1_GT_Independent_Expert_Report.pdf
Greiner, L. E. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organisations grow. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 37-46.
Hannan, M. T. & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-964.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, L. H. (1999). Natural capitalism: Creating the next industrial revolution. London: Earthscan.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, L. H. (2010). Natural capitalism: Creating the next industrial revolution. London: Earthscan.
Hertz, N. (2002). The silent takeover: Global capitalism and the death of democracy. London: Arrow Books.
Hodgson, G. M. (2007). The revival of Veblenian institutional economics. Journal of Economic Issues, 41, 325-340.
Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13, 38-52.
Hugé, J. (2012). Are we doing the ‘right’ things the ‘right’ way? Discourse and practice of sustainability assessment in north and south. Brussels: VUBPRESS Brussels University Press.
Hydro Tasmania (2009). Annual and sustainability report, 2009. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.hydro.com.au/annual-reports/2009/contents/pdfs/Hydro%20Annual%20Report%20 2009.pdf
Hydro Tasmania (2012). Hydro Tasmania annual report. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.hydro.com.au/annual-reports/2012/contents/PDFs/Hydro%20AR%202012%20-% 20Full%20Report.pdf
Ingram, P. (2005). Interorganizational learning. In J. A. C. Baum, (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations (pp. 642-663). Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
International Panel on Climate Change (2000). Special report on emission scenarios: Summary for policymakers, (IPCC). Geneva, Switzerland.
International Panel on Climate Change (2007). Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Working Group II, Fourth Assessment, (IPCC). Geneva, Switzerland.
International Power (GDF Suez). (2012). Annual report 2011. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://annual report2011.iprplc-gdfsuez.com/
Jacobs, M. (1999). Sustainable development as a contested concept. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and futurity: Essays on environmental sustainability and social justice (pp. 21-45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jevons, W.S. (1865). The coal question: An inquiry concerning the progress of the nation and the probable exhaustion of our coal mines. London: MacMillan & Co. Available from New York Public Library. Retrieved July 11, 2013, from http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.3343306 6377379;view=1up;seq=11
Keynes, M. J. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest, and money. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lenzen, M. (2010). Current state of development of electricity-generating technologies: A literature review. Energies, 3, 462-591.
Loy Yang Power (2011). Loy Yang Power sustainability report. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.loyyangpower.com.au/documents/pubrep/2011/Sustainability%20report%202011_ FINAL.PDF
Loy Yang Power (AGL). (2012). Loy Yang Power Corporate Website. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http:// www.loyyangpower.com.au/
Malthus, T. R (1798). An essay on the principle of population, as it affects the future improvement of society with remarks on the speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet and other writers. London, Printed for J. Johnson, in St. Paul’s Church-yard. 1798. Available at Electronic Scholarly Publishing Project. Retrieved July 12, 2013, from http://www.esp.org/books/malthus/population/ malthus.pdf
Momentum Energy (Hydro Tasmania) (2011). Momentum Energy Corporate Website. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.momentumenergy.com.au/
Moscardo, G., Lamberton, G., Wells, G., Fallon, W., Lawn, P., Rowe, A., Humphrey, J., Wiesner, R., Pettitt , B., Clifton, D., Renouf, M., & Kershaw, W. (2013). Sustainability in Australian business: Principles and practice. Milton, Queensland: John Wiley & Sons.
Origin Energy Ltd (2012a). Origin Energy Ltd Corporate Website. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www .originenergy.com.au/
Origin Energy Ltd (2012b). Energy for today and tomorrow: Annual report 2012. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://reports.originenergy.com.au/_/assets/downloads/Origin_Annual_Report_ 2012_WEB.pdf
Origin Energy Ltd (2012c). Energy for today and tomorrow: Strategy Performance Growth | Sustainability Report 2012. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://reports.originenergy.com. au/_/assets/downloads/Origin_Sustainability_Report_2012_WEB.pdf
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. London: The MacMillan Press.
Potts, J. (2007). Clarence Ayres memorial lecture: Evolutionary institutional economics. Journal of Economic Issues, 41, 341-350.
Pugh, D. S. (1997). Organization theory. New York: Penguin.
Raffaelle, R., Robison, W., & Selinger, E. (Eds.), (2010). 5 Questions: Sustainability ethics. Copenhagen: Automatic/VIP Press.
Romanelli, E. & Tushman, M. L. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1141-1166.
Redmond, W. (2013). Three modes of competition in the marketplace. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 72, 423-446.
Scott, R. F. (2002). Oil supply, oil security, and environmental objectives in international law. In Institutional and infrastructural resources: The role of international law and institutions, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). Developed under the Auspices of UNESCO. Oxford: Eolss Publishers. Retrieved July 10, 2013, from http://www.eolss.net
Schulz, M. (2005). Organizational learning. In J. A. C. Baum, (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations (pp. 415-441). Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Skringar, E. R. & Stevens, T. (2008). Driving change and developing organisations. Prahran, Victoria: Tilde University Press.
Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Reprinted in 1870. London: Alex Murray & Son.
Snowy Hydro Limited (2013). Snowy Hydro Limited Corporate Website. Retrieved July 12, 2013,
from http://www.snowyhydro.com.au/corporate/ SP Ausnet (no date). SP Ausnet Corporate Website. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.sp-
ausnet .com.au/ Springett, D. (2003). Business conceptions of sustainable development: A perspective from critical
theory. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12, 71-86. State Government of Victoria (2013). Ecological footprint: Measuring our impact in the environment
– Australia's and Victoria's ecological footprint. Produced by EPA Victoria, (SGV). Retrieved July 14, 2013, from http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/ecologicalfootprint/ausfootprint/default.asp
Tainio, R., Lilja, K., & Santalainen, T. J. (2001). The role of boards in facilitating or limiting learning
in organizations. In M. Dierkes, B. A. Antal, D. Child & Nonaka, I. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge (pp. 428-445). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tarlo, K. (2002). Why brown coal should stay in the ground greenhouse implications of the proposed
expansion of brown coal exploration and mining in Victoria, Final Report. Institute for Sustainable Futures, UTS. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/ publications/tarlo2002 whybrowncoal.pdf
Temasek (2012a). Temasek Corporate Website. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.temasek
.com.sg/ Temesek (2012b). Temasek Review 2012, http://www.temasekreview.com.sg/governance/governance
_frame work.aspx Trainer, F. E. (1995). Can renewable energy sources sustain affluent society? Energy Policy, 23, 1009-
1026. Tuazon, D., Corder, G. D., & McLellan, B. C. (2013) Sustainable development: A review of
theoretical contributions. International Journal of Sustainable Future for Human Security, 1, 40-48.
Veblen, T. (1936). What Veblen taught: Selected writings of Thorstein Veblen. W. C. Mitchell (Ed.).
New York: Viking Press. Veblen, B. (1899). The theory of the leisure class: An economic study of institutions. New York:
MacMillan. Veblen, B. (1904). The theory of business enterprise. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
United Energy (2012a). United Energy Corporate Website. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from
http://www .unitedenergy.com.au/ United Energy (2012b). Victoria’s Electricity Distribution Business’ Submission to the Senate Select
Committee Inquiry on Electricity Price on behalf of Citipower, Jemena, Powercor, SP AusNet and United Energy, 14 Sep 2012. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from https://www.google.com.au/url?sa =t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CEEQFjAC&url=https%3A%2F%2F senate.aph.gov.au%2Fsubmissions%2Fcomittees%2Fviewdocument.aspx%3Fid%3Dc110c5ec-f785-4336-bc51-5736b1b31c25&ei=hVWjUJGGL8mNiAfv_YG4Bw&usg=AFQjCNFPqNeNB Ufk0rHPBNeCzicX_apeTQ
Waas, T., Hugé, J., Verbruggen, A., & Wright, T. (2011). Sustainable development: A bird’s eye view.
Sustainability, 3, 1637-1661. Weber, M. (1947a). The theory of social and economic organization. Translated by A. M. Henderson
& T. Parsons. New York: The Free Press. Weber, M. (1947b). Legitimate authority and bureaucracy. In D. S. Pugh (Ed.), (1985), Organization
Theory: Selected Readings (2nd ed.). Middlesex: Penguin Books. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. Report of the
World Commission on Environment and Development. Published as Annex to the General Assembly Document A/42/427, (WCED), United Nations.
Wray, L. R. (2007). Veblen’s theory of business enterprise and Keynes’s theory of production.
Journal of Economic Issues, 41, 617-624. Yefimov, V. (2013). Economic philosophy and science: Their respective contributions to political
discourse. In Political economy, social science and/or economic policy tool? Third Congress of the French Association of Political Economy (AFEP), 3-5 July 2013, Bordeaux.
