Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Instrumental and Integrative Logics in Business Sustainability

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

Abstract

Prior research on sustainability in business often assumes that decisions on social and environmental investments are made for instrumental reasons, which points to causal relationships between corporate financial performance and corporate social and environmental commitment. In other words, social or environmental commitment should predict higher financial performance. The theoretical premise of sustainability, however, is based on a systems perspective, which implies a tighter integration between corporate financial performance and corporate commitment to social and environmental issues. In this paper, we describe the important theoretical differences between an instrumental and integrative logic in managing business sustainability. We test the presence of each logic using data from 738 firms over 13 years and find evidence of integrative logic applied in business.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., & Perlow, L. A. (2001). Taking time to integrate temporal research. Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 512–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auger, P., & Devinney, T. M. (2007). Do what consumers say matter? The misalignment of preferences with unconstrained ethical intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(4), 361–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backhaus, K. B., Stone, B. A., & Heiner, K. (2002). Exploring the relationship between corporate social performance and employer attractiveness. Business and Society, 41(3), 292–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baltagi, B. H., Bresson, G., & Pirotte, A. (2003). Fixed effects, random effects or Hausman-Taylor? A pretest estimator. Economics Letters, 79, 361–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbier, E. (1987). The concept of sustainable economic development. Environmental Conservation, 14(2), 101–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. & Salomon, R. (forthcoming). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1860985.

  • Berman, S. L., Wicks, A. C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T. M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonardi, J.-P., & Keim, G. D. (2005). Corporate political strategies for widely salient issues. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 555–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1325–1343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T., & Dacin, P. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, K. S. (1986). Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management Science, 32(5), 539–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In R. E. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), paradox and transformation (pp. 1–18). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, S.-C., & Sharfman, M. (2011). Legitimacy, visibility, and the antecedents of corporate social performance: An investigation of the instrumental perspective. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1558–1585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, A. (1996). Care, Autonomy, and Justice: Feminism and the Ethic of Care. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damon, W. W., & Schramm, R. (1972). A simultaneous decision model for production, marketing and finance. Management Science, 19(2), 161–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2008). Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10), 1027–1055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. (1995). Paradox and performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in managerial leadership. Organization Science, 6(5), 524–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doorey, D. J. (2011). The transparent supply chain: From resistance to implementation at Nick and Levi-Strauss. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(4), 587–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with folks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Stony Creek, CT: New Society Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2005). Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 8–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Castro, R., Arino, M. A., & Canela, M. A. (2010). Does social performance really lead to financial performance? Accounting for endogeneity. Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 107–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

    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 

  • Gnanlet, A., & Gilland, W. G. (2009). Sequential and simultaneous decision making for optimizing health care resource flexibilities. Decision Science, 40(2), 295–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve, H. R., Palmer, D., & Pozner, J.-e. (2010). Organizations gone wild: The causes, processes, and consequences of organizational misconduct. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 53–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society, 36(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halaby, C. N. (2004). Panel models in sociological research: Theory into practice. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 507–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. H. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Journal of Sociology, 49, 149–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, J. W., & Hilbe, J. M. (2003). Generalized estimating equations. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. A., & Taylor, W. E. (1981). Panel data and unobservable individual effects. Econometrica, 49, 1377–1398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, L. T. (1994). Strategic planning as if ethics mattered. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 17–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, C., & Rothenberg, S. (2008). Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 781–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, R. (1990). Unobservable effects and business performance. Marketing Science, 9(1), 74–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. A., & Greening, D. W. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 564–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and business. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. A., & Lenox, M. (2002). Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction. Management Science, 48(2), 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, R. D., & Whybark, D. C. (1999). The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 599–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on Moral Development. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lado, A., Boyd, N. G., & Hanlon, S. C. (1997). Competition, cooperation, and the search for economic rents: A syncretic model. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 110–141.

    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 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang, K.-Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrica, 73, 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, A., Mackey, T. B., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 817–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., & Elfenbein, H. A. (2008). Do well by doing good? Don’t count on it. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J. D., Elfenbein, H. A. & Walsh, J. P. (2009). Does it pay to be good…and does it matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1866371.

  • Margolis, J. D., & Molinsky, A. (2008). Navigating the bind of necessary evils: Psychological engagement and the production of interpersonally sensitive behavior. Academy of Management Review, 51(5), 847–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattingly, J. E., & Berman, S. L. (2006). Measurement of corporate social action: Discovering taxonomy in the Kinder Lydenburg Domini ratings data. Business and Society, 45(1), 20–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 603–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishina, Y., Dykes, B. J., Block, E. S., & Pollock, T. G. (2010). Why “good” firms do bad things; The effects of high aspirations, high expectations, and performance on the incidence of corporate illegality. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 701–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molinsky, A., & Margolis, J. D. (2005). Necessary evils and interpersonal sensitivity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 245–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murillo-Luna, J. L., Garces-Ayerbe, C., & Rivera-Torres, P. (2008). Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders’ pressure approach. Strategic Management Journal, 29(11), 1225–1240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noddings, N. (1999). Care, Justice, and Equality. In M. S. Katz, N. Noddings, & K. A. Strike (Eds.), Justice and Caring: The Search for Common ground in Education (pp. 7–20). New York: Columbia University Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofori-Dankwa, J., & Julian, S. D. (2001). Complexifying organizational theory: Illustrations using time research. Academy of Management Review, 26, 415–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., & Benjamin, J. D. (2001). Corporate social performance and firm risk: A meta-analytic review. Business and Society, 40(4), 369–396.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osterhus, T. L. (1997). Pro-social consumer influence strategies: When and how do they work? Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (2010). Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1), 34–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Porter, E. J. (1999). Feminist perspectives on ethics. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, J. E., Preston, l. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purser, R. E., Park, C., & Montuori, A. (1995). Limits to anthropocentrism: Toward an ecocentric organization paradigm? Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 1053–1089.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2003). When will stakeholder groups act? An interest- and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 204–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreck, P. (2011). Reviewing the business case for corporate social responsibility: New evidence and analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 681–697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S., & Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 159–180.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P. (1995b). Ecocentric management for a risk society. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 118–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P. (1995c). Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 16(2), 183–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simola, S. (2003). Ethics of justice and care in corporate crisis management. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 351–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slawinski, N. & Bansal, P. (2010). Short on time: Managing the time paradox in business sustainability. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings.

  • 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.

    Article  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.

    Article  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 

  • StataCorp. (2003). Stata cross-sectional time-series reference manual (8th ed.). College Station, Texas: Stata press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strike, V., Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2006). Being good while being bad: Social responsibility and the international diversification of U.S. firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 850–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surroca, J., Tribo, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 463–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 658–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A. (2003). Myths and realities of social investing. Organization & Environment, 16(3), 369–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4), 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P. (2005). Book review essay: Taking stock of stakeholder management. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 426–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated and decoupled corporate social performance: Management commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 539–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, A. C., Gilbert, D. R., Jr, & Freeman, R. E. (1994). A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 475–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, E. M., Ormiston, M. E., & Tetlock, P. E. (2011). The effects of top management team integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1207–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, Y., Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 377–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadek, S. (2001). The civil corporation: The new economy of corporate citizenship. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, I. H. Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 5V4, Canada

    Jijun Gao

  2. Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada

    Pratima Bansal

Authors
  1. Jijun Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pratima Bansal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jijun Gao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gao, J., Bansal, P. Instrumental and Integrative Logics in Business Sustainability. J Bus Ethics 112, 241–255 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1245-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1245-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation