gmi54graham.

qxd 22/9/08 21:00 Page 57

Achieving Sustainable Value

Sustainability Portfolio Assessment

Richmond Graham
SaskEnergy, Canada

Stephanie Bertels
University of Michigan, USA

This paper presents the results of an effort to apply management theory related to
sustainability in a ‘real world’ consulting project undertaken in a Western Canadian
natural gas utility. We found that the existing sustainable value portfolio tools proved
unsuccessful in this application. Therefore, a new framework was developed and
applied to provide the client with the opportunity to enhance their strategic sustain-
ability. Our framework was designed to be suitable for application to a broad range
of organisations and sectors. This paper traces our efforts to develop a usable frame-
work, to apply it in a real business setting and outlines the resulting sustainability l Sustainability
portfolio assessment framework. Our model for a sustainability portfolio assessment l Sustainable
suggests that a sustainable business balances economic growth and viability with a business
commitment to strategically and practically address the need to prevent waste; inte- l Sustainable
value
grate external perspectives into business decision-making; re-envision current com-
l Sustainability
petencies to act on emerging opportunities; and to anticipate unmet needs and portfolio
l Sustainability
opportunities yet unknown. We provide consultants and prospective clients with a
useable sustainability portfolio assessment framework that can be applied in real consulting
business consulting settings and with guidance on how our framework can be suc- l Sustainability
portfolio
cessfully implemented to sustain business value. We stress the importance of under- assessment
standing the competencies of the organisation related to sustainability, the potential l Strategy
constraints on action and the readiness of the organisation, management and l Risk
employees to embrace these competencies and take action. management

Richmond Graham is a senior leader at SaskEnergy where he leads corporate

efforts to grow business and integrate sustainability across the organisation.
u Executive Director, Infrastructure &
Sustainability, SaskEnergy, 1777
He is also Associate Faculty at Royal Roads University and a Certified Victoria Ave, Regina, SK, S4P 4K5
Management Consultant.
! rgraham@saskenergy.com

Stephanie Bertels is currently a research fellow at the Erb Institute for

Sustainable Global Enterprise at the University of Michigan. Her research
u Assistant Professor, Innovation &
Entrepreneurship, Faculty of
examines how institutional processes constrain or advance the transition Business Administration, Simon
towards sustainability. In September 2008, Stephanie will join Simon Fraser Fraser University Surrey Central,
University as an assistant professor, where her teaching and research will
250–13450 102nd Avenue, Surrey,
continue to focus on sustainable innovation.
BC, Canada V3T 0A3
! stephanie_bertels@sfu.ca

GMI 54 © 2008 Greenleaf Publishing Ltd http://www.greenleaf-publishing.com 57

gmi54graham.qxd 22/9/08 21:00 Page 58

richmond graham and stephanie bertels

W
hile there is increasing agreement that business needs to embrace
sustainability, research on sustainable development in the management field still
provides only limited guidance for how this should be done. Despite repeated
calls to enhance the development of knowledge through application, it is still rare
for theoretical frameworks to find application in the ‘real world’ and rarer still
for the results of these efforts to make it back into the literature. Thus, in an effort to
apply theory to practice, we set out to complete a strategic sustainability assessment in
a Western Canadian natural gas utility, SaskEnergy. The project was undertaken in part-
nership with a senior manager in this firm and an academic.
After an extensive review of the literature, we initially chose to make use of the sus-
tainable value framework (Hart 1997, 2005; Hart and Milstein 2003), which has at its
core the development of a sustainable value portfolio. Our goal was to take stock of the
firm’s current sustainable value portfolio; understand how and why the portfolio may
need to change over time; and consider the resources and competencies that may be
needed to facilitate this shift. We conducted interviews with subject matter experts,
senior management and the executive leadership. Our interviews probed well beyond
current activities, seeking insight into ideas specific to future challenges and how the
firm could develop economically sound social, environmental and governance solutions.
The sustainable value framework was developed to help firms link the challenges of
global sustainability to the creation of shareholder value. The framework is divided
between two major sources of creative business tension. The vertical axis reflects a firm’s
need to manage its current business activities while simultaneously creating tomorrow’s
technology and markets. The horizontal axis reflects a firm’s need to grow and protect
internal organisational skills and capabilities while simultaneously infusing new per-
spectives and knowledge from the outside. The framework is divided into four quad-
rants each with their own strategy and intended corporate payoff: pollution, product
stewardship, clean technology and sustainability vision. These quadrants are said to be
motivated by a set of global ‘drivers’.
While theory initially informed our practice, soon practice began to inform theory.
During our initial round of interviews, we found that it was difficult for the interviewees
to provide responses that were meaningfully related to the framework as it is presented
in the available literature (Hart 1997, 2005; Hart and Milstein 2003) and, consequently,
it was difficult to gather information of strategic business value. We suspect that the dri-
vers and quadrant definitions of the sustainable value framework may be more applic-
able to multinationals with a broad reach, especially those with a product focus. In
response, we revised and broadened the framework in a way that builds on the spirit of
the four quadrants, but is more generally applicable to a broad range of organisations
and sectors. This article traces our efforts to apply the framework and our rationale for
revising and broadening it. We also provide guidance on how to apply the new frame-
work and how to implement the desired outcomes.
The resulting sustainability portfolio assessment framework is grounded in the expe-
rience of this research, but is defined in a way that will find application in a broad range
of settings. When we returned to apply the sustainability portfolio assessment frame-
work in subsequent interviews, respondents were better able to identify strategic sus-
tainability issues, understand the benefits and implications of strategic sustainability
planning and decision-making, and recognise the resources and competencies neces-
sary to prepare for a sustainable business future. As a result of the research project,
SaskEnergy was able to identify some major strategic business opportunities and impli-
cations for present and future business planning purposes.

58 GMI 54
gmi54graham.qxd 22/9/08 21:00 Page 59

achieving sustainable value: sustainability portfolio assessment

Background
This project was undertaken in response to a recognised need to engage in discussions
within SaskEnergy on the topic of business sustainability. SaskEnergy is Saskatchewan’s
natural gas distribution, transmission pipeline and storage company. In addition, it also
owns and operates other Canadian and international business interests. It has success-
fully built one of the longest per capita natural gas utility infrastructures in North Amer-
ica and has penetrated more than 90% of Saskatchewan communities, providing a
natural gas service. SaskEnergy is a financial and utility business success. However, it
operates a mature natural gas utility that has penetrated much of the Saskatchewan
marketplace with its current service offerings. The infrastructure is substantial and the
business generates the most significant portion of its income from this infrastructure.
During the last decade, SaskEnergy has taken steps to broaden its income-generating
business outside of Saskatchewan. Much of the income from these operations is built
on regulated returns on infrastructure assets.
In addition to operating in a mature market, SaskEnergy must contend with a chang-
ing market, decreasing energy supplies and geopolitical uncertainties, which may put
upward pressure on commodity price. It also operates in an industry that is increasingly
pressured to find alternatives to major developments that may impact the environment.
In recent years, stakeholders have directly and indirectly demanded that increasing
social and environmental expectations be met within the confines of a well-governed
and economically viable business. SaskEnergy sought an integrated and comprehensive
analysis of sustainability options from which to consider key strategic planning deci-
sions that included:
t Enhancing its awareness of strategic business issues as they relate to sustainability

t Assessing the changing global business environment and the resulting linkages to
its business strategy
t Understanding the benefits and implications of strategic sustainability planning
and decision-making
t Leveraging current knowledge area expertise while clearly identifying current and
future ‘blind spots’
t Recognising the resources and competencies necessary to implement options over
time

The project: a sustainability portfolio assessment

An important first step in conducting the sustainability portfolio assessment was to take
stock of SaskEnergy’s current sustainability portfolio to provide company leadership
with an idea of where the organisation is, where it needs to be and the resources and
competencies that may be required for it to reach its full potential. To do this, we
employed a grounded theory approach (Glaser 1992; Glaser and Strauss 1967; Gould-
ing 2002) conducting interviews with representative subject matter experts, senior man-
agement and executive leadership. The primary form of data collection was a series of
interviews with the senior management and executive leadership of the firm. In col-
lecting the data, we used a theoretical or purposive sampling design (Glaser and Strauss
1967).

GMI 54 59
gmi54graham.qxd 22/9/08 21:00 Page 60

richmond graham and stephanie bertels

Data collection started with two initial interviews. These provided the opportunity to
clarify and reframe our line of questioning to ensure that pertinent data was gathered.
Shortly after the first two interviews, a senior executive was interviewed. This interview
provided a strong guiding direction for the strategic nature of the discussions to follow.
Successive interviewees were chosen to extend the information that had already been
obtained. Special attention was given to the thought leadership of the senior executive
currently engaged in strategic planning initiatives. Our interviews probed well beyond
current activities seeking insight into ideas specific to future challenges and how the
firm could develop economically sound social, environmental and governance solutions.
Interviewees provided the needed background and understanding of current and
planned activities, focused on creating sustainable value. Each interviewee also provided
insight into ideas specific to SaskEnergy’s future challenges and how it could develop
or enhance existing economically sound social, environmental and governance solu-
tions.
The interviews were conducted in stages and analysis was undertaken concurrently.
In parallel to the interviews, we conducted a review of the literature focused on identi-
fying theory and practices relevant to each quadrant of the framework. Interviews were
compared as they progressed and the patterns that emerged were then assessed for sim-
ilarities and differences. The themes were then categorised using language that was
understandable and meaningful to the participants.

The limitations of the sustainable value framework in this context

As we noted above, during our initial round of interviews, we found that it was difficult
for the interviewees to provide responses that were meaningfully related to the sus-
tainable value framework as described in Hart and Milstein (2003) and Hart (2005) and,
consequently, it was difficult to gather information with true strategic business value.
As we attempted to apply the framework, we found that the framing of the quadrant def-
initions tended to be directed towards and correlated against the multinational enter-
prise. Some of our respondents were confused by the language used in the framework
or by the drivers that were associated with particular quadrants. We saw value in the
portfolio approach and the fundamental message of the framework; consequently, we
worked to revise and broaden it to make it more relevant to the participants.
We broadened the general applicability of the framework by removing the ‘drivers’
and revising the vertical axis to represent the challenge of getting things done (actions)
and the horizontal axis to represent the varied application of knowledge and perspec-
tive (competencies). In addition, the quadrants were also reworked to remove reference
to the limiting concept of pollution and extend the concept of waste to people, product
and process (waste prevention); broaden the notion of stewardship (stewardship);
remove reference to the limitations of ‘clean technology’ and replace it with the concept
of expanding opportunities that position the business for the future (expanding oppor-
tunities); and remove the references to obligations for resolving social problems and
replace it with the concept of business opportunities (unmet needs and opportunities).
Each of these changes is described in more detail in the next section. Each change is
grounded in the experience of this research and in the context of a wide spectrum of
business operations. The result is a new framework, the sustainability portfolio assess-
ment framework (Fig. 1), which builds on the spirit of the four quadrants in the sus-
tainable value framework, but is more generally applicable to a range of organisations
and sectors.

60 GMI 54
gmi54graham.qxd 22/9/08 21:00 Page 61

achieving sustainable value: sustainability portfolio assessment

Prepare for the future

Expanding Unmet needs

opportunities and opportunities
(Re-envisioning core (Paradigm shifts that position the

Actions
competencies) organisation for the future)
Innovation and repositioning New growth pathways

Competencies Competencies Leverage/integrate

Apply existing
new and varied
core knowledge
perspectives

Waste Actions Stewardship

prevention (Integrating external perspectives
(Environmental and social waste) into business decision-making)
Cost and risk reduction Reputation and legitimacy

Produce immediate results

Figure 1 the sustainability portfolio assessment framework

Removal of the drivers

The sustainable value framework identified four sets of global drivers for sustainability
which, for instance, included pollution, a civil society, clean technology and poverty. In
many cases, these drivers were abstract and unconvincing to our participants or they
found them to be ideal and grand motivators that at times appeared to be well outside
of their perception of the role of business. Creating a framework without these drivers
does not diminish the multi-dimensional challenge that business faces; however, it does
remove the drivers from the debate over sustainable value. In time, a new set of sus-
tainable business drivers could be reformulated that better resonates with business lead-
ers. Until then, removing the drivers provided focus on the framework content. The
sustainability portfolio assessment framework reflects this and does not include spe-
cific drivers.

Reframing the axes

An additional refinement relates to the principal axes of the frameworks. The sustain-
able value framework was developed around a two-dimensional tension, between man-
aging today’s business while creating tomorrow’s and growing internal skills while
growing new perspectives from outside. This represents a common tension within any

GMI 54 61
gmi54graham.qxd 22/9/08 21:00 Page 62

richmond graham and stephanie bertels

business and should not be overlooked. However, our participants struggled with the
relevance of these axes and, more importantly, with the resulting implications for the
quadrant definitions. Consequently, the revised vertical axis in our model represents the
challenge of getting things done (actions), which we describe as a tension between pro-
ducing immediate results and preparing for the future. The revised horizontal axis rep-
resents the varied application of knowledge and perspective (competencies) within
business, which we describe as a tension between applying existing core knowledge and
leveraging/integrating new and varied perspectives of others. The new axis descriptors
more clearly define the tensions in understandable business terms. However, the most
important outcome of this modification is the clarity that the axes lend to our new quad-
rant definitions.

The four quadrants of the sustainability portfolio assessment

framework

Waste prevention: the concept of waste revisited

In the Hart and Milstein (2003) framework, the bottom-left quadrant focuses on those
aspects of performance that are primarily internal and near-term in nature. However,
they outline the concept further with a focus on pollution. This limits the reader to focus
on pollution as the singular and most significant waste stream from operations. While
pollution and emissions reduction is important to reducing risks, there is also ‘social
waste’ that requires consideration. The waste associated with the social aspects of sus-
tainability is very real in business. As an example, the waste generated from unproduc-
tive work affects the economic well-being of the business and, in turn, the growth of
jobs, pay and benefits. Similarly, missing opportunities to make full use of the existing
skill sets of employees or to invest in further developing their skills affects the compe-
tencies of the business to grow and stretch beyond its current role. The sustainability of
the business must be focused on waste prevention that addresses environmental risks
and the social costs of under-investing in people. Only then can cost and risk reduction
occur. This expanded definition of waste prevention is also aligned with the application
of existing core knowledge competencies and producing immediate results from the
actions taken. The lower-left quadrant of the sustainability portfolio assessment frame-
work, which we call waste prevention, now includes a wide spectrum of environmen-
tal, economic and social wastes applicable to both the goods and services industries.

Broadening the notion of stewardship

It is important to create quadrant descriptors that align with the creative business ten-
sions and are applicable to a range of businesses regardless of their focus, type or size.
In line with our redefinition of the axes, the focus of this quadrant is on making deci-
sions that actually integrate external perspectives. Thus, the sustainability portfolio
assessment framework extends the concept of ‘integrating stakeholder views’ to ‘inte-
grating external perspectives’. By this we mean that businesses need to go beyond stake-
holder management to examine the sustainability practices of leading firms in their
industry and in other industries to monitor how best practices are shifting over time
(Bertels and Peloza 2008). This may also include engaging in discussions with uncon-
ventional or ‘fringe’ stakeholders (Hart and Sharma 2004). Our new model also broadens
the stewardship concept beyond the wording of ‘product’. While it appears to be a minor
change, the wording is more applicable to a range of businesses, including services.

62 GMI 54
gmi54graham.qxd 22/9/08 21:00 Page 63

achieving sustainable value: sustainability portfolio assessment

Expanding opportunities
We have defined this quadrant in terms of matching existing core competencies to plans
and actions that prepare the company for the future. Therefore, instead of referring to
clean technology, the sustainability portfolio assessment framework refers to expand-
ing opportunities, which we describe as re-envisioning core competencies. The result
(or payoff) remains as innovation and repositioning. However, the application of the
competencies can be more broadly applied to both technological and non-technological
innovation or advances. For many businesses, existing core competencies can build
social capital unrelated to technological advances and, in turn, can reposition the busi-
ness to offer new products or services. This social capital can be considered an invest-
ment in people and society. Our framework acknowledges the social contribution and
strength of people and how their competencies can be re-envisioned and applied to cre-
ate sustainable value. This will enable business to consider all aspects of sustainability
without limitations to environmental and technological considerations alone.

Unmet needs and opportunities: a counterpoint to social obligation

The previous framework’s final quadrant, referred to as sustainability vision, created
much concern during the course of the interviews and required considerable modifica-
tion for the results to be meaningful. Most notably, this quadrant focused primarily on
the social obligation of business and the resulting opportunities that business can then
exploit. There was concern that in one breath the altruistic concerns for social needs are
expressed with passion and in the next breath the opportunities for business to exploit
them for profit arise. Clearly, business must be profitable to sustain itself. However, har-
mony arises when new and varied perspectives are leveraged and/or integrated into busi-
ness competencies and actions are taken to prepare the business for a future yet
unknown.
We have labelled this quadrant of the sustainability portfolio assessment framework
‘unmet needs and opportunities’, highlighting the results-oriented nature of the quad-
rant. Our focus is on future growth pathways that result from linking actions and com-
petencies focused on the future to paradigm shifts in industry, society and the natural
world. Furthermore, while these unmet needs and opportunities may reside at the base
of the pyramid (Prahalad and Hart 2002), this need not be the case. Our framework
acknowledges that sustainable value comes, in part, from being aware of what is going
on around you and preparing for the paradigm shifts that inevitably will come. All busi-
ness operates with the ambiguity of what the future has in store. This quadrant provides
business with an indication of the importance of proactively building competencies to
prepare for a future much different than today.

Conducting a sustainability portfolio assessment

Asking the right questions

We found, during our interviews, that we needed to understand the range of the organ-
isation’s existing and potential competencies and actions (our framework’s two axes).
Our original questions focused on ‘examples of’ and ‘ideas from’ the interviewees. How-
ever, we found that the results were often subjective and vague. These were senior man-
agers that were well able to assess the organisation’s capabilities, constraints and
readiness for change. Therefore, our questioning turned to understanding the compe-

GMI 54 63
gmi54graham.qxd 22/9/08 21:00 Page 64

richmond graham and stephanie bertels

tencies of the organisation and the capacity of the organisation, management and
employees to embrace these competencies and take action. Similarly, we explored the
potential constraints on action and the readiness of the organisation, management and
employees. These explorations were undertaken in each quadrant area. This approach
generated fruitful information, regarding both the current activities in each quadrant
and the ability of the company and its people to address future challenges and oppor-
tunities. In Figure 2, we revisit our framework and, this time, provide a series of ques-
tions to begin to frame and motivate discussions within the organisation and with key
external stakeholders.

Begin with a general framing question such as: What is your understanding of sustainability?
Then, move to the quadrant-specific questions:

Prepare for the future

Expanding opportunities Unmet needs and opportunities

t What do we do best?
t How can we leverage our skills?
t What changes around us might
cause us to see opportunity to
expand from our core?
t Is the sustainability of our products
or services limited by our
competency base?
Apply existing
core knowledge
Waste prevention
t Where are we falling behind?
t Would it be possible to operate
without waste?
t How can we lower costs and risks by
converting waste into useful input
into another process?
t What would we need to change to
make this happen?
Produce immediate results
If we had no boundaries, no limitations
t
. . . how could we apply our skills and
competencies in a totally different way?
t If we were to stop doing our core
business, what would we do instead?
t Are there needs in the environment,
in our community or in society that
we are uniquely qualified to fulfil?
Leverage/integrate
new and varied
Stewardship perspectives
t Whom do we serve?
t Who/what is affected by our operations?
t How can we maximise the value that we provide to our
stakeholders and that they provide to us?
t What are the implications of our business
if we assume responsibility for the entire
life-cycle of all inputs and outputs?
t How can we minimise any negative impacts
on our stakeholders?

Conclude with questions about what, if anything, may constrain further progress towards sustainability.

Figure 2 undertaking a sustainability portfolio assessment: framing questions

As you peruse Figure 2, if you find yourself saying ‘but this is just good organisa-
tional strategy couched in sustainability terms’, we agree wholeheartedly—and our point
has been made. In our view, a sustainable company is one that continually attempts to
deliver its goods and services with an eye to maximising value for a wide range of stake-
holders while minimising or eliminating negative impacts on the environment and soci-
ety. It is this emphasis on continually striving to improve which we turn to next.

64 GMI 54
gmi54graham.qxd 22/9/08 21:00 Page 65

achieving sustainable value: sustainability portfolio assessment

Working with the answers

The results of our interviews were coded and sorted into overall themes as well as themes
within in each quadrant of the sustainability portfolio assessment framework (i.e. waste
prevention, stewardship, expanding opportunities and unmet needs and opportunities).
In each of the quadrants we recorded what was already being done by the organisation,
opportunities to change, opportunities to do more of what is already working and any
other relevant findings. As each organisation is unique, care should be taken to ensure
that sustainability portfolio reporting is suitable for the organisation under study. In our
study the resulting emerging themes included: (1) people, competencies and culture;
(2) vision and strategy; (3) leadership and governance; and (4) social obligations of the
organisation.
It is at this stage of a sustainability portfolio assessment that an organisation can begin
to recognise strategic vulnerabilities and opportunities. Inevitably this prompts very
meaningful discussion on options and opportunities to suitably balance and strengthen
the organisation’s sustainability portfolio. The organisation is then able to set priorities,
develop action plans and align and commit the resources required to ensure success. It
is what the organisation chooses to do next, to balance, grow and strengthen its organ-
isation-specific sustainability portfolio that will then differentiate it from others and
position it for the future.

Balancing the portfolio through continuous renewal

The sustainability portfolio assessment framework helps an organisation to map out
strategies that position the business to compete today and in the future. Yet we propose
that a single ‘snapshot’ measure of sustainable value is limiting because it provides no
means to assess the effects of sustainability strategies over time. We propose that the
framework should be applied repeatedly, over time, to ensure that progress can be mea-
sured and adjusted for changing external and internal influences. A quadrant-by-quad-
rant sustainability portfolio assessment can be conducted to continuously renew the
organisation and reposition it to consistently create sustainable value over time.

Anticipating the potential challenges

At any time during the process the potential of failing to complete the sustainability port-
folio assessment is very real. Some within the organisation may view this process as
threatening or uncomfortable. Therefore, it is best to introduce the idea that it may be
necessary to engage in ‘difficult conversations’ early on in the process so that all are well
prepared. Doing so will prepare those involved for the seriousness of the discussion that
will shape the future of their organisation.
However, while the process may be difficult, it can reap great rewards. In our case,
the sustainability portfolio assessment framework assisted SaskEnergy in positioning
itself for a strong and exciting future. When we applied the framework, respondents
were able to identify strategic sustainability issues; understand the benefits and impli-
cations of strategic sustainability planning and decision-making; and develop concrete
strategies to prepare for a sustainable business future.

