Business Strategy & Sustainability Summary of Lectures + Articles
Week 1: Historical perspectives on CSR and sustainability
• Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness (Bansal & Roth,
2000)
• The social responsibility of business to increase its profits (Friedman, 1970)
• The link between competitive advantage and CSR (Porter & Kramer, 2006)
• Alternative objective functions for firms (Lankoski & Craig Smith, 2018)
Week 2: Pressures – from stakeholders to social movements
• The social responsibility of business is to create value for stakeholders (Freeman &
Elms, 2018)
• Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of
who and what really counts (Mitchell, Angle & Wood, 1997)
• The power of activism: Assessing the impact of NGOs on global business (Spar &
LaMure)
• Shades of green (Hoffman, 2009)
Week 3: Challenges – Climate change and beyond
• Climate Change: IPCC report is ‘code red for humanity’ (McGrath, 2021)
• Hardin’s blog on Tragedy of Commons
• Sustainability lessons from the front lines (Bhattacharya & Polman, 2017)
Week 4: Tensions – Sustainability and (financial) value
• Creating shared value (Porter & Kramer, 2011)
• Reorient the business case for corporate sustainability (Barnett et al., 2021)
• Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between
social and financial performance (Barnett & Salomon, 2012)
• Strategic CSR: A concept building meta-analysis (Vishwanatha et al., 2020)
Week 5: Impact – Sustainability through business
• How social entrepreneurs zig-zag their way to impact at scale (Rangan & Gregg, 2019)
• Market imperfections, opportunity, and sustainable entrepreneurship (Cohen &
Winn, 2007)
• Why do companies diverse as oil producers and retailers enter morel markets?
(Georgallis & Lee, 2020)
,Business Strategy & Sustainability – Summary of Exam Material
Week 1 (Historical perspectives on CSR and sustainability)
What is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)?
Actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that
which is required by law. This definition doesn’t consider the voluntary environmental and
social acts.
CSR is a voluntary action. It’s a concept whereby companies integrate social and
environmental concerns in their business operations and interactions with stakeholders on a
voluntary basis and in a context-specific way. CSR may vary from country to country.
What is Corporate Sustainability (CS)?
Corporate sustainability = managing a firm in such a way that its activities meet the needs
of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
needs. So, it’s about focusing on the future.
CSR and CS refer to company activities – voluntary by definition – demonstrating the
inclusion of social and environmental concerns in business operations and in interactions
with stakeholders. CS relates mostly to natural resources and the consumption of it. It thinks
of the planet as a system. CSR refers more to people and communities, but there are a lot of
similarities. The main elements in common of CSR and CS are:
1. Triple bottom line: economic, social, and environmental dimensions. People, planet,
and profit (triple bottom line = the three P’s), the bottom line was first only
profit/economic. By maximizing all three bottom lines, businesses are more likely to
have a positive impact on the world while still improving financial performance.
2. Stakeholder (anyone or individual that affects or is affected by a business)
3. Voluntary
4. Context-specificity (e.g., country, industry, sector)
5. Managing externalities/impacts (externalities are side effects of things done by a
business, e.g., polluting the environment. They are not directly related to the
business operations and not included in the prices.)
6. Rooted in values and ethics.
Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness (Bansal & Roth, 2000)
• This early qualitative empirical analysis is one of the most fundamental papers in the
field of organizations and the environment. Focus on the motives of why firms go
green at different levels of analysis.
This study aimed to develop a model that explains corporate ecological responsiveness by
identifying distinct conceptual categories of motivations for adopting ecological initiatives
and the corresponding antecedents and outcomes associated with each motivation.
Corporate ecological responsiveness = a set of corporate initiatives aimed at mitigating a
firm’s impact on the natural environment (e.g., changes to the firm’s products, processes,
,and policies, such as reducing energy consumption and waste generation, using ecologically
sustainable resources, and implementing an environmental management system).
• Refers to the initiatives that reduce a firm’s ecological footprint.
There are three basic motivations for ecological responsiveness (motivations to go green):
1. Competitiveness = Potential for ecological responsiveness to improve long-term
profitability, i.e., sustained advantage – innovative
o Ecological initiatives adopted if they enhance competitive advantage
(ecolabeling and green marketing + development of “ecoproducts”)
o Cost-cutting initiatives such as energy and waste management.
o Competitively motivated firms engage in more visible activities to improve
their corporate environmental reputations and thereby enhance competitive
advantage. So, social initiatives are adopted only if they serve to enhance a
firm’s financial performance.
o Ends = profitability, means = competitive advantage, constituent focus =
customers, investors.
2. Legitimation = the desire of a firm to improve the appropriateness of its actions
within an established set of regulations, norms, values, or beliefs, i.e., threats can
undermine firm survival, compliance, government, local community – imitate their
peers. In other words, with legitimation, companies are making sure they follow
appropriate actions as a business that comply with rules, legislations, and the law.
o Legitimation is directed toward complying with institutional norms and
regulations.
o Specific stakeholders are the local community, customers, and the
government.
o Firms are concerned about sanctions, fines/penalties, bad publicity,
discontented employees, and risks when not meeting stakeholders’
conditions.
o Ends = firm survival, means = compliance with norms and regulations,
constituent focus = government, local community, stakeholders.
o Satisfice: these firms rather meet standards than exceed them.
o As firms operating in close proximity (e.g., same industry) were subject to the
same regulations and social norms, they often operated with similar
standards in a socially cohesive environment.
3. Ecological responsibility = a motivation that stems from the concern that a firm has
for its social obligations and values, i.e., corporate morale, concern for social good –
independent and innovative courses of action. Satisfaction and high employee
morale are short-term benefits from their ecological responses.
o Desire to do the “right thing”
o Intrinsic motivation
o The decision process is often based on the values of powerful individuals or
on the organization’s values rather than a widely applied decision rule.
o Ends = corporate moral, means = social good, constituent focus = society.
, There are four drivers of corporate ecological response:
• Legislation (e.g., escalating penalties/fines have highlighted the importance of
complying with legislation)
• Stakeholder pressures (customers, local communities, and environmental interest
groups encourage firms to consider ecological impacts in their decision making.
Hereby averting negative public attention and building stakeholder support)
• Economic opportunities (revenues can be improved through green marketing, sale of
waste products, and outsourcing a firm’s environmental expertise. By intensifying
production processes, firms reduce environmental impact while simultaneously
lowering the costs of inputs and
waste disposal).
• Ethical motives (MT and
company values are instrumental
in encouraging these firms to
evaluate their role, “it is the right
thing to do”).
Limitations of this ‘model’: data
grounding this model is inadequate +
model is not fully specified (the
constructs require greater precision in
order to be predictive).
For this study, data was collected from 1993-1995 of 53 companies in several countries and
industries. Data sets were collected of: food retailers, P&O subsidiaries (large diversified
Britain-based multinational), auto manufactures, oil companies, Japanese companies and
single case studies.
