Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Sustainable Innovativeness and the Triple Bottom Line: The Role of Organizational Time Perspective

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper studies the influence of an organization’s time perspective on triple bottom line deployment through sustainable innovativeness. Although academics increasingly consider sustainable innovation to be an essential element in deploying the triple bottom line, the degree of an organization’s sustainable innovativeness remains limited. Using ten inductive case studies based on the triangulation of data from multiple-respondent interviews and secondary data, this study shows that an organization’s time perspective plays a crucial role in explaining the organization’s degree of sustainable innovativeness and improvement of triple bottom line outcomes. Specifically, organizations with a longer planning horizon, higher tolerance of uncertainty, and greater ability to learn from the past develop a higher and increasing degree of sustainable innovativeness, allowing trade-offs between triple bottom line dimensions to be mitigated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adam, B. (1994). Time and social theory. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aiking, H., & Boer, J. (2004). Food sustainability: Diverging interpretations. British Food Journal, 106(5), 359–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alas, R. (2006). Ethics in countries with different cultural dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 69, 237–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argiris, C., & Schon, D. (1983). Reasoning, learning, and action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashkanasy, N., Gupta, V., & Mayfield, M. S. (2004). Future orientation. In R. House, et al. (Eds.), Culture, leadership, and organizations (The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies) (pp. 282–342). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, U. C. (2012). Sustainability ethics and sustainability research. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2013). Necessity as the mother of ‘green’ inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8), 891–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettley, A., & Burnley, S. (2008). Towards sustainable operations management integrating sustainability management into operations management strategies and practices. In K. B. Misra (Ed.), Handbook on performability Engineering (pp. 875–904). London, UK: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bluedorn, A. C., & Waller, M. J. (2006). The stewardship of the temporal commons. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 355–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation: State-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 9–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booz, E., Allen, J., & Hamilton, C. (1982). New product development for the 1980s. New York: Booz Allen & Hamilton Consultants.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broome, J. (1994). Discounting the future. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 23(2), 128–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., & Fraser, M. (2006). Approaches and perspectives in social and environmental accounting: An overview of the conceptual landscape. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(2), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busch, T., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2009). Ecology-driven real options: An investment framework for incorporating uncertainties in the context of the natural environment. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassimon, D., Engelen, P., & Van Liedekerke, L. (2015). When do firms invest in corporate social responsibility? A real option framework. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2539-y

  • Chen, H., Zeng, S., Lin, H., & Ma, H. (2015). Munificence, dynamism, and complexity: How industry context drives corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment. doi:10.1002/bse.1902

  • Christmann, P. (2000). Effects of “best practices” of environmental management on cost advantage: The role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 663–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelius, P., Van De Putte, A., & Romani, M. (2005). Three decades of scenario planning in Shell’. California Management Review, 48(1), 92–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, T. K. (2005). How strong are the ethical preferences of senior business executives? Journal of Business Ethics, 56(1), 69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florea, L., Cheung, Y. H., & Herndon, N. C. (2013). For all good reasons: Role of values in organizational sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritzsche, D. (1991). A model of decision-making incorporating ethical values. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 841–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, K. S., Holdren, J. P., & Sagar, A. D. (2006). Energy-technology innovation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 193–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2013). Instrumental and integrative logics in business sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, R., & Carltone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovations typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 110–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garud, R., Tuertscher, P., & Van de Ven, A. (2013). Perspectives on innovation processes. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 775–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., & Rodon, J. (2012). Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple bottom line. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 149–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business and Society, 39(3), 254–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127, 297–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frame. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallstedt, S., Ny, H., Robert, K. H., & Broma, G. (2010). An approach to assessing sustainability integration in strategic decision systems for product development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 703–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Held, M. (2001). Sustainable development from a temporal perspective. Time & Society, 10(2–3), 351–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellström, T. (2007). Dimensions of environmentally sustainable innovation: The structure of eco-innovation concepts. Sustainable Development, 15, 148–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, F. N., Wang, H. D., & Vitell, S. J. (2012). A global analysis of corporate social performance: The effects of cultural and geographic environments. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 423–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holahan, P. J., Sullivan, Z. Z., & Markham, S. K. (2014). Product development as core competence: How formal product development practices differ for radical, more innovative, and incremental product innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 329–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. (2005). Risk management, real options, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 175–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, P. D., & Zandbergen, P. A. (1995). Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1015–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyner, B. E., & Payne, D. (2002). Evolution and implementation: A study of values, business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 297–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keough, K. A., Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Who’s smoking, drinking, and using drugs? Time perspective as a predictor of substance use. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(2), 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, R., & Vereecke, A. (2012). Social issues in supply chains: Capabilities link responsibility, risk (opportunity), and performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 140, 103–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleindorfer, P. R., Singhal, K., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2005). Sustainable operations management. Production and Operations Management, 14(4), 482–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A. (2012). Towards a sustainable coffee market: Paradoxes faced by a multinational company. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(2), 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lankoski, L. (2008). Corporate responsibility activities and economic performance: A theory of why and how they are connected. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(7), 536–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. L. (2010). Don’t tweak your supply chain—rethink it end to end. Harvard Business Review, 88(10), 62–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county Almanac. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, R. (2008). Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionality. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 1838–1846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubin, D. A., & Esty, D. C. (2010). The sustainability imperative. Harvard Business Review, 88(5), 42–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maloni, M., & Brown, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the supply chain: An application in the food industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(1), 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinsey, C. A. (2013). The business of sustainability. McKinsey Report, Summer, 2012.

  • Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J., Jr. (2002). Public management and organizational performance: The effect of managerial quality. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management., 21(4), 629–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Owen, D. L., Swift, T. A., Humphrey, C., & Bowerman, M. (2000). The new social audits: Accountability, managerial capture or the agenda of social champions? European Accounting Review, 9(1), 81–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D. L., Swift, T., & Hunt, K. (2001). Questioning the role of stakeholder engagement in social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting. Accounting Forum, 25(3), 264–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagell, M., & Gobeli, D. (2009). How plant managers’ experiences and attitudes toward sustainability relate to operational performance. Production and Operations Management, 18(3), 278–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagell, M., & Shevchenko, A. (2014). Why research in sustainable supply chain management should have no future. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50(1), 44–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinkse, J., & Kolk, A. (2010). Challenges and trade-offs in corporate innovation for climate change. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(4), 261–272.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Prajogo, D., & Lai, K. H. (2014). The diffusion of environmental management system and its effect on environmental management practices. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 34(5), 565–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (1998). Corporate strategies and environmental regulations: An organizing framework. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 363–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler-Smith, E. (2013). Toward organizational environmental virtuousness. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 49(1), 123–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seuring, S., & Muller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699–1710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singhapakdi, A., Vitell, S., Rallapalli, K., & Kraft, K. (1996). The perceived role of ethics and social responsibility: A scale development. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 1131–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2012). A matter of time: The temporal perspectives of organizational responses to climate change. Organization Studies, 33(11), 1537–1563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steurer, R., & Konrad, A. (2009). Business–society relations in Central-Eastern and Western Europe: How those who lead in sustainability reporting bridge the gap in corporate (social) responsibility. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(1), 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, J., & Peng, M. W. (2003). Organizational slack and firm performance during economic transitions: Two studies from an emerging economy. Strategic Management Journal, 24(13), 1249–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organisational attractiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vachon, S., & Mao, Z. (2008). Linking supply chain strength to sustainable development: A country-level analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1552–1567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, F., Bradley, R., Childs, B., Rigdon, C., & Pershing, J. (2007). Scaling up: Global technology deployment to stabilize emissions. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winn, M., Pinkse, J., & Illge, L. (2012). Case studies on trade-offs in corporate sustainability. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19(2), 63–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, J. (2014). The relationship between sustainable supply chain management, stakeholder pressure and corporate sustainability performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 317–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Z., & Pagell, M. (2011). Balancing priorities: Decision-making in sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Operations Management, 29(6), 577–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annachiara Longoni.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 8, 9, and 10.

Table 8 Data sources
Table 9 Semistructured questionnaire
Table 10 Operationalization of the triple bottom line

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Longoni, A., Cagliano, R. Sustainable Innovativeness and the Triple Bottom Line: The Role of Organizational Time Perspective. J Bus Ethics 151, 1097–1120 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3239-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3239-y

Keywords

Navigation