Resources and Capabilities of Triple Bottom Line Firms: Going Over Old or Breaking New Ground?
- First Online:
- 1.4k Downloads
Supported by a qualitative study of triple bottom line (TBL) firms—those that simultaneously prioritize economic, social, and environmental objectives—we investigated the market logic and practices of TBL firms to better understand how they fulfill their mission and achieve their goals. We explored if and how TBL firms may differ in their approach to stakeholders and the management of their resources, including dynamic capabilities. We employed a research design that emphasizes the iterative comparison of narrative data within themselves and with scholarly literature [i.e., resource-based view (RBV)] to develop new theoretical insights. Because the RBV is commonly used to theorize how firms achieve competitive advantage, we explored whether TBL firms achieve competitive advantage differently from what RBV theory would predict. Our data suggest that how a firm defines value has a significant influence on the capabilities it creates and how it treats its resources. We find that TBL firms redefine value to not only focus on the end product or service but also to include the systemic cost of delivering goods. As a result, TBL firms differ from prevailing scholarly thought in RBV. They strive to have resources that are sustainable and therefore imitable, commonly found, and substitutable. Moreover, they are not only transparent in their processes but also collaborate with others in the value chain and in their sector. In doing so, they deliberately create new markets from which other firms can benefit. Rather than focusing on competitive advantage, they focus on collaborative advantage.
KeywordsResource-based view Corporate social responsibility Triple bottom line Sustainability Social entrepreneurship
- Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
- Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. Wiltshire: Sage.Google Scholar
- Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92–117.Google Scholar
- Colbert, B. A., & Kurucz, E. C. (2007). Three conceptions of triple bottom line business sustainability and the role for HRM. Human Resource Planning, 30, 21–29.Google Scholar
- Cotte, J., & Kistruck, G. (2006). Discerning marketers’ meanings: Depth interviews with sales executives. In R. W. Belk (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing (pp. 465–475). Northampton, MA: Edward Elger.Google Scholar
- Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
- Dobson, A. (1990). Green political thought. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
- Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.Google Scholar
- Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Gabriola Island, BC: Capstone.Google Scholar
- Fair Trade Labeling Organization. (2009). Fairtrade leading the way. Bonn: Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International.Google Scholar
- Fair Trade USA. (2012). 2012 Almanac. Oakland, CA: Fair Trade USA.Google Scholar
- Fischer, E., & Otnes, C. C. (2006). Breaking new ground: Developing grounded theories in marketing and consumer behavior. In R. W. Belk (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing (pp. 19–30). Northampton, MA: Edward Elger.Google Scholar
- Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.Google Scholar
- Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 33(September 13), 122–126.Google Scholar
- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
- Green Business Network. (2013). Retrieved October 12, 2013, from http://www.greenamericatoday.org/greenbusiness.
- Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. The Academy of Management Review, 20, 986–1015.Google Scholar
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2013). Working group I contribution to the IPCC fifth assessment report climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization.Google Scholar
- Leopold, A. (1949). Sand County Almanac. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A., & Walsh, J. (2009). Does it pay to be good… and does it matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 166–179.Google Scholar
- Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: Co-creating unique value with customers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- Sanders, R. (2013). World’s top scientists: California and nations must act now on environment. Media Relations.Google Scholar
- Social Investment Forum. (2009). December 16, 2009 Press Release. Retrieved January 10, 2010, from http://www.siran.org/pdfs/SIRANPR20091217.pdf.
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- United Nations Global Compact. (2013). Retrieved June 4, 2013), from http://www.unglobalcompact.org/ParticipantsAndStakeholders/index.html.
- Wang, M. H., & Ho, Y. S. (2011). Research articles and publication trends in environmental sciences from 1998 to 2009. Archives of Environmental Science, 5, 1–10.Google Scholar