Dr. Emiliano Hudtohan

Educator, Business Writer, Industry Expert and Entrepreneur

CSR in China Dec. 5, 2022 lecture

Written By: SuperAdmin - Jul.14,2023

Dec. 5, 2022 I gave a lecture to mainland Chinese students on CSR in China. Thanks to the invitation of Dr. Catherin Guo, my DBA student at Jose Rizal Universit. Wonderful experience. I had to translate English words into Chinese via PPT language tool.

Spirituality, Personal Leadership and Sustainability DLS Araneta University Grad School

Written By: SuperAdmin - Jul.14,2023

Last Session of Spirituality, Personal Leadership and Sustainability July 1, 2023 at De La Salle Araneta University Graduate School PhD in Educational Management. My students: Jane Grace Casaje, Edel de la Cruz, Mary Jane Ruiz and Ryan Tiongco. In organizational chart, we were able to touch on Weber’s pyramid bureaucracy vs. quantum flat organization; situational leadership and motivation; and in spirituality Benedict’s 18th Century dogmatic theology and Enlightenment vs. Francis’ 21st Century antrophocentric and quantum church management.

See less

Responsibility, Management and Sustainability in the 21st Century

Written By: SuperAdmin - Jul.14,2023

Dr. Emiliano T Hudtohan

De La Salle Araneta University

 March 2,  2018 Business Research Conference

April 1, 2017 April 9, 2017 July7, 2017  November 16, 2017 December 22, 24,  2017


               This paper is a heuristic, historical discourse on social responsibility, resource management, and sustainable development. Social responsibility is seen from a personal and corporate perspective.  The Fillipino persona is viewed as a product of emergentics, influenced by nature (DNA) and nurtured by society.  Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is  considered passe as corporate shared values (CSV) and corporate social initiatives (CSI) drive companies to beneficiary-centered endeavors. Eastern CSR exemplified by China and India breaks away from voluntary philanthropic CSR to mandated CSR.  Sustainable Development Goals are presented as context of personal responsibility and corporate social responsibility. Among the three sustainable development frameworks that are presented, the Center of Alternative Development Inc. (CADI) of Nicanor Perlas is recommended for Catholic Philippines because it presents a comprehensive perspective that includes spiritual development. A second preference is Wilber’s All Quadrants All Lines (AQAL) framework because its interior-exterior dimensions of development is akin to our Kagandang Loob, behaviorally translated as moral beauty.

Kdy words: persona, social responsibility, multistream management, corporate social responsibility, corporate shared values, corporate social initiatives, antifragile CSR, moral beauty and kagandahang loob


I am overjoyed to have an audience today.  The theme: Social Responsibility and Resources Management for Sustainable Development in the graduate school covers 3 unites for corporate social responsibility at De La Salle Araneta University, Jose Rizal University and San Beda College, three units for human resource management at De La Salle College of St. Benilde and another three for sustainable development at the University of Mindanao, Davao City. I know; I teach in these five universities.

Last year marked my 50 years as educator in the academe and in the corporate world. I continue to feel that energy when I speak before a crowd I am tasked to educate and entertain; it’s been 50 years of edutainment. My education is green all the way: Class 1957 Grade VII and  1961 high school at La Salle Bacolod;  Class 67 AB BSE, Class 75 MA Education, and Class 2005 doctor of education at De La Salle Univsity. My soul was emersed from 1961-1978 as a De La Salle Brother.  I pay tribute to my formateurs: Br. Justin Lucian FSC, pioneer in guidance and counselling; Br. Andrew Gonzalez FSC linguist and former Secretary of Education who mentored me to write and publish; Br. James Ebner FSC, who taught me contemporary theology; Dr. Aurelio Calderon, a political scientist who introduced me Southeast Asian studies; Dr. Marcelino Foronda, who taught me to art appreciation and history; Dr. Ariston Estrada, Catholic logician who disciplined me to be precise and concise; and Robert Lane, an American English grammarian, for grammar and composition.

I thank Dean Dr. Francia Santos for inviting me to the 2nd Business Research Conference.  She was my DBA student at DLSU.  I always keep in mind that Sufi saying: When the student is ready, the professor appears. But I personally believe that eventually the student eventually becomes greater than the teacher.  Dean Francia was my student and so with Tan Torres, BIR Commissioner; Dante Lantin, Chair of LFTRB; Dr. Mistades, DLSU Registrar; La Sallie Lipa boys: Sumanga, Director of the NAPOLCOM. Dennis Hernandez who Presidential Adviser for Southern Tagalog. Nestor Cuartero, columnist of Manila Bulletin Entertainment; and Br. Armin Luistro, FSC, former DepEd Secretary. There many more persons you and I know and do not know who are living proof of sustainable self. Let us go out and search for them.  Through our research, WE will make a new WE [Wonderful Earth].

Methodological Framework

               The framework of this paper presents a heuristic (Moustakas, 1990), historical (Bloch, 1996), and qualitative study (Creswell, 2013). It purports to make sense of our past in order to take action for the present and the future. Historical research requires understanding, studying, and explaining past events in order to arrive at conclusions concerning situations that may help to anticipate or explain present or future events (Smith, 2015). It makes use of a  retrospect-prospect (Gonzalez, 1986; Hudtohan, 2005) framework to contextualize concept of social responsibility, resource management and sustainable development.  Warmer (2009) says that stories based on real-life scenarios provide key learning points in business key management challenges. Every story narrated from one’s heuristic experience adds a new viewpoint to the listeners’ internal perspective helps them think about their choices within a novel context (Simmons, 2001; Moustakas & Douglas,1985). Storytelling gets the message across in corporate communication (Pillans, 2014).

Part I: Personal Responsibility

               Let me ask you: Are you responsible?  Have you heard someone say: Napaka-iresponsable mo!  Bakit, akin ba yan?  O, ano ngayon? These remarks are commentaries on our personal responsibility. There are enormous literature that answer the questions on personal responsibility and numerous are  Western interpretations of the persona of a responsible person. But there is a dearth of authors who have written on Filipino persona and a many of them use Western theology, philosophy and psychology. We need scholars to research on the true Filipino persona.

Personal Anchors: Country and God

De La Salle Araneta University, together with 16 other De La Salle schools in the Philippines,  declares that every Lasallian should serve God and country.  Today, I propose that it be a responsibility first to serve country and God.  I feel ashamed when I hear our Chinese students say that the dream of every Chinese professional s to be a civil servant (Xe Xiao, 2017). This new declaration  I must admit it has haunted me for  50 years as an Lasallian educator.  My God orientation began in Grade 7 [1957], High School [1961] La Salle Bacolod; then Liberal Arts and Education [1967], Master’s in Education in Character Education [1975] and doctorate in values formation [2005] –  all from De La Salle University.  My temporary vocation as a De La Salle Brother [1961-1978] deepened my God orientation.  As an insider from a Catholic school, I say Catholic education must continue to be corporeally grounded as much as it is spiritually connected.

The country and God paradigm is a Lasallian responsibility tagline at  St. Joseph High School at Newton Road, Singapore. Lee Kuan Yu grounded the Singaporean consciousness to building a city-state that is now a first world nation in Southeast Asia. Existentially, our feet is planted on the ground where we were born, raised, educated and make a living.  Thus, Mother Earth is the platform of Mother Land Philippines.  However, our four hundred fifty years of preoccupation with heaven and eternity has contributed to our EDSA-like progress. With William Blake I ask you now: To see the world in a grain of sand and eternity in the palm of your hand. Indeed, focus on the grain of sand; but more importantly focus on that hand and what it can do for country and God.

In contrast, Gregorio Araneta was an advocate of everything Philippines.  And this university is rooted in the Filipino values of Gregorio Araneta.  The Aranetas are close to my heart.  I studied at Ester Araneta Elementary School, Talisay-Silay Milling Company [1951-56].  The school inside the compound of Amado Araneta sugar central, where my father was Assistant Chief Security Officer. I grew up there until I left home in 1961 and was a De La Salle Brother until 1978. Today, I am an adjunct professor of De La Salle Araneta University; in more ways than one my personal history is a reflection of the love for country of Gregorio Araneta and the love of God of St. La Salle.

               Let me ask you now: Do you have a Personal Vision Mission? Are you a product of nature, your DNA or that of nurture, your environment, barkada, social media, school, church and company where you work?(Browning, 2005). Tyre (2009) also asks: How responsible will you be with your won income, productivity, progress and power?  He answers, “ The quality or state of being responsible with, depends on mental accountability. Responsibility is characterized as reliability, trust, worthiness and the ability to pay something for which anyone is accountable.  The root of responsibility is: To be called upon to answer. (p.172).

             Hall (1991)., an axiologist like me says that “to be personally accountable for and in charge of a specific area or course of action in own organization or group.  It is Phase II; it is a means to become competent and confident in what we do.  Dooley (2009) reminds us that “Our first responsibility in life is not to make the world a better place or to tend to those less fortunate but to live up to our own high standards to act with faith that our dreams are meant to be and to maintain a tolerance and compassion for our own divine journey.  By being so responsible to ourselves, the world will become a better place and those around you will truly benefit not just from the love you share but from the example you become.”

On the other hand, Edwards (1997) in Stepping into the Magic believes that, “our first responsibility is to make our own lives work by finding inner peace, for example, we are contributing towards global peace…World peace begins with inner peace. Once  we have found inner peace, we might choose to approach the issue of world peace from a higher perspective and therefore have a greater impact.” (p. 170).

Responsibility and Divinity

Bluestone (1997) says, “Despite a difference in the number of elements, Western and Chinese alchemist had one thing in common.  Both felt that the smallest object of material reality was a reflection of a larger cosmic whole.  For the monk basil Valenti the human body was a microcosm of the universe.  In the Chinese Tao, everything on earth was a reflection of its divine form.” (p. 62).

Atwater (2005, pp. 187-188) asserts that “What we think, feel and emote does not evaporate once we have expressed it but goes out into the air, then the ethers, and collects in something like a mass mind or group mind until it can be processed, learned from, utilized…The concept of mass psyche has precedence.  Freud labeled it racial memory. Jung called it collective unconscious.  De Chardin named it the noosphere. Gayce dubbed it the Akashic record…We live in an informed unverse because of this field, wherein every molecule, atom, thought, and emotion knows itself, where it came from, and what it’s for.  We are interconnected and intertwined.”

Mae Paner (2017) of Benita and Catalino Yap Foundation  says that  the “practice Personal Social Responsibility (CSR 3.0) begins with yourself; this in turn begins from knowing yourself. The key is to maintain a lifelong search to find your “Ikigai”; your purpose. When you do that, you will be able to practice Critical, Creative Change.” In effect, Japanese Ikigai is inward driven transformation of one’s persona in terms of mission, passion, vocation, and profession. One is guided by love, personal needs, monetary reward, and God-given talent. Our personal responsibility is rooted in our divinity (Walsh, xxxx) and a variant of Teilhard de Chardin’s theology, I say that we are spiritual beings with social activities.

Figure 1.  Ikigai: Reason for Being (Toronto Star, n.d.)

Finding WE in ME. A riddle: How do I find the WE in ME?  The answer is reversengthe M in ME to find the WE.  Visually, turn the M of ME upside down and you have a WE. However, one must deliberately and  consciously one turn one’s self inside out to reach out for those who are outside world:  Iit is Introversion to Extroversion – mentally, emotionally, physically, metaphysically, spiritually and technologically through our fingertip digital gadgets.

Christakis and Fowler (2009) explain our inner desire and drive for connectedness is one of the reasons why social media has created a new consciousness never before experienced. They observed how we are connected through the surprising power of social networks and how these networks shape our lives. Social media bloggers, like Thinking Pinoy, are now perceived as threats to mainstream media when political color is used as a screen.  Pascual (2017) “feels that members of traditional media have become an endangered species.”

Beck (2012) narrates that “Oneness, the subjective awareness that there is no separation between me and everything in the universe.  Entering sacred silence is the first technology of magic in all wisdom tradition….Rationalist culture…didn’t teach us that we’re capable of communicating without either close physical proximity or physical implements like written words or telephones.  Most of us still see the world as Newton described it: a bunch of random unrelated particles…Ironically, physicists have known for almost a century that solid particles are mere energetic patterns until observed by consciousness, and that energy is always communicating in stranger-than-fiction ways Einstein disparagingly called ‘spooky action at a distance'” (Beck, 2012m p. 58-59).  Thus, digital technology is a manifestation of that energy through quarks, but more importantly Beck points out the technology of magic through our consciousness.  Metaphysically, what we think materializes and what we visualize we realize.

