Australian Journal of Environmental Education, vol.

32(1), 109–123, 2016 109


C The Author(s) 2016. doi 10.1017/aee.2015.51

Transformations? Skilled Change Agents

Influencing Organisational Sustainability Culture

Keith Davis,1 & Mark Boulet2

1
Wannon Water Corporation, Warrnambool, Victoria, Australia
2
Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Abstract Training employees in sustainability knowledge and skills is considered a

vital element in creating a sustainability culture within an organisation.
Yet, the particular types of training programs that are effective for this
task are still relatively unknown. This case study describes an innovative
workplace training program using a ‘head, hands, heart and feet’ learning
framework to create skilled change agents among employees, in order to
influence organisational sustainability culture. Utilising a dialogic inquiry
methodology (Most Significant Change), as well as Mezirow’s phases of
transformative learning and Schein’s organisational culture framework,
this study considers the training program’s impact on both participants
and organisational sustainability culture. While transformative learning
impacts for participants were identified, questions remain as to the over-
all impact of the program on the organisation’s sustainability culture. Con-
sidering training participants as ‘seeds of influence’ as opposed to wholly
responsible for organisational culture might provide new perspectives to
these questions.

In the field of organisational environmental sustainability, it is argued that organisa-

tions cannot meaningfully address issues such as energy and water efficiency and emis-
sions reduction without an appropriate ‘sustainability culture’ (Baumgartner, 2009;
Dunphy, Griffiths, & Benn, 2003; Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010). Recognising that
there will always be different conceptions of sustainability culture (see Linnenluecke
& Griffiths, 2010 in relation to ‘organisational sustainability’), the definition offered by
Bertels, Papiana, and Papiana (2010) provides a useful starting point:
A sustainability culture is one in which organizational members hold shared
assumptions and beliefs about the importance of balancing economic efficiency,
social equity and environmental accountability. Organizations with strong cul-
tures of sustainability strive to support a healthy environment and improve the
lives of others while continuing to operate successfully over the long term. (p. 10)
Despite agreement that the ‘right’ culture is important in improving an organisation’s
sustainability performance, there is less explicit guidance and research on how such

Address for correspondence: Keith Davis, Wannon Water Corporation, PO Box 1158,
Warrnambool VIC 3280, Australia. Email: keith.davis@wannonwater.com.au
110 Keith Davis and Mark Boulet

a culture can be ‘created’. Previous work has focused on the overall adoption of sus-
tainability practices by organisations, but confined the actual details of practice to the
‘organisational black box’ (Howard-Grenville, 2006; Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010).
Based on an extensive review, Bertels et al. (2010) contend that: ‘There has been a
limited amount of research addressing how to embed sustainability in organisational
culture. In this area, practice often leads theory’ (p. 9).
Numerous authors have highlighted that staff engagement and education is key
to developing a sustainability culture (Benn, Dunphy, & Griffiths, 2006; Bertels et al.,
2010; Willard, 2009). From their research within a large multinational company, Haugh
and Talwara (2010) developed the following principles for staff education in order to
develop a sustainability culture:
• Learning about sustainability should not be restricted to leaders and senior man-
agers;
• Approaches need to be cross-functional and spread across the full range of business
functions;
• Embedding sustainability should include technical and action learning opportunities
to increase employees’ knowledge and commitment.
As with sustainability culture, while broad principles have been developed to guide staff
sustainability education, different practices on the ground have, at best, only received
limited testing. Bertels et al. (2010) argue that while education and training is an empir-
ically supported practice to build or support a sustainability culture, additional research
is needed to understand what kinds of programs are actually effective.
Here we present a case study of a staff training program implemented at the Wannon
Region Water Corporation (Wannon Water), located in south-west Victoria, Australia.
The Green Steps @ Wannon Water program was developed and delivered in partnership
with the Monash University Sustainability Institute (MSI). The purpose of Green Steps
@ Wannon Water was to create a group of skilled change agents among staff and through
them, develop a sustainability culture within the organisation that leads to a more
innovative and resilient water business (Davis, 2010).
This article has two key aims. First, we describe the training program (its structure,
format and learning outcomes) in detail. From our experience, Green Steps @ Wannon
Water was a relatively unique staff sustainability training program within Australia,
particularly through its focus on both training and work-based projects. Our intention
is to contribute to general environmental education practice and, more specifically, to
the practice of this within organisations, by providing practitioners with insight into,
and ideas from, our program.
Second, we utilise a dialogic inquiry methodology (Most Significant Change) to col-
lect evidence of the program’s impacts on participants, as well as the sustainability
culture at Wannon Water. We then utilise Mezirow’s (1997, 2000) phases of individual
learners’ transformation and Schien’s (1997) theoretical framework of organisational
culture as ‘yardsticks’ against which to compare the evidence collected and to ask ques-
tions about the actual impact of the program.
This represents a relatively unexplored addition to research in organisational sus-
tainability culture as well as for the environmental education field. In their review
of Australian environmental education research, Stevenson and Evans (2011) identi-
fied only a small number of education programs that assess learning outcomes. They
also highlighted that the majority of research has concentrated on the formal educa-
tion sector (both in Australia and internationally), with much less focus on informal or
non-formal education. By considering a training program in a water business, we thus
expand the focus of current environmental education research, as well as reflect on the
contribution of environmental education to organisational sustainability culture.
 Transforming Skilled Agents for Organisational Change 111

TABLE 1: Sequence and Brief Description of Training Elements for Green Steps @
Wannon Water

Element no. Element description

1 Kick off training: A 2-day block that investigates environmental issues

in organisations, environmental auditing (energy, waste and water)
skills and behaviour change theory. Participants explore their personal
and professional relationships to sustainability and finish by identifying
and planning (in groups) a short-term, work-based sustainability project.
2 Project work: A period of 2–3 months for participant teams to further
develop and implement their projects over a period of several months.
3 Follow up and check-in: A 1-day workshop that trains participants in
presentation and coherent argument skills, and provides an opportunity
to check-in on project progress.
4 Project work and finalisation: A further period for groups to complete
their projects, write short reports and develop report-back presentations.
5 Report back: A half-day session during which participants presented
project reports to senior executives and managers and made
recommendations and requests for further investment.

Program Description
The Green Steps @ Wannon Water1 program had the following intended learning out-
comes for participants:
1. to gain a deeper understanding of environmental sustainability issues relevant to
the workplace;
2. to be equipped with new skills to collect environmental data, develop and initiate
sustainability programs and communicate outcomes;
3. to be able to engage and motivate colleagues through a better understanding of
behaviour change theory and effective communication principles;
4. to develop, implement and report-back on a work-based sustainability project.
Dunphy et al. (2003) point out that when training is limited to technical skills focused on
compliance, this is not likely to bring about the attitudinal or cultural change required
for a sustainability culture in an organisation. Throughout the training, we focused
on providing participants with a mix of knowledge about sustainability issues and the
skills and experience to tackle these in the workplace. Table 1 shows the sequence of
training elements over the average 5-month period of the program.
Influenced by Mezirow’s transformative learning theory, Sipos, Battisti, and Grimm
(2008) created a framework of transformative sustainability learning based on the
organising principles of heads, hands and heart. This seeks to develop teaching units
with learning objectives addressing the cognitive (head), psychomotor (hands), and
affective (heart) domains of learning. They argue that this combination of objectives is
required to ‘facilitate personal experience for participants resulting in profound changes
in knowledge, skills and attitudes related to enhancing ecological, social and economic
justice’ (p. 69).
While not used to create the actual program, this ‘head, hands and heart’ framework
has been useful to retrospectively frame the learning outcomes, structure, and format
of Green Steps @ Wannon Water, and links our work to existing practice and research.
Training activities and discussions provided participants with knowledge about
112 Keith Davis and Mark Boulet

sustainability issues (head), while auditing and communication exercises gave prac-
tical skills (hands), and the entire program was focused on creating, or consolidating,
sustainability values (heart).
We would also add that the work-based sustainability projects allowed participants
to enact their learning, giving feet to the head, heart, and hands learning objectives.
Beyond creating quantifiable impact from the program for the organisation, the projects
helped to further develop participant sustainability skills and competencies (Brundiers,
Wiek, & Redman, 2010; Brunetti, Petrell, & Sawada, 2003; Haugh & Talwara, 2010).

Teaching and Learning Format

To ensure cross-functional representation, participants were drawn from across Wan-
non Water’s workforce of professionals, operations staff, engineers, scientists and tech-
nicians, and also included middle and senior managers. An expression of interest
process was conducted each year to facilitate open selection of training participants
who were highly motivated. Under-represented divisions within the organisation were
directly approached to identify possible participants.
While we deliberately aimed for a broad representation of participants to enhance
the program’s impact on sustainability culture (Haugh & Talwara, 2010), this created
a challenge in pitching the training at the right level and scope. This was compounded
by participants often having differing levels of exposure to, and understanding of, sus-
tainability concepts (Christie, Miller, Cooke, & White, 2014; Howard-Grenville, 2006;
Reid & Petocz, 2006).
To address these issues, the training had an emphasis on flexible and interactive
delivery. This enabled us to delve deeper when participants wanted to stop and explore
certain content in more depth. The training also focused on small-group work and group
reflective discussion, drawing on the ‘knowledge in the room’ and engaging participants
‘where they are’ in terms of their motivations, world-views, experiences and knowledge
(Willard, 2009).
Most training topics commenced with broad questions (e.g., ‘What is sustainabil-
ity?’ ‘What is a sustainable organisation?’ ‘How would we engage other staff in these
issues?’), to draw out participants’ existing ideas and knowledge, and technical content
and examples were then added by trainers to enhance and build on these discussions.
There was also an emphasis on letting participants learn through hands-on activities
(e.g., waste audits, energy audits, work-based projects), rather than providing too much
detail and information through more ‘lecture-based’ sessions. Each element then typi-
cally concluded with opportunities for individual or group critical reflection on what was
learnt, what changed for participants, how the new knowledge might be used, and so
on. These allowed participants to challenge both theirs and others’ assumptions about
particular issues and question what this might mean for both their work and personal
lives.
Such an approach mirrors the action-learning framework advocated by Argyris
(1993) for employees to become active participants in their own learning, and acknowl-
edges that learning also occurs from practical experience. In support of this, Haugh and
Talwara (2010) argue that:

teaching employees about formal technical standards can be helpful; however,

action learning, in which employees have the opportunity to participate in prac-
tical sustainability projects, makes learning both interesting and worthwhile
for employees and also contributes to genuine advances, in . . . environmental
sustainability. (p. 386)
 Transforming Skilled Agents for Organisational Change 113

Identifing Program Impacts — Methods

Identifying Impacts on Participants
It is relatively uncommon for environmental education programs in Australia to assess
participant learning outcomes, and this is even less common in the case of informal
programs (Stevenson & Evans, 2011). Internationally, while a number of studies have
attempted to identify impacts of environmental or sustainability education programs
on participants, these have tended to focus on knowledge and awareness outcomes, and
there has been much less focus on (and successful tracking of) impacts on their values,
behaviour, and resulting professional practice (Adomßent et al., 2014; Rickinson, 2001;
Ryu & Brody, 2006; Shephard et al., 2013; Stern, Powell, & Hill, 2014).
Stern et al. (2014) reviewed a number of studies that evaluated the outcomes of envi-
ronmental education programs. They contend that the majority of evaluation is either
summative or utilisation focused, developing measures of outcomes based on program
goals. Beyond assuming a causative logic to education (Biesta, 2010), these approaches
prevent broader lessons from being uncovered and do not pay attention to what the indi-
vidual learner identifies as a significant impact of change based on their own context
and values.
To this end, in addition to the usual end-of-program feedback forms that partici-
pants were asked to complete, each Green Steps @ Wannon Water participant was inter-
viewed using a dialogic, story-based technique called Most Significant Change (MSC;
Dart & Davies, 2003, 2005). MSC was initially developed to evaluate complex rural
development programs. It involves the collection and (often participatory) interpreta-
tion of stories of change from those directly involved in a program rather than simply
measuring success against predetermined indicators. To the best of our knowledge, this
approach is not commonly used to evaluate environmental and sustainability education
programs, and we believe it has great potential as an open inquiry into the impacts of
training programs on participants and gives voice to learners to articulate their own
processes of transformation and change.
Thirty-six participants (from a total of 39) were interviewed 2 weeks immediately
after their involvement in Green Steps @ Wannon Water (see Appendix A for questions
used). After the program’s final year, three participants were randomly selected from
across all training cohorts for evaluation interviews to capture longer-term learning
outcomes, again using the MSC methodology (see Appendix B for questions).

Identifying Impacts on the Organisation

At the end of the work-based project phase for each training cohort, teams were asked
to develop a short report that detailed the different elements of their project, as well
as any observed and anticipated outcomes for Wannon Water. When considering the
overall impact of the projects on the organisation, instead of attempting to collate such
a diverse variety into single homogenous metrics, we chose instead to keep them as a
table of unique endeavours, each with their own outcomes and potentials.
During the MSC interviews, participants were also asked to identify in their own
words different impacts that they have observed for Wannon Water as a result of Green
Steps @ Wannon Water.

Identifing Program Impacts: Results

Three cohorts of Wannon Water staff took part in three annual iterations of the pro-
gram from 2011–13. The 35 participants represented about 17% of the organisation’s
workforce and came from various divisions and sites. Four additional participants were
from partner organisations in the region.
114 Keith Davis and Mark Boulet

TABLE 2: Collated Frequency of MSC Interviewees’ Descriptions of Program Impacts

That Matched Intended Learning Outcomes

# Participant
Learning outcome comments

To gain a deeper understanding of environmental sustainability issues 29

relevant to the workplace
To be equipped with new skills to collect environmental sustainability 37
data, develop and initiate environmental programs and communicate
outcomes
To be able to engage and motivate colleagues through a better 59
understanding of behaviour change theory and effective communication
principles
To develop, implement and report back on a short-term, work-based 28
sustainability project

Immediate Learning Outcomes of Participants

The transcripts from MSC interviews in the 2 weeks after program completion were
thematically coded to match the program’s intended learning outcomes. Table 2 collates
the frequency that interviewees described personal, organisational, or other observed
impacts of the program that related to its intended learning outcomes.
This simple analysis shows that, unprompted, there was a very strong parallel in
the significant impacts as described by participants and the intended learning objec-
tives of the program. There seemed to be a particularly strong impact on participants’
perceptions of their abilities and confidence to engage with colleagues on sustainability
issues.
We identified other, more emergent, themes in relation to Green Steps @ Wannon
Water’s impact on participants. The themes are described below and example quotes
from the interviews are also given.
1. Transformation of participants’ thinking: A new awareness of personal
agency and organisational role for influencing change:

Not to view being sustainable as an specific effort or task, but to work towards
including sustainability as just part of the decision making process when under-
taking tasks or making decisions on products etc.
We know we have arrived when sustainability changes from a specific thought
or effort to a natural part of our decision-making processes.
2. Building a critical mass of support or momentum for change: The effec-
tive application of change-agent skills is not always about the big changes; momentum
comes from many small steps:

Little changes in attitude will build on more changes and hopefully spread to
become culture.
The one thing that stayed with me was . . . about engaging others. How engage-
ment for change depends on getting others involved, we can’t do it alone.
3. Empowering training participants to lead for change: New ways to lead,
influence and communicate change:
 Transforming Skilled Agents for Organisational Change 115

The Green Steps training has increased my confidence in presenting new ideas,
and my ability to lead a project team on a sustainability journey.
I had not expected the training to provide me with so many opportunities to
improve myself and improve my knowledge on implementing change from the
very seed of the idea, all the way to completion/implementation of the idea.
I have lots of ideas for economically and environmentally sustainable prac-
tices within my department’s operation. I am preparing to promote and discuss
changes within my team that will encourage and promote greater efficiency and
manageable practices to the betterment of Wannon Water and therefore the com-
munity that it services.
4. Increasing awareness of the need to take personal responsibility: The
training style and practical opportunity for engaging with others influences an attitu-
dinal change to personal responsibility and future cooperative action:
The [Green Steps] training has made me more conscious at home and at work.
Especially in my work station area and group of co-workers. I’m now trying to get
my colleagues to put things in the right waste bin and switch off their computers
at the end of day.
. . . I will be continuing to work with our customers to highlight the [sustain-
ability] contribution they make to the region and to the community by their
involvement with Wannon Water.

Longer-Term Impact on Participants

We see the same emergent themes referred to again by participants interviewed several
years after their involvement with the program:
1. Transformation of participants thinking: ‘Some of the learnings for me about
sustainability leads me to reflect on how we can be ‘reactionary’ and caught up in the
‘day-to-day’ running of things and solving problems, rather than being more ‘proactive’
in our approach and (therefore) more sustainable.’
2. Building a critical mass of support or momentum for change: ‘Learning to
acknowledge the little things, small things that people can contribute to the organisa-
tion, being more positive around others and sharing little successes is important.’
3. Empowering training participants to lead for change: ‘I don’t think my
leadership team skills and development would be where it is today if I hadn’t [partici-
pated in] the program.’ ‘It was the little things, like . . . communicating with others . . .
I have tried to incorporate some of that in my dealing with other people to influence
them “on their terms” is important. It (the training) was a good reflection point for me
and the training gave me tools to do this communication work differently.’
4. Increasing my awareness of the need to take personal responsibility: ‘I
have modified my personal behaviours following the training to try and be more sus-
tainable, like turning off my green switch, participating in car pooling and ride to work
activities, recycling in the office, that kind of thing. I have been more willing to get
involved in supporting the changes that others have been implementing at work.’

Organisational Impacts
A total of 22 work-based sustainability projects were implemented by participant teams
over the 3 years of Green Steps @ Wannon Water. These projects are collated in Table 3.
It is important to note that while some of these projects focused on more day-to-
day operational management issues (e.g., energy use, waste production), a number of
projects were concerned with the core water and sewage management and delivery
116 Keith Davis and Mark Boulet

TABLE 3: Collated Work-Based Sustainability Projects Developed and Lead by

Green Steps @ Wannon Water Participants From 2011–2013

Workplace Projects

Water transfer pumping station energy efficiency optimisation

Investigate and develop a model for an employee business sustainability and innovation
scholarship
Office energy efficiency (several small projects)
Paper reuse and recycling options (several small projects)
Corporate headquarters employee transportation to work (several small projects)
Program to promote switching off office computers and monitors
Organic waste auditing, separation and composting project
Pilot trenchless pipeline technology to avoid damaging biodiversity impacts
Recycling education program for all employees
Lifecycle analysis of frictionless bearing technologies in water reclamation plant for
potential energy and cost savings
Audit and reduce printer fleet energy use at corporate headquarters office
Energy audits at three largest operational depots
Investigate the use of tablet devices to reduce/replace office paper use and energy use
Implement digital signatures on electronic contract documents
Investigate a formal process for installing sustainability champions in Wannon Water
teams
Conduct water audit at regional office
Investigate optimisation of domestic water meters
Investigate vermiculture processing of sludge at reclamation plants
Develop a water-saving native plant education and demonstration garden at headquarter
offices
Investigate air conditioner energy efficiency at regional offices
Regional office auto-doors energy efficiency investigation
Investigate switching to all electronic professional journals for the whole corporation
instead of hard copy subscriptions

business of the organisation. This moves from ‘greening the edges’ to addressing how
sustainability is part of the core identity of an organisation (Dunphy et al., 2003;
Willard, 2009).
While there is not space to provide detail of the different observed, and anticipated,
outcomes on each project, some relevant examples include:
• 1.5 tonnes per year of food scraps diverted from landfill and composted at a local
community garden due to waste diversion projects;
• an estimated $21,000 in resource savings identified through an office printer optimi-
sation project;
• an operational systems project that investigated optimisation of a pumping station’s
running times to take advantage of off-peak electricity prices and manage demands
on pumped water volumes to reduce overall electricity consumption and lower green-
house emissions;
• over $8,000 saved and reduced paper consumption per year (over 7, 500 sheets)
through a project that replaced hard-copy agendas and meeting minutes with elec-
tronic tablet devices for Board and Executive meetings.
 Transforming Skilled Agents for Organisational Change 117

It was evident from these projects that while a number had immediate quantifiable
environmental and financial benefits, many also challenged ‘business as usual’ practices
in the organisation and provided innovative alternatives. All projects involved a level
of communication and engagement with different stakeholders both within and outside
the organisation. A number of projects also had harder-to-quantify social impacts within
the organisation, with potential benefits to staff wellbeing, morale and productivity.
The organisational impact is highlighted by a quote from a participant from the 2011
cohort:
The (waste management) project I worked on was successful at influenc-
ing behavioural changes regarding waste management . . . the content of the
training made the program more effective regarding ongoing sustainability
behaviours and waste management action across the organisation. It also influ-
enced behaviours through the other Green Steps projects; for example, projects
like the green switch-off project, which became part of normal practice. That’s
why the training was so influential, through its impact on changing normal
[organisational] behaviours.

Discussion
When reflecting on the 3-year journey of Green Steps @ Wannon Water and the impacts
that we have identified above, a question that we find ourselves coming back to is: ‘Did it
work?’ Did it work in having a transformative impact on the participants involved in the
program? And did it work in having an impact on the organisational culture of Wannon
Water? We used the theoretical frameworks of Mezirow and Schein as a yardstick to
further reflect on these questions.

Transformative Impacts on Participants

A challenge for any training program is not only to provide a mix of sustainability com-
petencies for participants, but to also ensure that they are transformative in nature.
Namely, how do we raise awareness of sustainability issues, provide participants with
skills to address these, and then ensure that they actually change behaviours and prac-
tices (Ajzen, Joyce, Sheikh, & Cote, 2011; Arbuthnott, 2009; Cranton & King, 2003)?
This is not just the case for training programs in organisations, but for environmental
education more generally (Sipos et al., 2008; Sterling, 2001, 2011).
Mezirow (2000) describes transformative learning as:
. . . the process by which we transform our taken-for granted frames of reference
(meaning perspectives, habits of mind, mind sets) to make them more inclusive,
discriminating, open, emotionally capable of change, and reflective so that they
may generate beliefs and opinions that will prove more true or justified to guide
action. (pp. 7–8)
Mezirow (2000) further outlines a number of phases that a learner goes through during
a process of transformation, which can be broadly summarised into three main stages:
1. a disorientating dilemma (or ‘triggering event’) that may involve a degree of discom-
fort and angst and causes critical assessment of assumptions;
2. an exploration of options and actions in order to acquire new knowledge, skills, and
so forth;
3. trying out, and building confidence, of new roles and actions, and reintegration into
the learner’s life.
Considering the themes emerging from the MSC interviews, we can say with some confi-
dence that there is evidence that many of the Green Steps @ Wannon Water participants
118 Keith Davis and Mark Boulet

