Sustainability-Driven Implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility: Application of the Integrative Sustainability Triangle

  • Alexandro KleineEmail author
  • Michael von Hauff


Current corporate social responsibility (CSR) approaches attempt to implement the vision of sustainable development at the corporate level. In fact, the term “corporate sustainability” may be a more accurate descriptive label for these attempts. Ambitious governmental, business and academic goals, and corresponding efforts have been established. Nonetheless, a truly satisfactory implementation of the broad CSR concept as well as the more specific challenges of corporate sustainability continue to be an elusive goal at the corporate management level. This article presents a description of a new management tool, a systematic method for implementing CSR successfully on the basis of a triple bottom line approach to sustainability. It fills in many of the still missing gap on the corporate level. The method presented here offers a multi-purpose approach for the collection, systematization, quantification, and evaluation of all the relevant issues found within a corporate environment. It allows for specifying and systematizing appropriate areas of action, taking into account the continuum of economic, ecologic,1 and social dimensions. Accordingly, the article is best characterized as a treatment of complex CSR issues, developed against the normative anchor of sustainability as the conceptual background.

Key words

business strategy corporate social responsibility (CSR) corporate sustainability indicators sustainability triangle sustainable development triple bottom line 



The IST has gratefully being developed within a research project funded by the ministry of environment, forest and consumer protection of Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany.


