Simultaneous implementation of Sustainable Development (SD) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) within a global business context

Abstract

In the current rapidly changing, complex and multi-faceted business context companies face a diverse range of challenges on a daily basis such as financial performance pressures combined with the increasing expectations from societies that companies act more responsibly with relation to social and environmental aspects. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and Sustainable development (SD) are not new concepts and are some of the most widely recognized and used business concepts today. It seems that the implementation of both CSR and SD is needed in a modern and global business context. Although CSR and SD are regarded as different concepts, there is a clear overlap, interrelationship and interconnectedness between these concepts. It seems advantageous to at a practical level implement CSR and SD simultaneously as the tridimensional view of SD mimics the tridimensional view of CSR. It is acknowledged that although SD and CSR both include a tridimensional view and they are closely connected, there are different conceptual nuances. This paper provides an overview of the differences and similarities between CSR and SD and describes practical guidelines to implement CSR and SD simultaneously.

Full text

Corporate Ownership & Control / Volume 10, Issue 1, 2012, Continued - 1
170
SIMULTANEOUS IMPLEMENTATION OF SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT (SD) AND CORPORATE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) WITHIN A GLOBAL BUSINESS
CONTEXT
Marita Naudé*
Abstract
In the current rapidly changing, complex and multi-faceted business context companies face a diverse
range of challenges on a daily basis such as financial performance pressures combined with the
increasing expectations from societies that companies act more responsibly with relation to social and
environmental aspects. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and Sustainable development (SD) are
not new concepts and are some of the most widely recognized and used business concepts today. It
seems that the implementation of both CSR and SD is needed in a modern and global business context.
Although CSR and SD are regarded as different concepts, there is a clear overlap, interrelationship and
interconnectedness between these concepts. It seems advantageous to at a practical level implement
CSR and SD simultaneously as the tridimensional view of SD mimics the tridimensional view of CSR.
It is acknowledged that although SD and CSR both include a tridimensional view and they are closely
connected, there are different conceptual nuances. This paper provides an overview of the differences
and similarities between CSR and SD and describes practical guidelines to implement CSR and SD
simultaneously.
Keywords: Sustainable Development, Corporate Social Responsibility, Changing Business Context
* Associate Professor, Curtin Graduate School of Business, Curtin University, 78 Murray street, Perth, 6000, Western Australia.
Tel.: +61892667615
E-mail: marita.naude@gsb.curtin.edu.au
1. Introduction
Within the current business environment companies
continuously face a complex range of internal and
external challenges which are shaping the business
environment such as financial performance pressures
combined with the increasing expectations from
societies that companies act more responsibly with
relation to social and environmental aspects (Brooks,
2005; Khandekar and Sharma, 2005; Daub and
Scherrer, 2009). It is very important for companies to
demonstrate both social and environmental
responsible behaviour in addition to financial
prosperity and security (Montiel, 2008).
There is evidence that CSR is no longer regarded
as an unproductive cost or resource burden but a way
to enhance reputation and credibility (Hediger, 2010;
Holme and Watts, 2000). This implies that CSR could
assist to improve corporate profits, guard against
reputational risks and is positively related to the
market value of the firm (Hediger, 2010; Heal, 2005;
Beltratti, 2005).
In 2010 the Accenture and UN Global Compact
surveyed 766 CEOs worldwide. Based on the
feedback, 93% of the participants stated that
sustainability is crucial to the long term success of the
company. In addition, three quarters stated that they
select sustainability strategies to build and protect the
product, enhance corporate reputation and potentially
to decrease cost and grow revenue (Boerner, 2010).
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and
Sustainable development (SD) are well-known
concepts and are some of the most widely recognized
and used business concepts today (Patra, 2008). It
seems that the implementation of both CSR and SD is
needed in a modern and global business context.
Although CSR and SD are regarded as different
concepts, there is a clear overlap, interrelationship and
interconnectedness between these concepts (Hediger,
2010; Montiel, 2008).
These two concepts have become part of the
business buzzwords of our time. Although CSR and
SD seems to be part of the terminology within the
current business context, one of the first challenges
when wanting to implement strategies related to CSR
and SD in the practical situation is that there are
multiple and vastly different definitions for both CSR
and SD. Furthermore, these concepts are broad,
sometimes not well defined, and there seems to be a
lack of applicable, tested and comprehensive
frameworks with applicable guidelines for effective

Corporate Ownership & Control / Volume 10, Issue 1, 2012, Continued - 1
171
implementation (Baumgartner and Korhonen, 2010;
Becker, 2010; Jabbour and Santos, 2008).
For the purpose of this paper the author used the
approach that CSR is more than philanthropy and
compliance. This approach includes the motivating
CSR principles (values, performance and
stakeholders), processes (programs and activities) and
a complex and diverse range of organisational efforts
and activities to complement economical performance
with acceptable levels of both social and
environmental performance (Hediger, 2010; Maignan
and Ralston, 2002; Fromartz, 2009). In addition the
author uses the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD) definition that
CSR is the continuing commitment by business to
behave ethically and contribute to economic
development to improve the quality of life of the
workforce and their families, the local community and
society (Elijido-Ten, 2007; Gelbmann, 2010; Gao and
Jhang, 2006). It is evident that a tridimensional
(economic, social, environmental) view is advocated.
As there are numerous approaches to and
definitions for SD, the author accepted a SD
definition consistent with the Brundtland Commission
Report’s notion that growth, equity, and
environmental maintenance are simultaneously
possible (World Commission on Environment and
Development, WCED, 1987). This definition was
widely accepted after the 1992 Earth Summit (Dyllick
and Hockerts, 2002) and is consistent with the
opinions of Jabbour and Santos, 2009; Sharma, 2003;
Hart and Milstein, 2003). This approach to SD also
includes a tridimensional (economic, social,
environmental) view (Valezquez, et al., 2011; Byrch,
et al., 2007).
Following this line of thinking it seems from a
theoretical perspective that a company could be able
to implement CSR and SD simultaneously as the
tridimensional view of SD mimics the tridimensional
view of CSR. However, the practical reality raised the
following question:
 Although both CSR and SD include a
tridimensional view, what are the differences
and similarities?
 How does a company implement both CSR and
SD simultaneously and in an integrated way in
the overall business plan and strategy to enhance
outcomes?
The value added contribution of this paper is
threefold. Firstly, it could raise awareness among
directors, board members, practitioners and managers
regarding the importance of an integrated and multi-
dimensional approach to CSR and SD. Secondly, it
offers suggestions for the simultaneous
implementation of CSR and SD principles within a
company. Lastly, it provides management and
research implications.
The paper is presented in three parts. The first
part focuses on the literature review that provides a
basis for the arguments put forward in the paper. This
first part answers to the question: Although both CSR
and SD include a tridimensional view, what are the
differences and similarities? The second part
describes actions for practical implementation and
answers the question: How does a company
implement both CSR and SD simultaneously and in
an integrated way in the overall business plan and
strategy to enhance outcomes? The last part provides
overall management and research implications to
encourage further thinking.
2. Literature overview
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Definitions for CSR were formulated as early as 1953.
Even in the early definitions the approach was that
business policies, processes and procedures need to be
multi-dimensional. This means that companies need
to continuously consider overall strategies, activities
and consequences and not only economic
performance (Perrini, et al., 2006).
There is a variety of different definitions for
CSR (Longo, et al., 2005; Perrini, et al., 2006). CSR
is an approach where companies use the principles to
voluntarily contribute to a better society and cleaner
environment in addition to their prime responsibility
to generate profits. Companies can implement social
and environmental objectives by integrating CSR as a
strategic investment into their core business strategy
and plan, management instruments and operations
(Hediger, 2010; European Commission, 2001). CSR
is regarded as actions that work towards the social
good and are beyond the interests of the company and
that which is required by law (Hediger, 2010;
McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). Another view is a
dynamic approach to CSR which implies that CSR is
regarded as a gradual strategy and activity to assist
companies (and the involved parties) to adapt to
ongoing and new challenges, constantly address new
topics and integrate new tasks. Within this view, CSR
is not regarded as a once off task but an ongoing and
adaptable strategy which adds to the long-term
performance of a company (Gelbmann, 2010).
Although there is no generally accepted and
unified definition it is evident that most
interpretations of CSR include and integrate a
business, social or ethical dimension. The economic
dimension refers to the companies’ responsibility to
generate profits, preserve performance and
profitability. The social dimension refers to the
improvement of the quality of live and well-being for
society as a whole, the fact that companies need to act
in an ethical way towards society. This approach
includes environmental objectives (WBCSD, 2002;
Hopkins, 2004; Lyon and Maxwell, 2008; Malovics et
al., 2008; Reinhardt et al., 2008; Perrini, et al., 2006).
It is clear that participation and activities are
voluntary, participation and activities (linked to for
example business ethics, sustainable development,

Corporate Ownership & Control / Volume 10, Issue 1, 2012, Continued - 1
172
responsible corporate citizenship) go beyond the legal
obligations of a company. CSR is not legally binding
but it acts as a moral guideline (Jamali, et al., 2008).
In this author’s approach CSR is more than
philanthropy and compliance but it includes the
motivating CSR principles. These CSR principles are
driven by values, performance and processes such as
relevant programs and activities to provide the desired
outcomes. The key domains include the workplace,
the marketplace, the community, the supply chain and
society (Hediger, 2010; Maignan and Ralston, 2002).
There are many other approaches to CSR and
one approach is to differentiate between internal and
external parties. The internal parties will include the
employees and the company has a responsibility to
address aspects such as training, health and safety,
acceptable labor rights and working conditions.
External parties will include customers, local
communities and suppliers and the company has a
responsibility to act ethically towards these parties
(Jamali, et al., 2008; Smith, 2007). Other approaches
are that CSR forms an intrinsic part of the company
character and processes, it is not ancillary to business,
it involves discussion and engagement between the
company decision makers, managers and the relevant
parties, it will require different processes in different
companies to ensure that these processes suit the
particular context (Basu and Palazzo, 2008; Mittal, et
al., 2008; Jamali, et al., 2008; Bhattacharya, et al.,
2008; Robins, 2008). All this means that companies
need to address social equity, environmental integrity
in addition to financial prosperity to be seen as a
socially responsible company (Montiel, 2008).
CSR could be a potential and powerful source of
competitive advantage, opportunity and innovation.
When CSR is embedded in the core business and
strategies and the company is doing business in a
manner that lowers cost and/or improves the needs of
the parties involved in the company, CSR can be a
source of social progress (Porter and Kramer, 2006;
Gyves and O’Higgins, 2008; Husted and de Jesus
Salazar, 2006; Hillman and Keim, 2001).
The analysis of CSR is still in an early stage and
critical aspects related to tested and validated
frameworks; measurement and empirical methods
must still be resolved (Hediger, 2010; Paton and
Siegel, 2005). Table 1 summarises main ideas
regarding CSR.
Table 1. Main ideas regarding CSR
CSR must be defined clearly within the particular company and community
CSR is more than philanthropy and compliance; includes motivating CSR principles, processes and a complex
and diverse range of organisational efforts and activities
CSR is the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development
of their local community
CSR focuses on the needs and demands of current involved parties
Use integrated tridimensional (economic, social, environmental) approach
Sustainable Development (SD)
SD as a concept has been used for many years and is
widely applied in the current business environment
(Baumgartner and Korhonen, 2010; Becker, 2010;
Patra, 2009). In a survey conducted by the Accenture
and UN Global Compact in 2010 where they included
766 CEOs globally, it was evident that CEOs select
sustainability strategies to build and protect product,
enhance corporate reputation, grow revenue and
potentially decrease cost (Boerner, 2010).
There are multiple definitions for SD and this
creates a degree of confusion within both theoretical
discussions and practical implementations. From an
economic theory view, SD includes a shift from a
growth economy to a steady-state economy and from
an environmental view; it means the long-term
viability of resource usage and limitation to human
impact on ecosystems. From a socio-biological view,
SD usually incorporates cultural and social aspects in
combination with respect for nature (Velazquez, et
al.,2011; Edwards, 2005; Gallopin, 2003).
Furthermore, some authors regard SD as a value
judgment. It is also evident that SD means different
things to different people and this difference is due to
their knowledge, background, perception and values
(Becker, 2010; Jabbour and Santos 2008; Wallis, et
al., 2010; Velazquez et al., 2011; Prugh and
Assadourian, 2003; Filho, 2000). Although there is no
universal definition of SD due to different and
sometimes incompatible interpretations (Esquer-
Peralta, et al., 2008) there is a growing consensus that
an acceptable definition and understanding must
contain economic, social and environmental
dimensions (Valezquez, et al., 2011; Byrch, et al.,
2007). This notion is also consistent with the view of
the WCED (1987) and numerous other authors
(Elkington, 2006; Jabbour and Santos, 2009; Bansal,
2005). One of the key challenges in a tridimensional
approach is to find a balance among and achieve
excellence in all these dimensions. Economic
performance is usually more easily measurable while
social and environmental impacts are more longer
term and also not always so easily measurable.
Although companies might have relevant and valid
measures for improving the environmental and social
dimensions it seems that these measures are not
always linked to the economic dimension
(Baumgartner and Korhonen, 2010; Hart and
Milstein, 2003; Velazquez, et al., 2011; Jamali, 2006;

Corporate Ownership & Control / Volume 10, Issue 1, 2012, Continued - 1
173
Epstein and Buhovac, 2010; Epstein, et al., 2010).
Companies are expected to integrate economic, social
and environmental goals and draw on the economic,
social and environmental information and data to
ensure effective and relevant choices. This approach
necessitates a wide range of relevant managerial,
technological and institutional innovation (Laughland
and Bansal, 2011; D’Amato and Roome, 2009).
Another key issue of SD is that companies need
to fulfill both the needs and aspirations of the current
generations without compromising the needs and
aspirations of future generations (Steurer, et al., 2005;
Jabbour and Santos, 2008; Becker, 2010). Following
this line of thinking, SD provides both short-term and
long-term challenges and is crucial to create and
maintain a competitive advantage. In rapidly changing
internal and external environments, companies need
resources and capabilities to survive and thrive over
the short and long-term. There is a need to refine the
practical implementation of SD strategies, policies,
procedures and activities in the day-to-day
functioning of companies (Baumgartner and
Korhonen, 2010; Clulow, et al., 2003). Although SD
is an urgent long-term challenge at global, national
and local levels and despite many efforts and
implementation varying levels of progress were made.
There is also significant difference in the levels of
development and implementation of national, regional
and international policies (Baumgartner and
Korhonen, 2010; Hart and Milstein, 2003; Velazquez,
et al., 2011; Jamali, 2006; Epstein and Buhovac,
2010; Epstein, et al., 2010).
There is evidence (Baumgartner and Korhonen,
2010; Hart and Milstein, 2003; Velazquez, et al.,
2011; Jamali, 2006; Epstein and Buhovac, 2010;
Epstein, et al., 2010) that over the longer-term
sustainable companies:
 are resilient,
 create economic value, healthy ecosystems,
stronger communities,
 are better equipped to survive external and
internal change,
 are able maintain a dynamic equilibrium,
 are able to effectively balance the economic,
social and environmental dimensions.
To accomplish the balance among all three
dimensions, a company needs to make the shift from
purely maximizing profitability and ‘doing things
better’ to maximizing value, and ‘doing better things’
(Laughland and Bansal, 2011; D’Amato and Roome,
2009; Wals and Schwarzin, 2012; Sterling, 2004;
McKibben, 2007). Many companies claim that they
are actively engaged in SD but research evidence
indicates that there sometimes is a misunderstanding
about what is involved in SD. Some of the current
accounting practices work against SD as efficiency is
mainly demonstrated through cost cutting. SD
efficiency should rather be demonstrated through
recognizing value-creating activities (Aras and
Crowther, 2009; Smith and Sharicz, 2011). Table 2
reflects the main ideas regarding SD.
Table 2. Main ideas regarding SD
SD must be defined clearly within the particular company and community
SD needs to fulfill the needs of current generations without impacting on needs of future generations
To create sustainable companies and communities
SD is a long-term challenge at global, national and local levels
Use integrated tridimensional (economic, social, environmental) approach
Differences, links and overlap between
CSR and SD
Based on the current trends and pressures in the
modern and global business context there is a need to
implement both CSR and SD (Hediger, 2010;
Montiel, 2008).
There are definite distinctions and paradigmatic
differences between CSR and SD. CSR includes
organisational obligations and responsibility, is
regarded as a voluntary approach which focuses on
the demands of the internal and external parties who
are currently involved in the company. On the other
hand, SD is regarded as a guiding model depending
mainly on the interpretation by society, aims at longer
term outcomes and focuses on needs of both current
and future parties (de Bakker, et al., 2005; Owen,
2007). In some companies sustainability is becoming
the new face of CSR (Clarke, 2007; Garriga and
Melé, 2004; Lueneburger and Goleman, 2010;
Strugatch, 2011).
Although there are clear differences between
CSR and SD, there are definite overlaps and these
concepts are interconnected and interrelated. There
seems to be evidence in the literature that CSR and
SD are converging to similar concepts. This
convergence is also evident in the practical situation
as some companies use SD and CSR interchangeably
(Montiel, 2008; Hediger, 2010; van Marrewijk, 2003)
and therefore use very similar variables to monitor
CSR and SD impact and outcomes although others
use vastly different variables (Hahn, et al., 2010).
This convergence appears to be resulting from the
growing trend to consider both CSR and SD from a
tridimensional approach with both CSR and SD
containing economic, social and environmental
dimensions with the overall aim to find an equal
balance between these three dimensions (Bansal,
2005; Elkington, 2006; Montiel, 2008; Hart and

Corporate Ownership & Control / Volume 10, Issue 1, 2012, Continued - 1
174
Milstein, 2003; Steurer, et al., 2005; Husted and de
Jesus Salazar, 2006). However, it must be
acknowledged that although SD and CSR both
include a tridimensional view and are closely
connected, there are different conceptual nuances
(Steurer, et al., 2005). In some companies, SD is
interpreted as one strategy within a range of
approaches and activities to conceptualize CSR within
that company while CSR is interpreted as the
realization of business contribution to SD goals. Some
companies equate SD to and focus on environmental
sustainability while others include numerous
economic and societal aspects (Sharma and
Henriques, 2005; Berns, et al., 2009). Based on all the
overlap and similarities it is feasible to implement
CSR and SD simultaneously. Figure 1 summarises the
main ideas regarding the links between CSR and SD.
Figure 1. Links between CSR and SD
3. Guidelines for implementation
To simultaneously implement CSR and SD the
company needs a combination of different and
integrated approaches, strategies and activities to
maximize impact and value for the company, its
practitioners and the community wherein it operates.
For practical and structural reasons of this paper the
author described these approaches and strategies
separately and in a linear format but advocates that
each company is unique and managers need to decide
which of these guidelines are suitable to the particular
company and in which order they want to implement
these guidelines (and add other relevant aspects).
However, she advocates that these need to be
implemented in an integrated and interconnected way.
Additionally, the author acknowledges that other
authors, directors, managers and practitioners might
group some of the discussed material under different
headings. Although the author advocates a flexible
and company specific approach, it is highly advisable
that the company defines the concepts of CSR and SD
as these are relevant to that particular company to
provide a consistent and clear basis and common
understanding to work from.
Senior management support
Company directors and managers need to
provide the vision for CSR and SD. After directors
and managers have chosen CSR and SD as an area of
focus or a core value, the relevant systems and
processes need to be put in place to support this focus
(Liebowitz, 2010).
Definitions
As there are numerous definitions for both CSR
and SD it is crucial that companies and community
members (such as policy makers) develop well-
defined, commonly agreed upon and clearly bounded
definitions for each of these concepts and then
implemented these concepts consistently throughout
the company (Montiel, 2008; Bansal 2005; Daub and
Scherrer, 2009). The author of this article advocates
that the definition for both CSR and SD includes the
tridimensional approach. Within this approach the
economic, social and environmental are regarded as
having equal value.
Simultaneous implementation
Based on the literature discussion within this
article, it is clear that CSR and SD are interdependent
and with many overlapping constructs. Therefore, it
seems logical that CSR and SD should be
implemented simultaneously to maximize the
outcomes and the value for all involved parties.
Furthermore, a multidimensional and integrated
approach encourages and motivates both managers
and employees to work across functional boundaries
(Chuang and Liao, 2010).
Core business
Societal demands and expectations regarding
more social and environmental responsibility has and
will increase over time leading to increased support
for CSR and SD (Daub and Scherrer, 2009; Steurer, et
al., 2005). For CSR and SD to be effective it is
important that the principles and processes to support
the needed outcomes form part of the core business,
management decisions, systems and daily activities of
the company (Hazlett, et al., 2010; Samy, et al., 2010;
Epstein, et al., 2010).
Employee recruitment and selection
One option is to recruit internally before looking
externally. This necessitates the need for career plans
for all employees. In addition, there needs to be
enough time to train and develop current employees
towards transition into new roles (either lateral
transfers or vertical promotions). Another option is to
recruit externally when there are no internal
employees suitable to take on a position. When

Corporate Ownership & Control / Volume 10, Issue 1, 2012, Continued - 1
175
recruiting for positions it must be ensured that the
recruits (either internal or external) are supporting a
CSR and SD approach (Goleman, 2010; Johansson,
2006; Liebowitz, 2010).
New employee orientation
Once recruits are on board, it must be explained
to them clearly how CSR and SD are integrated in the
business plan, systems and processes. These processes
might include performance appraisal and
compensation systems (Liebowitz, 2010).
Staff development
Staff development occurs through both informal
and formal training and there needs to be a particular
focus to increase the understanding and
implementation of the three-dimensional approach to
CSR and SD, the meaning of concepts, environmental
stewardship, CSR and SD capabilities, and the
principles for implementing CSR and SD in an
integrated and balanced manner and integrated into
the business processes. The training sessions could be
included in other sessions or could be done as a stand-
alone activity (D’Amato and Roome, 2009; Esquer-
Peralta, et al., 2008; Smith and Sharicz, 2011;
Liebowitz, 2010).
Leadership
In the current business environment where there
is constant change it is very important that leaders
analyse and understand the current trends that might
impact on their company and the community in which
it operates as these trends and impacts need to be
taken into account when making business decisions,
forming strategy and designing business plans
(Harmon et al., 2010). Companies need effective
leadership by the relevant decision makers as these
leaders need to initiate, direct, provide the conditions
for, implement and evaluate the strategies and
activities relevant to CSR and SD programs and
outcomes (Epstein and Buhovac, 2010; Epstein, et al.,
2010; Rocha et al., 2007;). Authentic,
transformational and ethical leadership styles are all
either directly or indirectly linked to SD
implementation and outcomes (Angus-Leppan, et al.,
2010). In combination with a particular leadership
style, leaders require particular leadership skills such
as innovation, analysis, cross-cultural understanding,
reflection, change management, flexibility,
adaptiveness and a holistic systems thinking
approach. Furthermore, the leaders need to attain the
relevant SD capabilities such as recognising trends
and patterns, implementing a balanced approach
between the economic, social and environmental
dimensions (Rocha et al., 2007; Liebowitz, 2010).
Performance management
The first step in achieving CSR and SD
outcomes is to set clear goals to attain these
outcomes. Performance management and appraisal
systems then need to support the goals for CSR and
SD. Some of the relevant skills that would be
included are aspects such as teamwork, innovation
and environmental stewardship. However, the
particular skills and goals are very specific and unique
to every company (Liebowitz, 2010). There must be a
clear alignment and consistency between expected
outcomes and performance management (Epstein, et
al., 2010; Epstein and Buhovac, 2010).
Compensation and recognition
To support the CSR and SD approach and to
provide recognition for employees’ successful CSR
and SD initiatives it is a good idea to publish these
outcomes. Publication could be in internal
publications such as the intranet, newsletters or on
external publications such as the general website of
the company. Compensation programs (eg. bonuses)
if applicable are another form of recognition. All
compensation and recognition programs must be
based on principles such as objectivity, fairness and
measurability (Bhattacharya, et al., 2008; Liebowitz,
2010; Epstein, et al., 2010; Epstein and Buhovac,
2010).
Empowerment
Directors and managers need to create a
participative work culture and environment in which
employees are allowed to disagree with management
and offer alternatives and different perspectives to
address issues. The most effective ideas and
innovations are usually offered by employees who
deal with a particular issue on a regular basis. New
ideas are to be fostered and encouraged (Casler, et al.,
2010; Liebowitz, 2010).
Succession planning
It is crucial to the SD of any company to ensure
that there is a succession plan in place for leaders and
key players in the company. Before an employee
retires or when a person raises the possibility that
he/she have any intention to leave the company, it is
important for the outgoing employee to work with the
incoming employee for a period of time. That period
will depend on the complexity of the job. In many
companies it occurs that the incoming employee only
starts in the job months after the outgoing employee
has already left. There are many advantages if there
were a smooth handover period (Liebowitz, 2010).
Mentoring programs
A formal mentoring program has many
advantages including helping the mentees to develop
and strengthen a CSR and SD approach and
principles, teamwork, innovation, delegation,
diversity management and environmental stewardship
competencies. Not only do the mentees benefit but the
mentors usually benefit as well, for example learning
new perspectives and very often new technology from
the mentees (Liebowitz, 2010; Warner, 2002).
Innovation
I an effort to stimulate and encourage the
development and implementation of innovative
creative ideas the company needs to create a culture
where employees are comfortable to take calculated
risks and experiment. Budgets (however small or big)
are useful to encourage and support CSR and SD
initiatives and projects. These projects might also

Corporate Ownership & Control / Volume 10, Issue 1, 2012, Continued - 1
176
encourage the formation of cross-functional SD teams
and task forces (Liebowitz, 2010).
Partnerships
To enhance CSR and SD outcomes companies
need to build effective partnerships with the internal
and external parties involved in the company. The
partnership between the company and its internal and
external parties can bring benefits to all the parties
involved. However, there are particular challenges
including that building partnerships takes time, needs
a lot of coordination and cooperation, open and honest
communication is advisable but is not always
possible, multiple conflicts might arise as a result of a
wide range of personalities and strong emotions
attached to particular issues, necessitates collaborative
innovation and multi-party participation, transparency
and accountability. In an effort to build partnerships it
usually is a more effective strategy to conduct open
meetings and communication instead of formal and
traditional exchanges. This allows for the exploration
of different perspective and alternative views
regarding CSR and SD and to enhance trust and align
interests (Hopkins, 2009; Maignan and Ferrell, 2004;
Smith, 2007).
Develop a supportive culture
A strong mission statement accompanied by the
relevant strategies, activities, systems and processes
need to send a clear and consistent message to support
a tridimensional CSR and SD approach throughout all
goals, programs, strategies, policies and procedures.
Leaders and managers should support the approach by
leading through example and communicating a clear,
honest and consistent message (Epstein and Buhovac,
2010; Kerr, 2006; Epstein, et al., 2010; Hopkins,
2009). The tridimensional approach needs a shift from
conventional and hierarchical models to more open
models that encourage and stimulate fresh thinking
and new ideas (Hopkins, 2009; Garavan, et al., 2001;
Waddock and McIntosh, 2009).
Effective communication
The best CSR and SD program will be
ineffective if the message is not communicated
clearly, consistently and effectively internal and
external to the company. Leaders and managers need
to decide how to use the most relevant and effective
communication strategies to maximise CSR and SD
outcomes (Hopkins, 2009).
4. Management implications and
applications
From the literature it seems clear that the
tridimensional approach necessitates a shift from
conventional and hierarchical thinking and models to
more open and flexible approach that stimulates
alternate thinking, using different perspectives and
new innovative ideas (Hopkins, 2009; Garavan, et al.,
2001; Waddock and McIntosh, 2009).
Based on this shift in thinking, it will be
advantageous at a practical company level if
managers (in consultation with directors and
practitioners) develop a framework to implement CSR
and SD simultaneously within the particular company.
This framework needs to incorporate the unique
characteristic of the company and the community in
which it operates as well as contain the relevant
generic principles (for example relevant aspects from
the guidelines for implementation presented in this
paper). It is well known that a framework does not
necessarily guarantee success but it acts as a tool to
analyse and compare current approaches and
practices, identify relevant linkages, and gain an
understanding of the changes that are needed. This
means that a framework could assist a company to
identify the different dimensions to be included in
CSR and SD, develop a systematic and planned
approach, create quantitative and qualitative
indicators, and assist with continuous monitoring and
improvement (Becker, 2010; Wallis, et al., 2010;
Mori and Welch, 2008; D’Amato and Roome, 2009).