Kagandahang Loob

Why do I speak in English and not in Pilipino or Hiligaynon?  At this late age of 73, I ask my self: Why?  Bakit kaya?  Historically, I am an Amboy.  At the Liberation of Bacolod City ending World War II, I was snatched from the arms of my mother, who was lining up, greeting and flashing the Victory Joe sign. The soldier threw in the air and yelled ‘Buckshot’ as I landed safely to his hands. And since 1957 I was educated by the American De La Salle Brothers and was sent to study in America in 1973. I am total American package.  I now journey to my Filipino DNA.

Kagandahang loob plays a critical role as an internal driving force in the beautiful external behavior of an enlightened Filipino citizen. Joey Ayala (2009) identifies the cycle of pasaloob (contemplation), pagsalinaw (articulation) and pagsaganap (operation) in which kagandang loob is made manifest.  He says:

Pagsaloob: from salo, to catch, and loob, inside/within. The taking in of kaganapan

(reality), contemplating it, processing it, imagining better versions, deciding how to

apply one’s self… Exercising pagsaloob produces kagandahang-loob. Pagsalinaw:

articulating one’s kalooban and saloobin (intent, purpose, desire, inner being, vison)

clearly using a variety of mediums (not just words!) for self-management, self-

programming, and for purposeful interaction with other people. From salin (to transfer

 or translate), salita (speak) and linaw (clear). Exercising pagsalinaw produces pakikipag-

kapwa. Pagsaganap: Manifesting, unfolding kalooban into competent action and

 improved kaganapan. You may notice how ‘Kaganapan’ has a  more active, in-the-process,

 feel to it than ‘Reality.’ Exercising pagsaganap produces pagkukusa. Pagsaloob,

pagsalinaw and pagsagawa powers are usually absorbed from one’s kaganapan or reality,

 which includes the home, school, electronic-media and other social environments, more

than from the exercise of some consciously-designedmethod(Ayala, 2009, p.2).

Figure 2. Joey Ayala (2009): Paradigm of Good Filipino Citizenship

He underscores the importance of pagsaloob, pagsalinaw and pagsagawa, which allows people to participate creatively, as value-creators, in governance and nation-building. Sustainable sacrifice and everyday heroism depend on these capabilities. He says:

Without pagsaloob people don’t know what they want and what they are capable of in

the context of kaganapan. Di na sinusuri ang sariling kalooban, at kumikilos na lamang

ayon sa kinaugalian, kahit di naangkop sa kaganapan. [Without pasalinaw they are

tongue-tied or feel they have nothing to express even when they are literate. Many

people also can talk on and on and not really say anything.] Di nila maisalinaw ang

sariling saloobin. [Without pagsagawa they just wait for someone else to tell them

what to do.] Di nila maisagawa ang kanilang nais gawin o nais makitang kaganapan.

Without pagsaloob, pagsalinaw and pagsagawa people participate in nation-building

efforts as ‘warm bodies’ or ‘pambalasakanyon’ (cannon fodder). They dream other

people’s dreams. They spout other people’s opinions. They follow other people’s

orders. Because they cannot possess and govern themselves, they are possessed and

governed by others. The non-exercise or underdevelopment of these capabilities

leads to situations where great concentrations of power become inevitable, and

corruption – the abuse of power and authority – probable (Ayala, 2009, p.3).

Ayala has offered an indigenous approach to moral beauty through the cycle of pagsaloob, pagsalinaw and pagsagawa.  He cites kagandahang loob as core driver that makes manifest a beautiful conduct which I consider as moral beauty.

Moral Beauty. Our kagandang loob impels us to use moral beauty as a driving principle of our lives.  As such, we honor the tradition of Malakas who together with Maganda lived a prosperous life in the Royal Kingdom of Maharlika (900-1521).  The feminine energy we experience today is the same energy of the Babaylan (Visayas), Catalonan (Tagalog), Balianan (Bicol), Mangaalisig (Pangasinan), Alimonog (B’laan, Cotabato), Mabiliang (Davao), Doranakit (Isneg) who walked the islands of Philippines before the Spanish colonial era.

The Babaylan [and her provincial variants], Diwata and Maganda are icons of Western Gaia in the Philippines.  Their ethnic persona were suppressed through Hispanic religious colonization and American democratization.  They were replaced by Catholic  feminine symbols of nuns and manangs who are driven by dogmas and beliefs that no longer consciously honor and espouse Filipino values enshrined in the kagandang loob (Hudthan, 2017).

Moral beauty relocates Beauty as one of the triune values with Truth and Goodness; it  has been left unattended in the philosophical and theological discourses of male scholars and academiciansThe beauty of human behavior has not been explored and developed.

Business ethics has to  be reconnected with Western Gaian tradition manifested today as Mother Earth and Mother Galactica.  She is present as energy pulsating in our humanness, in our relationships with one another, the Earth and the Galaxy. Gaia’s relevance is even more crucial in addressing global warming and climate change.  Gaian energy is a beautiful balancing force of male energy.

Part II: Social Responsibility

What is Corporate Social Responsibility?

               I ask you: Is Corporate Social Responsibility passe?  Have you heard of Corporate Shared Values? Corporate Social Initiatives? Mandatory CSR?  Yes? Congratulations.  It means you have an updated research on the development of CSR.

CSR has a variety of definitions because it has evolved over the years from the time it was popularized by Carroll (1999) in his pyramid of social responsibility.  It has been diversely described, from the most complex, to being over simplistic, such as CSR considered merely as a “motherhood issue,” or even interchangeably used along with “corporate sustainability, corporate citizenship, corporate social investment, the triple bottom line, socially responsible investment, business sustainability and corporate governance.”  (Nowak & Thomas, 2006, Ismail, 2009).

Thus, CSR concepts will continue to evolve in response to business, political and social developments. Digital communication through social media will reflect global and local situations, and they will also be strongly influenced by global trends and changes in international law (Nowak & Thomas, 2006).

In 1953, Howard Bowen considered CSR as social obligation which are lines of action  desirable  objectives and values of society.” Archie Carroll has described Bowen as the modern ‘Father of Corporate Social Responsibility’ because his approach to business included: responsibilities,  responsiveness, stewardship, social audit, corporate citizenship and rudimentary stakeholder theory.

Peter Drucker was one of the first to explicitly address CSR in his 1954 book, The Practice of Management. While Drucker believed in making a profit, he advocated the management to consider the impact of every business policy and action upon society. Carroll believed that the 1960s was the decade which marked a significant growth in attempts to formalize, or more accurately, state what CSR means. Keith Davis asserted that ‘some socially responsible business decisions can be justified by having a good chance of bringing long-run economic gain to the firm, thus paying it back for its socially responsible outlook.’ The statement became a precursor to contemporary debates about the financial implications of CSR. Business ethics play a part on the changing definition as Davis later asserted that “[t]he substance of social responsibility arises from concern for the ethical consequence of one’s acts as they might affect the interests of others” (Nowak and Thomas, 2006).

In 1970, Milton Friedman had a business-centric view of CSR, thereby stating that social responsibility of business is “to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engage in open and free competition, without deception or fraud.” This CSR is mainly profit-oriented. In 1971, the UN World Committee for Economic Development’s (WCED) model of CSR revealed that CSR views evolved as being “related to products, jobs and economic growth; related to societal expectations; and related to activities aimed at improving the social environment of the firm.” Carroll describes the WCED’s model as ‘a landmark contribution to the concept of CSR’ which illustrated the changing relationship between business and society. Accordingly, “Business is being asked to assume broader responsibilities to society than ever before and to serve a wider range of human values. Business enterprises, in effect, are being asked to contribute more to the quality of American life than just supplying quantities of goods and services.

In 1974, CSR was  defined as “a concern with the needs and goals of society which goes beyond the merely economic. Insofar as the business system as it exists today can only survive in an effectively functioning free society, the corporate social responsibility movement represents a broad concern with business’s role in supporting and improving the social order (Eells & Walton in Carroll 1999).”

In 1984,  R. Edward Freeman articulated the Stakeholder Theory making it a prominent literature for CSR. The 1980s also started discussions of sustainable development. Tilbury and Wortman (2004) stated that the World Conservation Strategy stressed the interdependence of conservation and development and he was the first to conceptualize “sustainable development” (Nowak and Thomas, 2006).

               In the 1990s, Carroll’s (1999) CSR became a building block from which other related concepts and themes embraced a CSR persective. His CSR Pyramid became a classic reference for corporate social responsibility. In 21st century multinational corporations (MNCs) were challenged to take responsibility for the improvement of social and environmental conditions.

In March 2000 the European Commission’s green paper, Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility, was released together with the United Nations’ Global Compact regarding human rights, labor, and the environment.

By the end of the 20th century, the rise of corporate social responsibility (CSR) was made prominent by Carroll (1991;1999). Figure 1 shows the CSR pyramid of economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic activities considered a classic framework for CSR. What we consider to be the modern definition of CSR is rooted Carroll’s Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility.

Figure 3. Archie Carroll’s (1999) Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate philanthropy is voluntary giving-back to society;  it is CSR where external stakeholders are given free charitable donations but it has short-term benefits to the recei;peint community and considered by socio-economic scientists as unsustainable CSR. Ranga, Chase, and Karim (2015) reported that 60 percent of Harvard Business School’s CSR executives were dissatisfied with their firms’ CSR activities. But the study showed that 84 percent believed that philanthropic CSR improves company’s social standing, 77 percent  support their firms’ CSR and 67 percent said it improves employee motivation, and only 13 percent said it increases revenue and 41 percent thought that it increases costs. (Ranga, Chase & Karim, 2015).

        Corporate Shared Values (CSV). Porter and Kramer (2011) are proponents of Corporate Social Values (CSV), which puts social issues at the heart of corporate concern.  Earlier expressed by Rosabeth Kanter (1999) argued that “all social problems are economic problems.” Porter and Kramer departs  from philanthropic CSR by putting “value creation” in optimizing a company’s financial performance and at the same time contributory to social progress, thereby making a sustainable business activity for both the company and the community.

Shared value goes beyond philanthropic CSR because according to Porter and Kramer (2011) it involves creating economic value for the society by addressing social needs and challenges. Shared value is a new way to achieve economic success. Business must link company success with social progress.

CSV is driven by competitiveness of a company that serves and creates socio-economic synergy. This vital link between societal and economic progress has the power to unleash the next wave of global growth and to redefine capitalism.

The roots of shared value is based on the notion  that the competitiveness of a company and the health of the communities around it are closely intertwined. Porter and Kramer (2011) believe that “[a] business needs a successful community, not only to create demand for its products but also to provide critical public assets and a supportive environment. A community needs successful businesses to provide jobs and wealth creation opportunities for its citizens. This interdependence means that public policies that undermine the productivity and competitiveness of businesses are self-defeating, especially in a global economy where facilities and jobs can easily move elsewhere. NGOs and governments have not always appreciated this connection.”

They argue that innovating to meet society’s need and building a profitable enterprise are the twin goals of the next generation of completive companies.  Marc Pfitzer, Valerie Bockstette and Mike Stamp (2013) used the case of Dow Chemical, Nestle, Norvatis, Mars, and Intel as examples of companies following Porter and Kramer’s idea of creating shared value with and for their external stakeholders. Their shared value model encompasses the creation of a social and business value which includes: social purpose, a defined need, measurement, the right innovation structure, and a co-creation.  These five elements reinforce on another. 

They said, “Social purpose helps a firm identify the needs it might want to address…A deeply held social purpose is also important for co-creation, forming the basis for trusted relationships.  Understanding a region’s particular needs helps define what can be improved and by how much, and the value of that change to the business.  The degree to which the potential for shared value can be anticipated and aligned with the company’s financial criteria determines the optimal innovation structure forth social venture.”(Pfitzer, Bockstette & Stamp, 2013).

Sustainability projects with the community entails developing community manpower resources  to achieve the mission, vision, and values of the company.  This is corporate-centered endeavor and the beneficiaries in return support the values of the company, as shown in Figure 6 by the two circles overlapping in the Venn diagram.  This appears robust because both parties appear to have a win-win   advantage.   However, the community as beneficiaries has not achieved a full convex antifragility.

However, with the pressing issues that businesses face today, there has been a shift from being philanthropy to sustainable programs that will benefit the community beneficaries. Habaradas (2012) cited the experience of Pilipinas Shell as responsibility beyond philanthropy because their social responsibility programs were no longer dole but the sustainable business interest of Shell responds to the needs of the community.  Their youth training skills program leads employment among Shell stations.

  Corporate Social Initiatives (CSI): Beyond Philanthropy.

The road to Corporate Social Initiatives (CSI) was not easy. Scholars, from Milton Friedman (1970), to Michael Porter and Mark Kramer (2002), to David Hess (2002, 2008), have written extensively about conflicts between the ultimate goal of business, which is profit, as opposed to what philanthropy tries to obtain. However, present issues facing these businesses revolve around environmental preservation, education, youth empowerment, women empowerment, labor rights, and other matters which directly affect the companies’ operations.

Adam Smith (1776) in The Wealth of Nations, argued that “The great commerce of every civilized society is carried on between the inhabitants of the town and those of the country. It consists in the exchange for manufactured produce…The country supplies the town with the means of subsistence and the materials of manufacture… The town, in which there neither is nor can be any reproduction of substances, may very properly be said to gain its whole wealth and subsistence from the country… The gains of both are mutual and reciprocal, and the division of labor is in this, as in all other cases, advantageous to all the different persons employed in the various occupations into which it is subdivided.”

Programs which aim not only to alleviate poverty, but also to create wealth, has become successful because it addresses the needs of the company, its stakeholders, and the nation. At present, the government cannot do such endeavors alone. Corporations, universities, NGOs such as foundations, and citizen-volunteers have their respective roles to play to fill in the gap where government needs augmentation.

David Hess and Danielle Warren (2008) introduced in their work The Meaning and Meaningfulness of Corporate Social Initiatives the concept wherein corporations are called upon to be involved in community development to create projects that will bring about social change. CSR is no longer mere philanthropic charitable dole outs; they must be sustainable projects articulated by and for the community when addressing their social needs.

However, just as in any debatable topics under CSR, social initiatives are not without controversy.

Corporate critics often question the sincerity of these activities, arguing that firms are merely attempting to stave off stakeholder pressures without providing benefit to society. At the organizational level, firms may simply “greenwash” their operations by using philanthropic activity as a way to improve their reputations through community-based social initiatives. This serves as positive public relations coverage to deflect the attention away from corporate practices that are harmful to society. For example, the chocolate and candy manufacturer Cadbury Schweppes demonstrate their awareness and solution to problem of childhood obesity – a critical social issue facing their industry – by donating equipment to playgrounds. To receive the equipment however, children needed to buy chocolate to get the necessary vouchers. This led to a public disapproval that forced the company to change its program, considering that the original initiative seems to demonstrate a voluntary initiative with potentially little net benefit to society, that is: the benefits provided by the equipment were offset by the additional candy sold at the company not otherwise changing its products or its marketing practices (Hess and Warren, 2008).

While many firms are actively pursuing community involvement initiatives to provide significant benefits to society, other corporations are not. To address this issue, Hess and Warren (2008) suggested the public to undertake a better understanding (1) of when social initiatives adopted by corporations are expected to have a “meaningful” impact on society is required, as well as (2) of the role of social initiatives within the larger societal debate over that CSR entails.

In the framework of corporate social Initiatives, everyone is involved. Not only is the role of government significant, but so are the educational institutions, business firms, NGOs, and especially the community-beneficiaries. Everyone has to contribute to the best of their abilities and expertise, in order to sustain long-term benefits. The researcher believes that involvement and partnerships are the most practical response against regression. Because if there are people left behind, they will pull this progressive “growth” back down.

The case of Gawad Kalinga is an example of Corporate Social Initiative where the inititial seed capital of corporations and NGO created a livelihood program among farmers and there is no socalled return on investment for the corporate and NGO funding organizations.  The degree of freedom of the farmer beneficiaries are not tied to the corporate mission of said organizations.

Thus, programs of corporations that promote education of beneficiaries can be considered Corporate Social Initiatives, if and when the scholars are set free to choose whatever employment and career they understate, without the payback to the sponsoring corporation.  In this sense, the beneficiary need not return the favor to the corporation by rendering service that company but serving the society where the scholar see fit and appropriate. Corporate Social Initiative can therefore be considered a Sustainable CSR.  The Quadrant of Socal Responsibility in Figure 2 shows 1. Philanthropic CSR, 2.Corporate Shared Values, and 3. Corporate Social Initiatives. 

Figure 4. Quadrant of Corporate Social Responsibility.

Antifragile CSR

CSI may be consider as antifragile social responsibility because from the point of view of the beneficiaries, they are in a position to exercise freedom of choice and are not enslaved to the corporate sponsor or donor.  Nicholas Taleb (2012) in his book Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder, He presents the fragile-robust-antifragile triad, whereby 1. Fragile things need caution or extra care in handling, otherwise breakage may occur; 2. Robust entities, the opposite of fragile, sustains and “does not care too much” from the impact of volatility; and 3. Antifragile grows from disorder. Taleb’s (2012) triad on business categorizes corporations as fragile, small and medium (SMEs) enterprises as robust, and the artisan as antifragile.

               Using Taleb’s paradigm, corporate social responsibility may be categorized as fragile philanthropic CSR, robust corporate shared values, and antifragile corporate social initiatives as shown in Table 1.

Table 1

New Triad: Corporate Social Responsibility (Hudtohan, 2016)

CategoryFragile CSRRobust CSIAntifragile CSI
 Corporate Social ResponsibilityPhilanthropic Corporate Social ResponsibilityCorporate Shared ValuesCorporate Social Initiatives

Applying antifragility as a theoretical lens in reviewing corporate social responsibility (Hudtohan, 2016) philanthropic CSR is fragile, CSV is robust, and CSI is antifragile. Philanthropic CSR is fragile because the beneficiaries for a while become secure physically and financially but in the long term they become vulnerable and once more dependent on donations and dole-outs. Companies have a robust CSR when they involve the beneficiaries as recipients of their projects through CSV, involving the community as inputs to their projects. Companies therefore help beneficiaries become robust and resilient in a relatively short-term basis, or within the duration of the project.

The individual empowered through education and training can be a craftsman, if the choice is self-employment.  Taleb considers big business, who corporate donors, as more susceptible to financial and economic shocks by virtue of their large scale operation.  SMEs from the point of view of risk management are better off than multinationals operating globally.  The artisan or craftsman as a single entrepreneur can easily manage retrenchment by slowing down his/her operations and easily expand by determining his/her own pace of expansion and progress with less burdensome bureaucratic procedural requirement.

               In Taleb’s paradigm, corporate social initiative may result to sustainable individual as craftsman or artisan, outliving the corporate donor in times of socio-economic chaos.  The town and country paradigm of Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations appears to be a historical reference of Taleb’s antifragility and in this study it can be Antifragile Social Responsibility is corporate social initiative which has higher sustainable CSR for the beneficiaries. .

Part III: Resource Management

Multistream Management

               I ask: When you were in college did you discuss feedforward and SMART2?  If not, your presence in this conference is worth your while.  In management functions of planning, leading, organizing and controlling, the term feedforward is now in vogue.  It means anticipating factors that will hinder the implementation of targeted goals, so that financial and human resources are not wasted.  The classical term feedback is information given to the implementors and planner after the fact.  By then resources are already spent and reprogramming would entail additional, new resources. In human relations, Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y created managerial assumptions on employees.         

Mainstream Management. The science of management (Dyck & Neubert, 2012) established by management gurus goes back to the:

1. Era of Organizing (1910-1930) with Frederick Taylor as the Father of Scientific Management,  Max Weber established bureaucratic organization and Henri Fayol defined the principles of management for mass production.

2. Era of Leading (1930-1950) with Mary Parker Follett emphasized human rather than technical side of management, Lillian Gilbreth  reduced job stress and fought against child-labor; Chester Barnard believed that organizations were not machines and should not be impersonal; and Elton Mayo and Fritz Roethlisberger discovered the Hawthorne Effect

3. Era of  Planning (1950-1970) where management science helped planning by providing quantitative techniques for decision making, operations research emphasized mathematical model building, systems theory and contingency advanced by James D. Thompson, Daniel Katz, and Robert L. Kahn.  John Child’s strategic choice theory contributed to effective management.

4. Era of controlling (1970-1990) where the era of questioning the status quo and the role of values and beliefs in organizations became prominent. Institutionalization meant certain practices or rules becoming valued in and of themselves, even though they may no longer be useful for the organization.  There was increased attention to organizational culture and the symbolic role of management in creating meaning for organizational members.

Emergence of Multistream Management.

               The 21st Century ushered a new era in management.  Sequel to the Era of Controlling (1970-1999), the Era of Quantum Science has long been twitted and written about at the onset of this century. The historical management era continues with:

5. Era of Quantum Science (21st Century): The Age of Quantum Organization has arrived. The concept of quantum organization is based on a new paradigm of metaphysics as a New Science (Kilmann, 2006; Dator, Pratt, & Sea, 2006; Deardorff & Williams, 2006; Wheatley, 2006; Chopra, 2008; Karakas, 2009; Hookes, c2011; Beck, 2014). The quantum paradigm anchored in metaphysics is in contrast, and some consider it in contradiction, to the Cartesian-Newtonian physical science.  Figure 6 shows the change from Weberian bureaucratic organization conceived in Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm to quantum-based organization (Hudtohan, 2015).

Figure 6. The Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm and the Quantum Theory Paradigm, Hookes (c2011.)

The Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm “represents the partition of the world into its constituent people particles, as well as the resulting hierarchical political and social structures of the bourgeois state, and that of it main economic players, the corporations… quantum paradigm is “the circle on the right is a topological folding of the circle on the left. The nodes can be considered as problems-solvers within a Problem-Solving Intelligent network…A ‘problem-solver’ node may be an individual, group of individuals, or else some intelligent software/hardware (Hookes, c2011). A new management era influenced by quantum physics is introduced by Dyck and Neubert (2011) as Multistream Management.

Multistream management emphasizes multiple forms of well-being for multiple stakeholders. It considers effective management by working with stakeholders towards creating a balance among multiple forms of well-being and these are: Aesthetic: beauty, art, poetry; Ecological: natural environment, minimal pollution; Emotional: satisfaction, positive feelings, hope, joy; Individual: personal convenience, looking after one’s own interests; Intellectual: ideas, clear rationale, theory, concepts; Material: Finances, productivity, tangible goods, efficiency; Physical: health, safety, security; Social: community-mindedness, justice, helping others; Spiritual: meaning, interconnectedness, transcendent, purpose. 

In contrast, mainstream management, Emphasizes materialism and individualism.  Here, effective management is about maximizing productivity, profitability and competitiveness. Hardcore capitalism founded in the business philosophy of Adam Smith in the 18th century pursues self-interest of shareholders focused on organizational needs.

Human Resource Development

               Ulrich, Younger, Brockbank, and Ulrickh (2011).) tell us the history of HR competencies. In 1987, HR was about business knowledge, change, and HR delivery; 1992, personal credibility was at the center of business knowledge, change, and HR delivery; in 1997,  personal credibility continued to be at the center of business knowledge, change, HR delivery with culture as a new dimension; in 2002, strategic contribution became the center of business knowledge, personal credibility, HR delivery and HR technology was introduced.; in 2007, HR was tasked with business and people development by addressing organizational capabilities (talent manager and organization designer), systems and processes (operational executor and business ally), and relationships (credible activist); in 2012, HR had six critical domains: 1. Strategic positioner, 2. Credible activist, 3. Capability builder, 4. Change champion, 5. HR innovator and integrator, and 6. Technology proponent.

               The 2016 competency model shows three key areas: 1. Organization enablers for culture and change champion, human capital curator, total rewards standard; 2. Core drivers: strategic practitioner, paradox navigator and credible activist; and 3. Delivery enablers: compliance manager, analytics designer and integrator, and technology and media integrator.

               Figure 7. 2016 HR Competencies of RRL Group

Multistream HR Function.  Dyck and Neubert’s (2012) multistream HR proposes that: 1.Job planning: focus on context/team; emphasis meaning; 2. Recruit from marginalized/minority aspirants; use inputs of coworkers; 3. Performance: appraisal to develop members; collective performance; group-based incentives; financia and nonfinancial rewards; and 4. Training and Development: long-term investment on people; personal of organizational development

I conclude with Oliver Wendell Holmes who said that the “he greatest tragedy…is not the destruction of our natural resources, though that tragedy is great. The truly great tragedy greatest tragedy … is the destruction of our human resources by our failure to fully utilize our abilities, which means that most men and women go to their graves with their music still in them.” Human resource management must evoke the “music” from every organizational members. The Mainstream emphasis in human resource management (HRM) is on maximizing each individual’s “music” for the financial rewards it offers, whereas the Multistream emphasis recognizes the value of the “music” as an important outcome in and of itself, for the individual, the organization, and other stakeholders.  Again, my gentle reminder: We are spiritual beings with very personal music in our soul and that music must be played at our social functions.

Part IV: Sustainable Development

Corporate Social Initiatives for Sustainability

Hess and Warren (2008) argue that the use of a corporation’s strategic resources in the initiative is often with a direct connection to the firm’s core competencies. It is logical because “Companies maximize the benefits of their corporate contributions when they leverage core capabilities and contribute product and services that are based on expertise used in, or generated by, their normal operations” (Pearce & Doh, 2005);  Hess & Warren, 2008).

                       Other examples given by Hess and Warren include IBM’s use of its technology to help schools assess student progress, and McKinsey & Co. providing free consulting services to nonprofit educational and cultural organizations. If the corporation’s resources are rare, it becomes one of only a few that can provide that services that meets the needs of the community, which otherwise would likely go unmet.

Community Development and CSR.

Ismail (2009) discusses the role of CSR in community development by first defining what a community is – a group of people sharing a common purpose, who are interdependent for the fulfillment of certain needs, living in close proximity and interact on a regular basis. There are shared expectations for all members of the group and responsibility taken from those expectations. There is a sense of community which is defined as the feelings of cooperation, of commitment to the group welfare, of willingness to communicate openly, and of responsibility to and for others, as well as to one’s self. Most importantly, there exists community leaders who are responsible for the success of any community event, depending on the needs of the community, and the individual’s own feelings.

On the other hand, community development refers to initiatives undertaken by community in partnership with external organizations or corporation to empower individuals and groups of people by providing these groups with the skills they need to effect change in their own communities. These skills are often concentrated around making use of local resources and building political power through the formation of large social groups working for a common agenda. Community developers must understand both how to work with individuals and how to affect communities’ positions within the context of larger social institutions.

Community development is the process of developing active and sustainable communities based on social justice and mutual respect. It is about influencing power structures to remove the barriers which prevent people from participating in the issues that affect their lives. Community workers facilitate the participation of people in this process. They enable linkages to be made between communities and the development of wider policies and programs. Community development expresses values of fairness, equality, accountability, opportunity, choice, participation, mutuality, reciprocity, and continuous learning. Educating, enabling, and empowering are at the core of community development.

The widely used definition provided for by the United Nations (United Nations, 1971) for community development is an organized effort of individuals in a community conducted in such a way to help solve community problems with a minimum help from external organizations.” External organizations include government and non-government organizations (NGOs), and corporations of various types and sizes such as small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and multinational corporations (MNCs). The implication of UN’s definition of community development emphasizes creativity and self-reliance in the community for short and long term goals, but not to defy the CSR roles of the various types of business firms. In relation to the people, the definition of community development is essentially both an educational and organizational process (Ismail, 2009).

Ismail (2009, pp. 204-206) discussed the common roles of CSR in community development as follows: 1. To integrate closer ties and interdependency between corporation and the community; 2. Corporations as attractive employers help get talents by making their commitment part of their value proposition for potential candidates; 3. CSR program can be seen as an aid to alleviate poverty.

Promoting corporate sustainability though partnerships as part of the strategic policy for businesses that are committed to aligning their operations and strategies within the areas of human rights, labor, and environment. Common goals, such as building markets, combating corruption, safeguarding the environment and ensuring social inclusion, have resulted in unprecedented partnerships and openness among business, government, civil society.

Sustainability concepts

The World Commission on Economic and Development (WCED) through Brundtland Report defines sustainability as “sustainable development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Thus, sustainability is about the world we will leave our children and our grandchildren.  A sustainable business involves long-term, strategic planning that connects business growth with positive environmental and societal continuity, otherwise known as the Triple Bottom-Line – Economic, Environment, Social, – or Profit, Planet, People.

The emphasis on profit is aligned to Carroll’s bottom-line responsibility of a corporation for economic sustainability of the business; likewise responsibility for people takes into account the employees as internal CSR stakeholders and the community as external stakeholders. The focus on the environment as a new stakeholder was not cited by Carroll (1999) in the Pyramid of Social Responsibility.  This is a new concern after the Rio Climate Change Global conference. Corporations must be an active member in taking care of Mother Earth if they want to be economically sustainable.

  Sustainability is “A process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations” (The World Commission on Environment and Development).

               According to the  Forum for the Future (n.d.),   “Sustainable development is a dynamic process which enables people to realize their potential and improve their quality of life in ways which simultaneously protect and enhance the earth’s life support systems” The Forum for the Future’s Sustainable Wealth in London says, that  “In essence sustainable development is about five key principles: quality of life; fairness and equity; participation and partnership; care for our environment and respect for ecological constraints – recognizing there are ‘environmental limits’; and thought for the future and the precautionary principle”.)

               The Real World Coalition 1996 asserts that “The environment must be protected… to preserve essential ecosystem functions and to provide for the wellbeing of future generations; environmental and economic policy must be integrated; the goal of policy should be an improvement in the overall quality of life, not just income growth; poverty must be ended and resources distributed more equally; and all sections of society must be involved in decision making”.

The Dorset Education for Sustainability Network believes that “We cannot just add sustainable development to our current list of things to do but must learn to integrate the concepts into everything that we do.” The Learning for a Sustainable Future Teacher Centre considers   “A sustainable future [that] is one in which a healthy environment, economic prosperity and social justice are pursued simultaneously to ensure the well-being and quality of life of present and future generations. Education is crucial to attaining that future.”

Guide to Sustainability.

In 2005, Lovins, Hargroves and. Smith, (2006) in their book,  The Natural Advantage of Nations: Business Opportunities, Innovation and Governance in the 21st Century, identify the following principles to guide modern sustainability.  It is:  1. Dealing transparently and systemically with risk, uncertainty and irreversibility, 2. Ensuring appropriate valuation, appreciation and restoration of nature, 3.     Integration of environmental, social, human and economic goals in policies and activities. 4. Equal opportunity and community participation/sustainable community/ 5. Conservation of biodiversity and ecological integrity. 6. Ensuring inter-generational equity. 7.  Recognizing the global integration of localities. 8. A commitment to best practices. 9. No net loss of human capital or natural capital. 10. The principle of continuous improvement and 11. The need for good governance.

Our world, the earth, has been given to us as a gift with limited resources; sustainability is the act of not being a glutton of the earth. Each human knows in their heart that they can be better. Consider the earth as our temple; you do not own the temple, revere, care for and respect the earth as you would your children and your elders. Those who respect have the traits of conservation, goodness, giving, self-control and honesty (Beaumont, 2017).

Oppenheim and Stutchey (2015) observed that companies are beginning to integrate sustainability efforts into their core business. Real sustainability efforts are core business efforts because they can help a company raise its game and perform better in all kinds of ways. In mid-2014, McKinsey’s study found a strong correlation between resource efficiency and financial performance; the companies with the most advanced sustainability strategies did best of all.

In a study for the Harvard Business School drew similar conclusions (higher return on equity and assets for higher-sustainability companies), the authors concluded that “developing a corporate culture of sustainability may be a source of competitive advantage in the long run.” To think of sustainability…  companies need to be rigorous, goal-oriented, and accountable. The evidence is building not only that sustainability initiatives work, but that they are an important factor in creating long-term value (Oppenheim & Stutchey, 2015).

Sustainable Development Frameworks

There are three sustainable development perspectives (Hudtohan, 2007).  It is recommended that Philippine scholars and researchers consider: first, the Center for Alternative Development Initiatives (CADI) of Nicanor Perlas because he is the only one who included the spiritual dimension of development; second, the AQAL Integral Sustainable Development framework of Ken Wilbur is a must because his interior nd exterior consciousness is akin to the Filipino kalooban and third, the World Commission on Development and Environment (WCDE) because it provides a global context of development in terms of people, profit and planet.

Perlas includes a psycho-spiritual dimension of sustainable development. But Catholic social teachings make a by-pass by jumping from physical to spiritual reality.  Figure 6 shows a three level reality: metaphysical appears to be an intermediate step between physical [nature/natural] and spiritual [super – above – nature]; n between is meta [beyond] nature. 

Figure 6. Hudtohan (2009) Threefold Reality: Physical, Metaphysical and                                              

  Spiritual Dimensions of Sustainable Development

CADI: Center for Alternative Development Initiatives 

Perlas (2000) cites seven dimensions of development based on “the 1996 Philippine Agenda 21 (PA21) which was launched by the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development, Office of the President of the Republic of the Philippines, which is supported by the Executive Brand of Government, as well as by most civil society organizations and prominent business institutions” (Perlas, 2000, p. 177).                

Seven Areas of Development.  CADI’s model is the most inclusive framework for sustainable development (Figure 7). in the Philippines it calls for civil society, government, and business to be engaged in all targeted barangays, towns, provinces, and regions.  The threefold partnership should be concerned with seven key inclusive areas of development: A.   Humanity : 1. Spiritual development,  2. Human development, B.  Society: 3. Social development, C. Culture: 4. Cultural development, D. Polity: 5. Political development. E. Economy: 6. Economic development and F. Nature: 7. Ecological development, as shown7. in Figure 7.

Fig. 7. Perlas (2000) CADI: The Seven Dimensions of Sustainable Development based on PA21

Spiritual Development. The 21st century breakthrough in understanding sustainable development is Perlas’ preference to articulate spirituality as the first dimension of human development. This is so because life is not only technical and objective; it is also soulful and subjective.  Our concept of sustainable development needs to do justice to these “vertical” dimensions of human experiences.  Sustainable development implies a new and healthier balance in how we conduct our human affairs, once that celebrates depth along with surfaces, community along with individuality, spirituality along with materialism, art along with linear techniques (Frankel, 1998).

Penn (2009) cited Peter Berger who averred that we live in a world of pervasive and exclusive religiosity, The World Christian Encyclopedia which reported 10,000 distinct and separate religions in the world, with two to three sects created everyday This trend is leading us to believe that human expression and creativity is on the rise.  While monolithic religious groups continue to appear with big numbers to report its membership, like Christianity and Islam. there are as many variations of Christian and Muslim tenets practiced by individual believers. According to Penn, “Religion is fractionalizing, and the ability to bring together many people under a single religious banner is dwindling…These days you choose your faith and your prayer community in practically as many varieties as you can choose your morning coffee. It means smaller crowds in the pew, but presumably happier ones” (Penn, p. 314).

Religion as a component of sustainable development means one’s pursuit for freedom of expression and belief.  The challenge of unified global action for world unity in issues that threaten humanity and planetary life has become a challenge to institutionalized religion and fractionalized worship groups.

On the spiritual and metaphysical level, each individual is called upon to become a caring member of society.  New science tells us that our external realities are holographic creations of our internal constructs. A holistic view on sustainable development examines life on earth at a micro and macro perspective.  Our search for a deeper understanding of life behooves us to unlock its reality at a physical, meta-physical and spiritual level.

The influence of metaphysical science is putting individuals at the center of change.  Page, Chopra, Baden, and Hicks give a deeper dimension to spirit and non-materiality in dealing with our physical world.  At the same  time they advocate a strong connectivity of every human person with persons, nature and the universe.  It appears that the ancient wisdom of our ancestors is being reexamined in the light of creating or renewing a sustainable world.  When commerce and industry were at their elementary stage capturing and hoarding resources were not practiced by our ancestors.  They allowed nature to nurture them to life.

Spiritual Zone. Quinn (2004) defines spiritual zone as a state of being, complete with its own protocols, language, customs, codes of conduct, diet, manners, responsibilities and ethics.  In the 21st century, there is a need to enter into a spiritual zone by refining and redefining religiosity (Christian and non-Christian) In order to unleash our human potentials.  Religious is tied up with dogma, moral, and liturgy of the Catholic Church which are embedded in every baptized Catholic through catechism.

Religion had become a political agent of social control, a way of encouraging conformity and suppressing freedom.  The prescriptions and doctrines of the Church may yet be instruments to freeze human nature at the overwhelming impact of divine revelation hardly touching base with one’s humanity. The rites and externalities of religion binds the body, but does not insure an ex opera operato in the spirit. Rituals without a spirit are empty, robotics.

After 400 years of Spanish Christianity, it appears that Philippine Catholicism remains pegged at childhood Christianity.  While academic theology has advanced, pedestrian catechism has failed to systematically nurture Filipino Catholics to become adults (Gonzalez, 2001). In this sense, Philippine Christianity has not fully tested the Catholic Social Teachings.  Anthropocentric, human evocative approach to Christian learning (Hudtohan, 1973) and inculturated practical theology (de Mesa, 2005) assert that when we become truly human, we at the same time become truly Christians

In a club or a bar, fellowship and communion in a social outreach on a Saturday night seems to prosper more than in a congregation of faceless Catholics attending mass on a Sunday morning.  A social worker with adult faith reaching out to a fellow human in need, immersed and inculturated (babad sa karanasan ng kapwa) is doing humanitarian work and is definitely achieving divinity.  We become truly Christians by being human.

A.B. Reyes  (2006) believes that “This Vision with a Heart to build a faith community aims to reach the kind of spirituality that empowers the human potentials to be the best we can become. We enter a new phase that calls for spirituality in education…the emergence of a new paradigm harnessing spiritual energy that incorporates both feminine and masculine qualities, integrate science and humanities, academic knowledge and values and virtues that can transform an ordinary life   of service into everyday heroism”.                 

Because Philippines, and that of her Asian neighbors, has a colonial past, sustainable development needs to anchor its root in our indigenous self (Jocano, 2006; Hudtohan, 2009; Salazar).  Then will a sustainable self (Page, 2005) becomes a central factor in external human development.  The study on sustainable development tests our inner paradigm (Wilbur, 2005) which according to Braden (2008), Chopra ( 2006) and Hicks  (2008)  is manifested in a hologram of the world and the universe beyond us.

Exploring Philippine religious heritage may yet provide a new dimension in recreating our personal beliefs and find new energy to reinforce our advocacy for sustainable development.  The Filipino religious heritage is doctrinally and ritually tied up with religion and is limiting the journey to a Spiritual Zone.  By re-examining our ethnic DNA and re-valuing our religious heritage we may yet discover our sustainable self.

Human DevelopmentOn December 10, 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 217 A (III) proclaiming the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This declaration proclaims a common standard of achievement for all persons and nations to observe and strive for the promotion and respect of human rights and freedoms.

The Declaration contains 30 articles providing a catalogue of basic rights and freedoms.  Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.  Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1976) recognizes the right to work and to free choice of employment, to fair wages, to form and join unions,   to social security and to adequate standards of living conditions.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976) recognizes the right of every human person to life, liberty and security of person, to privacy, to freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and from torture…freedom of thought, conscience and religion, to freedom     of opinion and expression, to liberty of movement…to peaceful assembly and to freedom of association

Two protocols that were added to lend legal support the declaration on human rights. The First Protocol to the Civil and Political Covenant provide the mechanism to file complaints of human right violations (1989) and the Second Protocol to the Civil and Political Covenant makes provisions to abolish the death penalty (1991).

Philippine Constitution and Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights declared by the United Nations is enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. The Constitution states: 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property. (Art. III, Sec.1); 2.The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy (Art. II, Sec.5); 3. •The State shall afford full protection of labor and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all (Art. XIII, Sec. 3) and 4. The State shall protect and promote the right of citizens to quality education (Art. XIV,  Sec.1)

Social Development. In Copenhagen is was declared that social development aims at social justice, solidarity, harmony and equality within and among countries, with full respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as policy objectives, development priorities and religious and cultural diversity, and for all human rights and fundamental freedoms. (1995 World Summit onSocial Development).

The threefolding image of society necessitates a critical engagement between the key institutions of the three autonomous spheres of society: civil society in the realm of culture, government in the realm of polity, and market (business) in the realm of economy (Perlas, 2000). The bottom line of social development is to transform the way corporations relate to people, communities & the environment founded on the belief in the dignity of the human person. (Buenviaje, 2006).

While it is true that man does not live by bread alone, without bread man would not be able sustain the most fundamental right to life. Thus, the issue of economic development is tackled as a priority with a hope that with good economics and good business, prosperity is shared by majority. Our discussion on corporate social responsibility shows us how the reality of it all is spelled in terms of corporate profits and social responsibility is not yet a reality that makes a global impact on what Pralahad 2005) envisions as an inverted pyramid of fortune benefiting majority.  We have a long way to go in developing social economics and social capital.

Non-Profit Organizations. For quite some time now social responsibility has found its way to the door step of business corporations (Hudtohan, 2009).  Nonprofit organizations of civil society is on the rise. In America non-profit organizations was growing faster than the business and government sectors. 

Mark Penn (2008) observed that  between 1977 to 2001, nonprofit employees grew at a robust 2.5 percent compared to business and government’s employment growth rates of 1.8 and 1.6 percent, respectively,   Growth employment are due to: 1. the growing number of superrich who increased from 423 in 1997 to 700 billionaires in 2005 with almost 1.5 billion registered nonprofit organizations; 2. the private business sector getting into trouble (financial scandals) and less trust in government handling problems, making nonprofit organizations an attractive option; and 3. non-profit organizations are maturing and are beginning to tackle social problems that used to belong to government and business.

          Collins (2001) believes that the next generation of leaders will be the ones who can blend social problem solving ability with serious business skills. It may be added that corporate social responsibility is slowly changing the profit horizon of business into a business enterprise with social prophets preaching for the development of a social capital for a social enterprise.  The social orientation of business may bring leaders to commit themselves to the original meaning of ‘company’ which means ‘to break bread together’ and thus create an enterprise that brings capital and labor practicing corporate social responsibility by breaking bread with external stakeholders.

Cultural Development. Hofstede’s (1984) analytical framework five cultural dimensions.  These dimensions are:

1. Power Distance Index (PDI) focuses on the degree of equality, or inequality, between people in country’s society. A High Power Distance ranking indicates that inequalities of power and wealth have been allowed to grow within the society.  A Low Power Distance ranking indicates the society de-emphasizes the differences between citizen’s power and wealth. In these societies equality and opportunity for everyone is stressed.

2. Individualism (IDV) focuses on the degree the society reinforces individual or collective achievement and interpersonal relationships.  A High Individualism ranking indicates that individuality and individual rights are paramount within the society. A Low Individualism ranking typifies societies of a more collectivist nature with close ties between individuals. 

3. Masculinity (MAS) focuses on the degree the society reinforces, or does not reinforce, the traditional masculine work role model of male achievement, control, and power.  A High Masculinity ranking indicates the country experiences a high degree of gender differentiation. A Low Masculinity ranking indicates the country has a low level of differentiation and discrimination between genders.  In these cultures, females are treated equally to makes in all aspects of society.

4. Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) focuses on the level of tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity within the society – i.e. unstructured situations.  A High Uncertain Avoidance ranking indicates the country has a low tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity.  A Low Uncertainty Avoidance ranking indicates the country has less concern about ambiguity and uncertainty and has more tolerance for a variety of opinions. 

5. Long term Orientation (LTO) focuses on the degree the society embraces, or does not embrace long-term devotion to traditional, forward thinking values.  High Long-Term Orientation ranking indicates the country prescribes to the values of long-term commitments and respect for tradition In this culture, change can occur more rapidly as long-term traditions and commitments do not become impediments to change. (Hofstede, 1994).      

Sustainable Self and Cultural DNA. Individuals are rooted and anchored to their respective cultural heritage. Christine Page (2005) notes that “it is helpful to examine which ancestral beliefs support your soul’s path, and which limit it.” Jocano (2000) advocates that modern Filipinos dig deep into their cultural heritage and rely on their ethnic DNA.

Indigenous models based on traditional values and practices have enabled us to survive the onslaught of exogenous culture.  We should not rely solely upon the logic and legal authority of our exogenous models. Grauds and Childers (2005) remind us that when we reconnect to our indigenous self and make it the basis of energy management skills, we begin to develop a sustainable self, which recognizes and embraces its interdependent relationship with life.  Our sustainable self and cultural DNA relocates us to a Spiritual Zone that liberates us from the minute doctrine and rituals that all our spirit to embrace universal truth, beauty and goodness.  Entering the Spiritual Zone empowers us to be global, universal, and ultimately become human.

Perlas (2011) calls for civil society to actively shape the future vis-à-vis government and business.  He says, “The future of the world depends on individuals making the free choice to develop spiritual and personal mastery to access the states of non-dual consciousness required to renew the planet. When they access the future of the world, thru non-dual consciousness, they can then, with others and thru appropriate societal processes, create new, sustainable societies ” (Perlas, 2013).

 In sum, he believes that the social enterprise movement when applied  in business becomes creative threefolding partnerships to eradicate poverty and governance should shift from state-centered to society-centered leadership can lead to  clean and honest elections, and transparency and accountability of public funds. 

AQAL: Integral Sustainable Development

According to Barrett Brown (2006), the core of Integral Sustainable Development is a framework intended to: 1. Organize social development (SD) initiatives through a wide variety of disciplines, perspectives and methodologies, 2. Map out SD problems and solutions from a focused viewpoint but taking into account the internal (psychological and cultural) and external (behavioral and systemic) major factors that influence an initiative, and 3. Customize application according the internal and external dynamics of stakeholders and initiative to optimize resources for achievable and appropriate solutions.

Integral Sustainable Development “recognizes that the more dimensions of reality of SD initiative takes into account, the greater chance it has of becoming a long-term, sustainable solution.”  For example, the WCDE framework proposes a solution is more sustainable because it incorporates economic, ecological and social understanding. However CADI framework is more viable than WCED because it includes psychological, cultural, and religious perspectives.  Thus, Integral Sustainable Development practitioners are encouraged to commitment themselves “to include as much knowledge about reality as possible, in the most sophisticate and pragmatic way available.”

Bottom-line of Integral Sustainable Development approach:  Instead of asking “Which is right and which is wrong? An Integral Sustainable Development practitioner asks, “What kind of universe is it that allows for all of these definitions, methodologies, and reasons to arise in the first place? (Brown, 2006).

For Ken Wilbur (2000) integral means “to integrate, to bring together, to join, to link, to embrace. Not in the sense of uniformity, and not in the sense of ironing out all of the wonderful differences, colors, zigs and zags of a rainbow hued humanity, but in the sense of unity-in-diversity, shared commonalities along with our wonderful differences.  And not just in humanity, but in the Kosmos at large: finding a more comprehensive view – a Theory of Everything (T.O.E.) – that makes legitimate room for art, morals, science, and religion, and doesn’t merely attempt to reduce them all to one’s favorite slice of the Kosmic pie.”

The Four Quadrants. The Integral framework of Wilbur views the individual, society and environment in terms of four basic quadrants: the interior and exterior of individuals and groups/collectives as shown in Figure 5.  The quadrants are four realities seen from four different perspectives.  The individual interiors (Upper Left) are psychology and consciousness; individual exteriors (Upper Right) are behavior and the physical body; collective interiors (Lower Left) are culture and worldview; and collective exteriors (Lower Right) are systems and the physical environment.

Brown further explains the quadrants: “On their simplest level, the quadrants merely acknowledge that there is an interior and an exterior to individuals and collectives.  All individuals have an interior no one else can see, like our thoughts, emotions, and self-awareness; and we all have an exterior which others can see, such as our body and behavior.  With collectives: there is an interior, like shared values, relationships, customs, morals,and communication; and an exterior, such as economic and political systems, habitats, and biota.  Essentially, the Right-Hand quadrants (Behavior and Systems) examine the surfaces of individuals and collectives, while the Left-Hand quadrants (Consciousness and Culture) look into their depths.

 CONSCIOUSNESS What I experience.   Areas studied: ‘I’ subjective realities, self ’and consciousness, states of mind, psychological development, mental models, emotions, will      BEHAVIOR What I do.   Areas studied: ‘It’ objective realities: brain and organism, visible biological features, degrees of activation of various bodily systems  
INDIVIDUALCULTURE What we experience   Areas studied: ‘We’, intersubjective realities: shared values, culture and worldview, webs of culture, communication and relationships, norms, boundaries and customs    SYSTEMS What we do.   Areas studied: ‘Its’, intersubjective realities: social systems and environment, visible societal structures, economic system, political orders, natural resource management  

Figure 8. The Four Quadrants of Ken Wilbur

Wilbur’s (2004) quadrants has “dimensions of being-in-the world that is summarized as self (I), culture (we) and nature (it).  Or art, morals, and science.  Or the beautiful, the good and the true…If you leave out science, or leave out art, or leave out morals, something is going to be missing, something will get broken.  Self and culture and nature are liberated together or not at all.”

AQAL Bottom Lines.  n applying Wilbur’s Integral Sustainable Development framework, Barrett Brown (2006) presents the following bottom line insights:

  1. The more that is known about the influences of consciousness, behavior, culture, and systems  on sustainable development, the more effectively programs can be designed and implemented.
  2. The innumerable forces emerge out of every stakeholder’s interior that directly impact any

approach to sustainable development.  These forces influence both the cause and cure of systemic imbalances.  Thus, mindfulness of individual consciousness (belief system, mental model, motivations, etc.) is vital when attempting to address all the major influences on a sustainable development initiative.

  • A comprehensive approach to sustainable development initiative would, at the very least,

document the individual behaviors that significantly contribute to a successful and enduring implementation, as well as the real threats to an individual’s life.

  • An integral Sustainable Development practitioner strives to be constantly conscious of the

underlying pressure of cultures, worldviews, norms, traditions, rituals, and rules of the group—and respond accordingly.

  • To work with the collective exterior means to incorporate and be open to the truths and

perspectives from all levels of collective institutions and systems, including the physical environment.

  • Predominantly systemic approaches to sustainable development are more likely to be

effective if replaced by comprehensive, synergetic responses that account for the major forces in all quadrants.

  • Sustainable development initiatives have a greater chance of success if they respond to all the major influences that arise from each quadrant (consciousness, behavior, culture, and systems). Approaches that fail to do so face the real threat of sabotage by forces and factors in quadrants left unattended.
  • There may be more powerful offering that we can bring to the world stage than action which arises from a deep awareness of who we truly are and how we are called to serve.  It is thus our responsibility to consciously and continuously develop this awareness, which in turn will fuel the actions that manifest our greatest potential. (Brown, 2006)

WCED: Global Development Framework

According to the WCED, development is sustainable where it “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (Brundtland Report, 1987). Based on this idea of the 1987 Commission, sustainable development has since then covered three major areas: the economic, environment and social dimensions of development.

Jonathan Harris (2000) of Global Development and Environment together with McGill University uphold these three elements of as basic in discussing the principles of sustainable development.  It advocates a triple-bottom-line

 1. An economically sustainable system must be able to produce goods and services to maintain manageable levels of government and external debt, and avoid extreme imbalances which damage agricultural or industrial production (Harris, 2000). Economic sustainability means that human communities across the globe are able to maintain their independence and have access to the resources that they require, financial and other, to meet their needs. Economic systems are intact and activities are available to everyone, such as secured sources of livelihood (McGill University, n.d.).

2.  An environmentally sustainable system must be able to maintain a resource base, avoiding over-exploitation of renewable resource system or environmental sink functions and depleting non-renewable resources only to the extent that investment is made in adequate substitutes. This includes maintenance of biodiversity, atmospheric stability and ecosystem functions ordinarily not classes as economic resources (Harris, 2000). Environmental sustainability calls for  ecological integrity to be maintained, so that all of earth’s environmental systems are kept in balance while natural resources within them are consumed by humans at a rate where they are able to replenish themselves (McGill, 2000).

3. A socially sustainable system must achieve distributional equity, adequate provision of social services including health and education, gender equity, and political accountability and participation. (Harris, 2000). Social sustainability happens when universal human rights and basic necessities are attainable by all people who have access to enough resources in order to keep their families and communities healthy and secure. Healthy communities have just leaders who ensure personal, labor and cultural rights are respected and all people are protected from discrimination (McGill University, n.d.).:

Noorgard (1994) warned that “It is impossible to define sustainable development in an operational manner in the detail and with the level or control presumed in the logic of modernity.”  Its normative nature, bordering to the ethical and moral realm makes it difficult to pin down analytically.  That is why sustainable development at this point is discussed as principles of human behavior.

Economic Bottom-line. Economic development must encourage infrastructures to increases the capacity for change in order to achieve: 1efficiency, 2. growth and 3.equity.  Jeffrey Sachs (2006) economic solution to end poverty uses differential diagnosis which sets sustainable development within an economic policy framework.  In this context, the question of business environment, trade policy, investment policy, infrastructure and human capital are addressed.  Answers to these questions are ultimately directed to get out of the: 1. poverty trap, 2. fiscal-framework and fiscal trap, 3. physical geographical factors, 4. governance patterns and failures, 5. cultural barriers and 6. geopolitics.

A critical factor in Sachs’ clinical economics points to the Official Development Assistance (ODA) of rich nations as a critical factor for providing immediate relief of the impoverish sectors (with a hope to stimulate productivity and  household savings) and help public budget to stimulate public investment (with a hope increase per capita person) to effect economic growth.

Sachs admits that America’s development assistance combined with military assistance (or you may say intervention) for the past 30  in 35 countries beginning with Cuba in 1962 and Somalia 1993 was a failure.  This does not include its current involvement Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.

Environmental Bottom-line. Children are going vegetarian in America (Penn, 2009). It is reported that 1.5 million children from ages 8 to 18 are vegan children, up from zero fifty years ago.  The reason for this is not so much from parents encouraging but from a steady flow of information they receive regarding the environment. Since 1970 there has been an Earth Day celebration; there are periodic clean up the park, the ocean, and the river; campaign to recycle, recycle and recycle; reminders to conserve water and resources.  Vegan kids will drive organic restaurants to greater heights and environmental concerns on packaging will benefit the environment.

Environmental quality calls for social equity.  Environmental sustainability calls for: 1. Economic growth that is pursued in a manner that ensures the protection of both social and environmental systems. 2. Its intergenerational component requires that future generations must be left with an ecologically viable and socially stable planet. 3. Its intragenerational component requires that the present generation is accorded an equal opportunity for economic security as well as the fair distribution of environmental costs and benefits.

Environmental sustainability without human development is also unsustainable. According to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) sustainable human development consists of three key elements:

  • development of the people, meaning the enhancement of human capabilities and health so that people can participate fully in life;
  • development for the people, meaning that all people should have the opportunity to receive or acquire a fair share of the benefits that flow from economic growth; and
  • development by the people, meaning that all members of society should have the opportunity to participate in its development.

Environmental protection requires concrete prescriptions, rules, and enforcement must curb environmental degradation. It must address: ecosystem integrity, carrying capacity, and reduction of adverse global impacts

Daniel Coleman (2009) in his Ecological Intelligence, is asking consumers to find out what costs the environment for every commercial product that is sold.  There is a need to reflect on what ethnic intelligence our ancestors have practiced to preserve nature, ecology, and biolife. The World Economic Forum of CNN (May 9, 2009 TV broadcast in Singapore) debated on the viability of preserving the Brazilian Amazon forest as the ‘lungs of the world.’  World Bank representative announced that European countries are now willing to ‘pay’ the residents of the Amazon as contribution to sustaining global life.  Apparently, the pressure from consumers are driving global producers to continue to   ‘buy’ forest based products.

Social Justice Bottom-line. After Vatican Council II, there has been a shift from the practice of charity as an act of Christian love to the practice of social justice.  Social justice calls for: poverty alleviation, justice, solidarity, Attainment of peace, population stabilization, women’s empowerment and empowerment of all marginalized, employment that allows for the creation of decent livelihoods, human rights observance and equitable distribution of income, equitable access 

Sustainable Development and Corporate Social Initiatives

Table 1 shows the three sustainable development frameworks and some selected elements that are contributory to the concept of Sustainable Corporate Social Initiatives.  The World Commission on Development and Environment (WCDE) sustainable framework primarily addressed the economic dimension of development.  From an economic perspective sustainability in relation with social issues and environmental concerns were considered. WCDE framework is basically looking at business as the driver of development pioneered in promoting environmental concerns due to global warming and climate change. 

From WCDE 1987 triple bottom-line perspective, the Center for Alternative Development Initiatives (CADI) targeted seven development areas.  In addition to the economic, social and environmental issues, CADI underscored the human, cultural, political and spiritual dimensions of development.  From a business oriented development approach, a broader humanistic perspective on development was advanced in 2000. The contribution of Perlas in CADI framework is providing sustainable development a spiritual dimension

The soft values of development – human, cultural, and spiritual – tilted the balance of sustainable development that was once driven by economics metrics.   Ken Wilbur in Integral Sustainable Development framework in 2005 highlights the ‘being-in-the-world’ where the individual’s interior consciousness is intimately connected with external collective consciousness as present realities existing in society. This consciousness is expressed a  culture that  is a unifying element of the six other integral factors.

The New Science of quantum physics in the 21st century is driving spiritual and metaphysical disciplines to recreate a sustainable worldview.  Sustainable development which puts the individual at the center must see the individual in a new light and explore the metaphysical powers within that person to create a sustainable world. In the corporate world, social responsibility to be sustainable must take into account the three holistic frameworks of WCDE, CADI and AQAL.

Table 2

Sustainable Development Frameworks for Sustainable Corporate Social Initiatives

(Hudtohan, 2017)

Elements of Sustainable DevelopmentWCDE 1987 Triple Bottom-LineCADI 2000 Humanist SevenfoldAQAL 2005 Integral Sustainable Dev.
1. Economic xx 
2. Social  xx             x
3. Environment  xx 
4. Cultural x             x
5. Political x x
6. Spiritual x x
7. Human            x              x

Sustainable Development Goals

               The 17 global goals for sustainable development are 1. No Poverty – End poverty in all its forms everywhere; 2. Zero Hunger – End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture; 3. Good Health and Well-Being – Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages; 4. Quality Education – Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all; 5. Gender Equality – Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls; 6. Clean Water and Sanitation – Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all; 7. Affordable and Clean Energy – Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and clean energy for all; 8. Decent Work and Economic Growth – Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all; 9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure – Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable

industrialization and foster innovation; 10. Reduced Inequalities – Reduce inequality within and among countries; 11. Sustainable Cities and Communities – Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable; 12. Responsible Consumption and Production – Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns; 13. Climate Action – Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts; 14. Life below Water – Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development; 15. Life on Land – Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss; 16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – Promote; peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels; 17. Partnerships for the Goals – Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development.

               For the Philippines, it appears that No. 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions is a major concern. The War on Drugs, the terror threat and the 50 year old insurgency continuous to derail socio-economic development.  Goal No. 1 No Poverty, No.2 Zero Hunger, No. 3 Good Health and Wellbeing, No. 4 Quality Education, No. 8 Decent Work and Econoomic Growth and No. 9 Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure are ongoing conerns the Duterte administration is currently addressing.

Building on the lessons learned from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) experience, the Philippine Government is committed to the bigger challenges of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which integrate the social, economic and environmental agenda. The review report highlights the initiatives of the government and other stakeholders to provide the policy and enabling environment for the implementation of the SDGs, particularly on securing the buy-in from policymakers and stakeholders, incorporating the SDGs into the national framework, improving indicators and data, and developing institutional mechanisms.

Since the adoption of the 2030 Development Agenda in September 2015, the Philippine Government and its partners have conducted communications and advocacy efforts to build awareness and engage stakeholders in the new agenda. The NEDA Technical Secretariat, for its part, has conducted briefings and orientations for its inter-agency committees, including Cabinet-level committees of the NEDA Board, and other multisectoral and multistakeholder fora. Since the initial year of the SDG implementation coincides with a new administration in the country, the more effective and persuasive tool for SDG advocacy is the ongoing process itself of integrating SDGs simultaneously into the long-term vision and goals (Ambisyon Natin 2040) and the national, sectoral and subnational plans and frameworks. This involves a broader network of players and more opportunities to engage in the SDG discourse vis-a-vis national priorities. Innovative strategies such as identifying new SDG champions among the new officials or from the business or private sectors may be considered in the process.

The CSOs have also provided significant support to the SDG campaign. One organization held a workshop on the child rights and SDGs, where a mix of CSO and government participants used the SDG framework to identify advocacy opportunities to influence decision-makers in addressing priority issues on child protection. Still another held a Voters’ Education Forum on Food and Nutrition Security which identified food and nutrition security policy proposals for prioritization in the legislative agenda of the next Congress. The UNDP Philippines also initiated an activity which resulted in the CSOs developing their work plan vis-a-vis the SDGs.

The country shares its good practice in mapping out SDG indicators for national monitoring. The assessment and prioritization of the global SDG indicators based on national context have undergone a participatory and iterative process, jointly led by the national planning and statistics agencies. A policy statement was recently issued enjoining the government agencies to provide data support to monitor the country’s performance with respect to the SDGs and specifying the responsibilities of statistics agencies. Through a series of technical workshops, the indicators have been assessed based on regularity of data generation and availability of disaggregated data, among others. The resulting list of indicators serves as timely inputs into the ongoing preparation of the successor Medium-Term Development Plan. A chapter on the SDGs has been added to the updated Philippine Statistical Development Program 2011-2017 to ensure government support in the generation of data. Moreover, the government plans to strengthen mechanisms for SDG monitoring and reporting through an SDG webpage, development of the SDG Watch that will monitor the relevant and available indicators, and identification of an SDG Focal Point from each data-source agency to facilitate coordination and data gathering of the indicators, among others.

Issues and concerns such as unavailability of data, lack of disaggregated data, lack of common definition of terms, overlaps of indicators across SDG goals, and lack of measurement methods for some indicators were raised. These apply to more than half of the total number of SDG indicators with most of these falling under Goals 12 (sustainable consumption and production patterns), 14 (conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development), 6 (water and sanitation) and    I0 (reduce inequality). (Voluntary National Review, 2016) https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/memberstates/philippines

The Philippine SDGs

Garcia (2017) reported the Philippine Statistical Authority (PSA) Board enjoined all concerned government instrumentalities to provide the necessary data support to monitor the country’s performance vis-à-vis the SDGs based on the indicator framework that shall be determined by the NEDA, PSA and other government agencies through the PSA Resolution No. 04 Series of 2016, Enjoining Government Agencies to Provide Data Support to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

In 2013, the review and discussion of the initial global post-2015 development agenda goals and targets already started. A follow-up technical workshop was conducted in September 2014 to identify the data needs for the monitoring of the SDGs. 

               In 2015, series of technical workshops were also conducted, the biggest of which were participated by around 300 participants from various government agencies, academe, civil society organizations (CSO) and private sector. The review and discussion on the zero-draft of the outcome document for the UN Summit was done in June 2015. 

In 2016, a follow-up multi-sectoral workshop was conducted after the adoption of the SDG indicators in March 2016. During the said workshop, participants were grouped into different sectoral concerns. The primary output of the workshop was the SDG Assessment Matrix. 

               The PSA also conducted series of bilateral meetings to fine tune the metadata for each of the tier 1 SDG indicators as well as proxy and supplemental indicators identified starting December 2016 to May 2017 with the following key data source agencies:

  1. Department of Education
  2. Commission on Higher Education
  3. Technical Education and Skills Development Authority
  4. Department of Health
  5. National Economic Development Authority
  6. Department of Agriculture

The results of these workshops were considered in the approval of the PSA Board Resolution No. 9, Series of 2017- Approving and Adopting the Initial List of Sustainable Development Goals for Monitoring in the Philippines, which approved the initial list of Philippine SDG indicators for adoption by the Philippine Statistical System.

               There is plenty of room for research on the plans and implementation of Sustainable Development Goals in the Phlippines.  The academe, civil society organizations and the government sector need to come to a three partite cooperation modeled by Perlas (xxxx), Midttun (xxxx) and Etzkowitz (xxxx)


               I started this discourse with personal responsibility for country and God.  I want to end with a note that beyond our Country is the ASEAN region and beyond ASEAN is the entire Mother Earth.  The final note therefore is sustaining the Life that Mother Earth continues to provide us without limitation on her part.  She is our Gaian Mother and beyond her is Mother Galactica. I conclude:

1. The 21st Century is a century of feminine energy exemplified by  Gain beauty and care; reflectived by in our Maganda and Babaylan traditions.  Thus, our personal responsibility calls for relocating our Filipino DNA embedded in our historical past experienced in the Royal Kingdom of Maharlika.

2. Philanthropic, charitable and voluntary corporate social responsibility, (CSR) is passe; we are  now moving towards corporate social initiatives (CSI) which from the social development perspective is community entrepreneurship development and from a multistream management framework entrepreneurship is moving social entrepreneurship that promotes economic sustainable livelihood.

4. Mainstream management based on Cartesian-Newtonian- science is now over-run by the new science of metaphysics. There are now new literatures on quantum organization, quantum politics and quantum thelogy.

5. Finally, business organizations are recognizing the role of spirituality in the workplace.  Multistream business management is not only focused on bottom-line profitability, it is embracing well-being as a goal for all stakeholders and spiritual well-being is recognized as part of business enterprise.


Ayala, J. (2009). Siningbayan.In Mariano, V.D. (Ed.). Sining-Bayan: Art of Nation Building, Social Artistry

Fieldbook to Promote Good Citizenship Values for Prosperity and Integrity. Makati City: United

Nations Development Programme Philippines; Quezon City: UP National College of Public Administration and Governance and Bagong Lumad Artists Foundation, Inc.

Atwater, P.M.H. (2005). Beyond the indigo children. Vermont: Bear & Company.  

Beck, M. (2012). Finding your way in a wild new world. New York: Free Press.

Bloch, M. (1996). Méthodologie Historique in Marc Bloch,The Historian and His Craft. Trans. Peter

Putnam. NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962

Bluestone, S. (1997). Signs of the times.  New York: Berkley Publishing Group.

Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harpor & Row. 1953.

Brown, Barrett. (2006). Theory and Practice of Integral Sustainable Development – Part 1. AQAL Journal

of Intergral Theory and Practice. Summer 2006, 1, (2).

Brundtland Report. (1987).  Commission on Environment and Development

Browning, G. (2005). Emergenetics (R): Tap Into the New Science of Success. New York: Collins.

Brundtland Report. (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and

Development. Retrieved from http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf

Carroll, Archie B. (1999),  Corporate Social Responsibility. Business and Society.38(3).

Carroll, A.B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business and

Society, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 268-95.

Center for Social Innovation, (2013). The Gawak Kalinga Social Innovation Model.


Chopra, Deepak. (2008). Power freedom and grace. San Rafael, California: Amber-Allen Publishing

Christakis, N.A. & Fowler.J.H. (2009). Connected: The surprising power of our social networks and how

they shape our lives. New York: Little Brown and Company.

Creswell, W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Third

ed. Washington DC: Sage.

Dator, J. (2009). Design: Post-Newtonian Governance. Interview of Jake Dunagan. The Ten Year

Forecast: Perspectives 2009). Institute for the Future. www.iftf.org.

Dator, J., Pratt, D., and Sea, Y (2006). Fairness, Globalization and Public Institutions: East Asia and

Beyond.  Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press

Deardorff, D.S. & Williams, G. (October 23, 2006) Synergy Leadership in Quantum Organizations. The

Tritz Journal.

Dyck, B.& Neubert, M.l. (2012). Management. Singapore: Cenage Learning Asia Pte. Ltd.

Dooley, M. (2009). Infinite possibilities: The art of living your dreams. USA: Atria/Beyond Words


Drucker, P. F. (1955) . The practice of management. London: Heinemann.

Etzkowitz, H. (2008). Triple helix: University- Industry- Government.   Florence, Kentucky: Routledge.


Etzkowitz, H. & Ranga, M. (2011), Spaces: A Triple Helix Governance

Strategy for Regional Innovation, In: Rickne A., Laestadius & H. Etzkowitz (eds), Regional innovation systems: The Swedish experience of policy, governance and knowledge dynamics, London: Routledge.

Friedman, M.. (Sept. 13, 1970), The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New York Times Magazine.

Edwards, G. (1997). Stepping into the magic.  Great Britain: MacKays Chatham.

Edwards. G. (1997). Living magically: A new vision of reality.  London: Piatkus Publication, Ltd.

Garcia, C (2017). Introduction – The Philippine SDGs. Philippine Statistics Authority.


Gonzalez, F.S.C., Luz, J. M., & Tirol, M.H. (1984).  De La Salle mission statement:

Retrospect and prospect. Quezon City: Vera Reyes, Inc., 46, 19-24, 14-16, 4.

Grauds, C.Childers, D. (2005). The energy prescription. New York: Bantam Dell.

Habaradas, R. (2012). Shifting Philanthropic Motives: Shell’s Corporate Social Initiatives in the

Philippines. Manila: International Journal of Business and Social Science. Retrieved from http://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_17_September_2012/20.pdf

Hall, B.P., Kalven, J., Rosen, L.S. & Taylor, B. (n.d.).Values development diagnostic sourcebook. Fond Du

Lac, WI: International Values Institute of Marian College.

Hess. D., Rogovsky, N., Dunfee, T.W. (2002). The Next Wave of Corporate Community Involvement:

Corporate Social Initiatives. California Management RevIew.44(2).

Holmes, O.W. (n.d.). Quote in Dyck, B.& Neubert, M.l. (2012). Management. Singapore: Cenage

Learning Asia Pte. Ltd.

Hudtohan, E T. (2016). Antifragility as a Theoretical Lens in Reviewing Corporate Social

Responsibility. Business Education and Law Journal, (20)1, Jose Rizal University, Quezon City.

Hudtohan, E.T. (AY 2015-2016). Managing the  Impact of the Asean Economic Community on the Mining

Industry: A Quantum Perspective. The Journal of Business Research and Development, (2)2.

Hudtohan, E.T.(2009). Creating New Framework for Sustainable Development. Paper for the

community at Unaaha, Sulawesi, Indonesia, Indonesia sponsored by the doctoral Indonesian students of  Philippine Women’s University.

Hudtohan, E. T. (July 28, 2014). A nation of compassion and mercy. Green Light. Manila Standard Today.

Hudtohan, E. T. (January 27, 2014a). Threefolding CSI. Green Light. Manila Standard Today.

Hudtohan, E.T. (December 31, 2012). From here to sustainability. Greenlight. Manila Standard Today.

Hudtohan, E.T. (2005). Fifty Years of De La Salle Catechetical Program: Retrospect and Prospect (1952

-2002). Doctoral dissertation for Religious and Values Formation, De La Salle University, Manila.

Jocano, F. Landa . (2000). Work values of successful Filipino. Metro Manila: Punlad Research House, Inc.

Jocano, F. Landa. (2001). Towards developing a Filipino corporate culture: Uses of Filipino traditional

structures and values in modern management. Metro Manila: Punlad Research House, Inc.

Jocano, F. Landa _. (2006). Working with Filipinos: A cross-cultural encounter. Metro Manila: Punlad

Research House, Inc.

Jocano, Landa. (1969). The Sulod and Hiligaynon quoted by Leothiny Clavel (n.d.) in Oral

Literature of Capiz Part I  citied in  Grace Odal, Lanlupagat: Dambanang Sanlibutang Langit, Lupa at Dagat in Teresita Obusan. Ed. (1998). Roots of Filipino Spirituality. Philippines: Mamamathala, Inc. p.201

Kanter, Roabeth Moss. (May 1999). From Spare Change to Real Change: The Social Sector as Beta Site

for Business Innovation. Harvard Business Review.

Karakas, F. (Spring 2009). New Paradigms in Organization Development: Positivity, Spirituality, and

Complexity. Organization Development Journal, 27(1)

Ke Guoxiao. (2017). Family Influence on Career Decision-making Self-efficacy of Students in Selected

Senior High Schools in China.  Doctoral dissertation, De La Salle Araneta University, Malabon City, Philippnes.

Kilmann, R.H. (2006). Quantum organizations: A new paradigm for achieving organizational success

and personal meaning. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.

Midttun, A. (2005): Realigning Business, Government and Civil Society: Emerging Embedded Relational

Governance Beyond The (neo) Liberal and Welfare State Models. Corporate Governance, 5 (3), p 159-174

Moustakas, C. & Douglass, B. (1985). Heuristic inquiry: The internal search to know. Journal of

Humanistic Psychology, 25(3), 39-55.

Moustakas, C.  (1990). Heuristic Research:  Design, Methodology, and Applications. London:  Sage.


Nowak, M. & Thomas, G. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility: A Definition. Graduate School of

Business, Curtin University of Technology. http://ceebi.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/GSB_Working_Paper_No._62_Corp_Social_Resp_A_definition_Thomas___Nowak.pdf

Oppenheim, J. & Stuchtey, M. (2015). Like it or not, sustainability is now core to your business.


Page, C. R. (2008).  2012 and the galactic center: The return of the great mother. Vermont: Bear &


Paner, M. (2017. Benita & Catalino Yap Foundation (BCYF) August 21-25 Philippine Social Responsibility

Week: Celebrating CSR 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0/. Toronto Timees (n.d.).

Pascual, F.D. (December 24, 2017). Mainstream Media: Endangered Species, Postscript. The Philippine


Perlas. N.. (2000). Shaping Globalization: Civil society, cultural power and  threefolding.  Quezon City:

CADI and Global Net3.

Perlas. N.. (2011). Mission Possible: Sow courage; harvest a new world. Philippines: CADI

Pillans, G. (September 2014). Storytelling – Getting the Message Across.Corporate Research Forum. One

Heddon Street Mayfair, London, United Kingdom.

Pillans, G. (November 2014). Employee Health and Wellbeing – whose responsibility is it? Corporate

Research Forum.One Heddon Street Mayfair, London, United Kingdom.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011).Creating shared value.Harvard Business Review, 89(1).

Post, J.E., Preston, L.E., & Sachs, S. (2000) Redefining the corporate stakeholder management and

organizational wealth.  Standford: Stanford University Press.

Ranga, M.& Etzkowitz, H. (n.d.). Triple Helix Systems: An Analytical Framework for Innovation: Policy

and Practice in the Knowledge Society //triplehelix.stanford.edu/images/Triple_Helix_Systems.pdf

Sharma, B. (2013). Contextualising CSR in Asia: Corporate Social Responsibility in Asian Economies.

Singapore: Lien Centre for Social Innovation.


Simmons, A. (2001).  The story factor: Inspiration influences and persuasion through the art of

storytelling. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Publishing.

Smith, J. (2015). Business research methodology. New York: Arcler Press LLC.

Tomintz.  H. E. A.. (2013).  Shared Value in the Philippines: A Study on the Efforts of the League of

Corporate Foundation. Masteral thesis in International Business and Law,Management Center Innsbruck. Austria.

Tyree, O. (2009). The equation in applying the indisputable component of business success.  Hoboeken,

New Jersey: John Wiley  Sons, Inc.

Ulrich, D., Younger, J., Brockbank, W., & Ulrick, M. (2011). New HR Competencies: Business Partnering

from Outside-In. The RBL White Paper Series.

UNESCO.(2016). Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07

SP, France

United Nations. 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015.


Walsch, N.D. (2014).  God’s message to the world: You’ve got me all wrong. Virginia: Rainbow Rage

Books LLC.

Warner, A. (2009). Tales of the bottom line: Short stories of modern business dilemmas. Oxford Road,

Aylesbury, Bucks: MTP Publishing.

Wheatley, M. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world.  San

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishing.

Three Inspirations for Creativity and Innovation

Written By: SuperAdmin - Jul.14,2023

ICEMABE 2023 Theme

Business Management Education, and Entrepreneurship: 21st Century:

Creativity and Innovation in the New Normal

Dr. Violeta Jerusalem, AB, MAED, MBA, EDD

Jose Rizal University, Philippines

Dr. Emiliano T. Hudtohan, AB, BSE, MA, EDD

De La Salle Araneta University, Philippines

IAMHRD Webinar

June 17, 2023


Dr. Andi Bahrun, Tenggara University, Indonesia; Dr. Sanihu Munir, President, IAMHRD, Indonesia; Director Encik Muhammad Zubir Bin Mohd Hanifah,  Politeknik Sultan Azlan Shah, Malaysia; and Dr. Eugenio, S. Gujao,  University of Mindanao, Philippines;

Honorable Speakers: Dr. Muahammad Mustafa, Uganda; Dr. Saket Jeswani, India; Dr. Asliza Yusoff, Malaysia; and Dr. Kamola Bayram, Turkey; ladies and gentlemen,

My great privilege to provide insights on Creativity and Innovation on the Fourth International Conference on Education, Management, Agribusiness, and Business Entrepreneurship (ICEMABE) June 17, 2023

It is with great joy that we have survived COVID 19.  Today, we are moving close to a New Normal.  The masks are no longer mandatory; the vaccines are at a minimal use.  Schools have reopened for regular class; business establishments have customers.  Our borders are now open air, land and sea ports accept foreign travelers.

The challenge is how do we move forward, after the gains we have achieved with our COVID 19 experience of adversity.  Nietzsche says, “What does not kill you will make you stronger.” And indeed we have emerged much stronger.  Nassim Taleb says, “What does not kill you will kill others.” And indeed, we survived the pandemic but we have relatives, friends, and neighbors who succumbed to death.


The purpose of this narrative is to serve as an overall background on the Fourth International Conference on Education, Management, Agribusiness, Business Entrepreneurship (ICEMABE) webinar whose theme is: Business Management Education and Entrepreneurship in the 21st Century Creativity and Innovation in the New Normal. It aims to discuss the cosmology of Mother Galactica, Greek mythology of Gaia, Chaos and Eros, and quantum physics as three inspirations for human creativity and innovation.


This discourse is a qualitative narrative (Marshall & Rossman, 2011) on creative and innovation; the narrative is based on key documents that provide an understanding of cosmology, Greek mythology and quantum physics vis-à-vis creativity and innovation. It makes sense of quantum physicists (Smith, 2015; Sela-Smith, 2002) to understand the three inspirations of 21st century creativity and innovation(Hudtohan, 2005; Gonzalez, Luz, & Tirol, 1984).  The methodology of this study is multi-valuate (Richardson, 2015) because it deals with various disciplines related to the three levels of reality: physical/natural, meta-physical and super-natural. This is an exploratory discourse (Stebbins, 2011) to study, examine, analyze and investigate the creativity and innovation.


There are three sources of inspiration for creativity and innovation:

1. Cosmology: The Galactic Center and  the Great Mother, 2. Mythology: Greek Gaia, Chaos, & Eros, and 3. Metaphysics: Quantum Energy Field.

1. Cosmology

By studying the cosmos beyond our own planet, we can understand where we came from, where we are going, and how physics works under conditions which are impossible to recreate on Earth. In astronomy, the Universe is our laboratory. Cosmos, in astronomy, the entire physical universe considered as a unified whole (from the Greek kosmos, meaning “order,” “harmony,” and “the world”).

The Galactic Center

Figure 1. Our galaxy: Milky Way (Hudtohan, 2023)

Seen from the Earth, our galaxy appears like a band of light with droplets of milk scattered all across the night sky –  The Milky Way. Formed about 13.51 billion years ago, this large barred-spiral Milky Way galaxy contains billions of stars and innumerable planets. What does its centre looks like?

In 2012, for the first time in 26,000 years, our Sun  was aligned to the Galactic Center. Thus, the Harmonic Convergence began in 1987 and ends this year in 2023. We are at the tail end of a 36-year opportunity to participate in the creation of a New Era of Expanded Consciousness. Let us exercise our Creativity and Innovation now (page 2008).

Cosmologist Christine Page (2008) notes that the source of all creation – our Galaxy, the Milky Way – is the Great Mother and its center is her heart. With the Earth in alignment with the Heart of the Great Mother, this Galactic Alignment heralds a rebirth of the divine feminine qualities of the Triple Goddess- – intuition, emotional creativity, and renewal

2. Mythology

Greek Gaia, Chaos, & Eros

Figure 2. Gaia, Eros and Chaos: Problem-Solution Paradigm (Hudtohan, 2023)

In Greek mythology, since the beginning of recorded history there existed: The Mother Goddess of Earth (Gaia predates the male image of God), has a favorite son (Eros) who is slain by a jealous brother and descends into the underworld (Chaos).

Studies reveal that creation myths show how our societies of law and order misunderstood chaos as disorder, as evil, rather than the interpretation of chaos as necessary nothingness that begets abundance, and through that have resulted domination paradigms, with warped senses and conceptualizations of power.

Chaos is identified as “problem” and Eros identified as “Solution”.  In the 20th century, Hugh Hefner created the Playboy magazine, a publication with revealing photographs and articles that provoked charges of obscenity. This promoted eroticism that relates to Eros. Gaia, as Mother Earth looks after the welfare of humanity and welcomes Eros, god of creativity and innovation to provide solutions.

3. Metaphysics

There are three levels of reality: physical/natural, meta-physical, and super-natural.  The physical and natural world has been explored through Newtonian physics.  The super (above) natural world has been theologically explored in theology and theosophy.  The meta-physical world is being explored through quantum physics in the 21st century.

Figure 3. Three levels of reality (Hudtohan, 2023).

Quantum physics is the study of the smallest composition of matter.  It used to be that the atom is the smallest particle of matter; today it is the quarks.  Figure show that the quark is enormously smaller than matter, crystal, and atom.

Figure 4 . Nuclear Scale of Matter, Crystal and Quark

Figure 5 visually shows the quark, atom, molecule, coffee bubbles, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe.  The formation of a big center is surrounded by small elements. The atom surround by the electrons, the molecules has big chunks surrounded by small chunks, the big coffee bubbles surrounded by small bubbles, the sun surround by the plants, the galaxy surrounded by small planetary systems and the universe has a big center (Black Hole) and galaxies surround it. The pattern is the same from the smallest entity to the biggest entity.  

Figure 5. Big center surrounded by small elements (Hudtohan , 2023)

James Ray: Most people define themselves by as finite body, but you’re not. Under a microscope you’re an energy field.  You’re a spiritual being.  You’re an energy field operating in a larger energy field.

Deepak Chopra: The unified energy field of pure  consciousness says we are connected to our Source and to one another. Neale Donald Walsch: Your interior energy can generate events and conditions in your exterior reality.

Figure 6. Old and New Perspective on the Atom

According to Ray (2007), Lynch (2007), & Walsch (2019) : God is  energy. Dispenza asserts that we are 99.9999% energy; 0001% body and he has a physical/natural; metaphysical; super-natural synthesis in his book, Becoming Supernatural.  James Ray (2007)says that most people define themselves by as finite body, but you’re not. Under a microscope you’re an energy field.  You’re a spiritual being.  You’re an energy field operating in a larger energy field. Deepak Chopra (2006) avers that the unified energy field of pure  consciousness says we are connected to our Source and to one another. Neale Donald Walsch (2019) reminds us: Your interior energy can generate events and conditions in your exterior reality. When we interact with artificial intelligence (AI), Yuval Noah Harari (2016) tells us we are becoming Homo Deus (man God).

               Figure 7. Homo Deus, Harari (2015)

Keeping this in mind, we can make the following self-affirmation.

I AM 99.999% ENERGY AND .001% BODY.





Dispenza (2017) in Figure 7 shows us how we can enter the realm of unlimited possibilities and thereby become supernatural. We have Mother Galactica in the Milky Way. We have Mother Earth here and now. The Quark, our quantum essence, is  connected to Mother Earth and Mother Galactica, sustaining our Creative and Innovative Energy Field. We are all capable of being everything we choose to be.

We are all capable of being Unconditionally Loving, Totally Conscious, Endlessly Patient, Wonderfully Compassionate, Completely Accepting, Invariably Kind, in a word, Divine (Walsch, 2018).

       Figure 8. Unlimited Possibilities, Dispenza (2017)

Once we become the consciousness of every one, every body, every thing, every where, in every time….

Metaphysically, we can create any body, become any body, have any thing, live any where and be in any time. We are becoming supernatural (Dispenza, 2017, p. 248).


  1. The Great Mother at the Galactic Center is a Great Field of Energy; she inspires us to be creative and innovative,
  2. We are 99.999% Energy and our Filed of Energy is connected to the Great Mother at the  Galactic Center of the Milky Way.
  3. We face Chaos; Eros inspires us to face Problems with creative Solutions for the sake of Gaia: Mother Earth.
  4. With Artificial Intelligence we innovate and create as Homo Deus.
  5. We have Mother Galactica in the Milky Way.
  6. We have Mother Earth here and now.
  7. The Quark, our quantum essence, is  connected to Mother Earth and Mother Galactica, sustaining our Creative and Innovative Energy Field.
  8. We are becoming supernatural.


Chopra, D. (2006). Power, Freedom, and Grace: Living from the Source of Lasting Happiness. San Rafael,

CA; Amber-Allen Publishing

Dispensa. J. (2016) Old and New Views on as Atom Energy.


Dispenza, J. (2012). Breaking the habit of being yourself: How to lose your mind and create a new one.

Carlsbad: Hay House

Dispenza, J. (2017).  Becoming supernatural : How common people are doing the uncommon  CA: Hay

Harari, Y.N. (2016). Homo deus: A brief history of tomorrow. Vintage.

Harari, Y.N. (2018). 21 lessons for the 21st century. Jonathan Cape.

Kilmann, R.H. (2001). Quantum organizations : A new paradigm for achieving organizational success

and personal meaning. CA: Davis Black Publishing.

Lynch, G. (2007). The new spirituality: An introduction to progressive belief in the Twenty-first Century.

London: L.B.Taurus & Co. Ltd. House, Inc.

Page. C. (2008). 2012 and the galactic Center: The return of the Great Mother. Bear and Company.

Ray, J. (2006). The Secret to You. In Byrne, R. (2006). The secret. New York: Atria Books, p. 159.

Taleb, N.N. (2012).Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. Random House.

Walsch, N.D. (2006a). The Secret to Life. In Byrne, R. (2006). The secret. New York: Atria Books.

Walsch, N.D. (2019). The essential path: Making the daring decision to be who you truly are. NY: St.

Martin’s Essentials

World Economic Forum (June 2021). Building Back Broader: Policy Pathways for an Economic Transformation.

         Center for the New Economic Society.

4th ICEMABE International Conference on Education, Management, AgriBusiness, and Business Entrepreneurship

Written By: SuperAdmin - Jun.26,2023

Webinar: International Conference on Education, Management, AgriBusiness, and Business Entrepreneurship (4th ICEMABE) via Zoom. Managed by Dr. Baron, Pres. of University of Tengarra (UNSULTRA_ in partnership with Dr. Munir, President of the International Association of Management and Human Development (IAMHRD). In the photo: Gigi, Cherry, & Abner PCU PhD candidates presented papers. They proudly represented excellent Pino scholarship based on their respective professional practice. The lady is Dr. Aliza Yusoff of Malaysai, Dr. Mustafa of Uganda and the President of Malaysian Univeristy. As VP of IAMHRD I welcomed the participants. I also delivered a paper on Creativity and Innovation, coauthored with Dr. Jerusalem, Asst. Director of IAMHRD. Mabuhay.