Semi 2 Manuscript

Fostering a Sustainability-First Organizational

Culture in Alternative Banking – An Ethnographic
Approach and Management Recommendations

Michael Grinick

Department of Management and Organization

Hanken School of Economics

Helsinki

2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Motivation ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research Problem............................................................................................. 3
1.3 Research Aim .................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Structure of the Manuscript ............................................................................. 4
2 Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Sustainable Development and Recent Developments in the Banking Sector . 6
2.1.1 Sustainable Development Goals in Banking ............................................ 6
2.1.2 Global Reporting Initiative ....................................................................... 8
2.1.3 Sustainable Organizing............................................................................10
2.2 Alternative Banking ......................................................................................... 12
2.2.1 Ethical Concerns and Issues with Traditional Banking .......................... 12
2.2.2 Risk Management of Banks ..................................................................... 12
2.2.3 Elements of Alternative Banking............................................................. 12
2.3 Organizational Culture for Sustainability ....................................................... 12
2.3.1 Organizational Culture ............................................................................ 12
2.3.1.1 Definitions of Culture .......................................................................... 12
2.3.1.2 Levels of Organizational Culture ......................................................... 13
2.3.1.3 Approaches to Organizational Culture Research ................................ 15
2.3.1.4 Role of Culture .....................................................................................18
2.3.1.5 Types of Organizational Culture ..........................................................18
2.3.1.6 Elements/Dimensions of Organizational Culture ...............................18
2.3.1.7 Culture as an Enabler of Corporate Strategy .......................................18
2.3.2 Framework for Sustainable Culture Management in Banking ...............18
2.3.2.1 Observation of Culture in Banking ......................................................18
2.3.2.2 Creation of a Sustainability-Oriented Mindset ...................................18
2.3.2.3 Organizational Drivers for Sustainable Change ..................................18
2.3.2.4 Culture for Sustainability ....................................................................18
2.3.2.5 Framework Synthesis ..........................................................................18
3 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 19
3.1 Research Design .............................................................................................. 19
3.2 Sampling ......................................................................................................... 20
3.3 Data Collection ................................................................................................ 21
4 Data Analysis and Results ...................................................................................... 23
4.1 Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 23
4.2 Results ............................................................................................................ 23
4.3 Research Quality............................................................................................. 23
5 Discussion............................................................................................................... 25
5.1 Delimitations .................................................................................................. 25
6 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 28
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 27
 1

1 INTRODUCTION
The concern for environmental and social issues is growing globally and thereby reaching
all sectors of business, irrespectively of whether they have initially caused the underlying
issues or not. While this movement is commendable, it poses many challenges for the
corporate world to align business practices with sustainability goals.

With different sustainability initiatives appearing throughout the years, guidelines were
issued for different sectors and industries, explaining how they can impact social and
environmental development and govern their enterprises in a way that enables a
sustainable future. One organization that is on the forefront of sustainable development
planning are the United Nations (UN). Most notably, the UN have issued a set of global
challenges, the so-called Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN s.a., Howard‐
Grenville et al. 2017). These goals comprise of different targets which can be applied to
certain sectors. The achievement of these targets is supposed to contribute to sustainable
development.

The UN assigns the banking sector with a special responsibility towards sustainable
development (UN s.a.). With the value of global financial assets lying at an estimated
$200 trillion USD and the global budget deficit for achieving the SDGs being around
$2,5 trillion USD per year, the role of banks in allocating these funds is constantly
highlighted (UN Secretary General 2019). The belief that banks hold great responsibility
when it comes to sustainable development is shared by researchers in the field of
sustainability and business ethics. Avrampou et al. (2019), for instance, point out the
vitality of banks for successfully achieving the SDGs as the implementation of all related
SDG targets requires significant amounts of capital and fund redistribution. Nowadays,
most large companies self-assess their SDG contributions as part of their non-financial
reporting and stakeholder communication (Avrampou et al. 2019) and most companies
subscribed to the UN Global Compact, an SDG reporting initiative, claim to be actively
contributing to the achievement of SDGs (UN Global Compact s.a.).

1.1 Motivation
The call for sustainability has been transcending all aspects of human life since the
beginning of this decade. This is partially due to wide definition and applicability of the
“sustainability” term. Sustainability was first theorized in the 1980s when the area of
research experienced its first spike in popularity (Repetto 1985, Caldwell 1984). Brown
et al. (1987) examine the concept of sustainability and review multiple definitions of
sustainability. They find that sustainability definitions vary depending on the context,
 2

which can range from biology, agriculture and capacity contexts to sustainable economy,
society, and development, with the latter being the most relevant in modern business
research contexts. The common denominator which Brown et al. note in their study is
that all definitions to some extent recognize the importance of continuous survival of the
human race on Earth.

This translates to life in the 2020s. Individuals find themselves confronted with
sustainability questions with every consumption decision, from a regular supermarket
visit to the purchase of a new home. Same goes for corporate entities who, in a timespan
of less than 5 years, must integrate sustainability throughout their whole value chain
because of stakeholder pressure, legislative guidelines, and economical necessity
(Garvare & Johansson 2010, Perrini & Tencati 2006). Individuals and companies are
therefore focused on maximizing their tangible sustainability contributions. Individuals
purchase items which they assume to have the best sustainability footprint to avoid
feelings of guilt and judgement by peers. Corporations follow legislative guidelines and
market their operations as highly sustainable in non-financial reports and by utilizing
sustainability frameworks which best satisfy their stakeholders.

However, growing sustainability concerns also provide opportunity for the emergence of
alternative business models. Alternative banking is a sector that has been growing
exponentially in the last years. While there is no universal definition as to what defines
an alternative bank, the Global Alliance for Banking on Values (GABV) describes
alternative banks as organizations that use finance to serve people and the planet (GABV
s.a.). The GABV is a global alliance of alternative banks that summarizes alternative
banking values and principles. Alternative banking is also often referred to as social
banking, green banking, or green finance. Different terminology might imply different
focus but industry-wide these properties are used interchangeably. For simplicity, I will
refer to banks that focus on transparency, environmental, social, and environmental
sustainability as alternative banks (GABV s.a.). Following the triple bottom line
approach, alternative banks maintain economic profitability while simultaneously
maximizing social and environmental impact and contributing towards the achievement
of the UN SDGs.

Research also finds that incisive global crises foster a change-oriented mindset in
management research, especially in the banking sector. Great strides were accomplished
after the global financial crisis in the late 2000s and early 2010s regarding societal and
responsible banking (Lagoarde-Segot 2017, Lagoarde-Segot & Paranque 2017, Carè
 3

2018). With the Covid-19 pandemic in the early 2020s, a further incisive global crisis
occurred which forced humanity to rethink and redefine its values, and most
importantly, made humanity confront its own mortality. This boosted individuals’
demand for sustainable solutions as they fear for the survival of their own kind.

Considering these recent global developments, a sharp change in the approach of

sustainability issues in banking is expected. Therefore, this study aims to understand
how alternative banks establish and maintain a sustainability-oriented organizational
culture which translates to sustainable actions. Thereafter, management
recommendations will be derived on how other financial institutions, such as banks or
similar, can augment their organizational culture to achieve greater social and
environmental impact.

1.2 Research Problem

The topic of sustainability in banking has received significant attention in this century.
As Aracil et al. (2021) highlight in their systematic literature review on sustainable
banking, the field is heterogenous, and thus various research fields show interest in the
development of sustainability practices in the banking sector. They find that the largest
contributors to sustainability banking research are business and management related,
with a growing contribution from the fields of environmental studies and ethics. Notably,
the significance of research from the field of finance seems to decrease in recent years
which motivates my study of sustainability strategies and practices in banking from a
management level perspective.

While research on banking from a traditional, theoretical perspective is comprehensive,

research on the operationalization of sustainability practices in the banking sector is still
scarce (Avrampou et al. 2019). One can, for instance, utilize stakeholder theory to
understand the devolution of sustainability from a global perspective to organizational
sustainability (Garvare & Johansson 2010). Further, one can discuss the role of banks
from an economic and ethical standpoint (Freeman 1994, Wicks 1996). However, an
integrated framework to discuss environmental and societal concerns from an
organizational perspective in the banking sector does not exist yet.

Banking constitutes an interest research field for sustainability since the conflict of
interests is eminent, often associated with the negative side of capitalism. The strive for
monetary gain, interest, and return are connotations affiliated with the common
perception with banking. This approach presumably could not coexist with ideas of
sustainability and ethics, resulting in the belief that sustainable finance is nothing but an
 4

oxymoron. Nevertheless, the financial sector has over the years managed to integrate risk
management throughout its value chain and researchers have worked on ideas on how
to overcome the ethical barriers of Finance, concepts that will be discussed later in this
study (Freeman 1994, Kolb 2010).

However, innovative concepts, such as alternative banking are on the forefront,

showcasing how banking operations fully integrate relevant sustainability issues as their
most vital decision-making anker (Benedikter 2011, Carè 2018). Since the ascent of these
concepts is very recent, literature on sustainable organizational culture in the banking
sector is still scarce. Sustainability reporting standards, such as the Global Reporting
Initiative (GRI), or upcoming EU taxonomy changes are supposed to nudge banks
towards sustainable investing but leave room for exploitive unsustainability (Moneva et
al. 2006, Dumay et al. 2010). Moreover, regulative guidelines do not directly impact the
individual’s desire to act sustainably. They function as directives which inhibit the
emergence of an intrinsic motivation or drive for sustainability.

To achieve long-term change and the desire for sustainability within a corporation,
management must consider the employees’ perspectives and perceptions and unify the
organization’s vision with the organizational members’ vision. Alternative banks are a
pioneer in creating organizational culture that embraces sustainable thinking. Therefore,
this paper aims to understand how a sustainability-first organizational culture is fostered
in alternative banks and how managers in other financial institutions can use these
learnings to improve sustainability within their organizations.

1.3 Research Aim

The research aim is to explore which strategies are used in the banking sector to
transition to more sustainable practices and how these practices can be facilitated.

Following are the two research questions (RQ) that this study aims to answer:

RQ 1: How do social banks foster a sustainability-first mindset/culture for

sustainability throughout their organization?

RQ 2: What are management takeaways for other financial institutions that want to
reorient their organizational culture?

1.4 Structure of the Manuscript

The structure of this Semi 1 manuscript is divided into 4 sections. After this introductory
part follows the literature review which sheds a light on relevant theoretical background
 5

information surrounding sustainable banking practices and transitional management.

This literature review will form the theoretical framework which depicts the basis for the
following methodology section. Lastly, section 4 illustrates the research schedule for the
remainder of the research seminar until the finalization of the thesis.
 6

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Sustainable Development and Recent Developments in the Banking
Sector
2.1.1 Sustainable Development Goals in Banking
The SDGs are a set of global challenges aiming to combat the environmental, social, and
financial issues that our planet faces (SDG Compass, s.a.). Businesses inherited a sizeable
function to play via the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The purpose of the
SDGs is to acquire international freedom from discrimination, injustice, and poverty, in
addition to a healthful planet for future generations (Agarwal et al. 2017). The SDGs
consist of 17 goals and 169 targets while goal 17 is often not considered in research due
to its synoptic function (Betti et al. 2018). They constitute a motion plan and offer a
worldwide framework aiming to stabilize environmental, economic, and social
sustainability (Mio et al. 2020). The environmental SDGs are associated with green
practices and a functioning environment. Goals associated with economics are designed
to enhance employment, GDP, and the propensity of the economy. Additionally, social
goals aim to initiate changes in health, welfare, quality of life, and protection of
individuals in communities (Anwar et al. 2019).

According to Biermann et al. (2017), the SDGs are a novel approach to global governance
because they deploy goal setting as key part of global strategy. They note that the goal
setting by the SDGs is unique through its inclusivity and non-binding nature. However,
Biermann et al. also reflect that the success of SDGs depends on a magnitude of factors,
most of them on national and institutional level. This confirms the reliance of global
governance on smaller-level players to achieve global challenges.

The introduction of the SDGs to the stage of sustainable management provides

businesses with additional motivation to operate sustainably, prioritizing operations that
result in benefit for the corporation, society, and environment. Researchers emphasize
that the consideration of sustainability issues and SDGs are detrimental to corporate
success (Bridges & Eubank 2020).

Hence, companies need to align core practices, such as reporting, communication, and
accounting with sustainability practices for the business to continuously succeed
(Agarwal et al. 2017).

Researchers find that banks play a crucial role in achieving the SDGs. So Avrampou et
al. (2019) argue that the role of the banking sector is crucial for sustainable development.
 7

The banking sector and its stakeholder are well-interconnected in the business world and
the redirection of capital has a tremendous impact on economic growth globally. The UN
estimates that a shift to a sustainable global economy requires at least $5 trillion in funds
per year (UN 2014). Funds that are mostly sourced from the private sector, including
banks. By redirecting capital in favor of sustainable businesses and under consideration
of social aspects, banks can drive development in their desired direction.

In their study, Avrampou et al. (2019) assess the focus of banks on the achievement of
SDGs by analyzing the non-financial reports of leading European banks. They find that
SDG contributions are highly heterogenous in the banking sector which suggests that
banks can actively choose which areas of environmental or social development to
support. Additionally, the study shows that strategical choices influence the degree and
area of SDG goal contribution and sustainability performance. This indicates that
strategy and culture management plays an important role in deciding and driving the
SDG performance in the banking sector and therefore impacts sustainable practices.

Avrampou et al. (2019) only notice a limited contribution to SDG targets in their study
which suggests room for improvement. The heterogenous nature of the contributions
additionally suggest an existing potential to contribute to a variety of SDG targets. While
the measurement of SDGs only allows for a limited evaluation of sustainability practices
within each bank, Avrampou et al.’s findings suggest the potential to utilize SDG target
contributions as a motivational asset from a managerial perspective. Therefore, the
alignment and benchmarking of practices to SDG target achievement can be beneficial
in driving and enabling facilitating sustainable practice within the banking organization.
It also suggests that non-financial reporting and SDG accountability can develop an
intrinsic motivation among employees to act more sustainably and influence
organizational culture.

Úbeda et al. (2022) research how the banking sector contributes to the achievement of
SDG 10 – Reducing Income Inequality. Like Avrampou et al. (2019), Úbeda et al. (2022)
acknowledge the importance of the banking sector in achieving the SDGs as they believe
it to be the most effective tool in reducing inequality. In their quantitative analysis of
1060 banks, they observe that sustainable banking can contribute to reduced inequality
by facilitating economic opportunities. Úbeda et al. (2022) believe in the banking sector’s
distributional impacts on economy which can drive investment in areas that promote
equality, such as health, education, and entrepreneurship. Their research results indicate
that banking, if intended, contributes to the achievement of SDGs.
 8

Cosma et al. (2020) agree with Avrampou et al. (2019) and Úbeda et al. (2022) on the
importance of banks in achieving the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs. Contrary to Úbeda et
al. (2022), Cosma et al. (2020) study European bank’s contribution to SDGs overall,
without focusing on a specific goal. They find that, according to their non-financial
reporting, banks contribute similarly to all SDGs. No big standouts were recorded.
Cosma et al. (2020) notice, however, that the country of origin, the legal system, as well
as the adoption of an integrated SDG report impacts the degree to which a bank
contributes to the SDGs. As the latter is the only factor directly in the sphere of influence
of the bank, Cosma et al. suggest that managers can utilize this knowledge to organize a
more sustainable corporation, in terms of SDG contributions.

2.1.2 Global Reporting Initiative

The Global Reporting Initiative is an organization founded in 1997 that helps businesses
taking responsibility for their impacts by providing guidelines and frameworks on how
to report and communicate their actions, mostly through non-financial reports (GRI
s.a.). The guidelines issued by the GRI, the so-called GRI Standards, are the most widely
used sustainability reporting guidelines among corporations and banks.

Researchers have assessed to which extent GRI Standards incorporate sustainable

behavior and vice versa how well sustainable actions are evaluated by the GRI Standards
and the resulting non-financial reports. This section aims to give an overview on GRI
Standards in the context of sustainable actions in business in general and banking
specifically.

Guthrie and Farneti (2008) analyze sustainability reporting among Australian

organizations whose reports follow GRI guidelines. They argue that GRI standards and
comparable sustainability reports have the possibility to be powerful tools in
management and planning as they allow for accountability of social and environmental
impacts.

Similarly, Ismail et al. (2021) study the application of GRI principles among companies
in Pakistan. They note that GRI reporting is a viable approach to understanding a
corporation’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) performance. Moreover, Ismail et
al. find that GRI principles can help Pakistani companies in providing CSR disclosures
and highlight that more organizations should utilize GRI Standards to report on their
CSR measures.
 9

These examples illustrate the global applicability of GRI Standards and how
standardized reporting principles facilitate the accountability for sustainable, or
unsustainable, actions while insuring transparency and comparability of results.
Nonetheless, researchers do not necessarily promote the blind adoption of GRI
Standards, at least not as sole evaluator for corporate sustainability contributions.

Early critique on the GRI Standards was expressed by Moneva et al. (2006) who show
that some entities who claim to be following GRI Standards do not report their social and
environmental responsibly. Moneva et al. argue that a serious possibility exists that
companies only follow the indicators prescribed by the GRI without realizing a positive
impact on sustainability. Since clear indicators exist in the GRI Standards which measure
the sustainability performance, companies are inclined to overperform on these
indicators, or even adjust their operations to suit certain indicators to achieve a good
score in the report. Meanwhile, companies might undermine these efforts in other areas
of business and thereby offset their positive contributions, an act that might not be
captured within the GRI reports. Moreover, Moneva et al. (2006) believe that
organization might only focus on one of multiple issues concerning sustainability and
disregarding others, as long as this provides better publicity for the organizations and
satisfies more stakeholders. Overall, they synthesize GRI Standards as on opportunity
for companies to camouflage their corporate unsustainability.

Guthrie and Farneti (2008) deepen Moneva et al.’s (2006) concern for the applicability
of GRI Standards as they study the GRI reporting by Australian public sector
organizations. Guthrie and Farneti find that organizations rather disclose data referring
to the labor practices category than data on the human rights or society category of the
GRI Standards. Additionally, the application of the GRI mandatory is fragmentary as
organizations cherry-pick which indicators to report. This suggests that organizations
are inclined to report on indicators that benefit their sustainability agenda instead of
reporting on all the indicators provided by the GRI. Further, a tendency exists to report
on non-monetary and declarative indicators which require no monetary commitment.
Therefore, the reports are more narrative in nature.

Subsequent research by Dumay et al. (2010) consolidates Guthrie and Farneti’s (2008)
concern for cherry-picking of GRI disclosure indicators and implies that GRI Standards
promote a managerial approach to sustainability by neglecting the relevance of actual
sustainability contributions by facilitating reporting and communication that favors the
organizations in question.
 10

Unlike the previously mentioned studies which focused more on the quality of the
reporting, Isaksson and Steimle (2009) review GRI Standards from a validity
perspective. They question whether the GRI reporting guidelines are true evaluators of
sustainable business. Their study shows that GRI Standards do not sufficiently reflect a
corporation’s sustainability performance. Isaksson and Steimle suggest that a report
according to GRI Standards does not suffice to understand how seriously a company is
tackling sustainability issue. Special meaning is given to customer needs and a customer-
oriented perspective which is not accounted for enough within the guidelines and
reports.

Summarizing, research on the GRI Standards implies that companies that are reporting
on sustainability should not cherry-pick between indicators but rather provide a
comprehensive sustainability report. This would enhance transparency and decrease the
risk for camouflaging of sustainability. Additionally, the GRI should continue to provide
more precise, industry- and sector-specific indicators to improve report integrity.
Nonetheless, GRI Standards should not be utilized as a solitary indicator for an
organization’s sustainability performance but rather seen as a trend-setting indicator
from an external perspective.

2.1.3 Sustainable Organizing

The previous sections explained the goal setting behind the UN 2030 Agenda, introduced
the SDGs, the role of the banking sector in achieving them, and discussed the efficiency
and implications of GRI Standards for non-financial reporting. This section aims at
assessing what constitutes a sustainable organization, mainly in relation to the SDGs.

Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. (2021) note that the engagement with the SDGs and the
resulting communication attracts significant media interest and boosts consumer
interest in the 2020s. The SDGs are one of the most prominent figureheads of
sustainable development and are therefore recognized by the public. Products and
service are well-advised to communicate their sustainability contributions through the
SDGs because this is what appeals the most to customers and clients.

To understand organization’s engagement with SDGs beyond external communication,

Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. (2021) assess how and why organizations commit to SDGs.
Their study shows that organizations rarely justify and prioritize their engagement with
specific SDGs. These organizations either communicate a general focus on SDGs or pick
a set of SDGs as priority without accounting for why these SDGs are particularly
important to their operation. This implicates that organizations still struggle to define
 11

material sustainability issues that are impacted by their business and hence also struggle
to define a set of material SDGs (Betti et al. 2018, Consolandi et al. 2020). Heras-
Saizarbitoria et al. (2021) believe companies must clarify their degree of engagement
with SDGs and disclose their motivation as well as material impact to avoid accusations
of “blue-washing” or “SDG-washing”.

Mansell et al. (2020) believe that the key to a sustainable organization is the integration
of the “triple bottom line”. This means that organization understands success as a
balance between economic, environmental, and social performance.

Another notion on how to integrate sustainability into organizations is the study of

materiality. Materiality depicts the notion of how important certain sustainability issues
are for individual businesses and investors (Khan et al. 2016). Therefore, sustainability
issues are categorized as material if they reflect the company’s significant economic,
environmental and social impacts (SDG Compass s.a.). The UN’s SDG compass (s.a.)
suggests that the focus on material issues is a focal point for effective reporting.
Companies are advised to structure and map their SDG reporting according to material
issues. Thereby, two dimensions must be considered: the significance of economic,
environmental, and social impacts and the influence on stakeholder assessments and
decisions (SDG compass s.a.). This ensures reporting credibility and transparency.

Academic research on the relationship between investor materiality and SDGs has been
performed by Betti et al. (2018) who design a framework to connect investor materiality
and the UN’s SDGs. The study aims at illustrating how the private sector and investors
can contribute to SDG achievement. The framework describes material Environmental,
Social, and Governance (ESG) issues for differing sectors and industries. Afterward, the
ESG issues are mapped to corresponding SDG targets. Results show that each sector
impacts some SDGs more than others. Thus, SDG contributions differ between sectors
and industries (Betti et al. 2018). This mapping and the depiction of SDG contribution
for each sector and industry facilitate judgments for investors who are looking to
diversify their investments according to SDG contributions.

Leon (2018) develops a framework to define the characteristics of a sustainable

knowledge-based organization. She concretizes a sustainable organization as an
organization that is stakeholder-oriented, resilient through economic turbulence,
develops its human capital, and fosters an organizational culture that promotes
environmental and social awareness. Leon makes a claim for a hybrid between
sustainable and knowledge-based organization as both share a similar philosophy. By
 12

integrating knowledge-based aspects such as close collaboration, employer

empowerment, and knowledge transfer, modern organizations could meet the demand
for changeability and adaption in times of uncertainty. Knowledge-transfer is crucial,
especially in the field of sustainability where new developments and guidelines require
fast adaption, creativity, and flexibility. Hence, the conversion of knowledge-based
values can be valuable for a sustainable organization.

2.2 Alternative Banking

2.2.1 Ethical Concerns and Issues with Traditional Banking
2.2.2 Risk Management of Banks
2.2.3 Elements of Alternative Banking
Socially Impact Bonds

Social Funds

Socially Responsible Investments

2.3 Organizational Culture for Sustainability

2.3.1 Organizational Culture
First research on organizational culture began to emerge in the late 1970s and early
1980s, though initial literature is ascribed to social science research fields, such as
sociology or psychology (Denison 1990). One of the most notable publications that
shaped organizational culture to be the research field we know today is Schein’s (1985)
“Organizational Culture and Leadership” which provides a definition of organizational
culture and assigns it with a role and purpose within an organization. This section will
cover contemporary definitions of organizational culture, assess its function, elements,
dimensions and discuss recent academic developments regarding interdependencies of
the culture and strategy tandem.

2.3.1.1 Definitions of Culture

Academic literature has provided an anthology of definitions for organizational culture
since the 1980s (Pathiranage et al. 2020). While definitions my vary between
researchers, they tend to acknowledge that organizational culture is as difficult to
understand as it is to apply (Alvesson 2012). Traditional literature on organizational
culture mostly refers to culture as an abstract concept and thus the definitions are vague.
For instance, Hofstede et al. (1990) synthesize 1980s researchers’ understanding of
organizational culture using the following six characteristics. Organizational culture is:

1) Holistic,
 13

2) Historically determined,

3) Anthropologically anchored,

4) Socially constructed,

5) Soft,

6) And difficult to change.

While these attributes are certainly valuable when distinguishing different appearances
of organizational culture, they do not define culture as management concept.
Nonetheless, Hofstede et al. (1990) document not only a qualitative, but also a
quantitative study of organizational culture across multiple corporations, demonstrating
the measurability of culture along multiple dimensions and laying the groundwork for
future studies on organizational culture and its impacts. Therefore, Hofstede et al.’s work
can be seen as a justification for contemporary qualitative and quantitative studies of
organizational culture.

According to Schein’s (1991, p. 313) formal definition, culture is the following:

1) A pattern of shared basic assumptions,

2) Invented, discovered, or developed by a given group,

3) As it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal

integration,

4) That has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore,

5) Is to be taught to new members of the group as the

6) Correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems.

Schein (1991) describes further implications of organizational culture as he argues that

the stability and strength of a cultural system is determined in its temporal and historical
commitment. Internal consistency, as well as learning experiences and mechanisms also
influence an organization’s identification and maintenance of culture.

2.3.1.2 Levels of Organizational Culture

Moreover, Schein (1991) depicts three levels of manifestation of organizational culture.
He considers manifestations to be the aspects of culture that can be experienced when
 14

interacting with an organization’s members. The three levels are observable artifacts,
values, and basic assumptions (Figure 1).

Observable
Artifacts

Values

Basic Assumptions

Artifacts are cultural aspects that can be observed, even from an external perspective.
Examples for cultural artifacts are, for instance, an organization’s layout, dress code,
products, or annual reports. In a sense, the observable artifacts are what an organization
decides to communicate about its culture to external stakeholders (Hogan & Coote 2014).
An alternative definition by Rafaeli and Worline (2000, p.73) describes symbols as
“visible, physical manifestations of organizations and indicators of organizational life.
They suggest that symbols can be experienced by all human senses, touch, smell, sight,
and sound. Rafaeli and Worline’s (2000) understanding of cultural symbols
complements Schein’s (1991) definition, emphasizing observability as a crucial attribute
while extending the definition to all indicators and manifestations of organizational life.

While artifacts are easy to study, they do not explain why an organization manifests these
artifacts and how they organization’s members perceive them (Schein 1991). This belief
is also shared by Rafaeli and Worline (2000) and Pondy et al. (1983) amongst others.
Only in a combination with the underlying values and basic assumptions, symbols can
be interpreted and therefore understood correctly. Researchers cannot assume the
meaning and perception members of a cultural system feel when expressing their
symbols. This validates the requirement for thick description to analyze organizational
culture as interpretation outweighs observation and intention in this case (Rafaeli &
Worline 2000, Schein 1991).

The subjacent level of organizational culture are values. Organizational values contain
norms, ideologies, charters, and philosophies (Schein 1990). Values usually provide an
explanation for cultural phenomena and observable artifacts of culture. To understand
an organization’s values, Schein (1990) recommends the use of qualitative research
methods, particularly open-ended interviews as qualitative data can provide a
 15

comprehensive insight into individuals’ feelings and thoughts and therefore, the
organizational values. Moreover, open-ended interviews reduce the risk of subliminal
researcher bias affecting the data outcomes and prevent instrumental and dimensional
thinking which is obstructive when trying to understand deeper levels of culture (Schein
1990).

The deepest level of organizational culture are basic assumptions. According to Schein
(1990), basic assumptions are usually unconscious, meaning that members of a cultural
system are not actively aware of them and their influence on their behavior and cultural
symbols. Therefore, researchers need to perform extensive and intensive observations,
interviews, and analyses before they can uncover and understand underlying
assumptions. Additionally, Schein (1990) and Martin (1988) emphasize that levels of
culture do not only appear in the same combination. For instance, even though members
of the same cultural system might share the same basic assumptions, they might not
present the same behavior or cultural symbols. Similarly, individuals who represent the
same cultural symbols, might not be following the same set of basic assumptions that led
them to this specific behavior. Taking these findings into account, a study on
organizational culture must not draw early conclusions on values and basic assumptions
just because of matching behavioral patterns or symbols between different cultural
systems, or even within the same organization.

2.3.1.3 Approaches to Organizational Culture Research

In his attempt to depict organizational culture conceptually, Schein (1990) distinguishes
between three competing approaches to the study of organizational culture. First, the
Survey Research Approach which implicates that organizational culture is measurable
and quantifiable. In essence, this approach encompasses Hofstede et al.’s (1990)
research methodology where underlying assumptions are derived a priori, and the
collected data is funneled into the predefined dimensions a posteriori. While the Survey
Research Approach allows for comparability and modulization of organizational culture,
it is also restricted to predetermined assumptions (Schein 1990). Researchers following
the Survey Research Approach will not uncover the insights of a unique culture system.

The Analytical Descriptive Approach to the study of organizational culture focuses on the
measurement and description of organizational culture. In contrast to the Survey
Research Approach, the Analytical Descriptive Approach aims to decompose culture and
analyze individual components in detail. This way, the symbolic artifacts of culture step
into the foreground as they are the main interest of study. An example of the Analytical
 16

Descriptive Approach is Martin and Siehl’s (1983) case study of organizational culture
and counterculture. They define organizational culture along the following four
statements:

1) Culture is an interpretation of organizational history that members use to guide

future behavior

2) Culture generates workforce commitment towards common values

3) Culture functions as a behavioral control and guidance system

4) Culture can improve organizational performance

In their study, Martin and Siehl (1983) identify three core values and describe these
artifacts in great detail. While this approach gives an insight into cultural artifacts which
they perceive most relevant in context of their case study, it also bares the risk of
neglecting the bigger picture (Schein 1990). Organizational culture constitutes a complex
interaction of multiple artifacts. Reducing the research focus to certain systemic
phenomena may lead to the overvaluation of the role of these artifacts if the main
research interest is understanding a comprehensive cultural system.

Lastly, Schein (1990) describes the Ethnographic Approach, an approach to

organizational culture study that is based in anthropology and sociology. Researchers
following the Ethnographic Approach believe that the unique and deep structures of a
cultural system can only be understood through detailed observations and interview data
from cultural insiders. This also suggests that culture can only be understood once it is
in action. Hence, the Ethnographic Approach is preoccupied with explicit description of
underlying phenomena that result in cultural manifestations without conceptualizing
and defining the manifestations themselves. Often, the study of culture according to the
Ethnographic Approach is restricted to a certain aspect of human behavior as the
detailed analysis requires a reduction of research scope. The result is a richer description
of human behavior, referred to as “thick description” (Schein 1990, Geertz 1973, Denzin
1989). Thick culture descriptions go beyond depicting circumstance and behavior. They
also include interpretation, context, and emotion (Schein 1990, Ponterotto 2006).

An example for the Ethnographic Approach is the work by van Maanen and Barley (1983)
who provide a theoretical perspective on organizational culture. They offer in-depth
descriptions on cultural phenomena and cultural clashes. Their decisions and arguments
are supported by thick description of processes and behavioral patterns. They find that
 17

cultural systems host a variety of subcultures as unique behavioral nuances impact

cultural particularities and hence, cultural understanding should not be expected to be
identical throughout an organization. While the Ethnographic Approach allows for better
theory development, it is more complex and elaborate at the same time (Schein 1990).

Further approaches to organizational culture study include the Historical Approach and
the Clinical Descriptive Approach (Schein 1990, Pettigrew 1979). The Historical
Approach includes a longitudinal analysis of a cultural system which can yield in detailed
explanations for cultural formation and phenomena but requires comprehensive,
historical insights into an organization and is hence complex (Schein 1990).

The Clinical Descriptive Approach involves an insider perspective into an organization

(Schein 1990). This insider position is commonly available to consultants who represent
external parties but are integrated into the organization’s cultural systems. Therefore,
they have intimate access to the organization’s decision-making process and interact
with leadership while maintaining a researcher role. Data is gathered in direct
interaction with the client organization and is thus more trustworthy compared to the
previously discussed research approaches to organizational culture (Schein 1990).
However, the organizational access needed to perform a Clinical Descriptive analysis is
not available to all researchers. An example for the Clinical Descriptive Approach is Kets
de Vries and Miller’s (1986) study on the effects of dysfunctional executives on
organizational culture. They legitimize their framework through personal in-field
experiences on work with dysfunctional managers. Therefore, they can better explain the
origins of cultural phenomena.

Synthesizing the different approaches to organizational culture study, Schein (1990)

argues that the ideal approach involves a combination of Ethnographic and Clinical
Descriptive Approach as those offer the most natural and detailed insights into
individual behavior and therefore best explain cultural phenomena. As I do not have the
necessary organizational access to perform a clinical study, I will utilize the Ethnographic
Approach for my study of organizational culture in social banking. The usage of the
Ethnographic Approach in culture studies has been documented in traditional literature
from the 1980s but has also found application in recent sustainability-related
organizational culture studies (Barley 1983, van Maanen & Barley 1983, Brown & Duguid
1991, Abolafia 1998, Norton et al. 2017). Based on its recognition and fit with the research
aim of this study, following the Ethnographic Approach will yield the most detailed
 18

insights into employees’ perception, thoughts and reasoning regarding their

organizational culture and sustainability focus.

2.3.1.4 Role of Organizational Culture

2.3.1.5 Culture as an Enabler of Corporate Strategy
2.3.2 Framework for Sustainable Culture Management in Banking
2.3.2.1 Observation of Culture in Banking
2.3.2.2 Creation of a Sustainability-Oriented Mindset
2.3.2.3 Organizational Drivers for Sustainable Change
2.3.2.4 Culture for Sustainability
2.3.2.5 Framework Synthesis
 19

3 METHODOLOGY
To learn how alternative banks foster a sustainability-first organizational culture, an
exchange with relevant stakeholders is indispensable (Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. 2021).
Hence, I am conducting interviews with organizational members in alternative banks to
find out how they perceive culture within their organization to answer my research
question. This section describes and justifies the research methodology in detail by
offering an insight into research design and sampling strategies. Afterwards, the data-
driven stages are outlined with the process of data collection and analysis. Lastly, relative
factors that ensure research quality are discussed.

3.1 Research Design

As Edmondson and McManus (2007) point out, research design strongly depends on the
fit between choices of research methods and the current state of existing theory and
research in the field. Academic theory on organizational culture in alternative banking
does not exist yet, even studies on organizational culture in banking are scarce. However,
traditional theories on organizational culture exist, as well as theories on sustainability
and how it sways corporate culture. These theories constitute the theoretical basis for
this research.

Theoretical constructs presented in the previous sections guide this study in its
commencing phases, such as the choice of research approach and design and theoretical
directions. However, the lack of theory on organizational culture in banking and
alternative banking specifically, does not allow for the derivation of hypotheses and thus
does not support a deductive research design. Overall, the research in this field is judged
to be at an intermediate stage (Edmondson & McManus 2007).

Moreover, the Ethnographic Approach to the study of organizational culture

recommends an explorative strategy which aims at delivering theoretical implications as
the study result. Existing classical theory on organizational culture and contemporary
theory on sustainability is enriched with qualitative study findings to create a more
complete picture on how alternative banks foster a sustainability-oriented organizational
culture. Hence, this study uses an abductive research approach (Edmondson & McManus
2007).

Data is collected through qualitative interview of relevant stakeholders in alternative

banking. The level of analysis during this study is at individual level and the unit of
 20

analysis are organizational members employed in alternative banking (Patton 2002,

Bryman & Bell 2011).

3.2 Sampling
Sampling describes the process of choosing the units of analysis for a study. For this
study, the unit of analysis are employees in alternative banks who can shed their
perspectives, experiences, and thoughts on organizational culture within their banks
through interviews. The choice of samples and sampling strategy directly influences the
quality of data that will be collected and therefore influences the study results (Patton
2002). Hence, a carefully chosen sampling strategy is essential to ensure study quality.

The sampling strategy used for this study is purposive criterion sampling. Under
purposive sampling, Patton (2002) understands the advantage which qualitative
research holds against quantitative research in terms of sampling abilities. The focus lies
within selecting cases which are prosperous in information. According to Patton, these
information-rich cases are ideal to fulfil the aim of the qualitative study as cases are
picked so that they coincide with issues relevant to the study aim. Criterion sampling
aims at assembling a sample by predefining certain threshold criteria (Patton 2002).
Usually, cases which exceed the standard criteria are reviewed as they are information-
rich in a sense that they are of particular importance to the researcher. In general, the
criterion is met if the interviewee can provide data to answer the underlying research
question (Saunders et al. 2015).

In the context of my research project, the criterion is active employment in alternative

banking for over one year. By reducing the sample to employees who have been employed
in alternative banking for a longer time, I ensure that all study participants are
information-rich cases as they are presumed to be well integrated within the organization
after one active year of employment and can shed insights on organizational culture. As
alternative banking is not a protected and narrowly defined term, only employees from
organizations that are members of the GABV were considered for this study. Being a
member organization of the GABV suggests that the other member organizations agree
and approve of all member organizations’ focus on social and environmental impact,
which in turn matches the definition of an alternative bank.

The participants in the interviews are professionals employed in alternative banking in

the European Economic Area (EEA) and Switzerland. The sample is restricted to the EEA
and Switzerland as the political, economic, social, technological, legal, and
environmental surroundings of the banks are assumed to be most comparable within
 21

Europe. Moreover, divergence between national cultures is presumed to be minimal so

that it does not affect the individual cultural properties significantly and the focus is on
organizational impact.

While quantitative studies with random samples allow for generalization, qualitative
research, with a purposefully selected sample, allows for better in-depth understanding
of the underlying issue. However, this should not suggest that qualitative research
methods are superior. It merely emphasizes the importance of carefully choosing a
research aim. Based on that aim, researchers must decide for a study method which suits
their underlying goals. Since my research is aimed at obtaining an in-depth
understanding of organizational culture in alterative banking, a qualitative study method
along with carefully selected sample cases suit my research purpose best (Schein 1990,
Patton 2002).

3.3 Data Collection

To answer my research questions, I am performing a qualitative study where I interview
professionals working in social banking. The interviews are unstructured and
conversational, as recommended by literature on organizational culture research (Schein
1990). Interviews allow for the illustration of a considerably broad picture, for instance
to understand assumptions and values of the interviewees, or specific insights that would
otherwise not be recognized by more standardized data collection methods.

Patton (2002) introduces three variations in qualitative interviewing, the informal

conversational interview, the general interview guide approach, and the standardized
open-ended interview. For this study, informal conversational interviews are utilized to
draw out underlying assumptions and beliefs of the interview partners to gage the
organizational culture according to Schein’s Ethnographic Approach.

According to Patton (2002), the informal conversational interview is ideal to establish

trust and comfortability with interviewees which is essential for the study of
assumptions, beliefs, and experiences. Moreover, the informal interview allows for
flexibility between different interviews as it does not force the interview to operate and
thinking in predesigned patterns. Instead, the interviewer has the chance to direct the
conversation based on his perception of the interviewee. Thereby, more thicker
descriptions can be gathered. Additionally, the authenticity of the interview is increased
since the interviewees cannot prepare answers in advance and the interviewer has the
freedom to ask probe questions. Nonetheless, informal interviews bare the risk of
missing crucial questions and are only adequate for confident interviewers who feel
 22

comfortable holding a conversational interview. Data analysis is also more challenging

since the interview data is less commensurable compared to structured interview
approaches with detailed interview guides.

The study consists of 17 interviews with professionals from alternative banks in the EEA
and Switzerland. To gather data that is as unbiased as possible, the interviewee’s
identities and organizations will not be disclosed. 15 interviews are already conducted,
recorded and transcribed, while 2 more interviews are terminated for the near future.
 23

4 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

4.1 Data Analysis
To analyze an interview transcript, I utilize inductive coding and categorization.
According to (Spiggle 1994), this process includes the classification, labelling and
naming data that was obtained during an interview.

4.2 Results

4.3 Research Quality

To guarantee quality in qualitative research, researchers must ensure the
trustworthiness of their studies (Wallendorf & Belk 1989). According to Wallendorf and
Belk (1989), trustworthiness consists of five core criteria, credibility, transferability,
dependability, conformability, and integrity.

According to Wallendorf and Belk (1989), credibility entails sufficient and trustworthy
representations of the studied reality and collected data throughout the whole research
process. The goal is to convince readers that findings are accurately investigated based
on all the data (Silverman 2011). To achieve credibility, researchers should provide many
instances, quotes, and examples from the material. Moreover, they should argue along
proven criteria on how examples or samples were chosen (Wallendorf & Belk 1989).
Moreover, Denzin (1989) suggest triangulation of data, researchers, theory, or
methodology as another approach to enhance credibility. For this project, research
strategy choices are justified by relevant academic literature and multiple artifacts in
form of interview quotes and transcripts are provided to ensure credibility.

Transferability of a study refers to to the extent which the findings can be applied to other
contexts, for instance other geographical areas, other companies, or cultures. While
transferability is increased through purposive sampling, some transferability restraints
remain in my study (Wallendorf & Belk 1989). Interviews are only conducted with
professionals from Europe. Location-specific regulations and guidelines might limit the
transferability of the study to other markets than Europe. Moreover, the constant
stakeholder pressure regarding sustainability performance might differ between
countries and organizations which can also hinder transferability, however only to a
small extent.
 24

The dependability of a research project refers to whether other researchers who replicate
the study will arrive at the same result (Wallendorf & Belk 1989). Wallendorf and Belk
(1989) suggest continuous research to improve study dependability. Over time, research
can explain change between subjects and situations. Temporal constraints do not allow
for a longitudinal analysis or case study which are viable strategies in sustainability and
organizational culture research (Schein 1990, Curtó-Pagès et al. 2021). In return, the
purposive sampling strategy, along with qualitative interviews allow for illumination of
the research problem from multiple angles.

According to Wallendorf and Belk (1989) confirmability of studies means that findings
are not directed by biases, motivations, interests, or perspective of the researcher. This
means that the study results are objective. Additionally, confirmability entails the
neutrality of data and findings that are determined by respondents and not by the
researcher. To assure conformability, Wallendorf and Belk (1989) recommend the
documentation of detailed transcripts which can be used for critical self-assessment and
should be recorded for external auditors. These recommendations transfer to detailed
documentation, transcriptions, and recordings of interviews in this study.

Wallendorf and Belk (1989) define that integrity of a study means that interpretations
are not colored by, for instance, lies of the researcher or misinformation by the
informants. In a sense, integrity of a qualitative research entails the study’s authenticity.
Problems with integrity may arise when respondents feel socially pressured to adjust
their answers or dislike the interviewer. To improve a study’s integrity, Wallendorf and
Belk (1989) recommend prolonged engagement with the informants and an
establishment of trust. Moreover, triangulation of sources, methods, and researchers and
a good interviewing technique can help in improving integrity. The informant’s identity
can be safeguarded if he feels insecure. The issue of integrity is most crucial for my
research project because interviewees might feel pressure from stakeholders to respond
to interviews in a certain way (Garvare & Johansson 2010, Perrini & Tencati 2006). To
minimize external pressure, the interviewees’ identities are safeguarded, and a personal
relationship is created by clarifying that the obtained information are only used for a
university research project. Moreover, the interviews are conducted in an informal and
conversational manner. This establishes trust and increases the integrity of the study.
 25

5 DISCUSSION
5.1 Delimitations
The unit of analysis in this study are employees in alternative banking in the EEA and
Switzerland. While findings can be transferrable to management in the banking sector
in general, some aspects might be driven or based on regulations and requirements set
by the European Union. As the banking sector is a highly regulated environment, one
cannot neglect that certain development and laws issued by the European Union
indirectly influence the outcome of the study, compared to if the study would have been
carried out with representatives from, for instance, American or Asian banks.

Moreover, while integrity from the researcher’s perspective in insured throughout the
study procedure, the stakeholder pressure from the interviewee’s perspective must be
considered. The management of sustainability related topics requires a great deal of
sensibility. Managers are pressured to satisfy a variety of stakeholder to ensure the
survival of the organization (Garvare and Johansson 2010). Therefore, varying
organizational pressure might influence the statements that interviewees provided
throughout the study which would hinder the transferability of the study. To ensure
integrity, the interviewees’ identities are anonymized, and confidentiality is ensured to
foster a trustful and reliable relationship with the interviewees.
 26

6 TIMETABLE
The following table outlines the remaining schedule for the thesis project. Until the end
of this week, data collection will be completed. Afterwards, the focus is solely on writing
the thesis which includes extending the theoretical framework, methodology and data
analysis. The thesis will be submitted until the end of July.

Table 1 – Research Timetable

Time Process/Milestone
05.04.2023 End of Data Collection
Until 30.04.2023 Finalizing Theory and Methodology
Until 31.05.2023 Data Analysis, Results, Discussion and Conclusion
Until 31.06.2023 Proofreading and Feedback from Supervisor
Until 31.07.2023 Submission
 27

REFERENCES

Abolafia, M. Y. (1998). Markets as cultures: an ethnographic approach. The

Sociological Review, 46(1_suppl), 69-85.

Agarwal, N., Gneiting, U. & Mhlanga, R. (2017). Raising the bar: Rethinking the role of
business in the Sustainable Development Goals. Oxfam Discussion Papers, pp.
1-32.

Alvesson, M. (2012). Understanding organizational culture. Understanding

Organizational Culture, 1-248.

Anwar, M., Khattak, M.S., Popp, J., Meyer, D.F. & Máté, D. (2019). The nexus of
government incentives and sustainable development goals: is the management
of resources the solution to non-profit organizations? Technological and
Economic Development of Economy, 26(6), pp. 1284-1310.

Aracil, E., Nájera-Sánchez, J. J., & Forcadell, F. J. (2021). Sustainable banking: A

literature review and integrative framework. Finance Research Letters, 42,
101932.

Avrampou, A., Skouloudis, A., Iliopoulos, G., & Khan, N. (2019). Advancing the
sustainable development goals: Evidence from leading European banks.
Sustainable Development, 27(4), 743-757.

Barley, S. R. (1983). Semiotics and the study of occupational and organizational

cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 393-413.

Benedikter, R. (2011). Social banking and social finance. In Social banking and social
finance (pp. 1-128). New York, NY. Springer.

Betti, G., Consolandi, C., & Eccles, R. G. (2018). The relationship between investor
materiality and the sustainable development goals: a methodological
framework. Sustainability, 10(7), 2248.

Biermann, F., Kanie, N., & Kim, R. E. (2017). Global governance by goal-setting: the
novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 26, 26-31.

Bridges, T., & Eubank, D. (2020). Leading Sustainably: The Path to Sustainable
Business and How the SDGs Changed Everything. Taylor & Francis Group.

Brown, B. J., Hanson, M. E., Liverman, D. M., & Merideth, R. W. (1987). Global
sustainability: Toward definition. Environmental management, 11(6), 713-719.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-

practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and
innovation. Organization science, 2(1), 40-57.
 28

Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods. Third Edition. Oxford.
Oxford University Press.

Carè, R. (2018). Sustainable banking: Issues and challenges. Springer International

Publishing.

Caldwell, L. K. (1984). Political Aspsects of Ecologically Sustainable Development.

Environmental Conservation, 11(4), 299-308.

Consolandi, C., Phadke, H., Hawley, J. & Eccles, R. G. (2020). Material ESG outcomes
and SDG externalities: evaluating the health care sector’s contribution to the
SDGs. Organization & Environment, 33(4), pp. 511-533.

Cosma, S., Venturelli, A., Schwizer, P., & Boscia, V. (2020). Sustainable development
and European banks: A non-financial disclosure analysis. Sustainability, 12(15),
6146.

Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. New York,

NY: Wiley.

Denzin, N. (1989) The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological

Methods. (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Dumay, J., Guthrie, J., & Farneti, F. (2010). GRI sustainability reporting guidelines for
public and third sector organizations: A critical review. Public Management
Review, 12(4), 531-548.

Edmondson, A. C., & McManus, S. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field

research. Academy of management review, 32(4), 1246-1264.

Freeman, R. E. (2004). The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift für wirtschafts-

und unternehmensethik, 5(3), 228-254.

Garvare, R., & Johansson, P. (2010). Management for sustainability–a stakeholder

theory. Total quality management, 21(7), 737-744.

Geertz, C. (1973). Chapter 1/Thick Description: Toward an interpretive theory of

culture. The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays, 3-30.

Global Reporting Initiative (s.a.). About GRI. Available at:

https://www.globalreporting.org/about-gri/. Accessed 15.11.2022

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Aldine de Gruyter.
 29

Guthrie, J., & Farneti, F. (2008). GRI sustainability reporting by Australian public
sector organizations. Public Money and management, 28(6), 361-366.

Heras‐Saizarbitoria, I., Urbieta, L., & Boiral, O. (2022). Organizations' engagement

with sustainable development goals: From cherry‐picking to SDG‐washing?.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(2), 316-
328.

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational
cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty
cases. Administrative science quarterly, 286-316.

Hogan, S. J., & Coote, L. V. (2014). Organizational culture, innovation, and

performance: A test of Schein's model. Journal of business research, 67(8),
1609-1621.

Howard-Grenville, J., Davis, J., Dyllick, T., Joshi, A., Miller, C., Thau, S., & Tsui, A. S.
(2017). Sustainable development for a better world: Contributions of leadership,
management and organizations: Submission deadline: July 1 to July 30, 2018.
Academy of Management Discoveries, 3(1), 107-110.

Howard-Grenville, J., Davis, G. F., Dyllick, T., Miller, C. C., Thau, S., & Tsui, A. S.
(2019). Sustainable development for a better world: Contributions of leadership,
management, and organizations. Academy of Management Discoveries, 5(4),
355-366.

Isaksson, R., & Steimle, U. (2009). What does GRI-reporting tell us about corporate
sustainability? TQM journal, 21(2), 168-181.

Ismail, H., Saleem, M. A., Zahra, S., Tufail, M. S., & Ali, R. A. (2021). Application of
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Principles for Measuring Quality of Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure: Evidence from Pakistan. Sustainability,
13(20), 11409.

Kets de Vries, M. F., & Miller, D. (1986). Personality, culture, and organization. The
Academy of Management Review.

Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on
materiality. The accounting review, 91(6), 1697-1724.

Kolb, R. W. (2010). Ethical implications of finance. Finance ethics: Critical issues in

theory and practice, 23-43.

Lagoarde-Segot, T. (2017). Financialization: Towards a new research agenda.

International Review of Financial Analysis, 51, 113-123.Leon, R. (2018).
Sustainable knowledge based organizations definition and characteristics.
Environmental engineering and management journal, 17(6), 1425-1437.
 30

Lagoarde-Segot, T., & Paranque, B. (2017). Sustainability and the reconstruction of

academic finance. Research in International Business and Finance, 39, 657-662.

Leon, R. (2018). Sustainable knowledge based organizations definition and

characteristics. Environmental engineering and management journal, 17(6),
1425-1437.

Mansell, P., Philbin, S. P., & Konstantinou, E. (2020). Redefining the use of sustainable
development goals at the organisation and project levels—A survey of engineers.
Administrative Sciences, 10(3), 55.

Martin, J. (1988). Organizational culture and the denial, channeling, and

acknowledgement of ambiguity. Managing ambiguity and change.

Martin, J., & Siehl, C. (1983). Organizational culture and counterculture: An uneasy
symbiosis. Organizational dynamics, 12(2), 52-64.

Mio, C., Panfilo, S., & Blundo, B. (2020). Sustainable development goals and the
strategic role of business: A systematic literature review. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 29(8), 3220-3245.

Moneva, J. M., Archel, P., & Correa, C. (2006). GRI and the camouflaging of corporate
unsustainability. Accounting forum, 30(2), 121-137.

Norton, T. A., Zacher, H., Parker, S. L., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2017). Bridging the gap
between green behavioral intentions and employee green behavior: The role of
green psychological climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(7), 996-
1015.

Pathiranage, Y. L., Jayatilake, L. V., & Abeysekera, R. (2020). Case study research
design for exploration of organizational culture towards corporate
performance. Review of International Comparative Management/Revista de
Management Comparat International, 21(3), 361-372.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks.

Cal.: Sage Publications, 3.

Perrini, F., & Tencati, A. (2006). Sustainability and stakeholder management: the need
for new corporate performance evaluation and reporting systems. Business
strategy and the environment, 15(5), 296-308.

Pettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative science

quarterly, 24(4), 570-581.

Ponterotto, J. G. (2006). Brief note on the origins, evolution, and meaning of the
qualitative research concept thick description. The qualitative report, 11(3),
538-549.
 31

Rafaeli, A., & Worline, M. (2000). Symbols in organizational culture. Handbook of

organizational culture and climate, 7, 1-84.

Repetto, R. (1985). A World Resources Institute book. The Global Possible: Resources,
Development, and the New Century. Connecticut, Yale University Press.

Saunders, M., Thornhill, A., & Lewis, P. (2015). Research Methods for Business
Students (7th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture (Vol. 45, No. 2, p. 109). American

Psychological Association.

Schein, E. H. (1991). What is culture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 243-253.

SDG Compass (s.a.). The guide for business action on the SDGs. Available at:
https://sdgcompass.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/12/019104_SDG_Compass_Guide_2015.pdf. Accessed
15.11.2022.

Spiggle S. (1994) Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research.

Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (3), 491-503.

Úbeda, F., Forcadell, F. J., Aracil, E., & Mendez, A. (2022). How sustainable banking
fosters the SDG 10 in weak institutional environments. Journal of Business
Research, 146, 277-287.

United Nations. (2014). World Investment Report 2014: Investing in the SDGs - An
Action Plan. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. United
Nations Publications. Geneva, Switzerland. Available at:
unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/wir2014_en.pdf. Accessed 15.11.2022.

United Nations (s.a.). THE 17 GOALS. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/goals.

Accessed 15.11.2022.

United Nations Global Compact (s.a.). The world’s largest corporate sustainability
initiative. Available at: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc. Accessed
15.11.2022

UN Secretary General (2019). Citing $2.5 Trillion Annual Financing Gap during SDG
Business Forum Event, Deputy Secretary-General Says Poverty Falling Too
Slowly. United Nations Meet. Cover. Press Releases. 19-11563_GDU.

Maanen, J. V., & Barley, S. (1983). Cultural organization: Fragments of a theory.

ALFRED P SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT CAMBRIDGE MA.

Wallendorf & Belk (1989) Assessing Trustworthiness in Naturalistic Consumer

Research, in Interpretive Consumer Research, Elisabeth Hirschman, ed., Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 69–84.
 32

Wicks, A. C. (1996). Overcoming the separation thesis: The need for a reconsideration
of business and society research. Business & Society, 35(1), 89-118.