Once a framework is developed it will be tested,
evaluated and refined in the company. After a few
rounds of testing, evaluating and refining a company
will have a framework best suited to its needs and
consistent with the particular approach that it has used
for CSR and SD implementation.
5. Research implications
Researchers (through consultation with directors,
managers and practitioners) need to develop, test and
refine frameworks for the simultaneous practical
implementation of CSR and by different companies,
within different industries and countries. It is very
important that researchers consult with the relevant
parties in the practical situation to ensure that
theoretical frameworks have practical value. After the
development and testing of these frameworks in a
practical setting, they can be refined and used in
companies to provide direction for action.
6. Conclusion
It is imperative that well-defined, commonly agreed
on and clearly bounded explanations for CSR and SD
exist within a company, or are developed, and then
implemented consistently (Montiel 2008; Bansal
2005). The author argues that although CSR and SD
are different concepts and constructs, there is
undeniable overlap and advocates for a tridimensional
approach to both CSR and SD. It is concluded that
there are adequate overlap between CSR and SD to
open the idea that these two concepts should be
implemented simultaneously and integrated within the
overall business strategy and plan.

Corporate Ownership & Control / Volume 10, Issue 1, 2012, Continued - 1
177
6. References
1. Angus-Leppan, T., Benn, S. and Young, L. (2010), “A
sensemaking approach to trade-off and synergies
between human and ecological elements of corporate
sustainability”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol.19, No. 4, pp. 230-244. DOI: 10/1002/bse.675.
2. Aras, G. and Crowther, D. (2009), “Making sustainable
development sustainable”, Management Decision, Vol.
47, No. 6, pp. 975-88.
3. Bansal, P. (2002), “The corporate challenges of
sustainable development”, Academy of Management
Executive, Vol.16, No. 2, pp. 122-131.
4. Basu K, Palazzo G. (2008), “Corporate social
responsibility: A process model of sensemaking”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol.33, pp. 122-
136.
5. Baumgartner, R.J. and Korhonen, J. (2010), Strategic
thinking for sustainable development”, Sustainable
Development, Vol.18, No. 2, pp. 71-75.
6. Becker, J. (2010), “Use of backcasting to integrate
indicators with principles of sustainability”,
International Journal Sustainable Development
World,Vol.17, No. 3, pp.189-197.
7. Beltratti, A., 2005, “The complementarity between
corporate governance and corporate social
responsibility”, The Geneva Papers on Risk and
Insurance: Issues and Practice,Vol. 30, No. 3, pp.
373–386.
8. Berns, M., Townsend, A., Khayat, J., Balagopal, B.,
Reeves, M., Hopkins, M.S., Kruschwitz, N. (2009),
“Sustainability and Competitive Advantage”, MIT
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 51, pp. 18-27.
9. Bhattacharya, C.B., Sen, S., and Korschun, D. (2008).
“Using corporate social responsibility to win the war
for talent”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Winter,
pp. 37-44.
10. Boerner, H. (2010), “Sustainability rises to top of
strategy-setting for growing number of corporate
leaders”, Corporate Finance Review, Vol. 15, No. 1,
pp. 32-34.
11. Brooks, S. (2005), “Corporate social responsibility and
strategic management: the prospects for converging
discourses”, Strategic Change, Vol. 14, pp. 401-411.
12. Byrch, C., Kearins, K., Milne, M. and Morgan, R.
(2007), “Sustainable what? A cognitive approach to
understanding sustainable development”, Qualitative
Research in Accounting & Management, Vol. 4, No. 1,
pp. 26-52.
13. Casler, A., Gundlach, M.J., Persons, B. and Zivnuska,
S. (2010). “Sierra Nevada Brewing Company’s thirty-
year journey toward sustainability”, People & Strategy,
Vol. 33, No.1, pp. 44-51.
14. Chuang, C. and Liao, H. (2010), “Strategic human
resource management in service context: taking care of
business by taking care of employees and customers”.
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 153-196.
15. Clarke, T. (2007), “The evolution of directors’ duties:
Bridging the divide between corporate governance and
corporate social responsibility”, Journal of General
Management, Vol. 32, pp.79–105.
16. Clulow, V., Gertsman, J. and Barry, C. (2003), “The
resource-based view and sustainable competitive
advantage: the case of a financial services firm”,
Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 27, No.
5, 220-232.
17. D’Amato, A. and Roome, N. (2009), “Leadership of
Organizational change toward an integrated model of
leadership for corporate responsibility and sustainable
development: a process model of corporate
responsibility beyond management innovation”,
Corporate Governance, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 421-434.
DOI10.1108/14720700910984972.
18. Daub, C., and Sherrer, Y.M. (2009), “Doing the right
thing right: The role of social research and consulting
for corporate engagement in development
cooperation”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85, pp.
573-584. DOI 10.1007/s10551-009-0209-7.
19. De Bakker, F.G.A., Groenewegen, P., den Hond, F.
(2005), „A bibliometric analysis of 30 years of
research theory of corporate social responsibility and
corporate social performance”, Business and Society,
Vol. 44, pp. 283-317.
20. Dyllick, T. and Hockerts, K. (2002), “Beyond the
business case for corporate sustainability”, Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol.11, pp. 130–141.
21. Edwards, A.R. (2005), “The Sustainability Revolution:
Portrait of a Paradigm Shift”, New Society Publishers,
Gabriola Island.
22. Elijido-Ten, E. (2010), “Applying stakeholder theory
to analyse corporate environmental performance:
Evidence from Australian listed companies”, Asian
Review of Accounting, Vol.15, No. 2, pp. 164-184.
23. Elkington, J. (2006), “Governance for Sustainability”,
Corporate Governance, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp. 522–529.
24. Epstein, M.J. and Buhovac, A.R. (2010), “Solving the
sustainability implementation challenge”, Organization
Dynamics, Vol. 39, pp. 306-315.
25. Epstein, M.J., Buhovac, A.R. and Yuthas, K. (2010),
“Implementing Sustainability: The Role of Leadership
and Organizational Culture”, Strategic Finance, April,
pp. 41-47.
26. Esquer-Peralta, J., Velazquez, L. and Munguia, N.
(2008), “Perceptions of core elements for sustainability
management systems (SMS)”, Management Decision,
Vol. 46 No. 7, pp. 1027-38.
27. European Commission (2001), “Promoting a European
framework for corporate social responsibility: Green
Paper”. Office for Official Publications of the
European Committees.
28. Filho, W.L. (2000), “Dealing with misconceptions on
the concept of sustainability”, International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.
9-19.
29. Fromartz, S. (2009), “The Mini-Cases: 5 Companies,5
Strategies,5Transformations”, MIT Sloan Management
Review, Fall, pp. 41-45.
30. Gao, S.S. and Jhang, J.J. (2010), “Stakeholder
engagement, social auditing and corporate
sustainability”, Business Process Management
Journal, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 722-740.
31. Gallopin, G. (2003), “A systems approach to
sustainability and sustainable development”,
Seriemedio ambiente y desarrollo, No. 64, Sustainable
Development and Human Settlements as Division of
ECLAC.
32. Garavan, T.N., Morley, M., Gunnigle, P. and Collins,
E. (2001), “Human capital accumulation: the role of
human resource development”, Journal of European
Industrial Training, Vol. 25, pp. 48-68.
33. Garriga, E. and Mele, D. (2004), “Corporate social
responsibility theories: Mapping the territory”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol, 53, pp. 51-71.

Corporate Ownership & Control / Volume 10, Issue 1, 2012, Continued - 1
178
34. Gelbmann, U. (2010), “Establishing Strategic CSR in
SMEs: an Austrian CSR Quality Seal to Substantiate
the Strategic CSR Performance”, Sustainable
Development, Vol. 18, No. 2, 90-98.
35. Goleman, D. (2010), “Why leading sustainability
matters more than ever”, People & Strategy, 33(1): 7-
8.
36. Gyves, S, and O’Higgins, E. (2008), “Corporate social
responsibility: an avenue for sustainable benefit for
society and the firm?”, Society and Business Review,
Vol. 3, pp. 207-223.DOI: 10.1108/174680810907297.
37. Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J. and Preuss, L. (2010),
“Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: You can’t have
your cake and eat it”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 19, p.217-229.
38. Harmon, J., Fairfield, K.D., and Wirtenberg, J. (2010),
“Missing an opportunity: HR leadership and
sustainability”, People & Strategy, Vol.33, (1): 16-21.
39. Hart, S.L. and Milstein, M.B. (2003), “Creating
Sustainable Value”, Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 17, (2), 56–69.
40. Hazlett, S.A., McAdam, R., and Murray, L. (2007),
“From quality management to socially responsible
organisations: the case for CSR”. International Journal
of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 2, No. 7,
pp. 669-82.
41. Heal, G. (2005), “Corporate social responsibility: an
economic and financial framework”, The Geneva
Papers on Risk and Insurance: Issues and Practice,
Vol. 30, (3), 387–409.
42. Hediger, W. (2010), “Welfare and capital-theoretic
foundations of corporate social responsibility and
corporate sustainability”, The Journal of Social
Economics, Vol. 39, (4), 518-526.
43. Hillman, A.J. and Keim, G. (2001), “Shareholder
value, stakeholder management and social issues:
what’s the bottom line?”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 22, 125-140.
44. Holme, R. and Watts, P. (2000). “Corporate Social
Responsibility: Making Good Business Sense”, World
Business Council for Sustainable Development,
Conches-Geneva, Switzerland.
45. Hopkins, M. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility:
an issue paper”. Working Paper No. 27, Policy
Integration Department, World Commission on the
Social Dimension of Globalization, International
Labour Office, Geneva.
46. Husted, B.H. and de Jesus, S.J. (2006), “Taking
Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social
performance”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.
43, 75-91.
47. Jabbour, C.J.C. and Santos, F.C.A. (2008), “The
central role of human resource management in the
search for sustainable organizations”, The
International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 19, (12), 2133 -2154.
48. Jamali, D., Safieddine, A.M. and Rabbath, M. (2008),
“Corporate governance and corporate social
responsibility synergies and interrelationships”,
Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol.
16, (5), 443-459.
49. Johansson, F. (2006), The Medici Effect, Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
50. Kerr, I.R. (2006), “Leadership strategies for
sustainable SME operation”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 30-39.
51. Khandekar, A. and Sharma, A. (2005), “Managing
human resource capabilities for competitive
advantage”, Education and Training, Vol. 47,(8/9),
628-638.
52. Laughland, P. and Bansal, P. (2011), “The top ten
reasons why business aren’t more sustainable”, Ivey
Business Journal, Jan/Feb, 12-19.
53. Liebowitz, J. (2010), “The Role of HR in Achieving a
Sustainability Culture”, Journal of Sustainable
Development, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 50-57.
54. Lueneburger, C. and Goleman, D. (2010), “The change
leadership sustainability demands”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 49-56.
55. Lyon, T.P. and Maxwell, J.W. (2008), “Corporate
social responsibility and the environment: a theoretical
perspective”, Review of Environmental Economics and
Policy, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 240–260.
56. Longo, M., Mura, M. and Bonoli, A. (2005),
“Corporate social responsibility and corporate
performance: the case of Italian SME’s”, Corporate
Governance, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 28-43.
57. Malovics, G., Nagypal Csigene, N. and Kraus, S.
(2008), “The role of corporate social responsibility in
strong sustainability’, Journal of Socio-Economics,
Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 907–918.
58. Maignan, I. and Ferrell, O.C. (2004), “Corporate social
responsibility and marketing: an integrative
framework”. Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32,
pp. 3-10.
59. Maignan, I. and Ralston, D.A. (2002), “Corporate
social responsibility in Europe and the US.: Insights
from businesses’ self-presentations”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 497-
514.
60. McKibben, B. (2007), “Deep Economy: The Wealth of
Communities and the Durable Future”, Times Books,
New York, NY.
61. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., (2001), “Corporate social
responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp.
117–127.
62. Mittal RK, Sinha N, Singh A. (2008), “An analysis of
linkage between economic value added and corporate
social responsibility”, Management Decision, Vol. 46,
pp. 1437-1443.
63. Montiel, I. (2008), “Corporate Social Responsibility
and Corporate Sustainability: Separate pasts, Common
futures”, Organization & Environment, Vol. 21, No. 3,
pp. 245-268.
64. Mori, Y and Welch, E.W.(2008), “'The ISO 14001
environmental management standard in Japan: results
from a national survey of facilities in four industries”,
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
Vol. 51, No.3, pp. 421-445. DOI:
10.1080/09640560801979683.
65. Owen DP. (2007), “Beyond Corporate Social
Responsibility: The Scope for Corporate Investment in
Community Driven Development”. World Bank
Report, No. 37379-GLB.
66. Paton, D. and Siegel, D.S. (2005), “The economics of
corporate social responsibility: an overview of the
special issue”, Structural Change and Economic
Dynamics, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 309–311.
67. Patra, R. (2008), “Vaastu Shastra: Towards sustainable
development”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 17, No.
4, pp. 244-256.

Corporate Ownership & Control / Volume 10, Issue 1, 2012, Continued - 1
179
68. Perrini, F., Pogutz, S. and Tencati, A. (2006),
“Corporate social responsibility in Italy: State of the
art”, Journal of Business Strategies, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.
65-91.
69. Porter M, Kramer M. (2006), “The link between
competitive advantage and Corporate Social
Responsibility”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84,
pp. 78-92.
70. Prugh, T. and Assadourian, E. (2003), “What is
sustainability, anyway?”, World Watch Magazine,
September/October.
71. Reinhardt, F.L., Stavins, R.N. and Victor, R.H.K.
(2008). “Corporate social responsibility through an
economic lens”, Review of Environmental Economics
and Policy, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 219–239.
72. Robins F. (2008), “Why corporate social responsibility
should be popularized but not imposed”, Corporate
Governance, Vol. 8, pp. 330-341. DOI:
10.1108/14720700810879204.
73. Rocha, M., Searcy, C. and Stanislav, K. (2007),
“Integrating sustainable development into existing
management systems”, Total Quality Management,
Vol. 18, No. 1/2, pp. 83-92.
74. Samy, M., Odemilin, G., Bampton, R. (2010),
“Corporate social responsibility: a strategy for
sustainable business success. An analysis of 20
selected British companies”, Corporate Governance,
Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 203-217. DOI:
10.1108/14720701011035710.
75. Sharma S. (2003), “Research in corporate
sustainability: What really matters?” In Sharma, S. and
Starik, M (Eds). Research in corporate sustainability:
The evolving theory and practice of organizations in
the natural environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar,1-
19.
76. Sharma, S. and Henriques, I. (2005), “Stakeholder
influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian
forest product industry”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp.159-180.
77. Smith AD (2007), “Making the case for the
competitive advantage of corporate social
responsibility”, Business Strategy Series, Vol. 8, pp.
186-195. DOI: 10.1108/17515630710684187.
78. Smith, PAC and Sharicz, C. (2011), “The shift needed
for sustainability”, The Learning Organization, Vol.
18, No. 1, pp. 73-86. DOI
10.1108/09696471111096019.
79. Steurer, R., Langer, M.E., Konrad, A. and Martinuzzi,
A. (2005), Corporations, Stakeholders and Sustainable
Development 1: A theoretical exploration of business-
society relations”. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 61,
No. 3, pp. 263-281.
80. Strugatch W. (2011), “Turning values into valuation.
Can corporate social responsibility survive hard times
and emerge intact?”, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 30, pp. 44- 48.
81. Velazquez, L.E., Esquer-Peralta, J., Munguıa, N.E. and
Moure-Eraso, R. (2011), “Sustainable learning
organizations”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 18,
No. 1, pp. 36-44. DOI 10.1108/09696471111095984.
82. Van Marrewijk M. (2003), “Concepts and definitions
of CSR and corporate sustainability: between agency
and communion”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol, 44,
pp. 95-105.
83. Waddock, S. and Mcintosh, M. (2009), Beyond
Corporate Responsibility: Implications for
Management Development, Business and Society
Review, Vol. 114, pp. 3 295–325
84. Wallis AM, Kelly AR, Graymore MLM. (2010),
“Assessing Sustainability: a technical fix or a means of
social learning?”, International Journal of Sustainable
Development and World Ecology, Vol. 17, pp. 67-75.
DOI: 10.1080/13504500903491812.
85. Wals, A.E.J. and Schwarzin, L (2012), “Fostering
organizational sustainability through dialogic
interaction”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 19, No.
1, pp. 11-27. DOI 10.1108/09696471211190338.
86. Warner, F. (2002), “Inside Intel’s mentoring
movement”, Fast Company, March, pp.7-10.
87. WBCSD (2002). “Corporate Social Responsibility:
The WBCSD’s Journey”. World Business Council for
Sustainable Development, Conches-Geneva,
Switzerland.
88. World Commission on Environment and Development
(Brundtland Report). Available from:
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Sustainability/Older/Br
undtland_Report.html; 1987.