were engaged in at least the first two stages of the transformative process, as articu-
lated by Mezirow (2000). The different content presented in the training, as well as
the teaching and learning practices, provided triggering events for many participants,
challenging their assumptions and causing them to consider particular issues from new
perspectives or with fresh eyes. The work-based sustainability projects, as well as the
hands-on nature of the training, also gave participants opportunity to explore different
options and actions in order to acquire new skills. As a side note,while not presented in
this study, the post-program feedback forms showed that the waste and energy audits
during the training in particular provided such triggers for several participants.
While it could be suggested that the lack of baselines in regard to knowledge, atti-
tudes, and behaviours make it difficult to identify whether any transformation occurred
in participants, we argue that the strength of the MSC methodology is that it asks learn-
ers to identify change through a personal understanding of their own baselines. The
wide variety of participants we had in the program would have made it very difficult
to develop a homogenous baseline, which brings us back to the individual learner and
their unique process of transformation.
What we are not able to answer with confidence is whether the program created any
sort of ongoing transformation for participants, and what the level of reintegration of
new knowledge and skills was into their personal and professional lives. Strong hints
of this are evident in the interviews with the three participants included in the more
longitudinal program evaluation, particularly their comments related to incorporation
of the learning from Green Steps @ Wannon Water in other aspects of their professional
roles. The relatively small size of this group, however, makes us wary of drawing more
generalisable conclusions about the longer-term transformative impact of the program
on participants.
Mezirow does identify some key requirements for any process of transformative
learning (Mezirow, 1997; Taylor, 2008), including providing appropriate context to sup-
port the learning process, ensuring there are opportunities for self-reflection by the
learners, and critical discourse with others to validate assumptions. On this basis we
can say with confidence that we have provided the ‘right’ environment for transforma-
tive learning in our participants, as these requirements underpinned the entire peda-
gogy of Green Steps @ Wannon Water.
At one level it might be possible to design a more comprehensive data collection
process with participants to better answer the question of transformation, particularly
in the long term. We highlight some possibilities for this below. At the same time, we
are also conscious of the ontological dangers lurking for the researcher interested in
identifying longitudinal impacts from education programs. Over a period of time, is it
possible to link a particular behaviour or mindset ‘outcome’ to a particular education
program or a particular element of that program (Stern et al., 2014)? Do people ever
‘stop’ transforming? Are we at risk here of considering education and learning as linear
and causal when in fact for each person, it is rather a more open and recursive system
(Biesta, 2010)?

Transformative Impacts on Organisational Culture?

While the participant-led projects point to a number of organisational outcomes (finan-
cial, environmental, and potentially social), questions remain about the overall impact
of the program on Wannon Water’s sustainability culture overall. How much did the
program in fact change, or enhance, this culture? Will these impacts be maintained
into the future, and indeed be deepened? These questions are particularly pertinent,
considering that the program is no longer run at Wannon Water.
 Transforming Skilled Agents for Organisational Change 119

According to Schein (1997), culture within an organisation can be analysed at three

different levels, ranging from the very tangible to the deeply embedded and uncon-
scious. These levels include:
1. artefacts (things one sees, hears and feels);
2. espoused values (strategies, goals, philosophies); and
3. basic assumptions (unconscious, taken for granted beliefs, thoughts and feelings).
Looking at our program through this theoretical framework, we can identify impacts at
the artefact level in regard to sustainability culture. This includes, of course, the pro-
gram itself and its presence in the organisation for 3 years, as well as the numerous
sustainability projects that were carried out in different departments and units by par-
ticipants. The impacts of these projects were not just operational ones (such as resource
saving or financial gains), but also in the less easily quantifiable (but still visible) alter-
natives proposed to business-as-usual in the core operations of the organisation.
In the MSC interviews, participants clearly identified some shifts in their (as
opposed to the organisation’s) espoused values and basic assumptions. This increases
the odds that they will act out some of these changed values and assumptions in their
day-to-day work within the organisation, and in turn potentially shift the organisation’s
culture. The longer-term evaluation interviews conducted with three participants point
to this possibility, showing some of the shifts in their values and assumptions that they
have taken into their formal roles in the organisation.
Yet, when we consider what the program’s impacts on the basic assumptions of the
organisation itself might be, this becomes a difficult question to answer, particularly
when considering that after 3 years, the program is no longer running at Wannon Water
and has not been replaced with any alternative. It was felt that after 3 years of a sus-
tainability leadership program, enough staff (approximately one fifth of the entire staff
body) had been influenced by the initiative that they would, in turn, create a significant
impact on the organisation’s culture and practices. While we agree that due to limited
resources, programs like Green Steps cannot be supported indefinitely in an organisa-
tion and must evolve into other initiatives, questions remain for us in regard to the
links between the transformations of individuals to the transformation of an entire
organisation’s culture. How does one influence the other? While there is evidence of the
transformation of individuals, has this led to the transformation of an organisation?
As with the previous section, we again come back to questions of what other empir-
ical material we could have collected to show changes in sustainability culture, as well
as what we can expect from education programs to contribute to organisational culture.
We consider these further in our conclusion.

Concluding Remarks
We are excited about the process of change that has been initiated in Wannon Water as a
result of this program. We believe that a community of change agents has been ‘seeded’
throughout the organisation, and while some immediate outcomes of their work have
already been identified, there is even greater potential for this group to impact the
sustainability culture of the organisation over time.
When attempting, by way of conclusion, to further answer the question ‘Did it work?’,
two issues became apparent to us. The first is an opportunity to conduct further research
to capture broader organisational impacts and longer-term transformative impacts on
participants from a training program such as Green Steps. This could involve moni-
toring an organisation’s policy documents, mission statements, short-to-medium term
strategies, and budget priorities over an extended period of time to further understand
impacts at the artefact and espoused values levels of organisational culture. This could
120 Keith Davis and Mark Boulet

be complemented by interviews with senior management and other staff not involved
in the training program, to dig down into their basic assumptions and potentially iden-
tify shifts at this level. A similar, more detailed investigation into the activities and
work of participants over the longer term after their involvement with the program,
as well as interviews with those around them, could also give evidence of longer-term
transformation.
The second issue is harder for us to articulate as it challenges notions of what ‘edu-
cation’ can do to ‘change’ or ‘create’ sustainability culture or to transform people. Sus-
tainability is considered to be an ongoing process for which there is no end and no one
‘solution’ (Wals, 2010). Culture, in turn, is also a dynamic and fluid concept that evolves
and changes over time through the interaction of internal and external influences on an
organisation (Baumgartner, 2009; Schein, 1997). The same applies to people as learn-
ers, and indeed to people as people (Biesta, 2010; Heimlich, 2010). Education that tries
to address these issues is therefore also an ideal, as Mogenson and Schnack (2010)
argue, and is never finished. Is it even useful to think about how a one-off training
or education program has transformed people and changed sustainability culture? Or,
is it much more useful to think about students and training participants as ‘seeds of
influence’ that we equip to actively play their part in the ongoing evolution of an organ-
isation’s sustainability culture? As Wals (2010) states: ‘The processes of searching and
engaging are as important, if not more important, than their outcomes as it is these pro-
cesses that help create a reflexive and “learning” society that is capable of responding
to setbacks, crises, and challenges’ (p. 147).

Endnote
1
The template for the Wannon Water initiative was the broader Green Steps program
from MSI, which is described in other publications (Kaufman, Symons, & Bachar,
2006).

References
Adomßent, M., Fischer, D., Godemann, J., Herzig, C., Otte, I., Rieckmann, M., & Timm,
J. (2014). Emerging areas in research on higher education for sustainable develop-
ment — Management education, sustainable consumption and perspectives from
Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, 1–7.
Ajzen, I., Joyce, N., Sheikh, S., & Cote, N.G. (2011). Knowledge and the prediction of
behavior: The role of information accuracy in the theory of planned behaviour. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, 33, 101–117.
Arbuthnott, K.D. (2009). Education for sustainable development beyond attitude
change. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10, 152–163.
Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organiza-
tional change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Baumgartner, R.J. (2009). Organizational culture and leadership: Preconditions for the
development of a sustainable corporation. Sustainable Development, 17, 102–113.
Benn, S., Dunphy, D., & Griffiths (2006). Enabling change for corporate sustainability:
An integrated perspective. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 13,
156–165.
Bertels, S., Papania, L., & Papania, D. (2010). Embedding sustainability in organiza-
tional culture: A systematic review of the body of knowledge. London, Canada: Net-
work for Business Sustainability.
Biesta, G.J.J. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement. London: Paradigm Pub-
lishers.
 Transforming Skilled Agents for Organisational Change 121

Brundiers, K., Wiek, A., & Redman, C.L. (2010). Real-world learning opportunities in
sustainability: From classroom into the real world. International Journal of Sus-
tainability in Higher Education, 11, 308–324.
Brunetti, A.J., Petrell, R.J., & Sawada, B. (2003). SEEDing sustainability: Team project-
based learning enhances awareness of sustainability at the University of British
Columbia, Canada. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 4,
210–217.
Christie, B.A., Miller, K.K., Cooke, R., & White, J.G. (2014). Environmental sustain-
ability in higher education: What do academics think? Environmental Education
Research, 1–32.
Cranton, P., & King, K.P. (2003). Transformative learning as a professional development
goal. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 98, 31–38.
Dart, J.J., & Davies, R. (2003). A dialogical story-based evaluation tool: the Most Sig-
nificant Change technique. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 137–55.
Dart, J., & Davies, R. (2005) The ‘Most Significant Change’ (MSC) technique: A guide
to its use. Retrieved November 16, 2012, from http://www.clearhorizon.com.au/
wp-content/uploads/2008/12/dd-2005-msc user guide.pdf
Davis, K. (2010). Applied learning and action learning: Frameworks for sustainability
skills in Australian water industry training. Action Learning Action Research Jour-
nal, 16, 56–75.
Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., & Benn, S. (2003). Organizational change for corporate sus-
tainability: A guide for leaders and change agents of the future. London: Routledge.
Haugh, H.M., & Talwara, A. (2010). How do corporations embed sustainability
across the organization? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 384–
396
Heimlich, J.E. (2010). Environmental education evaluation: Reinterpreting education
as a strategy for meeting mission. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 180–
185
Howard-Grenville, J.A. (2006). Inside the ‘Black Box’: How organizational culture and
subcultures inform interpretations and actions on environmental issues. Organiza-
tion & Environment, 19, 46–73
Kaufman, S., Symons, W., & Bachar, Z. (2006). The Green Steps Program: Fostering
environmental change agents. In W.L. Filho & D. Carpenter (Eds.), Sustainability
in the Australasian university context (pp. 91–106). Frankfurt: Peter Lang GmbH.
Linnenluecke, M.K., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and organizational
culture. Journal of World Business, 45, 357–366
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: theory to practice. New Directions for
Adult and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12.
Mezirow, J., (Ed.). (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory
in progress. New York: John Wiley.
Mogensen, F., & Schnack, K. (2010). The action competence approach and the ‘new’ dis-
courses of education for sustainable development, competence and quality criteria.
Environmental Education Research, 16, 59–74.
Rickinson, M. (2001). Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical
review of the evidence. Environmental Education Research, 7, 207–320.
Reid, A., & Petocz, P. (2006). University lecturers’ understanding of sustainability.
Higher Education, 51, 105–123.
Ryu, H.-C., & Brody, S.D. (2006). Examining the impacts of a graduate course on sus-
tainable development using ecological footprint analysis. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 7,158–175.
Schein, E.H. (1997). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
122 Keith Davis and Mark Boulet

Shephard, K., Harraway, J., Lovelock, B., Skeaff, S., Slooten, L., Strack, M., . . . Jowett,
T. (2013). Is the environmental literacy of university students measurable? Environ-
mental Education Research, 20, 476–495.
Sipos, Y., Battisti, B., & Grimm, K. (2008). Achieving transformative sustainability
learning: Engaging head, hands and heart. International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education, 9, 68–86.
Sterling, S. (2001). Sustainable education — Re-visioning learning and change. Dart-
ington, UK: Green Books.
Sterling, S. (2011). Transformative learning and sustainability: Sketching the concep-
tual ground. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 5, 17–33.
Stern, M.J., Powell, R.B., & Hill, D. (2014). Environmental education program eval-
uation in the new millennium: What do we measure and what have we learned?
Environmental Education Research, 20, 581–611.
Stevenson, R.B., & Evans, N. (2011). The distinctive characteristics of environmental
education research in Australia: An historical and comparative analysis. Australian
Journal of Environmental Education, 27, 24–45.
Taylor, E.W. (2008). Transformative learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Con-
tinuing Education, (119), 5–15.
Wals, A.J. (2010). Between knowing what is right and knowing that is it wrong to tell
others what is right: On relativism, uncertainty and democracy in environmental
and sustainability education. Environmental Education Research, 16, 143–151.
Willard, B. (2009). The sustainability champions guidebook: How to transform your com-
pany. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Appendix A
Short-Term MSC Interview Questions
Interviews were conducted within two weeks of participants completing all training sessions
for each year
1. Tell us how long have you been working with Wannon Water and briefly summarise what
your work role is?
2. Prior to the Green Steps @ Wannon Water training, what did ‘sustainability’ mean for
you personally, and in your job or workplace?
3. From your point of view, describe the most significant change that participating in the
Green Steps at Wannon Water training will make for you personally, and which con-
tributes to wider organisational sustainability?
4. Why do you think this is significant?
5. Was this expected?
6. Where there any other changes as a result?
7. What specific lessons from the training would you really like to share with others at
Wannon Water?
8. Briefly describe your Green Steps at Wannon Water project

Appendix B
Longitudinal MSC Interview Questions
1. How has Green Steps training changed your approach to working in your job?
2. How have you been applying what you learned from the training with other people in
your team or across the organisation?
3. Looking back on the training, what has been the single most significant change the Green
Steps training made for you personally, or for your work?
4. Why is this so important to you?
 Transforming Skilled Agents for Organisational Change 123

5. Would you like to see any aspects of the Green Steps training offered to other people at
Wannon Water in the future?
6. What aspect/s of the training do you think would most benefit others?

Author Biographies
Keith Davis has been a Project Manager at Wannon Water Corporation in Victoria,
Australia since 2009. Keith has four decades’ experience in private and public sector
industries, encompassing the building sector, primary metals production, horticulture,
facility management and environmental/sustainability roles, including a Catchment
Management Authority and Local Government. Since 1997, Keith has engaged in sus-
tainability education and training, delivering training within adult-learning, tertiary,
and secondary student settings. Keith holds postgraduate degrees in both Sustainabil-
ity and in Professional Education and Training, the Certificate IV in Workplace Assess-
ment and Training, and the Applied Diploma of Permaculture Design, Education and
Site Development.

Mark Boulet is a Research Fellow with BehaviourWorks Australia at the Monash Sus-
tainability Institute, and his research interests include sustainability education prac-
tice and evaluation, behaviour change for sustainability and organisational change.
Previously, Mark managed the award winning Green Steps program for 6 years and
is still involved as a senior trainer with the program. Previous roles included work
with Environment Victoria, the Office of the Victorian Commissioner for Environmen-
tal Sustainability and the Monash University environment office. Mark holds a Masters
of Environmental Science.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.