En relación a la pregunta anterior, ¿consideras que la afectividad puede influir en el aprendizaje del idioma?

M. Gordona, M. Lockwoodb, J. Schirmerc,F. Vanclayd, and D. Hansone

a,b

School of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

a

Private Bag 78, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, 7001, [email protected]

c

Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Australia

d

Department of Cultural Geography, University of Groningen, The Netherlands e

Faculty of Business, University of Tasmania, Australia a,c

Cooperative Research Centre for Forestry, Australia

Summary

This paper provides practical insight into what can be done to improve the adoption of community engagement (CE) in the corporate culture of two Australian forest plantation companies. Previous research has identified that CE can be limited by corporate cultures that promote a narrow range of CE benefits. However, no previous studies have detailed the relationship between corporate culture and CE adoption within forest companies. This research provides empirical grounding to explore the relationship between corporate culture and CE adoption. We undertook case studies of two forest companies to understand how to enhance CE adoption. Interviews were conducted with 19 company staff including field staff, middle managers, and senior managers. We found that both companies had some commitment to CE. Many employees believed CE was essential for the ongoing operations of their company. However, CE adoption was constrained by issues such as a lack of resources and difficulties in discerning when CE was necessary. Based on our findings we provide strategies for enhancing adoption of CE in corporate culture. These strategies

include: (a) providing more incentives for individuals to engage with a broader range of stakeholders; (b) developing better tools to gather feedback from their

146

stakeholders and measure their social licence to operate; and (c) developing more effective stakeholder identification and engagement strategies.

Keywords Community engagement; corporate culture; sustainable forest management; forest plantations; sustainability; Australia.

Introduction

Community Engagement (CE) is an essential element of sustainably managed forestry (Dhubháin et al. 2009). CE, also called public participation, ‘is a process by which public concerns, needs and values are incorporated into governmental and corporate decision making’ (Creighton 2005: 7). The terms CE and public

participation are fundamentally the same and are sometimes used interchangeably (Dare, Vanclay & Schirmer 2012). CE covers a broad range of activities with varying levels of involvement, including providing information and involving stakeholders in decision making (Creighton 2005). Stakeholders in the conduct and outcomes of corporate activities include employees and external stakeholders interested in or impacted by a company’s operations (Carroll & Buchholtz 2009; Harding 1998), some of whom may reside outside a company’s geographic area of operations.

There are many reasons why for stakeholder needs and values must be considered as part of corporate governance and decision-making. CE is essential to meet the requirements of good governance as identified through principles such as fairness, transparency and inclusion (Lockwood et al. 2010; UNDP 1997). In addition, community acceptance engendered through effective CE is good for business in terms of company reputation and consumer support for products (Dare, Vanclay & Schirmer 2012). Acceptance is associated with the concept of a ‘social licence to operate’, which is based on a company having either explicit or implicit permission to operate from various groups such as governments, and stakeholder interest groups (Dare, Schirmer & Vanclay, unpublished; Gunningham, Thornton & Kagan 2005; Lynch-Wood & Williamson 2007). The social licence to operate concept has influenced the perceived need for CE.

147

CE adoption has been influenced by external factors including legal requirements and voluntary guidelines. For example, CE is a requirement of forest certification, where companies must be able to prove to auditors that they are undertaking CE (Dare, Schirmer & Vanclay 2011b). Obtaining forest certification can improve market access (Dare, Schirmer & Vanclay 2011b; Taylor 2005; van Kooten, Nelson & Vertinsky 2005), reinforcing the potential value of CE from an industry

perspective. Although CE is increasingly becoming mandatory in legislation and incorporated into voluntary processes such as forest certification, these instruments are not enough in themselves to ensure a genuine company commitment (Dare, Schirmer & Vanclay 2011b).

Genuine CE can be distinguished from non-genuine CE, which Arnstein (1969) describes as therapy, manipulation, or tokenism, where the objective of the engagement is to ‘cure’ or ‘educate’ participants. Arnstein (1969) regards less participative forms of engagement such as ‘consultation’ as tokenistic. While such forms of community engagement can indeed be tokenistic if, for example, the intention is to silence stakeholders, consultation can also form part of a broader process or strategy that genuinely engages stakeholders. In some circumstances it may be more appropriate to provide stakeholders with information rather than involving them in more participative activities (Dare, Schirmer & Vanclay 2011a). Genuine CE enables meaningful participation, providing an opportunity for active community input (Brueckner et al., 2006) rather than solely one-way communication (Ross, Buchy & Proctor 2002). Other essential elements of CE include fostering trust, being transparent, and being inclusive to avoid CE processes that only suit a vocal minority (Dare, Schirmer & Vanclay 2011a; Measham et al., 2011).

However, issues such as differing personal morality-based positions (Earle & Siegrist 2008) or competing values can present a significant challenge for implementing effective CE (Fleisher-Trainor 2006; Gordon et al. 2006). In such cases, to enhance cooperation between parties it would be useful to establish trust and find common values to avoid evoking conflicting emotional responses to issues (Earle & Siegrist 2008). Social acceptance of outcomes can be enhanced when stakeholders believe that engagement processes and their outcomes are fair (Gross 2007). Effective CE requires practitioner skills such as the ability to facilitate constructive dialogue, and

148

personality traits such as the ability to empathise with a stakeholder’s concern (Dare, Schirmer & Vanclay 2011a).

Internal influences, and in particular corporate culture, have a significant impact on whether a company’s commitment to CE is genuine (Dare, Schirmer & Vanclay 2011a; Gao & Zhang 2006). Corporate culture can be thought of as ‘the shared mental models [ways of thinking that are the source of perceptions and feelings, which influence behaviour] that the members of an organisation hold and take for granted’ (Schein 1999: 21). Sustainable adoption of CE is dependent upon it being embedded within culture (Dare, Schirmer & Vanclay 2011a; Gao & Zhang 2006). Corporate culture itself is influenced by a number of restraining forces including the size of a company, and workforce structure and expertise (Pettinger 2004). In the Australian plantation industry, Dare, Schirmer, and Vanclay (2011a) argue that corporate culture can limit the effectiveness of CE by promoting narrow views of engagement benefits (for example, emphasising commercial outcomes), and by deploying a limited variety of engagement techniques that constrain stakeholder inclusion.

Culture helps to guide or constrain behaviour through shared group norms (Schein 2010). It thus shapes how CE is conducted, as corporate culture has an impact on the way employees think and feel about CE. Culture influences perceptions on why CE is useful (Dare, Schirmer & Vanclay 2011b); when and to what extent it should be enacted in the day-to-day company operations (Smith & McDonough 2001); how much company resources (e.g. employee training to enhance CE skills, time and money) should be devoted to it (Dare, Schirmer & Vanclay 2011a); and what sorts of procedures should be put in place to support it (Dare, Schirmer & Vanclay 2011a; Schein 2010). Also relevant to culture and adoption of CE is the extent to which employees believe in and agree with the values their company espouses and therefore how they represent their company whilst conducting CE.

Company values, and corporate brands that are an expression of these values, are embedded within the culture insofar as employees believe in and are behaving in accordance with them (Gotsi, Andriopoulos & Wilson 2008). In the forest industry such values may be associated with adhering to environmental and social criteria as

149

part of forest certification (Dare, Schirmer & Vanclay 2011b), but not every company will have the same values and will have different corporate cultures (Schein 2010). Employees that are personally motivated to help achieve company values are more likely to represent their company in a positive way and actively pursue company goals (Pettinger 2004). This has implications for CE as interactions with stakeholders (and positive company reputation) are shaped by the values that members of a company stand for and believe in (De Chernatony, Cottam & Segal- Horn 2006).

Senior management of a company strongly influences corporate culture by shaping the behaviour and norms of the company (Hatch & Schultz 1997; Schein 2010). Management has a responsibility to embed ‘principles and practice in the hearts and minds, in decision-taking structures and in the culture and climate of the

organization’ (Collier & Esteban, 2007: 20). For CE to be effective, employees at all levels of the company must have a desire to understand the perspectives of others (Lyon 2004), and appreciate the need to undertake CE.

A number of attributes of corporate culture influence a company’s commitment to CE, such as the skill set of staff, formal company processes, employee beliefs associated with the value of CE, and management commitment to CE. Our study focuses on such attributes to understand how corporate culture supports CE adoption within two forest companies. Although previous studies (i.e. Dare, Schirmer & Vanclay 2011a; 2011b) have discussed the relationship between corporate culture and CE adoption within forest companies, these studies have not been detailed. This research provides empirical grounding to explore the relationship between corporate culture and CE adoption. It also provides insight into how leaders of companies can enhance company commitment to CE. In this paper we examine the following questions:

1. What constitutes a corporate culture that supports CE?

2. How does corporate culture impact CE adoption within the case study companies being investigated?

3. What can be done to enhance the adoption of CE within the corporate culture of the case study forest companies?

150

First, we outline the methods used to decipher how company culture supported CE adoption within two case study companies. Second, we present evidence that explicates how CE is associated with company culture within the two companies investigated. Lastly, we provide a set of strategies to enhance CE adoption within the corporate culture of the two case study companies.

Methods

Two case studies were chosen to explore the impact of company culture on CE adoption. Case study research (Yin 2003) was used as it enabled the use of in-depth qualitative information to decipher the impact of corporate culture on CE. The companies were selected on the basis of their importance in an Australian context, and for their differences in variables such as age of company (a significant variable when assessing culture), and being located in separate regions in Australia. The two privately owned companies – which we refer to as Company A and Company B – each managed a plantation estate of at least 15 000 hectares. Company A had existed for a longer time period than Company B, which had not yet started harvesting in one of their regions. In addition, Company B’s assets were recently owned and managed by different proprietors. Both companies employed between 10-30 staff in the forest operations side of their business. Company A was located in the state of Tasmania. Company B was located in south west Western Australia and the Green Triangle region (a plantation area in south west Victoria and south east South Australia).

Our study focused on deciphering corporate culture as a necessary means to

understand company commitment to CE. We used the three layers of Schein’s (1999) model of corporate culture – espoused values, artefacts and underlying assumptions – to decipher culture. Espoused values are the rules that govern day-to-day operating practices as promulgated by companies in formal statements of philosophy and approach (Schein 2010). Artefacts are tangible manifestations of a company, such as its offices and the manner in which they are presented. Underlying assumptions are the taken-for-granted beliefs and values, which are the essence of culture (Schein 2010).

151

To understand these layers of culture, we used multiple methods, consisting of interviewing, observation, and document analysis. Interviewing provided insight into employee perceptions and attitudes towards CE. Document analysis provided

information on the types and nature of company procedures that were in place (such as Company B’s media engagement policy). Observation enabled documentation of employee behaviour (for example, during meetings) as well as cultural artefacts such as those evident in office decor.

Using multiple methods strengthens the findings through triangulation, as each method uncovers different aspects of empirical reality (Patton 2002). Triangulation enables the results from one method to be checked against all other data sources to identify any inconsistencies in findings (Patton 2002). For example, interviews, document analysis and observation can reveal congruencies and divergences between company policies, employee perceptions, and actual behaviours and practices. Data were collected over approximately a one year period. The University of Tasmania Human Research Ethics Committee granted ethical approval for the study (approval number H10920).

Nineteen semi structured interviews (Minichiello, Aroni & Hays 2008) were conducted during 2010, comprising seven people from Company A and 12 people from Company B. Informants were chosen for interview providing they met pre- defined selection criteria. All informants needed to be an employee with the

company for at least six months. At least one employee who had an understanding of forest certification guidelines and how they were implemented was interviewed, together with at least one field staff employee, senior manager and middle manager. Those interviewed included foresters, administration personnel, researchers, and a cartographer. Interviews lasted for up to one and a half hours. The number of employees interviewed was deemed sufficient once no new information was uncovered (Charmaz 2006). Post interview, verbatim transcripts were typed and interviewees were provided with the opportunity to review these before they were used for analysis.

152

During 2010 to 2011, observations of the artefacts of culture such as office decor and employee behaviour, were undertaken at company premises and at events such as industry-wide meetings where company personnel were in attendance. Document analysis was also undertaken to investigate company policies and procedures, which relate both to espoused values and to the artefacts of culture.

Interview data, notes from observations, and documents were analysed using thematic analysis (Boyatzis 1998), which was aided by the use of QSR NVivo version 8 software. This was an iterative process where initially descriptive codes were formed to classify data. Codes were created on the basis that they were relevant to the research questions and thus the themes were directly relevant to deciphering corporate culture and understanding its relationship to CE.

Themes were also associated with the layers of culture. For example, underlying assumptions and espoused values were revealed in items coded as ‘lack of resources for more CE’ and ‘espoused values describing culture’. Coding became more analytic over time (Attride-Stirling 2001) and literature was used to guide the analytic interpretations. For example, the code ‘definition of CE and the nature of CE’ was initially created, but then its content dispersed among a number of more analytical and interpretive codes including: (a) CE is an inherent part of the role of individuals or company; (b) CE activities are essential to conduct operations; and (c) improving company-community relations.