Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A methodological approach for the design of sustainability initiatives: in pursuit of sustainable transition in China

  • Special Feature: Original Article
  • Sustainability Science and Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals
  • Published:
Sustainability Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The foundation of sustainability science is the effort to understand the fundamental interactions between nature and society, and to guide these interactions along sustainable trajectories (Miller et al. Sustain Sci 9(2):240–246, 2014). More importantly, sustainability science aims at creating knowledge needed to improve relevancy and quality of sustainability decision-making processes through broader representation of knowledge and values. This study contributes to the sustainability science literature in the areas of strategic planning and decision-making. Both the values and the role of decision-making science in promoting sustainability are examined through the design of a strategic framework and application of a graphical multi-agent decision-making model (GMADM). This approach allows for analysis, valuation, and ranking of potential sustainability initiatives according to their projected benefits and gains for organizations and for society. The model is structured on three interrelated pillars: (I) stakeholder views and concerns (government, industry, academic institutions); (II) sustainable development trends and requirements (World Bank data); and (III) valuations of the benefits expected from sustainability efforts. The framework is applied to case studies of Shandong and Guangdong provinces in China. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of data obtained from three groups of stakeholders in each province confirmed the utility of the proposed decision-making approach for promoting sustainable transition in China. Results also demonstrated the convenience and effectiveness of the proposed framework for guiding organizations’ efforts toward optimizing their sustainability initiatives while supporting regional economic growth and sustainable development policies.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albareda L, Lozano JM, Ysa T (2007) Public policies on corporate social responsibility: the role of governments in Europe. J Bus Ethics 74(4):391–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson MW, Teisl M, Noblet C (2012) Giving voice to the future in sustainability: retrospective assessment to learn prospective stakeholder engagement. Ecol Econ 84:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amaeshi KM, Crane A (2006) Stakeholder engagement: a mechanism for sustainable aviation. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 13(5):245–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azapagic A (2003) Systems approach to corporate sustainability: a general management framework. Process Saf Environ Prot 81(5):303–316

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Beloff B, Tanzil D (2013) Key business metrics that drive sustainability into the organization. Treatise Sustain Sci Eng. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 139–151

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bettencourt LM, Kaur J (2011) Evolution and structure of sustainability science. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(49):19540–19545

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bieluch KH, Bell KP, Teisl MF, Lindenfeld LA, Leahy J, Silka L (2016) Transdisciplinary research partnerships in sustainability science: an examination of stakeholder participation preferences. Sustain Sci 12(1):87–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bossel H (1999) Indicators for sustainable development: theory, method, applications. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, pp 1–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhmann K (2006) Corporate social responsibility in China: current issues and their relevance for implementation of law. Cph J Asian Stud 22(1):62–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke L, Logsdon JM (1996) How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long Range Plan 29(4):495–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbone V, Moatti V, Vinzi VE (2012) Mapping corporate responsibility and sustainable supply chains: an exploratory perspective. Bus Strategy Environ 21(7):475–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson ME (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Acad Manag Rev 20(1):92–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Cundy AB, Bardos RP, Church A, Puschenreiter M, Friesl-Hanl W, Müller I, Vangronsveld J et al (2013) Developing principles of sustainability and stakeholder engagement for “gentle” remediation approaches: the European context. J Environ Manage 129:283–291

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta PA, Duraiappah S, Managi E, Barbier R, Collins B, Fraumeni H, Liu Gundimeda G, Mumford J (2015) How to measure sustainable progress. Science 13(35):748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Gooyert V, Rouwette E, van Kranenburg H, Freeman E, Van Breen H (2016) Sustainability transition dynamics: towards overcoming policy resistance. Technol Forecast Soc Change 111:135–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de la Fuente A, Armengou J, Pons O, Aguado A (2017) Multi-criteria decision-making model for assessing the sustainability index of wind-turbine support systems: application to a new precast concrete alternative. J Civil Eng Manag 23(2):194–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinda S (2004) Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: a survey. Ecol Econ 49(4):431–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson T (1982) Corporations and morality. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Duraiappah AK, Muñoz P (2012) Inclusive wealth: a tool for the United Nations. Environ Dev Econ 17(03):362–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE (1984) Stakeholder management: framework and philosophy. Pitman, Mansfield

    Google Scholar 

  • Frynas JG (2005) The false developmental promise of corporate social responsibility: evidence from multinational oil companies. Int Aff 81(3):581–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbreath J (2010) Drivers of corporate social responsibility: the role of formal strategic planning and firm culture. Br J Manag 21(2):511–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodland R (2005) Strategic environmental assessment and the World Bank Group. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 12(3):245–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray B, Stites J (2013) Sustainability through partnerships: capitalizing on collaboration. Network for business sustainability. Reterived from http://nbs.net/knowledge/

  • Gasparatos A, Scolobig A (2012) Choosing the most appropriate sustainability assessment tool. Ecol Econ 80:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison JS, Bosse DA (2013) How much is too much? The limits to generous treatment of stakeholders. Bus Horiz 56(3):313–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hou S, Li L (2014) Reasoning and differences between CSR theory and practice in China, the United States and Europe. J Int Bus Ethics 7(1):19

    Google Scholar 

  • Jang YJ, Zheng T, Bosselman R (2017) Top managers’ environmental values, leadership, and stakeholder engagement in promoting environmental sustainability in the restaurant industry. Int J Hosp Manag 63:101–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali D (2008) Stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: a fresh perspective into theory and practice. J Bus Ethics 82:213–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali D, Mirshak R (2007) Corporate social responsibility (CSR): theory and practice in a developing country context. J Bus Ethics 72(3):243–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamali D, Lund-Thomsen P, Jeppesen S (2015) SMEs and CSR in developing countries. Bus Soc 56(1):11–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kates R (2000) Sustainability science. In: Presentation at world academies conference: transition to sustainability in 21st century, Tokyo

  • Kolk A, Hong P, Van DW (2010) Corporate social responsibility in China: an analysis of domestic and foreign retailers’ sustainability dimensions. Bus Strategy Environ 19(5):289–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachman DA (2013) A survey and review of approaches to study transitions. Energy Policy 58:269–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Thomas CJ et al (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(1):25–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lattemann C, Fetscherin M, Alon I, Li S, Schneider AM (2009) CSR communication intensity in Chinese and Indian multinational companies. Corp Gov Int Rev 17(4):426–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee BX, Kjaerulf F, Turner S, Cohen L, Donnelly PD, Muggah R, Davis R, Realini A, Kieselbach B, MacGregor LS, Waller I (2016) Transforming our world: implementing the 2030 agenda through sustainable development goal indicators. J Public Health Policy 37(1):13–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinen M (2008) China’s CSR expectations mature with PRC stock exchanges and agencies issuing regulations on corporate social responsibility (CSR), businesses in China have new incentives to implement CSR programs. http://chinabusinessreview.com

  • Lieberman MB, Garcia-Castro R, Balasubramanian N (2016) Measuring value creation and appropriation in firms: the VCA model. Strategic Manag J 38:1193–1211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin L (2010) Corporate social responsibility in China: window dressing or structural change. Berkeley J Int Law 28(1):64–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Lund-Thomsen P, Nadvi K (2010) Global value chains, local collective action and corporate social responsibility: a review of empirical evidence. Bus Strategy Environ 19(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo S (2011) Corporate social responsibilities (CSR) in China: evidence from manufacturing in Guangdong province. Doctoral dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University: Hong Kong

  • Maon F, Lindgreen A, Swaen V (2009) Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: an integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. J Bus Ethics 87(1):71–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazurkiewicz P (2004) Corporate environmental responsibility: is a common CSR framework possible? World Bank, 2

  • McWilliams A, Siegel D (2001) Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Acad Manag Rev 26(1):117–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller TR (2013) Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories. Sustain Sci 8:279–293. doi:10.1007/s11625-012-0180-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D, Loorbach D (2014) The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9(2):240–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Managi S (2017) The wealth of nations and regions. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin S, Brannigan J, Hall A (2005) Sustainability, systems thinking and professional practice. J Geogr High Educ 29(1):79–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moeller HG (2011) Luhmann explained: from souls to systems. Open Court, Chicago and Lasalle, IL. http://www.opencourtbooks.com/

  • Moon J, Shen X (2010) CSR in China research: salience, focus and nature. J Bus Ethics 94(4):613–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran P, Ghoshal S (1996) Value creation by firms. Acad Manag Proc 1:41–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen NC, Bosch OJ (2013) A systems thinking approach to identify leverage points for sustainability: a case study in the Cat Ba biosphere reserve, Vietnam. Syst Res Behav Sci 2(30):104–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onat NC, Kucukvar M, Halog, A, Cloutier S (2017) Systems thinking for life cycle sustainability assessment: a review of recent developments, applications, and future perspectives. Sustainability 9(5):706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paraschivescu A, Bontas D, Radu CE, Caprioara MF (2011) The sustainability science: challenge for an education for sustainable development. In: Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS international conference on waste management, water pollution, air pollution, indoor climate (WWAI ‘11), Iasi, pp 1–3

  • Porter TB (2008) Managerial applications of corporate social responsibility and systems thinking for achieving sustainability outcomes. Syst Res Behav Sci 25(3):397–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos TB (2009) Development of regional sustainability indicators and the role of academia in this process: the Portuguese practice. J Clean Prod 17(12):1101–1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rives F, Antona M, Aubert S (2012) Social-ecological functions and vulnerability framework to analyze forest policy reforms. Ecol Soc 17(4):21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salter J, Robinson J, Wiek A (2010) Participatory methods of integrated assessment—a review. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 1(5):697–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidheiny S (2006) Turning point: a view of corporate citizenship in Latin America. J Corp Citizsh 2006(21):21–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuaib M, Seevers D, Zhang X, Badurdeen F, Rouch KE, Jawahir IS (2014) Product sustainability index (ProdSI). J Ind Ecol 18(4):491–507

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Siche JR, Agostinho F, Ortega E, Romeiro A (2008) Sustainability of nations by indices: comparative study between environmental sustainability index, ecological footprint and the emergy performance indices. Ecol Econ 66(4):628–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloan P (2009) Redefining stakeholder engagement: from control to collaboration. J Corp Citizsh (36):25–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Srdjevic Z, Srdjevic B (2017) An extension of the sustainability index definition in water resources planning and management. Water Resour Manag 31(5):1695–1712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stehr N (1994) Knowledge societies. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Steurer R, Langer ME, Konrad A, Martinuzzi A (2005) Corporations, stakeholders and sustainable development I: a theoretical exploration of business–society relations. J Bus Ethics 61(3):263–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sughra G, Crowther D (2015) Do CSR determinants stimulate profits: Analysis of retail companies in UK. In: Sustainability after Rio (developments in corporate governance and responsibility), vol 8. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingly, UK, pp 123–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Thatchenkery T, Avital M, Cooperrider DL (2010) Introduction to positive design and appreciative construction: from sustainable development to sustainable value. In: Positive design and appreciative construction: from sustainable development to sustainable value. Advances in Apreciative Inquiry. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK, pp 1–14

  • Thiry G, Roman P (2014) The inclusive wealth index. A sustainability indicator, really? Working Papers, HAL

  • Tompkins EL, Few R, Brown K (2008) Scenario-based stakeholder engagement: incorporating stakeholders preferences into coastal planning for climate change. J Environ Manag 88(4):1580–1592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trapp L (2014) Stakeholder involvement in CSR strategy-making? Clues from sixteen Danish companies. Public Relat Rev 40(1):42–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Marrewijk M (2003) Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between agency and communion. J Bus Ethics 44(2–3):95–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker B, Pearson L, Harris M, Maler KG, Li CZ, Biggs R, Baynes T (2010) Incorporating resilience in the assessment of inclusive wealth: an example from South East Australia. Environ Resour Econ 45(2):183–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker D, Becker C (2016) Sustainability design: lessons from designing a “ Green Map”. Atlantis Press

  • Watson R, Wilson HN, Smart P, Macdonald EK (2017) Harnessing difference: a capability-based framework for stakeholder engagement in environmental innovation. J Product Innov Manag. doi:10.1111/jpim.12394

    Google Scholar 

  • Welford RJ (1998) Editorial: corporate environmental management, technology and sustainable development: postmodern perspectives and the need for a critical research agenda. Bus Strategy Environ 7(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams S, Schaefer A (2013) Small and medium-sized enterprises and sustainability: managers’ values and engagement with environmental and climate change issues. Bus Strategy Environ 22(3):173–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xun J (2013) Corporate social responsibility in China: a preferential stakeholder model and effects. Bus Strategy Environ 22(7):471–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yarime M, Trencher G, Mino T, Scholz RW, Olsson L, Ness B, Rotmans J et al (2012) Establishing sustainability science in higher education institutions: towards an integration of academic development, institutionalization, and stakeholder collaborations. Sustain Sci 7:101–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Youguo Z (2010) Economic development pattern change impact on china’s carbon intensity. Econ Res J 4:120–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu X, Xu Z (2012) Graph-based multi-agent decision making. Int J Approx Reason 53(4):502–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

Web References

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank participants in the survey for their contributions towards and participation in discussions regarding the topics in the article. The authors are also acknowledging the great work done by Ms. Ying Zhang, Mr. Xike Cheng, and Mr. Yilong Luo during data collection in China.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Management and Sustainability Program, Stuart School of Business, Illinois Institute of Technology, 565 W. Adams Street, Chicago, IL, 60661, USA

    Nasrin R. Khalili

  2. Stuart School of Business, Illinois Institute of Technology, 565 W. Adams Street, Chicago, IL, 60661, USA

    Weiquan Cheng

  3. College of Business Administration, University of Illinois at Chicago, 601 South Morgan Street, Chicago, IL, 60607, USA

    Abagail McWilliams

Authors
  1. Nasrin R. Khalili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Weiquan Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abagail McWilliams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nasrin R. Khalili.

Additional information

Handled by Shunsuke Managi,Tohoku University, Japan.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Table 6 List and definition of the criteria and group indicators
Full size table
Table 7 Stakeholders’ background data collection form
Full size table
Table 8 Questionnaire for collecting data on importance of sustainability areas
Full size table
Table 9 Estimated averaged total scores for each sustainability topic (area)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khalili, N.R., Cheng, W. & McWilliams, A. A methodological approach for the design of sustainability initiatives: in pursuit of sustainable transition in China. Sustain Sci 12, 933–956 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0463-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0463-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation