A Complexity Approach To Sustainability

ARTICLE IN PRESS

European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2007) xxx–xxx www.elsevier.com/locate/ejor

Interfaces with Other Disciplines

A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited A. Espinosa *, R. Harnden, J. Walker Hull University Business School, Scarborough Management Centre, Filey Rd, Scarborough, North Yorkshire YO11 3AZ, United Kingdom Received 17 February 2006; accepted 30 March 2007

Abstract There is wide acceptance of the need for a more holistic approach to sustainability. However, practical solutions remain elusive and tend to exhibit underlying conflicts between different paradigms and their associated methodologies. This paper argues the need to wield analytical tools that themselves embody the principles of systemic, ecological thinking. We present here a theoretical framework based on complexity science – focused on organisational and second order cybernetics – that highlights our understanding of the concept of sustainability. The paper goes on to reflect upon how current practice would benefit from such an approach. Ó 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: (P) OR in societal problem analysis; (S) Complexity theory; (P) Organization theory; Sustainability; Cybernetics; Second order cybernetics; Environmental management; Systems thinking; Viable system model

1. Why sustainability needs a holistic approach It is 20 years since the publication of a United Nations report that defined sustainable development as ‘‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’’ (WCED, 1987). Perhaps the critical fact was that this definition established the idea of equity between present and future generations. However, even if there has been massive investment in the support of sustainability goals, repeated warnings of impending ecological disaster do not appear to lessen the propensity of homo sapiens to wreak havoc on its natural envi* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 7790 083759; fax: +44 1723 357119. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Espinosa).

ronment. There is abundant evidence of an increasing conflict between humankind’s instinct for expansion for its own sake and the capacity of eco-system Earth to sustain such expansion (Laszlo, 2006; Meadows and Randers, 1992; Meadows et al., 2004; Wackernagel, 1997). The shift in political powers as a result of the globalisation of the market economy has divided influence between ever more complex social and political systems, and whatever the good intentions of individuals, what we witness are increases in poverty and conflict, and apparently reduced choices in social, economical and ecological policies (Carley and Sappens, 1998). One of the historical legacy problems is that the material success of the western scientific and industrial revolutions led, through a one-sided interpretation of Darwin’s evolutionary findings under the auspices of ‘social Darwinism, to hierarchical

0377-2217/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.023

Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A. et al., A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited, European Journal of Operational Research (2007), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.023

ARTICLE IN PRESS 2

A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

models of management – economic models that place the criteria of growth and competition as the sole measures of success, resulting in polarisation of wealth and power. Among others, Capra has indicated the shortcomings of present day global capitalism in tackling environmental challenges and recommends systemic approaches as the alternative paradigm for rethinking socio-economic development (Capra, 1996, 2003). One key issue is that ‘system’ is often confused with ‘systemic’ – for instance, the bottom line of ‘increased participants’ has not equated to ‘increased participation by the variety of interests affected’. A key challenge is that many global developmental approaches carry within them the historical legacy of mankind exploiting and milking its natural habitat (and, as we have come to see, ruining it). We have reached the limits, not to growth (Meadows et al., 1972) but to a particular concept of growth reliant on the parameters of a long dead world. A radical change is required to reverse current destructive trends (Capra, 2003, pp. 113–137). The traditional scientific–political axis has proven seriously flawed in addressing future consequences of present actions. Political and accounting systems are short-term driven, as indeed are most individual cognitive maps. In spite of good intentions, as a species we appear incapable of doing anything significant to alter the trend. Something dramatic has to change, and that something has to involve the way we think and relate to others. Since the time of Russell, Whitehead and Einstein, thinkers have pointed out that problems created at one level of thinking can only be solved at a higher or meta-level of thinking. The lack of meta-level analysis would explain our current inability as a species to deal with the devastating affect we continue to have on our environment. Nothing less than a paradigm shift will do. It is not simply a matter of recognising a causal relationship between complex issues, but of envisaging radically different ways of understanding and talking about such issues (Meadows and Randers, 1992). For instance, Meadows suggested a cybernetic approach to environmental management, specifically a focus upon feedback loops. This approach offers a more precise language for the application of metrics, giving a more sophisticated insight into the performance of the system, and takes account of relevant contextual factors (Meadows, 1998; Meadows et al., 1972). In a similar vein, Stafford Beer (1966) cautioned against over reliance on quantitative analysis and

one dimensional accounting metrics, pointing out that in order to avoid being swamped by the sheer explosion of proliferating data we need to develop tools and techniques in the light of the ends being sought – for example, organisational viability. With this in mind, and in the knowledge of then contemporary findings in the brain sciences, he focused upon social systems and the need to identify the organisational closure of the operational dynamics of social systems. The idea was that the organisational structure is likely to reflect certain invariances coming to be understood as indicating the identity and autonomy of entities, whatever the phenomenal domain they were observed as being viable in respect of (Beer, 1979, 1981 – and see below). In the current paper, we wish to bring to light some implications of applied cybernetics in issues of sustainability, issues that have not always been clearly spelt out. In previous papers we have referred to several applications of this theory in environmental management (Espinosa, 2003; Espinosa and Walker, 2005; Espinosa et al., 2006). The intention here is to revisit the work of Stafford Beer in organisational cybernetics in the light of findings that have emerged from the biology of cognition (Maturana and Guiloff, 1980, 1988), and to indicate to researchers and practitioners in the field of sustainable development how such a synthesis will help in the re-design of social structures and institutions, in forms that are better prepared to foster sustainability. The attempt is not to assess claims of compatibility between concepts such as ‘autopoiesis’ and ‘viability’ (as, for instance, in Brocklesby and Mingers, 2005), so much as to indicate an effective common frame of reference from which to tackle current challenges of sustainability and complexity. 2. Holistic approaches to sustainability It is important to acknowledge that there have been other holistic approaches to the issue of sustainability. However, such approaches have not always coincided in their conclusions. Baker present a useful distinction between an ‘anthropocentric’ and an ‘eco-centric’ paradigm (Baker et al., 1997). Anthropocentric favours an interventionist approach to socio-economic development where nature is seen as a basic resource for tackling humankind’s problems. In contrast, eco-centric adopts a holistic approach based on a combination of social needs, ecological limits and quality of life, treating the natural and human social systems as co-evolving

Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A. et al., A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited, European Journal of Operational Research (2007), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.023

