Is the Interface Model a Prototype Company for the 21st Century - Case Study Example

Is the Interface Model a Prototype Company for the 21st Century? Student’s Name: Course: Tutor’s Name: Date: Introduction The Interface Model is based on the story of Interface Inc., which is a billion-dollar company dealing with the manufacture of textiles, carpets and architectural products. Founded in 1973 by Ray Anderson, Interface Inc (simply referred as Interface hereunder) grew from a start-up small business venture. Today, the company commands a 35% market share in the modular carpet industry and has established operations in more than 30 countries (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008). Its growth aside, Interface’s mark in environment management occurred in 1994 when its founder Ray Anderson realised the need to adopt environmental sustainability as a measure of saving the planet from the wanton destruction that according to him, would damage human kind and “the countless creatures that share with us the thin shell of life that is the biosphere” (Anderson, 2003, p. 18). In Anderson’s own account, he struggled with the concept of environmental sustainability right from its definition, to how the concept would be put into practice. Notably however, Anderson was very clear on why environmental sustainability was the right thing to do despite the many hurdles. After an extensive soul searching, Anderson states that he finally drew the links between Interface and its different constituents, which include the suppliers, customers, community and earth’s biosphere (Anderson, 2003). Figure 1 below shows Anderson’s conceptualisation of how his company is linked to the different constituents. Figure 1: The Interface Model Source: Anderson (2003, p. 20) Notably, and in stark contrast to some other contemporary firms, Interface does not treat environmental sustainability as an add-on to its business operations; rather, the company has made a deliberate decision to incorporate environmental sustainability in its business strategy. Specifically, the company pursues a three-pronged business strategy. The three business strategies are: I) the offsets approach, which seeks to compensate the environment for any damages that Interface causes during its manufacturing and/or distribution processes; II) the sustainable approach, which seeks to fix any probable problems at the source rather than waiting for them to take effect and offsetting them latter; and III) the restorative approach, which seeks to put back resources to the environment as one way of ensuring environmental sustainability (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008). Based on the three strategies, Anderson came up with the Interface Model, which he advances as the prototype of the 21st century company. In his description, Anderson states that the model is “strongly service-oriented, resource efficient, wasting nothing, solar driven, cyclical (no longer take-waste linear), strongly connected to our constituencies… and to one another” (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008, pp. 108-109). This description forms the basis for this paper’s argument. Specifically, the paper notes that the Interface model gives priority to people and nature and is therefore a prototype of the 21st century company. Notably however, this paper is cognizant of the fact that that most of the concepts in the Interface Model are hard to implement especially by firms whose primary motive is profit making. Nevertheless, it is worth observing that the model is a good prototype for any company wishing to adopt a sustainability business model. The Interface Model (IM) According to Anderson (2003), IM has seven sustainability fronts. They are: “zero waste”; “benign emissions”; “renewable energy” through the use of solar, hydrogen and wind; “closed-loop recycling” i.e. recycling without using fossil fuels and other non-renewable energy; “resource-efficient transportation and logistics”; “the sensitivity hook-up” i.e. sensitizing stakeholders; and “the redesign of commerce” (Anderson, 2003, pp. 21-27). In order to work, the model has to make efficient use of people (i.e. the management, employees, suppliers, customers and community), products (i.e. design, manufacturing, packaging, marketing and purchasing), place, process and profits as noted by Stobbs and Cocklin (2008). A close look at the seven suggested front reveals that Anderson has an idea of what exactly he wanted Interface to look and operate like in 2020, which is the year he set for the attainment of the goals he has conceptualised in the prototype company for the 21st century. In view of the same, it is worth noting that the position assumed in this paper (i.e. the IM is a prototype of the 21st century company) is not entirely based on the arguments contained in Anderson’s (2003) and the components of the IM itself; rather, the answer is partly drawn from the argument about whether models can be used as examples in the real world. The viability of the IM in real world scenarios To start with, it is worth noting that the company, organisation, or corporation is a “complex system operating within a complex system” (Monks, 1998, p. 106). Based on such complexities, the ability to model the dynamics of such companies, organisations or corporations has been questioned. Specifically, it has been noted that in the real economic environment, companies operate in an adaptive and self-organising systems (Monks, 1998). As such, organisations like Interface Inc. would be expected to exhibit non-linear relationships with their internal and external stakeholders based on the prevailing conditions. For example, Interface’s shareholders may have some reservations regarding some of the drastic measures taken by the management in an attempt to live up to the proposed model. Specifically, they may want the management to rethink their steps should a proposed strategy appear to reduce their gains or reduce the company’s competitiveness. While this is a valid argument, it is also worth noting that the IM recognizes the value of human dignity (i.e. its employees, shareholders and communities) and social justice through its indication to preserve the environment for future generations. In fact, the IM fits well into the sustainable enterprise economy (SEE) suggested by Waddock and McIntosh (2011). While Anderson does not deny the profit-making motive of Interface, he also models the desirable organisation of the future as one that balances the profit motives with some earth-centric orientation, and social agenda. SEE proponents argue that organisations that will survive in future are those that attain balance between the organisation’s interests, and those of the larger stakeholder community (i.e. the shareholders, employees, government, and the larger community) (Waddock & McIntosh, 2011). When coming up with the IM, Anderson seems to have come to terms with the reality that reshaping the current system is the only thing that can guarantee future generations a chance to enjoy some of the wellbeing that present and past generations have had. Analysing IM alongside some of the desirable organisational concepts of the future reveals that it could indeed be a prototype company of the 21st century. Yip, Ernst and Campbell (2009 cited by Waddock & McIntosh, 2011) for example observe that future organisations will probably have executives whose influence can be felt both within and outside the organisation. For example, their leadership skills will need to influence not only their employees; but also their suppliers, shareholders, customers and even communities. At Interface this is reflected in the fact that in addition to streamlining their immediate operations in order to ensure environmental sustainability, the organisation will take further steps in order to ensure that all players in the supply chain take similar step. Taking the “sensitivity hook-up” as an exemplar, it is worth noting that Anderson (2003) states that Interface needs to forge closer relationships with suppliers and customers and communities if its vision to make a lasting mark in the society is to be realised. Should IM be actualised by 2020 as projected by Anderson (2003), it is worth noting that he also hopes that Maslow’s concept that people “rally around a higher purpose in their personal lives and their work” will be true, and hence will elevate the model as a prototype 21st century company. Rust (2003) laments that the certainty that past generations had that their offspring had a future in earth have been eroded by the fact that its existence is not assured anymore. Remotely therefore, one can argue that consumers, governments, communities and even investors will embrace IM in the hope that it can restore some assuredness regarding the earth’s future existence. Waddock and McIntosh (2011) share similar views and observe that people who champion the environment’s cause are finding new ways of connecting. One of the most prevalent ways of connecting is through identity groups, which advocate for environment-friendly causes. While the rules and guidelines created by such identity groups are not legally binding, it is worth noting that they use moral persuasion, and have the weight of aspiration to create institutional and social changes that could affect the market share and/or profitability of the 21st company. This argument validates Anderson’s (2003) desired result, which states that by adopting an environmentally sustainable process, Interface will have an “increased market share at the expense of inefficient, slow-to-adapt competitors” (p. 27). Should this be true, one can expect that more organisations will strive to adopt the IM model in order to retain or acquire market share. Finally, the argument that the IM is a prototype model for the 21st century is founded on the fact that societies are now more than ever calling for responsible, calm, collaborative and purposive management approaches. In the past or at least before the corporate social responsibility concept become entrenched in management theory, societies did not care much about activities that profit-making