Week 1: the Sustainable Development Goals and system thinking
“Similar But Not the Same: Differentiating Corporate Sustainability from Corporate
Responsibility” by Pratima Bansal and Hee-Chan Song:
Corporate responsibility and sustainability tackle the relationship between busi- ness and society. 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. A field’s development is
shaped by the clarity of its constructs and underlying assumptions; however, such clarity has eroded in
responsibility and sustainability research. By tracing the development of these fields, we show that
responsibility and sustainability were historically distinctive. Responsibility research took a normative
position, railing against the amorality of business; sustainability research took a systems perspective,
sounding the alarm of business-driven failures in natural systems. The convergence in responsibility and
sustainability has not only confused constructs but has also vacated vast tracts of unexplored territory that
can inform the relationship between business and society. By sharpening the distinctiveness between
responsibility and sustainability, we call for further research to deepen the areas of research unique to each
of these two fields of study and explore their complementarities and intersections.
The overlap
1. Historical Distinctions:
o Corporate Responsibility (CR) emerged post-World War II, focusing on the moral
obligations of businesses to society. It was rooted in ethical and normative theories,
targeting issues like labor rights, product safety, and community well-being.
o Corporate Sustainability (CS) originated in the 1980s, emphasizing the systemic
impacts of economic development on natural systems. It borrowed concepts from
ecology, engineering, and systems science.
2. Convergence Over Time: Area of overlap - Constructs
o Despite their distinct origins, CR and CS have become increasingly conflated.
Contemporary definitions often overlap, combining social and environmental
concerns under broad constructs like corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the
triple bottom line.
o Overlap in sustainability and responsibility concepts; overlap of measurements.
3. Core Differences:
o CR: Normative and ethics-driven, focusing on the moral duties of managers and
firms.
o CS: Systems-oriented, aiming to sustain interconnected social, economic, and
ecological systems over time.
Key Distinctions Between CS and CSR
1. Core Definitions
○ Corporate Sustainability (CS):
■ Defined as the capacity of a business to maintain the resilience of
social-ecological systems for long-term survival and prosperity.
■ Focuses on ensuring the balance and health of interconnected systems,
incorporating environmental, social, and economic dimensions.
, ■ Draws from concepts such as the triple bottom line, sustainability science,
and ecological economics.
○ Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR):
■ Defined as a firm's ethical and discretionary responsibilities to address
societal expectations and mitigate negative impacts.
■ Prioritizes a firm’s accountability to immediate stakeholders, such as
employees, customers, and local communities.
■ Rooted in stakeholder theory, ethical principles, and corporate governance.
2. Temporal Orientation
○ CS:
■ Intrinsically long-term, with a focus on intergenerational equity and resource
sustainability.
■ Aims to balance current needs without compromising future generations'
ability to meet their own.
○ CSR:
■ Primarily short- to medium-term, driven by stakeholder expectations and
social norms.
■ Often involves actions that align with current reputational, regulatory, or
market pressures.
3. Mechanisms and Approaches
○ CS:
■ Systemic and integrative, embedding sustainability into the core operations
and strategy of a business.
■ Examples include supply chain optimization to reduce environmental
impacts, closed-loop production systems, and long-term ecosystem
investments.
■ Relies on innovation and collaboration to address complex global
challenges, such as climate change and biodiversity loss.
○ CSR:
■ More tactical and often peripheral, focusing on specific societal or ethical
issues.
■ Includes philanthropy, voluntary codes of conduct, and initiatives such as
community outreach or employee diversity programs.
Outcome Goals
○ CS:
■ Strives for systemic resilience, where business activities enhance the
stability and balance of environmental, social, and economic systems.
■ Measures success through sustainability indicators, like reduced carbon
footprint, biodiversity preservation, and circular economy practices.
○ CSR:
■ Primarily aims for social legitimacy, meeting stakeholder expectations, and
improving brand reputation.
Success is often gauged by stakeholder satisfaction, enhanced trust, and compliance with social
and ethical standards.
,Four Areas of Conceptual Overlap
1. Construct Definitions:
o Early definitions were distinct: CR focused on stakeholder rights and social issues,
while CS centered on environmental stewardship.
o Modern constructs merge these domains, viewing environmental and social issues
as interconnected components of business strategy.
2. Ontological Assumptions:
o Both CR and CS challenge the profit-maximization model, advocating for
multidimensional performance metrics that include social and environmental
impacts.
o CR emphasizes direct firm-stakeholder relationships, while CS situates firms within
broader, nested systems (e.g., ecosystems, economies).
3. Nomological Networks:
o Both fields use similar frameworks to explore antecedents and outcomes of
corporate practices. For example:
▪ CR often links stakeholder management to financial performance.
▪ CS ties environmental initiatives to innovation and risk reduction.
4. Measurement and Methodologies:
o Empirical studies often blur the boundaries between CR and CS, using overlapping
metrics like KLD/MSCI ratings for social and environmental performance.
Distinct Paradigms
1. CR’s Ethical Roots:
o CR emerged from welfare economics and moral philosophy, advocating for
responsible corporate behavior to enhance societal welfare.
o Key figures, such as Bowen (1953), emphasized the moral duties of managers to
broader stakeholders.
2. CS’s Scientific Foundations:
o CS is rooted in systems science, focusing on the interdependencies among social,
economic, and ecological systems.
o The 1987 Brundtland Report popularized sustainable development, highlighting the
need for businesses to operate within natural resource limits.
The strategic turn led to financial outcomes and non-financial outcomes.
Opportunities for Future Research
1. Sharpening Distinctions:
o Scholars should revisit the normative (CR) and systems-based (CS) foundations to
deepen insights into business-society relationships.
2. Exploring Complementarities:
o Combining the ethical focus of CR with the systemic lens of CS can generate more
holistic frameworks for addressing pressing societal challenges.
3. Advancing Methodologies:
o Developing clearer constructs and metrics to differentiate CR and CS while
leveraging their unique contributions.
, Key Arguments and Theoretical Contributions
1. Interdependence vs. Responsibility
○ CS emphasizes the interconnectedness of systems, recognizing that businesses
operate within a broader ecological and social framework.
○ CSR focuses on addressing the firm's specific impact on society, often adopting a
narrower lens on corporate responsibility.
2. Integration vs. Separation
○ CS is inherently integrated into business strategy and operations, aiming for
systemic transformation.
○ CSR often remains an externalized set of activities, separate from the core
profit-driven agenda of the firm.
3. Motivations
○ CS is motivated by a recognition of ecological limits and the need for long-term
survival in a finite system.
○ CSR is driven by stakeholder expectations, ethical considerations, and regulatory
pressures.
4. Challenges of Conflation
○ Blurring the lines between CS and CSR risks undermining the transformational
potential of CS by reducing it to incremental and reputation-driven CSR activities.
○ The authors call for a clearer articulation of the two concepts to advance theoretical
rigor and practical implementation.
Conclusion
The article emphasizes the need for clarity in distinguishing CR and CS while recognizing their
interdependence. By leveraging their unique paradigms, researchers and practitioners can address
complex societal and environmental challenges more effectively.
Advancing research to embrace distinctiveness of responsibility and sustainability:
(a) responsibility based on ethical principles
(b) sustainability based on systems science
(c) explore complementaries between responsibility and sustainability without compromising
clarity
(d) Focus on the tensions and trade-offs between business and society
(e) Focusing on the intersection between business and society: see them as deeply related
Corporate responsibility and sustainability research emerged from different paradigms. Responsibility
research started with a normative orientation that applied the language and reasoning of ethics and
normative welfare economics in an in- dustrial era in which scholars and social activists questioned
unconstrained laissez-faire capitalism
Sustainability research was a reaction to the disruptions created by the economic development of natural
resource systems, which was undermining the very purpose of economic development
Each field has different origins—responsibility in normative economics and ethics, and sustainability in
systems science. Yet, responsibility and sustainability re- search has converged to the same place, using
similar definitions, ontological assumptions, nomological networks, and measurement, so that their
distinctiveness has been lost.
Construct becomes “an umbrella term overlapping with some, and being synonymous with other conceptions
of business-society relations”. This overlap results in either fractured or repeated conversations, which
hamper the develop- ment of the field.
“Similar But Not the Same: Differentiating Corporate Sustainability from Corporate
Responsibility” by Pratima Bansal and Hee-Chan Song:
Corporate responsibility and sustainability tackle the relationship between busi- ness and society. 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. A field’s development is
shaped by the clarity of its constructs and underlying assumptions; however, such clarity has eroded in
responsibility and sustainability research. By tracing the development of these fields, we show that
responsibility and sustainability were historically distinctive. Responsibility research took a normative
position, railing against the amorality of business; sustainability research took a systems perspective,
sounding the alarm of business-driven failures in natural systems. The convergence in responsibility and
sustainability has not only confused constructs but has also vacated vast tracts of unexplored territory that
can inform the relationship between business and society. By sharpening the distinctiveness between
responsibility and sustainability, we call for further research to deepen the areas of research unique to each
of these two fields of study and explore their complementarities and intersections.
The overlap
1. Historical Distinctions:
o Corporate Responsibility (CR) emerged post-World War II, focusing on the moral
obligations of businesses to society. It was rooted in ethical and normative theories,
targeting issues like labor rights, product safety, and community well-being.
o Corporate Sustainability (CS) originated in the 1980s, emphasizing the systemic
impacts of economic development on natural systems. It borrowed concepts from
ecology, engineering, and systems science.
2. Convergence Over Time: Area of overlap - Constructs
o Despite their distinct origins, CR and CS have become increasingly conflated.
Contemporary definitions often overlap, combining social and environmental
concerns under broad constructs like corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the
triple bottom line.
o Overlap in sustainability and responsibility concepts; overlap of measurements.
3. Core Differences:
o CR: Normative and ethics-driven, focusing on the moral duties of managers and
firms.
o CS: Systems-oriented, aiming to sustain interconnected social, economic, and
ecological systems over time.
Key Distinctions Between CS and CSR
1. Core Definitions
○ Corporate Sustainability (CS):
■ Defined as the capacity of a business to maintain the resilience of
social-ecological systems for long-term survival and prosperity.
■ Focuses on ensuring the balance and health of interconnected systems,
incorporating environmental, social, and economic dimensions.
, ■ Draws from concepts such as the triple bottom line, sustainability science,
and ecological economics.
○ Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR):
■ Defined as a firm's ethical and discretionary responsibilities to address
societal expectations and mitigate negative impacts.
■ Prioritizes a firm’s accountability to immediate stakeholders, such as
employees, customers, and local communities.
■ Rooted in stakeholder theory, ethical principles, and corporate governance.
2. Temporal Orientation
○ CS:
■ Intrinsically long-term, with a focus on intergenerational equity and resource
sustainability.
■ Aims to balance current needs without compromising future generations'
ability to meet their own.
○ CSR:
■ Primarily short- to medium-term, driven by stakeholder expectations and
social norms.
■ Often involves actions that align with current reputational, regulatory, or
market pressures.
3. Mechanisms and Approaches
○ CS:
■ Systemic and integrative, embedding sustainability into the core operations
and strategy of a business.
■ Examples include supply chain optimization to reduce environmental
impacts, closed-loop production systems, and long-term ecosystem
investments.
■ Relies on innovation and collaboration to address complex global
challenges, such as climate change and biodiversity loss.
○ CSR:
■ More tactical and often peripheral, focusing on specific societal or ethical
issues.
■ Includes philanthropy, voluntary codes of conduct, and initiatives such as
community outreach or employee diversity programs.
Outcome Goals
○ CS:
■ Strives for systemic resilience, where business activities enhance the
stability and balance of environmental, social, and economic systems.
■ Measures success through sustainability indicators, like reduced carbon
footprint, biodiversity preservation, and circular economy practices.
○ CSR:
■ Primarily aims for social legitimacy, meeting stakeholder expectations, and
improving brand reputation.
Success is often gauged by stakeholder satisfaction, enhanced trust, and compliance with social
and ethical standards.
,Four Areas of Conceptual Overlap
1. Construct Definitions:
o Early definitions were distinct: CR focused on stakeholder rights and social issues,
while CS centered on environmental stewardship.
o Modern constructs merge these domains, viewing environmental and social issues
as interconnected components of business strategy.
2. Ontological Assumptions:
o Both CR and CS challenge the profit-maximization model, advocating for
multidimensional performance metrics that include social and environmental
impacts.
o CR emphasizes direct firm-stakeholder relationships, while CS situates firms within
broader, nested systems (e.g., ecosystems, economies).
3. Nomological Networks:
o Both fields use similar frameworks to explore antecedents and outcomes of
corporate practices. For example:
▪ CR often links stakeholder management to financial performance.
▪ CS ties environmental initiatives to innovation and risk reduction.
4. Measurement and Methodologies:
o Empirical studies often blur the boundaries between CR and CS, using overlapping
metrics like KLD/MSCI ratings for social and environmental performance.
Distinct Paradigms
1. CR’s Ethical Roots:
o CR emerged from welfare economics and moral philosophy, advocating for
responsible corporate behavior to enhance societal welfare.
o Key figures, such as Bowen (1953), emphasized the moral duties of managers to
broader stakeholders.
2. CS’s Scientific Foundations:
o CS is rooted in systems science, focusing on the interdependencies among social,
economic, and ecological systems.
o The 1987 Brundtland Report popularized sustainable development, highlighting the
need for businesses to operate within natural resource limits.
The strategic turn led to financial outcomes and non-financial outcomes.
Opportunities for Future Research
1. Sharpening Distinctions:
o Scholars should revisit the normative (CR) and systems-based (CS) foundations to
deepen insights into business-society relationships.
2. Exploring Complementarities:
o Combining the ethical focus of CR with the systemic lens of CS can generate more
holistic frameworks for addressing pressing societal challenges.
3. Advancing Methodologies:
o Developing clearer constructs and metrics to differentiate CR and CS while
leveraging their unique contributions.
, Key Arguments and Theoretical Contributions
1. Interdependence vs. Responsibility
○ CS emphasizes the interconnectedness of systems, recognizing that businesses
operate within a broader ecological and social framework.
○ CSR focuses on addressing the firm's specific impact on society, often adopting a
narrower lens on corporate responsibility.
2. Integration vs. Separation
○ CS is inherently integrated into business strategy and operations, aiming for
systemic transformation.
○ CSR often remains an externalized set of activities, separate from the core
profit-driven agenda of the firm.
3. Motivations
○ CS is motivated by a recognition of ecological limits and the need for long-term
survival in a finite system.
○ CSR is driven by stakeholder expectations, ethical considerations, and regulatory
pressures.
4. Challenges of Conflation
○ Blurring the lines between CS and CSR risks undermining the transformational
potential of CS by reducing it to incremental and reputation-driven CSR activities.
○ The authors call for a clearer articulation of the two concepts to advance theoretical
rigor and practical implementation.
Conclusion
The article emphasizes the need for clarity in distinguishing CR and CS while recognizing their
interdependence. By leveraging their unique paradigms, researchers and practitioners can address
complex societal and environmental challenges more effectively.
Advancing research to embrace distinctiveness of responsibility and sustainability:
(a) responsibility based on ethical principles
(b) sustainability based on systems science
(c) explore complementaries between responsibility and sustainability without compromising
clarity
(d) Focus on the tensions and trade-offs between business and society
(e) Focusing on the intersection between business and society: see them as deeply related
Corporate responsibility and sustainability research emerged from different paradigms. Responsibility
research started with a normative orientation that applied the language and reasoning of ethics and
normative welfare economics in an in- dustrial era in which scholars and social activists questioned
unconstrained laissez-faire capitalism
Sustainability research was a reaction to the disruptions created by the economic development of natural
resource systems, which was undermining the very purpose of economic development
Each field has different origins—responsibility in normative economics and ethics, and sustainability in
systems science. Yet, responsibility and sustainability re- search has converged to the same place, using
similar definitions, ontological assumptions, nomological networks, and measurement, so that their
distinctiveness has been lost.
Construct becomes “an umbrella term overlapping with some, and being synonymous with other conceptions
of business-society relations”. This overlap results in either fractured or repeated conversations, which
hamper the develop- ment of the field.
