Reading 1................................................................................. 3
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...................................................................................................................... 3
Reading 2................................................................................. 6
Van Zanten, J. A., & van Tulder, R. (2021). Improving companies' impacts on
sustainable development: A nexus approach to the SDGS. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 30(8), 3703-3720..................................................................................6
Reading 3............................................................................... 11
Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S. E., Donges, J. F., ... &
Rockström, J. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science
Advances, 9(37), eadh2458......................................................................................11
Reading 4............................................................................... 18
Biermann, F., & Kim, R. E. (2020). The boundaries of the planetary boundary
framework: a critical appraisal of approaches to define a “safe operating space” for
humanity. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 45(1), 497-521...............18
Reading 5............................................................................... 23
Fanning, A. L., & Raworth, K. (2025). Doughnut of social and planetary boundaries
monitors a world out of balance. Nature, 646(8083), 47-56.....................................23
Reading 6............................................................................... 29
Acharya, A., Geloso, V., & Psurek, A. (2025). The Hole in the Doughnut: Formalizing
and Testing a Key Model of Degrowth. Available at SSRN 5360466..........................29
Reading 7............................................................................... 33
Österblom, H., Jouffray, J. B., Folke, C., Crona, B., Troell, M., Merrie, A., & Rockström,
J. (2015). Transnational corporations as ‘keystone actors’ in marine
ecosystems. PloS one, 10(5), e0127533...................................................................33
Reading 8............................................................................... 36
Panwar, R., Ober, H., & Pinkse, J. (2023). The uncomfortable relationship between
business and biodiversity: Advancing research on business strategies for biodiversity
protection. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(5), 2554-2566...................36
Reading 9............................................................................... 40
Sterner, T., Barbier, E. B., Bateman, I., van den Bijgaart, I., Crépin, A. S., Edenhofer,
O., ... & Robinson, A. (2019). Policy design for the Anthropocene. Nature
Sustainability, 2(1), 14-21........................................................................................40
Reading 10.............................................................................44
Allen, F., Barbalau, A., Chavez, E., & Zeni, F. (2025). Leveraging the capabilities of
multinational firms to address climate change: a finance perspective. Journal of
International Business Studies, 56(4), 461-480........................................................44
Reading 11.............................................................................49
Zaheer, S. (2025). The sustainability of MNE sustainability initiatives. Journal of
International Business Studies, 56(4), 491-500........................................................49
Reading 12.............................................................................52
Yu, H., Bansal, P., & Arjaliès, D. L. (2023). International business is contributing to
environmental crises . Journal of International Business Studies, 54, 1151–1169.....52
Reading 13.............................................................................57
,Montiel, I., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Park, J., Antolín-López, R., & Husted, B. W. (2021).
Implementing the United Nations’ sustainable development goals in international
business. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(5), 999-1030.......................57
,Reading 1
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
Introduction
This paper presents a review of the evolution, convergence, and
distinctiveness of the academic fields of corporate
responsibility and sustainability. It addresses the proliferation of
overlapping constructs such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR),
Corporate Social Performance (CSP), stakeholder capitalism, social
entrepreneurship, corporate citizenship, triple bottom line, and shared
value, highlighting how this has led to conceptual confusion and hindered
theoretical development.
The authors emphasize the importance of construct clarity and
a consensual research agenda in advancing the fields, warning against the
risks of focusing solely on the business case for responsibility and
sustainability, which may lead to amoral managerial behaviour driven only
by profit motives.
Convergence of Responsibility and Sustainability
Corporate Responsibility (CR) emerged in the 1950s, primarily focusing on
the social impacts of business and market harms to society.
Corporate Sustainability (CS) arose in the 1980s, focused on the impacts
of economic development on natural systems.
Over time, these fields have converged, with both adopting a strategic
orientation emphasizing the business case for socially and
environmentally responsible practices.
The authors identify convergence in four key domains:
Construct definitions: early responsibility research emphasized
stakeholder rights and social justice, while sustainability focused on
ecological integrity. Now, both fields increasingly integrate these
concerns.
Ontological assumptions: both fields assume firms as entities
embedded in and interacting with social and natural systems.
Nomological networks: the antecedents and outcomes (such as
financial and non-financial performance) studied in both fields
overlap significantly.
Construct measurements: both fields rely heavily on similar data
sources, including KLD/MSCI ratings and environmental performance
metrics.
, Both responsibility and sustainability research have documented positive
correlations between corporate social/environmental performance
(CSP/CEP) and corporate financial performance (CFP).
This "business case" or "win-win" framing helped mainstream the fields in
management scholarship but also accelerated conceptual merging.
The role of CEOs and top management teams (TMTs) is crucial in shaping
corporate responsibility and sustainability outcomes. Both responsibility
and sustainability researchers recognize that the values, perceptions, and
leadership qualities of CEOs and TMTs significantly influence a firm's
engagement in socially responsible and environmentally sustainable
practices.
For CR, factors such as CEOs’ collectivistic values, political ideology,
transformational leadership qualities, ethical commitment, long-term CEO
pay, and executives’ decision-making modes are important antecedents
that affect corporate social performance. Scholars note that CEOs often
act in socially desirable ways to satisfy their "need for meaningful
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...................................................................................................................... 3
Reading 2................................................................................. 6
Van Zanten, J. A., & van Tulder, R. (2021). Improving companies' impacts on
sustainable development: A nexus approach to the SDGS. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 30(8), 3703-3720..................................................................................6
Reading 3............................................................................... 11
Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S. E., Donges, J. F., ... &
Rockström, J. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science
Advances, 9(37), eadh2458......................................................................................11
Reading 4............................................................................... 18
Biermann, F., & Kim, R. E. (2020). The boundaries of the planetary boundary
framework: a critical appraisal of approaches to define a “safe operating space” for
humanity. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 45(1), 497-521...............18
Reading 5............................................................................... 23
Fanning, A. L., & Raworth, K. (2025). Doughnut of social and planetary boundaries
monitors a world out of balance. Nature, 646(8083), 47-56.....................................23
Reading 6............................................................................... 29
Acharya, A., Geloso, V., & Psurek, A. (2025). The Hole in the Doughnut: Formalizing
and Testing a Key Model of Degrowth. Available at SSRN 5360466..........................29
Reading 7............................................................................... 33
Österblom, H., Jouffray, J. B., Folke, C., Crona, B., Troell, M., Merrie, A., & Rockström,
J. (2015). Transnational corporations as ‘keystone actors’ in marine
ecosystems. PloS one, 10(5), e0127533...................................................................33
Reading 8............................................................................... 36
Panwar, R., Ober, H., & Pinkse, J. (2023). The uncomfortable relationship between
business and biodiversity: Advancing research on business strategies for biodiversity
protection. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(5), 2554-2566...................36
Reading 9............................................................................... 40
Sterner, T., Barbier, E. B., Bateman, I., van den Bijgaart, I., Crépin, A. S., Edenhofer,
O., ... & Robinson, A. (2019). Policy design for the Anthropocene. Nature
Sustainability, 2(1), 14-21........................................................................................40
Reading 10.............................................................................44
Allen, F., Barbalau, A., Chavez, E., & Zeni, F. (2025). Leveraging the capabilities of
multinational firms to address climate change: a finance perspective. Journal of
International Business Studies, 56(4), 461-480........................................................44
Reading 11.............................................................................49
Zaheer, S. (2025). The sustainability of MNE sustainability initiatives. Journal of
International Business Studies, 56(4), 491-500........................................................49
Reading 12.............................................................................52
Yu, H., Bansal, P., & Arjaliès, D. L. (2023). International business is contributing to
environmental crises . Journal of International Business Studies, 54, 1151–1169.....52
Reading 13.............................................................................57
,Montiel, I., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Park, J., Antolín-López, R., & Husted, B. W. (2021).
Implementing the United Nations’ sustainable development goals in international
business. Journal of International Business Studies, 52(5), 999-1030.......................57
,Reading 1
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
Introduction
This paper presents a review of the evolution, convergence, and
distinctiveness of the academic fields of corporate
responsibility and sustainability. It addresses the proliferation of
overlapping constructs such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR),
Corporate Social Performance (CSP), stakeholder capitalism, social
entrepreneurship, corporate citizenship, triple bottom line, and shared
value, highlighting how this has led to conceptual confusion and hindered
theoretical development.
The authors emphasize the importance of construct clarity and
a consensual research agenda in advancing the fields, warning against the
risks of focusing solely on the business case for responsibility and
sustainability, which may lead to amoral managerial behaviour driven only
by profit motives.
Convergence of Responsibility and Sustainability
Corporate Responsibility (CR) emerged in the 1950s, primarily focusing on
the social impacts of business and market harms to society.
Corporate Sustainability (CS) arose in the 1980s, focused on the impacts
of economic development on natural systems.
Over time, these fields have converged, with both adopting a strategic
orientation emphasizing the business case for socially and
environmentally responsible practices.
The authors identify convergence in four key domains:
Construct definitions: early responsibility research emphasized
stakeholder rights and social justice, while sustainability focused on
ecological integrity. Now, both fields increasingly integrate these
concerns.
Ontological assumptions: both fields assume firms as entities
embedded in and interacting with social and natural systems.
Nomological networks: the antecedents and outcomes (such as
financial and non-financial performance) studied in both fields
overlap significantly.
Construct measurements: both fields rely heavily on similar data
sources, including KLD/MSCI ratings and environmental performance
metrics.
, Both responsibility and sustainability research have documented positive
correlations between corporate social/environmental performance
(CSP/CEP) and corporate financial performance (CFP).
This "business case" or "win-win" framing helped mainstream the fields in
management scholarship but also accelerated conceptual merging.
The role of CEOs and top management teams (TMTs) is crucial in shaping
corporate responsibility and sustainability outcomes. Both responsibility
and sustainability researchers recognize that the values, perceptions, and
leadership qualities of CEOs and TMTs significantly influence a firm's
engagement in socially responsible and environmentally sustainable
practices.
For CR, factors such as CEOs’ collectivistic values, political ideology,
transformational leadership qualities, ethical commitment, long-term CEO
pay, and executives’ decision-making modes are important antecedents
that affect corporate social performance. Scholars note that CEOs often
act in socially desirable ways to satisfy their "need for meaningful
