Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 127, Issue 2, pp 297–316 | Cite as

Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: Towards an Integrative Framework

  • Tobias Hahn
  • Jonatan PinkseEmail author
  • Lutz Preuss
  • Frank Figge


This paper proposes a systematic framework for the analysis of tensions in corporate sustainability. The framework is based on the emerging integrative view on corporate sustainability, which stresses the need for a simultaneous integration of economic, environmental and social dimensions without, a priori, emphasising one over any other. The integrative view presupposes that firms need to accept tensions in corporate sustainability and pursue different sustainability aspects simultaneously even if they seem to contradict each other. The framework proposed in this paper goes beyond the traditional triad of economic, environmental and social dimensions and argues that tensions in corporate sustainability occur between different levels, in change processes and within a temporal and spatial context. The framework provides vital groundwork for managing tensions in corporate sustainability based on paradox strategies. The paper then applies the framework to identify and characterise four selected tensions and illustrates how key approaches from the literature on strategic contradictions, tensions and paradoxes—i.e., acceptance and resolution strategies—can be used to manage these tensions. Thereby, it refines the emerging literature on the integrative view for the management of tensions in corporate sustainability. The framework also provides managers with a better understanding of tensions in corporate sustainability and enables them to embrace these tensions in their decision making.


Corporate sustainability Tensions Integrative view Paradox strategies Sustainable development Triple Bottom Line 


  1. Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the s back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.Google Scholar
  2. Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, K., Galiano, M., & Hayes, S. (2011). Global companies volunteering globally: The final report of the Global Corporate Volunteering Research Project. Washington, DC: International Association for Volunteer Effort.Google Scholar
  4. Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Individual environmental initiative: Championing natural environmental issues in U.S. business organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 548–570.Google Scholar
  5. Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Rubio-López, E. A. (2007). Proactive corporate environmental strategies: Myths and misunderstandings. Long Range Planning, 40(3), 357–381.Google Scholar
  6. Ayres, R. U. (2008). Sustainability economics: Where do we stand? Ecological Economics, 67(2), 281–310.Google Scholar
  7. Bakker, S., van Lente, H., & Engels, R. (2012). Competition in a technological niche: The cars of the future. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(5), 421–434.Google Scholar
  8. Banerjee, S. B. (2001). Managerial perceptions of corporate environmentalism: Interpretations from industry and strategic implications for organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(4), 489–513.Google Scholar
  9. Bansal, P. (2002). The corporate challenges of sustainable development. Academy of Management Executive, 16(2), 122–131.Google Scholar
  10. Bansal, P. (2003). From issues to actions: The importance of individual concerns and organizational values in responding to natural environmental issues. Organization Science, 14(5), 510–527.Google Scholar
  11. Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218.Google Scholar
  12. Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93–117.Google Scholar
  13. Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2012). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1304–1320.Google Scholar
  14. Bassett-Jones, N. (2005). The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 169–175.Google Scholar
  15. Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122–136.Google Scholar
  16. Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.Google Scholar
  17. Beech, N., Burns, H., de Caestecker, L., MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. (2004). Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations, 57(10), 1313–1332.Google Scholar
  18. Bentley, J. W. (1994). Facts, fantasies, and failures of farmer participatory research. Agriculture and Human Values, 11(2–3), 140–150.Google Scholar
  19. Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P., & Drumwright, M. E. (2007). Mainstreaming corporate social responsibility: Developing markets for virtue. California Management Review, 49(4), 132–157.Google Scholar
  20. Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009). The pros and cons of rewarding social responsibility at the top. Human Resource Management, 48(6), 959–971.Google Scholar
  21. Bluffstone, R., Boscolo, M., & Molina, R. (2002, June 17–21). How does community forestry affect rural households? A labor allocation model of the Bolivian Andes. Paper presented at the The Commons in an Age of Globalisation, the Ninth Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe.Google Scholar
  22. Bouchikhi, H. (1998). Living with and building on complexity: A constructivist perspective on organizations. Organization, 5(2), 217–232.Google Scholar
  23. Broome, J. (1994). Discounting the future. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 23(2), 128–156.Google Scholar
  24. Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875–884.Google Scholar
  25. Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967.Google Scholar
  26. Cardoso, I. M., Guijt, I., Franco, F. S., Carvalho, A. F., & Ferreira Neto, P. S. (2001). Continual learning for agroforestry system design: University, NGO and farmer partnership in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Agricultural Systems, 69(3), 235–257.Google Scholar
  27. Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., & Abel, N. (2001). From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4(8), 765–781.Google Scholar
  28. Christmann, P. (2004). Multinational companies and the natural environment: Determinants of global environmental policy standardization. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 747–760.Google Scholar
  29. Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.Google Scholar
  30. Clegg, S. R., da Cunha, J. V., & e Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483–503.Google Scholar
  31. Cordano, M., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Pollution reduction preferences of U.S. environmental managers: Applying Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 627–641.Google Scholar
  32. Daily, B. F., & Huang, S.-C. (2001). Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource factors in environmental management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(12), 1539–1552.Google Scholar
  33. Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(4), 411–424.Google Scholar
  34. de Graaf, F. J., & Herkströter, C. A. J. (2007). How corporate social performance is institutionalised within the governance structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(2), 177–189.Google Scholar
  35. Dentchev, N. A. (2004). Corporate social performance as a business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(4), 397–412.Google Scholar
  36. Devinney, T. M. (2009). Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(2), 44–56.Google Scholar
  37. Dijk, M., Orsato, R. J., & Kemp, R. (2013). The emergence of an electric mobility trajectory. Energy Policy, 52, 135–145.Google Scholar
  38. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(April), 147–160.Google Scholar
  39. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252–284.Google Scholar
  40. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.Google Scholar
  41. Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 105–123.Google Scholar
  42. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st century business. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society.Google Scholar
  43. European Commission. (1998). State of Application of Regulation (EEC) No. 2078/92: Evaluation of Agrienvironmental Programmes. DGVI Commission Working Document (VI/7655/98).Google Scholar
  44. Fenwick, T. (2007). Developing organizational practices of ecological sustainability: A learning perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(7), 632–645.Google Scholar
  45. Figge, F. (2004). Bio-folio. Applying portfolio theory to biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 13(4), 827–849.Google Scholar
  46. Figge, F., & Hahn, T. (2008). Sustainable investment analysis with the sustainable value approach: A plea and a methodology to overcome the instrumental bias in socially responsible investment research. Progress in Industrial Ecology, 5(3), 255–272.Google Scholar
  47. Fineman, S., & Clarke, K. (1996). Green stakeholders: Industry interpretations and response. Journal of Management Studies, 33(6), 715–730.Google Scholar
  48. Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2006). The symbolic management of strategic change: Sense giving via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1173–1193.Google Scholar
  49. Fleischer, D. (2009). Green teams: Engaging employees in sustainability. Mill Valley, CA: Green Impact.Google Scholar
  50. Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1994). Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 756–785.Google Scholar
  51. Fraser, E. G. (2007). Travelling in antique lands: Using past famines to develop an adaptability/resilience framework to identify food systems vulnerable to climate change. Climatic Change, 83(4), 495–514.Google Scholar
  52. Fraser, E., Mabee, W., & Figge, F. (2005). A framework for assessing vulnerability in the food system. Futures, 37(6), 465–479.Google Scholar
  53. Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2013). Instrumental and integrative logics in business sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 241–255.Google Scholar
  54. Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T.-S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874–907.Google Scholar
  55. Glen, J., Hilson, C., & Lowitt, E. (2009). The emergence of green talent. Business Strategy Review, 20(4), 52–56.Google Scholar
  56. Goerner, S. J., Lietaer, B., & Ulanowicz, R. E. (2009). Quantifying economic sustainability: Implications for free-enterprise theory, policy and practice. Ecological Economics, 69(1), 76–81.Google Scholar
  57. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.Google Scholar
  58. Grant, A. M. (2012). Giving time, time after time: Work design and sustained employee participation in corporate volunteering. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 589–615.Google Scholar
  59. Hahn, T. (2012). Reciprocal stakeholder behavior: A motive-based approach to the implementation of normative stakeholder demands. Business & Society. doi:  10.1177/0007650312439029.
  60. Hahn, T., & Figge, F. (2011). Beyond the bounded instrumentality in current corporate sustainability research: Toward an inclusive notion of profitability. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(3), 325–345.Google Scholar
  61. Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2010). Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: You can’t have your cake and eat it. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(4), 217–229.Google Scholar
  62. Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. (2012). Hybrid organizations: The next chapter of sustainable business. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 126–134.Google Scholar
  63. Hall, J. K., & Martin, M. J. C. (2005). Disruptive technologies, stakeholders and the innovation value-added chain: A framework for evaluating radical technology development. R&D Management, 35(3), 273–284.Google Scholar
  64. Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 476–501.Google Scholar
  65. Hargreaves, T. (2011). Practice-ing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour change. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 79–99.Google Scholar
  66. Hart, S., & Milstein, M. B. (1999). Global sustainability and the creative destruction of industries. Sloan Management Review, 41(1), 23–33.Google Scholar
  67. Heffner, R. R., Kurani, K. S., & Turrentine, T. S. (2007). Symbolism in California’s early market for hybrid electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 12(6), 396–413.Google Scholar
  68. Held, M. (2001). Sustainable development from a temporal perspective. Time & Society, 10(2–3), 351–366.Google Scholar
  69. Hemingway, C., & Maclagan, P. (2004). Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33–44.Google Scholar
  70. Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 87–99.Google Scholar
  71. Hoffman, A. J. (2001). From Heresy to Dogma: An institutional history of corporate environmentalism (expanded ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23.Google Scholar
  73. Holt, D., & Watson, A. (2008). Exploring the dilemma of local sourcing versus international development: The case of the flower industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(5), 318–329.Google Scholar
  74. Husted, B. W., & de Jesus Salazar, J. (2006). Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 75–91.Google Scholar
  75. Huzzard, T., & Östergren, K. (2002). When norms collide: Learning under organizational hypocrisy. British Journal of Management, 13(S2), S47–S59.Google Scholar
  76. Isaksen, S. G., & Ekvall, G. (2010). Managing for innovation: The two faces of tension in creative climates. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 73–88.Google Scholar
  77. Jarzabkowski, P. (2008). Shaping strategy as a structuration process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 621–650.Google Scholar
  78. Jarzabkowski, P., & Fenton, E. (2006). Strategizing and organizing in pluralistic contexts. Long Range Planning, 39(6), 631–648.Google Scholar
  79. Jennings, P. D., & Zandbergen, P. A. (1995). Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1015–1052.Google Scholar
  80. Kaptein, M., & Wempe, J. (2001). Sustainability management. Balancing conflicting economic, environmental and social corporate responsibilities. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 1(2), 91–106.Google Scholar
  81. Kates, R. W., & Clark, W. C. (1996). Environmental surprise: Expecting the unexpected? Environment Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 38(2), 6–34.Google Scholar
  82. Kleine, A., & Hauff, M. (2009). Sustainability-driven implementation of corporate social responsibility: Application of the integrative sustainability triangle. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(3), 517–533.Google Scholar
  83. Kolk, A., & Perego, P. (2013). Sustainable bonuses: Sign of corporate responsibility or window dressing? Journal of Business Ethics. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1614-x.
  84. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  85. Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49.Google Scholar
  86. Laverty, K. J. (1996). Economic “Short-Termism”: The debate, the unresolved issues, and the implications for management practice and research. Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 825–860.Google Scholar
  87. Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organization studies (2nd ed., pp. 215–254). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  88. Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 123–152.Google Scholar
  89. Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.Google Scholar
  90. Liu, G. (2012). Impacts of instrumental versus relational centered logic on cause-related marketing decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2), 243–263.Google Scholar
  91. López, R. E., Anríquez, G., & Gulati, S. (2007). Structural change and sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53(3), 307–322.Google Scholar
  92. Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.Google Scholar
  93. Mackenzie, C. (2007). Boards, incentives and corporate social responsibility: The case for a change of emphasis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(5), 935–943.Google Scholar
  94. Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2008). Thinking of the organization as a system: The role of managerial perceptions in developing a corporate social responsibility strategic agenda. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(3), 413–426.Google Scholar
  95. Marginson, D., & McAulay, L. (2008). Exploring the debate on short-termism: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 273–292.Google Scholar
  96. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.Google Scholar
  97. Markusson, N. (2010). The championing of environmental improvements in technology investment projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(8), 777–783.Google Scholar
  98. Maynard, M., Bunkley, N., & Chapman, M. M. (2007). Say ‘Hybrid’ and many people will hear ‘Prius’. New York City: The New York Times.Google Scholar
  99. Meadows, D. H. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. London: Earth Island.Google Scholar
  100. Midttun, A. (2007). Corporate responsibility from a resource and knowledge perspective towards a dynamic reinterpretation of C(S)R: Are corporate responsibility and innovation compatible or contradictory? Corporate Governance, 4(2), 401–413.Google Scholar
  101. Mirvis, P., & Googins, B. (2006). Stages of corporate citizenship. California Management Review, 48(2), 104–126.Google Scholar
  102. Mosakowski, E., & Earley, P. C. (2000). A selective review of time assumptions in strategy research. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 796–812.Google Scholar
  103. Muthuri, J. N., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2009). Employee volunteering and social capital: Contributions to corporate social responsibility. British Journal of Management, 20(1), 75–89.Google Scholar
  104. Newton, T. J. (2002). Creating the new ecological order? Elias and actor–network theory. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 523–540.Google Scholar
  105. Okereke, C. (2006). Global environmental sustainability: Intragenerational equity and conceptions of justice in multilateral environmental regimes. Geoforum, 37(5), 725–738.Google Scholar
  106. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.Google Scholar
  107. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.Google Scholar
  108. Orlove, B. S., & Godoy, R. (1986). Sectoral fallowing systems in the Central Andes. Journal of Ethnobiology, 6(1), 169–204.Google Scholar
  109. Orsato, R. J., & Wells, P. (2007). U-turn: The rise and demise of the automobile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(11–12), 994–1006.Google Scholar
  110. Ozaki, R., & Sevastyanova, K. (2011). Going hybrid: An analysis of consumer purchase motivations. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2217–2227.Google Scholar
  111. Padilla, E. (2002). Intergenerational equity and sustainability. Ecological Economics, 41(1), 69–83.Google Scholar
  112. Pajo, K., & Lee, L. (2011). Corporate-sponsored volunteering: A work design perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(3), 467–482.Google Scholar
  113. Pearce, J. A, I. I., & Doh, J. (2005). The high impact of collaborative social initiatives. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(3), 29–39.Google Scholar
  114. Pellow, D. N., Weinberg, A., & Schnaiberg, A. (2001). The environmental justice movement: Equitable allocation of the costs and benefits of environmental management outcomes. Social Justice Research, 14(4), 423–439.Google Scholar
  115. Peloza, J., & Hassay, D. (2006). Intra-organizational volunteerism: Good soldiers, good deeds and good politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(4), 357–379.Google Scholar
  116. Penker, M. (2008). Governing Austrian landscapes: Shifts along the private–public divide. In T. Sikor (Ed.), Public and private in natural resource governance: A false dichotomy? (pp. 89–106). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  117. Pinkse, J., & Groot, K. (2013). Sustainable entrepreneurship and corporate political activity: Overcoming market barriers in the clean Energy sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Early view.Google Scholar
  118. Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.Google Scholar
  119. Portney, P. R., & Weyant, J. P. (Eds.). (1999). Discounting and intergenerational equity. Washington DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  120. Preuss, L., & Walker, H. (2011). Psychological barriers in the road to sustainability: Evidence from public sector procurement. Public Administration: An International Quarterly, 89(2), 493–521.Google Scholar
  121. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.Google Scholar
  122. Rothenberg, S. (2003). Knowledge content and worker participation in environmental management at NUMMI. Journal of Management Studies, 40(7), 1783–1802.Google Scholar
  123. Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 1–37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  124. Sanders, W. G., & Tuschke, A. (2007). The adoption of institutionally contested organizational practices: The emergence of stock option pay in Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 33–56.Google Scholar
  125. Schifrin, D., & Burgelman, R. A. (2011). Nissan’s Electric Vehicle Strategy in 2011: Leading the way toward zero-emission, case SM-189. Stanford, CA: Stanford Graduate School of Business.Google Scholar
  126. Schütz, J. (1999). Organising diversity. In J. Köhn, J. M. Gowdy, F. Hinterberger, & J. van der Straaten (Eds.), Sustainability in question: The search for a conceptual framework (pp. 101–123). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  127. Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2008). Integrating and unifying competing and complementary frameworks. The search for a Common core in the business and society field. Business and Society, 47(2), 148–186.Google Scholar
  128. Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  129. Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 332–349.Google Scholar
  130. Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222–247.Google Scholar
  131. Sharp, Z., & Zaidman, N. (2010). Strategization of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 51–71.Google Scholar
  132. Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936–960.Google Scholar
  133. Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2012). A matter of time: The temporal perspectives of organizational responses to climate change. Organization Studies, 33(11), 1537–1563.Google Scholar
  134. Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  135. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.Google Scholar
  136. Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.Google Scholar
  137. Starik, M., & Rands, G. P. (1995). Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 908–935.Google Scholar
  138. Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 397–415.Google Scholar
  139. Swift, M. J., Izac, A. M. N., & van Noordwijk, M. (2004). Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes: Are we asking the right questions? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 104(1), 113–134.Google Scholar
  140. Swinton, S. M., & Quiroz, R. (2003). Is poverty to blame for soil, pasture and forest degradation in Peru’s Altiplano? World Development, 31(11), 1903–1919.Google Scholar
  141. Tesluk, P. E., Vance, R. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (1999). Examining employee involvement in the context of participative work environments. Group and Organization Management, 24(3), 271–299.Google Scholar
  142. Van Buskirk, J., & Willi, Y. (2004). Enhancement of farmland biodiversity within set-aside land. Conservation Biology, 18(4), 987–994.Google Scholar
  143. Vetter IMS Corp. (2012). Case study: Staff Suggestion Scheme success British Airways’ £20 mn savings. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from
  144. Vollebergh, H. R. J., & Kemfert, C. (2005). The role of technological change for a sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 54(2–3), 133–147.Google Scholar
  145. Vyakarnam, S. (1992). Social responsibility: What leading companies do. Long Range Planning, 25(5), 59–67.Google Scholar
  146. Wade-Benzoni, K. (2002). A golden rule over time: Reciprocity in intergenerational allocation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1011–1028.Google Scholar
  147. Walley, N., & Whitehead, B. (1994). It’s not easy being green. Harvard Business Review, 72(3), 46–52.Google Scholar
  148. WCED. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: World Commission on Environment and Development and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  149. Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 307–336.Google Scholar
  150. Whitfield, J. (2006). Agriculture and environment: How green was my subsidy? Nature, 439(7079), 908–909.Google Scholar
  151. Wilson, M. (2003). Corporate sustainability: What is it and where does it come from? Ivey Business Journal, March/April, 1–5.Google Scholar
  152. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.Google Scholar
  153. Xerox Corporation. (2013, February 4). Xerox shares business process expertise with non-profits through Employee Paid Leave Program. Retrieved June 26, 2013, from
  154. York, R., & Rosa, E. A. (2003). Key challenges to ecological modernization theory: Institutional efficacy, case study evidence, units of analysis, and the pace of eco-efficiency. Organization & Environment, 16(3), 273–288.Google Scholar
  155. Yuan, W., Bao, Y., & Verbeke, A. (2011). Integrating CSR initiatives in business: An organizing framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(1), 75–92.Google Scholar
  156. Zuindeau, B. (2007). Territorial equity and sustainable development. Environmental Values, 16(2), 253–268.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tobias Hahn
    • 1
  • Jonatan Pinkse
    • 2
    Email author
  • Lutz Preuss
    • 3
  • Frank Figge
    • 1
  1. 1.Kedge Business SchoolMarseille cedex 9France
  2. 2.Grenoble Ecole de ManagementGrenobleFrance
  3. 3.School of ManagementRoyal Holloway, University of LondonEghamUK

Personalised recommendations