„Kulturelle Unterschiede und deren Einfluss
auf die Praxis und Vision von Nachhaltigkeit“
„Cultural differences and how they affect the practice
and vision of sustainability“
Masterthesis
Zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades
Master of Arts – Nachhaltigkeits-und Qualitätsmanagement
im Studiengang
„Nachhaltigkeits- und Qualitätsmanagement“
an der Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Recht
Vorgelegt von:
Elizabeth Bunn
Matrikelnummer:
289795
Ort und Abgabedatum:
Berlin, 04.10.2011
Prüferin:
Prof. Dr. Anja Grothe
Eidesstattliche Erklärung
Hiermit erkläre ich an Eides Statt, dass ich die vorliegende Abschlussarbeit
selbstständig und ohne fremde Hilfe verfasst und andere als die angegebenen
Quellen und Hilfsmittel nicht benutzt habe. Die den benutzten Quellen wörtlich
oder inhaltlich entnommenen Stellen, direkte oder indirekte Zitate, habe ich unter
Benennung des Autors/der Autorin und der Fundstelle als solche kenntlich
gemacht.
Mir ist bekannt, dass die wörtliche oder nahezu wörtliche Wiedergabe von
fremden Texten oder Textpassagen aus Büchern, Zeitschriften, Zeitungen, aus
dem Internet u. ä. ohne Quellenangabe als Täuschungsversuch gewertet wird
und zu einer Beurteilung der Arbeit mit „nicht ausreichend“ bzw. „ohne Erfolg“
führt.
Berlin, 30.09.2011
Anzahl der Wörter: 17.909
Elizabeth Bunn
Table of contents
List of figures ......................................................................................................... 1
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Background/purpose of study....................................................................... 2
1.2 Scope of analysis ......................................................................................... 3
2 Sustainability ...................................................................................................... 5
2.1 The concept ................................................................................................. 5
2.2 History .......................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Problems with the concept of sustainability ................................................ 11
3 Culture .............................................................................................................. 14
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 14
3.2 Cultural classification systems ................................................................... 15
3.3 The dimensions of culture .......................................................................... 20
3.4 Summary .................................................................................................... 41
4 Sustainability and cultural differences............................................................... 41
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 41
4.2 Values and sustainability ............................................................................ 42
4.3 The 5 cultural dimensions and sustainability .............................................. 45
4.4 Summary .................................................................................................... 50
5 Survey .............................................................................................................. 51
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 51
5.2 Survey 1: Michael Gabriel .......................................................................... 53
5.3 Survey 2: Ferit Timor .................................................................................. 55
5.4 Survey 3: Jaem Heath ................................................................................ 57
5.5 Summary .................................................................................................... 59
6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 60
Bibliography ......................................................................................................... 62
Appendix.............................................................................................................. 65
List of figures
Figure 1: Traditional concept of sustainability ...................................................... 10
Figure 2: Hofstede's three levels of mental programming .................................... 16
Figure 3: Manifestations of culture at different levels of depth ............................. 18
Figure 4: Power Distance Index ........................................................................... 23
Figure 5: The Individualism Index ........................................................................ 29
Figure 6: Masculinity Index .................................................................................. 33
Figure 7: Uncertainty Avoidance Index ................................................................ 36
Figure 8: Long-term orientation index .................................................................. 39
1
1 Introduction
1.1 Background/purpose of study
Globalization. Sustainability.
Two of the catchphrases of our time. Both in danger of losing their meaning but
with real consequences.
As our world becomes smaller through better communication media, cheaper
means of travel, open borders, multinational companies, etc., the more likely it is
that the lives of people from different countries who think differently, feel
differently, act differently, have different values and speak different languages will
intersect. According to Wikipedia, globalization "describes the process by which
regional economies, societies, and cultures have become integrated through
communication, transportation, and trade […] and is usually recognized as being
driven by a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural, political, and
biological factors"1. Evidence of this development is everywhere: Nike factories in
Indonesia, Chinese land-grabbing in Africa, NGOs in Burma, the free flow of
capital, labor and goods within the EU, the recent Euro crisis, to name just a few.
As companies pursue foreign markets and go in search of cheap labor, the world
market is turning into a global village where western culture dominates.
Globalization means that our lives are becoming increasingly intertwined with and
dependent on people around the world with whom we do not share a common
culture, history or values. Globalization, at its best, is a vision of a shared world
with all of the earth’s inhabitants living in peace and harmony with respect for
cultural diversity. At its worst, globalization destroys local environments,
communities and social fabric in the pursuit of profits. Globalization, whether one
agrees with it or not, is a fact of life in the current century.
At the same time, despite all of our differences, we face common problems that
require us to work together to find joint solutions. While every nation has its own
1
Wikipedia,
The
Free
Encyclopedia,
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization (Sept. 21, 2011).
2
contributors,
Globalization,
domestic challenges to deal with, problems like pollution, climate change, the use
of public goods, poverty, etc. don’t stop at national borders. Leaders at
community, national and international levels have to find ways to work together to
come up with the right solutions. And, when these solutions are found, these
leaders have to find broad support among their followers to ensure that they can
be successfully implemented at all levels. These problems are becoming more
critical every day.
In recent years, the concept of “sustainability”, or sustainable development, has
been embraced at all levels, international, national and local, as a way to
approach and solve the world’s problems. Its popularity is evident in the variety of
different contexts it is used. On the one hand, it reflects rising public concern for
environmental protection and social issues. On the other, it reflects the growing
awareness for the severity and urgency of the problems we face, providing a
vision that reconciles economic growth with the limited carrying capacity of the
Earth.
However, cultural differences among the peoples and nations of the Earth can not
only prevent solutions from being found in the first place, they can also prevent
them from being implemented. Understanding differences in how these leaders
and their constituents think, act and cope with problems is one element in bringing
about change, combined with political and technological solutions. This paper
examines how cultural differences affect both the vision and practice of
sustainability.
1.2 Scope of analysis
This study will first look at how the concept of sustainability developed over time
and what it means today, also exploring several problems and discrepancies in
the definition. This will be followed by an overview of the widely accepted "cultural
dimensions" used to classify and compare cultures. This paper will only describe
the cultural dimensions identified rather than going in to an in-depth explanation
of where these cultural differences come from or the methodology behind
identifying them as they are not relevant to the overall topic. In addition, the
3
overview will focus specifically on cultural dimensions, not cultural biases or
stereotypes. The difference will be explained in the respective chapter.
A theoretical analysis of how cultural differences could potentially affect the vision
and practice of sustainability will be provided based on the cultural dimensions
described. This will be followed by the results of a survey conducted with
professionals working in the field who give examples of actual cultural differences
that affect their work and share some of their experience-based perceptions. The
purpose of this study is not to provide solutions to these cultural differences in a
real-world context but to provide an overview of where potential differences could
exist in terms of sustainability.
4
2 Sustainability
2.1 The concept
In the last ten years or so, the word “sustainability” has become one of the newest
catchphrases of our time, appearing in dozens of different contexts whether in
corporate communications, in the media, in the political context, in the work of
NGOs, at the local level. But when I asked 6 friends from different countries with
different professions and backgrounds
how they understood the word
sustainability, their answers spanned the following.
"I suppose it is being able to bring back (renew) what we use or use things in a
way that they don't become exhausted. I guess, I am focusing on renewable
things - reforestation for trees, solar or wind generation for power. All of these
things allow us to sustain - not ruin, not exhaust resources. I suppose things like
birth control also help sustainability - not exhausting food supply, etc. What about
medical care - hurts sustainability?" Paul May, American entrepreneur with
multiple businesses in Russia
"Sustainability to me is: finding or applying new products or methods of
production/construction/doing business which use the earth’s natural resources in
such a way that the resources that are/were used can be renewed in nature,
without depleting those resources." Mirjam Benneker-Mion, Swiss, US
resident, translator
"My short version: maximum reuse, minimum impact on environment and
resource reserves. I usually think of it in terms of industry, not cultural." Kolja
Fuchs, German, living in the US, manager
"Sustainability, for me is the development and implementation of systems of
practices in human socioeconomic activities that integrate:
•
enhancement of local and global natural environment,
•
adoption of a global culture of elimination of anthropocentric creeds,
•
protection for all other species and the quality of their habitats,
5
•
respect for and enforcement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
to uphold social justice and human cultural diversity,
•
decoupling
of
capital
accumulation
and
growth
from
economic
development,
•
rapid and just reduction of human population and impact on the planet to
well below capacity ( roll back overshoot ),
•
criminalization of expansionist and exploitative economic development,
•
adoption of low impact technologies in food production and elimination of
industrial agriculture" Jaem Heath, American, activist, peaceworker
"I think of farms being self-sufficient, using their by-products and not producing
much waste", Ed Leonard, American, artist
"I consider that sustainability for me is related to the good use of resources in
production. The example was energy. If you are to produce something
sustainable you would have to look after consuming the exact amount of energy
that you are to waste. I think also in the case of towns and villages. To make them
sustainable would mean for me to let them live from what they have or from what
they’re able to produce, be it food, energy or industry, without depending from
other regions outside their territory." Yaotzin Botello, Mexican journalist living
in Berlin
Even though their answers share certain elements, they cover an entire spectrum
and focus on different aspects. These differences are most likely due to education
level, the field they work in, the country they grew up and the exposure they have
had to sustainability as an issue. But all of them have certainly heard the term and
have some general concept of what it means.
But does an "official " definition of sustainability exist? Wikipedia says the
following: "Sustainability is the capacity to endure. For humans sustainability is
the long-term maintenance of well being, which has environmental, economic,
and social dimensions, and encompasses the concept of stewardship, the
responsible management of resources. In ecology, sustainability describes how
biological systems remain diverse and productive over time, a necessary
6
precondition for human well-being. Long-lived and wetlands forests are examples
of sustainable biological systems."2
Just browsing the internet or looking at trade journals or publications, one comes
across hundreds of thousands of different definitions of sustainability. It becomes
clear that there is not a universally shared definition of this term within the western
context, not least of all international consensus on what this word means. And, if
there is no consensus on what it means, there is certainly no agreement on the
strategies and practices that can lead us to the goal of sustainability and if
sustainability as such is even the right goal to be striving for. With so little clarity
and consensus, it is thus surprising that this word appears so frequently.
2.2 History
So what are the origins of the word sustainability and what does it mean today?
Although it is difficult to say where and when the term sustainability actually
appeared, according to some, it was first used in the context of German forestry
by Hans Carl von Carlowitz in the early 1700s3. As a mining administrator in
Saxony responsible for the mines and the forests of the area, he wrote a
comprehensive book about forestry when faced with the possibility that the silver
mines in Freiberg would run dry, not because the mines were exhausted but
because of the lack of wood for the melting process. It was absolutely necessary
to find a long-term supply of wood if Saxony were to retain its source of wealth.
Wood was in extremely short supply because many forests had been clear cut to
supply wood for shipbuilding and mining. Von Carlowitz saw the negative impact
of the ruinous exploitation of the forests.
In the beginning, the meaning of the term was thus clearly related to conserving
the natural environment to achieve economic goals. It had to do with wisely
managing natural resources with a view to the long term.
2
Wikipedia,
The
Free
Encyclopedia,
Wikipedia
contributors,
Sustainability,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability (Sept. 19,2011).
3
Gabriele Weber-Blaschke, Reinhard Mosandl and Martin Faulstich, History and Mandate of
Sustainability: From Local Forestry to Global Policy, in Global Sustainability, ed. P. A. Wilderer, E.
D. Schroeder, H. Kopp, WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA, 2005, p.2.
7
The modern use of this word still retains a lot of the original meaning. Even in
looking at several of the responses I received from acquaintances, they
emphasize resource management, long-term perspectives, etc. although with less
emphasis on the economic aspects. During the 1970s and 1980s, as the effects
of environmental damage, pollution and dwindling natural resources started to
become evident, global dialogue began to focus more and more on resource use,
economic growth and the environment. Recognition grew of the limited capacity of
the biosphere and ecosystems to handle human impact. International conferences
were held, including the “Club of Rome” in 1972 which discussed the limits to
growth based on world consumption patterns and sustainable development. This
was followed by the first worldwide environmental conference held in 1972 in
Stockholm with representatives of multiple governments to discuss the state of
the global environment. This conference directly led to the formation of the United
Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, later the
Brundtland Commission, to address growing concerns "about the accelerating
deterioration of the natural environment and natural resources and the
consequences of that deterioration for economic development and social
development."4 The UN General Assembly convened this commission based on
its recognition that environmental problems were global in nature and to pursue
sustainable global policies.
Although these negotiations and discussions about sustainable development
focused on the environment similar to the original concept of sustainability in
relation to forestry, the goal had shifted away from purely economic concerns. In
its original sense, sustainability meant managing forests wisely, not for the sake of
the environment itself but to be able to keep the mines in operation over the long
term and thus secure income. But during this period, there was a noticeable shift
away from purely economic concerns, even though they certainly still played a
decisive role. The term sustainability began taking on a new form and sustainable
development was ultimately defined in the Brundtland Commission’s Report, Our
Common Future, as "development that meets the needs of the present without
4
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikipedia contributors,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brundtland_Commission (July 29, 2011).
8
Brundtland
Commission,
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs"5. This
new "official" definition of sustainability thus became infinitely broad leaving it
open for interpretation based on different perspectives, values and levels. Even
though the report also discussed concrete priorities and strategies in the areas of
food security, species and eco-systems, energy, etc., the overarching definition of
the concept of sustainability had clearly changed. And social issues were not only
incorporated under this new message, they were also an explicit component of
the conference goals.
The concept of sustainable development once again played a central role at the
environmental world summit convened by the UN in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This
conference, which was attended by 172 governments and 2,400 representatives
of NGOs, focused on addressing not only pressing environmental problems but
also socio-economic development. Some of the main environmental issues
included water scarcity, alternative sources of energy and reliance on public
transportation. The conference produced a number of documents including
Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Statement
of Forest Principles, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity with various
mechanisms to follow-up on progress. One of the most important documents,
Agenda 21, is the road map for action to be taken globally, nationally and locally
by organizations of the UN, governments, major groups, etc. resulting from the
conference. This document comprises 4 sections: Social and Economic
Dimensions (which addresses combating poverty, changing consumption
patterns, promoting health, demographic changes and sustainable settlement),
Conservation and Management of Resources for Development (which deals with
atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile ecosystems,
conservation of biological diversity, controlling pollution, etc.), Strengthening the
Role of Major Groups (including the roles of children and young people, farmers,
women, NGOs, indigenous people, local authorities, business and workers) and
means of implementation (science, technology transfer, education, international
5
UN Documents, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our
Common Future, http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm.
9
institutions and financial mechanisms.)6. Whereas earlier conferences and
measures clearly put the environment center stage with a few social issues
included in relation to the environment, the documents resulting from the Rio
Conference covered an extremely broad spectrum and thus expanded the
concept of sustainability even further. Agenda 21 obliged United Nations member
countries to adopt the concept of “sustainability” which was described as a threedimensional model that looked like this:
7
Figure 1: Traditional concept of sustainability
This diagram gives equal priority to the three categories of society (social
aspects), environment and the economy with all three sets of interests
overlapping in the center. The concept of sustainability, which started as the longterm protection and preservation of the environment, has thus evolved to include
social and economic goals. From an academic standpoint then, sustainability
means protecting the environment while still achieving social and economic goals,
with each aspect having equal weighting. And, based on most theoretical and
academic literature on the subject written by experts who work in the field, this is
a generally accepted definition. But several problems arise from this definition,
6
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development,
Publications, Agenda 21: http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml.
7
Amber Wigmore, Mercedes Ruiz, Sustainability assessment in higher education institutions. The
stars
system,
Ramon
Llull
Journal
of
Applied
Ethics,
Jan.
1,
2010, http://www.rljae.org/text.asp?2010/1/1/25/70654.
10
some of which are heavily influenced by cultural differences which will be
discussed in later sections.
2.3 Problems with the concept of sustainability
Problem 1: No consensus means no shared vision
The first problem, as we have seen, is that, even though there are generally
accepted definitions of what sustainability is in a conceptual sense, there is little to
no consensus on what the term means either among experts, politicians or
laypeople. The problem with this kind of overused concept is that no one really
thinks anymore about what it actually means, leaving it open to misuse or
misinterpretation. Actors can define it any way they want to legitimize their
interests and push their agenda and different sectors can use it different ways to
advance their interests. And, it can be implemented and operationalized at will.
The concept then loses its power to drive change and bring people and
movements together. If a universal concept existed, it could serve as shared
vision for creating a realistic and ethical guide for the future development of both
industrialized and developing countries.
Problem 2: Too vague
Second, the all-encompassing nature of the generally accepted three categories
of sustainability leaves too much open to interpretation. What started off as a
concept for resource management has transformed into a broad definition that
covers thousands of different issues ranging from fostering social inclusion,
cultural diversity, rural revitalization, public housing, healthcare, landscape
preservation, education, self-reliance, poverty, gender mainstreaming, public
participation and individual accountability, to name just a few. The inclusive nature
of the new sustainability has given this term a life of its own, turning it into a kind
of new morality with a strong ethical basis. While the incorporation of ethics and
morality in global politics, business practices, etc. is by no means negative, ethics
and morality are heavily value based and not universally shared.
11
Problem 3: Is sustainability even a desirable goal?
The third problem is whether or not this goal is even desirable, something that is
rarely called into question particularly in the west. The idea of development that
meets all the needs of this generation without compromising the needs of future
generations is highly appealing because it reconciles three dimensions which are
often seen to be in direct conflict (economic interests, social issues and
environmental protection) and formulates a generally acceptable distribution rule
among generations8. It suggests that there is a way to reconcile economic growth
with the limits of Planet Earth if we just find this balance. It creates a nice image of
a society living in harmony with the earth’s capacity to supply natural resources
that can still satisfy its economic, social and cultural needs. What it lacks is a
concrete formula to make this image a reality at different levels. But due in part to
its vagueness, complexity and breadth of different issues, many with unknown
interdependencies and causalities, there are many experts who claim that it is
futile to pursue sustainability as a goal and others who claim that sustainability
even has a harmful effect. Among them is Sophie Brunel, a French geographer
and Third World specialist, who argues that rich countries are adopting
protectionist policies by restricting imports of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and
other products from poor developing countries on the pretext of promoting
sustainable development and environmental protection.9
Problem 4: Practice of sustainability
Another problem is the practical implementation of sustainability. Sustainable
development currently lacks definite requirements on how to operationalize and
implement it. To some it means adapting to a new ethic of living on the planet and
creating a more equitable and just society through the fair distribution of social
goods and resources in the world. To others, it means changing one’s own
8
Ortwin Renn, Sustainable Development: Exploring the Cross-Cultural Dimension, p.4, in Global
Sustainability, ed. P. A. Wilderer, E. D. Schroeder, H. Kopp, WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co.
Kga, 2005.
9
World Poverty and Human Rights Online, A Spotlight on Global Sustainable Development: Can
Certain Aspects Turn Out to Be Damaging for the Poor?, wphr.org/2010/maryna-trubitsyna/aspotlight-on-global-sustainable-development-can-certain-aspects-turn-out-to-be-damaging-for-thepoor/.
12
behavior and goals, in other words downscaling, riding a bicycle and consuming
less. To others it means motivating large multinational corporations to conduct
business ethically taking into account social and economic issues in their supply
chains and demonstrating real commitment to social causes and making the world
a better place. And some people may think of it as preserving traditional forms of
art and local knowledge. And surely to some, it has no meaning at all.
Another problem involving practical applicability is that traditionally, sustainability
has been largely defined at the global and national level. Recently, however,
sustainability practices have also been applied locally in cities and communities
and regions.10
The practice of sustainability also promotes a number of different approaches to
be used as part of the process including public participation, social negotiation,
stakeholder dialog, communication models and democratic processes. While
most would agree with the inherent values of such practices, they also fail to take
into consideration cultural differences and the power conditions in a specific
region at a specific time.11
Problem 5: Dependency on time and place for setting goals and priorities
Another problem is that the priorities and interests in each one of the categories
are situationally based in a certain time and context. The concepts in these
categories are not static. They change depending on the context, i.e. the interests
of the various actors, they change because norms or values change and they
change because conditions and technologies change.
There are certainly more problems with this definition of sustainability but they will
not be discussed here.
10
Nancy Duxbury and Eileen Gillette, Culture as a Key Dimension of Sustainability: Exploring
Concepts, Themes, and Models, Creative City Network of Canada, Centre of Expertise on Culture
and
Communities,
2007,
p.3,
http://cultureandcommunities.ca/downloads/WP1-CultureSustainability.pdf.
11
Gabriele Weber-Blaschke, Reinhard Mosandl, and Martin Faulstich, History and Mandate of
Sustainability: From Local Forestry to Global Policy, p. 6.
13
3 Culture
3.1 Introduction
Anyone who has traveled to another country is aware that cultural differences
exist. We often hear stories of "culture shock" as people try to adapt to a culture
that is different from their own. Cultural differences in the context of vacations
abroad or personal intercultural interactions can produce entertaining anecdotes
about funny, or sometimes even uncomfortable, situations that occur due to
cultural misunderstandings.
But with the onslaught of global capitalism, the idea and the study of crosscultural communication started to take hold. Businesses, governments and
organizations found that their employees were ill-prepared to work overseas in
increasingly globalized markets. So they started offering language training to their
employees and developing training programs to help their employees understand
how to act when abroad, either to enhance general cross-cultural communication
skills or in relation to two specific cultures, like how should an American
businessperson behave in a business setting in, say, France. Despite the fact that
cultural
differences
are
widely
acknowledged
and
that
cross-cultural
communication has evolved into an industry dedicated to improving international
literacy and cross-cultural understanding, this aspect is still vastly underestimated
in the many different intercultural situations we are confronted with in this day and
age.
But what is culture? And how does it affect us? And how can we classify a culture
so that we can identify differences and become better communicators? As with
sustainability, there is no single definition of culture nor is the definition static. It
has meant different things at different periods in human history and has evolved
over time. The study of culture first began with anthropologists in the first half of
the twentieth century. They attempted to identify the problems that all societies
face and how their answers to these problems differ. Ruth Benedict and Margaret
14
Mead were two of the first and most well-known "cultural anthropologists" who
were pioneers in this field in the early 1900s.
Loosely defined, culture is a "set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices
that characterizes an institution, organization, or group"12.This means that culture
is not limited to countries or groups of people within countries with their own
identities, it also extends to companies (we often refer to "corporate culture") and
political institutions and various other groups that are characterized by unique
spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features. Based on this broad
definition, culture is comprised of a wide spectrum of elements, both tangible and
intangible. This distinction between tangible and intangible elements of culture
was developed by UNESCO under the scope of its work on cultural heritage13.
Tangible elements of culture include a group’s art and literature, its language,
cuisine – elements that are visible or accessible. Culture’s intangible, or more
invisible, elements are much more difficult to define and include value systems,
taboos, beliefs (religious or otherwise), practices, customs, and rituals. They also
include behavior such as ways of communication, thinking, conflict resolution and
decision-making processes. Culture is ultimately an expression of the ways of
living developed by a community and passed on from generation to generation
through education, socialization and informal learning14. Finally, it is important to
remember that culture is not static and is constantly undergoing change due to
new external influences like war, technology or the transfer of ideas from other
cultures. This study focuses mainly on cultural aspects relevant to countries rather
than to organizations or institutions and on the more intangible aspects of culture.
3.2 Cultural classification systems
12
Wikipedia,
The
Free
Encyclopedia,
Wikipedia
contributors,
Culture,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture, Sept. 19, 2011.
13
UNESCO,
Intangible
Cultural
Heritage:
http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=EN&pg=home.
14
Cody Fithian, Ashleigh Powell, Cultural Aspects of Sustainable Development, Student paper for
Sustainable
Design
Seminar/Studio,
Fall
2009,
p.2,
http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/11698/5-Fithian_PowellCultural_Aspects_of_Sustainable_Development.pdf?sequence=2.
15
In order to be able to understand cultural differences and compare and contrast
cultures, we have to find some way to classify and capture them and we have to
understand how culture affects us. This is the realm of cultural theory. Geert
Hofstede, a well-known Dutch social psychologist and anthropologist, has made
influential contributions to the study of culture. His research has focused on crosscultural groups and organizations and he played a key role in developing a
systematic framework for evaluating and classifying national and organizational
cultures. His most important work involved development of the theory of cultural
dimensions.
All human beings are individuals and think, feel and react in different ways
depending on a given situation. According to Hofstede’s theories of cross-cultural
communication, there are three distinct levels of mental "programming" that shape
our reactions. These three levels are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Hofstede's three levels of mental programming
15
The first level, human nature, is defined as what we have in common with all other
human beings. It is inherited at birth and includes the ability to experience fear,
sadness, love and other human emotions. How these emotions are expressed,
though, is affected by culture and, of course, the individual.
15
Geert Hofstede and Gert Jan Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind,
Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival, McGraw Hill, 2005, p. 4.
16
Level 2, the one we are most interested in, is culture which is "programmed", or
acquired, early on from our social environment by observing behavioral patterns.
In order to assimilate into a culture, we learn from others what is "acceptable".
Culture is thus not an individual experience but a collective one. It is shared with
other members of the group and is comprised of a set of unwritten rules of social
interaction. Culture is passed along in many different contexts including the
family, the place of work, school, the community, etc. Theorists agree that culture
is "learned" usually early on in childhood and thus becomes sub-conscious rather
than conscious.
Level 3, personality, is our own unique programming based not only on what we
inherit, i.e. in our genes, but also on what we experience. These individual
experiences are not a collective phenomenon but purely individual. But they
certainly affect how we think, act and feel.
According to Hofstede, all three levels described here affect how we think, react
and feel. Culture is only one of three influential factors. Cultural programming can
therefore only help us predict a likely reaction, not a guaranteed one. An
individual’s reaction is still shaped by the other two levels of personality and
human nature16. And cultures are not homogenous, for example, someone in the
south of the US may react differently to someone on the west coast due to cultural
differences within a country. Since the focus of this study is cultural differences,
we will focus on this level in the discussion that follows.
Different cultural theorists represent cultural manifestations in different ways and
in various models. One of the most widely used is the one created by Geert
Hofstede. He breaks down culture into symbols, heroes, rituals and values which
can be shown as the different layers of an onion as in Figure 3.
16
Hofstede and Hofstede, pp. 2-5.
17
Figure 3: Manifestations of culture at different levels of depth17
The order of these dimensions in the layers of the onion represents their volatility
and endurance, i.e. their ability to be changed. Symbols, which are on the very
outside of the onion, are classified as the most superficial, or unstable, of the
manifestations. They can be words, images or objects that carry a specific
meaning only recognized by those who are part of the culture. If we take a look at
American culture, one symbol could be the Liberty Bell as a symbol of freedom.
Or it could also be a status symbol, i.e. an object, often a luxury good like a
Mercedes Benz or a pair of RayBan sunglasses, by which the social or economic
position of the possessor may be judged. Because status symbols represent
social or economic standing, they are not uniform from country to country. While a
cell phone may be a status symbol in one country, western cigarettes could serve
as a status symbol in another, like in the former Eastern Bloc. Symbols are called
"superficial" because they are frequently replaced by new ones and are often
copied.
The next category, heroes, are people who have a certain highly prized value
within a culture who serve as role models. They can be alive or dead, real or
imaginary. Examples in Germany could include the Red Baron, the former soccer
17
Hofstede and Hofstede, p.7.
18
star, Franz Beckenbauer, or the Pied Piper of Hamlin. Heroes are also subject to
change, particularly in the age of television.
The third level, rituals, is defined as collective activities which are not carried out
to achieve a certain goal but carried out for their own sake because they are
considered socially essential. A ritual may be performed on specific occasions,
like a national holiday, or at the discretion of individuals or communities. Rituals
have different purposes: they can be associated with religious or social
obligations, they can be performed to strengthen social bonds or to signify
acceptance into a social group (debutante ceremonies) to celebrate a specific
event (bachelor parties). They include ceremonies, both social and religious, ways
of greeting others, like handshaking or bowing, or they can be business meetings
not convened for the stated purpose but to reinforce cohesion within the group.
Rituals also include how language is used to interact in given situations, for
example, in Germany if one uses the formal "Sie" or the informal "du".
As can be seen in the diagram, the three categories of symbols, heroes and
rituals are all considered "practices" (see Figure 2), meaning that they are visible
to the outside observer but their meaning is invisible. For example, someone
unfamiliar with German culture would not necessarily understand the meaning of
the symbol of an eagle or an outsider to Korean culture would not understand the
social function of a tea ceremony. Their true meaning is only obvious to insiders
of the culture.
Values, the deepest level of the onion, form the core of culture. They are much
more stable and consistent than practices and much more difficult to measure.
According to Hofstede, the values of a culture influence how we place judgment
and give preference to one thing over another. For example, values determine
how we decide if something is good or evil, ugly or beautiful, clean or dirty, normal
or abnormal, etc. According to Hofstede, values run deep because they are
acquired very early on in childhood through unconscious processes. We learn
19
rules and see behaviors that we try to imitate. Our parents, families, schools,
organizations and institutions reproduce and pass along a shared culture to us18.
Cultural practices and values are not static, however. They change over time
although practices change much more quickly and easily than values which are
much more deeply rooted. One need only look at ideals of beauty and how they
have changed over time in art to see that these values are dynamic.
Cultures are also not homogenous. Within groups or nations, there are always
groups, sub-groups, economic classes, regions, genders, etc. that have their own
sets of values and their own "culture". For example, people who have immigrated
to a new country form sub-cultures like the Turks in Germany, who are separate
both from the German culture as well as Turkish culture in Turkey. Or there can
be regional differences in culture, like the Berliner "Schnauze" compared to the
more friendly culture of the Rhineland. Gender and generations also represent
sub-groups within an overarching culture as do social classes, religions, etc.
Cultures are also not limited to nation-states, a concept that was first introduced in
the mid-twentieth century after the age of colonialism. Examples here include the
Basques in Spain or the indigenous peoples of Brazil.
3.3 The dimensions of culture
There are four widely accepted dimensions of culture with a "dimension" being
defined as an aspect of a culture that can be measured relative to other cultures.
These dimensions are not the same as cultural stereotypes. Stereotypes are
"standardized and simplified conceptions of groups based on some prior
assumptions"19 with emphasis on "simplified", or not based on empirical evidence
but usually just perception and little knowledge. For example, the hard-working
Chinese, the gruff German, the emotional Italian, the fat American, the terrorist,
Pakistani, etc. While there might be some grain of truth in some of these
18
Hofstede and Hofstede, pp. 6-9.
Wikipedia,
The
Free
Encyclopedia,
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype (Sept. 20, 2011).
19
20
contributors,
Stereotype,
observations, this study does not focus on these kinds of unfounded cultural
biases but dimensions of culture that run much deeper.
The idea of cultural dimensions was first developed by Alex Inkeles, a sociologist,
and Daniel J. Levinson, a psychologist, in their book National character: A
psycho-social perspective. Geert Hofstede developed the idea further and came
up with four dimensions of culture. These are: power distance, collectivism vs.
individualism, femininity vs. masculinity and uncertainty avoidance. A fifth
dimension Hofstede calls long-term orientation was added later on. He uses these
dimensions to describe, measure and compare national cultures. These ideas
were first based on a large research project into national culture differences
across subsidiaries of a multinational corporation (IBM) in 64 countries that took
place between 1968 and 1972. Since then, numerous other studies have
substantiated the results found here and validated four independent dimensions
of national culture differences, with the fifth dimension added later on.
The idea of identifying general aspects of culture and then measuring them to
come up with overall classifications certainly doesn’t stop with Hofstede. Others,
like the Israeli psychologist Shalom Schwartz, have used dimensions such as
conservatism, hierarchy, mastery, affective autonomy, intellectual autonomy,
egalitarian commitment and harmony20 to compare and contrast cultures. Or Fons
Trompenaars, a cross-cultural communication consultant, who breaks the
dimensions
down
into:
universalism
vs.
particularism,
individualism
vs.
collectivism, affectivity vs. neutrality, specificity vs. diffuseness, achievement vs.
ascription, time orientation and relation to nature.21 This study, however, will focus
on the 5 dimensions identified by Hofstede because his dimensions are the most
widely used and accepted.
Dimension 1: Power Distance
20
Intercultural Research, From behavioural questions to values - Schwartz Value Inventory,
http://www.chairt.com/schwartz.html.
21
Intercultural Research, Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, http://www.chairt.com/tromp.html.
21
At the root of this dimension is the inequality that exists in every society. There is
inequality in every society no matter what kind of political system it has. Some
people are bigger or stronger, some are better educated, some have more
money, some have more power, some are better at math, etc. This inequality can
express itself in power, status, wealth, strength, etc. Societies, organizations, and
groups all have different ways of dealing with inequalities. This is called "power
distance", a name coined by the Dutch social psychologist Mauk Mulder in his
book The Daily Power Game to capture the emotional distance that separates
subordinates from their bosses. Hofstede surveyed employees at IBM using
extensive questionnaires that formulated precise questions on how often
employees disagreed with their superiors, on subordinates’ perception of their
manager’s decision-making style and their preference for the decision-making
style. The result was a Power Distance Index which measures the extent to which
the less powerful members of society (in organizations, institutions, schools, the
family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. It suggests that the
level of inequality is supported and upheld by the followers, i.e. those with less
power, as much as by the leaders. The results were quantified and each country
given a score and followed up later with surveys outside of IBM within the national
culture that largely corresponded with these results. The resulting index is shown
in Figure 3.
22
Power Distance Index
Figure 4: Power Distance Index
22
At one end of the scale, we see a number of Middle Eastern, South American and
Asian countries where power distance is high, meaning that there is more
emotional distance between p
people
eople with power, i.e. political leaders, and their
followers and that this distance is accepted and propagated from both sides. On
the other end of the scale,, we see several European countries and New Zealand
where people, according the scores, feel less distance to their leaders and
managers. For example, Germany has a score of 35 in this index. Compared to
Arab countries where the power distance is very high (80) and Austria where it
very low (11), Germany, with a score of 35, is somewhat in the middle.
More important than, perhaps, the actual scores is what the power distance
means for a society and how power distance expresses itself in values, norms
22
Hofstede and Hofstede, p. 26.
23
and behavior. A country ranking high on the scale for this dimension would
characteristically be a country with a large gap between rich and poor. Politically
speaking, they are autocratic governments with a weak center and strong right
and left wings (if they are allowed to exist at all). There is generally more
corruption, scandals are covered up and there is little political dialogue. Power is
generally based on tradition and family and there is a widespread belief that those
who hold power are "right" and good and that they should have privileges
associated with this power. Inequality is not just accepted at all levels, it is even
desirable because it is "comfortable" and expected.
The countries, on the other hand, with a low score on the power index scale tend
to be wealthier with strong middle classes. More emphasis is placed on
collaboration, interdependence, initiative taking, equal rights and the legitimate
use of power. Governments are more pluralist in nature with strong centers and
change occurs by revision and violence is rare. There is less perceived corruption
and scandals can ruin political careers.
In the workplace in countries with low power distance, employees are seen as not
very afraid and bosses as not often autocratic or paternalistic. Employees prefer
what is called a "consultative" style of decision-making, i.e. a boss who usually
consults with his/her subordinates before reaching a decision. According to
Hofstede’s research, this would then apply to countries such as Austria, Israel,
Denmark, New Zealand and the German-speaking part of Switzerland. At the
other end of the spectrum are countries where employees are seen as more
afraid of authority or disagreeing with their superior. Employees here are less
likely to prefer a consultative decision-making style but instead want a manager
who decides autocratically with a paternalistic decision-making style where the
lower ranking individual is happy to accept superior’s decisions. Subordinates do
not take any initiative but prefer to be directed by superiors. Overall, in countries
where there is a small power distance, employees and people in general prefer
consultation. Employees approach and disagree with their bosses more easily. In
countries at the top of the scale such as Malaysia, Guatemala the Philippines and
Russia, where there is large power distance, subordinates are less likely to
24
approach and contradict their bosses. Hofstede thus defines power distance as
"the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations
within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally"23.
It expresses not only how people expect to be led but also how they want to be
led. This preference for different styles, whether within a company, an institution
or an NGO carrying out projects funded by the west, has an enormous influence
on how effectively people can lead and achieve goals.
Power distance has been measured in cultures as well in other situations
including the family, at school and among social classes. (for statistical evidence,
see Hofstede’s book Culture’s Consequences). The family is certainly an
important environment for learning behavior because it has a strong impact and
patterns set at this stage are difficult to change. Of course, behavior within a
family can differ from mainstream behavioral patterns, more often than not there
is a strong correlation. In cultures with a large power distance, there is a high
degree of parental authority and even a pecking order among children from eldest
to youngest. Children are expected to be obedient. Respect of elders is highly
prized and children are not expected to experiment for themselves. A lot of value
is placed on the family and the aged are cared for. This is so deeply engrained
that Hofstede sees a NEED for this dependence. In small power distance
societies, on the other hand, children are treated as equals as soon as they can
think and act for themselves. They are encouraged to experiment and disagree
with their parents. Once children become adults, they separate out from the family
structure and the family members are mutually independent24. There is a great
need for independence.
In most countries of the world, children go to school at least for a few years,
although not in all, making it another situation where culture is passed along.
Teachers and administrators educate. Can education play a role in changing
society? Can schools create values that did not already exist? In large power
23
24
Hofstede and Hofstede, p. 46.
Hofstede and Hofstede, p. 52.
25
distance cultures, the child-parent relationship largely mirrors the child-teacher
relationship. Education is teacher-centered and deference and respect are
expected from children. Children never speak out of turn and teachers are not
publicly criticized but instead seen as all-knowing. On the other end of the
spectrum in small power distance situations, teachers are expected to treat their
students as equals and vice-versa. Students are invited to debate and express
ideas with teachers acting as guides along the intellectual path. Emphasis is on
facts and objectivity rather than the personal wisdom of the teacher and, as in the
family, the system is based on the need for independence.
According to Hofstede’s research, another aspect of power distance is status
symbols, particularly material goods. In high power distance countries, visible
signs of status are important, and also expected. They contribute to the authority
of bosses, and they are often essential in helping people figure out how to
communicate with each other, verbally or non-verbally (how low does one bow,
how formal does my language need to be, what greetings do I need to use, what
clothes should I wear etc. – status symbols help make these choices). At the
other end of the spectrum in a low power distance country, people are considered
equal even though they have different roles in society. What you do is more
important than your family or wealth and status symbols are often frowned upon
especially status expressed through luxury goods. This is not to say that status
symbols do not exist, say, in Austria which is at the low end of the scale. It is just
that they interpretation is different and they are not as expected.
One other aspect that Hofstede looks at in the power distance dimension is a
culture’s relationship to the state and its expected role and function. It is obvious
that different countries handle the power differences between citizens and the
authorities differently. How these differences are handled, according to Hofstede,
is rooted in the beliefs held by large sections of the population regarding the
proper way for the authorities to behave25. The results of the World Values
Survey, a worldwide investigation of sociocultural and political change conducted
25
Hofstede and Hofstede, p. 59.
26
by a network of social scientist at leading universities all around world every five
years, largely corresponded to Hofstede’s work in this area.26 In societies with a
large power distance, power is accepted as a basic given fact, regardless of its
legitimacy. There is an unspoken consensus that there should be an order of
inequality in which everyone has his or her place. This order satisfies people’s
need for dependence, providing a sense of security.27
In these types of societies, the powerful are expected to have privileges and use
these privileges, they show off their power and wealth in different forms and
scandals among the powerful are expected. Often the system only has a single
political party which always wins elections. Incomes are generally very unequally
distributed, taxation protects the wealthy and labor unions, if there are any, tends
to be government controlled.
Small power distance societies base their political systems more on practical
considerations than tradition according to Ronald Ingelhart, an American political
scientist and director of the World Values Survey. There is often a strong
tendency toward separation of church and state (or religion and state). The use of
power is subject to laws and equality is strived for. Equal rights for everyone is
generally an integral part of the legal system. Most of these counties have a large
middle classes, scandals are frowned upon and can mean the end of a career,
discussion of political issues is widespread, revolutions are not common
occurrences, powerful center and weaker wings, less unequal distribution of
income with taxation helping to redistribute wealth.
Dimension 2: Individualism vs. Collectivism
Hofstede’s second dimension is referred to as individualism vs. collectivism, or
the role of the individual vs. the role of the group. The question is to what extent
society values the interests of the individual over the interests of the group, in this
case, the groups is defined not as the state but the social "network", e.g. the
family, co-workers, etc. Hofstede defines individualist societies as those in which
26
27
World Values Survey Association, World Values Survey, http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/.
Hofstede and Hofstede, p. 60.
27
ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him or
herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism as is its opposite, pertains to
societies in which people from birth onward are integrated into strong, cohesive
in-groups which throughout people’s lifetimes continue to protect them in
exchange for unquestioning loyalty. 28
As with other dimensions, this characteristic is not necessarily homogenous
throughout a country. Hofstede once again uses the IBM study with questions
about work goals to arrive at results, which are then corroborated later on by
various other cross-national values databases, e.g. from GLOBE, the World
Values Survey, etc. The methodology behind the survey nor the specific
questions designed to elicit the score will not be discussed here. The result of
Hofstede’s survey was again a ranked table called the Individualist Index that
looks as follows:
28
Hofstede and Hofstede, p. 76
28
Individualism Index
29
Figure 5: The Individualism Index
In this index, we see exclusively countries with an Anglo-Saxon tradition and
European countries with the highest scores, or classified as highly individualist,
with several Asian and South American countries represented at the bottom,
indicating a high level of "collectivism". Thus, at a macro level, countries that are
more individualist (e.g. US or Australia) are more economically developed and
wealthier, tend to have greater social mobility and a higher level of urbanization.
Collectivist societies, like Ecuador and Guatemala, tend to be underdeveloped
29
Hofstede and Hofstede, p. 53.
29
and rely more heavily on traditional agriculture, they have smaller middles
classes, less social mobility and are poor.30
But how is this dimension reflected in actual values and behaviors? Hofstede
examines the differences between individualism and collectivism in a number of
different contexts including in the family, at school, at the workplace, in relation to
the state and ideas and in general in society. The most important characteristics
are summarized here.
In more collectivist societies, children learn to think early on in terms of "we"
unlike their counterparts in individualist societies who are more "me centered".
Generally, collectivist societies are made up of large extended families where
friendships are predetermined on the basis of family ties. Primary loyalty is to the
group at all costs. Resources are shared within the family or within the "group"
and there is a high level of harmony within the group that is often based on the
underlying attitude that direct confrontation should always be avoided. High
priority is given to "not losing face" which would then directly affect all of the
members of the family or group. Chastity in women is also generally highly prized.
In school and at the workplace, harmony within the group is extremely important.
No one should be singled out for praise, speak when not spoken to or take
personal initiative. At school, the goal of education is generally learning how to do
something and at work, relationships are more important than the assigned tasks.
Generally, collectivist cultures are patriotic and give less importance to human
rights.
In individualist societies, on the other hand, the individual is king. Children grow
up to take care of themselves on their own and they think in terms of "I" not "we".
Children, and later on students and employees, are encouraged to speak their
minds, even if it means disagreeing with a superior or teacher, and friendships are
voluntary rather than predetermined by membership in a particular group. At
school and work people are encouraged to work independently, develop their own
30
Andrews University, Charles H. Tidwell, Intercultural and Diversity Links, Hofstede Info,
http://www.andrews.edu/~tidwell/bsad560/HofstedeIndividualism.html.
30
thoughts and ideas and the task is supposed to prevail over any personal
relationships. Finally, a different kind of government is the result if the value
system is that individual interests should prevail over collective ones. People are
expected to have private opinions and laws and rights are supposed to be the
same for everyone. Self-determination and personal goals are highly valued
within the system.
Let’s take Germany, which scored 15 on the index, as an example. The score
indicates that Germany is more individualist in nature with elements of
collectivism. In Germany people stress personal achievements and individual
rights but there is still a sense of the collective, particularly in the former states of
the East, expressed in social and environmental policy but there is also evidence
of increasing isolation as evidenced in the number of single person households,
Families tend to be smaller and keep to themselves and expect their privacy to be
respected. Germans can also be seen as blunt, sometimes even rude, because
they learn to speak their minds and express opinions at an early age. Young
people are expected to support themselves as soon as they have are able to. In
an individualist country like Germany, people tend to have more loose
relationships than collectivist countries where people have large extended
families.
Dimension 3: Masculinity vs. Femininity
At first glance, this dimension appears to be about gender roles in society. In fact,
the way Hofstede defines it is somewhat different. This dimension is less about
men’s and women’s roles in society, focusing more on the extent to which a
society stresses achievement or nurturing. Masculinity is seen to be the trait
which emphasizes ambition, acquisition of wealth, and differentiated gender roles.
Femininity is considered to be a trait that stresses caring and nurturing behaviors,
sexual equality, emotionality and more fluid gender roles. Hofstede puts at one
end of the spectrum masculine societies where "emotional gender roles are
clearly distinct: men are supposed to be tough, assertive and focused on material
success, whereas women are supposed to be more modest tender and
31
concerned with the quality of life". At the other end of the spectrum are feminine
societies where "emotional gender roles overlap: both men and women are
supposed to be modest, tender and concerned with the quality of life"31.
Clearly, classifying one end of the spectrum as masculine and associated with
assertiveness, competitiveness and roughness and the feminine side with
emotionality, tenderness, relationships and nurturing has led to controversy over
this dimension in part simply because of the labeling (male and female) but also
because this values associated with this dimension are heavily value-laden and
thus emotionally charged. This study will not go into the methodology behind the
questions designed to measure societies according to this dimension. Hofstede
conducted the original survey as part of the IBM survey and came up with an
index with the most masculine countries at the top and the most feminine at the
bottom (see Figure 5). Since then, many surveys have replicated the process
producing results that correspond to the ones below.
31
Hofstede and Hofstede, p. 120.
32
Masculinity Index
Figure 6: Masculinity Index
32
Probably the most interesting thing about the results here is that, unlike the other
dimensions, there is no relation to a country’s wealth. Although the bottom of the
table has a number of northern European countries, there are also many other
poor countries at the bottom as well including Chile, Thailand, Guatemala and
Uruguay. Rich and poor countries are scattered throughout the ranking. Hofstede
examines this dimension in relation to gender and sex, in education, the
workplace, in relation to the state and religion and comes up with many different
characteristics common to nations or groups on either end of the spectrum.
32
Hofestede and Hofstede, p. 84.
33
According to Hofstede, feminine societies place a lot of value on quality of life and
relationships unlike masculine ones that stress achievements, money and things
and challenges. In feminine societies, it is acceptable and expected for both men
and women to be tender in relationships while in masculine ones, this is clearly
the realm of the woman. Feminine societies allow both boys and girls to cry but
not fight while there is a clear separation in masculine cultures: girls can cry, boys
have to fight.
In the workplace, there is generally a large gap between the wages of men and
women and there are fewer women in management in feminine societies with the
opposite holding true in masculine societies. Companies in feminine cultures tend
to be smaller and based on consensus with emphasis placed on finding work-life
balance. In masculine cultures, companies tend to be larger and focused on
aggressive growth.
When it comes to this dimension in relation to the state, feminine cultures place
more emphasis on a welfare state that provides help for the needy. They tend to
advocate aid to poor countries and uphold principles of environmental
preservation. In international relations, focus is placed on negotiation and
compromise to solve conflicts, many more women are elected public officials and
there are more often than not more voters to the left of center. Masculine cultures
on the other hand advocate a kind of dog eat dog society in which only the strong
will win. They frown on providing aid to weaker or poorer countries and seek to
resolve international conflicts through shows of strength or might. There are fewer
women in government position and the majority of the electorate is in the political
center.
Sweden, which is at the bottom of the list and classified as a feminine society, has
many of the traits described above. A quick look at the Kwintessential website, a
company that offers language lessons, cultural awareness training, translation
and interpreting, provides the following information on the Swedish culture:
"One of the key characteristics of Swedish culture is that Swedes are
egalitarian in nature, humble and find boasting absolutely unacceptable.
34
In many ways, Swedes prefer to listen to others as opposed to ensuring
that their own voice is heard.
When speaking, Swedes speak softly and calmly. It is rare that you
witness a Swede demonstrating anger or strong emotion in public.
In social terms, Swedes rarely take hospitality or kindness for
granted and as such, they will give often give thanks. Failing to say
thank you for something is perceived negatively in Sweden.
Behaviors in Sweden are strongly balanced towards ‘lagom’ or,
‘everything in moderation’. Excess, flashiness and boasting are
abhorred in Sweden and individuals strive towards the middle way. As
an example, work hard and play hard are not common concepts in
Sweden. People work hard but not too hard, they go out and enjoy
themselves, but without participating in anything extreme.
Due to the strong leaning towards egalitarianism in Sweden,
competition is not encouraged and children are not raised to believe
that they are any more special than any other child."33
In the future, values about masculine and feminine roles are not likely to change
quickly. Even though the wealth of a nation did not contribute to a country’s score
in this index, it is possible that, as some poorer nations grow economically and
more women become part of the workforce and can attend school and university,
we will see slight shifts in some countries.
Dimension 4: Uncertainty Avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance deals with a society’s tolerance for uncertainty and
ambiguity and its ability to adapt to change. It indicates to what extent a culture
programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable in unstructured
situations. Unstructured situations are unpredictable, unfamiliar and different from
usual. Cultures that strongly avoid uncertainty strive to minimize the possibility of
these kinds of situations by implementing and enforcing strict laws and rules and
safety and security measures because extreme ambiguity creates anxiety. Even
though anxiety is felt at a personal level, it may also be shared with other
33
Kwintessential,
Country
Etiquette
Guides,
http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/sweden.html.
35
Sweden:
members of society as feelings of uncertainty are acquired34. Hofstede originally
identified this dimension as a by-product of power distance during the IBM survey.
He defines at as "the extent to which members of a culture feel threatened by
ambiguous or unknown situations35", creating a strong need for predictability
expressed through laws and rules. The results of his research were put into an
index where countries with high uncertainty avoidance at the top and others at the
bottom. The results are provided in the index below:
Uncertainty Avoidance Index
Figure 7: Uncertainty Avoidance Index
36
34
Hofestede and Hofstede, p. 165.
Hofestede and Hofstede, p. 167.
36
Hofstede and Hofstede, p. 113.
35
36
Some countries are simply more anxious than others, of course, though each
country is not homogenous. This anxiety is dealt with in the unwritten rules, in the
country’s institutions and laws. Socially speaking, cultures with high anxiety
levels, like Greece, Portugal and Guatemala, tend to be more xenophobic and
expressive, emotional cultures. They need precision and formalization of
processes, instructions and rules and are better at implementing vision rather
than inspiring vision and innovation. They also tend to be more socially
conservative and have place high value on law and order. Countries with low
anxiety, for example, Denmark, Jamaica, Singapore, are generally more open to
change and innovation, are more tolerant of diversity, chaos and ambiguity and
are less effusive in expressing emotion, in fact, outbursts of emotion are even
socially disapproved of.
In terms of the political system, high anxiety countries show a weaker interest in
politics overall, protest is not encouraged, indeed it is often repressed, and there
are more specific laws and regulations. Intolerance of other viewpoints is common
and extremism not tolerated. Low anxiety countries, on the other hand, actively
engage in politics and protest and have fewer laws and regulations with the
overarching belief being that rules should only be created if they are absolutely
necessary. Tolerance of other’s beliefs is widespread and built into the political
system.
Even though this dimension is widely accepted in cross-cultural studies, for me it
is the most elusive because the results were so surprising. Singapore? A country
least afraid of risk and most open to innovation? This went against expectations.
When I took my own experience in Germany as an example, I also found conflicts
with the characteristics described. Even though Germany falls somewhere in the
middle of the index, in my own experience and based on the high number of laws
and the level of detail that they go to, Germans don’t like uncertainty and they try
to avoid it by planning everything carefully. On the other hand, there is a high
interest in politics and tolerance for other opinions, the social order is not nearly
as conservative as other cultures or countries. In this respect, I found the scores
37
for this dimension confusing and inconclusive even though some of the
characteristics applied.
There is evidence to suggest, e.g. from Richard Lynn who measured national
anxiety levels between 1935 and 1970, that anxiety fluctuates in nations as it
does in individuals based on circumstance. Periods of war or economic hardship
or conflict can raise anxiety levels considerably within a nation. Of the
dimensions, this one is probably the most fluid and subject to change. One can
certainly imagine that the level of anxiety among the already anxious Greeks is
even higher in the face of the debt crisis.
Dimension 5: Long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation
Long-term orientation is the fifth dimension which was added after Hofstede’s
original four above to try and distinguish between eastern and western thinking.
This dimension, which was not identified in the IBM study, stemmed from the
Chinese Value Survey carried out by Michael Bond from the Chinese University of
Hong Kong. Bond had successfully correlated the results of his survey to the
results of the IBM study but only for the three dimensions of power distance,
collectivist vs. individualist and masculine vs. feminine. The dimension uncertainty
avoidance did not seem to exist. This gave rise to a survey with a deliberate nonwestern bias that was conducted in 23 countries. Based on these results and
combined with an understanding of the influence of the teaching of Confucius on
eastern philosophy, Hofstede came up with the fifth cultural dimension called long
term vs. short term orientation.
Hofstede defines the two ends of the spectrum as: long-term orientation stands
for "fostering of virtues oriented towards future rewards, in particular
perseverance and thrift" while short-term orientation stands for "fostering of
virtues related to the past and present, in particular respect for tradition,
preservation of "face" and fulfilling social obligations"37. He then came up with a
37
Hofestede and Hofstede, p. 210.
38
survey to measure these two dimensions in 39 countries. The results are shown
in the table below.
Country
LTO
Country
LTO
China
118
Sweden
33
Hong Kong
96
Poland
32
Taiwan
87
Austria
31
Japan
80
Australia
31
Vietnam
80
Germany
31
Korea (South)
75
Canada Quebec
30
Brazil
65
New Zealand
30
India
61
Portugal
30
Thailand
56
United States
29
Hungary
50
Great Britain
25
Singapore
48
Zimbabwe
25
Denmark
46
Canada
23
Netherlands
44
Philippines
19
Norway
44
Spain
19
Ireland
43
Nigeria
16
Finland
41
Czech Republic
13
Bangladesh
40
Pakistan
0
Switzerland
40
France
39
Belgium
38
Slovakia
38
Italy
34
Figure 8: Long-term orientation index
38
Long-term orientation, such as found among the 5 East Asian countries at the top
of the list, is an indication of the extent to which a country ascribes to the values
of long-term commitments and respect for tradition. This is thought to promote a
38
Hofestede and Hofstede, p. 211.
39
strong work ethic where long-term rewards are expected as a result of today's
hard work. However, business may take longer to develop in this society,
particularly for an "outsider". Short-term orientation indicates that the country does
not reinforce the concept of long-term, traditional orientation. In this culture,
change can occur more rapidly as long-term traditions and commitments do not
become impediments to change. According to Hofstede's analysis, people in the
United States and United Kingdom have low LTO scores. This suggests that you
can pretty much expect anything in this culture in terms of creative expression
and novel ideas. The model implies that people in the US and UK don't value
tradition as much as many others, and are therefore likely to be willing to help
execute innovative plans as long as they get to participate fully.
In general society, short-term orientation is reflected in striving to achieve quick
results and value is attached to personal stability. There is great respect for the
traditions of the past but status does not play a great role in relationships. Money
earned is spent quickly, in fact, there is social pressure to spend and consume.
People are very worried about saving "face", or upholding one’s personal honor
and there is concern about social and status obligations. In companies and at the
workplace, it is the bottom line that is important. In school, students show a talent
for theoretical, abstract sciences while they do less well in subjects like
mathematics. In these cultures, people invest more in mutual funds with quicker
returns than in long-term investments.
On the other pole is long-term orientation. These cultures place great value on the
virtues of persistence and continuous efforts to reach slow results. People are
encouraged to save money rather than spend and thrift is held in high esteem as
a trait. Much greater importance is attached to the ability to adapt and innovate
and people are willing to make sacrifices to achieve a purpose. In these cultures,
people invest more in real estate than mutual funds. In companies, relationships
and market position are much more highly valued than the bottom line. In school,
children show a talent for applied, concrete sciences and at solving formal
problems.
40
Even though the original Chinese Value Survey was based on Confucianism, not
all of the countries that scored high are Asian countries even though they hold the
top spots. Brazil, India and Hungary all ranked high as well.
3.4 Summary
The dimensions described here are just one way to look at and compare cultures.
There are certainly other dimensions or other considerations that could be
incorporated as we try to understand ourselves and others better and the forces
that shaped our mental programming. Since the roots of national cultures are so
deeply engrained, this means that they are unlikely to change quickly any time
soon. But because the clock is ticking and we are facing so many global
problems, it is absolutely essential that we find ways to effectively communicate
across cultures.
4 Sustainability and cultural differences
4.1 Introduction
In his article entitled Sustainable Development and Cultural Diversity39, Hartmann
Liebetruth defines the vertical dimension of sustainable development as “focused
on saving the environment for sake of the present and future generations”, a
strategy which mainly targets large corporations based primarily in industrialized
countries. He claims that, until now, not much attention has been given to what he
calls the “horizontal” dimension which "refers to different regions in the world with
completely different economic conditions and cultural traditions compared to the
western world."40
If we take a look at the problems with the vision and practice of sustainability in
the section on sustainability, it is clear the most of the problems involve
perceptions, values or interests. At a national level, for example, a country’s
39
Hartmann Liebetruth, Sustainable Development and Cultural Diversity, p.3, in Global
Sustainability, ed. P. A. Wilderer, E. D. Schroeder, H. Kopp, WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co.
Kga, 2005.
40
Hartmann Liebetruth, Sustainable Development and Cultural Diversity, p.3.
41
perceptions of economic, social and ecological issues and how to prioritize them
will be different for two main reasons. First, because it has different
environmental, climate, economic, etc. conditions. Madagascar will have a
different view on biodiversity, soil erosion, poverty, working conditions, alternative
energies, etc. than, say, Sweden simply because of different conditions in each
place. At a local level, for example, an agricultural community will have a different
outlook on water use than on an urban community.
The second reason for differences in varying perceptions is values and norms.
While values and norms are not homogeneous throughout a nation, nor can they
be completely decoupled from the conditions in a place, they strongly affect
attitudes towards these types of issues and how priorities are set. Different values
and different behavioral patterns mean that sustainability will be conceptualized,
practiced and implemented differently from country to country, community to
community and region to region based on the unique conditions and
characteristics in each place. As sustainability gets closer to communities at a
local level, the more the local culture will play a role in setting priorities and
defining goals.
Using Hofstede’s theories of values and practices as well as the five dimensions
of culture he has identified, this section looks at how cultural differences could
potentially affect the vision and the practice of sustainability from a theoretical
standpoint. Due to the enormous scope of Hofstede’s analysis and the number of
countries he covered, only examples of potential impacts will be provided here
because the data is too vast to analyze in-depth here. While it would be important
in the context of a specific project in a specific country to identify the cultural
aspects that relate to sustainability to better understand how to develop the right
strategies for implementation, this scope of this study is limited to providing a
basis for further country-specific research.
4.2 Values and sustainability
According to Hofstede, culture is made up of practices and values with values
being the most deeply rooted elements of a culture. As we have seen, the
concept of sustainability has evolved over time to take on moral and ethical
42
significance, something heavily influenced by a culture’s (and individual’s) values,
particularly in terms of the social aspects and environmental issues.
The values held by communities, nations or groups span many layers and issues.
With respect to sustainability, one example of a value held by a culture that is
extremely relevant to the practice and vision of sustainability is how a culture or
community views nature and its natural environment. According to the theory of
cultural ecology, as this field is known, "the natural environment is a major
contributor to social organization and other human institutions"41. Of course,
attitudes toward nature are not limited to the national level. They vary between
people who live in cities and in rural areas, in the mountains or close to water,
whether they are poor or rich, etc. There are three generally accepted
perspectives on the relationship between mankind and nature:
-
Utilitarian perspective: in this context, nature is seen as a resource base for
fulfilling human needs. This perspective puts human clearly in the center
and sees nature in terms of resources: arable land, grazing land, precious
metals, timber, water, etc. Nature is something to be used by humans not
necessarily respected. Seen from this perspective, sustainability means
preserving these resources for future generations but not driven by any
ethical motivation in relation to nature itself.
-
Protectionist perspective: here, nature means the preservation of unspoiled
land independent of any utilization of the resources to be found there. This
perspective views nature as having intrinsic value completely separate
from human beings. Nature becomes a sacred space to be preserved and
restored. Sustainability then, is not so about protecting resources for use
by mankind but to protect nature because of its inherent value.
-
Biocentric perspective: according to this perspective, all living beings are
equal and have the same rights to an undisturbed biosphere. In conflicts
over the use of resources, all creatures, in principle, should have the same
chances.
41
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_ecology (Sept. 8, 2011).
43
contributors,
Cultural
ecology,
People’s values help us to understand how they use, enjoy and are motivated to
protect the natural environment. To illustrate how these different perspectives
affect decisions, take, for example, the building of a new road through a Brazilian
rain forest to link a relatively isolated and poor village to a larger city. For the
residents of the village, the new road would offer a way to increase trade,
transport goods and important materials, including medicine or building supplies,
thus establishing a lifeline to the outside world, a utilitarian view. The destruction
of the rainforest and the wildlife habitats in such an underdeveloped area with a
high level of poverty might be considered negligible (or not considered at all), and
the pollution minimal. A protectionist, or even biocentrist, would argue that the
road not be built to preserve the pristine nature of the rainforest and the habitat it
provides for living creatures. In the context of sustainability, one of the factors that
would ultimately determine the right balance between the three aspects of
ecology, economics and social issues would be precisely this attitude toward
nature. Values, according to Hofstede, affect how we place judgment. What may
be to one person a pristine natural forest with many species of unusual flora and
fauna may be to another a resource to support his family and provide fuel and
shelter.
This is just one example of a value and how it affects sustainability. According to
Ortwin Renn, if the preservation of certain goods is not embedded in the value
system, "any attempt to enforce preservation will be futile"42. This means that if a
culture does not attach value to, say, a certain species of turtle that is in danger of
becoming extinct, this value cannot be imposed from the outside and any attempt
to save it working with in the local context will fail. Likewise with other values. And
since values run so deeply in cultures and aren’t expected to change anytime
soon, awareness of them will contribute to developing effective strategies for
change.
42
Ortwin Renn, Sustainable Development: Exploring the Cross-Cultural Dimension, p.13.
44
4.3 The 5 cultural dimensions and sustainability
Power distance and sustainability
If we look at the initiators of international sustainability projects over the last
decade of so, NGOs have been at the forefront of international development.43
Most will tend to be international NGOs44 who go into certain countries after a
natural catastrophe, like to Haiti after the earthquake, to Myanmar after the
cyclone or to Indonesia after the tsunami, to help rebuild communities and
infrastructure. Other international NGOs work on longer term projects to alleviate
poverty, protect coastal areas or work on health-related issues and a host of other
issues. Many of these NGOs are Northern NGOs, or NNGOs, based in the
northern hemisphere, countries like Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, the
UK, the US, etc. that fall at the bottom of Hofstede’s Power Distance Index
meaning they have less power distance to politicians, managers, superiors,
teachers, etc. Many of the countries that they work in, like Guatemala, Lebanon,
Ecuador, Indonesia, Ghana, India, etc. fall on the other side of the spectrum. This
means is commonly the case that NGO representatives from mostly low power
distance countries go to work in high power distance countries, bringing their own
visions and practices and ways of working with them.
In terms of the vision of sustainability, this could potentially affect vision in a
number of different ways. Looking back to Hofstede, one example would be in the
way that people accept inequality in society. If inequality is a given, either in
education, in the distribution of good and resources, it will be much more difficult
to create an overall sense of what sustainability represents, namely balance,
equal entitlement to nature and public goods, in opportunities, equality in the
workplace, in society, etc.
Hofstede also mentions the power of status symbols in high power distance
countries, particularly of material goods. This is another aspect that could affect
43
Sarah Mukasa, Are expatriate staff necessary in international development NGOs? A case
study of an international NGO in Uganda, p. 2, International Working Paper Series, 4. Centre for
Civil Society, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK:
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29092/1/int-work-paper4.pdf, 1999.
44
I was unable to find specific information on how NGOs are distributed throughout the world,
where their headquarters are and where they work.
45
the vision of sustainability which emphasizes the importance of reducing
consumption and changing consumer patterns. Holding material status symbols in
high regard, whether sunglasses, jewelry, cars, houses, electronic goods, etc., will
affect an individual’s perception of sustainability whether that person lives in the
US or in Thailand.
How sustainability is practiced will also be affected by this dimension. Sustainable
development has come to be understood as a collective process often involving
creativity, a high level of participation, respect and tolerance for others and their
opinions, and personal initiative and innovation. The NNGO management, which
often, according to Hofstede’s ranking, comes from countries with a more
consultative approach to management in which individuals are expected to voice
opinions (and have them), collaborate with others, participate in decision-making
processes and work independently, will be frustrated working in countries at the
other end of the spectrum where value is placed on obedience and harmony and
opinions are not readily voiced. It is likely in these types of situations that efforts to
include stakeholders in defining goals and strategies will be difficult as a tradition
of participation does not exist in many of these places. And that it will be
challenging to ensure that all team members and stakeholders truly have a voice
in decision-making processes.
Collectivism vs. individualism and sustainability
We see a similar trend in the relationship between the collectivism vs.
individualism dimension and sustainability. At the top of Hofstede’s Individualism
index are countries like the US, Great Britain, Canada, France, Italy, Ireland,
Norway, etc. At the bottom and in the middle are many poorer nations, more
subject to natural disasters, poverty, health issues, etc. where NNGOs are likely
to send development staff (e.g. Pakistan, Indonesia, Peru, Salvador, Thailand,
West Africa, etc.)
In terms of the vision of sustainability, these differences at each end of the
spectrum could certainly be expressed in how different countries see their
commitment to their fellow human beings. In individualist societies, people tend to
think more in terms of "I" rather than in terms of the good of the group as a whole.
46
Collectivist societies, on the other hand, give their total loyalty to the respective
group, whether it is the extended family, the tribe, the ethnic group, the village,
etc. While sustainability, with its emphasis on collectivism, would be well
represented within the group, any project that extends beyond the limits of the
group would likely result in split loyalty. So while the individualist societies are not
preprogrammed to think and act collectively and could run the risk of serving their
own interests (career, money, etc.) rather than focusing on those of the project,
collectivist societies face obstacles, despite being collectively oriented, outside of
their context in terms of vision.
Cultures that rank differently on this scale are have different perspectives on
human rights, a core element of the vision of sustainability already incorporated
into the principles developed at the Earth Summit in 1992. According to Hofstede,
collectivist societies tend to score much lower in respect for human rights. He
concludes that respect for human rights as defined by the UN is a "luxury that
wealthy countries can afford more easily than poor ones"45.
The relationship between this dimension and the practice of sustainability is
similar to the relationship between power distance and practice. The fierce group
loyalty affects how and whether people participate in processes outside of the
group, harmony is highly prized and saying "yes" rather than showing
disagreement or speaking up. Group interests prevail and opinions are
predetermined by membership in the group. Individuals are less likely to take
personal initiative and the value given to tasks is relationship-based rather than
goal oriented, i.e. the task itself. A project manager or team member coming from
a country at the other end of the spectrum where independence is valued and
people are expected to have opinions and expect others to have opinions will
probably find it difficult to get people to participate and express opinions.
Masculinity vs. femininity and sustainability
Because this dimension has no relation to the wealth of a nation as we saw from
Hofstede’s Masculinity Index, we are not looking at the same kind of "north-south"
45
Hofstede and Hofstede, p. 106.
47
dynamic as was the case with the first two dimensions. We find both rich
countries and poor countries scattered throughout the list.
The challenge of this dimension for the vision of sustainability when people or
organizations from two or more countries at opposite ends of the scale come
together potentially has to do with deep-seated values. In Hofstede’s analysis,
"masculine" countries and cultures values growth, ambition and wealth, for
example, Germany, Mexico, the US and the Philippines while more "feminine"
countries like Costa Rica, Finland, Chile and Thailand, place more value on
"quality of life", social programs and assistance. Sustainability as a principle has a
"feminine" nature, outright rejecting values of growth (actually emphasis on zero
growth in some schools of thinking), wealth (downscaling consumption instead),
competitive behavior and ambition. These points of view are bound to clash when
trying to define what the concept of sustainability is or should be and then how to
implement it.
The practice of sustainability is potentially affected by this dimension in people’s
approach to managing others and their perceptions of their bosses or the people
above them. Sustainability at its core favors a more "feminine" approach to
problem-solving and communication style. For example, a Swedish NGO project
manager coming from a highly feminine country, might not gain the respect and
trust of someone on staff in Mexico, for example, because he is perceived as not
assertive enough and thus not be effective in achieving sustainability objectives.
On the other hand, a German manager sent to Thailand may be seen as too
aggressive in his or her approach to his subordinates even though within the
context of his own culture, this behavior may be acceptable and even desirable.
Uncertainty avoidance
Hofstede’s ranking of uncertainty avoidance is also not clearly divided into the
northern and southern hemisphere. Instead, countries from both are represented
throughout his index. According to Hofstede, the ranking of uncertainty avoidance
is an indicator of how open a country is to change and innovation and how
threatened they are by the unknown and the unambiguous.
48
One of the tenets of sustainability is finding new and innovative solutions to the
world’s problems. Innovation is thought to be one of the key drivers of sustainable
change. Cultural differences, based on Hofstede’s ranking, would then certainly
affect the sustainability vision and how a culture is able to not only respond to
unsettling changes from the outside, but also how innovative it can be in coming
up with new solutions. Cultures that are more anxious and less open to change
like Greece, Portugal, Uruguay and Salvador in Hofstede’s index, will be
potentially less receptive to innovation and new ideas from the outside and also
less able to come up with innovative ideas to drive change.
Another important aspect here is xenophobia and diversity. Sustainability
embraces the idea of diversity and tolerance. But high anxiety countries also tend
to be xenophobic and less tolerant of diversity, thus the polar opposite of what
sustainability preaches.
In practice, since higher anxiety countries expect more rules and regulations and
there is less overall politically interest and activity, it should be expected that
working in or with these countries would demand a high level of regulation and
structure and a lot of top-down strategies rather than bottom-up, grassroots
movements such as are widespread in the UK, Canada and the US, countries that
are at the other end of the pole.
Long term orientation vs. short-term orientation and sustainability
Sustainability at its core is a long-term vision not limited to our lifetimes but
extends far beyond to the next generations. Countries that have a short-term
orientation based on Hofstede’s ranking, like the US, Spain, Nigeria and Pakistan,
where short-term gratification is valued, will find it difficult to buy into the vision of
long-term sustainability or even conceive of it. Every time I go back to the US, I
am struck by the shortsightedness of both individual thought-processes and
political decisions and the need for instant personal gratification, usually through
consumer goods, that affects all facets of life. The ability to think beyond
tomorrow, to the generations to come, is sadly lacking. This will not change any
time soon in our heavily consumer-based society and is also spreading to many
emerging economies like Brazil and India, at least in terms of consumerism.
49
Cultures that are oriented around long-term development and achievements,
including China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan, will be able to grasp the longterm principles espoused by sustainability.
4.4 Summary
As we saw in the chapter on sustainability, there is no single definition of the
concept nor is there a be-all-end-all guide to implementation. Since so much is left
open to interpretation, actors are given the freedom and flexibility to set their own
priorities and define their own goals. Culture plays a profound role in shaping
perceptions and values and thus in the way that sustainability is conceptualized
and practiced. The international nature of the world’s problems mean that cultures
will increasingly come into contact with one another and have to work together to
find solutions. Understanding where potential differences may lie will increase the
effectiveness of the solutions that are found. The next chapter looks at several
real world examples of how these cultural differences manifest themselves.
50
5 Survey
5.1 Introduction
During the planning stages of the master’s project, I had decided to conduct a
survey of various people I know who work in international contexts on issues
related to sustainability. Originally, I thought it would be fairly easy to come up
with a questionnaire to ask them about their experiences and perceptions.
However, it turned out to be a lot more difficult than I expected. The first problem I
encountered was that they all work in different contexts. Some work for NGOs
overseas, some are European, some American, the target countries, the projects,
the organizations, etc. are very different. Others experience cross-cultural
differences on a project basis, for example, a professor of agriculture in the
Organic Farming and Marketing department at the University of Applied Sciences
in Eberswalde who works on EU projects and has vast international experience in
the US and in Columbia. Or as part of the Über Lebenskunst initiative at the Haus
der Kulturen der Welt. The first problem was thus a fairly superficial one, i.e. how
to formulate questions that would cover all of the different cultural contexts and all
of the different types of work, i.e. project-based, in-country.
The second problem was the goal of the survey. My initial motivation had been
one of gathering experiences, not of collecting statistical evidence that I could
then use to quantify and compare and come up with specific conclusions for
specific cultural combinations, in other words cross-referencing culturally coded
perceptions and behaviors with the sustainable practices grid. This would involve
an
interrogation
scheme
that
elicits
individuals'
perceptions
of
their
connectedness to one another, to their organizations, to their societies and to
nature (as a home and an ecosystem). Cultural differences profoundly affect
people’s perceptions of the value and efficacy of sustainable practices. This kind
of statistical procedure, however, requires expertise that I lack. And, I would have
to survey not only the people I know, but their staffs and local stakeholders as
well.
51
I also considered, for statistical purposes, asking survey participants to score the
questions in a survey like KIM for their relevance to the local culture they are
working in. While I ultimately think this would be a good exercise and would
produce interesting results, the breadth of countries, situations and perceptions
would be too wide to produce quantifiable and meaningful results that would allow
clear conclusions to be formulated.
So I returned to the original thesis subject: cultural differences and how they affect
the vision and practice of sustainability. The questions I ultimately came up with
were designed to elicit responses from participants about their perceptions of how
the cultural differences in the contexts they work in affect the end results, be they
vision or practice. I deliberately left them open to give the responders flexibility in
their answers. The end results here are by no means scientifically based but are
descriptions of the experiences of individuals who are used to working in crosscultural environments.
The completed surveys can be found in the Appendix with more detailed
information about the context the individuals here work in, their organizations and
backgrounds along with lots of interesting details about the work they do. The
survey was sent to a total of 8 individuals who agreed to participate. Three weeks
were allocated for their return with reminders at regular intervals. Only three were
completed and returned. I analyzed the surveys after writing the chapter on how
different cultural dimensions could potentially affect the vision and practice of
sustainability. I found several correlations in the answers provided in the surveys
which are described below. While the surveys provide valuable insight into
international development work and some of the cultural differences they
experience on a day-to-day basis both in relation to sustainability as well as
otherwise, no conclusions can truly be drawn because they are so limited in
scope and because most of the countries involved, i.e. the countries the
participants are from or the countries they work in, are not represented in
Hofstede’s indexes. The most important results are presented here.
52
5.2 Survey 1: Michael Gabriel
Michael, an American, has worked overseas in different countries in international
development for around 15 years. He mainly specializes in disaster relief and
infrastructure and most recently has been the country director of Myanmar for the
last 3 years at Mercy Corps, an international, non-profit relief organization whose
mission is to "alleviate poverty, suffering and oppression by building secure,
productive and fair communities"46. He has also worked in Pakistan, Afghanistan,
Indonesia, Kosovo and Macedonia. The responses in his survey focus mainly on
his current organization, Mercy Corps, and his work as the country director of
Myanmar.
From an organizational standpoint, Mercy Corps is strongly committed to the
principles of sustainability in their work. Mercy Corps believes that societies have
to be rescued from within, i.e. that people have to learn to help themselves and
take on ownership and accountability for bringing about positive transformation. At
policy level they have a "Vision for Change" which is based on the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights which strongly emphasizes accountability,
participation, stakeholder involvement, peace and the productive interaction
between the private sector, public sector and civil society. The organization works
with expat managers and directors but hires local staff to lead communities.
Despite the strength of this policy, Michael says that it is not shared at all levels of
the organization particularly among local staff. While new staff members are given
a brief orientation and introduction to this Vision for Change47, they don’t
necessarily understand the importance of connecting civil society with the private
and public sectors. In Macedonia, the local staff understood this approach, while
in Afghanistan, this attitude was that efforts in this direction were a complete
waste of time. In Myanmar, people have no tradition of participation, influenced in
part by the military dictatorship and a high level of corruption and distrust. Local
46
Michael Gabriel’s survey, p. 3.
These trainings are held in English; he mentions here that because the word "sustainability"
doesn’t exist in many languages, and there is general confusion about what it means even in an
English-speaking context, the non-native English speakers then take their interpretations from the
English-speaking staff and end up just as confused; i.e. it is not an internalized concept.
47
53
staff is not sent to give input to local government right away. So while the
principles of sustainability guide programming, it cannot always be practiced and
there is often consistent implementation of a vision promoting sustainability
lacking because this concept is not universally understood.
Donors also play an influential role in deciding which projects are carried out.
Donors like the sound of the word "sustainability" in project descriptions but they
don’t tend to want to sponsor projects where environmental issues are at the
forefront. Usually precedence is given to health or economic outcomes. So to
some extent, Mercy Corps is not free to fully practice its vision due to donor
preferences and is at the mercy of its donors who can decide how resources are
used and money is spent.
At stakeholder level, i.e. people in the local community, no training is provided in
the organization’s principles. Michael emphasizes that the poorest people who are
most reliant on their natural environments for their livelihoods inherently
understand the importance of the effective management of natural resources but
that threats to day-to-day survival make it impossible to think long-term and lead
to unsound practices. Poverty is a powerful force.
In terms of communication with local stakeholders, the organization relies on its
"Guide to Community Mobilization" which believes in empowering communities to
be agents of their own change, identify their own priorities and take ownership of
this transformation. Local staff is trained in these principles and they are tasked
with organizing meetings with community leaders and then later on with all
members of the community. Even though a tradition of participation is lacking in
many situations that Michael works in, he says that many people find their voice
for the first time and it plants a seed in the community, triggering positive change.
Certainly not democracy overnight but people learn to speak up, particularly about
their own immediate needs like "we don’t have enough water" even if it is more
difficult for them to speak up about structural inequality. In Macedonia, his
experience was somewhat different. Community involvement was prevented not
because of a lack of tradition of participation but due to cynicism, i.e. the
54
government is corrupt and things will never change so why do anything. These
kinds of factors are reasons that Mercy Corps focuses of getting young people
involved because they are not as affected by the systems the older generation
grew up in and they are more open to change.
Michael also talks about the problems at project level resulting from cooperation
between people from different ethnic groups. In Macedonia, there was a deeply
engrained mistrust between ethnic Albanians, for example, and ethnic
Macedonians. Getting people from different groups to work together proved
challenging not only due to mistrust but based on different backgrounds and living
conditions. For example, most ethnic Albanians are poor, Muslim and uneducated
and live in rural environments while the Macedonians are Christian, more
educated and tend to come from more urban environments with a higher level of
civil participation. In Indonesia, the local Aceh population didn’t trust the ethnic
Indonesians who came after the tsunami to help rebuild, going so far as to go on
strike to express their refusal to work with them because of a lack of tradition in
peaceful conflict resolution and transparent communication. Communication
among his staff in Myanmar is affected by cultural clashes among local ethnic
groups due to different communication styles and group thinking even though the
Burmese politely respect "foreign" cultures, i.e. from the west.
Despite these challenges, Michael feels that cultural differences play an important
role in inspiring innovation and new ideas and approaches. He feels that
homogenous societies are too burdened by their own values and traditions to
change and that interaction among cultures is a positive force for change.
5.3 Survey 2: Ferit Timor
Ferit was born in Turkey and moved to Germany when he was a young boy where
grew up and went to school, eventually studying biology at university. He currently
works for the GIZ in the Philippines as a development expert for integrated
coastal resource management. He previously worked in the Philippines for a
different organization on biodiversity issues. The cross-cultural environment that
he works in mainly involves local stakeholders with different interests and
55
backgrounds in coastal zone management and conservation of coastal
ecosystems.
The GIZ has a specific sustainability policy with measurements and indicators
built into the system. The organization aims to ensure the participation of all
stakeholders by applying a "holistic approach based on the values and principles
upheld in German society".48 This is their vision for facilitating change and
empowering communities to "take ownership of their own sustainable
development processes". They strive to create better living conditions for people
in terms of income, poverty and knowledge. This policy and vision closely
resembles that of Mercy Corps with the exception that the GIZ explicitly states
that their work is based on the values of German society.
Ferit’s work as a coastal manager focuses primarily on the environment and
resource use. His projects involve fishing, regional development plans, creating
protected areas to make coral reefs, mangroves, etc., more resilient to climate
change while at the same time continuing economic growth and development.
The concept of sustainability is pertinent to his work because as human
settlements expand and the society and economy continue to grow, the more
pressure will be put on coastal resources.
These goals of the projects are not communicated down to the level of the
resource users, i.e. local stakeholders are unaware of the goals and they are thus
not a shared vision. Ferit says that people often agree to support their goals
because they perceive a personal (social and political power) or monetary benefit
to doing so. The culture has a deeply entrenched clan system with most political
elite being part of the same clan. It is only when the clan leaders decide to
participate that their communities will follow. Without the will of these leaders,
nothing moves. Individuals do not take action on their own and assume no
personal accountability or responsibility.
48
GIZ, Deutsche Gesellschaft
http://www.giz.de/en/profile.html.
für
Internationale
56
Zusammenarbeit,
About
GIZ,
One other problem he faces with local staff has to do with communication. He
characterizes the culture as a "yes" culture where yes is the answer to everything
even if "no" is what is meant. He also mentions that it is often difficult to grasp the
complexity of different issues because people keep things at a more general level.
Poverty also plays a role in his work, driving communities to misuse resources. A
lack of law enforcement also encourages misuse of resources: illegal fishing,
illegal mining and uncontrolled pollution in coastal waters are rampant.
One other challenge he faces is that the expectations of stakeholders in terms of
assistance and benefits is high. So many NGOs and development agencies, most
of which come from foreign countries, buy the will of local stakeholders to
participate in their projects but the values and vision are not shared. It is a
perception of payoff not one of shared planetary vision.
Like Michael, he sees cultural differences as positive despite the challenges they
create. He also emphasizes that these differences can give a big boost to projects
and local communities to help solve problems and make communities more
sustainable. That foreign experts are usually more results-oriented can also be a
very positive factor in achieving quick and long-lasting results. He also feels that
sustainable practices are not only relevant, they are essential in ensuring good
living conditions.
5.4 Survey 3: Jaem Heath
Jaem, an American, is a freelancer (with his own company) who currently works
as a trainer in cross-cultural communications and human resource development
for NGOs. He also oversees a project in permaculture project in Ecuador to
maintain a sustainable integrated human habitat. He has worked for many NGOs
on issues such as AIDS, social issues and building civil society all over the world
and recently participated in a program on peace studies conflict resolution and at
the Academy for Conflict Transformation in Bonn. He has lived in many different
countries for longer periods of time including Spain, Italy, Wales, France and New
Zealand and had temporary assignments in many other countries.
57
The work he does is not specific to an organization or country so his answers to
the survey were more a summary of his perceptions. His own company, Atlan
Training, is specifically dedicated to the principles of sustainability and the
application of sustainable practices. His answers often refer to the "Global South"
or the "Global North". Wikipedia defines the divide between the Global North and
Global South as a "socio-economic and political division that exists between the
wealthy developed countries, known collectively as "the north", and the poorer
developing countries (least developed countries), or "the south. Being categorized
as part of the “North” implies development as opposed to belonging to the “South”
which implies a lack thereof. The North becomes synonymous with economic
development and industrialization while the South represents the previously
colonized countries which are in need of help in the form of international aid
agendas"49.
In terms of the vision of sustainability, he sees an important difference in the way
that people perceive their commitment to their fellow human beings, i.e. an
individual’s willingness to make sacrifice for the benefit of the group as a whole,
and in their commitment to the Earth, i.e. nature and the shared ecosystem. For
example, he says that people in the Global North, at least those working on these
issues, see a planet in crisis on the brink of total system collapse. They have a
planetary perspective and develop alternative models for zero economic growth or
radical environmental change while in the Global South, the perception is more
local than global, more community-based than planetary. This perception held by
the Global North that we are on the verge of catastrophe is viewed as completely
exaggerated in the South. The prevailing attitude is that now that the Global North
has exploited resources to the point of exhaustion, sustainability is just another
form of cultural dominance being exported from the North that demands sacrifice
from the South to make up for the past mistakes the North. The values of
sustainability are not recognized and thus it is viewed as another expression of
cultural dominance and imperialism.
49
Wikipedia,
The
Free
Encyclopedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_north (Sept. 7, 2011).
58
Wikipedia
contributors,
In terms of practice, he has also observed relevant differences in how different
cultures adhere to policies and processes designed to promote sustainable
practices. Some cultures follow established rules and processes to resolve
conflict and settle differences while others prefer a more individual approach.
In terms of communication, he also observes trends similar to the responses in
the other two surveys with respect to expressing individual opinion and conflict
resolution. In the Global South people are much like less likely to participate in
forums for open and transparent communication about issues because it is not
comfortable or socially acceptable. Southerners in his experience react badly to
what they perceive as "outspoken" communication on the part of their northern
colleagues. As a result, meetings tend to be dominated by the more outspoken
representatives from the North. In his experience, reaching consensus through
more guided hierarchical communication is much more comfortable and culturally
acceptable for people in the South. Clearly, a model has to be found that
incorporates both styles.
Finally, Jaem also emphasizes that cultural differences are a positive force,
enhancing the success of projects but only when the differences are
acknowledged
and
appreciated.
When
communication
is
modified
to
accommodate these differences, synergies can be leveraged. On the other hand,
if this communication is not managed properly, the result can be frustration and
slow-decision-making.
5.5 Summary
Without drawing any specific conclusions about one culture or another from the
survey, it is clear that cultural differences affect how sustainability is practiced and
understood throughout the world. The organizations have clearly defined their
vision and application of sustainability yet they face challenges in its
implementation either because they have not communicated this vision
effectively, because they way they practice it conflicts with local habits and
customs or because the conditions in a particular place prevent them from doing
so. Nevertheless, all agree that sustainable principles are not only relevant but
59
essential to their work and that cultural differences enhance more than they
detract.
6 Conclusion
As we saw in the first chapter, sustainability as a concept is in danger of losing its
meaning not only because of overuse, but also because there is no true universal
consensus on what it means or how it should be applied and because it is often
employed to serve the interests of various actors. But this doesn’t mean that we
should do away with the concept altogether. Sustainable development has
become a common vision for many groups and the value of sustainable principles
is widely acknowledged at different levels. And it is certainly not going away. But
in order for the concept to retain its meaning and for these principles to be applied
at international, national and local levels, the concept has to be understood
correctly and communicated effectively. What is needed is more precise definition
laid out into specific requirements and a description of how to put it into practice.
At the same time, this definition should allow for flexibility in implementing the
concept while still be strong enough to retain its validity beyond the interests of
the various players involved.
When we look at the concept of sustainability from an intercultural perspective, it
is essential that the term is clearly defined. Clarity of vision is particularly
important in multicultural environments where understanding a concept not only
requires a clear definition, it also requires effective communication of this vision
especially when the word simply doesn’t exist in the local language or there is no
tradition of it in the local culture.
Every attempt to operationalize the term sustainability has different implications
when we consider global, national or regional levels, and when we apply it to
countries with different levels of economic development. But if there is no shared
vision, this will act as an obstacle thus affecting the outcomes of what can be
achieved.
Even though cultures change, they change slowly particularly when values are
involved. Many of the cultural dimensions identified and measured by Hofstede
60
run deep and are not likely to change any time soon. This means that being
aware of cultural differences, learning to communicate effectively in multicultural
environments and developing cultural competence will be essential in the success
of projects at all levels.
It is also clear that cross-cultural communication is only one element in a larger
strategy. If we are to make progress in solving the world’s problems, we need
structural change and innovation, we need to reduce demand for resources and
to improve nature’s productivity through innovation and technology, we need new
business models and visionary strategies but most of all we need people from
around the world with a common goal.
61
Bibliography
Books
Hall, Edward T., Beyond Culture, Anchor Books, 1976.
Hofstede, Geert and Gert Jan, Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind,
Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance of Survival, McGraw Hill, 2005.
Trompenaars, Fons, Managing Change Across Corporate Cultures, West Sussex,
England, 2004.
Wilderer, P. A., Schroeder, E. D., Kopp H., Ed., Global Sustainability, Weinheim,
WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA, 2005.
Internet
Andrews University, Charles H. Tidwell, Intercultural and Diversity Links, Hofstede
Info, http://www.andrews.edu/~tidwell/bsad560/HofstedeIndividualism.html.
Duxbury, Nancy and Gillette, Eileen, Culture as a Key Dimension of Sustainability:
Exploring Concepts, Themes, and Models, Creative City Network of Canada,
Centre
of
Expertise
on
Culture
and
Communities,
2007,
http://cultureandcommunities.ca/downloads/WP1-Culture-Sustainability.pdf.
Fithian, Cody; Powell, Ashleigh, Cultural Aspects of Sustainable Development,
Student
paper
for
Sustainable
Design
Seminar/Studio,
Fall
2009,
http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/11698/5-Fithian_PowellCultural_Aspects_of_Sustainable_Development.pdf?sequence=2.
GIZ, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, About GIZ,
http://www.giz.de/en/profile.html.
Intercultural Research, From behavioural questions to values - Schwartz Value
Inventory: http://www.chairt.com/schwartz.html.
62
Intercultural
Research,
Trompenaars
and
Hampden-Turner:
http://www.chairt.com/tromp.html.
The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social
Sustainability Volume 5, Number 4, 2009, http://www.Sustainability-Journal.com.
Kwintessential,
Country
Etiquette
Guides,
Sweden:
http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/sweden.html.
Mukasa, Sarah (1999) Are expatriate staff necessary in international development
NGOs? A case study of an international NGO in Uganda, International Working
Paper Series, 4. Centre for Civil Society, London School of Economics and
Political
Science,
London,
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29092/1/int-work-
UK,
paper4.pdf.
Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our
Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development, UN Documents, http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm.
UNESCO,
Intangible
Cultural
Heritage,
http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=EN&pg=home
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable
Development,
Publications,
Agenda
21,
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml.
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikipedia contributors, Cultural ecology, Date
of last revision: 8 September 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_ecology.
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikipedia contributors, Culture, Date of last
revision: 19 September 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture.
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikipedia contributors, Globalization, Date of
last revision: 21 September 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization.
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikipedia contributors, Stereotype, Date of
last revision: 20 September 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype.
63
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, Wikipedia contributors, Sustainability, Date of
last revision: 19 September 2011, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability.
World Poverty and Human Rights Online, A Spotlight on Global Sustainable
Development: Can Certain Aspects Turn Out to Be Damaging for the Poor?,
www.wphr.org/2010/maryna-trubitsyna/a-spotlight-on-global-sustainabledevelopment-can-certain-aspects-turn-out-to-be-damaging-for-the-poor/.
World
Values
Survey
Association,
World
Values
Survey:
http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/.
Wigmore A, Ruiz M. Sustainability assessment in higher education institutions.
The
stars
system.
Ramon
Llull
http://www.rljae.org/text.asp?2010/1/1/25/70654.
64
J
Appl
Ethics
2010,
Appendix
The Appendix contains the three surveys filled out by Michael Gabriel, Ferit Timor
and Jaem Heath.
65
This survey is being carried out as part of the Master’s project entitled "Cultural differences and
how they affect the vision and practice of sustainability” at the Berlin School of Economics and
Law by Libby Bunn. The survey is designed to collect experience-based information. Please
answer the questions below.
General information
1. Name
Michael Gabriel
2. Name of your organization/company
Mercy Corps
3. Brief description of organization/company
Mercy Corps is a nonprofit international relief and development organization currently employing
3,400 team members who, with our partners, serve more than 14.4 million people in 42 countries.
Since 1979, Mercy Corps has provided $1.5 billion in assistance to people in 100 nations. Over 90
percent of the agency’s resources are allocated to programs that help people in need. Our
programs are supported by headquarters and administrative offices in the United States and
Scotland, Belgium and Canada.
4. Your job title and a brief description of your responsibilities
Country Director, Myanmar.
The Country Director (CD) is the senior management position for Mercy Corps in Myanmar with
supervisory and managerial responsibility over designated in-country personnel, programs and
policies. The CD is responsible for ensuring staff safety and security, provides overall leadership
and direction to the Security Management Team, and ensures compliance with the Mercy Corps
Myanmar Safety and Security Plan and Minimum Operating Security Standards. The CD is
responsible for developing and implementing the overall strategic plan for programming in
cooperation with Mercy Corps’ senior management team and local and international partners;
developing proposals and pursuing funding opportunities; cultivating donor relations; and
66
overseeing program implementation. S/he is also responsible for implementing systems, policies
and procedures for Mercy Corps’ operations in Myanmar according to donor and agency
regulations. The CD will oversee management of all field office functions ensuring high quality
performance from staff and program delivery focused on planned results, ensuring offices are
using sound programmatic and operational practices. The CD is responsible for ensuring Mercy
Corps registration in country including MOUs with the government and ensuring we are compliant
with OFAC regulations. The CD’s role is to navigate ways to work that are legal and responsive to
the needs of Myanmar population.
4. In what situations do you work in a cross-cultural environment on sustainability issues? Please
describe (i.e. project based, in-country, etc.)
My situation is best described as in-country but also project based.
Cultural context
1. What is your cultural background? i.e. where are you from, where did you grow up, what
languages do you speak, have you lived abroad and, if so, for how long?
I am from a dead suburb of a dead city in a dying country. I speak several languages at a basic
level (Albanian, Macedonian, Japanese, and French) and am somewhat higher in Spanish.
2. What country do you work in?
Myanmar.
3. What is the cultural background of the people you work with? This could be either as part of
your organization or on a specific project that involves sustainability issues and several different
cultures.
All the staff of Mercy Corps Myanmar are from Myanmar except for three other expats:
Cambodian, Filipino, and Indonesian.
Sustainability and vision
5. Does your organization / company have a defined sustainability policy? Or, if you work on a
project basis, do the projects explicitly uphold sustainable principles?
How We Work
“Societies…can only be rescued from within. In every society there are people working for change,
but usually they are defeated by the powerful forces working against them. We should be helping
the heroes” (Paul Collier, “The Bottom Billion”). In more than 25 years of experience on the
67
ground, Mercy Corps has learned that communities recovering from war or social upheaval must
be the agents of their own transformation for change to endure. Sustainable social change
requires communities, governments and businesses to solve shared problems in a spirit of
accountability and full participation. Secure, productive and just communities arise only when all
three sectors work together in close cooperation.
Our Vision for Change, based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is that peaceful,
secure and just societies emerge when the private, public, and civil society sectors are able to
interact withaccountability, inclusive participation and mechanisms for peaceful change.
6. If so, is there a shared vision of sustainability at all levels of your organization or among all
project participants? If so, what is it?
Mercy Corps’ mission is to alleviate suffering, poverty and oppression by helping people build
secure, productive and just communities across the globe.
Our Vision for Change, based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is that peaceful,
secure and just societies emerge when the private, public, and civil society sectors are able to
interact with accountability, inclusive participation and mechanisms for peaceful change.
The Vision for Change framework is a visual representation of critical stakeholders, behaviors and
external conditions in the operating environment. We believe that effective interaction between
these elements will enable us to achieve our mission.
Our global program platform enables us to deliver high quality, community-led and market-driven
programs. Our team of social entrepreneurs is able to work in the toughest environments, where
we seek to tailor solutions to the specific context of each community. We know the global
challenges we face require solutions that are financially sustainable with the potential for large
scale impact that transcends regions and borders, so we seek to identify, test and scale wherever
possible those breakthrough social innovations that can extend the influence and impact of our
programs.
We also believe in the need for concerted action to eliminate global poverty, hunger and conflict.
We seek to inspire and motivate citizens in all our programs to take action through advocacy,
volunteerism or lifestyle changes.
Young people are essential to catalyzing and sustaining positive change and are especially
important to engage in the effort of finding global solutions. Their energy and commitment will
ensure we continue the positive trend of reducing poverty, conflict and hunger around the world.
68
This Strategic Framework serves to align the various parts of our growing, global agency within a
common framework animated by our mission, vision for change and global strategy.
The Global Environment (this section is in the process of being completed) provides a brief
analysis of the principal challenges and opportunities we face in the fast moving transitional
contexts in which we work.
Is there a shared vision of sustainability at all levels of your organization or among all project
participants? If so, what is it?
“At all levels” probably means senior management, program management and program field staff.
I can say that we provide an orientation for all new staff that includes a brief description of our
“Vision for Change”. Do they understand the importance of connecting civil society with the private
sector and public sector in the same way that our vision describes it, I doubt it. People here are
used to submit to local government as the local face of a military dictatorship, and they are used to
the corruption. We’re not yet at the stage of getting local staff used to the practice of democracy,
getting them to “speak up” to local government to freely give input on governance issues. We still
need to be very careful what we say to government in Myanmar. So the Vision for Change, our
model for sustainability, does guide our programming but it cannot be fully practiced. In other
countries where I’ve worked it was possible to connect regular members of the community with
local authorities (as part of the democratization work we did in Macedonia and Afghanistan). In
Macedonia, staff members understood the purpose of that. In Afghanistan I think they were very
confused as to why we would waste our time trying.
7. In your experience, are there cultural differences in sustainability as a concept? If so, please
give examples?
Yes because sustainability is an English word. Looking even within Anglophone development
there are differences in the interpretation of sustainability, going back to the Rio accord in 1990 (or
91?). It was meant to imply a sustainable use of natural resources for economic and social gain
but it is often used to imply economic sustainability (continued profit) or social sustainability (not
going against accepted social norms in a given culture). Naturally, non-native English speakers in
the developing countries where we work take their cues from development professionals and end
up equally confused.
I remember reading an English-language newspaper in Nepal in 1998 where the term
‘sustainability’ seemed to be peppered throughout just about every article. One article was about
how needle distribution for drug addicts was a terrible policy because it was not sustainable. I
thought that was interesting because at that time my exposure to the concept of sustainability, at
that time, was solely related to sustainable development as described in Rio, so I felt that the term
sustainability had gone pretty far down the path of linguistic corruption and uselessness. Soon I
69
started seeing use of the term to refer to resource extraction projects having profit beyond a
certain period of time, or able to return enough to investors to make the investment worthwhile.
At my workplace, in Myanmar and other countries, local NGOs use the term sustainability as a
way to market themselves as being fluent in the language of development, but local NGOs (NGOs
from the country) do not often have a robust process of translating vision statements into program
strategies and implementation with much consistency. In Macedonia we funded a local
environmental NGO and built an NGO center on Lake Ohrid for them. One year later I asked them
what they were doing about the Ohrid trout which was becoming endangered and they said they
weren’t doing anything and they had no plans to. The overfishing of the trout was one of the most
visible environmental issues in the country at that time and could easily have gotten funding for a
local NGO to initiate a program to reduce overfishing and overconsumption. But the structure of
local NGOs in developing countries is often not conducive to relevance, so consistent
implementation of a vision promoting sustainability is often lacking.
8. In your opinion is the concept of sustainability relevant in the context you work in? If not, why?
Absolutely. Mainly because aid funding is extremely low in Myanmar due to the unwillingness of
donors to commit much funding to a country with such poor and hostile governance. Therefore,
resources should be committed with sustainability in mind, to reduce wastage.
Sustainability and practice
8. Are environmental goals (e.g. reducing resource use, preserving biodiversity, conserving
energy, waste reduction, etc.) incorporated into the projects you work on? If so, how are they
defined?
Not explicitly; donor preferences often dictate a distinction between programming for health or
economic outcomes vs. environmental ones. However, the concept of “Do No Harm” is very strong
within the aid community and our organization. One example can be seen in the recovery work
many NGOs did after 2008’s Cyclone Nargis. Fishing communities were very hard hit and many
agencies immediately committed significant resources to replace the lost assets of fishermen –
nets and boats mainly. By the second year, before most fishermen had resumed their previous
livelihoods, there was an awareness in the aid community that we didn’t have all the facts: giving
too many nets meant overfishing close to shore, and there was a reported depletion of certain
fisheries. This led to many agencies, including mine, backing away from such activities. No one
has the resources to undertake an in-depth assessment of fish stocks, a huge undertaking.
70
Mercy Corps also has an official policy statement: Our climate, environmental and natural
resources management (NRM) programming is adapted for the transitional situations in which we
work. Programming has successful crosscutting relationships with other sectors such as Disaster
Risk Reduction, Food Security and Agriculture. There is also a clear synergy with our market
development and conflict management programming. All of these sectors interact with and are
affected by local and international environmental conditions as well as access to natural
resources. In these contexts, addressing the competition for natural and environmental resources
while building a sustainable livelihood base are key program areas, in both urban and rural
settings.
9. Are these goals generally accepted across cultures? If not, why not?
As a general statement, no. Poverty and economic development often take ‘visceral’ priority
although official government policy (unenforced) may agree with the precepts of NRM. Similarly,
the poorest people who rely the most upon natural resources for their livelihood understand the
importance of sound management practices, but day-to-day survival often results in a ‘tragedy of
the commons’ approach to resource utilization.
9. Are social goals (e.g. good working conditions, equal opportunity, fair pay, tolerance, etc.)
incorporated into the projects you work on? If so, how are they defined?
Partially. “Good working conditions” is a broad term that includes concern for occupational safety.
Our cash programming in early recovery work (paying cash to people to clean the debris from their
villages, for example) included providing workers with work gloves and rubber boots. No one used
them, so we didn’t continue that spending line. People’s practices in developing countries are not
the same as practices as in developed countries.
Fair pay. The cash-for-work programming attempts to pay people the same daily wages they
earned before the disaster. See following excerpt from our Cash-for-Work Programming Guide:
The eventual success or failure of a CfW program is often a function of the care taken in setting
the wage rate. It must be sufficient to inject needed cash flow into the local economy without
causing unwanted economic ramifications such as price fluctuation, dependency, or competition
with local producers. In order to minimize market distortion, the agency needs to ascertain wage
rates for skilled and unskilled labor before and after the disaster through cooperation with
government, local leaders, and/or local business people. The wage should usually be fixed at an
amount lower than the market rate to ensure that CfW projects attract the most economically
disadvantaged individuals. A general target is 10%-20% lower than the regular market rate. If
71
wages are too high, CfW projects may entice people away from their regular livelihood activities.
However, in the immediate aftermath of a large-scale disaster, the majority of employment
activities may be interrupted. In this case, it may be appropriate to adopt wage rates comparable
or even superior to those previously in existence to rapidly reintroduce economic activity.
Surveys of the local economy, including an overview of market prices and the availability of
employment, should be performed on a regular basis throughout the project to ensure that CfW
wages stay at the appropriate level. In instances where local businesses continue to have
difficulties hiring sufficient laborers because of competition with CfW programs, aid agencies
should either restrict the number of participants, decrease the number of days worked or reduce
wages. An inquiry into the condition of the local market and wage rate appropriateness should
include the following steps:
• Establish market prices for basic commodities. Determining the prices for basic commodities
helps ensure that the wages set by the agency are not too low to meet the basic needs of
participating households. In disasters and emergencies, the cost of living often rises.
• Compare the wages other agencies are providing for similar projects and ensure coordination. It
is important to consult other agencies implementing CfW in the same areas about their CfW wage
structure. Differences in wage levels may create disputes between communities.
12 mercycorps.org
• Determine how the pay rates will be measured – There are three main options for determining
how payment is made. The choice will depend on the context:
a) Payment per unit:
• Advantage: Pay per unit (e.g. number of acres cleared, houses built or kilometers cleaned)
establishes a clear pay unit.
• Disadvantage: It requires more oversight, and requires a reliable supervisory staff who ensures
all workers are being compensated appropriately.
b) Payment per specified timeframe: This formula estimates the amount of time it should take to
complete a certain job and make payments only for that number of days.
• Advantage: This sets a clear timeframe for each activity and lessens the risks of laborers
deliberately prolonging the project.
• Disadvantage: Because this type of pay rate rests on an output-based system, more oversight is
needed to ensure that the program is on schedule.
c) Payment as daily wage:
• Advantage: This rate allows for flexibility and is often utilized with projects of undefined duration.
• Disadvantage: Because it is not output-oriented or tied to deadlines, this form of payment can
stretch out for a considerable amount of time and does not necessarily achieve infrastructure
aims.
72
Related to the question of fairness, one of our projects uses the contract-farming approach.
Please see following excerpt from one of our current projects, entitled “Beyond Recovery:
Promoting Market-led, Pro-poor Economic Growth in the Ayeyarwady Delta.”
Contract Farming: Risk Management and Farmer Protection Framework
Contract farming has significant benefits for both the farmers and sponsors (investors). However,
with these advantages also come problems.
Advantages for farmers
•
Inputs and production services are often supplied by the sponsor
•
This is usually done on credit through advances from the sponsor
•
Contract farming often introduces new technology and also enables farmers to learn new
skills
•
Farmers’ price risk is often reduced as many contracts specify prices in advance
•
Contract farming can open up new markets which would otherwise be unavailable to small
farmers
Problems faced by farmers
•
Particularly when growing new crops, farmers face the risks of both market failure and
production problems
•
Inefficient management or marketing problems can mean that quotas are manipulated so
that not all contracted production is purchased
•
Sponsoring companies may be unreliable or exploit a monopoly position
•
The staff of sponsoring organizations may be corrupt, particularly in the allocation of
quotas
•
Farmers may become indebted because of production problems and excessive advances
Methods to reduce risk for farmers:
1.
Contract (assured sale of product)
2.
Knowledge (GAP for new cropping strategies, such as early planting to capture soil
moisture after the rainy season; deep plowing to allow deep-rooting plants to properly spread; and
raised beds to prevent waterlogging).
73
Ways to protect farmers’ rights (from exploitation by agri-businesses with unfavorable contract
terms) and to protect agribusiness firm (from risk of side-selling or other risk):
1.
Transparent and accountable group formation.
2.
Ensure awareness of value chain relationships.
3.
Attention to the contract by facilitating agency (Mercy Corps). Adoption of internationally
accepted good practice in pro-poor contract farming as exemplified in the Fairtrade standards.
4.
Frequent monitoring of producers and of buyer (agribusiness firm) by facilitating agency
and by each party.
Fairtrade
There are several reasons why the Fairtrade model can be used as a guide for the pro-poor
contract farming approach used in “Beyond Recovery: Promoting Market-led, Pro-Poor Economic
Growth”.
1.
The objective of the project is to link producers with markets for improved income for
farmers. Fairtrade potentially offers an interesting opportunity for Myanmar farmers, including
niche market access and value chain financing, so this opportunity should be further explored.
2.
If we determine that Fairtrade will not be a viable option, still the benefits of applying FT’s
internationally recognized standards for pro-poor contract farming are useful to guide project
implementation. MC’s objective is to link marginalized, small-scale producers with markets, and
contract farming is increasingly used as a model for that. Protections need to be in place to ensure
that the economic benefits accrue to the farmer as much as to the traders, buyers, wholesalers
and retailers. Fairtrade has brought together a wide range of stakeholders over the past decade to
set and improve realistic standards for use in contract farming arrangements.
Fairtrade’s mission statement:
“To connect disadvantaged producers and consumers, promote fairer trading conditions and
empower producers to combat poverty, strengthen their position and take more control of their
lives.”
Small producers can participate in Fairtrade if they have formed producer organizations
(cooperatives, associations or other types of organization) that are able to engage in commercial
activities, contribute to the environmentally sustainable social and economic development of their
members and of their communities, and which are democratically controlled by their members.
Currently, Fairtrade support and certification under the standards for contract production are only
applicable for Basmati rice and cotton farming in India and dried fruit and cotton in Pakistan.
Discussion with the FLO is necessary to ascertain whether Fairtrade could indeed be formally
74
applied in Myanmar, followed then by a deeper analysis of domestic political constraints and
export market demand (along with the formulation of a realistic business model that accounts for
the profit-sharing with government in the form of Myanmar’s unique export tax structure). In the
end it is not likely, given the high cost of exporting from Myanmar, that a successful Fairtrade
business model can be developed. However, the possibility is strong enough that it is worth
exploring. Fairtrade certification exists for rice, pulses and vegetables, and the producers and
firms benefiting from Fairtrade marketing strategies are not inherently different from the farmers
and social enterprise(s) participating in “Beyond Recovery”.
The
Generic
Fairtrade
Standards
for
Contract
Production
(version
15.01.2010,
www.fairtrade.net/standards.html ) provide a number of standards useful for contracting in the
proposed intervention.
10. In your projects is priority given to public participation, open conflict resolution, transparent
communication, individual accountability? If so, do these approaches work well in a multicultural
environment? If not, please give examples.
Following is an excerpt from our Guide to Community Mobilization. This approach is central to our
way of working and we attempt to incorporate it as much as possible, which is often a lot. In
environments such as Afghanistan it can be trying to include women in community discussions,
but we find a way. Having separate meetings for women, followed by a joint meeting with
bedsheets hung as dividers in the meeting place, is a good example of a fairly simple solution.
Mercy Corps’ mission of promoting secure, productive and just communities is supported by our
strategic vision of “transforming transitional environments through community-led and marketdriven initiatives.” So what does it mean to be community-led and just how is that accomplished?
Mercy Corps believes that a community-led initiative is one that originates from community
members and is managed by community members. Mercy Corps, as the catalyst, is wholly
accountable to that community in order to achieve their vision. Community mobilization is the
process of building community capacity to identify their own priorities, resources, needs, and
solutions in such a way as to promote representative participation, good governance,
accountability, and peaceful change.
From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, and from cash-for-work to natural resource management, Mercy
Corps applies community mobilization techniques to facilitate the process of citizens organizing for
positive social change. Sustained mobilization takes place when communities remain active and
empowered after the program ends. Final evaluations from a decade of implementation
experience and post-program research help us understand the community-level transformation
and what changes last.
75
Is priority given to public participation, open conflict resolution, transparent communication,
individual accountability? If so, do these approaches work well in a multicultural environment? If
not, please give examples.
In my work in Macedonia, Afghanistan, Indonesia and Myanmar, public participation was a central
part of our implementation approach. Field staff are trained in community mobilization methods,
organize a meeting with community leaders, and then together organize a larger community
meeting open to everyone. The purpose of the community meeting is to help ensure transparency
by directly communicating with as many community members as possible; to listen to their priority
needs and interests; the get them to take ownership of the program; to appoint a project
committee and help ensure accountability. What works is that some people get it, that they can
use their own voice for perhaps the first time ever. It plants a seed in the community. But it’s not
instant democracy, it takes time. We cannot expect that in a country like Myanmar, where people
have never been able to speak up and they have good reason to fear reprisals after Mercy Corps’
project is finished, it’s difficult to get people to speak up about issues of structural inequality but at
least they can speak up about their immediate needs and feel listened to for the first time (we
need water, we need livestock, etc; but they cannot say ‘the government does not provide good
healthcare or education”, for example). In Macedonia, the problem was getting people over their
cynicism. The pervasive sense that “government is totally corrupt and they will never change, it
doesn’t matter which party wins they’re all a bunch of crooks” meant that it was difficult to get
people genuinely involved in projects. That’s why it’s often better to focus on young people (16-30)
because they’re open to new ways of social organizing.
How does these things work in a multi-cultural environment; it depends on the society. If we look
at local NGOs in urban Myanmar (Yangon), it’s fine. These are NGO professionals who
understand that Burmese and non-Burmese need to coexist and that the aid community expects
cooperation and collaboration to prevail in the NGO community. However, in post-war Macedonia
it was often difficult getting Albanians and Macedonians to participate on projects. In Aceh after
the tsunami, the local ethnic group, the Acehnese, were extremely distrustful of Indonesians who
came to help after the tsunami. Even within Mercy Corps, the Aceh staff made it very clear that
they did not want them. Their resentment was understandable because Aceh had experienced
decades of brutal repression by the Indonesian government because of the Acehnese
independence movement, and they only saw that very dark side of Indonesian authority. Even
after the tsunami, it took time for the government to welcome outside assistance because Aceh
was under martial law at that time. We tried to set up a staff committee so local staff could discuss
work-related issues together. But staff members from Aceh (who were the majority obviously)
refused to use that mechanism to discuss their problems, because there were Indonesians
present and they didn’t trust them. They ended up going on strike, because they had no
76
experience with non-violent conflict resolution and transparent communication.
Your question seems to focus on field implementation issues but in fact questions about conflict
resolution and accountability are played out more often within the organization. One of the things
we’ve done in Myanmar is introduce HAP training for our staff and our partners. HAP is the
“Humanitarian Accountability Project”.
HAP Seven Accountability Principles
1.Commitment to respect and promote the rights of legitimate humanitarian claimants
2. State the standards that apply in their humanitarian assistance work
3. Inform beneficiaries about these standards, and their right to be heard
4. Meaningfully involve beneficiaries in project planning, implementation, evaluation and
reporting
5. Demonstrate compliance with the standards that apply in their humanitarian assistance
work through monitoring and reporting.
6. Enable beneficiaries and staff to make complaints and to seek redress in safety.
7. Implement these principles when working through partner agencies.
And we focus on the first benchmark, “The agency shall establish a humanitarian quality
management system.” Part of that is to make sure staff understand all of the quality standards we
have in place, such as adherence to Sphere Standards and the Code of Conduct for The
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief. We also tried
to go further to implement People In Aid’s ‘Code of Good Practice’, which has the following
principles: The health, safety and security (Principle Seven) of staff is ensured by the training
(Principle Six) which follows effective recruitment (Principle Five). None of these processes will be
effective without mechanisms to communicate with staff (Principle Four) about their role in the
organization (Principle Three) and without the policies to support them (Principle Two). All of this
requires a budget and a plan which derive from a central strategy (Principle One).
11. In your experience do cultural differences contribute to or hinder the success of projects?
Please explain
They contribute. Poor socio-economic indicators often prevail in places where cultural
homogeneity is the norm, although it is not the driving force. The introduction of innovative ideas
and approaches is often the content or result of the meeting of cultures. Cultural differences
among team members can be a hindrance as well. I have a very intelligent staff member whose
communication style is direct and open. This clashes terribly with the very polite, passive and
indirect (passive-aggressive) style typical of Burmese. Because she is from a minority group the
Burmese deem “rude” her opinions are disregarded, even though they are often correct. Working
to help team members respect cultural differences within the larger Myanmar context (as opposed
77
to politely respected foreign cultures) is a long a difficult job, mainly because they will never admit
that they need to respect non-Burmese cultures (of minority groups in Myanmar).
In Macedonia, having an ethnic Albanian project officer helping to organize a community project in
an ethnically Macedonian town, or vice-versa, would have impeded the success of projects so we
hired 2 project officers. Then one of them, the Albanian, resigned so we only had one, a
Macedonian, who had to organize meetings in Albanian communities. Being from an urban,
educated, Christian family, it was difficult for him to relate to the rural, uneducated Muslims in
Albanian villages. He handled it by being unfaultingly polite and patient, and far more tolerant of
their inability to achieve higher standards of participation than he would be in an urban
Macedonian community. In this case, the cultural differences were not beneficial to all of the
project’s objectives but the fact that Albanians experienced an urban Macedonian person actively
engaging them for a community development project achieved a higher goal of building trust
between ethnic groups after an ethnic conflict.
78
This survey is being carried out as part of the Master’s project entitled "Cultural
differences and how they affect the vision and practice of sustainability” at the
Berlin School of Economics and Law by Libby Bunn. The survey is designed to
collect experience-based information. Please answer the questions below.
General information
1. Name
Ferit Temur
2. Name of your organization/company
Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
3. Brief description of organization/company
4. Your job title and a brief description of your responsibilities
Development Expert for Integrated Coastal Resources Management
Capacitating several agencies (Macajalar Bay Development Alliance, Local Municipalities,
Peoples Organisations and Academe Institutions) in Coastal Zone Management and IEC
campaign for Coastal Ecoystems
4. In what situations do you work in a cross-cultural environment on sustainability issues? Please
describe (i.e. project based, in-country, etc.)
My office is based in Xavier University- Macajalar Bay Development Alliance, Project Management
Office. I advise several stakeholders with different interests and background in coastal zone
management and conservation of coastal ecosystems. The cross- cultural environment is also
locally (Philippines) not only coming from another country. In general we all agree based on
research and assessment of the coastal resources, we must do something and there are several
79
programs and organizations (national and as well also international) involved with different
background and experiences working with local stakeholders.
Cultural context
1. What is your cultural background? i.e. where are you from, where did you grow up, what
languages do you speak, have you lived abroad and, if so, for how long?
I am native born Turkish. My parents leave turkey in end of 1960 to Germany. I grow up in Turkey
(Elbistan) and come in 1982 to Berlin (west). I speak Turkish, German and English. I spent little
time in Spain (3 Month), in USA (3 Month), in Philippines (6 Month in 1995-1996), in Thailand (3
Month 1996), In Philippines (2002 to 2008) and currently again in the Philippines (2011- 2013).
2. What country do you work in?
In the Philippines- Misamis Oriental (Mindenao)- Cagayan de Oro City
3. What is the cultural background of the people you work with? This could be either as part of
your organization or on a specific project that involves sustainability issues and several different
cultures.
Most people are very deeply “catched” in systems here- its religious (catholic), institutional and
political. So called Barkada System (school, same town, same university, same church etc.). But
most places are similar!!! Individual actions are very rare, its more on we do it- If an issue fails
than no one responsible. Its make sometimes very difficult to understand the main issue or
conflict, because most things are general and not specific. There is no “NO” but mostly a “YES”
which means NO. At same time people move things if they see also a big personal benefit (not
only in terms of monetary – more even in terms of social and political influence). Many issues work
more in relation to respected and powerful social groups or persons. Most political elite are at
same clan (family). Therefore it depends mostly also in their will.
Back to your sustainability question: I think it’s similar to everywhere, except in many developed
countries we have more independent institutions that drives the sustainability as here.
Sustainability and vision
5. Does your organization / company have a defined sustainability policy? Or, if you work on a
project basis, do the projects explicitly uphold sustainable principles?
Yes- GIZ has a sustainability police with specific measurements, M&E and Indicators are part of
80
any work plan and MOA with the stakeholders.
6. If so, is there a shared vision of sustainability at all levels of your organization or among all
project participants? If so, what is it?
The shared vision is formulated in the MOA and consists of improving institutional sustainability to
continue services regarding the improvement of the environment related to the living conditions of
the people in terms of income, poverty and knowledge. In addition ability to manage coastal
resources by community members itself. Project partners responsibility in terms of sustainability is
their financial as well also personnel commitment (Like annual financial, personal and technical
support for the Alliance by 14 Municipalities and several other stakeholders).
Linking all stakeholders with academe institutions to assist the project and the stakeholders with
research and new technologies.
7. In your experience, are there cultural differences in sustainability as a concept? If so, please
give examples?
No. Everyone uses the available resources as much as they can to feed their kids, to buy more
comfort as possible and to educate their kids as much their can. Most projects and programs in
terms of sustainability are concentrating in few areas where the pressure to the resources is high.
8. In your opinion is the concept of sustainability relevant in the context you work in? If not, why?
Yes. The diminished coastal resources with increasing human settlement and development in
coastal areas need the concept of sustainability to ensure good living conditions for everyone.
Sustainability and practice
8. Are environmental goals (e.g. reducing resource use, preserving biodiversity, conserving
energy, waste reduction, etc.) incorporated into the projects you work on? If so, how are they
defined?
Yes. We have an assessment of the current situation (2008) regarding fish resources, siltation of
rivers and coastal areas, development plans for the region (macajalar bay), population
development etc. Our goal is to create more effective Marine Protected Areas (including seagrass
beds, Mangroves, Wetlands etc.) – Landscape- Seascape Model, to make the coral reefs,
seagrass beds, mangrove more resilience to climate change and continuing populations growth as
81
well also economic development.
Goals are: Creation of Marine Protected Area Networks (larval movement through the ocean
current system from one area to another area); Mangrove reforestation for filtering the sediments
and pollution from land, additional resources for the fisher (invertebrates) and nurseries for coral
fishes: Seagrass beds to same function.
9. Are these goals generally accepted across cultures? If not, why not?
Accepted yes but the will to act fast and now is not a common vision by all stakeholders. Mostly
the goals are not communicated all the way to the level of resource users. Due to the lack of
resources and law enforcement there is a lot of pressure to misuse the resources. Illegal fishing,
illegal mining, illegal cutting of mangroves, uncontrolled pollution into the coastal waters (industry
as well as also settlements- No sanitation systems)
9. Are social goals (e.g. good working conditions, equal opportunity, fair pay, tolerance, etc.)
incorporated into the projects you work on? If so, how are they defined?
Yes- we try to ensure the involvement of various community members with equal conditions and
incentives to the involved parties. To avoid conflicts between the stakeholders trough a local
management team, where all interest groups are member is one model.
10. In your projects is priority given to public participation, open conflict resolution, transparent
communication, individual accountability? If so, do these approaches work well in a multicultural
environment? If not, please give examples.
Yes- all these are part of any project or even before the project starts. Individual accountability and
transparent communication is sometimes a problem. Theoretically these approaches works very
well, except there is a high expectation of stakeholders in terms of assistance and benefits. This is
a very deep in the political system and many NGOs and development agencies continue to “buy”
the will of local stakeholders. Many approaches are coming from outside and there are only few
regional approaches with low financial resources.
11. In your experience do cultural differences contribute to or hinder the success of projects?
Please explain
82
83
This survey is being carried out as part of the Master’s project entitled "Cultural
differences and how they affect the vision and practice of sustainability” at the
Berlin School of Economics and Law by Libby Bunn. The survey is designed to
collect experience-based information. Please answer the questions below.
General information
1. Name
Jáem Heath
2. Name of your organization/company
Atlan Training
3. Brief description of organization/company
Training in intercultural communications and project management in intercultural contexts for NGO
workers.
4. Your job title and a brief description of your responsibilities
Director. I am responsible for the program and for developing and maintaining the quality
management system.
4. In what situations do you work in a cross-cultural environment on sustainability issues? Please
84
describe (i.e. project based, in-country, etc.)
I am currently Chief of Project for a charter community in Ecuador that employs permaculture and
appropriate low-impact technologies to maintain a sustainable integrated human habitat.
Cultural context
1. What is your cultural background? i.e. where are you from, where did you grow up, what
languages do you speak, have you lived abroad and, if so, for how long?
I am American. My father is Irish and of mixed cultural background ( Irish, Basque, and Hawai'in ).
My mother is American and also of mixed cultural background ( Shawnee [ Indigenous American ]
and Scottish Mennonite ). I grew up in the Appalachian region, eastern mountains, of the US in a
riverine culture. I left the US when I was 14 and went to boarding school in Ireland and then
Gibraltar. I returned to the US for university, then moved to Wales. I've lived and worked in over a
dozen countries as an adult. I have lived abroad for most of my adult life. I speak Spanish and
French well. My level in Italian is intermediate. I once spoke Welsh at intermediate level. I am
currently learning German.
2. What country do you work in?
Spain, Germany, the US, and Ecuador.
3. What is the cultural background of the people you work with? This could be either as part of
your organization or on a specific project that involves sustainability issues and several different
cultures.
Completely mixed. I work with people from all cultures.
Sustainability and vision
5. Does your organization / company have a defined sustainability policy? Or, if you work on a
project basis, do the projects explicitly uphold sustainable principles?
Yes, my current project is explicitly focused on application of sustainable practices. The policies
85
are detailed and specific.
6. If so, is there a shared vision of sustainability at all levels of your organization or among all
project participants? If so, what is it?
Yes, the vision is shared and this is enforced. We apply principles of permaculture in community
management.
7. In your experience, are there cultural differences in sustainability as a concept? If so, please
give examples?
Yes, very much so. Different cultures hold very different precepts about commitment to fellow
humans and to the Earth as a shared ecosystem for which there is shared responsibility. In the
charter community in Ecuador, we have people from several diverse cultural backgrounds: North
American, European, Latin American, East Asian, Subsaharan African, and less often Filipinos.
Marked differences are observable in their attitudes toward personal sacrifice for the benefit of the
group as a whole, response to expectations to adhere to policies, and perception of their individual
responsibility to maintain and develop sustainable practices. For example, most Europeans,
especially northern Europeans and British, tend to prescribe to sustainable practices regulations
even when they disagree with them. They might be explicit in their disagreement, but prefer to use
establish processes to resolve differences and conflicts. North Americans are much more likely to
pursue their differences of opinion individually and without resort to agreed processes for conflict
resolution. Among the Latin Americans, it has often been expressed that sustainable practices that
involve sacrifice or are another form of imposition of northern cultural dominance, the idea being
that now that the Global North has disproportionately exploited the Earth's resources to the point
of overshoot, it is now demanding that the Global South make sacrifices to achieve sustainability.
8. In your opinion is the concept of sustainability relevant in the context you work in? If not, why?
Absolutely. It is the defining feature of the project.
Sustainability and practice
8. Are environmental goals (e.g. reducing resource use, preserving biodiversity, conserving
86
energy, waste reduction, etc.) incorporated into the projects you work on? If so, how are they
defined?
Absolutely. They are very specifically defined and the practices enforced through a system of
regulation and monitoring.
9. Are these goals generally accepted across cultures? If not, why not?
No, very definitely not. There are marked differences that can be culturally predicted. As
mentioned above, in the project in Ecuador, a large proportion of the Ecuadorians do not
recognize the value of sustainable practices and regard them as an imperial imposition from the
Global North. Many more self-defined progressive representatives of the Global North share this
view but would not accept degradation of the physical environment.
It is observable that there are significant differences among people of different cultures about the
Earth as Home, as a stressed Ecosystem, or as a planet in crisis. Those from the Global North
more tend to see the Earth in crisis and are very passionate about our responsibility to prevent
general system collapse, pull back from overshoot. Their perspective is planetary and it is
passionate. They embrace radical alternative models for economic shrinkage and advocate
coercive means to enforce environmental and human rights preservation. This is much less the
case among those from the Global South. The idea that the planet is severely damaged, that we
are in overshoot, that we face general system collapse seems hyperbolic. The East Asian workers
in the community had never been exposed to these ideas. Their perspective is not global or
planetary. It is local, community focused. Those from the Global South in particular are much less
likely to advocate strong restrictive legal measures to enforce new policies. Their approach is
more reliant on consensus and education.
9. Are social goals (e.g. good working conditions, equal opportunity, fair pay, tolerance, etc.)
incorporated into the projects you work on? If so, how are they defined?
Yes, definitely. We have a very detailed code of conduct for social policies. They are detailed in
written documents called "charters" and there is an enforcement and monitoring mechanism.
10. In your projects is priority given to public participation, open conflict resolution, transparent
communication, individual accountability? If so, do these approaches work well in a multicultural
87
environment? If not, please give examples.
Yes, to all of the above. This is explicit and encoded in the community project management
system. They work well in an intercultural setting to the extent that the enforcement is explicit and
transparent. If the codes of conduct are not explicitly enforced and communicated, there are
problems.
Those from the Global South are much less likely to participate in open fora for conflict resolution.
Explicit outspoken communication for conflict resolution is abhorrent to them and as a result,
meetings can appear to be dominated by those from the Global North, where conflict
"transformation" through standard nonviolent communication models is familiar and culturally
acceptable. On the other hand, the use of multiple committees to reach consensus through more
guided hierarchical models of communication, which are much more comfortable and normative
for those from the Global South, are rejected by those from the Global North as not being
democratic enough, and requiring too much time and energy.
11. In your experience do cultural differences contribute to or hinder the success of projects?
Please explain
Cultural differences definitely enhance the success of projects when, and only when, those
cultural differences are openly recognized and appreciated. Good communication creates
synergy. On the other hand, without the strong emphasis on well-managed communications,
cultural differences lead to frustration and slow decision-making, as mentioned above. In order to
make sustainable practices development and management successful, it is necessary to first train
participants in the use of communication models that are acceptable to all. This is very challenging
because the standard nonviolent, empathic, active listening communication models that are the
basis of collaborative work and conflict transformation for those from the Global North are not
seen as acceptable to those from the Global South. This need to integrate communication styles
and attitudes toward transparency and systems of accountability and authority is ongoing and
critically important.
88