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

in a recurrent dance of interaction, each dependent on outputs from the other and providing inputs to it. Baker et al. demonstrate why the eco-centric approach provides the ideal model for strong sustainable development, whereas the anthropocentric paradigm only offers what they call a treadmill and weak approaches. Taking a slightly different line, Bell and Morse propose a theocentric approach incorporating the wisdom from old cultures in their philosophical and theological views on sustainability (Bell and Morse, 2005). Banathy has developed ‘‘Evolutionary Social Systems’’ for the support of organizational forms that contribute to a self-guided evolutionary process (Banathy, 2000). This would lead to the later idea of ‘New Agoras’ as a public sphere of enquiry and communicative action able to foster a new public and global citizenry of autonomous, conscious and socially responsible individuals and groups working for enhanced local and global welfare (Bausch, 2004; Bausch et al., 2003). Meanwhile, Laszlo takes up the idea of ‘‘evolutionary learning communities’’ (ELC) – communities that strive toward sustainable pathways for evolutionary development, in synergistic interaction with their milieu, through individual and collective processes of evolutionary learning (Laszlo, 2003; Laszlo and Laszlo, 2003). Laszlo envisages that a co-evolution of such ELC’s might at the macro-level result in the mergence of a ‘‘global and sustainable learning society’’. In general, the systems community has made several contributions to complex societal problems, including sustainability. Jackson’s view is that both Soft Systems Thinking (SSM, Checkland, 1981) and Organisational Cybernetics (Beer, 1979, 1981) offer valuable tools for supporting complex societal problems, though his own focus is upon how Critical Systems Thinking might help the disadvantaged in situations involving conflict (Jackson, 2003). Flood supports this view and offers his Local Systemic Intervention methodology that enhances local autonomy and informed decision-making (Flood, 2001). Along similar lines, De Tombe suggests a ‘‘methodology for handling social complex problems’’, in terms of a multi-disciplinary approach using the best of social knowledge on complex development challenges (DeTombe, 2001), while Bowen shows how to use a ‘soft systems’ approach to support analysis of complex societal problems (Bowen, 2001). Other researchers have suggested the need for more adaptive and interactive policy making

3

approaches in handling complex societal problems (Driessen et al., 2001; Walker et al., 2001). Most of these approaches see sustainability as a future state to be aimed at, or to be built up in a participative way by including multiple and even conflicting viewpoints, a way to change our worldviews by creating a future of a sustainable society. Somewhat differently, a cybernetic approach views sustainability as an ongoing process constituted through the dynamic relationships between viable organisations and the reality that these relationships lay down into their realisation – in other words, as something having as much to do with context as with the organisation in itself. Second order cybernetics takes this somewhat further, into the social and linguistic domains, viewing sustainability as a term that is constantly open to negotiation and local definition in dialogue, rather than being some what out-there in the world (Schlindwein and Ison, 2004). For example, the SLIM project integrates second order cybernetics and soft systems approaches, encouraging a more insightful way to re-understand the issue of sustainability, from the perspective of the ‘ontology of the observer’ (SLIM, 2006). However, whatever holistic approach we choose, it’s fair to say that in practice there have been many difficulties in their implementation. Midgley and Reynolds explain that general issues for sustainable development agendas are the complexity and uncertainty of natural and social phenomena; multiple and often conflicting values; and political effects (Midgley and Reynolds, 2004). Others point to issues such as a lack of autonomy at the local level and the absence of cross-disciplinary support and decision-making processes to ensure effective follow-through (Patterson and Theobald, 1999, pp. 156–171; Young, 1998). In the next sections, we summarise aspects of what has come to be known as second order cybernetics, with a view to indicate the compatibility of Beer’s thinking and work on social or organisational cybernetics with this more biological and cognitive focused thinking. The paper indicates the particular significance of such a synthesis to sustainability, and goes on to describe how this affects the use of concrete tools such as Beer’s Viable System Model (Beer, 1979, 1981, 1985; Espejo and Harnden, 1989). We describe key aspects of Beer’s model that have shown to be useful in issues related to sustainability in general, and environmental management in particular, giving interested parties references

Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A. et al., A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited, European Journal of Operational Research (2007), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.023

ARTICLE IN PRESS 4

A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

for further exploration and investigation of such approaches. 3. Constitution and sustainability An ecosystem emerges from the dynamics of the relationships between biological beings and their environments. It is common to talk about life forms ‘in’ particular environments, as if the environment has nothing to do with the organism except as a passive substratum. This is primarily a result of the very successful traditional western scientific methodology of isolating a living phenomenon, and in the interests of a particular sort of scientific understanding, analysing a set of abstracted constituent parts that are then held to constitute its lived dynamics. This ‘freezing’ of the actually dynamic phenomena that make up the real world we live, has had enormous success in one particular domain of understanding, but more recently there have arisen questions about the quality of the knowledge so derived. Recent studies have demonstrated the incomplete nature of such an understanding, and moreover, have shown how a more holistic and systemic approach can be taken, without losing any of the benefits gained from application of the traditional scientific method. We will mention one particular strand, concerned with findings in biological development and evolution (The Santiago School – for example: Maturana, 1983, 1985, 1988; Maturana and Guiloff, 1980; Maturana and Varela, 1980, 1988; Varela et al., 1991). The Santiago School has demonstrated the intimate relationship between an organism’s cognitive domain and its interaction with the niche it inhabits, as distinct from simply talking about and exploring the organism and ‘the environment’. In this usage, the niche is a subset of the total environment, that aspect of the environment that the organism is structurally coupled to in its realisation of life (see below). Critically, it is niche and living entity together that lay down the cognitive domain of a living being. Indeed, for the given organism, the environment is hidden by the niche (this includes the case for the human observer – see below). The principle of structural coupling enabled the emergence of a different appreciation of the actual dynamics of ecological and social interactions, without at all ignoring the findings of traditional western science. This notion of embedded organism, subset of environment (niche) and somewhat different environment that in point of fact is the niche of the

