Sustainable Strategies
All Sessions
Bansal, P., & Song, H.C. 2017. Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate
sustainability from corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1):
105-149.
- Corporate responsibility and sustainability were historically distinctive, however, the two
fields of study have converged to become deeply entangled and blurred so that
researchers from both research traditions now speak to the same business risks and
opportunities. Responsibility held more bias toward the harms of markets on society,
whereas sustainability was oriented toward the harms of economic development on
natural systems.
- A systems logic focuses on the interconnections among elements in a system, arguing
that a phenomenon cannot be explained only by analysing its parts. Rather, one must
understand the relationships among the parts in order to understand a system’ s
organisation, functioning, and outcomes.
- Insights drawn from natural sciences revealed that excess industrial production and
human consumption was contributing to environmental imbalances, which would
ultimately undermine the business and economic systems. Yet, the effects were not
necessarily immediate, visible, or predictable.
- By committing to sustainability, business can take shared responsibility for achieving a
better world (UN, 2016).
- There tends to be conceptual convergence between responsibility and sustainability in
four domains:
1. Construct definitions
2. Ontological assumptions
3. Nomological networks
4. Construct measurements
- Construct definitions → The responsibility literature argues that corporate social
responsibility (CSR) is an umbrella term overlapping with some, and being
synonymous with other conceptions of business–society relations. The sustainability
literature argues that corporate sustainability (CS) interconnects economic, social, and
environmental pillars. As these pillars cut across all systems, the definition of business
sustainability also represents an umbrella construct or at least extends the conceptual
boundary to include social issues. In this sense, both responsibility and sustainability
Page 1 of 27
, Sustainable Strategies
studies cover increasingly wider conceptual territory, which fails to discriminate the two
constructs.
- Evolution of corporate responsibility and sustainability over time:
- Ontological assumptions of the role of business in society:
• Early responsibility researchers viewed a firm as a social actor among various
stakeholders— for example, employees, government, suppliers, trade associations, or
consumers. Currently, responsibility researchers focus on stakeholder relationships,
which they see as strategic, political, evolving, and interdependent.
• Early sustainability researchers focused on the natural environment, and saw firms as
systems nested within other systems, such as ecosystems or economic systems. More
recently, sustainability researchers have also expanded their focus from the natural
Page 2 of 27
, Sustainable Strategies
environment to include the social environment. Researchers argue for the
interconnection/integration among the three domains of economy, society, and
environment, thereby shifting the focus from how systems could be sustained to how
firms can sustain those systems.
- Two conditions are required for nomological validity:
1. A construct should be appropriately scoped to ensure coherence - i.e. because a
construct with too many dimensions or attributes can say anything and often means
nothing.
2. Two concepts that are conceptually distinctive will have different antecedents and
consequents. The web of relationships with preexisting constructs provides not only
meaning to the focal construct but also provides more accurate operationalisation for
robust empirical research.
- The parallels in the nomological networks are evident (between responsibility and
sustainability) across the different levels of analysis, including individual, organisation,
stakeholder, and institutional:
• The strategic turn that pointed to financial outcomes
Studies started exploring the costs, risks, and strategic opportunities exposed by
complying with environmental regulations and expectations. Although the emphasis
was still primarily on the natural environment, the overarching tone was similar to the
business case of responsibility research.
• The strategic turn also pointed to non-financial outcomes
Responsibility scholars argued that CSR can be viewed as a form of investment.
Similarly, sustainability scholars argued that it is likely that strategy and competitive
advantage in the coming years will be rooted in capabilities that facilitate
environmentally sustainable economic activity. Hence, both responsibility and
sustainability had taken a strategic turn.
• The role of CEOs and the top management team
Responsibility and sustainability researchers both recognised the importance of CEOs
and the top management team (TMT) in shaping responsible and sustainable practices.
Responsibility researchers pointed to the importance of the CEOs’ collectivistic values
political ideology, transformational leadership qualities, ethical commitment, long-term
CEO pay, and executives’ decision-making mode.Researchers found that the factors
that contribute to commitment to environmental issues include leadership values,
managers’ perception of stakeholder pressure, and managerial compensation.
• Organizational variables in shaping responsibility and sustainability
The following factors are positively related to corporate responsibility: a collectivistic
organizational identity, a supportive corporate mission, a larger firm size and higher
Page 3 of 27
All Sessions
Bansal, P., & Song, H.C. 2017. Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate
sustainability from corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1):
105-149.
- Corporate responsibility and sustainability were historically distinctive, however, the two
fields of study have converged to become deeply entangled and blurred so that
researchers from both research traditions now speak to the same business risks and
opportunities. Responsibility held more bias toward the harms of markets on society,
whereas sustainability was oriented toward the harms of economic development on
natural systems.
- A systems logic focuses on the interconnections among elements in a system, arguing
that a phenomenon cannot be explained only by analysing its parts. Rather, one must
understand the relationships among the parts in order to understand a system’ s
organisation, functioning, and outcomes.
- Insights drawn from natural sciences revealed that excess industrial production and
human consumption was contributing to environmental imbalances, which would
ultimately undermine the business and economic systems. Yet, the effects were not
necessarily immediate, visible, or predictable.
- By committing to sustainability, business can take shared responsibility for achieving a
better world (UN, 2016).
- There tends to be conceptual convergence between responsibility and sustainability in
four domains:
1. Construct definitions
2. Ontological assumptions
3. Nomological networks
4. Construct measurements
- Construct definitions → The responsibility literature argues that corporate social
responsibility (CSR) is an umbrella term overlapping with some, and being
synonymous with other conceptions of business–society relations. The sustainability
literature argues that corporate sustainability (CS) interconnects economic, social, and
environmental pillars. As these pillars cut across all systems, the definition of business
sustainability also represents an umbrella construct or at least extends the conceptual
boundary to include social issues. In this sense, both responsibility and sustainability
Page 1 of 27
, Sustainable Strategies
studies cover increasingly wider conceptual territory, which fails to discriminate the two
constructs.
- Evolution of corporate responsibility and sustainability over time:
- Ontological assumptions of the role of business in society:
• Early responsibility researchers viewed a firm as a social actor among various
stakeholders— for example, employees, government, suppliers, trade associations, or
consumers. Currently, responsibility researchers focus on stakeholder relationships,
which they see as strategic, political, evolving, and interdependent.
• Early sustainability researchers focused on the natural environment, and saw firms as
systems nested within other systems, such as ecosystems or economic systems. More
recently, sustainability researchers have also expanded their focus from the natural
Page 2 of 27
, Sustainable Strategies
environment to include the social environment. Researchers argue for the
interconnection/integration among the three domains of economy, society, and
environment, thereby shifting the focus from how systems could be sustained to how
firms can sustain those systems.
- Two conditions are required for nomological validity:
1. A construct should be appropriately scoped to ensure coherence - i.e. because a
construct with too many dimensions or attributes can say anything and often means
nothing.
2. Two concepts that are conceptually distinctive will have different antecedents and
consequents. The web of relationships with preexisting constructs provides not only
meaning to the focal construct but also provides more accurate operationalisation for
robust empirical research.
- The parallels in the nomological networks are evident (between responsibility and
sustainability) across the different levels of analysis, including individual, organisation,
stakeholder, and institutional:
• The strategic turn that pointed to financial outcomes
Studies started exploring the costs, risks, and strategic opportunities exposed by
complying with environmental regulations and expectations. Although the emphasis
was still primarily on the natural environment, the overarching tone was similar to the
business case of responsibility research.
• The strategic turn also pointed to non-financial outcomes
Responsibility scholars argued that CSR can be viewed as a form of investment.
Similarly, sustainability scholars argued that it is likely that strategy and competitive
advantage in the coming years will be rooted in capabilities that facilitate
environmentally sustainable economic activity. Hence, both responsibility and
sustainability had taken a strategic turn.
• The role of CEOs and the top management team
Responsibility and sustainability researchers both recognised the importance of CEOs
and the top management team (TMT) in shaping responsible and sustainable practices.
Responsibility researchers pointed to the importance of the CEOs’ collectivistic values
political ideology, transformational leadership qualities, ethical commitment, long-term
CEO pay, and executives’ decision-making mode.Researchers found that the factors
that contribute to commitment to environmental issues include leadership values,
managers’ perception of stakeholder pressure, and managerial compensation.
• Organizational variables in shaping responsibility and sustainability
The following factors are positively related to corporate responsibility: a collectivistic
organizational identity, a supportive corporate mission, a larger firm size and higher
Page 3 of 27
