Montiel 2014

Organization & Environment
http://oae.sagepub.com/
Defining and Measuring Corporate Sustainability: Are We There Yet?

Ivan Montiel and Javier Delgado-Ceballos
Organization Environment published online 4 April 2014
DOI: 10.1177/1086026614526413
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://oae.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/03/1086026614526413
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Organization & Environment can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://oae.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://oae.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://oae.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/04/03/1086026614526413.refs.html
>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Apr 4, 2014
What is This?
Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

526413
research-article2014
OAEXXX10.1177/1086026614526413Organization & EnvironmentMontiel and Delgado-Ceballos
Article
Organization & Environment
1–27
Defining and Measuring Corporate © 2014 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
Sustainability: Are We There Yet? sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1086026614526413
oae.sagepub.com
Ivan Montiel1 and Javier Delgado-Ceballos2
Abstract
This literature review article aims to bring a better understanding to the field of corporate
sustainability (CS) as studied by management scholars. The first part of this review quantifies
the amount of research devoted to CS and related topics such as corporate social responsibility,
corporate social performance, environmental strategies and environmental performance from
1995 through 2013. The authors then summarize the different definitions, organizational
theories, and measures that have been adopted by management scholars working in the CS
field in both academic and practitioner management journals. The results show that the CS field
is still evolving and different approaches to define, theorize, and measure CS have been used.
Differences are also found between the literature that targets scholars versus the one targeting
practitioners. The authors also provide a set of recommendations on how to advance the CS
field.
Keywords
corporate sustainability, sustainable development, environmental strategies, corporate social
responsibility, social performance, environmental performance, literature review
Introduction
It is almost impossible to browse a company’s website or its official reports without finding refer-
ences to “sustainability” or “sustainable development.” This has not always been the case. The
past few years have brought an exponential increase in references to corporate sustainability (CS)
and sustainable strategies. Business schools worldwide now hire professors in CS and most large
companies hire employees to fill sustainability positions. Parallel to this movement, business
scholars have increasingly focused on CS issues in their academic research. According to the
Brundtland report—the first document that introduced the “sustainable development” concept—
businesses are said to have a crucial role in managing impacts of population in ecosystems,
ecosystem resources, food security, and sustainable economies in order to decrease the pressure
society places on the environment (World Commission for Environmental and Development
[WCED], 1987).
This increase in scholarly interest prompts the following questions that this study addresses:
What exactly is CS? Which organizational theories are applied to study it? How is
1Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA

2Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain
Corresponding Author:
Ivan Montiel, College of Business Administration, Loyola Marymount University, 1 LMU Drive, Los Angeles CA 90045,
USA.
Email: ivan.montiel@lmu.edu

2 Organization & Environment
CS operationalized and measured? More important, do scholars agree—or need to agree—on a

common definition of CS? Anecdotal evidence indicates that clarity does not yet exist on what
CS means to business scholars. For instance, a single-question survey undertaken in July 2012
among management scholars in the Academy of Management’s Organizations and the Natural
Environment division asked respondents: “Please define corporate/business sustainability.” Even
though half of the 31 respondents agreed that CS involves the simultaneous management of three
dimensions: profit (economic), people (social), and planet (environmental); a few definitions
emphasized exclusively the planet (environmental) dimension of sustainability. Furthermore,
even though “sustainable development” seems to be primarily focused on long-term perfor-
mance, only five respondents mentioned the long-term component of CS. Overall, we see evi-
dence that a common definition of CS is lacking. In fact, CS scholars (e.g., Reinecke, Manning,
& von Hagen, 2012; Valente, 2012) often mention the ambiguity of the CS field.
Our goal is to organize the different CS definitions, theories, and measures applied by man-
agement scholars in a single article. Previous literature reviews looked at the evolution of related
fields such as corporate social responsibility (CSR; Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Orlitzky, Schmidt,
& Rynes, 2003) or the evolution of the business and the natural environment field (Bansal & Gao,
2006; Etzion, 2007) but not necessarily at the evolution of CS literature since it is a newer con-
cept in management. Two exceptions are Marshall and Toffel’s (2005) identification of four dif-
ferent sustainability frameworks: Triple Bottom Line, the Natural Step, the Ecological Footprint,
and Graedel and Klee’s (2002) Sustainability and Resource Usage; and Montiel’s (2008) com-
parison of CS and CSR. Moreover, Organization & Environment has recently refocused its scope
to publish rigorous thinking about the complex dimensions of sustainability, including an appro-
priate balance between and among social, environmental, and economic challenges (Aragón-
Correa, 2013; Starik, 2013). A few CS articles of relevance have been published in the journal
since then (Benn, Edwards, & Angus-Leppan, 2013; Shrisvastava & Kennelly, 2013; Stead &
Stead, 2013; Zollo, Cennamo, & Neumann, 2013). A survey article like ours may therefore help
to the advancement of the CS field. To achieve our goals, we adopt an inductive approach that
presents a set of observations related to the CS field, followed by quantitative evidence from the
literature review to validate them and ending with a set of recommendations for the future. In
particular, this article analyzes the research published on CS from 1995 to 2013 in the top general
management academic and practitioner journals and specialized academic social responsibility/
sustainability/environmental management (SEM) journals. We hope that this compilation will
inform our field, and help it develop and become institutionalized.
Method
To review the CS-related articles written by management scholars, we adopted a literature search
approach based on previous review articles published in Organization & Environment (Bansal &
Gao, 2006; Montiel, 2008). The authors located articles by searching for keywords among the top
academic management journals: Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management
Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Organization Science, Journal of Management,
Management Science, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Management Studies,
Organization Studies, and British Journal of Management. All of these journals were included in
Bansal and Gao’s (2006) list, which was based on Cohen’s (2006) list of the highest quality jour-
nals. In addition, we followed Montiel (2008) in including four organizational behavior journals:
Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, and the Journal of Organizational Behavior; and one strategy journal:
Strategic Management Journal. Furthermore, we also explored the top practitioner management
journals to analyze if their CS definitions were aligned with those presented in academic jour-
nals. We used those listed in the Fortune Magazine list: Harvard Business Review, Academy of

Montiel and Delgado-Ceballos 3
Management Perspectives (formerly known as Academy of Management Executive), California

Management Review, and MIT Sloan Management Review. Finally, following Montiel’s (2008)
approach, we searched for CS-related articles in four social issues journals: Journal of Business
Ethics, Business and Society Review, Business Ethics Quarterly, and Business & Society; and in
two environmental management ones: Organization & Environment, and Business Strategy and
the Environment.
We electronically searched the above-mentioned journals for the following term in either the
abstract or the title: sustainab* (to ensure that the different variations used in the CS field such
as “sustainable development,” “sustainable strategies,” “business sustainability” or “environ-
mental sustainability,” and “sustainability,” were captured). In addition, in order to also quantify
the total amount of research published in this research stream we also searched for the keywords:
social responsibility, social performance, environmental performance, and environmental strate-
gies (including proactive and voluntary environmental strategies). We undertook this search
using the Business Source Complete database (EBSCO search engine). We limited the search to
titles and abstracts published from 1995 to 2013, nearly 20 years, ensuring that we covered the
entire period that term “CS” has been used in management research. The year 1995 is also when
the Porter hypothesis was published, which discussed how stricter environmental regulation
would trigger innovation in business (Porter & van der Linde, 1995).
Next, the authors and a research assistant individually read all of the abstracts and, if needed,
the entire article to screen them for relevance to our study. Among all our keywords, “sustain-
ability” was the most ambiguous one. The search results of the other keywords yielded few
ambiguous results; it was clear whether the articles were relevant for or not.
After each individual completed the screening, we cross-checked our findings to determine
the articles to be included in our study. To assess the level of interrater agreement we calculated
the Cohen’s kappa statistics for each set of articles published in the same journal. The three raters
agreed on most of their classifications since the Cohen’s kappa statistics ranged from 0.84 to 1.1
For the disagreements, we discussed and read them carefully to decide or not on their inclusion.
We ended up with 170 relevant articles published in top academic journals, 220 in practitioner
journals, and 1,009 in specialized SEM journals. Finally, we proceeded to read and codify their
content: definitions, theories, methods, and measures used.
Publication Trends (1995-2013)

Table 1 summarizes the number of articles found by type of journal.
Observation 1: The term “CS” is more widely used in specialized academic literature than in
practitioner and top academic management literature.
The number of articles found in top academic management journals indicates that even though
the CS-related terms are widespread in the business world, research using these terms is mainly
published in SEM journals (496 in 6 different journals over the 19-year period) rather than in
general academic journals (36 relevant articles in 15 different journals) or management practitio-
ner journals (94 relevant articles in 4 different journals). Once we broaden our search to include
keywords related to social and environmental issues we found a total of 170 articles in academic
journals and 220 in practitioner journals compared with the 1,009 articles found in SEM journals.
Looking at percentages with respect to the total numbers of articles published in those journals,
we found that the articles published in specialized SEM journals represent a 12.5% of the total
number while they only represent a 0.9% in top academic journals and a 2.2% in practitioner
journals. It is probably safe to say that CS-related articles are more present in SEM specialized
outlets, then in practitioner outlets, and last in academic ones. Figure 1 shows the evolution of

