Articles MCS 23/24
Week 36
1. Bansal, P. & Song, H-C. (2017). Similar but not the same: differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate
responsibility. Academy of Management Annals. 11(1), p. 105-149.
2. Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Galetti, M., Alamgir, M., Crist, E., ... Laurance, W. F. (2017). World
scientists’ warning to humanity: A second notice. BioScience, 67(12), 1026–1028.
3. Porter, M. E. & and Kramer. M. R. (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review, 89, nos. 1-2, 62–77.
4. Laasch, O. (2018). Beyond the Purely Commercial Business Model: Organizational Value Logics and the
Heterogeneity of Sustainability Business Models. Long Range Planning, 51(1), 158-183.
Week 37
5. Halme, M., Laurila, J. Philanthropy, Integration or Innovation? (2009). Exploring the Financial and Societal
Outcomes of Different Types of Corporate Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 325–339.
6. Burritt, R. L., Christ, K. L., Gulzar Rammal, H. & Schaltegger, S. (2021). Multinational Enterprise Strategies for
Addressing Sustainability: the Need for Consolidation. Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Business Ethics
(2020) 164:389–410
7. Hengst et al., 2021. Towards a process theory of making sustainability strategies legitimate
8. Howard-Grenville, J. 2006 Inside the “Black Box”: How Organizational Culture and Subcultures Inform
Interpretations and Actions on Environmental Issues. Organization & Environment, Vol. 19 No. 1, March 2006 46-
73.
9. Olsen M. & Boxenbaum, E. (2009) Bottom-of-the-Pyramid: Organizational barriers to implementation. California
Management Review, 51(4), 100–125.
Week 38
10. Bromley, P., & Powell, W. W. 2012. From Smoke and Mirrors to Walking the Talk: Decoupling in the
Contemporary World. Academy of Management Annals, 6: 483– 530.
11. Wickert, C., Scherer, A. G., & Spence, L. J. 2016. Walking and Talking Corporate Social Responsibility:
Implications of Firm Size and Organizational Cost. Journal of Management Studies, 53(7): 1169-1196.
12. Marquis, C., & Toffel, M. W. When Do Firms Greenwash? Corporate Visibility, Civil Society Scrutiny, and
Environmental Disclosure. Discussion Paper 2012-43. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Environmental Economics
Program, December 2012.
13. Linton, J. D., Klassen, R., & Jayaraman, V. 2007. Sustainable supply chains: An introduction. Journal of Operations
Management, 25: 1075–1082.
14. Benito, G. R. G., & Fehlner, C. 2022. Multinational Enterprises and the Circular Economy. In H. Merchant (Ed.),
The New Frontiers of International Business. Contributions to Management Science: 309–327. Cham: Springer.
15. Huq, F. A, Chowdhury, I. N., & Klassem, R. D. 2016. Social management capabilities of multinational buying firms
and their emerging market suppliers: An exploratory study of the clothing industry. Journal of Operations
Management, 46: 19-37.
16. Castaldi, S., & Slager, R. 2023. Glocalization work: development of glocal supply chains for sustainable textiles in
Ethiopia. Working abstract
Week 39
17. Eccles, N. S., & Viviers, S. (2011). The Origins and Meanings of Names Describing Investment Practices that
Integrate a Consideration of ESG Issues in the Academic Literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(3), 389–402.
18. Arjaliès, D.-L., & Bansal, P. (Tima). (2018). Beyond Numbers: How Investment Managers Accommodate Societal
Issues in Financial Decisions. Organization Studies, 39(5–6), 691–719.
Week 40
19. Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. 2005. Cross-Sector Partnerships to Address Social Issues: Challenges to Theory and
Practice. Journal of Management, 31(6): 849-873.
20. Bhanji, Z., & Oxley, J. E. 2013. Overcoming the dual liability of foreignness and privateness in international
corporate citizenship partnerships. Journal of International Business Studies, 44: 290-311.
21. Girschik, V., Hotho, J., & Rasche, A. 2021. Partnering for Change (P4C): Novo Nordisk's Partnership with the
International Committee of the Red Cross and the Danish Red Cross.
https://video.novonordisk.com/secret/36446608/aeb52ea6aec098d9d9204b17c6 67328e
22. Ho, S. S. H., Ho, C. H., & Shapiro, D. 2022. Can Corporate Social Responsibility Lead to Social License? A
Sentiment and Emotion Analysis. Journal of Management Studies: 1-32
23. Travis Selmier II, W., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Oh, C. H. 2015. Understanding the words of relationships:
Language as an essential tool to manage CSR in communities of place. Journal of International Business Studies,
46: 153–179.
24. Ramirez, J., & Boehm, S. 2021. Transactional colonialism in wind energy investments: Energy injustices against
vulnerable people in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. Energy Research & Social Science, 78(21): 2214-6296.
25. Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L. & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: Towards an Integrative
Framework. Journal of Business Ethics 127, 297–316.
,1. Bansal & Song (2017): Similar but not the same: differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate
responsibility.
Abstract
Corporate responsibility and sustainability tackle the relationship between business and society.
- Responsibility research = normative position, railing against the amorality of business
- Sustainability research = systems perspective, sounding the alarm of business-driven failures in natural
systems.
The paper explores the distinctions between corporate sustainability and corporate responsibility. The authors
argue that while these two concepts are related, they are not interchangeable.
The paper emphasizes that corporate responsibility often focuses on ethical behavior, philanthropy, and
compliance with legal and societal norms, whereas corporate sustainability has a broader scope, encompassing
environmental, social, and economic dimensions.
The authors then propose a framework for differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility
based on four key dimensions: orientation, intent, scope, and time frame. They argue that corporate sustainability
is future-oriented, driven by a long-term commitment to minimizing negative impacts and maximizing positive
contributions to society and the environment. In contrast, corporate responsibility is often seen as a reactive and
short-term approach, primarily aimed at addressing immediate concerns.
The paper also discusses the practical implications of distinguishing between these two concepts. It suggests that
organizations need to align their strategies and actions with their chosen approach, whether it's a focus on
sustainability or responsibility, to effectively communicate their commitment to stakeholders.
In conclusion, the paper by Bansal and Song (2017) highlights the importance of differentiating corporate
sustainability from corporate responsibility and provides a framework to help organizations understand and
navigate these distinct approaches. It underscores the need for clarity in terminology and strategy to promote
more meaningful and impactful corporate initiatives in the realms of sustainability and responsibility.
, 2. Ripple et al. (2017): World scientists’ warning to humanity: A second notice.
1992 “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” professionals called on humankind to curtail environmental
destruction “a great change in our stewardship of the Earth and the life on it is required, if vast human misery
is to be avoided.”
They proclaimed that fundamental changes were urgently needed to avoid the consequences our present
course would bring.
On the twenty-fifth anniversary of their call, we look back at their warning and evaluate the human response by
exploring available time-series data. It points out that while there has been some progress in addressing certain
environmental challenges, the global environment continues to deteriorate at an alarming rate.
We have learned much since 1992, but the advancement of urgently needed changes in environmental policy,
human behavior, and global inequities is still far from sufficient.
- political leaders respond to pressure, scientists, media influencers, and lay citizens must insist that their
governments take immediate action as a moral imperative to current and future generations of human
and other life.
- re-examine and change individual behaviors, including limiting our own reproduction & diminishing
our per capita consumption of fossil fuels, meat, and other resources.
The authors provide specific recommendations for tackling these challenges,
- prioritizing the enactment of connected well-funded and well-managed reserves for a significant
proportion of the world’s resources
- maintaining nature’s ecosystem services by halting native habitats
- restoring native plant communities at large scales, particularly forest landscapes
- rewilding regions with native species to restore ecological processes and dynamics
- developing and adopting adequate policy instruments
- reducing food waste, reducing fertility rates & increasing outdoor nature education divesting of
monetary investments and purchases
- promoting green tech and adopting renewable energy sources (subsidies)
- reduce wealth inequality
- estimating a scientifically defensible, sustainable human population size for the long term while rallying
nations and leaders to support that vital goal.
Thus, they stress the importance of adopting policies and practices that prioritize the health of the planet, as it
directly affects the well-being of humanity.
In summary, this paper serves as a call to action, urging humanity to take immediate and meaningful steps
to address pressing environmental issues, protect the Earth's ecosystems, and secure a sustainable future
for all.
