Skip to main content

Seeing Versus Doing: How Businesses Manage Tensions in Pursuit of Sustainability

Abstract

Management of organizational tensions can facilitate the simultaneous advancement of economic, social, and environmental priorities. The approach is based on managers identifying and managing tensions between the three priorities, by employing one of the three strategic responses. Although recent work has provided a theoretical basis for such tension acknowledgment and management, there is a dearth of empirical studies. We interviewed 32 corporate sustainability managers across 25 forestry and wood-products organizations in Australia. Study participants were divided into two groups: (1) those considered effective at corporate sustainability and (2) a status-quo group. Contrary to current theory, our findings showed that acknowledgment of organizational tensions was widespread in the Australian forestry and wood-products industry and not limited to those managers who are effective at managing corporate sustainability. What differed was the degree to which managers did something about the perceived tensions—with the effective group more consistently acting to manage and resolve paradoxical scenarios. Our findings suggest that existing theoretical constructs of tension management may not adequately capture the individual-level complexity involved with managing tensions in practice.

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

Fig. 1

Reproduced from Hahn et al. (2015, p. 300)

Fig. 2

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angus-Leppan, T., Metcalf, L., & Benn, S. (2010). Leadership styles and CSR practice: An examination of sensemaking, institutional drivers and CSR leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(2), 189–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beech, N., Burns, H., Caestecker, L., MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. (2004). Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations, 57(10), 1313–1332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, J. (1977). Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(1), 2–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bento, R., Mertins, L., & Lourdes, F. (2016). Ideology and the balanced scorecard: An empirical exploration of the tension between shareholder value maximization and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(4), 769–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, I., Cunningham, P., & Drumwright, M. (2007). Mainstreaming corporate social responsibility: Developing markets for virtue. California Management Review, 49(4), 132–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blevis, E. (2007). Sustainable interaction design: Invention and disposal, renewal and reuse. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 503–512.

  • Borland, H. (2009). Conceptualising global strategic sustainability and corporate transformational change. International Marketing Review, 26(4/5), 554–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borland, H., Ambrosini, V., Lindgreen, A., & Vanhamme, J. (2016). Building theory at the intersection of ecological sustainability and strategic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(2), 293–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borland, H., & Lindgreen, A. (2013). Sustainability, epistemology, ecocentric business and marketing strategy: Ideology, reality and vision. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 173–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borning, A., Friedman, B., & Kahn, P. (2004). Designing for human values in a urban simulation system: Value sensitive design and participatory design. The Eight Biennial Participatory Design Conference, pp. 68–71, viewed August 1, 2014, http://vsdesign.org/outreach/pdf/borning04urbansimandvsd.pdf.

  • Bryson, J., & Lombardi, R. (2009). Balancing product and process sustainability against business profitability: Sustainability as a competitive strategy in the property development process. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(2), 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S., Cunha, J., & Cunha, M. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2010). Business Ethics (Third edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, H., & Cobb, J. Jr. (1990). For the Common Good: Redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DesJardins, J. R. (2007). Business, ethics, and the environment: Imagining a sustainable future. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobele, A., Westberg, K., Steel, M., & Flowers, K. (2014). An examination of corporate social responsibility implementation and stakeholder engagement: A case study in the Australian mining industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(3), 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, H. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterly, W. (2014). The tyranny of experts: Economists, dictators, and the forgotten rights of the poor. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. London: Capstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, S. (1996). Emotional subtexts in corporate greening. Organization Studies, 17(3), 479–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flannery, B., & May, D. (2000). Environmental ethical decision making in the US metal-finishing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 642–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleischer, D. (2009). Green Teams: Engaging employees in sustainability. Mill Valley: Green Impact.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fremeaux, S., & Michelson, G. (2017). The common good of the firm and humanistic management: Conscious capitalism and economy of communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(4), 701–709.

    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 

  • Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Given, L. (2008). The sage encyclopaedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gladwin, T., Kennelly, J., & Krause, T. S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glen, J., Hilson, C., & Lowitt, E. (2009). The emergence of green talent. Business Strategy Review, 20(4), 52–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability… and how would we know? An exploration of narratives of organizations and the planet. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., & Milne, M. (2004). Towards reporting on the triple bottom line: Mirages, methods and myths. In A. Henriques & J. Richardson (Eds.), The triple bottom line: Does it all add up? (pp. 70–80). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haffar, M., & Searcy, C. (2017). Classification of trade-offs encountered in the practice of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3), 495–522.

    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., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2018). A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 235–248.

    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(2), 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 frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J., & Vredenburg, H. (2003). The challenge of innovating for sustainable development. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(1), 61–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1948). The intellectuals and socialism. University of Chicago Law Review, 16(3), 417–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1958). Freedom, reason, and tradition. Ethics, 68(4), 229–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (2001). The road to serfdom. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (2011). The constitution of liberty (R. Hamowy (Ed.) Definitive edn.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (2014). The market and other orders (Vol. 15). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), 38–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Foresters of Australia. (2018). Forest certification. Retrieved June 15, 2018, from https://www.forestry.org.au/about-forestry/forest-certification.