observer of the particular interaction provides a more sensitive and deeper appreciation of just what happens in the lived-world, as distinct from in the scientist’s laboratory. The broad conclusion of this way of thinking is that it is inaccurate to start from the premise that the world we humans inhabit and interact with is the same for all biological forms. The observer needs to take account of those aspects of the total environment that form the niche of the being, distinct from those aspects of the environment that although perceived by the human observer (i.e. laying down his/her niche), operationally do not actually form any part of the observed entity’s ‘cognitive’ reality. It is important to point out that the ‘anthropocentric view’ (above) suggests otherwise, taking as given the niche of humankind as the definitive environment of reality. To simply talk about an organism ‘inhabiting’ an environment has a tendency to encourage the observer (e.g. the scientist) to overlook the fact that both organism and niche are involved in a two-way dance of changes – of co-specification. Organism and niche together (rather than organism interacting with organism in an environment) constitute reality in terms of the bounds of an environment specified by parameters laid down by the observer of it (or community of observers), who even in their observation are actually laying down the extent and limits of their own (human) niche, rather than unravelling a neutral, objective environment (i.e. as omnipotent gods). Such a niche might well include other organisms, but to understand the dynamics of the observed entity it is important to disentangle its own niche from that of ourselves – in other words to be rigorous in distinguishing the cognitive filters that characterise our own niche from some neutral (or ‘objective’) environment. Such insights as those described above, emerged out of the earlier work of Gregory Bateson, one of the inspirations behind Maturana’s original work and one of the founding figures of cybernetics (Bateson, 1973, 1980). Bateson was preoccupied with how it is so common for category mistakes to occur, mistakes that can give rise to misunderstandings of many kinds, leading to ‘external’ conflicts such as wars, or ‘internal’ conflicts resulting in such psychiatric conditions as schizophrenia. Working in the context of evolutionary theory and genetics, one of Bateson’s key premises was that ‘‘the unit of survival is a flexible organism-in-its-environment’’ (Bateson, 1973, p. 426). A primary issue for the ‘logical accounting’ of such an approach, is the need for

Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A. et al., A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited, European Journal of Operational Research (2007), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.023

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

a set of tools to precisely analyse just what is organism and what is environment. This concerns the critical matter of distinctions or difference. Questions need to be asked, such as, what is a distinction and – closely allied – who makes such a distinction and how. These questions and the resulting investigations – whether in the field of anthropology, psychiatry, or zoology – permeate Bateson’s published writings. In particular for the present argument, he arrived at the key insight that matters of communication and information have quite different rules and laws from energy or physics, and that too much western thinking naively assumes that the laws are the same. For instance, in matters of communication, tremendous problems arise when assumptions are made as to the traditionally ‘obvious’ separation of mind and matter, or emotion from intellect (Bateson, 1973, p. 438). The making of distinctions (i.e. the identification of difference), is an intrinsic part of human inquiry and is what lays down a cognitive space. The present actions of humankind are intimately bound to the residue or baggage of distinctions made in the past. However, we have to be extremely careful in our own logical accounting that we do not confuse the parameters of human cognition and being with that of other life forms. This aspect of Bateson’s work was taken forward by Maturana and Varela under the title of ‘biology of cognition’, using the mechanism of structural coupling (as above), which dealt directly with how differences in bodyhood dynamics specify the lived behavioural reality. Following from earlier work, the writings of Maturana and Varela make clear that all those aspects of an environment with which an organism is structurally coupled, effectively are the cognitive field of the organism (as above, the ‘niche + organism’). It is such a ‘coupling’ that because of the recursive nature of bodihood dynamics allows for the emergence of higher order phenomena such as thought (Maturana and Varela, 1980, 1988). 4. The viable system model: A recursive model of viable organisations The VSM develops a language of viability that can help us to make the paradigmatic shift that the cybernetic community pioneered through the second half of the twentieth century. This paper is not the place for an in-depth introduction to the VSM, but to give some idea of just what the VSM

5

sets out to do, and how the model was nurtured by the contemporaneous findings of second order cybernetics described above. Working in the context of social organisations and management science, Stafford Beer proposed his Viable System Model (VSM) as one particular model to aid in the description of co-existing social forms of different scales and types (see next section below). Beer’s model, although of general applicability, was conceived on the basis of principles derived from the way the human nervous system is understood to control and co-ordinate the myriad of functions that enable an organism to deal flexibly and proactively with the social and physical world it exists in and constitutes through its own activities. The four basic management or control systems of the VSM were not plucked out of the blue, but were inspired by scientific findings in the physiology of the autonomic and central nervous systems of the human being (Maturana and Varela, 1980, 1988; Mc Culloch, 1965; Powers, 1973; Von Foerster, 1981). As the name implies, the VSM concerns a notion of ‘viability’. A viable system is a system or complex entity capable of maintaining an independent existence – not an existence totally separate from an environment, but one where structural changes take place without loss of identity and without severance from a niche. Viability is clearly very closely linked to sustainability: both result from the organisation dealing with the environmental complexity in the course of its own dynamic changes and development. Lack of viability – or severance from its niche – indicates death or cessation of that life form. As in the biology of cognition and second order cybernetics, the VSM has to take account of the fact that over time both the internal dynamics of the organisation and the external niche change in a never-ending dance. By definition, to be effective an organisation (or any system come to that) must have the requisite variety to cope with the complexity of its niche. To put it another way, the niche (as distinct from the more general environment), is specified as ‘niche’ by its own and the organisation’s requisite variety, manifest in a structural dance. The recurrent interactions that characterise local and short-term situations in accord with the capabilities of the organisation, in effect ‘constitute’ its niche. From this perspective (or within this paradigm), a viable system is understood by looking at it in the context both of niche and environment, and how it remains in touch with a continually changing

Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A. et al., A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited, European Journal of Operational Research (2007), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.023

ARTICLE IN PRESS 6

A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

world while maintaining its own identity: In other words, the way it interacts with and overlaps other viable systems – systems that may sometimes be larger that itself (such as the eco-system or global economy), and sometimes smaller (such as the molecular domain or a regional economy). Beer’s model of such a viable system is composed of a set of operations (which do something or have something done to them), a meta-system (which reflects on the various distinct operations from the perspective of an observable whole), and the environment within which it impacts and sustains itself. Indicated within the fuzzy borders of the environment, are specific points of contact and exchange that constitute the system’s niche. One of the things that Beer wanted to highlight in particular was that niche and organisation are themselves braided to and constitutive of other dynamics – a different order ‘structural dance’. For any particular pur-

pose, the analyst cannot take account of all this complexity – much of it perhaps irrelevant for the task at hand. However, for an analysis to be intelligent and effective, the analyst needs the vantage for a ‘meta-level’ context (as above) for the analysis. The analyst needs guidelines for a perspective in terms of which the play of similarity and difference for the task in hand, are apparent. In terms of the VSM this concerns different ladders or ‘chains’ of recursion (Beer, 1985, p. 6). In terms of the VSM any viable system contains and is in turn contained by a viable system. However, any one particular ‘ladder’ (higher system, system-in-focus, lower system), is determined by the perspective or point of view of it (‘Weltanschauung’ – Checkland, 1981), but always in the context of an overall ‘sphere of existence’ (Checkland, 1981) (see Fig. 1). As suggested above, by the notion of ‘sphere’, this coupling is not just hierarchical, but also

Fig. 1. The viable systems model.

Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A. et al., A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited, European Journal of Operational Research (2007), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.023

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

‘orthogonal’ – in other words, such a system will be coupled through various structural components to a whole range of other more or less open systems in many dimensions and scales (in the case of a human being, for instance, the society, families, church and the eco-system). What this means is that such a system has not got fixed boundaries with the systems to which it is braided, in spite of the fact that the dynamics of its organisational closure can be said to continuously generate a boundary membrane of some sort in correlation with the recurrent pattern of its internal dynamics. Maturana and Varela indicate in great detail how this mechanism of structural coupling and orthogonal intersection in terms of bodihood dynamics, actually works in the biological world (Maturana and Varela, 1980, 1988). It is important to note that any such ‘organisational closure’ (Maturana and Varela, 1980, 1988) is only closure of the organisational dynamics. It is not closed to material or other exchanges through which the system is structurally coupled to a changing niche. It is a bit like Russian dolls if we could imagine a doll as a living system – any one doll living within an outer doll and containing another. What this allows is for the analyst to determine a particular ‘ladder of recursion’ for a particular purpose, and drive through the logical dependencies entailed in this unfolding, noting the existence of other dependencies but bracketing them for the task in hand. Recursive ‘mapping’ enables diagnosis of extremely complex systems as they are first mapped into several levels of recursion, and then each recursion can be studied using exactly the same rules. However, this analytical framework does not lead to an exclusion of more detailed or ambiguous factors. Merely it provides a benchmark or template by which to apply a consistent set of rules to a variety of situations, in order to make sense of those ‘messes’ (Ackoff, 1974) that characterise human social practice situations. Individual characteristics of the system under study become readily highlighted in their rich variety through reference to such a benchmark. The interaction of the various entailed systems is diagnosed within guidelines provided by Ross Ashby’s Laws of Variety (Ashby, 1964). Variety is a measure of perceived complexity, and is an approach that enables any system to be studied in terms of the balance between identified and closed input and output loops, in the context of a purpose ascribed by the observer of them. Beer builds on Ashby’s findings to develop several laws and axioms of man-

7

agement that offer criteria for structural diagnosis and design (Beer, 1979, 1981). The VSM includes a diagnostic toolkit as well as performance measuring systems to foster self-regulation of autonomous embedded systems. It has been used for around 30 years and its application has been widely reported (e.g. Espejo and Harnden, 1989; Espejo and Schwaninger, 1993; Espejo et al., 1996; Espejo and Stewart, 1998; Espinosa and Walker, 2005; Espinosa and Jackson, 2002; Espinosa et al., 2005; Schwaninger, 2003; Walker, 1991). Perhaps most ambitiously, President Allende in Chile implemented the model in 1971 to model the whole economy of that country (reported in Beer (1981)). The next sections illustrates the difference between the model suggested by the VSM and more traditional ones, as well as proposing some of the implications for sustainability of using such an organisational model for the redesign of state–society relationships. 5. Sustainable (viable) structures It is worth indicating a number of reasons why the VSM might be of particular value to support sustainability, in comparison with more traditional organisational approaches. (a) Autonomy and Cohesion It is now generally recognised that traditional command/control or authority/obedience techniques do not work in a rapidly changing environment: they tend to lag behind dynamic changes in circumstances, and lead to inevitable periodic crises and breakdowns when readjustment occurs. What the VSM helps us do is to create more effective organisation by engaging the energy and intelligence of local constituents in the overall endeavour. The experience of maximised local autonomy is, in VSM terms, one of the logical requirements for ensuring effective organisation, and the model was envisaged as a means to ensure that the synergistic benefits of this are harnessed in the interests of the whole. This is particularly relevant to implementing sustainability agendas, as it is precisely the cohesion of structurally coupled autonomous organisations at every recursive level that will produce sustainability. Those structural couplings only develop through a conscious interaction that aligns individual, family and

Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A. et al., A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited, European Journal of Operational Research (2007), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.023

ARTICLE IN PRESS 8

A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

industry interactions (for example) in purposeful conversations and coherent actions fostering more sustainable social and economic structures. (b) The Role of Higher Management In Beer’s own thinking, the primary function of higher management is logical rather than political, though where there is social organisation one will always witness the play of politics. In the VSM, management is not experienced as interfering through decree, but as using its broader perspective to provide a ‘meta’ understanding of the entailed issues that ensures the cohesion between the various parties and interests that constitute the organisation. Beer is clear that the job of the meta-system (literally ‘‘over and above’’) is to facilitate and ensure cohesion between the diverse operations while protecting their own necessary identity and to make sure that resources are allocated between the various demands of the system. The metasystem is charged with ensuring policy is adhered to, and should an operational unit fail to do this (for example, by acting outside the law), the meta-system will exercise authority. In other matters, it responds to the needs of the operation, and as such provides a service. Thus discussions of centralisation and decentralisation become irrelevant: a viable system is both at once. (c) Structural coupling with the Environment Many of the whole system discussions of the VSM involve the balance which must be maintained, involving multiple relationships between operations, meta-system and the environment. In all cases the environment plays a crucial role: It is by mapping the interaction between the environment and the various parts of the system (at all levels) that we can take account of the viability of their interactions with their ever-shifting niches. This is in sharp contrast to traditional pyramidal models for which there is no niche, but a passive environment forming an inert background for the activities of the organisation. The critical point for Beer was that unless account is taken of those aspects of the environment to which the enterprise is braided in its operations (i.e. its niche, such as social and legal embodiment, or culture), then there is no way for the internal dynamics to be adjusted in order to deal with whatever micro and

macro changes are occurring outside. And without such real-time adjustments, there just isn’t viability! (d) Variables and Metrics for Sustainability The challenge is to be able to identify the essential variables which can be used to monitor the most vital aspects of the interaction between organisation and niche. It is in the meaning that each viable system attributes to its interactions to other viable systems that the way of interacting emerges, as well as the metrics from observing its relationships. Instead of designing metrics and measures to control the systems from above, as most sustainability agendas will do, the VSM suggests the need to design meta-systemic tools to monitor self-regulation of embedded viable systems. It also suggests the idea of eudemony as a measure of people’s well being (Beer, 1983, 1989, p. 211; 1994, p. 336) as the natural way of measuring viability at the social level. Poaching from Aristotle, Beer intuited that a state of happiness with one’s social being was as important and measurable a metric as the more ephemeral spiritual happiness, or quantitative material and economic metrics. Using this paradigm means overcoming current obsession with financial measurements alone and being more in tune with recent findings that re-examine Quality of Life metrics (see for example Chatterton, 2002; Max-Neef, 1995). (e) Participation and Re-engagement From the VSM perspective, participation is so fundamental that it often escapes notice. Variety balancing between all operations at all levels require empowered, engaged individuals/ communities/organisations, and the only way effective organisation can be articulated is to devolve power to the level that things get done. From a hierarchical point of view, participation is an alien concept trying to force its way into an unwelcome setting. The topdown, pyramidal, authority-obedience machine is so well established, attempts to change it are generally short lived. Even attempts by governments to consult and listen to its citizens are often dismal failures: often the feeling is that they are allowed to speak and then ignored completely. An intuitive understanding of the VSM would lead to methods of working in which the participation

Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A. et al., A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited, European Journal of Operational Research (2007), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.023

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

9

Table 1 Traditional vs. cybernetic approaches to management Traditional approaches

Cybernetic approaches (including VSM)

Weltanschauung (World view)

Interacting systems seen as discrete entities with simple input/ output connections

Understanding that the internal dynamics of the system alter in correlation with the niche to which it is coupled, and in terms of multiple feedback loops

View of Organisation

Focus is on internal relationships alone Model often limited to tree of command

Focus on relationship between operation, meta-system as well as relevant niche. Complex systems designed to be autonomously cohesive at all levels Models rich and dynamic

View of Control and Authority

Authority/Obedience

Autonomy/Cohesion

Top-down control from boss to worker – no feedback

Control as responsibility of autonomous yet engaged actors at all levels. Voluntary embrace of shared rules and communication protocols Cohesion through meta-systemic design Information constitutes control

Cohesion through obedience. Control through status Role of participation/ empowerment

Empowerment tends to be ‘‘bolted on’’– Knowledge tends to be a function of the powerful rather than the actors on the ground. Consultation results often ignored completely

Empowerment is explicitly required to cope with the variety of complex environmental interactions

Increased responsibility and consciousness explicitly nurtured Consultation (in terms of reflection) built-in and continuous Financial Control

Tends to be blinkered by arbitrary ‘12 month Budgets’ which often pathologically determine later interpretations of success – in point of fact, assessment of forecast rather than operational effectiveness

Interactive (participative) financial planning

Learning cycle based on dynamic performance measurement system. Budgets seen as guidelines not dictates to be followed regardless of change. Success measured in terms of changes in operational effectiveness rather than deviations from the forecast Relationship with environment

Market environment monitored closely. Otherwise considered in terms of constraints imposed by management (e.g. Research and Development)

Considered and managed at all recursive levels, operational AND management, including the imperatives of the natural environment Specific focus upon the links of operation to local environment, and feedback to all levels of organisation

Response to environmental change

Slow. Consequences must reach higher levels before decisions can be taken. Real time – sensitive to environmental change – is mediated by managers at each level

Immediate: People on operational level have ‘intelligence’ and autonomy to operate and respond with real time changes Closed feedback loops in all interactions

Identification of relevant variables

Use traditional scientific tools to analyse the discrete entities identified (individuals, families, institutions, industries, eco-systems)

Identify both entities and the relevant niche pinpointing the essential variables

Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A. et al., A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited, European Journal of Operational Research (2007), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.023

ARTICLE IN PRESS 10

A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

and empowerment of worker/managers at all levels is, quite simply, just the obvious way to run things. From the environmental point of view, an empowered community would be in a position to actually DO something about polluted rivers or choking fumes rather than complain that nothing ever gets done by some ‘higher authority’. Table 1 summarises the main differences between structural criteria in current approaches to management and systemic cybernetic ones. In the next sections we’ll illustrate how, in order to make the epistemological change required for sustainability that Beer suggested, we require not only to reposition ourselves as individuals and members of society, but also to change structural arrangements we have developed historically to ones that favour better complexity management.

6. Bridging the gap: The nuts and bolts of a sustainable society Current structures – both economical and political – continue to favour the vested interests, notably of the very rich and powerful, and clearly this makes the chances of bringing about significant change very slim. However, the possibility that complete environmental collapse is now decades rather than millennia away, makes it in everyone’s interests to re-think fundamentally the structures and processes which have brought us so close to the brink (Stern Review Report, 2006). We have argued here that effective solutions massively increase the chances of success when they emerge from an understanding of the mechanism of structurally coupled autonomous (i.e. self-regulated) entities in their natural flow, entities which – even though autonomous – are actually structurally coupled across different phenomenal domains as well as different social organisations. Of course from the perspective of the observer (the emergence of whom was a key triumph of western science), a key prerequisite was to categorise and gather phenomena into systems of organisation. But, we should never forget that such systems of cognitive organisation are only loosely isomorphic with the phenomena of the world we inhabit and constitute through our actions. Here, we present some guidelines on what this really means to guide intervention design for massive change.

In general terms, the way the approach introduced here can contribute to change current state of affairs is by redesigning the ontology of observations, as well as the epistemology of interventions for massive change regarding sustainability. The paradigm of second order cybernetics encourages us to question and revise the assumption as to the neutrality of the observer, and the objectivity of scientific results. That is the critical implication of the work of the Santiago School. At the epistemological level, the VSM offers holistic structural criteria to design the transformation as a break-through process – as Laszlo calls it (Laszlo, 2006, pp. 11–15). It illuminates neural-network types of structural arrangements that, when applied to societal self-regulation, will widen the issues observed, the technology of observation as well as the opportunities for participation in crucial affairs from all stakeholders of the organisation. The VSM also offers detailed criteria for design and implementation of the decisionmaking mechanism (at each fractal or recursive level) according to complexity management axioms to guarantee wide and democratic participation, while effectively managing the massive complexity emerging from it. Table 2 shows some possible applications of this approach from individual to global levels of recursion, as well as suggestions for further reading. The recursion levels shown are only examples – clearly more levels could be analysed. We have intentionally included an ‘(eco) regional’ level, as we consider that it may be required for environmental management instead of the more traditional political administrative demarcations. We have developed and exemplified this argument in previous work (see Espinosa and Walker, 2005). The same argument could apply to multinational Eco-regions (e.g. the Amazon rain forest) requiring meta-systemic management at the macro-region level involving several nations cooperating. At the individual level, in her experience the individual (observer) seeks ways to nurture the self-regulation of the micro (local) in the understanding that it is when such self-regulation is coupled to the self-regulation of other entities, that true sustainability can emerge. By regular and continuous involvement with issues concerning the quality of the air we breathe, an individual may make a personal decision to drive an LPG vehicle rather than a low MPG four-wheel-drive or take the train rather than drive. Without participation and peer (social)

Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A. et al., A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited, European Journal of Operational Research (2007), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.023

Outline

Theory

Practice: Actions required to bridge the gap

Individual

Autonomous, conscious, self-regulated individuals, empowered and taking direct responsibility for their immediate environment

Paradigmatic change on our way of observing our interaction and embodiment in our niche

Purchase of organic local food

Understanding of our constitutive place as individuals in a braided dynamic in which our physical and metaphysical being is an embodiment of more global systems Nurture the self-regulation of the micro (individual) coupled to the self-regulation of other bio-social entities Regular and continuous involvement with critical issues concerning local/global sustainability

Use of public transport

Use of small, efficient vehicles

Super-insulation of houses

Installation of solar panels Composting of all waste vegetables Recycling of the majority of household waste. Measurement of individual eudemony used to inform decision making at higher levels of recursion Organisation (Industry, NGO, schools, hospitals, other public/private service organisations)

Self-regulated organisations, braided in the local and global consciousness on sustainable living

Control its ‘green’ variables in the course of its ‘dance’ with the changing environment to which it is coupled, at various fractal levels (for instance, competitors, industrial sector, and society) Institutional actors at multiple levels cooperate towards the vision of a sustainable world (Schwaninger, 2006)

Construction of super insulated, zero-energy use buildings

Businesses disposing of all waste responsibly – recycling, using waste to create new products Purchase of all food/raw materials as locally as possible Minimisation of miles travelled to market Businesses become democratic Profits used for community (sustainable) development

Community/local

Democratic self-regulated communities actively involved in deciding and acting on relevant sustainability (global and local) issues

Community and local organisations empowered, accountable and resourced to design and implement sustainability programs -using the best of their knowledge and tradition

Introduction – or improvement – of systems to participate (Leonard, 2006)

(continued on next page)

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Level of Organisation

A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 11

Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A. et al., A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited, European Journal of Operational Research (2007), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.023

Table 2 Glimpses of a more sustainable society at several levels of recursion

Level of Organisation

12

Outline

Theory

Practice: Actions required to bridge the gap

Representatives of social and political institutions of towns, villages and rural regions deciding and acting in direct consultation with their inhabitants

Effective political systems trusted by people, with democratic mechanisms to manage massive complexity – Espinosa et al. (2005)

Local newspapers publish ‘green’ Key Performance Indicators everyday and organises Campaigns to lower energy use (bio-feedback) Local planning based on regular consultation: e.g. balance of new housing estates vs. green belt decided by poll Community tree-planting

Massive social change towards more participatory structures Effective monitoring systems to alert when sustainability critical indices’ behaviours change drastically –

Regional

Local politicians made accountable. Lively internet debates of sustainable development issues Autonomous communities and local governments properly nested at higher/ lower organisational levels Community networks and industry clusters self- regulate their interactions on critical sustainability issues. (Espinosa and Walker, 2005) Co-operation for sustainable trading/ co-existence rather than blind competition for resources Trust relationships develop between communities, industries and government, following principles of autonomy, cohesion, citizenship and performance (Espejo and Stewart, 1998)

National

National government co-ordinating sub-eco Regional issues and eco-regional issues (international)

National identity informed by bio-regional focus Meta-systemic management

Second Order control of self regulated Bio Regions. Primary sectors’ regulatory services Public sector’s service provision Political and social control Information, knowledge and communication Co-ordination Technological and scientific promotion

The development of sub-eco Region projects involves representatives from all community networks, industry clusters and local government from that bio-region Air and water quality indicators for the river basin as a whole are published in regional press. Open forums in place to review and suggest improvements Businesses develop joint buying, shared transportation, discussions of best practice and other co-operative initiatives

National government continues to coordinates issues such as Education, Health, Transport, Energy, and Internal Policing) Taxation used to discourage private car ownership, and encourage development of eco-industries Laws passed on minimum insulation standards Subsidies for PV roofs, solar water heaters. Massive insulation/energy efficiency programs

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Grouping covers all business, local government, communities within a region (e.g. an eco-region such as a river basin)

A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A. et al., A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited, European Journal of Operational Research (2007), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.023

Table 2 (continued)

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Global

United Peoples Organisation (instead of United Nations Development Program/World Bank) (Laszlo, 2006, pp. 46–47)

Global flow of money, goods information and communication resources

Humankind collective knowledge management on sustainability critical issues Harmonising national policies to safeguard integrity of bio-sphere

Revaluation of commodity prices to reverse flow of wealth from poor to rich Environmental protection

Co-ordination of multi-ethical, multi-cultural issues required for sustainability ICT meta-data of global GIS Global peace and security

Meta-systemic management at global level

UPO established with clear cybernetic guidelines – including powers to control nation states if they threaten the cohesion of the planet Dismantling all nuclear weapons

A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

13

control, most people will continue to make decisions that suit their particular circumstances without regard for the wider issues. At the business and institutional levels, we need to create more clear incentives for them to embrace green practice, so that institutional dynamics function in favour of the vision of a sustainable world. For further illustration, we have presented elsewhere examples of the use of this paradigm to support environmental and green businesses – Espinosa et al. (2006). At the various levels of the relationship statesociety (local, bio-regional, national, eco-regional and global), Beer viewed individual autonomy as the fundament for democracy and highlighted the need to design better structures that allowed participation in public decisions that affect individual interests. Recognition of such structural imperatives prevents the trend wherein individual, social forms and natural environment remain disconnected from each other, in what Beer calls ‘pathological autopoiesis’ (Beer, 1981, pp. 337–341). From this paradigm, involvement of the community itself in implementation of sustainability agendas is a logical imperative as much as a political desideratum. Co-operation between community and resource providers simply offers a far higher chance of success as it offers better possibilities for managing complexity. Self-regulated societal development rather than development dictated by top-down strategic control (however insightful and well-meaning the overall strategy) has to be at the heart of any effective structural design for sustainability, in that the entailed interactions are what generates or constitutes ongoing viability. In summary, in order to bridge the gap we need a structural shift in the relation state-society towards more autonomous communities and local governments, properly nested at higher organisational levels. This is particularly relevant, as most current power structures are far away from allowing democratic participation, and work on the basis of Status Quo representatives (those in power). Only an approach that can favour global equity would be deeply contributing to sustainability and the VSM can offer criteria for more democratic global governance. The VSM provides a meta-language, a template to map the complexity of real life organisations. Additional tools will be required to analyse cultural, political and technological aspects relevant to sustainability. As shown before, other systemic

Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A. et al., A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited, European Journal of Operational Research (2007), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.023

ARTICLE IN PRESS 14

A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

approaches offer complementary tools and methodologies to support sustainability agendas and related complex societal decisions. An interesting research path to follow is also the integration between the approach shown here and other approaches also using Second Order cybernetics, such as the SLIM approach mentioned before (SLIM, 2006) and Capra’s implementation strategies for sustainability (Capra, 2003).

emphasis when designing an intervention for sustainability programmes should shift from top-down approaches to participatory, bottom up structures, where information about critical variables and their behaviour is publicly distributed and lower organisational levels (i.e. community, industry, local governments) are empowered to self-regulate their local issues (i.e. to decide and act on their main issues requiring control).

7. Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Sustainability requires a balanced, long-term relationship between actors and their environment. It involves a broader awareness of the need to accommodate the various interests of diverse parties in a way that maximises the interest of each through the co-existence of all. The shift is away from seeing other as either a threat to be feared or a ‘natural’ victim to be exploited, to seeing others – however different from oneself – as equal members of ‘humanity’, together and voluntarily pursuing the coherent goal of sustainability as a species. Our co-existing differences form a bricolage that bombards he eye with the beauty and wonder of the variety that characterises humankind – a global community that is constituted through the braided pattern of recurrent actions and behaviours of myriad distinct micro communities. Sustainability is based on the insight that difference and variety are to be experienced not as the clash of different interests, but as a motor for the creation of a richer, more equitable world. Finally and critically, this world is one wherein nature herself is understood as inextricably linked to humankind, rather than passively forming a backdrop for human endeavour. This paper has indicated an insightful way to explain sustainability from a perspective of complexity management and in particular, from those of Second Order and Organisational Cybernetics. We revisited the Viable System Model, under the ontological perspective of the Santiago School of Cognition, and have shown how this theoretical framework is useful to re-understand sustainability, at the structural level of biosocial interactions. A clearer distinction between traditional management approaches and the approach suggested here has been outlined. Its implications for re-designing structural arrangements and decision-making mechanisms at different levels have been discussed. Finally, we have offered examples of, how the

We acknowledge both Gerald Midgley and Allenna Leonard for the valuable comments and criticisms made that helped to improve the final version of this paper. References Ackoff, R., 1974. Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Social Problems. Wiley Interscience, London. Ashby, R., 1964. An Introduction to Cybernetics. Methuen, London. Baker, S., Kousis, M., Richardson, D., Young, S. (Eds.), 1997. The Politics of Sustainable Development: Theory, Policy and Practice within the European Union. Routledge, London. Banathy, B.H., 2000. Guided Evolution of Society: A Systems View. Kluwer/Plenum, New York. Bateson, G., 1973. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Paladin, St Albans, UK. Bateson, G., 1980. Mind and Nature – A Necessary Unity. Fontana, Glasgow. Bausch, K., 2004. Constructing agoras of the global village. World Futures 60, 1–13. Beer, S., 1966. Decision and Control: The Meaning of Operational Research and Management Cybernetics. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Beer, S., 1979. Heart of the Enterprise. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Beer, S., 1981. Brain of the Firm, second ed. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Beer, S., 1983. The will of the people. Journal of the Operational Research Society 34, 797–810. Beer, S., 1985. Diagnosing the System for Organizations. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Beer, S., 1989. The evolution of a management cybernetic process. In: Espejo, R., Harnden, R. (Eds.), The Viable System Model – Interpretations and Applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK. Beer, S., 1994. Cybernetics of National Development (evolved from work in Chile). In: Harnden, R., Leonard, A. (Eds.), How Many Grapes Went into the Wine – Stafford Beer on the Art and Science of Holistic Management. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Bell, S., Morse, S., 2005. Holism and understanding sustainability. Systemic Practice and Action Research 18, 409–426. Bowen, K., 2001. The process of problem formulation. European Journal of Operational Research 128, 258–265.

Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A. et al., A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited, European Journal of Operational Research (2007), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.023

ARTICLE IN PRESS A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2007) xxx–xxx Brocklesby, J., Mingers, J., 2005. The use of the concept autopoiesis in the theory of viable systems. System Research and Behavioral Science 22, 3–9. Capra, F., 1996. The Web of Life – A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter. Harper Collins, London. Capra, F., 2003. The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living. Harper Collins, London. Carley, M., Sappens, P., 1998. Sharing the World: Sustainable Living and Global Equity in the 21st Century. James & James Earthscon, London. Chatterton, P., 2002. Be realistic: Demand the impossible: Moving towards strong sustainable development in an old industrial region. Regional Studies 36, 552–561. Checkland, P., 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. DeTombe, D. Copram, 2001. A method for handling complex societal problems. European Journal of Operational Research 128, 266–281. Driessen, P., Glasbergen, P., Verdaas, C., 2001. Interactive policy making – A model of management for public works. European Journal of Operational Research 128, 322–337. Espejo, R., Harnden, R. (Eds.), 1989. The Viable System Model – Interpretations and Applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Espejo, R., Schwaninger, M. (Eds.), 1993. Organisational Fitness: Corporate Effectiveness through Management Cybernetics. Campus Verlag, New York. Espejo, R., Schuhmann, W., Schwaninger, M., Billelo, U., 1996. Organisational Transformation and Learning. John Wiley & Sons, London. Espejo, R., Stewart, N., 1998. Systemic reflections on environmental sustainability. Systems Research and Behavioural Science 15, 483–496. Espinosa, A., 2003. Team Syntegrity as a tool to promote democratic agreements. An example from the national environmental sector in Colombia. In: Proceedings of the ISSS Conference ‘‘Agoras of the Global Village’’. ISSS, Crete. Espinosa, A., Walker, J., 2005. Environmental management revisited: Lessons from a cybernetic intervention in Colombia. Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal 37, 75–92. Espinosa, A., Jackson, M.C., 2002. A systemic look at educational development programs: Two perspectives on a recent Colombian experience. Kybernetes 31, 1324–1335. Espinosa, A., Harnden, R., Walker, J., 2005. Cybernetics of participation: From theory to practice. Systemic Practice and Action Research 17, 573–589. Flood, R., 2001. Local systemic intervention. European Journal of Operational Research 128, 245–257. Jackson, M.C., 2003. Systems Thinking. Creative Holism for Managers. John Wiley, Chichester. Laszlo, A., 2003. Evolutionary systems design: A praxis for sustainable development. Organisational Transformation and Social Change 1, 29–46. Laszlo, E., 2006. The Chaos Point: The World at the Crossroads. Piatkus Books Ltd, London. Laszlo, K., Laszlo, A., 2003. The role of evolutionary learning community in evolutionary development: The unfolding of a line of enquiry. In: Proceedings of the ISSS-03 Conference ‘‘Agoras in the Global Village’’, Crete. Leonard, A., 2006. Between dynamic and control: A dynamic of democracy. Kybernetes: The international journal of Systems; Cybernetics 35, 76–89.

15

Maturana, H., 1983. What is it to see? Archivo de Biologia y Medicina Experimental l 16, 255–269. Maturana, H., 1985. Comment by Humberto R. Maturana: The Mind is not in the Head. Journal of Social Biological Structures 8, 308–311. Maturana, H., 1988. Ontology of observing: The biological foundations of self-consciousness and the physical domain of existence. In: Conference Proceedings of the American Society of Cybernetics. ASC, Felton, CA. Maturana, H., Guiloff, G., 1980. The quest for the intelligence of intelligence. Journal of Social Biological Structures 3, 135–148. Maturana, H., Varela, F., 1980. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Reidel, Dordrecht. Maturana, H., Varela, F., 1988. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Shambala, Boston. Max-Neef, M., 1995. Economic growth and quality of life: A threshold hypothesis. Ecological Economics 15, 115–118. Mc Culloch, W., 1965. Embodiments of Mind. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Meadows, D., Randers, J., 1992. Beyond the Limits. Green Publishing Company, Chelsea. Meadows, D., 1998. Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development. Sustainability Institute, Hartland Four Corners, VT. Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., Behrens, W., 1972. Limits to Growth – a report for the club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. Earth Island Limited, London. Meadows, D., Randers, J., Meadows, D., 2004. The Limits to Growth: The 30 Year Update. Chelsea Green Publishing, London. Midgley, G., Reynolds, M., 2004. Systems/operational research and sustainable development: Towards a new agenda. Sustainable Development 12, 56–64. Patterson, A., Theobald, K.S., 1999. Emerging contradiction: Sustainable development and the new local governance. In: Buckingham-Hatfield, S., Percy, S. (Eds.), Constructing Local Environmental Agendas: People, places and participation. Routledge, London. Powers, W., 1973. Behaviour: The control of perception. Aldine, Chicago. Schlindwein, S.L., Ison, R., 2004. Human knowing and perceived complexity: Implications for systems practice. Emergence: Complexity and Organization 3, 27–32. Schwaninger, M., 2003. Long over short term: The example of ecological management. Organisational Transformation and Social Change 1, 11–27. Schwaninger, M., 2006. The quest for ecological sustainability: A multi-level issue. In: Trappl, R. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research. University of Vienna and Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies, Vienna. Varela, F., Thompson, E., Rosch, E., 1991. The Embodied Mind – Cognitive Science and Human Experience. The MIT Press, London. Von Foerster, H., 1981. Observing systems. Intersystems, Salinas, CA. Walker, W., Rohman, S., Cave, J., 2001. Adaptive policies; policy analysis and policy-making. European Journal of Operational Research 128, 282–289. WCED – World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 5.

Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A. et al., A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited, European Journal of Operational Research (2007), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.023

ARTICLE IN PRESS 16

A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

Young, S., 1998. A Miracle beyond the participation hurdle?. In: Lafferty W., Eckerberg, K. (Eds.), From the Earth Summit to Local Agenda 21: Working towards Sustainable Development. Earthscan Publications, London, pp. 179–203.

Web References Bausch, K., Christakis, A., Harris, L., (Eds.), 2003. Science for Humanity: Agoras of the Global Village, Co-Laboratories of Democracy. In: Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Meeting of the International Society for the System Sciences: Crete (available March 20th, 2006 at: http://www.isss.org/ 2003meet/). Espinosa, A., Harnden, R., Walker, J., 2006. Structural design for sustainability: Some insights from managerial cybernetics. In: Proceedings of the ISSS Conference, Complexity, Democ-

racy and Sustainability, Sonoma, CA; available Nov 30th 2006 at http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings50th/ author/submission/130. SLIM, 2006. Final Report SLIM project (available Sept 19th, 2006 in http://slim.open.ac.uk). Stern Review Report. Available Nov 30th 2006 at http:// www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/ stern_review_economics_climate_change/ stern_review_report.cfm. Walker, J., 1991. The Viable System Model: A Guide for Cooperatives and Federations. (available Oct 6th 2005 in http:// www.greybox.uklinux.net/vsmg_2.2/bibliograpgy.html). Wackernagel, M., 1997. Framing the Sustainability Crisis: Getting from concern to action. (Available, Sept 13th, 2004 in http://www.sdri.ubc.ca/documents/Framing the Sustainability Crisis.doc).

Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A. et al., A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited, European Journal of Operational Research (2007), doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.03.023