Inhoud
Clarifying the Meaning of Sustainable Business: Introducing a Typology From
Business-as-Usual to True Business Sustainability, Dyllick & Muff (2016)..............2
The UN Global Compact Ten Principles and the Sustainable Development Goals:
Connecting, Crucially (2016).................................................................................. 4
Creating shared value, Porter & Kramer (2011)......................................................5
Contesting the value of “creating shared value” Crane et al. (2014).....................8
Frugal innovation in the midst of societal and operational pressures, Levänen et
al. (2022).............................................................................................................. 11
Managing Disputes with Nonmarket Stakeholders: Wage a Fight, Withdraw, Wait,
or Work It Out? Lawrence (2010)..........................................................................13
What stakeholder theory is not, Philips et al. (2003)............................................15
Turning gladflies into allies, Yaziji (2004)..............................................................16
From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: decoupling in the contemporary
World. Bromley & Powell (2012)...........................................................................19
Corporate Responsibility Reporting Herzig & Kühn (2017) ..................................22
"We Have To Do This and That You Must be Joking: Constructing and Responding
to Paradox Through Humor", Jarzabkowski & Lê (2017).......................................24
Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing, Smith &
Lewis (2011)......................................................................................................... 25
Sustainable supply chains: An introduction, Linton et al. (2007)..........................28
Social management capabilities of multinational buying firms and their emerging
market suppliers: An exploratory study of the clothing industry, Huq et al. (2016)
............................................................................................................................. 30
Enforcing higher labour standards within developing country value chains:
Consequences for MNEs and informal actors in a dual economy, Narula (2019)..32
Cross-Sector Partnerships to Address Social Issues: Challenges to Theory and
Practice, Selsky & Parker (2005)...........................................................................34
Overcoming the dual liability of foreignness and privateness in international
corporate citizenship partnerships, Bhanji and Oxley (2013)...............................37
Can Corporate Social Responsibility Lead to Social License? A Sentiment and
Emotion Analysis, Ho & Shapiro (2022)................................................................40
Understanding the Words of Relationships: Language as an Essential Tool to
Manage CSR in Communities of Place, Selmier et al. (2015)................................43
,Clarifying the Meaning of Sustainable
Business: Introducing a Typology From
Business-as-Usual to True Business
Sustainability, Dyllick & Muff (2016)
The article addresses the growing prevalence of sustainability
management among major corporations. Despite this trend, there is a
significant gap between the sustainability claims made by these
companies and the actual impact of their activities on the environment
and society. Dyllick and Muff (2016) argue that a clearer understanding of
what constitutes sustainable business is essential for both scholars and
practitioners. They aim to clarify the meaning of Business Sustainability by
reviewing existing approaches and developing a typology that can help
assess companies' contributions to sustainable development.
The Disconnect Between Business and Sustainable Development
Dyllick & Muff (2016) highlight a "big disconnect" between the
organizational level of sustainable business practices and the global level
of sustainable development. They emphasize that while many business
executives recognize the importance of sustainability for competitiveness,
there is often a lack of consideration for how their companies can
contribute to resolving broader sustainability issues. This disconnect
underscores the need for a more profound understanding of sustainable
business practices that genuinely address societal and environmental
challenges.
Developing a Typology of Business Sustainability
To address the complexities of sustainable business, Dyllick and Muff
(2016) propose a typology that categorizes businesses into three levels of
sustainability:
Business Sustainability 1.0 (BST 1.0): This level represents a traditional
approach to business, primarily focused on maximizing shareholder value.
Companies operating at this level may engage in limited sustainability
efforts, often driven by regulatory compliance or public relations rather
than a genuine commitment to sustainability. Their contributions to
sustainable development are minimal, and their practices may be
characterized as "business-as-usual."
Business Sustainability 2.0 (BST 2.0): At this level, businesses begin to
integrate sustainability into their core strategies. They recognize the
importance of stakeholder engagement and start to measure their social
and environmental impacts. Companies in this category may adopt
practices such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives and
sustainability reporting. However, their efforts may still be limited in scope
and depth, often focusing on incremental improvements rather than
transformative change.
,Business Sustainability 3.0 (BST 3.0): This is the most advanced level
of sustainability, where companies fully embrace sustainability as a
fundamental aspect of their business model. Businesses operating at this
level actively seek to create value for society and the environment, going
beyond compliance and profit to address global sustainability challenges.
This requires a transformative approach to business practices,
governance, and stakeholder relationships, as well as a commitment to
long-term value creation for the common good.
Framework for Analysing Sustainable Business Models
Dyllick & Muff (2016) provide a framework for analysing existing and
emerging sustainable business models, differentiating between:
Concerns Considered: The issues that businesses take into account
when making decisions, including environmental, social, and
economic factors.
Organizational Perspectives: The approaches and processes that
organizations adopt in their operations, which can range from
traditional profit-driven models to more holistic, sustainability-
oriented frameworks.
Values Created: The outcomes and impacts of business activities on
society and the environment, which can vary significantly depending
on the level of sustainability embraced by the organization.
Using this framework, Dyllick and Muff (2016) analyse and categorize
major conceptual contributions to the BST debate, illustrating the diversity
of approaches and practices in the field.
Challenges in the Current Discourse on Business Sustainability
Integration of Different Streams: There is often a lack of integration among
various sustainability topics, leading to fragmented understanding and
practices. This fragmentation can hinder the development of
comprehensive sustainability strategies.
Macro vs. Micro Levels: The disconnect between societal-level
sustainability issues and organizational-level practices hampers effective
action. Businesses must align their strategies with broader sustainability
goals to make a meaningful impact.
, Performance Metrics: The focus on traditional business success metrics
often overshadows the need for sustainability-focused performance
measures. Companies must develop metrics that reflect their contributions
to sustainability and allow for evaluation and comparison.
The Role of Businesses in Addressing Sustainability Challenges
Dyllick and Muff argue that businesses have a critical role in addressing
sustainability challenges. They emphasize the need for companies to
leverage their resources, knowledge, and capabilities to contribute
positively to societal issues. Dyllick & Muff (2016) advocate for a shift in
mindset, where businesses view sustainability not just as a cost or
compliance issue but as an opportunity for innovation and value creation.
This perspective encourages companies to explore new business models
and practices that align with sustainability goals.
Transparency and Metrics for Sustainability
To ensure effective contributions to sustainability, Dyllick & Muff (2016)
stress the importance of transparency and the development of clear
metrics. Companies must be open about their sustainability efforts and
impacts, allowing for evaluation and comparison. This transparency is
essential for building trust with stakeholders and for driving continuous
improvement in sustainability practices. Businesses should adopt
comprehensive reporting frameworks that capture their sustainability
performance and facilitate accountability.
Conclusion and Call to Action
Dyllick & Muff (2016) conclude by calling for a more profound commitment
to sustainability from businesses. They urge organizations to move beyond
superficial efforts and embrace true business sustainability as a core
aspect of their identity. By doing so, they can contribute meaningfully to
global sustainability challenges and create lasting value for society. The
authors hope that their typology will stimulate further discussion and
research on the meaning and types of sustainable business, ultimately
leading to more effective practices and contributions to sustainable
development.
The UN Global Compact Ten Principles and
the Sustainable Development Goals:
Connecting, Crucially (2016)
The article outlines the critical relationship between the UN Global
Compact's Ten Principles and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
UN Global Compact Ten Principles: The UN Global Compact consists of ten
universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labour,
environment, and anti-corruption. By integrating these principles into their
strategies and operations, companies not only fulfil their responsibilities to
Clarifying the Meaning of Sustainable Business: Introducing a Typology From
Business-as-Usual to True Business Sustainability, Dyllick & Muff (2016)..............2
The UN Global Compact Ten Principles and the Sustainable Development Goals:
Connecting, Crucially (2016).................................................................................. 4
Creating shared value, Porter & Kramer (2011)......................................................5
Contesting the value of “creating shared value” Crane et al. (2014).....................8
Frugal innovation in the midst of societal and operational pressures, Levänen et
al. (2022).............................................................................................................. 11
Managing Disputes with Nonmarket Stakeholders: Wage a Fight, Withdraw, Wait,
or Work It Out? Lawrence (2010)..........................................................................13
What stakeholder theory is not, Philips et al. (2003)............................................15
Turning gladflies into allies, Yaziji (2004)..............................................................16
From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: decoupling in the contemporary
World. Bromley & Powell (2012)...........................................................................19
Corporate Responsibility Reporting Herzig & Kühn (2017) ..................................22
"We Have To Do This and That You Must be Joking: Constructing and Responding
to Paradox Through Humor", Jarzabkowski & Lê (2017).......................................24
Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing, Smith &
Lewis (2011)......................................................................................................... 25
Sustainable supply chains: An introduction, Linton et al. (2007)..........................28
Social management capabilities of multinational buying firms and their emerging
market suppliers: An exploratory study of the clothing industry, Huq et al. (2016)
............................................................................................................................. 30
Enforcing higher labour standards within developing country value chains:
Consequences for MNEs and informal actors in a dual economy, Narula (2019)..32
Cross-Sector Partnerships to Address Social Issues: Challenges to Theory and
Practice, Selsky & Parker (2005)...........................................................................34
Overcoming the dual liability of foreignness and privateness in international
corporate citizenship partnerships, Bhanji and Oxley (2013)...............................37
Can Corporate Social Responsibility Lead to Social License? A Sentiment and
Emotion Analysis, Ho & Shapiro (2022)................................................................40
Understanding the Words of Relationships: Language as an Essential Tool to
Manage CSR in Communities of Place, Selmier et al. (2015)................................43
,Clarifying the Meaning of Sustainable
Business: Introducing a Typology From
Business-as-Usual to True Business
Sustainability, Dyllick & Muff (2016)
The article addresses the growing prevalence of sustainability
management among major corporations. Despite this trend, there is a
significant gap between the sustainability claims made by these
companies and the actual impact of their activities on the environment
and society. Dyllick and Muff (2016) argue that a clearer understanding of
what constitutes sustainable business is essential for both scholars and
practitioners. They aim to clarify the meaning of Business Sustainability by
reviewing existing approaches and developing a typology that can help
assess companies' contributions to sustainable development.
The Disconnect Between Business and Sustainable Development
Dyllick & Muff (2016) highlight a "big disconnect" between the
organizational level of sustainable business practices and the global level
of sustainable development. They emphasize that while many business
executives recognize the importance of sustainability for competitiveness,
there is often a lack of consideration for how their companies can
contribute to resolving broader sustainability issues. This disconnect
underscores the need for a more profound understanding of sustainable
business practices that genuinely address societal and environmental
challenges.
Developing a Typology of Business Sustainability
To address the complexities of sustainable business, Dyllick and Muff
(2016) propose a typology that categorizes businesses into three levels of
sustainability:
Business Sustainability 1.0 (BST 1.0): This level represents a traditional
approach to business, primarily focused on maximizing shareholder value.
Companies operating at this level may engage in limited sustainability
efforts, often driven by regulatory compliance or public relations rather
than a genuine commitment to sustainability. Their contributions to
sustainable development are minimal, and their practices may be
characterized as "business-as-usual."
Business Sustainability 2.0 (BST 2.0): At this level, businesses begin to
integrate sustainability into their core strategies. They recognize the
importance of stakeholder engagement and start to measure their social
and environmental impacts. Companies in this category may adopt
practices such as corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives and
sustainability reporting. However, their efforts may still be limited in scope
and depth, often focusing on incremental improvements rather than
transformative change.
,Business Sustainability 3.0 (BST 3.0): This is the most advanced level
of sustainability, where companies fully embrace sustainability as a
fundamental aspect of their business model. Businesses operating at this
level actively seek to create value for society and the environment, going
beyond compliance and profit to address global sustainability challenges.
This requires a transformative approach to business practices,
governance, and stakeholder relationships, as well as a commitment to
long-term value creation for the common good.
Framework for Analysing Sustainable Business Models
Dyllick & Muff (2016) provide a framework for analysing existing and
emerging sustainable business models, differentiating between:
Concerns Considered: The issues that businesses take into account
when making decisions, including environmental, social, and
economic factors.
Organizational Perspectives: The approaches and processes that
organizations adopt in their operations, which can range from
traditional profit-driven models to more holistic, sustainability-
oriented frameworks.
Values Created: The outcomes and impacts of business activities on
society and the environment, which can vary significantly depending
on the level of sustainability embraced by the organization.
Using this framework, Dyllick and Muff (2016) analyse and categorize
major conceptual contributions to the BST debate, illustrating the diversity
of approaches and practices in the field.
Challenges in the Current Discourse on Business Sustainability
Integration of Different Streams: There is often a lack of integration among
various sustainability topics, leading to fragmented understanding and
practices. This fragmentation can hinder the development of
comprehensive sustainability strategies.
Macro vs. Micro Levels: The disconnect between societal-level
sustainability issues and organizational-level practices hampers effective
action. Businesses must align their strategies with broader sustainability
goals to make a meaningful impact.
, Performance Metrics: The focus on traditional business success metrics
often overshadows the need for sustainability-focused performance
measures. Companies must develop metrics that reflect their contributions
to sustainability and allow for evaluation and comparison.
The Role of Businesses in Addressing Sustainability Challenges
Dyllick and Muff argue that businesses have a critical role in addressing
sustainability challenges. They emphasize the need for companies to
leverage their resources, knowledge, and capabilities to contribute
positively to societal issues. Dyllick & Muff (2016) advocate for a shift in
mindset, where businesses view sustainability not just as a cost or
compliance issue but as an opportunity for innovation and value creation.
This perspective encourages companies to explore new business models
and practices that align with sustainability goals.
Transparency and Metrics for Sustainability
To ensure effective contributions to sustainability, Dyllick & Muff (2016)
stress the importance of transparency and the development of clear
metrics. Companies must be open about their sustainability efforts and
impacts, allowing for evaluation and comparison. This transparency is
essential for building trust with stakeholders and for driving continuous
improvement in sustainability practices. Businesses should adopt
comprehensive reporting frameworks that capture their sustainability
performance and facilitate accountability.
Conclusion and Call to Action
Dyllick & Muff (2016) conclude by calling for a more profound commitment
to sustainability from businesses. They urge organizations to move beyond
superficial efforts and embrace true business sustainability as a core
aspect of their identity. By doing so, they can contribute meaningfully to
global sustainability challenges and create lasting value for society. The
authors hope that their typology will stimulate further discussion and
research on the meaning and types of sustainable business, ultimately
leading to more effective practices and contributions to sustainable
development.
The UN Global Compact Ten Principles and
the Sustainable Development Goals:
Connecting, Crucially (2016)
The article outlines the critical relationship between the UN Global
Compact's Ten Principles and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
UN Global Compact Ten Principles: The UN Global Compact consists of ten
universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labour,
environment, and anti-corruption. By integrating these principles into their
strategies and operations, companies not only fulfil their responsibilities to