enterprises did beyond regulation, authenticity, and integrity (Waddock & McIntosh, 2011). Nowadays however, companies have to be accountable to the society about different aspects of their operations. Most notable of such aspects is environment sustainability, which is a core agenda in the IM and hence this paper’s position. Before concluding however, it is worth noting that the IM is a representation of sheer will power by Ray Anderson, whereby he has abandoned the otherwise unfriendly business processes for more environmentally sustainable ones. As Harfold (2011) notes, individual voluntarism cannot possibly save the planet. If indeed environmental sustainability concept is to bear any fruits, the individual initiatives need to be matched with government policy. Notably, the observation by Harfold does not go against this paper’s position that the IM is a prototype company of the 21st century; rather, it is a reflection of the fact that should the IM work, governments throughout the world would have a larger responsibility to borrow from the successful model and formulate policies based on the same. However, one cannot fully dismiss the assertion by Harfold (2011) that evolution is likely to take care of the great mess that humankind is creating by using processes that destroy the environment. In his argument, Harfold (2011) observes that evolution has its own way of adapting to changes occurring in the biosphere. Such is a passive position to take, and is arguably tantamount to justifying the unsustainable practices with the argument that the earth with rejuvenate its resources without humankind playing a proactive role. Conclusion Hawken (1993 cited in Class Notes) states that “companies must re-envision and re-imagine themselves as cyclical corporations, whose products either literally disappear into harmless components, or whose products are so specific and targeted... that there is no spill over effect, no waste, no random molecules” (p. 3). This means that the 21st century company will need to consider the interests of different stakeholders such as the environment, communities and states in the same manner they do their profit-making interests. Such sentiments are shared by many analysts, scholars and commentators, who agree that humankind needs to make a conscious decision to change how they conduct business process, if at all environmental sustainability is to be realised. As noted in the September 2011 edition of the The Economist, “the idea that humans might help remove carbon as well as put it there is reasonable; it would not stop climate change soon, but it would shorten its lease and reduce the ocean changes from the excess carbon” (p. 54). Similarly, the IM should be seen as one such conscious decision by the management at Interface Inc. to change the organisation’s processes in a manner that reduces any negative impact on the environment. The model, even when fully operational, may not undo the harm caused to the environment by hundreds years of wrong use, but it may well be the first step towards rectifying the situation, or even extending the environmental lease for future generations. Notably, the model is just a model, and if Meadow and Wright’s (2009) is anything to go by, such models fall short of representing the reality in the world. However, it is worth noting that “models have a strong congruence with the world…” (Meadows & Wright, 2009, p. 87) and are therefore relevant in planning the future. Seeing the practicability of the IM as indicated in the step-by-step account of Ray Anderson, one is easily convinced that IM is a prototype company of the 21st century since it has all the desirable aspects especially in relation to prioritising people and nature. References Anderson, R 2003, Introduction: envisioning the prototypical company of the 21st century, In Ants, Galileo & Gandhi (Eds), Dealing the future of business through nature, genius and compassion, Greenleaf, Sheffield. Harfold, T 2011, Adapt: Why success always starts with failure, Little Brown, London. Hawken, P 1993, Ecology of Commerce, Harper, New York. Meadows, D & Wright, D 2009, Thinking in systems: a primer, Earthscan, London. Monks R.A.G 1998, The Emperor’s nightingale: restoring the integrity of the corporation in the age of shareholder activism, Addison-Wesley, Oxford. Rust, M 2003, ‘From terrorism to trust_ trusting our nature?’ In McIntosh, M., Rupesh, S & Murphy D. F (Eds), Something to believe in: creating trust and hope in organizations: stories of transparency, accountability and governance, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK. Stubbs, W & Cocklin, C 2008, ‘Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model”’, Organization Environment, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 103-127. The Economist 2011, ‘Ingenuity is the test for the new age of man’, The Weekend Australian Financial Review, September 24-25, p. 54. Waddock, S. & McIntosh, M 2011, See change: Making the transition to a sustainable enterprise economy, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK. Read More