4
Table 1. Count of Corporate Sustainability–Related Articles in Top Academic, Practitioner, and Specialized Social and Environmental Management Journals
(1995-2013).
Keywords
Environmental Social
Corporate strategies/ responsibility/ Total no. of
sustainability performance performance Total articles published
Top academic management journals
Academy of Management Journala 3 8 9 20 1,352
Academy of Management Reviewb 8 1 13 22 1,227
Administrative Science Quarterly 0 2 2 4 1,162
Organization Science 1 1 0 2 1,131
Journal of Management 4 2 9 15 939
Management Science 0 2 3 5 2,613
Journal of International Business Studies 0 3 9 12 1,283
British Journal of Management 0 3 3 6 760
Organization Studies 6 3 5 14 1,822
Journal of Management Studiesc 7 8 15 30 1,271
Strategic Management Journal 3 7 16 26 1,380
Journal of Organizational Behaviord 2 5 1 8 1,222
Journal of Applied Psychologye 0 0 1 1 1,802
Personnel Psychologyf 2 0 3 5 1,731
Total 36 45 89 170 19,695
Practitioner management journals
Academy of Management Perspectivesg 7 13 14 34 1,371
Harvard Business Review 326 17 22 71 5,563

California Management Review 13 14 20 47 646
MIT Sloan Management Review 42 18 8 68 2,613
Total 94 62 64 220 10,193
(continued)
Table 1. (continued)
Keywords
Environmental Social
Corporate strategies/ responsibility/ Total no. of
sustainability performance performance Total articles published
Specialized social/environmental management journalsh
Business Ethics Quarterly 7 5 65 77 841
Journal of Business Ethics 193 41 121 354 4,607
Business & Society 22 14 88 124 520
Business & Society Review 20 6 64 90 606
Organization & Environment 56 9 3 68 720
Business Strategy and the Environment 198 93 5 294 768
Total 496 167 346 1,009 8,062
a. A special issue on “The Management of Organizations and the Natural Environment” was published in 2000.
b. A special issue on “Organizations and the Natural Environment” was published in 1995.
c. A special issue on “The Foundations of Sustainability” was published in 2012.
d. A special issue on “Greening Organizational Behavior” was published in 2013.
e. No relevant articles were found in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

f. A special issue on “Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Resource Management/Organizational Behavior” was published in 2013.
g. Formerly named Academy of Management Executive.
h. To prevent double counting for an article (e.g., an article using “sustainability” and “environmental performance” in the abstract), we prioritize the keywords as follows:
“sustainability > environmental > social.”
5
80
# OF ARTICLES
60
40 CS
ENV
SOC
20
0
1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013
YEARS
Figure 1. Publication trends in corporate sustainability (CS), environmental (ENV), and social (SOC)
issues (1995-2013).
Note. Four different special issues in Journal of Business Ethics (two issues), Journal of Organizational Behavior, and
Personnel Psychology were devoted to corporate social responsibility issues which may explain the increase of social
articles in 2013 with respect to 2012.
articles published by type: CS, environment, or socially focused. We see that in the last 5 years,
CS has received more attention (53% of the articles published) compared with 33% in social
issues and 14% in environmental ones.
Figure 2 shows the number of articles published by type of journal using each of the three
terms (CS, environment, and social) over the entire period of time.
When we calculated the percentage of articles devoted to CS-related topics by journal among
top journals we found rates of less than 2% of the articles being Strategic Management Journal,
the outlet with the highest percentage of articles (1.9%). Among practitioner journals, the top two
journals were California Management Review with 7.3% of their articles devoted to CS-related
topics and MIT Sloan Management Review with 2.6%. Among specialized SEM journals,
Business Strategy and the Environment was the top journal with 38.3% of its articles devoted to
CS-related topics.
CS-related terms such as sustainable development, sustainable business, or sustainability
were used differently in the management literature analyzed. First, some articles identify CS with
corporate environmental issues. Second, some other studies use the term to refer to corporate
social issues, that is, the social sustainability aspect of the firm. Finally, there are articles that take
the triple bottom line approach and identify CS with both social and environmental issues and
how those relate to economic sustainability.
We analyzed the use of CS-related terms in the three types of journals: top academic, practi-
tioner as well as specialized and found differences. In top academic journals, 62% of the articles
used the CS-related terms to refer to the environmental dimension of sustainability while only
26% refer to CS to include both social and environmental issues. Among articles published in
practitioner outlets, we found that 33% of the articles were about environmental sustainability
while 60% of them include both social and environmental aspects. Last, among articles in spe-
cialized SEM journals, 33% were about environmental sustainability and 52% about both social
and environmental issues. Articles analyzing solely social sustainability issues were more rare:
12% in top academic journals, 6% in practitioner journals, and 15% in specialized SEM journals.
In conclusion, we see a similar pattern used in practitioner and specialized journals. However, in
top academic journals articles, referring to the CS field as an integration of both social and

100
100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
CS Env Soc CS Env Soc
Top Academic Management Journals Practitioner Management Journals
500
400
300
200
100
0
CS Env Soc
Specialized Social/Environmental
Management Journals
Figure 2. Articles in corporate sustainability, environmental management, and corporate social
responsibility (1995-2013).
environmental issues is less present compared to articles analyzing environmental sustainability

issues. It may take longer for integrative studies to be published in top general management
journals than it took in specialized and practitioner ones.
We also would like to point out that organizational behavior journals are starting to publish on
CS. As an example, the Journal of Organization Behavior published a special issue in 2013.
From the article counts we also see that top general management journals do not seem to pay that
much attention to CS yet. One possible explanation for this finding is that CS has not matured as
a field in terms of establishing a common definition and developing a standardized method for its
measurement. Scholars may prefer to elude using a more ambiguous term like sustainability and
refer to CS issues using more widely accepted terms and specific terms such as social or environ-
mental performance. This finding is even more obvious when we compare it with the practitioner
and specialized journals where the CS term has increasingly received much attention. Another
plausible explanation for this difference is that CS is a mainly practitioner driven term that is
slowly penetrating the jargon of top academic journals.
Defining Corporate Sustainability

Several definitions of CS and corporate sustainable development have been used in the manage-
ment literature. In Table 2, Panels A and B, respectively, we present definitions that have been
published in top academic management journals and practitioner journals. These two panels may

8
Table 2. Corporate Sustainability–Related Definitions in Top Academic Management and Practitioner Management Journals.
Terminology Definition References

(A) Top Academic Management Journals
Sustaincentrism Process of achieving human development in an inclusive, connected, equitable, prudent, Gladwin, Kennelly, and Krause
and secure manner. Sustainable development components are: 1. inclusiveness (1995)
(environmental and human systems, near and far, present and future); 2. connectivity
(world’s problems interconnected and interdependent); 3. equity (fair distribution of
resources and property rights); 4. prudence (duties of care and prevention); and 5.
security (safety from chronic threats). (p. 878)
Ecological sustainability It can be achieved through four different mechanisms: 1. Total quality environmental Shrivastava (1995)
management; 2. Ecological sustainable competitive strategies; 3. Technology-for-nature
swaps; 4. Corporate population impact control.
Ecological sustainability Ability of one or more entities, either individually or collectively, to exist and flourish Starik and Rands (1995)
(either unchanged or in evolved forms) for lengthy timeframes, in such a manner that
the existence and flourishing of other collectivities of entities is permitted at related
levels and in related systems. (p. 909)
Sustainable development States that the Brundtland definition is not really a definition but a slogan; emphasizes Banerjee (2003)
that sustainable development is managed through ethnocentric, capitalistic notions of
managerial efficiency (sustainable capitalism).
Corporate sustainable Based on three principles: 1. economic prosperity; 2. social equity; and 3. environmental Bansal (2005)
development integrity. (p. 198; see more detail in Table 4).
Corporate sustainability Refers to the 1987 Brundtland’s definition: development that meets the needs of the Sharma and Henriques (2005)
present without compromising the ability for future generations to meet their own
needs.
Sustainability Building a society in which a proper balance is created between economic, social, and Szekely and Knirsch (2005)
ecological aims. For businesses, this involves sustaining and expanding economic growth,

shareholder value, prestige, corporate reputation, customer relationships, and the
quality of products and services. It also means adopting and pursuing ethical business
practices, creating sustainable jobs, building value for all of the company’s stakeholders,
and attending to the needs of the underserved. (p. 628)
Corporate sustainability The ability of a firm to nurture and support growth over time by effectively meeting the Neubaum and Zahra (2006)
expectations of diverse stakeholders. (p. 121)
(continued)
Terminology Definition References

Sustainable development One of the three key strategic capabilities in the natural resource–based view (NRBV) Hart and Dowell (2011)
(along with pollution prevention and product stewardship); has evolved in two distinct
areas: clean technology and base of the pyramid (BoP) strategies. (p. 1470)
Sustaincentric orientation An ongoing process of equitably including a highly interconnected set of seemingly Valente (2012, based on
incompatible social, ecological, and economic systems through collaborative theorization Gladwin et al., 1995)
of coordinated approaches that harness the collective cognitive and operational
capabilities of multiple local and global social, ecological, and economic stakeholders
operating as a unified network or system. (p. 586)
(B) Practitioner Management Journals
“Ideal” sustainable organization Takes a systems perspective to describe organization that will not use natural resources Marshall and Brown (2003)
faster than the rates of renewal, recycling, or regeneration of those resources. (p. 122)
Sustainable organization One whose characteristics and actions are designed to lead a “desirable future state” for Funk (2003)
all stakeholders. (p. 65)
Sustainable development Must incorporate the added constraints of social and environmental pressures as well as Hall and Vredenburg (2003)
innovation (SDI) consider future generations. SDI is therefore more complex (because there is typically
a wider range of stakeholders) and more ambiguous (as many of the parties have
contradictory demands). (p. 61)
Sustainable enterprise Contributes to sustainable development by delivering simultaneously economic, social, Hart and Milstein (2003)
and environmental benefits. Sustainable development is the process of achieving human
development in an inclusive, connected, equitable, prudent and secure manner. (p. 56)

Sustainability Firms need to integrate six perspectives: 1. Regulatory compliance; 2. Incremental Markevich (2009)
mitigation; 3. Value alignment; 4. Whole system design; 5. Business model innovation,
and 6. Mission transformation. (pp. 13-14)
Sustainability Firms need to encompass a focus on human as well as physical resources. (p. 35) Pfeffer (2010)
Sustainability Based on the GRI [Global Reporting Initiative] Framework, sustainability not only Peloza, Loock, Cerruti, and
encompasses aspects such as philanthropy and pollution but also a broad range of social, Muyot (2012)
environmental, and governance metrics. (p. 76)
9
be seen as indicators of how and which CS definitions have crossed over from a specialized CS
discussion to the general management publications.
Observation 2: A standardized definition of CS does not exist.
The origin of the CS concept is mainly linked to the Brundtland report’s (WCED, 1987) defi-
nition of “sustainable development” as “development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability for future generations to meet their own needs.” One of the definitional
components of CS relates to the long-term perspective described in Brundtland report (WCED,
1987).
The concept first appeared in the general management literature in 1995 when Gladwin,
Kennelly, and Krause (1995) described sustainable development as a process of achieving human
development in an inclusive, connected, equitable, prudent, and secure manner. However, the
first attempts to operationalize the construct did not appear until 10 years later. In 2005, Bansal
(2005) defined “corporate sustainable development” as a tridimensional construct based on eco-
nomic prosperity, social equity, and environmental integrity. The same year, Szekely and Knirsch
(2005) defined the meaning of sustainability for businesses as
sustaining and expanding economic growth, shareholder value, prestige, corporate reputation,
customer relationships, and the quality of products and services as well as adopting and pursuing
ethical business practices, creating sustainable jobs, building value for all the stakeholders and
attending the needs of the underserved. (p. 628)
More recently, Hart and Dowell (2011) claim that sustainable development is one of the three
natural resource–based view’s (NRBV) key strategic capabilities (along with pollution preven-
tion and product stewardship). According to Hart and Dowell (2011), this strategic capability
evolved in two distinct areas: clean technology and base-of-the-pyramid strategies. They state
that a sustainable development strategy “does not merely seek to do less environmental damage
but to actually produce in a way that can be maintained indefinitely into the future” (2011, p.
1466). They also remind us that sustainable development
is not restricted to environmental concerns but also involves focusing on economic and social
concerns. Since economic activity in developed countries is intimately connected with issues of
poverty and degradation in less-developed countries, a strategy that considers sustainable development
must recognize this link and act to reduce the environmental burden and increase the economic
benefits for the lesser developed markets affected by the firm’s activities. (Hart & Dowell, p. 1466)
The most recent definition refers to the “sustaincentric” orientation of the firm (Valente,
2012), which is described as a step toward a proactive orientation to sustainability. Firms need to
find ways to interconnect social, economic, and ecological systems using “coordinated approaches
that harness the collective cognitive and operational capabilities of multiple local and global
social, ecological, and economic stakeholders operating as unified network or system” (p. 586).
In a way, Valente (2012) suggests that a new paradigm beyond what firms are currently thinking
and implementing with respect to CS has yet to emerge.
Discussions about CS in the practitioner literature also refer to the Brundtland definition of
sustainable development (Bansal, 2002). However, even though it is the definition par excellence
it is found to not provide any guide for action (Marshall & Brown, 2003). One interesting defini-
tion of the “ideal” sustainable organization from a systems perspective describes the organization
as one that will not use natural resources faster than the rates of renewal, recycling, or regenera-
tion of those resources (Marshall & Brown, 2003). Another definition identifies six different

perspectives encompassing CS: regulatory compliance, incremental mitigation, value alignment,

whole system design, business model innovation, and mission transformation (Markevich, 2009).
The integration of insights from these six perspectives will help firms progressing toward
sustainability.
Finally, we also found critics of Brundtland’s definition of sustainable development. Banerjee
(2003) states that the definition is a slogan emphasizing the need for development through capi-
talistic notions of managerial efficiency rather than taking an “ecocentric” approach.
Commonalities and Differences Among Corporate Sustainability Definitions

Researchers (e.g., Hart & Dowell, 2011; Hart & Milstein, 2003) claim that CS is a complex con-
cept. Evidence for that claim can be seen in most of the CS definitions found in both academic
and practitioner journals. As an example, Szekely and Knirsch’s (2005) definition calls for the
need to balance the three CS pillars to then list 10 different dimensions to be sustained: (a) eco-
nomic growth, (b) shareholder value, (c) prestige, (d) corporate reputation, (e) customer relation-
ships, (f) product quality, (g) ethical business practices, (h) sustainable jobs creation, (i) value
creation for all the stakeholders, and (j) attention to the need of the underserved. Even though we
would agree on the need to sustain all these different dimensions, this description may seem
overwhelming to the eyes of any researcher attempting to measure firms’ CS.
Our literature review also shows that there is ambiguity about whether CS should be a tridi-
mensional construct (economic, social, and environmental), a bidimensional one (social and
environmental), or a synonym for environmental management. Some scholars identify the con-
cept of CS exclusively in terms of its environmental dimension (Marshall & Brown, 2003). In
other words, they view it as a synonym for environmental management. Other scholars refer to
both social and environmental issues of CS (Hall & Vredenburg, 2003). Finally, a large propor-
tion of scholars agree on the definition that encompasses economic, social, and environmental
dimensions (e.g., Bansal, 2005; Hart & Milstein, 2003). These scholars use different terminolo-
gies, such as “Triple Bottom Line” or the “3Ps” of people, planet, and profit.
To minimize this ambiguity, we propose using “corporate sustainability” for the tridimen-
sional construct and “corporate environmental sustainability” when the focus is on the environ-
mental aspects. In fact, the first mentions of CS in management literature are found in 1995 when
scholars introduced “ecological sustainability” (Shrivastava, 1995; Starik & Rands, 1995).
Likewise, if one aims to only analyze economic or social aspects, the correct terms to use would
be corporate economic sustainability or corporate social sustainability, respectively.
If we compare definitions presented in academic journals (see Table 2) with definitions in
practitioner journals (see Table 2, Panel B) a few differences are found. Practitioner-focused defi-
nitions tend to be more prescriptive trying to provide guidelines to managers on how to pursue
CS while academic-focused definitions tend to be more holistic, complex, and philosophical with
the exception of a few empirical studies that have worked on operationalizing their CS theoreti-
cal constructs (e.g., Bansal, 2005).
We would like to point out that other terms have also been used which may become popular
in the future such as “environmental CSR” (Flammer, 2013), or “shared value creation” (Porter
& Kramer, 2011). The concept of shared value is defined as “policies and practices that enhance
the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social con-
ditions in the communities in which operates” (Porter & Kramer, 2011, p. 65).
Finally, the existence of variability in the way scholars define CS can be seen as confusing but
can also be considered an advantage because of the novelty of the term. The openness to accept
different types of definitions during the early stages of CS field may have contributed to a richer
discussion to the development of the field.

The Organizational Theories We Use

Our literature review also revealed that CS scholars have used different approaches when con-
ceptualizing CS: traditional organizational theories or new theoretical frameworks.
Observation 3: CS has been conceptualized using different theoretical approaches.
Our survey of articles shows three types of studies in terms of their theoretical contribution.
First, we find phenomena-driven (fact-centered) studies that do not frame their analyses within
any of the traditional organizational theories. Instead, they describe facts or case studies, and
draw conclusions from the observed phenomena. Second, we identify some studies that are
framed within traditional organizational theories, mainly stakeholder theory, institutional the-
ory, or the resource-based view (RBV). Third, some studies suggest new theoretical frameworks
such as sustaincentrism (Gladwin et al., 1995; Valente, 2012). To provide some quantitative
evidence, out of 170 articles published in top academic journals 18% applied stakeholder the-
ory, 17% institutional theory, and 10% RBV theory of the firm. In addition, 5% introduced new
CS theoretical frameworks such as sustaincentrism and the ecocentric view of the firm. The
remaining 42% articles used either other theories such as strategic planning and proactivity
(Aragón-Correa, 1998), environmental differentiation (Delmas, Russo, & Montes-Sancho,
2007), and social capital theories (Muthuri, Matten, & Moon, 2009), or no specific theoretical
framework (fact-centered studies). Next, we provide an overview of how the three most widely
used organizational theories have been applied to the CS field as well as a summary of the new
theoretical frameworks for CS. For a comprehensive review of theories in CS see Starik and
Kanashiro (2013).
Stakeholder Theory
One of the main premises of stakeholder theory is that managers must keep both share-
holders’ and stakeholders’ interests in mind when implementing new strategies (e.g.,
Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Freeman, 1984; Harrison & Freeman, 1999). For this reason,
CS researchers extensively used stakeholder theory to explain firms’ drivers for undertak-
ing CS strategies (e.g., Brammer & Millington, 2004; Kang, 2013; Kock, Santaló, &
Diestre, 2012).
Literature also focused on how stakeholders influence firms’ CS behavior (e.g., Barnett, 2007;
Barnett & Salomon, 2012; Delmas & Toffel, 2008; Frooman, 1999; Kassinis & Vafeas, 2006;
Sharma & Henriques, 2005). For example, Sharma and Henriques (2005) showed how stake-
holder pressures made the adoption of advanced environmental practices in the Canadian forestry
industry possible. Kassinis and Vafeas (2006) found a positive relationship between community
stakeholder pressures and environmental performance at the plant level. Neubaum and Zahra
(2006) examined how some characteristics of institutional investors—key stakeholders—affect
the relationship between institutional ownership and corporate social performance. Finally, other
studies have paid attention to stakeholder activism (den Hond & de Bakker, 2007), NGOs and
political institutions (Doh & Guay, 2006), and the role of the financial industry in spreading CS
practices in corporations (Neubaum & Zahra, 2006).
In addition, researchers have also drawn their attention to the connection between proactive
environmental strategies and stakeholder management (e.g., Buysse & Verbeke, 2003; Darnall,
Henriques, & Sadorsky, 2010; Rueda-Manzanares, Aragón-Correa, & Sharma, 2008) and, even,
considered stakeholder integration as a key factor for achieving environmental CS (e.g., Delgado-
Ceballos, Aragón-Correa, Ortiz-de-Mandojana, & Rueda-Manzaneras, 2012).

Institutional Theory
CS scholars also find the premises of institutional theory helpful to explain institutionalization
processes surrounding the emergence of sustainable industries (Russo, 2003) and the adoption of
CS-related practices (Campbell, 2007). Several studies also applied institutional theory in analy-
ses of sustainability reporting (Jensen & Berg, 2012; Pérez-Batres, Miller, & Pisani, 2010; Smith
& Lewis, 2011), third-party ratings (Chatterji & Toffel, 2010), green innovations (Aguilera-
Caracuel & Ortiz-de-Mandojana, 2013), and certifiable sustainability standards (Christmann &
Taylor, 2001; Delmas & Montes-Sancho, 2011; King, Lenox, & Terlaak, 2005; Montiel, Husted,
& Christmann, 2012). For example, Etzion and Ferraro (2010) applied institutional entrepreneur-
ship to study the institutionalization processes that drove the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
to become a legitimate CS reporting standard. Reinecke et al. (2012) explained the coexistence
of multiple sustainability standards in the coffee industry as a product of two countervailing
mechanisms of convergence and differentiation.
Looking at the social aspects of sustainability, Husted and Allen (2006) found that institu-
tional pressures are more important than the strategic analysis of stakeholders when multina-
tional enterprises were implementing CSR practices abroad. Matten and Moon (2008) used
institutional theory to conceptualize how socially responsible practices vary across different
countries. Chiu and Sharfman (2011) studied the impact of organizational visibility in corporate
social performance. Last, Surroca, Tribó, and Zahra (2013) found evidence for the “pollution
haven” hypothesis, showing that in some instances multinational enterprises transfer socially
irresponsible practices to some of their foreign subsidiaries.
In the context of the environmental dimension of sustainability, institutional theory has also
helped to understand different phenomena. Hoffman (1999) analyzed the chemical industry to
provide a better understanding of how the corporate environmentalism process developed during
1960 to 1993 in the United States. Bansal and Clelland (2004) analyzed one hundred firms over
a 5-year period to find that environmentally legitimate firms incur less stock market risk that
firms considered more environmentally illegitimate. Ramus and Montiel (2005) predicted the
circumstances under which firms in different industry sectors are likely to implement environ-
mentally sustainable policies symbolically or substantially. Schaefer (2007) conceptualized the
adoption of environmental management systems in the U.K. water industry using four explana-
tory factors: external institutional forces, internal institutional forces, environmental performance
issues, and economic performance issues. Finally, Berrone and Gomez-Mejia (2009) studied
whether environmental governance mechanisms improved environmental strategies and perfor-
mance but did not find positive results.
Resource-Based View
In 1995, Hart extended the premises of the RBV of the firm to include the natural environment.
He named this new theory the “natural resource–based view” (NRBV) of the firm. Hart and
Dowell (2011) assessed the work that built on the NRBV and the strategic capabilities described
in Hart’s (1995) view: pollution prevention, product stewardship, clean technology, and the base
of the pyramid. They found those capabilities to be closely related to the social and the environ-
mental dimensions of CS. In fact, Hart and Dowell (2011) highlighted the difficulties of defining
sustainable development for business, and pointed out the need for more research in the areas of
clean technology and the base of the pyramid.
A couple of examples of scholars using RBV to analyze aspects related to the social dimension
of CS were found. McWilliams and Siegel (2011) integrated RBV with economic models of
private provision of public goods and pricing models to demonstrate how RBV may provide a
structure to determine the strategic value of CSR. Deniz-Deniz and Saa-Pérez (2003) empirically

assessed how social responsiveness policies toward employees increased profitability among the
Spanish banking sector. Bowen (2007) compared the diverging uses of RBV and behavioral theo-
ries of the firm in corporate social strategy studies.
However, most CS studies using RBV focused on the environmental dimension of CS. For
example, Russo and Fouts (1997) found evidence that “it pays to be green” and that this relation-
ship between environmental and financial performance strengthened with industry growth.
Aragón-Correa and Sharma (2003) expanded the NRBV by proposing how the competitive envi-
ronment influences proactive environmental strategies. Other CS studies that built on the NRBV
are Rueda-Manzanares et al. (2008), Chan (2005), Judge and Douglas (1998), Klassen and
Whybark (1999), and Rugman and Verbeke (1998).
New Theory for Corporate Sustainability

Bansal and Gao (2006) emphasized the opportunity that CS scholars have to push new theoretical
and frontiers based on insights that are unique to the natural environment. We found that some
CS researchers have created new theoretical constructs that conceptualize the “sustainable devel-
opment” for businesses. Gladwin et al. (1995) introduced the term sustaincentrism as the process
of achieving human development in an inclusive, connected, equitable, prudent, and secure man-
ner. Sustainable development components are (a) inclusiveness (environmental and human sys-
tems, near and far, present and future), (b) connectivity (world’s problems interconnected and
interdependent), (c) equity (fair distribution of resources and property rights), (d) prudence
(duties of care and prevention), and (e) security (safety from chronic threats). Seventeen years
later, Valente (2012) validated the term sustaincentric orientation by empirically analyzing the
factors that may explain its adoption.
Also in 1995, the term ecological sustainability was introduced in a special issue published by
the Academy of Management Review. Starik and Rands (1995) wrote about the ability of organi-
zations to exist and flourish for lengthy timeframes and Shrivastava (1995) described that the
way to achieve sustainability was through the integration of four mechanisms: (a) total quality
environmental management, (b) ecological sustainable competitive strategies, (c) technology-
for-nature swaps, and (d) corporate population impact control.
In another attempt to adapt sustainable development into the business world, Bansal (2005)
introduced “corporate sustainable development” as a tridimensional construct composed of (a)
economic prosperity achieved through value creation, (b) social equity through corporate social
responsibility, and (c) environmental integrity through corporate environmental management. By
integrating three different management fields (value creation, CSR, and environmental manage-
ment) Bansal (2005) is able to propose her new theoretical construct.
Commonalities and Differences on the Use of Theories

In summary, we realized that each of the traditional organizational theories applied has been use-
ful for a particular purpose when applied to CS-related research questions. Stakeholder theory
has been applied to analyze drivers for CS because one of the stakeholder theory’s axioms is that
a firm should pursue stakeholders’ interests. Institutional theory is a good theory to explain the
evolution, diffusion of institutionalization of different CS practices when firms seek for legiti-
macy. Finally, the RBV is applied to provide a better understanding on how firms’ capabilities
can be used for the advancement of CS-related strategies within the firm. Each theory serves a
different purpose to advance in the understanding of CS.2
Those authors who introduced new CS theories focus on challenging the status quo by propos-
ing a more ecocentric (sustaincentric) business paradigm (nature-focused) rather than the current
anthropocentric (human-focused) business world (Gladwin et al., 1995; Valente, 2012).

Measuring Corporate Sustainability

Finally, from our literature review, we are able to present the different approaches used when
trying to value and measure the level of sustainability at the organizational level. Studies working
toward the improvement of measures of a particular CS dimension exist (e.g., for the environ-
mental dimensions, see Walls, Berrone, & Phan, 2011; Delmas, Etzion, & Nairn-Birch, 2013).
However, our purpose is to analyze those studies that have attempted to measure the three CS
dimensions simultaneously.
Observation 4: A standardized method to measure CS does not exist.
The review highlighted that one of the most important challenges in the CS field is to find a
standard method for valuing CS. Most CS-focused articles either described facts or present case
studies of “success” (e.g., Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008). CS empirical articles tend to rely on data
provided by different sources, such as the Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini (KLD) Indices, the
GRI, or the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI). Although there seems to be some agreement
on how to measure the environmental dimension of CS, it is unclear how the economic and social
dimensions can be best measured. For instance, some studies analyzing firms’ environmental
performance in the U.S. context that have been published in top academic journals used the
EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory as their data source (Berchicci, Dowell, & King, 2012; Berrone,
Cruz, Gomez-Mejia, & Larraza-Kintana., 2010; Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009; Kassinis &
Vafeas, 2006; King et al., 2005; Klassen & Whybark, 1999; Russo & Harrison, 2005). However,
in our analysis we were mainly interested in those CS measurement tools measuring the three
pillars: economic, social, and environmental.
In this section, we provide examples of the two main empirical approaches used to measure
CS. Several academic articles use secondary sources of data compiled by different types of insti-
tutions to analyze and compare firms’ CS. Other researchers created their own constructs and
scales to measure the three pillars of CS.
Outsourcing Corporate Sustainability Measures

Most of the empirical studies on CS outsourced the measurement of CS dimensions. By “out-
sourcing,” we mean that they used external organizations that had already created scales and
instruments to quantify the level of CS achieved by different companies. Table 3 summarizes the
most widely applied secondary sources of CS used in extant studies and lists the variables that
they quantify for each of the three sustainability dimensions.
The rating systems created by different organizations serve as one source of CS information.
Examples include KLD, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index/SAM, the Ethibel Sustainability
Index, and the Calvert Social Index (e.g., Fowler & Hope, 2007). Other sources are CS reporting
guidelines and codes of conduct such as the GRI and the United Nations Global Compact.
Researchers in the management field (e.g., Bos-Brouwers, 2010; Kurapatskie & Darnall, 2013;
Weber, 2012) mainly used KLD ratings, the DJSI, and the GRI to measure CS and to compare
firms’ CS performance. For instance, out of the 111 empirical studies published in top academic
journals, 29% used primary data (interviews or surveys) to construct their CS measures, 26%
used the KLD indices as their CS measure, and 8% discussed particular cases. The remaining
articles used all sorts of different instruments such as GRI, DJSI, Sustainalytics, or Environics.
In addition, 7% of the empirical studies used the U.S. EPA Toxic Release Inventory to account
for the environmental dimension of CS. DJSI and GRI have also been extensively used but
mainly in studies published in specialized journals rather than in top academic management jour-
nals (see Table 3).

16
Table 3. Examples of Corporate Sustainability Measures From Secondary Sources.
Source Measures Selected studies
Kinder, Lydenberg, and 1. Corporate governance Agle, Mitchell, and Sonnenfeld (1999) Doh, Howton, Howton, and Siegel (2010) Reid and Toffel (2009)
Domini (KLD) 2. Product quality and safety Barnett and Salomon (2012) Hillman and Keim (2001) Strike, Gao, and Bansal (2006)
FTSE KLD 400 Social Index 3. Employee relations Campbell, Eden, and Miller (2012) Hull and Rothenberg (2008) Turban and Greening (1997)
4. Diversity Dahlmann and Brammer (2011) Jayachandran, Kalaignanam, and Eilert (2013) Waddock and Graves (1997)
5. Human rights David, Bloom, and Hillman (2007) Johnson and Greening (1999) Walls, Berrone, and Phan (2012)
6. Community relations De Villiers, Naiker, and van Staden Kang (2013) Wong, Ormiston, and Tetlock
7. Environment (2011) Neubaum and Zahra (2006) (2011)
Delmas, Etzion, and Nairn-Birch (2013)
Dow Jones Sustainability Economic

Index 1. Corporate governance Cheung (2011)
SAM Corporate 2. Risk and crisis management Consolandi, Jaiswal-Dale, Poggiani, and
Sustainability Assessment 3. Codes of conduct/compliance/corruption Vercelli (2009)
Dow Jones Sustainability and bribery Hartman, Rubin, and Dhanda (2007)
Index EURO STOXX 4. Customer-relationship management Kurapatskie and Darnall (2013)

5. Brand management Lackmann, Ernstberger, and Stich (2012)

6. Supply chain management Maas and Liket (2011)
7. Privacy protection
Social

1. Social reporting

2. Labor practice indicators and human rights

3. Human capital development

4. Talent attraction and retention

5. Corporate citizenship philanthropy

6. Stakeholder engagement

Environmental
1. Environmental reporting

2. Environmental policy/management system
3. Operational eco-efficiency

(continued)
Source Measures Selected studies
Global Reporting Initiative Economic

1. Economic performance Bos-Brouwers (2010)
2. Market presence Etzion and Ferraro (2010)
3. Indirect economic impacts Fifka and Drabble (2012)
Social Jensen and Berg (2012)
Pérez-Batres, Miller, and Pisani (2010)
1. Labor practices and decent work
Weber (2012)
2. Human rights
3. Society
4. Product responsibility
Environmental
1. Materials
2. Energy
3. Water
4. Biodiversity
5. Emissions, effluents and waste

6. Products and services

7. Compliance
8. Transport


17
KLD is an independent rating services that analyzes companies’ social and environmental
behavior using seven different dimensions: corporate governance, product quality and safety,
employee relations, diversity, human rights, community relations, and environment. The KLD
index is the most widely used resource to assess the relationship between social performance and
financial performance (e.g., Jayachandran, Kalaignanam, & Eilert, 2013; Waddock & Graves,
1997). For example, studies used KLD to measure firms’ CSR (e.g., Barnett & Salomon, 2012;
David, Bloom, & Hillman, 2007; Neubaum & Zahra, 2006), product quality dimensions of cor-
porate social performance (Johnson & Greening, 1999), or environmental performance (Walls,
Berrone, & Phan, 2012). Chen and Delmas (2011) listed different studies using KLD data.
The DJSI is maintained collaboratively by Standard & Poor’s, Dow Jones Indices, and SAM.
In addition to the global index, indices are published for Europe, North America, Asia Pacific,
and South Korea. DJSI uses a best-in-class approach and measures the performance of sustain-
ability leaders around the world. According to the DJSI webpage,
companies are selected for the indices based on a comprehensive assessment of long-term economic,
environmental and social criteria that account for general as well as industry-specific sustainability
trends. Only firms that lead their industries based on this assessment are included in the indices.
(Dow Jones Sustainability Indices, 2013)
Management researchers used DJSI to identify exemplary sustainable corporations (e.g.,

Hartman, Rubin, & Dhanda, 2009) and as a proxy for CS when examining the relationship
between firm performance and CS (Cheung, 2011; Consolandi, Jaiswal-Dale, Poggiani, &
Vercelli, 2009).
GRI is a nonprofit organization that aims to guide firms on the creation of standardized sus-
tainability reports. GRI divides CS into three areas: economic (economic performance, market
presence, indirect economic impacts), environment (materials; energy; water; biodiversity; emis-
sions, effluents, and waste; products and services; compliance; transport; and overall), and social
(labor practices and decent work, human rights, society, product responsibility). Researchers
consider GRI to be a leading guideline for creating sustainability reports and for analyzing firms’
sustainability reports. For example, Bos-Brouwers (2010) claims that the PRIMA Barometer, “an
instrument to gain insight into the sustainable innovation activities” (p. 422), uses GRI’s guide-
lines for its design. Fifka and Drabble (2012) examine firms’ sustainability reports in Finland and
the United Kingdom, considering GRI performance indicators for the economic, environmental,
and social spheres of sustainability as indicators. In addition, Pérez-Batres et al. (2010) aim to
better understand the drivers that make firms register with GRI. They conclude that environmen-
tal pressures work and that GRI helps firms to maintain their sustainable development
legitimacy.
We also found a few studies using sustainability certifications such as the international envi-
ronmental management standard ISO 14001 as a proxy for the environmental dimension of sus-
tainability (e.g., Delmas & Montiel, 2009; Delmas & Pekovic, 2013).
Creating Corporate Sustainability Measures

Researchers have also collected their own primary data on CS and created their own CS con-
structs. We would like to highlight two of those studies that have explicitly proposed items to
measure each of the three CS dimensions. First, Bansal (2005) created 22 items to measure CS
development: 6 economic prosperity items, 6 social equity items, and 10 environmental integrity
items. Chow and Chen (2012) applied the same list of items in the Chinese business context.
Second, Kolk, Hong, and van Dolen (2010) also examined companies in the Chinese context and
proposed three economic dimensions, eight social dimensions, and three environmental dimen-
sions. In Table 4, we list the items for each of the three pillars.

Table 4. The Three Dimensions of Corporate Sustainability.
Dow Jones Sustainability Index Global Reporting Initiative Bansal (2005) Kolk, Hong, and van Dolen (2010)
Economic 1. Corporate governance 1. Economic performance 1. Established government relations 1. Employee compensation
2. Codes of conduct/compliance, 2. Market presence 2. Reduced costs of inputs 2. Donation/community spending
corruption, and bribery 3. Indirect economic impacts 3. Reduced costs for waste management for same 3. Local sourcing/local hiring/taxation
3. Risk and crisis management level of outputs
4. Customer relationship management 4. Used waste for revenue

5. Innovation management 5. Differentiated product on environmental

performance
6. Created spin-off technologies
Social 1. Human capital development 1. Labor practices and decent work 1. Considered stakeholder interests 1. Labor/management relations
2. Talent attraction and retention 2. Human rights 2. Communicated environmental risk 2. Occupational health and safety
3. Occupational health and safety 3. Society 3. Improved health and safety issues 3. Training
4. Stakeholder engagement 4. Product responsibility 4. Protected local communities’ rights 4. Equal opportunity
5. Social reporting 5. Improved facility’s visual aspect 5. Child labor/force labor
6. Funded local community projects 6. Society: community, volunteer program
7. Society: corruption, equality, and mutual
benefit
8. Product responsibility: consumer health and
safety, labeling, marketing communities
Environmental 1. Environmental management system 1. Materials 1. Reduced products’ harmful environmental 1. Recyclable materials
2. Environmental performance 2. Energy impacts 2. Energy conservation
3. Climate strategy 3. Water 2. Reduced environmentally damaging inputs 3. Emissions and waste
4. Product stewardship 4. Biodiversity 3. Used inputs from renewable sources
5. Biodiversity 5. Emissions, effluents, and waste 4. Reduced environmental impacts of processes
6. Products and services
5. Reduced operations in environmentally sensitive
7. Compliance
locations

8. Transport
6. Reduced likelihood of environmental accidents
9. Overall
7. Reduced waste
8. Re-used waste
9. Disposed waste responsibly
10. Handled toxic waste responsibly
19
Commonalities and Differences Among Corporate Sustainability Measures

Table 4 provides a quick overview that compares the different items integrated in each of the
three CS dimensions by different sources. In this table, we choose to compare only those sources
that have explicitly divided their variables into the three dimensions: economic, social, and envi-
ronmental. We therefore compare DJSI versus GRI first to then compare Bansal (2005) versus
Kolk et al. (2010). We found several common variables between the different tools but we would
like to point out what stands as different among them.
Among the secondary sources used by scholars to account for CS, corporate governance3
aspects are used as an item in the economic sustainability component in the DJSI but not in GRI.
Another difference is that GRI is concerned with “indirect” economic impacts that are not men-
tioned by the DJSI. Looking at the social dimension, DJSI is concerned with attracting and
developing employees, engaging stakeholders and reporting social issues while GRI is more
concerned with broader human rights and impacts on society. In the environmental dimension,
GRI seems more exhaustive than the DJSI. Environmental compliance is listed in GRI but not in
the DJSI. Interestingly, both CS tools include “product responsibility/stewardship” but classify it
differently, GRI in the social dimension and DJSI in the environmental one.
Regarding the primary sources, although some similarities are evident between the systems
used by Bansal (2005) and Kolk et al. (2010) to operationalize the economic, social, and environ-
mental items, some aspects are considered by one study but not the other. For example, Bansal
(2005) considers reducing cost of inputs and waste management for the same level of outputs in
the economic dimension, while Kolk et al. (2010) emphasize employee compensation and local
practices (sourcing and hiring) as important items in this dimension. Overall there seems to be
more agreement in these two primary sources than in the secondary sources.
Conclusions
This literature review article aims to advance on the understanding of the CS field as studied by
management scholars. First, we quantified the number of articles published in top general man-
agement journals, practitioner management journals as well as specialized SEM journals. Our
results show that practitioners and specialized SEM journals pay more attention to CS than the
general management ones. Second, we identified different CS definitions emphasizing one, two
or the three dimensions: economic, social, and environmental. We proposed the use of alterna-
tives terms such as “corporate environmental sustainability” when referring to the environmental
aspects of sustainability. Third, we identified three different approaches used by management
scholars when theorizing CS: (a) phenomena driven studies, (b) studies using traditional organi-
zational theories (e.g., stakeholder theory, institutional theory and resource based view) and, (c)
studies suggesting new theoretical frameworks for CS. Last, we summarized the main primary-
and secondary-based measures used by scholars to value CS.
Overall, we conclude that, to date, academic research has failed to effectively inform manage-
ment practice about sustainable development (e.g., Bansal, Bertels, Ewart, MacConnachie, &
O’Brien, 2013; Hart & Dowell, 2011).4 One issue scholars may examine further is whether the
CS phenomenon is driven by business practitioners or by business scholars. Who defines and
standardizes CS definitions and measurements? If CS is a practitioner-driven phenomenon,
scholars need to ask what contribution they can make to the CS field. Should we wait to see how
companies develop their CS approaches and then analyze the effectiveness of those approaches?
Should we take a prescriptive role and design standardized metrics for companies to use when
evaluating their CS levels? These are important questions that need to be addressed in order to
guarantee that our work in this field makes practical contributions to the business world and that
it does not get lost in the myriad published research. Our study shows that most discussion on CS

is taking place in practitioner journals which may indicate that the evolution of the CS field is
business driven. In addition, there is the issue of the weighting of each of the dimensions. Are the
three dimensions—economic, environmental, and social—equally important? Similarly, do the
different items within each of the dimensions deserve equal weights? These are questions that we
would need to address in the further development of our field.
As actors in a new field, CS researchers may have opportunities to reach out to other scholars
and disciplines to navigate the “sustainability jungle.” Similarly, some of the measures and con-
structs developed by scholars in other disciplines may be useful in the CS field. At this stage, we
think that our goal should be to work toward standardization of the field.
However, as mentioned earlier, we find ourselves in an early stage of the field’s development
and the fact that we do not have closure on the exact definition might not be problematic. Ansell
(2011) emphasized that metaconcepts such as “sustainable” are helpful because they are ambigu-
ous, facilitating conversation and collaboration among diverse groups and social worlds. The
question becomes then: Is it sustainable to keep CS as a metaconcept without a standardized defi-
nition and measurement method?
This study is not without limitations. One noteworthy aspect of our literature search, which
may be seen as a limitation, is that we were interested in research that used, defined and/or
measured sustainability aspects of the firm. Therefore, other related research did not appear
in the search unless they use one of our keywords. For instance, there may be some CS-related
studies devoted to topics such as energy conservation or renewable energy that if they did not
use any of our keywords may not appear in this review. However, we are confident that most
of the CS-relevant articles have been tracked down with our set of keywords. We also note
that this literature review has only looked at the ongoing discussion in the top academic and
practitioner management publications, as our goal was to analyze how CS is being integrated
into the management and business organization field. However, sustainability is a broad con-
cept explored from other perspectives, such as economics, policy, law, and natural science–
based disciplines, including environmental sciences, and biology. Even other business
subdisciplines such as accounting, operations management, or marketing are contributing to
CS discussions.
Finally, we envision a process through which nonfinancial information (sustainability data,
including social and environmental data) can become part of the core business, and through
which a standardized system of nonfinancial performance accounting and reporting can evolve.
We can easily compare the financial performance of two firms by looking at their financial state-
ments (balance sheets, income statements, etc.). In the future, we hope to have “sustainability
balance sheets and statements,” which will allow us to objectively value firms’ nonfinancial
performance, and to compare firms and sectors. However, these “sustainability balance sheets”
will surely be more complex to design, complete, and update due to the long-term considerations
of CS. Some of the parameters will need to account for long-term issues, such as the status quo
relative to past performance (e.g., the present vs. the situation 10 years ago). Even though achiev-
ing such CS accountability will present challenges, we believe that it will be easier to institution-
alize over time once the CS indicators have been agreed.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank J. Alberto Aragón-Correa, Magali Delmas, Alex Holiday, Natalia Ortiz-de-
Mandojana, Raquel Antolín-López, Aina Cabra, José Luis Gastón, and Yulia Shapovalova for their support
and assistance. They also thank two anonymous reviewers and the Organization & Environment team for
the guidance on all the publication process. Javier Delgado-Ceballos was a visiting scholar at Loyola
Marymount University during Fall of 2012 and thanks the members of the Department of Management for
their assistance.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article: This research was partially funded by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Science and
Innovation (Project ECO2012-31780) and the Regional Government of Andalucía (Excellence Research
Project P10-SEJ-6765).
Notes
1. A Cohen’s kappa of “1” means 100% agreement.
2. We would like to thank one of our reviewers for pointing out the need to emphasize that each tradi-
tional organization theory served a different purpose.
3. In fact, some rating agencies such as Innovest consider Governance as the fourth dimension of CS.
4. Some organizations such as the Network for Business Sustainability (nbs.net) are already working
towards translating CS academic research for practitioners.
References
Agle, B., Mitchell, R., & Sonnenfeld, J. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder
attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal,
42, 507-525.
Aguilera-Caracuel, J., & Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N. (2013). Green innovation and financial performance: An
institutional approach. Organization & Environment, 26, 365-385.
Ansell, C. K. (2011). Pragmatist democracy: Evolutionary learning as public philosophy. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Aragón-Correa, J. A. (1998). Strategic proactivity and firm approach to the natural environment. Academy
of Management Journal, 41, 558-567.
Aragón-Correa, J. A. (2013). Beyond ourselves: Building bridges to generate real progress on sustainability
management issues. Organization & Environment, 26, 3-6.
Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. (2003). A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate envi-
ronmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28, 71-88.
Banerjee, S. B. (2003). Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of
nature. Organization Studies, 24, 143-180.
Bansal, P. (2002). The corporate challenges of sustainable development. Academy of Management
Executive, 16(2), 122-131.
Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development.
Strategic Management Journal, 26, 197-218.
Bansal, P., Bertels, S., Ewart, T., MacConnachie, P., & O’Brien, J. (2012). Bridging the research-practice
gap. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(1), 73-93.
Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. (2004). Taking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk
in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 93-103.
Bansal, P., & Gao, J. (2006). Building the future by looking to the past: Examining research published on
organizations and environment. Organization & Environment, 19, 458-478.
Barnett, M. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social
responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 794-816.
Barnett, M., & Salomon, R. (2012). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship
between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1304-1320.
Benn, S., Edwards, M., & Angus-Leppan, T. (2013). Organizational learning and the sustainability com-
munity of practice: The role of boundary objects. Organization & Environment, 26, 184-202.
Berchicci, L., Dowell, G., & King, A. A. (2012). Environmental capabilities and corporate strategy:
Exploring acquisitions among US manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1053-1071.

Berrone, P., Cruz, C., Gomez-Mejia, L. M., & Larraza-Kintana, M. (2010). Socioemotional wealth and
corporate responses to institutional pressures: Do family-controlled firms pollute less? Administrative
Science Quarterly, 55, 82-113.
Berrone, P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. (2009). Environmental performance and executive compensation: An inte-
grated agency-institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 103-126.
Bos-Brouwers, H. J. B. (2010). Corporate sustainability and innovation in SMEs: Evidence of themes and
activities in practice. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 417-435.
Bowen, F. (2007). Corporate social strategy: Competing views from two theories of the firm. Journal of
Business Ethics, 75, 97-113.
Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2004). The development of corporate charitable contributions in the UK: A
stakeholder analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 1411-1434.
Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspec-
tive. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 453-470.
Campbell, J. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory
of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 946-967.
Campbell, J., Eden, L., & Miller, S. R. (2012). Multinationals and corporate social responsibility in host
countries: Does distance matter? Journal of International Business Studies, 43, 84-106.
Chan, R. (2005). Does the natural-resourced-based view of the firm apply in an emerging economy? A
survey of foreign invested enterprises in China. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 625-672.
Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). How firms respond to being rated. Strategic Management Journal,
31, 917-945.
Chen, C.-M., & Delmas, M. (2011). Measuring corporate social responsibility: An efficiency perspective.
Production and Operations Management, 20, 789-804.
Cheung, A. W. K. (2011). Do stock investors value corporate sustainability? Evidence from an event study.
Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 145-165.
Chiu, S., & Sharfman, M. (2011). Legitimacy, visibility, and the antecedents of corporate social perfor-
mance: An investigation of the instrumental perspective. Journal of Management, 37, 1558-1585.
Chow, W., & Chen, Y. (2012). Corporate sustainable development: Testing a new scale based on the main-
land Chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 519-533.
Christmann, P., & Taylor, G. (2001). Globalization and the environment: Determinants of firm self-
regulation in China. Journal of International Business Studies, 32, 439-458.
Cohen, B. (2006). Journal ratings and footprints: A North American perspective of organizations and the
natural environment journal quality. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, 1-14.
Consolandi, C., Jaiswal-Dale, A., Poggiani, E., & Vercelli, A. (2009). Global standards and ethical stock
indexes: The case of the Dow Jones Sustainability Stoxx Index. Journal of Business Ethics, 87,
185-197.
Dahlmann, F., & Brammer, S. (2011). Exploring and explaining patterns of adaptation and selection in
corporate environmental strategy in the USA. Organization Studies, 32, 527-553.
Darnall, N., Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (2010). Adopting proactive environmental strategy: The influ-
ence of stakeholders and firm size. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1072-1094.
David, P., Bloom, M., & Hillman, A. J. (2007). Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate
social performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 91-100.
Delgado-Ceballos, J., Aragón-Correa, J. A., Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., & Rueda-Manzaneras, A. (2012). The
effect of internal barriers on the connection between stakeholder integration and proactive environmen-
tal strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 281-293.
Delmas, M., Etzion, D., & Nairn-Birch, N. (2013). Triangulating environmental performance: What do cor-
porate social responsibility ratings really capture? Academy of Management Perspectives, 12, 255-267.
Delmas, M., & Montes-Sancho, M. J. (2011). An institutional perspective on the diffusion of international
management system standards: The case of the environmental management standard ISO 14001.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 21, 103-132.
Delmas, M., & Montiel, I. (2009). Greening the supply chain: When is customer pressure effective? Journal
of Economics & Management Strategy, 18, 171-201.
Delmas, M., & Pekovic, S. (2013). Environmental standards and labor productivity. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 34, 230-252.

Delmas, M., Russo, M. V., & Montes-Sancho, M. J. (2007). Deregulation and environmental differentiation
in the electric utility industry. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 189-209.
Delmas, M., & Toffel, M. W. (2008). Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the
black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1027-1055.
den Hond, F., & de Bakker, F. G. A. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism. How activist groups influ-
ence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32, 901-924.
Deniz-Deniz, M. C., & Saa-Pérez, P. (2003). A resource-based view of corporate responsiveness toward
employees. Organization Studies, 24, 299-320.
De Villiers, C., Naiker, V., & Van Staden, C. (2011). The effect of board characteristics on firm environ-
mental performance. Journal of Management, 37, 1636-1663.
Doh, J., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe
and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43,
47-73.
Doh, J. P., Howton, S. D., Howton, S. W., & Siegel, D. S. (2010). Does the market respond to an endorsement
of social responsibility? The role of institutions, information, and legitimacy. Journal of Management,
36, 1461-1485.
Donaldson, L., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and
implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65-91.
Dow Jones Sustainability Indices. (2013). Overview. Retrieved from http://www.djindexes.com/
sustainability/
Etzion, D. (2007). Research on organizations and the natural environment, 1992-present: A review. Journal
of Management, 33, 637-644.
Etzion, D., & Ferraro, F. (2010). The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting.
Organization Science, 21, 1092-1107.
Fifka, M. S., & Drabble, M. (2012). Focus and standardization of sustainability reporting: A comparative
study of the United Kingdom and Finland. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21, 455-474.
Flammer, C. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental aware-
ness of investors. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 758-781.
Fowler, S., & Hope, C. (2007). A critical review of sustainable business indices and their impact. Journal
of Business Ethics, 76, 243-252.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman/Ballinger.
Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 191-205.
Funk, K. (2003). Sustainability and performance. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(2), 65-70.
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, 874-907.
Graedel, T., & Klee, R. (2002). Getting serious about sustainability. Environmental Science & Technology,
36, 523-529.
Hall, J., & Vredenburg, H. (2003). The challenge of innovating for sustainable development. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 45(1), 61-68.
Harrison, J., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evi-
dence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 479-485.
Hart, S. (1995). A natural–resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20, 986-1014.
Hart, S., & Dowell, G. (2011). A natural-resource-based view of the firm: Fifteen years after. Journal of
Management, 37, 1464-1479.
Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management Executive,
17(2), 56-67.
Hartman, L., Rubin, R., & Dhanda, K. (2007). The communication of corporate social responsibility:
United States and European Union multinational corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 373-389.
Hillman, J. A., & Keim, D. G. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues:
What’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, 22, 125-139.
Hoffman, A. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry.
Academy of Management Journal, 42, 351-372.
Hull, C. E., & Rothenberg, S. (2008). Firm performance: The interactions of corporate social performance
with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 781-789.

Husted, B., & Allen, D. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in the multinational enterprise: Strategic and
institutional approaches. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 838-849.
Jayachandran, S., Kalaignanam, K., & Eilert, M. (2013). Product and environmental social performance:
Varying effect on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 1255-1264.
Jensen, J. C., & Berg, N. (2012). Determinants of traditional sustainability reporting versus integrated
reporting. An institutionalist approach. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21, 299-316.
Johnson, R., & Greening, D. (1999). The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types
of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 564-576.
Judge, W., & Douglas, T. (1998). Performance implications of incorporating natural environmental issues
into the strategic planning process: An empirical assessment. Journal of Management Studies, 35,
241-262.
Kang, J. (2013). The relationship between corporate diversification and corporate social performance.
Kassinis, G., & Vafeas, N. (2006). Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 49, 145-159.
King, A., Lenox, M., & Terlaak, A. (2005). The strategic use of decentralized institutions: Exploring certi-
fication with the ISO 14001 management standard. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1091-1106.
Klassen, R., & Whybark, D. C. (1999). The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing perfor-
mance. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 599-615.
Kock, C. J., Santaló, J., & Diestre, L. (2012). Corporate governance and the environment: What type of
governance creates greener companies. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 492-514.
Kolk, A., Hong, P., & van Dolen, W. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in China: An analysis of
domestic and foreign retailers’ sustainability dimensions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19,
289-303.
Kurapatskie, B., & Darnall, N. (2013). Which corporate sustainability activities are associated with greater
financial payoffs? Business Strategy and the Environment, 22, 49-61.
Lackmann, J., Ernstberger, J., & Stich, M. (2012). Market reactions to increased reliability of sustainability
information. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 111-128.
Maas, K., & Liket, K. (2011). Talk the walk: Measuring the impact of strategic philanthropy. Journal of
Business Ethics, 100, 445-464.
Margolis, J., & Walsh, J. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives in business.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 403-441.
Markevich, A. (2009). The evolution of sustainability. MIT Sloan Management Review, 51(1), 13-14.
Marshall, J., & Toffel, M. (2005). Framing the elusive concept of sustainability: A sustainability hierarchy.
Environmental Science & Technology, 39, 673-682.
Marshall, R. S., & Brown, D. (2003). The strategy of sustainability: A systems perspective on norm thomp-
son outfitters’ environmental stewardship initiatives. California Management Review, 46, 101-126.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative
understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33, 404-424.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2011). Creating and capturing value: Corporate social responsibility,
resource-based theory, and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 37, 1480-1495.
Montiel, I. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: Separate pasts, common
futures. Organization & Environment, 21, 245-269.
Montiel, I., Husted, B. W., & Christmann, P. (2012). Using private management standard certification
to reduce information asymmetries in corrupt environments. Strategic Management Journal, 33,
1103-1113.
Muthuri, J. N., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2009). Employee volunteering and social capital: Contributions to
corporate social responsibility. British Journal of Management, 20, 75-89.
Neubaum, D. O., & Zahra, S. A. (2006). Institutional ownership and corporate social performance: The
moderating effects of investment horizon, activism, and coordination. Journal of Management, 32,
108-131.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F., & Rynes, S. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-
analysis. Organization Studies, 24, 403-441.
Peloza, J., Loock, M., Cerruti, J., & Muyot, M. (2012). Sustainability: How stakeholder perceptions differ
from corporate reality. California Management Review, 55(1), 74-95.

Pérez-Batres, L., Miller, V. V., & Pisani, M. J. (2010). CSR, sustainability and the meaning of global report-
ing for Latin American corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 193-209.
Pfeffer, J. (2010). Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 24(1), 34-45.
Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism and unleash a way of
innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 62-77.
Porter, M., & van der Linde, P. (1995). Toward a new conception of the environment competitiveness rela-
tionship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), 97-118.
Ramus, C., & Montiel, I. (2005). When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing?
Business & Society, 44, 377-414.
Reid, E. M., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). Responding to public and private politics: Corporate disclosure of
climate change strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 1157-1178.
Reinecke, J., Manning, S., & von Hagen, O. (2012). The emergence of a standards market: Multiplicity of
sustainability standards in the global coffee industry. Organization Studies, 33, 791-814.
Rueda-Manzanares, A., Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. (2008). The influence of stakeholders on the
environmental strategy of service firms: The moderating effects of complexity, uncertainty and munifi-
cence. British Journal of Management, 19, 185-203.
Rugman, A., & Verbeke, A. (1998). Corporate strategies and environmental regulations: An organizing
framework. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 363-375.
Russo, M., & Fouts, P. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and
profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 534-559.
Russo, M., & Harrison, S. (2005). Internal organization and environmental performance: Clues from the
electronics industry. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 582-593.
Russo, M. V. (2003). The emergence of sustainable industries: Building on natural capital. Strategic
Schaefer, A. (2007). Contrasting institutional and performance accounts of environmental management
systems: Three case studies in the UK Water and Sewerage industry. Journal of Management Studies,
44, 506-535.
Sharma, S., & Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest
products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 159-180.
Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of
Management Review, 20, 936-960.
Shrisvastava, P., & Kennelly, J. J. (2013). Sustainability and place-based enterprise. Organization &
Environment, 26, 83-101.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of orga-
nizing. Academy of Management Review, 36, 381-403.
Starik, M. (2013). Organization & Environment: Present, past and future. Organization & Environment,
26, 239-240.
Starik, M., & Kanashiro, P. (2013). Toward a theory of sustainability management: Uncovering and inte-
grating the nearly obvious. Organization & Environment, 26, 1-24.
Starik, M., & Rands, G. P. (1995). Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of
ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 908-935.
Stead, J. G., & Stead, W. E. (2013). The coevolution of sustainable strategic management in the global
marketplace. Organization & Environment, 26, 162-183.
Strike, V. M., Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2006). Being good while being bad: Social responsibility and the inter-
national diversification of US firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 850-862.
Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model.” Organization &
Environment, 21, 103-127.
Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A., & Zahra, S. (2013). Stakeholder pressure on MNEs and the transfer of socially
irresponsible practices to subsidiaries. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 549-572.
Szekely, F., & Knirsch, M. (2005). Responsible leadership and corporate social responsibility: Metrics for
sustainable performance. European Management Journal, 23, 628-647.
Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness
to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658-672.

Valente, M. (2012). Theorizing firm adoption of sustaincentrism. Organization Studies, 33, 563-591.
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link.
Walls, J., Berrone, P., & Phan, P. (2012). Corporate governance and environmental performance: Is there
really a link? Strategic Management Journal, 33, 885-913.
Walls, J., Phan, P., & Berrone, P. (2011). Measuring environmental strategy: Construct development, reli-
ability, and validity. Business & Society, 50, 71-115.
Weber, O. (2012). Environmental credit risk management in banks and financial service institutions.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 21, 248-263.
Wong, E. M., Ormiston, M. E., & Tetlock, P. E. (2011). The effects of top management team integra-
tive complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. Academy of
World Commission for Environmental and Development. (1987). Our common future. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Zollo, M., Cennamo, C., & Neumann, K. (2013). Beyond what and why: Understanding organizational
evolution towards sustainable enterprise models. Organization & Environment, 26, 241-259.
Author Biographies
Ivan Montiel is an assistant professor of Corporate Sustainability at Loyola Marymount University. His
research interests include how organizations can design sustainable strategies while remaining competitive.
He holds a PhD from the Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management at University of
California, Santa Barbara. His research has been published in Strategic Management Journal, Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, and Journal of Business
Ethics.
Javier Delgado-Ceballos is an assistant professor of Strategic Management and Corporate Sustainability
at University of Granada (Spain). His research mainly focuses on corporate sustainability, stakeholders’
management, and corporate governance. His work has been published in the Journal of Business Ethics and
Corporate Governance: An International Review. Javier held diverse visiting scholar appointments at
European and American universities. He is an active member of ONE Division and GRONEN.

Montiel 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Montiel 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Organization & Environment

Defining and Measuring Corporate Sustainability: Are We There Yet?

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://oae.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Apr 4, 2014

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Ivan Montiel1 and Javier Delgado-Ceballos2

1Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

CS operationalized and measured? More important, do scholars agree—or need to agree—on a

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Management Perspectives (formerly known as Academy of Management Executive), California

Publication Trends (1995-2013)

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

environmental issues is less present compared to articles analyzing environmental sustainability

Defining Corporate Sustainability

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Terminology Definition References

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Terminology Definition References

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Observation 2: A standardized definition of CS does not exist.

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

perspectives encompassing CS: regulatory compliance, incremental mitigation, value alignment,

Commonalities and Differences Among Corporate Sustainability Definitions

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

The Organizational Theories We Use

Observation 3: CS has been conceptualized using different theoretical approaches.

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

New Theory for Corporate Sustainability

Commonalities and Differences on the Use of Theories

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Measuring Corporate Sustainability

Observation 4: A standardized method to measure CS does not exist.

Outsourcing Corporate Sustainability Measures

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Dow Jones Sustainability Economic

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Source Measures Selected studies

Global Reporting Initiative Economic

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Management researchers used DJSI to identify exemplary sustainable corporations (e.g.,

Creating Corporate Sustainability Measures

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Commonalities and Differences Among Corporate Sustainability Measures

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UNIV MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST on May 8, 2014

You might also like