Sustainable Development

Sust. Dev. 23, 425434 (2015)

Published online 9 September 2015 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/sd.1603

Barriers to Sustainability: An Exploratory Study on

Perspectives from Brazilian Organizations
Fernanda de Paiva Duarte*
School of Business, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, NSW, Australia

ABSTRACT
This paper is based on a qualitative study that explored the views of a group of staff from
Brazilian organizations that profess to be sustainable, on barriers to sustainability. The
main barriers identied in the study were lack of clarity in the concept, resistance to change,
lack of systems thinking, political factors, inability to ensure sustainable behaviours among
suppliers, and the consumer culture of global capitalism. In investigating perceptions of
barriers to sustainability by managers of business companies, this paper contributes to a
better understanding of how the tensions between the growth imperatives of an emerging
economy and calls for sustainable practices are played out at organizational level. The paper
also identies a number of relevant themes for future research. Copyright 2015 John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Received 11 January 2015; revised 18 May 2015; accepted 09 June 2015

Keywords: sustainability; sustainable development; environmental responsibility; systems thinking; emerging economies; resis-
tance to change

Introduction

T
HE NOTION OF SUSTAINABILITY IS NO STRANGER TO THE ORGANIZATIONAL WORLD, REFLECTED FOR EXAMPLE IN THE
growing trend for organizations to embed sustainability in their mission statements, promote eco-efciency
practices, follow triple bottom line reporting guidelines and celebrate sustainability achievements in glossy
publicity materials. However, it is clear that we are far from living in a sustainable society, as there are still
some formidable barriers to sustainability goals. It can only be hoped that greater awareness of these obstacles
among people working in organizations that profess to be sustainable will lead to continuous dialogue about pos-
sible solutions to address these obstacles. But to what extent are these individuals aware of such barriers?
With this question in mind, an exploratory study was carried out in 2012 to canvass the views of a group of Brazilian
managers and employees on obstacles to sustainability.1 The choice of Brazil as the focus of inquiry arises from
recognition that this country is a leader in sustainability activities (Echegaray, 2013; Kingaby, 2014; UNEP, 2012;
Verdantix, 2012), with growing awareness of the importance of social and environmental responsibility. Brazil currently
has the worlds third highest proportion of sustainability reporting companies (GRI, 2015); over half of 400 Brazilian
companies surveyed by public opinion agency IBOPE in 2011 reported having a department devoted specically to

*Correspondence to: Fernanda de Paiva Duarte, School of Business, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, NSW, Australia.
Email: F.Duarte@uws.edu.au
1
This study was part of a broader qualitative research project conducted in 2012 to investigate the extent to which sustainability principles and
practices have been enacted in Brazilian organizations that claim to be sustainable.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
426 F. de Paiva Duarte

sustainable policies (IBOPE, 2011); the amount of corporate investment in social and environmental projects in Brazil
exceeded US$1.3bn in 2012 (Echegaray, 2013) and a public opinion survey conducted by the Ministry of Environment
found that 90% of Brazilians profess concern about environmental issues (Ministerio do Meio-Ambiente, 2012).
Research on the views of Brazilian managers working in companies that claim to be sustainable can therefore produce
useful information to enhance existing knowledge in the eld of sustainability studies.
While sustainability can be dened in broad terms to include economic, social and environmental dimensions,
the research presented here focuses specically on the environmental aspects of sustainability. Sustainability is thus
dened for the purpose of this paper as the adoption of strategies and activities aimed at preventing environmental
degradation and protecting the natural environment.
The paper is structured as follows: the rst section provides a brief review of works that discuss common barriers
to sustainability, the second describes the methodology used in the study and the third discusses the ndings of the
research.

Perceived Barriers to Sustainability

While academic works that focus specically on the topic of barriers to sustainability are scarce, a literature review
of texts that explore the sustainability concept more generally can offer useful insights on perceived impediments to
sustainability goals.
A number of writers in the eld highlight the complexities of the sustainability concept and poor understanding of
these complexities as insidious barriers to sustainability (see Doppelt, 2003a, 2003b; Lozano, 2007, 2013; Milbrath,
1995; Moore, 1995; Sibbel, 2009; Williams and Dair, 2007). As acknowledged by Lam et al. (2014, p. 161), the notion
of sustainability involves a wide range of methodological approaches and displays multiple and often conicting values.
Moore (1995) deems lack of understanding of sustainability as one of the six most common barriers to sustain-
ability policy. Focusing more closely on organizational settings, Sibbel (2009) discusses lack of understanding of
the sustainability concept as a signicant impediment to effective goal-setting in organizations, and Lozano (2013)
believes that misunderstanding of information is one of the primary barriers to organizational change for corporate
sustainability.
Poor understanding or misunderstanding of the sustainability concept is often said to stem from its unclear, am-
biguous nature. As commented by Becker et al. (1999, p. 4), many works in the eld deplore the vague or ill-dened
character of this concept. Indeed, Irwin (2001, p. 34) describes the language of sustainability as slippery, ill-dened
and self-contradictory, and Christen and Schmidt (2012, pp. 401, 408) deplore the self-defeating arbitrariness of
the sustainability concept. Becker et al. (1999) conclude that the only consensus on sustainability appears to be that
there is no shared understanding about its meaning.
To exacerbate confusion, the term sustainability is often used interchangeably with sustainable development2
another ambiguous and poorly understood concept that has generated heated debates since it was popularized in the
Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987). As noted by Redclift (2005, p. 214; original italics), There is still considerable
confusion surrounding what is to be sustained that different discourses of sustainable development sometimes fail
to address. Building on this theme, Hopwood et al. (2005, p. 40) note that, as promoted in the Brundtland Report,
sustainable development allows business and governments to be in favour of sustainability without any fundamental
challenge to their present course. In view of this, Springett (2013, p. 74) calls for more critical analyses of the sustain-
able development concept in order to understand the forces that may prevent change taking place.
Resistance to change is believed to be a major barrier to the achievement of sustainability goals because sustainability
is inherently a change concept. As noted by Lozano (2013, p. 279), organisational changes that threaten the [status quo],
such as changes engendered by sustainability, are bound to face resistance. Harich (2010, p. 37, 38) denes resistance

2
Despite the tendency to use the terms sustainable development and sustainability interchangeably, it must be considered that they have different
meanings. Sustainable Development (SD) emerged as a pragmatic approach proposed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) at Stockholm in 1972, to integrate environmental conservation and development. This notion acknowledges the inseparable link between
the economic, environmental and social realms. Sustainability emerged later, following critiques of sustainable development (see for example
Gibson, 1991; Robinson, 2004), as a more abstract and symbolic concept. One of the early denitions of sustainability, provided by
IUCN/UNEP/WWF (1991) was improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting eco-systems.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 23, 425434 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Barriers to Sustainability Goals 427

from a systems perspective, as the tendency for a system to continue its current behavior, despite the application of
force to change that behavior. Lamenting that todays status quo is, alas, an unsustainable world, He contends that,
whenever problem solvers try to address sustainability problems, their emphasis on change causes the system to main-
tain homeostasis by automatically increasing the barriers to change. In the same vein, Doppelt (2003b, p. 75) argues
that resistance to sustainability-related change is created by feedback mechanisms that seek to maintain homeostasis
the status quo. Acknowledging the political dimensions of sustainability, Senge (1990, p. 88) asserts that sustainability
causes resistance because it poses threats to traditional norms and ways of doing things, which are embedded into the
fabric of established power relationships. Building on this theme, Avelino and Rotmans (2009, p. 545) contend that the
transition to sustainability entails a particular power struggle between the dominant regime constituted by actors
that maintain the status quo and niches that generate non-conformism and innovation. Doppelt (2003b, p. 77)
draws attention to the prevalence of politically based resistance to sustainability in government organizations, as they
are by nature constrained by political processes; that is, the organizations ability to establish its own mission and goals
is often compromised by interests groups who have the power to shape the public agenda.
Some authors view lack of systems thinking as another major barrier to sustainability. This is because, as
admonished by Frankel (1998, p. 82), the challenges of sustainability in our society can only be addressed at the holistic
level. However, a common problem in Western societies, according to Milbrath (1995, p. 106), is a persistent tendency
to break down an object of inquiry into its constituent parts. He emphasizes that a society cannot understand how to
achieve sustainability without learning to think systemically. In similar terms, Doppelt (2003a) denounces the silo
approach to environmental issues prevalent in Western societies as one of the seven sustainability blunders.
This is particularly evident when considering the difculties in ensuring sustainable practices along supply
chains. While a company may call itself sustainable, it is not always possible to ensure that its suppliers are
also committed to sustainability values. As warned by a number of researchers in the eld, lack of commitment
to sustainability by suppliers poses serious obstacles to the enactment of sustainability beyond organizational
boundaries (Ageron et al., 2011; Giunipero et al., 2012; Hasle and Jensen, 2012; Preuss, 2005; Reuter et al.,
2012; Walker et al., 2008; Walker and Jones, 2012). Within organizational settings the formation of silos is a
persistent problem, which prevents managers and employees from seeing the organization as a whole. This
phenomenon creates distorted perceptions of organizations as a mere collection of disconnected elements
(Doppelt, 2003a). A lack of holistic focus, concludes Lozano (2007, p. 53), is one of the main organizational
barriers to sustainability. He optimistically believes nevertheless that silo mentalities in organizations can be
demolished through creative thinking, as this helps synthesize new ways of thinking to replace current mental
models (Lozano, 2014, p. 214).
Taking the debate on sustainability barriers to a macro-systemic level, some of the more critical writers in the
eld denounce the hyper-consumer culture of global capitalism as the ultimate barrier to a sustainable future
(see, for example, Barber, 2007; Benett and OReilly, 2010; Hamilton and Denniss, 2005; Heinberg, 2011; Jackson,
2011; Lawson, 2009; Porritt, 2007; Smart, 2010). Sibbel (2009) condemns the unsustainable nature of the afuent
lifestyles of developed countries as a major obstacle to sustainability; from a similar perspective, Singer (2010)
deems the planet-unfriendly features of capitalism and the continual promotion of consumption as the most
persistent barriers to sustainability.
It is clear from the above literature review that there are still formidable barriers preventing the successful attain-
ment of sustainable goals. In summary, these barriers are lack of understanding of the concept arising from seman-
tic ambiguities, resistance to sustainability (individual and political), lack of systems thinking, inability to enforce
sustainable behaviours along the supply chain and the hyper-consumer culture of global capitalism. These themes
will be brought to life in the comments of the interviewees, but before proceeding it is important to discuss the
methodology used in the study,

Methodology
Consistent with the researchs aim to explore the personal views of a group of managers and employees from
different organizations in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, the study presented here had a qualitative design. This

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 23, 425434 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
428 F. de Paiva Duarte

methodological choice stems from the recognition that qualitative methods encourage participants to engage in
deeper reection about their personal experience, prompting richer perspectives and richer analyses. This is impor-
tant in exploratory research, whose aims are primarily to generate new insights on a phenomenon for which there is
not a great deal of information.
Data collection was done through an audio-recorded, semi-structured, interview with staff from organizations
that claimed to be committed to sustainability. The duration of the interviews ranged from 40 to 60 min. While
an interview schedule was used to ensure consistency in data collection, the interviews were characterized by an
informal, conversational tone designed to put participants at ease. The interview schedule included questions on
the participants position, responsibilities and length of employment. It also included the working denition of
sustainability adopted in the study to ensure a shared understanding of the concept. The core question of the
study posed to all participants, was as follows: In your view, what are the major barriers to sustainability in
Brazil?
As generalizability was not a goal of this research, purposive sampling was used. This means that the re-
searcher deliberately targeted a certain population in this case staff from companies that claimed to be sustain-
able in view of their potential to provide relevant information to address the research question. Participants
were recruited through the snowballing method using the researchers professional networks in Brazil. A total
of 14 staff from ten organizations were recruited from the following industry sectors: mining, banking, utilities,
renewable energy, printing, hospitality, and state and local government (see Table 1 for participants details).
While some would argue that a sample of 14 people is not sufciently large to produce valid ndings, it is well
established that qualitative research does not require large samples, as data saturation can occur with relatively
small samples (see Bertaux, 1981; Creswell, 1998; Guest et al., 2006). As already noted, the primary goal of this
study was not to produce data generalizable to other populations, but to explore personal experience, views and
perceptions.
The data analysis involved both deductive and inductive logic. The core deductive categories drawn from the
literature review were semantic barriers to sustainability, attitudinal barriers, political barriers, systemic barriers
and macro-systemic barriers. Inductive logic enabled the identication of themes that were not immediately obvious
to the researcher (for example, cultural barriers to sustainability; critical perspectives on barriers to sustainability).
Data coding was done manually, involving the use of colored highlighters to identify salient themes, and a reective
reading and re-reading of the interview transcripts which enabled the researcher to optimize the identication of
relevant themes. Analytic memos were produced during the reiterative reading of the texts to ensure that the
researcher remained focused on the tasks at hand.

Pseudonyms Interviewees positions

Roberto Environmental manager, mining company

Angela Sustainability manager, industry federation
Rodrigo Environmental manager, energy supply company
Miguel Sustainability manager, business support organization
Cristina Recycling ofcer, business support organization
Wagner Sustainability manager, development bank
Solange Sanitation ofcer, government environmental division
Claudia Environmental accreditation ofcer, government environmental division
Antonio Environmental engineer, government environmental division
Edison Environmental education manager, environmental division
Julio Executive director, waste recycling organization
Luciano Owner/manager, organic food restaurant
Gustavo Owner/manager, printing business
Patricia Owner/manager, bed and breakfast

Table 1. Participants details

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 23, 425434 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Barriers to Sustainability Goals 429

Findings
Overall, the participants responses revealed a signicant level of awareness of semantic, attitudinal, organizational
and systemic barriers that in their view prevented sustainability goals being effectively achieved in Brazil. As shown
below, the thematic patterns that emerged in the interviews very closely resemble those identied in the literature
review.
Lack of clarity in the sustainability concept was widely acknowledged by participants as an obstacle to sustainability
goals. As commented by Claudia3 (environmental accreditation ofcer at a government organization), everyone is
talking about sustainability, but what are they talking about? Were not speaking about one single thing [stated
emphatically]. Miguel (sustainability manager at a business support organization) recounted that in his work-
place he has to establish and constantly reafrm the parameters of the sustainability concept because of its semantic
ambiguities.
Lack of knowledge in relation to sustainability or ignorance as described by some of the participants was a
recurring theme in the interviews. Luciano (owner of a health food restaurant) attributed ignorance about sustain-
ability more specically to lack of public education on environmental issues in Brazil, adding that ignorance creates
an attitude of carelessness, as people are not able to appreciate the importance of sustainable behaviours. Angela
(sustainability manager of an industry support organization) also believed that ignorance is a barrier to the attainment
of sustainability goals, expressing her opinion that the level of ignorance about sustainability is still very high in Brazil.
Economic imperatives are higher in the governments agenda than educational needs.
Attitudinal barriers to sustainability were also highlighted in the interviews. For example, Luciano commented
that self-serving attitudes often prevent the achievement of sustainability goals in Brazil. He illustrated this claim
by recounting that his customers demands for vegetables that are out of season have prevented him from maintain-
ing a sustainable seasonal menu at his restaurant (that is, a menu based on vegetables that are seasonally available
in his garden). He explained that, in order to meet customers demands for tomatoes all year around, he had to im-
port the produce from other regions of Brazil, which enlarged the ecological footprint of his restaurant. Similarly,
Cristina (waste recycling ofcer at a business support organization) identied self-interested, individualistic atti-
tudes as barriers to sustainability. It was her opinion that the lack of interest in sustainable practices in
Brazilian society prevents the effective mobilization of people to engage in environmentally responsible behaviours.
There was a general agreement among the participants that resistance to sustainability is a major barrier to enact
it. However, opinions on the reasons for resistance varied. For example, Wagner (sustainability manager at a
medium-sized development bank) believed that resistance to sustainability in his organization stemmed from peo-
ples fear of the unknown because they dont want to go out of their comfort zone. For Edison (environmental
education manager at a local government organization) resistance in his workplace was caused by negative attitudes,
reected for example in dismissive comments made by colleagues on proposed new environmental education pro-
jects (This will be too costly or This wont work). Offering a more critical appraisal of what caused resistance to
sustainability projects at his workplace, Edisons colleague Antonio (environmental engineer at the same govern-
ment organization) contended that resistance resulted from organizational politics, a phenomenon very commonly
observed in government organizations. Agreeing with Antonio, Claudia alluded to the political games people play
here, and the interests behind them as major obstacles to sustainability. She recounted, for example, that in her 17
years of employment with that institution, she had experienced multiple disruptions to sustainability projects when-
ever there was a change of government especially when new leaders were not committed to sustainability.
Absence of systems thinking was identied as a major obstacle to sustainability by some participants. In the
words of Julio (executive director of a waste recycling organization), lack of systems thinking creates a compartmen-
talized view of the world, which prevents a deeper understanding of sustainability issues, and disrupts organiza-
tional learning processes. Roberto (environmental manager of a mining company) reported difculties in
meeting sustainability goals at his workplace due to the absence of a big picture perspective in relation to organiza-
tional processes. Likewise, Rodrigo (environmental manager of an energy supply company) contended that lack of
systems thinking in his organization had consistently prevented the embedding of sustainability principles in

3
Pseudonyms are used in this section to ensure participants anonymity and condentiality.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 23, 425434 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
430 F. de Paiva Duarte

organizational practices. Solange (sanitation ofcer at a government organization) identied compartmentalization

of knowledge and processes as a severe obstacle to sustainability in her workplace. Conrming Solanges appraisal
of the situation, her colleague Antonio agreed that lack of systems thinking was a major barrier to the development
of a cohesive sustainability culture in that particular government organization, because everyone tends to do their
own thing and dont share information.
Difculty in enforcing a sustainable supply chain was also mentioned in the interviews as a barrier to the dis-
semination of sustainability practices beyond organizational boundaries. In the words of Miguel, A company
may call itself sustainable but its not really sustainable if it wont take into account its whole supply chain. Con-
sistent with this view, Patricia (owner/manager of a bed and breakfast) reported difculties in ensuring that the
foods that she offered to her guests were sourced from sustainable suppliers. She stated I often have to supplement
my cheese stocks with commercially produced cheese made by people who dont have a clue about environmen-
tally friendly products.
The role of macro-systemic factors in preventing the long term enactment of sustainability goals was also ac-
knowledged in the interviews. Antonio denounced the whole machine of capitalism that instils materialistic values
in people as the ultimate barrier to the transition to sustainability. In similar terms, Angela stated that the greatest
challenge to a long-term commitment to sustainability in Brazil is the widespread consumer mentality of Brazilians.
People say theyre broke, but the shopping centers are always crowded!. For Claudia, the sustainability concept is
not transformative because it does not challenge the current economic model.

Discussion
The above ndings reveal a good grasp among the participants of major barriers to sustainability in Brazil.
Expressing views that closely resonated with those identied in the literature review, the interviewees mentioned
semantic barriers to sustainability (e.g. confusion regarding the meaning of the concept) attitudinal barriers
(e.g. lack of interest; resistance), political barriers (e.g. suppression of sustainability issues through organiza-
tional politics), systemic barriers (e.g. silo mentality) and macro-systemic barriers (e.g. consumer culture of
global capitalism).
The data also unveiled a number of themes worthy of future exploration to add and enhance knowledge in the
eld. One of them is the perception by some participants that barriers to sustainability goals may have a cultural ba-
sis. This was evident for example in Cristinas allusion to the widespread lack of interest in sustainable practices in
Brazilian society, and Lucianos insinuation that Brazilians have self-serving attitudes. While lack of interest in sus-
tainability and self-serving attitudes may well exist in other cultural contexts, it would be interesting to carry out
comparative research to investigate whether perceptions of barriers to sustainability vary signicantly in different
cultural contexts. Studies of this nature could generate useful data for sustainability managers of global corporations
and also for sustainability practitioners working in intergovernmental institutions. Policy makers could also benet
from this knowledge in that they would be able to design policies more specically tailored to deal with obstacles
characteristic of certain cultural contexts.
Another signicant pattern that emerged from the ndings was that organizational politics was identied as a
barrier to sustainability only by staff from the government institution; participants from the other sectors did not
acknowledge organizational politics as an impediment to sustainability. This is an intriguing nding given the
strong consensus among scholars that organizations are inherently political entities, as they are constituted by net-
works of individuals with divergent values and interests (Clegg et al., 2005; Fulop and Linstead, 2009; Mintzberg,
1975, 1983, 1984; Morgan, 2006; Pettigrew, 2002; Pfeffer, 1981, 1992; Zaleznik, 1970). It is therefore recom-
mended that future research explore the theme of organizational politics as a perceived barrier to sustainability
in different settings. This could encourage managers to reect more critically on the effects of politically motivated
resistance to sustainability in their own workplace a reective process that may prompt a realization of the need
to embrace new mental models that will enable organizations to honor their rhetorical claims of sustainability. As
noted by Senge (1990, p. 9) the discipline of working with mental models starts with turning the mirror inward;
learning to unearth our internal pictures of the world, to bring them to the surface and hold them rigorously to

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 23, 425434 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Barriers to Sustainability Goals 431

scrutiny. Future research could also explore the extent to which organizational politics constrain systems thinking
within the context of organizations that profess to be sustainable.
The political economy perspective expressed by some of the participants (i.e. global capitalism as the ultimate
barrier to sustainability) also raises interesting possibilities for future research focusing on the role of reection
and reexivity among managers working with sustainability. It would be interesting to ascertain, for example,
how staff who view capitalism itself as the ultimate barrier to sustainability come to terms with the moral dilemmas
generated by this realization. In other words, how do they reconcile their inclination to view workplace phenomena
through critical lenses and their necessity to work for a livelihood within the very system which they criticize? Would
reection on macro-systemic barriers to sustainability make these individuals feel disempowered or would it make
them even more determined to nd ways to address these obstacles? Would they feel tempted to engage in actions to
draw the attention of their work colleagues to the need to abandon existing mental models and adopt new ones that
can catalyze the transition to a sustainable future? To what extent do they feel condent that they can shift attitudes
through openly discussing alternative perspectives at their workplace?
Further research could also be carried out to explore perceptions of managers on the theme of lack of
systems thinking as an obstacle to sustainability. As widely acknowledged by scholars in the eld, the ability
to think systemically is paramount to the long-term transition to sustainability (Geels, 2004; Kemp, 1994;
Kemp et al., 1998; Markard, 2011; Smith et al., 2005; Weber, 2003). Therefore, future studies could investigate,
for example, the extent to which organizations that claim to be sustainable purposefully implement systems
thinking concepts in daily routines and processes, and whether they are able to look beyond events and super-
cial xes to see deeper structures and forces at play (Senge et al., 2010, p. 167). Frankels (1998) admonition
that sustainability challenges can only be addressed at the holistic level remains more relevant than ever in
current times.
Notwithstanding the thought-provoking themes and questions that the ndings have raised for future research,
the heterogeneous nature of the sample (i.e. companies of various sizes and sectors) can be said to be a limitation in
the study. Perhaps a greater number of organizations from one single industry sector would have generated more
focused and richer data. Industry sectors that have a negative sustainability track record (e.g. mining, chemicals)
would be particularly interesting to research, as this prole may prompt deeper levels of reection among managers
on their contributions as individuals to address barriers to sustainability goals.

Conclusion

This paper has reported the ndings of an exploratory study that examined the perspectives of a group of Brazilian
managers in relation to barriers to sustainability. The ndings revealed a signicant level of awareness among the
participants with regard to common impediments to sustainability in Brazilian society.
In conclusion, it can be said that this research fulls its exploratory purpose to provide useful insights into how
barriers to sustainability are perceived by Brazilian managers and also to identify issues and themes for future
research, including research designed to explore perceptions of barriers to sustainability in different cultural
settings, a more systematic investigation of organizational politics as a barrier to sustainability in different types
of organization, the role of reection and reexivity in making employees aware of sustainability paradoxes and
moral associated dilemmas, and the extent to which organizations that claim to be sustainable purposefully imple-
ment systems thinking concepts in their daily routines.
The research also sheds light on the experience of managers working with sustainability within the specic
context of an emergent economy such as Brazil, which faces a formidable paradox: while this nation is a leader
in sustainability practices, it is also a rapidly growing economy that consumes large amounts of natural resources
by way of its extractive activities. As seen above, awareness of this contradiction was implicit in the responses of
some of the participants, which reveals possibilities to push the debate on barriers to sustainability to new levels,
taking into account the impact of macro-systemic forces on social life. Debates of this nature can potentially generate
new ways of seeing, new solutions for environmental problems and the institutionalization of new mental models.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 23, 425434 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
432 F. de Paiva Duarte

The exploratory study presented here thus paves the way for research on barriers to sustainability from more critical
perspectives.
Maintaining a critical perspective on obstacles to sustainability is particularly relevant in the wake of growing
awareness in the business sphere of global environmental issues such as climate change, and the conclusion by
the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) that climate change is driven largely by economic and
population growth (IPCC, 2014, pp. 1, 4). It is therefore opportune to use this momentum to encourage academics
and practitioners to enter into a reective dialogue on systemic barriers to sustainability and work collaboratively to
identify feasible strategies to start addressing them more effectively.

References
Ageron B, Gunasekaran A, Spalanzani A 2011. Sustainable supply management: an empirical study. International Journal of Production Economics
140: 168182. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.04.007 DOI:10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.04.007#doilink
Avelino F, Rotmans J 2009. Power in transition: an interdisciplinary framework to study power in relation to structural change. European Journal
of Social Theory 12: 543569. DOI:10.1177/1368431009349830.
Barber BR 2007. Consumed: How Markets Corrupt Children, Infantilize Adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole, Norton: New York.
Becker E, Jahn T, Stiess I 1999. Exploring uncommon ground: sustainability and the social sciences. In Sustainability and the Social Sciences:
A Cross-Disciplinary Approach to Integrating Environmental Considerations into Theoretical Reorientation, Becker E, Jahn T (eds). Zed:
London; 122.
Benett A, OReilly A 2010. Consumed: Rethinking Business in the Era of Mindful Spending, Palgrave Macmillan: New York.
Bertaux D 1981. From the life-history approach to the transformation of sociological practice. In Biography and Society: the Life History Approach
in the Social Sciences, Bertaux D (ed.). Sage: London; 2945.
Christen M, Schmidt S 2012. A formal framework for conceptions of sustainability a theoretical contribution to the discourse of sustainable
development. Sustainable Development 20: 400410. DOI:10.1002/sd.518.
Clegg S, Kornberger M, Pitsis T 2005. Managing power and politics in organizations. In Managing and Organizations: an Introduction to Theory
and Practice, Sage: London; 251294.
Creswell J 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Doppelt B 2003a. Overcoming the seven sustainability blunders. The Systems Thinker 14: 27.
Doppelt B 2003b. Leading Change Toward Sustainability, Shefeld: Greenleaf.
Echegaray F 2013. Sustainability in Brazil: a mixed conundrum. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/sustainability-
brazil-mixed-conundrum [12 December 2014].
Frankel C 1998. In Earths Company: Business, Environment and the Challenge of Sustainability, New Society: Gabriola Island, British
Columbia, Canada.
Fulop L, Linstead, S 2009. Power and politics in organizations. In Management and Organization: a Critical Text (2nd edn), Linstead S, Fulop L,
Lilley S (eds). Palgrave MacMillan. New York; 277315.
Geels FW 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and insti-
tutional theory. Research Policy 33: 897920. DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015.
Gibson R 1991. Should environmentalists pursue sustainable development? Probe Post 13: 2225.
Giunipero LC, Hooker R, Denslow D 2012. Purchasing and supply management sustainability: drivers and barriers. Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management 18: 258269.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 2015. Focal Point Brazil. https://www.globalreporting.org/network/regional-networks/gri-focal-points/focal-
point-brazil/Pages/Focal-Point-Brazil-English.aspx#sthash.YrRYTtCm.dpuf [2 May 2015].
Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L 2006. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods
18: 5982. DOI:10.1177/1525822X05279903.
Hamilton C, Denniss R 2005. Afuenza: When Too Much is Never Enough, Allen and Unwin: Crows Nest, Australia.
Harich J 2010. Change resistance as the crux of environmental sustainability problem. System Dynamic Review 26: 3572. DOI:10.1002/sdr.431.
Hasle P, Jensen PL 2012. Ergonomics and sustainability challenges from global supply chains. Work 41: 39063913. DOI:10.3233/WOR-
2012-0060-3906.
Heinberg R 2011. End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality, New Society: Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada.
Hopwood B, Mellor M, OBrien G 2005. Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development 13: 3852. DOI:10.1002/sd.244.
Instituto Brasileiro de Opinio Pblica e Estatstica (IBOPE) 2011. IBOPE Ambiental. http://www4.ibope.com.br/download/
apresentacao_ibope_ambiental.pdf [2 May 2015].
Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) 2014. Climate Change 2014, Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report, summary for
policymakers. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPMcorr1.pdf [11 December 2014].
Irwin A 2001. Sociology and the Environment: a Critical Introduction to Society, Nature and Knowledge, Polity: Malden, MA.
IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1991. Caring for the Earth: a Strategy for Sustainable Living. Gland, Switzerland. https://portals.iucn.org/library/eles/
edocs/CFE-003.pdf [1 January 2014].

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 23, 425434 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Barriers to Sustainability Goals 433

Jackson T 2011. Confronting consumption: challenges for economics and for policy. In The Political Economy of the Environment: an Interdis-
ciplinary Approach, Dietz S, Michie J, Oughton C (eds). Routledge: Abingdon; 189212.
Kemp R 1994. Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability. Futures 26: 10231046.
Kemp R, Schot J, Hoogma R 1998. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche manage-
ment. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 10: 175195.
Kingaby H 2014. Brazils sustainability tipping point three lessons for success from the west. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/
sustainable-business/brazil-sustainability-tipping-point-three-lessons-west [12 December 2014].
Lam JCK, Walker RM, Hills P 2014. Interdisciplinarity in sustainability studies: a review. Sustainable Development 22: 158176. DOI:10.1002/
sd.533.
Lawson N 2009. All Consuming: How Shopping Got Us into this Mess and How We Can Find our Way Out, Penguin: London.
Lozano R 2007. Orchestrating organizational changes for corporate sustainability. Greener Management International 57: 4364. DOI:10.9774/
GLEAF.3062.2007.sp.00005.
Lozano R 2013. Are companies planning their organisational changes for corporate sustainability? An analysis of three case studies on resistance
to change and their strategies to overcome it. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 20: 275295. DOI:10.1002/
csr.1290.
Lozano R 2014. Creativity and organizational learning as means to foster sustainability. Sustainable Development 22: 205216. DOI:10.1002/
sd.540.
Markard J 2011. Transformation of infrastructures: sector characteristics and implications for fundamental change. Journal of Infrastructure
Systems 17: 107117. DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013.
Milbrath LW 1995. Psychological, cultural, and informational barriers to sustainability. Journal of Social Issues 51: 101120.
Ministerio do Meio-Ambiente. 2012. O que o Brasileiro Pensa e do Meio-Ambiente e do Consumo Sustentavel. http://www.mma.gov.br/
informma/item/8386-o-que-o-brasileiro-pensa-do-meio-ambiente-e-do-consumo-sustent%C3%A1vel [2 May2015].
Mintzberg H 1975. The organization as a political arena. International Studies of Management and Organizations 1: 7887.
Mintzberg H 1983. Power in and Around Organizations, Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Mintzberg H 1984. Power and organizational life-cycles. Academy of Management Review 9: 207224.
Moore J 1995. Barriers to sustainability. New City Magazine 16: 3335.
Morgan G 2006. Interest, conict and power: organizations as political systems. In Images of Organization, Sage: London; 149202.
Pettigrew A. 2002. Strategy formulation as a political process. In Central Currents in Organization Studies II: Contemporary Trends (Vol. 5),
Clegg S (ed.). Sage: London; 7887.
Pfeffer J 1981. Power in Organizations, Pittman: Marsheld, MA.
Pfeffer J 1992. Managing with Power and Politics, Harvard Business School Press: Cambridge, MA.
Porritt J 2007. Capitalism as if the World Matters, revised edn.London: Earthscan.
Preuss L 2005. Rhetoric and reality of corporate greening: a view from the supply chain management function. Business Strategy and the Environ-
ment 14: 123139. DOI:10.1002/bse.435.
Redclift M 2005. Sustainable development (19872005): an oxymoron comes of age. Sustainable Development 13: 212227.
DOI:10.1002/sd.281.
Reuter C, Goebel P, Foerstl K 2012. The impact of stakeholder orientation on sustainability and cost prevalence in supplier selection decisions.
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 18: 270281. DOI:10.1016/j.pursup.2012.06.004.
Robinson J 2004. Opportunity or illusion: the vexed promise of the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics 48: 369384. DOI:
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.017 DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.017#doilink
Senge P 1990. The Fifth Discipline: the Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Currency Doubleday: New York.
Senge P, Smith B, Kruschwitz N, Laur J, Schley S 2010. The Necessary Revolution: Working Together to Create a Sustainable World, Broadway:
New York.
Sibbel A 2009. Pathways towards sustainability through higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 10: 6882.
DOI:10.1108/14676370910925262.
Singer M 2010. Eco-nomics: are the planet-unfriendly features of capitalism barriers to sustainability? Sustainability 2: 127144. DOI:10.3390/
su2010127.
Smart B 2010. Consumer Society: Critical Issues and Environmental Consequences, Sage: London.
Smith A, Stirling A, Berkhout F 2005. The governance of sustainable sociotechnical transitions. Research Policy 34: 14911510. DOI:10.1016/j.
respol.2005.07.005.
Springett D 2013. Editorial: Critical perspectives on sustainable development. Sustainable Development 21: 7382. DOI:10.1002/sd.1556.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2012. Brazil, Denmark, France and South Africa Join in Commitment to Sustainability
Reporting. UNEP News Centre. http://www.unep.org/newscentre/Default.aspx?DocumentID=2688&ArticleID=9190&l=en#sthash.
ZFfYNldm.dpuf [12 December 2014].
Verdantix. 2012. Brazilian Sustainability Spending Exceeds European Major Economies but Offers Limited Growth Prospects. http://www.
verdantix.com/blog/index.cfm/post/brazilian-sustainability-spending-exceeds-european-major-economies-but-offers-limited-growth-prospects--
60 [12 December 2014].
Walker H, Di Sisto L, McBain D 2008. Drivers and barriers to environmental supply chain management practices: lessons from the public and
private sectors. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 14: 6985.
Walker H, Jones N 2012. Sustainable supply chain management across the UK private sector. Supply Chain Management: an International Journal
17(1): 1528.

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 23, 425434 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
434 F. de Paiva Duarte

Weber KM 2003. Transforming large socio-technical systems towards sustainability: on the role of users and future visions for the uptake of city
logistics and combined heat and power generation. Innovation 16: 155176. DOI:10.1016/j.pursup.2008.01.007.
Williams K, Dair C 2007. What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable
developments. Sustainable Development 15: 135147. DOI:10.1002/sd.308.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) 1987. Our Common Future, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Zaleznik A 1970. Power and politics in organizational life. Harvard Business Review May. http://hbr.org/1970/05/power-and-politics-in-organizational-
life/ar/1 [18 January 2014].

Copyright 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 23, 425434 (2015)
DOI: 10.1002/sd