Instrumental and Integrative Logics in Business Sustainability

Abstract

Prior research on sustainability in business often assumes that decisions on social and environmental investments are made for instrumental reasons, which points to causal relationships between corporate financial performance and corporate social and environmental commitment. In other words, social or environmental commitment should predict higher financial performance. The theoretical premise of sustainability, however, is based on a systems perspective, which implies a tighter integration between corporate financial performance and corporate commitment to social and environmental issues. In this paper, we describe the important theoretical differences between an instrumental and integrative logic in managing business sustainability. We test the presence of each logic using data from 738 firms over 13 years and find evidence of integrative logic applied in business.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 

  3. Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., & Perlow, L. A. (2001). Taking time to integrate temporal research. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 512–529.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Auger, P., & Devinney, T. M. (2007). Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of preferences with unconstrained ethical intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(4), 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Backhaus, K. B., Stone, B. A., & Heiner, K. (2002). Exploring the relationship between corporate social performance and employer attractiveness. Business and Society, 41(3), 292–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baltagi, B. H., Bresson, G., & Pirotte, A. (2003). Fixed effects, random effects or Hausman-Taylor? A pretest estimator. Economics Letters, 79, 361–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainability: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Barbier, E. (1987). The concept of sustainable economic development. Environmental Conservation, 14(2), 101–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Barnett, M. & Salomon, R. (forthcoming). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1860985.

  12. Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bonardi, J.-P., & Keim, G. D. (2005). Corporate political strategies for widely salient issues. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 555–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1325–1343.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Brown, T., & Dacin, P. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32(5), 539–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In R. E. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), paradox and transformation (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chiu, S.-C., & Sharfman, M. (2011). Legitimacy, visibility, and the antecedents of corporate social performance: An investigation of the instrumental perspective. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1558–1585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Clement, A. (1996). Care, Autonomy, and Justice: Feminism and the Ethic of Care. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Damon, W. W., & Schramm, R. (1972). A simultaneous decision model for production, marketing and finance. Management Science, 19(2), 161–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2008). Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10), 1027–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5), 524–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252–284.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Doorey, D. J. (2011). The transparent supply chain: From resistance to implementation at Nick and Levi-Strauss. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(4), 587–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with folks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Stony Creek, CT: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2005). Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 8–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Garcia-Castro, R., Arino, M. A., & Canela, M. A. (2010). Does social performance really lead to financial performance? Accounting for endogeneity. Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 107–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 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 

  32. Gnanlet, A., & Gilland, W. G. (2009). Sequential and simultaneous decision making for optimizing health care resource flexibilities. Decision Science, 40(2), 295–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Greve, H. R., Palmer, D., & Pozner, J.-e. (2010). Organizations gone wild: The causes, processes, and consequences of organizational misconduct. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 53–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, 36(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Halaby, C. N. (2004). Panel models in sociological research: Theory into practice. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 507–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Journal of Sociology, 49, 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hardin, J. W., & Hilbe, J. M. (2003). Generalized estimating equations. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hausman, J. A., & Taylor, W. E. (1981). Panel data and unobservable individual effects. Econometrica, 49, 1377–1398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hosmer, L. T. (1994). Strategic planning as if ethics mattered. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 17–34.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hull, C., & Rothenberg, S. (2008). Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 781–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jacobson, R. (1990). Unobservable effects and business performance. Marketing Science, 9(1), 74–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Johnson, R. A., & Greening, D. W. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 564–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and business. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  45. King, A. A., & Lenox, M. (2002). Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction. Management Science, 48(2), 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Klassen, R. D., & Whybark, D. C. (1999). The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 599–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kleine, A., & von Hauff, M. (2009). Sustainability-driven implementation of corporate social responsibility: Application of the integrative sustainability triangle. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 517–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on Moral Development. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Lado, A., Boyd, N. G., & Hanlon, S. C. (1997). Competition, cooperation, and the search for economic rents: A syncretic model. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 110–141.

    Google Scholar 

  50. 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 

  51. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Liang, K.-Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrica, 73, 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Mackey, A., Mackey, T. B., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 817–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Marginson, D., & McAulay, L. (2008). Exploring the debate on short-termism: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Margolis, J. D., & Elfenbein, H. A. (2008). Do well by doing good? Don’t count on it. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 19.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A. & Walsh, J. P. (2009). Does it pay to be good…and does it matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1866371.

  58. Margolis, J. D., & Molinsky, A. (2008). Navigating the bind of necessary evils: Psychological engagement and the production of interpersonally sensitive behavior. Academy of Management Review, 51(5), 847–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Mattingly, J. E., & Berman, S. L. (2006). Measurement of corporate social action: Discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini ratings data. Business and Society, 45(1), 20–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Mishina, Y., Dykes, B. J., Block, E. S., & Pollock, T. G. (2010). Why “good” firms do bad things; The effects of high aspirations, high expectations, and performance on the incidence of corporate illegality. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 701–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Molinsky, A., & Margolis, J. D. (2005). Necessary evils and interpersonal sensitivity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 245–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Murillo-Luna, J. L., Garces-Ayerbe, C., & Rivera-Torres, P. (2008). Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders’ pressure approach. Strategic Management Journal, 29(11), 1225–1240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Noddings, N. (1999). Care, Justice, and Equality. In M. S. Katz, N. Noddings, & K. A. Strike (Eds.), Justice and Caring: The Search for Common ground in Education (pp. 7–20). New York: Columbia University Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Ofori-Dankwa, J., & Julian, S. D. (2001). Complexifying organizational theory: Illustrations using time research. Academy of Management Review, 26, 415–430.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Orlitzky, M., & Benjamin, J. D. (2001). Corporate social performance and firm risk: A meta-analytic review. Business and Society, 40(4), 369–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Osterhus, T. L. (1997). Pro-social consumer influence strategies: When and how do they work? Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Pfeffer, J. (2010). Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1), 34–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Philips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  73. 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 

  74. Porter, E. J. (1999). Feminist perspectives on ethics. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Post, J. E., Preston, l. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Purser, R. E., Park, C., & Montuori, A. (1995). Limits to anthropocentrism: Toward an ecocentric organization paradigm? Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1053–1089.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Rowley, T. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 204–219.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Schreck, P. (2011). Reviewing the business case for corporate social responsibility: New evidence and analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 681–697.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Sharma, S., & Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 159–180.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Shrivastava, P. (1995a). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936–960.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Shrivastava, P. (1995b). Ecocentric management for a risk society. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 118–137.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Shrivastava, P. (1995c). Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 16(2), 183–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Simola, S. (2003). Ethics of justice and care in corporate crisis management. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 351–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Slawinski, N. & Bansal, P. (2010). Short on time: Managing the time paradox in business sustainability. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings.

  90. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. 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 

  93. StataCorp. (2003). Stata cross-sectional time-series reference manual (8th ed.). College Station, Texas: Stata press.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Strike, V., Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2006). Being good while being bad: Social responsibility and the international diversification of U.S. firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 850–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Surroca, J., Tribo, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 463–490.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Waddock, S. A. (2003). Myths and realities of social investing. Organization & Environment, 16(3), 369–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Walsh, J. P. (2005). Book review essay: Taking stock of stakeholder management. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 426–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 539–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Wicks, A. C., Gilbert, D. R., Jr, & Freeman, R. E. (1994). A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 475–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Wong, E. M., Ormiston, M. E., & Tetlock, P. E. (2011). The effects of top management team integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1207–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Yoon, Y., Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 377–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Zadek, S. (2001). The civil corporation: The new economy of corporate citizenship. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jijun Gao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gao, J., Bansal, P. Instrumental and Integrative Logics in Business Sustainability. J Bus Ethics 112, 241–255 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1245-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Business sustainability
  • Corporate social commitment
  • Corporate environmental commitment
  • Instrumental approach
  • Integrative approach
  • Simultaneous decision-making