  • Ivory, S. B., & Brooks, S. B. (2018). Managing corporate sustainability with a paradoxical lens: Lessons from strategic agility. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 347–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karjalainen, K., & Moxham, C. (2013). Focus on fair-trade: Propositions for integrating fair-trade and supply chain management research. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 267–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, S. (2000). Empirically grounded construction of types and typologies in qualitative social research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1), art. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., & Perego, P. (2014). Sustainable bonuses: Sign of corporate responsibility or window dressing? Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, S. (2015). Individual determinants of workplace pro-environmental behaviors. In J. Robertson & J. Barling (Eds.), The Psychology of Green Organizations (pp. 119–140). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo, S., Peters, G., & Kok, G. (2012). A review of determinents of and interventions for proenvironmental behaviors in organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(12), 2933–2967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longo, C., Shankar, A., & Nuttall, P. (2017). It’s not easy living a sustainable lifestyle: How greater knowledge leads to dilemmas, tensions and paralysis. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3422-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, A., & Fremeth, A. (2007). Green management matters regardless. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman, G. D., Russo, M., Lumpkin, G., Jennings, P., & Mair, J. (2016). Entrepreneurship as a platform for pursuing multiple goals: A special issue on sustainability, ethics, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 673–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C., & Doherty, R. (2016). A fair trade-off? Paradoxes in the governance of fair-trade social enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(3), 451–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matos, S., & Hall, J. (2007). Integrating sustainable development in the supply chain: The case of life cycle assessment in oil and gas and agricultural biotechnology. Journal of Operations Management, 25(6), 1083–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M. J. (2006). From sustainable management to sustainable development: A longitudinal analysis of a leading New Zealand environmental reporter. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(4), 219–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirvis, P., & Googins, B. (2006). Stages of corporate citizenship. California Management Review, 48(2), 104–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Forestry Policy Statement (1992). Common wealth of Australia 1992. National Forest Policy Statement: A new focus for Australia’s forests (2nd Edn., pp. 1–36). Canberra, Australia. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/forestry/australias-forest-policies/nat_nfps.pdf.

  • Neugebauer, F., Figge, F., & Hahn, T. (2016). Planned or emergent strategy making? Exploring the formation of corporate sustainability strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(5), 323–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, R. (1997). Why do intellectuals oppose capitalism? Socratic Puzzles, 280–295. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omanovic, V. (2009). Diversity and its management as a dialectical process: Encountering Sweden and the U.S. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(4), 352–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M. (2011). Institutional logics in the study of organizations: The social construction of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(3), 409–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M. (2015). The politics of corporate social responsibility or: Why Milton Friedman was right all along. Annals in Social Responsibility, 1(1), 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 3403–3441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J., & Hassay, D. N. (2006). Intra-organizational volunteerism: Good soldiers, good deeds and good politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(4), 357–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohekar, S., & Ramachandran, M. (2004). Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 8(4), 365–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M., & Van de Ven, A. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravasi, D., & Stigliani, I. (2012). Product design: A review and research agenda for management studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(4), 1468–2370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J., & Barling, J. (2015). The role of leadership in promoting workplace pro-environmental behaviors. In J. Robertson & J. Barling (Eds.), The Psychology of Green Organizations (pp. 164–168). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rodell, J. B., Breitsohl, H., Schröder, M., & Keating, D. J. (2016). Employee volunteering: A review and framework for future research. Journal of Management, 42(1), 55–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. (1947). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (2nd edn.). New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seuring, S. (2011). Supply chain management for sustainable products: Insights from research applying mixed methodologies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(7), 471–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, G., & Jaiswal, A. K. (2018). Unsustainability of sustainability: cognitive frames and tensions in bottom of the pyramid projects. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 291–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sustainable Forest Management Framework (2008). Australian Government, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests. 2008. Australia's Sustainable Forest Management Framework of Criteria and Indicators 2008: Policy Guidelines (pp. 1–16). Canberra, Australia. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/forestsaustralia/Documents/ciframework.pdf.

  • Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Byl, C., & Slawinski, N. (2015). Embracing tensions in corporate sustainability: A review of research from win-wins and trade-offs to paradoxes and beyond. Organization & Environment, 28(1), 54–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, L., & Heaton, S. (2006). Fair trade marketing: An exploration through qualitative research. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 14(4), 411–426.

    Article  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. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Lindgreen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Joseph, J., Borland, H., Orlitzky, M. et al. Seeing Versus Doing: How Businesses Manage Tensions in Pursuit of Sustainability. J Bus Ethics 164, 349–370 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4065-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4065-1

Keywords

  • Corporate sustainability
  • Integrative view
  • Paradox
  • Resolution
  • Separation strategy
  • Synthesis strategy
  • Tension management