Implications for the nexus of theory and practice

Much has been said about the need for management scholars to relate theory to prac-
tice (Goshal 2005; Van de Ven 2007). This study highlights the challenges in develop-
ing models for use in practice. It may well be that more flexibility was intended than is

GMI 54 65
gmi54graham.qxd 22/9/08 21:00 Page 66

richmond graham and stephanie bertels

embodied in the collection of works (Hart 1997, 2005; Hart and Milstein 2003), but
with only these texts as our guide, our interpretations were limited to the words on the
page. Thus, future scholarly work presenting frameworks for sustainability should pro-
vide more guidance on how they can be applied in practice. It is equally important to
describe efforts to use these frameworks in ‘real world’ settings in order to build on and
improve them, as we have tried to do here.

Conclusion
Our goal was to integrate theory and practice and apply existing theory in the field of
sustainability in a ‘real world’ consulting setting. Our model for sustainability portfolio
assessment suggests that a sustainable business balances economic growth and viabil-
ity with a commitment to address the many facets of waste prevention; integrate stew-
ardship into business decision-making; re-envision competencies to act on emerging
opportunities; and prepare for unmet needs and opportunities yet unknown. For those
interested in conducting a sustainability portfolio assessment, we offer the following
recommendations drawn from our own experience:
t Select a practical, but theoretically grounded, process framework to guide your port-
folio analysis
t Prepare participants in advance for the ‘difficult conversations’ that may lie ahead

t Begin with a general framing question such as ‘What is your understanding of sus-
tainability?’
t Move to more specific questions related to identifying the existing competencies
within the organisation
t Close with a discussion of the potential impediments to progress towards sustain-
ability
t Compile this information across the organisation

t Use this information to generate strategies and action plans

t Revisit this process on a consistent basis

The sustainability portfolio assessment framework presented here serves as a useful

tool to help a broad range of organisations develop an understanding of their sustain-
ability portfolio and to take the actions and develop the competencies required to con-
sistently create sustainable value over time. A well-executed sustainability portfolio
assessment provides several tangible benefits to a firm, including a better understand-
ing of current capabilities and constraints related to sustainability, improved risk man-
agement and the identification of future potential exposures and opportunities.

References
Bertels, S., and J. Peloza (2008) ‘Running Just to Stand Still? Managing CSR Reputation in an Era of
Ratcheting Expectations’, Corporate Reputation Review (forthcoming).
Glaser, B. (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis (Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press).
—— and A. Strauss (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (New York:
Aldine de Gruyter/Hawthorne).

66 GMI 54
gmi54graham.qxd 22/9/08 21:00 Page 67

achieving sustainable value: sustainability portfolio assessment

Goshal, S. (2005) ‘Bad Management Theories are Destroying Good Management Practices’, Academy of
Management Learning and Education 4.1: 75-91.
Goulding, C. (2002) Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Market Researchers
(London: Sage Publications).
Hart, S.L. (1997) ‘Beyond Greening: Strategies for a Sustainable World’, Harvard Business Review 75.1:
66-76.
—— (2005) Capitalism at the Crossroads (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing).
—— and M.B. Milstein (2003) ‘Creating Sustainable Value’, Academy of Management Executive 17.2: 56-
67.
—— and S. Sharma (2004) ‘Engaging Fringe Stakeholders for Competitive Imagination’, Academy of
Management Executive 18.1: 7-18.
Prahalad, C.K., and S.L. Hart (2002) ‘The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid’, Strategy + Business 26:
2-14.
Van de Ven, A.H. (2007) Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research (Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press).

GMI 54 67