"Once upon a time..." You must buy/read this book because...A draft has been prepared of the mapping of the SSBM Toolkit to this framework.
How the 4 pieces of the SSBM Toolkit (Design Principles, Tool, Method and Examples) fit to the 5 Level Strategic Sustainable Development Planning Framework (references below)
Robèrt, K. (2000). Tools and concepts for sustainable development, how do they relate to a general framework for sustainable development, and to each other? Journal of Cleaner Production, 8(3), 243-254. doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(00)00011-1
Waldron, D., Robèrt, K., Leung, P., McKay, M., Dyer, G., Blume, R., . . . Connell, T. (2008). Guide to the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development. ( No. Not Stated). Blekinge, Sweeden: Blekinge Institute of Technology.
Conceptually the introduction also includes
In the 1980s / early 1990s, before sustainability was on many peoples radar, some academics and politicians argued for (a return) to the "kinder, gentler" corporation (i.e. Charles Handy's comments in the early 1990s about the "implicit social license to operate"). What these folks were really saying to shareholders, BoD's and corporate leaders was "its better to be nice, because nice things will then happen". A rather weak argument in face of the massive predominance of "monetary profit first" thinking.
But with sustainability I think in the strength of the argument is very much stronger. As a result of interest in sustainability (as we have come to understand sustainability is a species / planetary survival requirement) we have mounting natural and social science evidence. This is tending to show (i.e. not conclusive yet) that environmental and social (and hence monetary) sustainability can ONLY be achieved if we move the goals of our firm's away from profit first (i.e. we adopt a "balanced" view of profit, a la Blattberg's re-conception).
So, being blunt, shareholders, owner, BoD's and managers now face a different choice:.
I think this is a MUCH stronger argument than the earlier one because of the impact of our understanding of sustainability. I think that many (not all) business people would a) understand these choices, and b) tend to pick #2 over #1.
I note of course that:
The argument presented in section 4.7.2 of Antony Upward's thesis "Towards a Theory for the Conditions Required for Strongly Sustainable Organizations" could also be a source of ideas for the introduction (although it could also be used to introduce the design principles, as per this blog post: http://slab.ocad.ca/SSOs_towards_design_principles)
The argument set-out at the start of this blog post http://slab.ocad.ca/SSBMs_defining_the_field, which arguments for a new field of research and practice regarding strongly sustainable business models is described could also be a source of idea for the introduction.
Building on Idea #1, the idea that the book won't preach, won't tell, won't prescribe - but will take an empathetic approach to its readers local and very real (perceived) constraints on their ability to believe and act. But it will also be clear, based on the science, on what is required and that even if there are very real barriers to achieving these in the near term, acting as best as we can today with these goals in mind is critical.
So this is a practically oriented book - a book and a tool aimed at helping people more efficiently and effectively bringing into being businesses that better align with what we know from the science of environmental, social and economic sustainability.