  1. Achleitner, P.: 1985, Sozio-politische Strategien multinationaler Unternehmungen – ein Ansatz gezielten Umweltmanagements (Haupt, Berne).Google Scholar
  2. Berle, A. and G. Means: 1932, The modern corporation and private property (Commerce Clearing House, New York).Google Scholar
  3. Callens, I. and D. Tyteca: 1999, ‹Towards indicators of sustainable development for firms – A productive efficiency perspective’, Ecological Economics 28, 41-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CSI: 2006, The Social Footprint – Introduction and Proof of Concept 2006, Draft 3.1. (Centre for Sustainable Innovation, VT), Retrieved 23 Aug 2006
  5. Cyert, R. M. and J. G. March: 1963, A behavioral theory of the firm (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs).Google Scholar
  6. Czymmek, F.: 2003, Ökoeffizienz und unternehmerische Stakeholder (Josef Eul, Cologne).Google Scholar
  7. Dyllick, T. and K. Hockerts: 2002, ‹Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability’, Business Strategy and the Environment 11, 130-141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. EFQM: 2003, The EFQM Excellence Model (European Foundation for Quality Management, Brussels).Google Scholar
  9. EFQM: 2004, The EFQM Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility (European Foundation for Quality Management, Brussels).Google Scholar
  10. Elkington, J.: 1994, ‹Towards the Sustainable Corporation: Win–Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable Development’, California Management Review 36(2), 90-100.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission: 2002, A Business Contribution to Sustainable Development 2002 (COM, 347 final), Retrieved 8 Mar 2006
  12. Figge, F.: 2001, ‹Environmental Value Added – ein neues Maß zur Messung der Ökoeffizienz’, Zeitschrift für angewandte Umweltforschung 14(1-4), 184-197.Google Scholar
  13. Figge, F. and T. Hahn: 2002, Sustainable Value Added – Measuring Corporate Sustainable Performance beyond Eco-Efficiency (Centre for Sustainability Management, Lüneburg).Google Scholar
  14. Freeman, E. R.: 1984, Strategic Management. A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman, Boston et al.).Google Scholar
  15. German Council for Sustainable Development: 2006, ‹Corporate Responsibility in a Globalised World – German Profile of Corporate Social Responsibility – Recommendations of the German Council for Sustainable Development’, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. GRI: 2002, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines 2002 (Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam), Retrieved 23 Aug 2006
  17. GRI: 2006, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, Version 3.0 (Global Reporting Initiative, Amsterdam), Retrieved 18 Aug 2007
  18. ISEA: 1999, Account Ability 1000 (AA1000) Framework – Standards, Guidelines and Professional Qualification 1999 (Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability, London), Retrieved 22 Aug 2006
  19. Kakabadse, N. K., C. Rozuel and L. Lee-Davis: 2005, ‹Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder approach – a conceptual review’, International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics 1(4), 277-302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kleine, A.: 2005, ‹Das Integrierende Nachhaltigkeits-Dreieck zur interdisziplinären und systematischen Diskussion der Nachhaltigen Entwicklung’, UmweltWirtschaftsForum 13(4), 22-27.Google Scholar
  21. Kleine, A., S. Kurz and C. Schmidkonz: 2005, ‹Application of the Sustainability Triangle for BYC’, in S. Kurz and C. Schmidkonz (eds.), The impact of direct investment of BASF in Nanjing, China on the sustainable development of the region (GTZ, Nanjing), pp. 55-62.Google Scholar
  22. Landesregierung Rheinland-Pfalz: 2005, ‹3. Agenda 21-Programm der Landesregierung 2005 – Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie – Perspektiven für Rheinland-Pfalz’, 14/4821, MainzGoogle Scholar
  23. McDonough, W. and M. Braungart: 2002, Cradle to cradle – Remaking the Way We make Things (North Point Press, New York).Google Scholar
  24. Meadows, D. L., D. H. Meadows, J. Randers and W. W. Behrens: 1972, The limits to growth – a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind (Universe Books, New York).Google Scholar
  25. OECD: 1998, Towards sustainable Development – environmental indicators (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris).Google Scholar
  26. Rapport, D., A. Friend: 1979, Towards a comprehensive framework for environmental statistics: a stress response approach (Statistics Canada, Ottawa).Google Scholar
  27. SAI: 2001, Social Accountability 8000 (Social Accountability International, New York), Retrieved 22 Aug 2006
  28. Saling, P., A. Kicherer, B. Dittrich-Krämer, R. Wittlinger, W. Zombik, I. Schmidt, W. Schrott and S. Schmidt: 2002, ‹Eco-efficiency Analysis by BASF – The Method’, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 7(4), 203-218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. SAM: 2004, Corporate Sustainability Assessment Questionnaire 2004 (Sustainable Asset Management, Zurich), Retrieved 22 Aug 2006
  30. Schaltegger, S.: 1998, ‹Accounting for Eco-Efficiency’, in B. Nath, L. Hens, P. Compton and D. Devuyst (eds.), Environmental Management in Practice – Instruments for Environmental Management, vol. 1 (Routledge, London), pp. 272-287.Google Scholar
  31. Schaltegger, S. and R. Burritt: 2005, ‹Corporate sustainability’, in H. Folmer and T. Tietenberg (eds.), The international yearbook of environmental and resource economics – a survey of current issues (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham et al.), pp. 185-222.Google Scholar
  32. Schaltegger, S., C. Herzig, O. Kleiber and J. Müller: 2003, Sustainability Management in Business Enterprises – Concepts and Instruments for Sustainable Development (German Federal Ministry for the Environment and Federation of German Industries, Bonn and Berlin).Google Scholar
  33. Schaltegger, S. and A. Sturm: 1990, ‹Ökologische Rationalität – Ansatzpunkte zur Ausgestaltung von Ökologieorientierten Managementinstrumenten’, Die Unternehmung 4, 273-290.Google Scholar
  34. Schmidheiny, S.: 1992, Changing Course – A Global Business Perspective on Development and the Environment (MIT Press, Cambridge).Google Scholar
  35. Schmidt, I., M. Meurer, P. Saling, A. Kicherer, W. Reuter and C. O. Gensch: 2004, ‹Managing Sustainability of Products and Processes with the Socio-Eco-Efficiency Analysis by BASF’, Greener Management International 45, 79-94.Google Scholar
  36. Simonis, U. E.: 1998, ‹Das magische Dreieck zukunftsfähiger Entwicklung’, Gewerkschaftliche Monatshefte 49(6-7), 466.Google Scholar
  37. Ulrich, P.: 1977, Das Großunternehmen als quasi-öffentliche Institution (Poeschel, Stuttgart).Google Scholar
  38. UNCED: 1992, Agenda 21 (United Nations, New York).Google Scholar
  39. UNCTAD: 2004, A Manual for the Preparers and Users of Eco-efficiency indicators (United Nations, New York and Geneva).Google Scholar
  40. van Marrewijk, M.: 2006, ‹Corporate sustainability and sustainable development’, in J. Allouche (ed.), Concepts, accountability and reporting (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke et al.), pp. 73-98.Google Scholar
  41. VDI: 2006, Sustainable management in small and medium-sized enterprises – Guidance notes for sustainable management (Beuth, Berlin).Google Scholar
  42. Verfaillie, H. A. and R. Bidwell: 2000, Measuring Eco-Efficiency – A Guide to Reporting Company Performance (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva), Retrieved 18 Nov 2002
  43. von Hauff, M. and A. Kleine: 2005, ‹Methodischer Ansatz zur Systematisierung von Handlungsfeldern und Indikatoren einer Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie – Das Integrierende Nachhaltigkeits-Dreieck’, Retrieved 21 Jan 2005
  44. von Hauff, M. and A. Kleine: 2006, ‹Methodological Approach for the Systematization of the Areas of Action and the Indicators of a Sustainability Strategy – The Integrative Sustainability Triangle’, International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 5(4), 372-394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. WBCSD: 1996, Eco-Efficient Leadership for Improved Economic and Environmental Performance (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva), Retrieved 18 Nov 2002
  46. WCED: 1987, Our Common Future (Oxford University Press, Oxford).Google Scholar
  47. WSSD: 2002, Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (United Nations, New York).Google Scholar
  48. Zink, K. J.: 1998, Total Quality Management as a Holistic Management Concept (Springer, Berlin et al.).Google Scholar
  49. Zink, K. J.: 2003 Corporate Social Responsibility Promoting Ergonomics. In: H. Luczak and K. J. Zink (eds.), Redesigning Work and Macroergonomics – Future Perspectives and Challenges vol. 7 IEA-Press, Santa Monica, pp. 63-72.Google Scholar
  50. Zink, K. J.: 2005, ‹Stakeholder Orientation and Corporate Social Responsibility as a Precondition for Sustainability’, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 16(8-9), 1041-1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zukunftskommission der Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung: 1998, Wirtschaftliche Leistungsfähigkeit, sozialer Zusammenhalt, ökologische Nachhaltigkeit – Drei Ziele – ein Weg (Dietz, Bonn)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Economic PolicyUniversity of KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations