Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: Towards an Integrative Framework

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

Abstract

This paper proposes a systematic framework for the analysis of tensions in corporate sustainability. The framework is based on the emerging integrative view on corporate sustainability, which stresses the need for a simultaneous integration of economic, environmental and social dimensions without, a priori, emphasising one over any other. The integrative view presupposes that firms need to accept tensions in corporate sustainability and pursue different sustainability aspects simultaneously even if they seem to contradict each other. The framework proposed in this paper goes beyond the traditional triad of economic, environmental and social dimensions and argues that tensions in corporate sustainability occur between different levels, in change processes and within a temporal and spatial context. The framework provides vital groundwork for managing tensions in corporate sustainability based on paradox strategies. The paper then applies the framework to identify and characterise four selected tensions and illustrates how key approaches from the literature on strategic contradictions, tensions and paradoxes—i.e., acceptance and resolution strategies—can be used to manage these tensions. Thereby, it refines the emerging literature on the integrative view for the management of tensions in corporate sustainability. The framework also provides managers with a better understanding of tensions in corporate sustainability and enables them to embrace these tensions in their decision making.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the s back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, K., Galiano, M., & Hayes, S. (2011). Global companies volunteering globally: The final report of the Global Corporate Volunteering Research Project. Washington, DC: International Association for Volunteer Effort.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Individual environmental initiative: Championing natural environmental issues in U.S. business organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 548–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Rubio-López, E. A. (2007). Proactive corporate environmental strategies: Myths and misunderstandings. Long Range Planning, 40(3), 357–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayres, R. U. (2008). Sustainability economics: Where do we stand? Ecological Economics, 67(2), 281–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, S., van Lente, H., & Engels, R. (2012). Competition in a technological niche: The cars of the future. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(5), 421–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, S. B. (2001). Managerial perceptions of corporate environmentalism: Interpretations from industry and strategic implications for organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 38(4), 489–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2002). The corporate challenges of sustainable development. Academy of Management Executive, 16(2), 122–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2003). From issues to actions: The importance of individual concerns and organizational values in responding to natural environmental issues. Organization Science, 14(5), 510–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18(1), 93–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2012). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1304–1320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassett-Jones, N. (2005). The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(2), 169–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley, J. W. (1994). Facts, fantasies, and failures of farmer participatory research. Agriculture and Human Values, 11(2–3), 140–150.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. (2009). The pros and cons of rewarding social responsibility at the top. Human Resource Management, 48(6), 959–971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bluffstone, R., Boscolo, M., & Molina, R. (2002, June 17–21). How does community forestry affect rural households? A labor allocation model of the Bolivian Andes. Paper presented at the The Commons in an Age of Globalisation, the Ninth Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe.

  • Bouchikhi, H. (1998). Living with and building on complexity: A constructivist perspective on organizations. Organization, 5(2), 217–232.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875–884.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardoso, I. M., Guijt, I., Franco, F. S., Carvalho, A. F., & Ferreira Neto, P. S. (2001). Continual learning for agroforestry system design: University, NGO and farmer partnership in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Agricultural Systems, 69(3), 235–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., & Abel, N. (2001). From metaphor to measurement: Resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4(8), 765–781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christmann, P. (2004). Multinational companies and the natural environment: Determinants of global environmental policy standardization. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 747–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordano, M., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Pollution reduction preferences of U.S. environmental managers: Applying Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 627–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily, B. F., & Huang, S.-C. (2001). Achieving sustainability through attention to human resource factors in environmental management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(12), 1539–1552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(4), 411–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Graaf, F. J., & Herkströter, C. A. J. (2007). How corporate social performance is institutionalised within the governance structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(2), 177–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dentchev, N. A. (2004). Corporate social performance as a business strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(4), 397–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devinney, T. M. (2009). Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(2), 44–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijk, M., Orsato, R. J., & Kemp, R. (2013). The emergence of an electric mobility trajectory. Energy Policy, 52, 135–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(April), 147–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252–284.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 105–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st century business. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (1998). State of Application of Regulation (EEC) No. 2078/92: Evaluation of Agrienvironmental Programmes. DGVI Commission Working Document (VI/7655/98).

  • Fenwick, T. (2007). Developing organizational practices of ecological sustainability: A learning perspective. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(7), 632–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figge, F. (2004). Bio-folio. Applying portfolio theory to biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation, 13(4), 827–849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figge, F., & Hahn, T. (2008). Sustainable investment analysis with the sustainable value approach: A plea and a methodology to overcome the instrumental bias in socially responsible investment research. Progress in Industrial Ecology, 5(3), 255–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, S., & Clarke, K. (1996). Green stakeholders: Industry interpretations and response. Journal of Management Studies, 33(6), 715–730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiss, P. C., & Zajac, E. J. (2006). The symbolic management of strategic change: Sense giving via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1173–1193.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1994). Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 756–785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, E. G. (2007). Travelling in antique lands: Using past famines to develop an adaptability/resilience framework to identify food systems vulnerable to climate change. Climatic Change, 83(4), 495–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, E., Mabee, W., & Figge, F. (2005). A framework for assessing vulnerability in the food system. Futures, 37(6), 465–479.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Goerner, S. J., Lietaer, B., & Ulanowicz, R. E. (2009). Quantifying economic sustainability: Implications for free-enterprise theory, policy and practice. Ecological Economics, 69(1), 76–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M. (2012). Giving time, time after time: Work design and sustained employee participation in corporate volunteering. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 589–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T. (2012). Reciprocal stakeholder behavior: A motive-based approach to the implementation of normative stakeholder demands. Business & Society. doi: 10.1177/0007650312439029.

  • Hahn, T., & Figge, F. (2011). Beyond the bounded instrumentality in current corporate sustainability research: Toward an inclusive notion of profitability. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(3), 325–345.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. (2012). Hybrid organizations: The next chapter of sustainable business. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 126–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. K., & Martin, M. J. C. (2005). Disruptive technologies, stakeholders and the innovation value-added chain: A framework for evaluating radical technology development. R&D Management, 35(3), 273–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(3), 476–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, T. (2011). Practice-ing behaviour change: Applying social practice theory to pro-environmental behaviour change. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 79–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S., & Milstein, M. B. (1999). Global sustainability and the creative destruction of industries. Sloan Management Review, 41(1), 23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heffner, R. R., Kurani, K. S., & Turrentine, T. S. (2007). Symbolism in California’s early market for hybrid electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 12(6), 396–413.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemingway, C., & Maclagan, P. (2004). Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 87–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J. (2001). From Heresy to Dogma: An institutional history of corporate environmentalism (expanded ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, D., & Watson, A. (2008). Exploring the dilemma of local sourcing versus international development: The case of the flower industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(5), 318–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. W., & de Jesus Salazar, J. (2006). Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 75–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huzzard, T., & Östergren, K. (2002). When norms collide: Learning under organizational hypocrisy. British Journal of Management, 13(S2), S47–S59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaksen, S. G., & Ekvall, G. (2010). Managing for innovation: The two faces of tension in creative climates. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 73–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarzabkowski, P. (2008). Shaping strategy as a structuration process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 621–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarzabkowski, P., & Fenton, E. (2006). Strategizing and organizing in pluralistic contexts. Long Range Planning, 39(6), 631–648.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaptein, M., & Wempe, J. (2001). Sustainability management. Balancing conflicting economic, environmental and social corporate responsibilities. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 1(2), 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kates, R. W., & Clark, W. C. (1996). Environmental surprise: Expecting the unexpected? Environment Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 38(2), 6–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleine, A., & Hauff, M. (2009). Sustainability-driven implementation of corporate social responsibility: Application of the integrative sustainability triangle. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(3), 517–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., & Perego, P. (2013). Sustainable bonuses: Sign of corporate responsibility or window dressing? Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1614-x.

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laverty, K. J. (1996). Economic “Short-Termism”: The debate, the unresolved issues, and the implications for management practice and research. Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 825–860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organization studies (2nd ed., pp. 215–254). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 123–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, G. (2012). Impacts of instrumental versus relational centered logic on cause-related marketing decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2), 243–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • López, R. E., Anríquez, G., & Gulati, S. (2007). Structural change and sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53(3), 307–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, C. (2007). Boards, incentives and corporate social responsibility: The case for a change of emphasis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 15(5), 935–943.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2008). Thinking of the organization as a system: The role of managerial perceptions in developing a corporate social responsibility strategic agenda. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(3), 413–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, D., & McAulay, L. (2008). Exploring the debate on short-termism: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 273–292.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Markusson, N. (2010). The championing of environmental improvements in technology investment projects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(8), 777–783.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, M., Bunkley, N., & Chapman, M. M. (2007). Say ‘Hybrid’ and many people will hear ‘Prius’. New York City: The New York Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, D. H. (1972). The limits to growth: A report for the club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. London: Earth Island.

    Google Scholar 

  • Midttun, A. (2007). Corporate responsibility from a resource and knowledge perspective towards a dynamic reinterpretation of C(S)R: Are corporate responsibility and innovation compatible or contradictory? Corporate Governance, 4(2), 401–413.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosakowski, E., & Earley, P. C. (2000). A selective review of time assumptions in strategy research. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 796–812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthuri, J. N., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2009). Employee volunteering and social capital: Contributions to corporate social responsibility. British Journal of Management, 20(1), 75–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, T. J. (2002). Creating the new ecological order? Elias and actor–network theory. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 523–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okereke, C. (2006). Global environmental sustainability: Intragenerational equity and conceptions of justice in multilateral environmental regimes. Geoforum, 37(5), 725–738.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlove, B. S., & Godoy, R. (1986). Sectoral fallowing systems in the Central Andes. Journal of Ethnobiology, 6(1), 169–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orsato, R. J., & Wells, P. (2007). U-turn: The rise and demise of the automobile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(11–12), 994–1006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozaki, R., & Sevastyanova, K. (2011). Going hybrid: An analysis of consumer purchase motivations. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2217–2227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padilla, E. (2002). Intergenerational equity and sustainability. Ecological Economics, 41(1), 69–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pajo, K., & Lee, L. (2011). Corporate-sponsored volunteering: A work design perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(3), 467–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, J. A, I. I., & Doh, J. (2005). The high impact of collaborative social initiatives. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(3), 29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellow, D. N., Weinberg, A., & Schnaiberg, A. (2001). The environmental justice movement: Equitable allocation of the costs and benefits of environmental management outcomes. Social Justice Research, 14(4), 423–439.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Penker, M. (2008). Governing Austrian landscapes: Shifts along the private–public divide. In T. Sikor (Ed.), Public and private in natural resource governance: A false dichotomy? (pp. 89–106). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinkse, J., & Groot, K. (2013). Sustainable entrepreneurship and corporate political activity: Overcoming market barriers in the clean Energy sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Early view.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Portney, P. R., & Weyant, J. P. (Eds.). (1999). Discounting and intergenerational equity. Washington DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preuss, L., & Walker, H. (2011). Psychological barriers in the road to sustainability: Evidence from public sector procurement. Public Administration: An International Quarterly, 89(2), 493–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothenberg, S. (2003). Knowledge content and worker participation in environmental management at NUMMI. Journal of Management Studies, 40(7), 1783–1802.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 1–37). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W. G., & Tuschke, A. (2007). The adoption of institutionally contested organizational practices: The emergence of stock option pay in Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 33–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schifrin, D., & Burgelman, R. A. (2011). Nissan’s Electric Vehicle Strategy in 2011: Leading the way toward zero-emission, case SM-189. Stanford, CA: Stanford Graduate School of Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütz, J. (1999). Organising diversity. In J. Köhn, J. M. Gowdy, F. Hinterberger, & J. van der Straaten (Eds.), Sustainability in question: The search for a conceptual framework (pp. 101–123). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2008). Integrating and unifying competing and complementary frameworks. The search for a Common core in the business and society field. Business and Society, 47(2), 148–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 332–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, Z., & Zaidman, N. (2010). Strategization of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 51–71.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Starik, M., & Rands, G. P. (1995). Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 908–935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 397–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swift, M. J., Izac, A. M. N., & van Noordwijk, M. (2004). Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes: Are we asking the right questions? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 104(1), 113–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinton, S. M., & Quiroz, R. (2003). Is poverty to blame for soil, pasture and forest degradation in Peru’s Altiplano? World Development, 31(11), 1903–1919.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesluk, P. E., Vance, R. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (1999). Examining employee involvement in the context of participative work environments. Group and Organization Management, 24(3), 271–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Buskirk, J., & Willi, Y. (2004). Enhancement of farmland biodiversity within set-aside land. Conservation Biology, 18(4), 987–994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vetter IMS Corp. (2012). Case study: Staff Suggestion Scheme success British Airways’ £20 mn savings. Retrieved October 29, 2013, from http://www.getvetter.com/casestudies/britishairwaysstaffsuggestionscheme.

  • Vollebergh, H. R. J., & Kemfert, C. (2005). The role of technological change for a sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 54(2–3), 133–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vyakarnam, S. (1992). Social responsibility: What leading companies do. Long Range Planning, 25(5), 59–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade-Benzoni, K. (2002). A golden rule over time: Reciprocity in intergenerational allocation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1011–1028.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walley, N., & Whitehead, B. (1994). It’s not easy being green. Harvard Business Review, 72(3), 46–52.

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 307–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitfield, J. (2006). Agriculture and environment: How green was my subsidy? Nature, 439(7079), 908–909.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. (2003). Corporate sustainability: What is it and where does it come from? Ivey Business Journal, March/April, 1–5.

  • Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xerox Corporation. (2013, February 4). Xerox shares business process expertise with non-profits through Employee Paid Leave Program. Retrieved June 26, 2013, from http://news.xerox.com/news/xerox-shares-business-process-expertise-with-non-profits-through-employee-paid-leave-program.

  • York, R., & Rosa, E. A. (2003). Key challenges to ecological modernization theory: Institutional efficacy, case study evidence, units of analysis, and the pace of eco-efficiency. Organization & Environment, 16(3), 273–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, W., Bao, Y., & Verbeke, A. (2011). Integrating CSR initiatives in business: An organizing framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(1), 75–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuindeau, B. (2007). Territorial equity and sustainable development. Environmental Values, 16(2), 253–268.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kedge Business School, Domaine de Luminy, BP 921, 13288, Marseille cedex 9, France

    Tobias Hahn & Frank Figge

  2. Grenoble Ecole de Management, 12, Rue Pierre Sémard, 38000, Grenoble, France

    Jonatan Pinkse

  3. School of Management, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, UK

    Lutz Preuss

Authors
  1. Tobias Hahn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonatan Pinkse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lutz Preuss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Frank Figge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonatan Pinkse.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L. et al. Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: Towards an Integrative Framework. J Bus Ethics 127, 297–316 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2047-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2047-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation