Corporate sustainability activities and sustainability performance of first and second order

Abstract

Over the last years, sustainability performance has gained in importance and will play an even greater role in future sustainability management activities and strategies. Business activities cause impacts on society and nature given the fact that a company creates value based on environmental, technological and societal inputs. Hence, a company can be seen as embedded in a market, in a society and in nature as a whole. Those parts taken together are defined as a system. From such a system perspective, the impacts resulting from a company's activity can be different in comparison to a narrower or short-term perspective. Numerous corporate sustainability activities already exist. Corporate sustainability activities include methods, tools and instruments of companies to reduce negative and increase positive impacts, leading to greater sustainability performance. But companies mostly do not take systemic impacts into account and focus either on environmental or social impacts only instead of considering a systemic sustainability perspective. To measure these systemic impacts new methods of measurement are needed. In this context, several authors already pointed out the need for more holistic approaches that do not only focus on direct impacts on firm level (first-order sustainability performance) but also on positive impacts on the wider system (second-order sustainability performance). However, such a systemic consideration of impacts of corporate activities is missing. While the short-term and direct corporate sustainability performance is mostly known or could be quantified, the long-term and system impacts are much more difficult to assess. In order to address this research gap the main purpose of this paper is to assess chosen corporate sustainability activities if they improve systemic sustainability performance (second-order) rather than just focusing on corporate sustainability performance (first-order) and to provide a definition for first-order and second-order sustainability performance based on Baumgartner and Rauter (2017). The following research questions will be answered: 1. How can sustainability performance of first and second order be distinguished? 2. Which corporate sustainability activities can lead to sustainability performance of first/second order? 2.1. First-order sustainability performance: Which corporate sustainability activities have a direct effect on corporate sustainability performance (social and environmental performance)? 2.2. Second-order sustainability performance: Which corporate sustainability activities have a positive impact on the wider system (company, market, society and nature)? Based on a comprehensive literature review, a definition of first-order and second-order sustainability performance is proposed. This definition is underpinned by the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD). Additionally, this paper qualitatively examines several popular corporate sustainability activities and assesses whether they achieve first-order or second-order sustainability performance. These activities include resource efficiency, energy efficiency, bio-economy, product-service-systems and Environmental Management Systems (EMS). Results show that most of the sustainability management activities focus on direct effects on firm's level rather than considering impacts on the whole system. It is important that companies realize their impact in a systemic way.

Full text

18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption
and Production Conference (ERSCP 2017)
Corporate sustainability activities and sustainability
performance of first and second order
Martina Zimek
Institute of System Sciences,
Innovation and Sustainability
Research, University of Graz
Merangasse 18, 8010 Graz,
Austria
Rupert Baumgartner
Institute of System Sciences,
Innovation and Sustainability
Research, University of Graz
Merangasse 18, 8010 Graz,
Austria
Abstract
Over the last years, sustainability performance has gained in importance and will play an even greater role in
future sustainability management activities and strategies. Business activities cause impacts on society and
nature given the fact that a company creates value based on environmental, technological and societal inputs.
Hence, a company can be seen as embedded in a market, in a society and in nature as a whole. Those parts
taken together are defined as a system. From such a system perspective, the impacts resulting from a
company’s activity can be different in comparison to a narrower or short-term perspective. Numerous
corporate sustainability activities already exist. Corporate sustainability activities include methods, tools and
instruments of companies to reduce negative and increase positive impacts, leading to greater sustainability
performance. But companies mostly do not take systemic impacts into account and focus either on
environmental or social impacts only instead of considering a systemic sustainability perspective. To measure
these systemic impacts new methods of measurement are needed. In this context, several authors already
pointed out the need for more holistic approaches that do not only focus on direct impacts on firm level (first-
order sustainability performance) but also on positive impacts on the wider system (second-order sustainability
performance). However, such a systemic consideration of impacts of corporate activities is missing. While the
short-term and direct corporate sustainability performance is mostly known or could be quantified, the long-
term and system impacts are much more difficult to assess. In order to address this research gap the main
purpose of this paper is to assess chosen corporate sustainability activities if they improve systemic
sustainability performance (second-order) rather than just focusing on corporate sustainability performance
(first-order) and to provide a definition for first-order and second-order sustainability performance based on
Baumgartner and Rauter (2017). The following research questions will be answered:
1. How can sustainability performance of first and second order be distinguished?
2. Which corporate sustainability activities can lead to sustainability performance of first/second order?
2.1. First-order sustainability performance: Which corporate sustainability activities have a direct effect on
corporate sustainability performance (social and environmental performance)?
2.2. Second-order sustainability performance: Which corporate sustainability activities have a positive
impact on the wider system (company, market, society and nature)?
Based on a comprehensive literature review, a definition of first-order and second-order sustainability
performance is proposed. This definition is underpinned by the Framework for Strategic Sustainable
Development (FSSD). Additionally, this paper qualitatively examines several popular corporate sustainability
activities and assesses whether they achieve first-order or second-order sustainability performance. These
activities include resource efficiency, energy efficiency, bio-economy, product-service-systems and
Environmental Management Systems (EMS).
Results show that most of the sustainability management activities focus on direct effects on firm’s level rather
than considering impacts on the whole system. It is important that companies realize their impact in a systemic
way.
KEYWORDS
Corporate/systemic sustainability performance, first-order/second-order, FSSD
1. INTRODUCTION
There is an intense discussion in science on determinants of corporate sustainability and factors
influencing sustainability performance of companies (Chih, Chih and Chen 2010; Lourenço and
Branco 2013). The main purpose of this paper is to analyze and assess sustainability management
activities and how these influence and improve corporate and systemic sustainability performance.
In fact the nature and society is influenced by corporate activities (Baumgartner and Rauter 2017).

18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption
and Production Conference (ERSCP 2017)
Dependent on the corporate strategy these activities have more or less positive impacts on the
company, the environment and the society (Porter and Kramer 2011). Products and services can
have negative impacts, i.e. adverse social and environmental impacts occur not just during
consuming them but throughout their whole life cycles (Maxwell, Sheate and van der Vorst 2006).
However it is possible to create value and a positive impact for a whole system rather than seeing it
in a narrow way (Porter and Kramer 2011). This means that companies offer high potentials to
improve sustainability performance on a corporate level but also on a systemic level. Through
corporate sustainability activities systemic sustainability performance can be increased to support a
global sustainable development. Already a huge amount and variety of different corporate
sustainability activities have been developed to achieve sustainable development and to improve
sustainability performance (Lozano 2012).
Sustainability performance is often measured with Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to show
improvements and differences by measureable values. These help organizations to monitor and
demonstrate how effectively targets are achieved. For example the ISO 14031:2013 is a guide
especially developed by the International Standard Organisation (ISO) to evaluate the
environmental performance within a company with KPIs. However this guideline does not develop
levels of corporate environmental performance (ISO 2013). It is questionable how to really measure
sustainability or rather sustainability performance. According to Nicolăescu, Alpopi and Zaharia
(2015, p. 860) “sustainability is not unswervingly quantifiable”. Several approaches show difficulties
in measuring (corporate) sustainability performance and in getting comparable and reasonable
results. If two companies are compared: e.g. company A emits a lot, uses a lot of primary
resources and water and causes a lot of toxic waste and company B already emits less,
implemented a closed-loop-system for processes and started with a waste management system in
the company but still emits a lot, uses a lot of resources/water and causes toxic waste - the
question is, how to measure sustainability performance in that case and how to compare these
results? The comparability is extremely difficult even within specific sectors. As well it is highly
difficult to measure whether corporate sustainability activities have a positive impact on all levels or
maybe even negative impacts on some levels when considering the whole system. An example is
given by Baumgartner and Rauter (2017) when discussing coffee pods. Clearly they offer
advantages for consumers through practicability, easy using and different types of coffees with one
coffee machine. When considering the systemic level, e.g. by taking into account the amount of
caused waste including all interrelated consequences, coffee pods show negative impacts in a
systemic view (Baumgartner and Rauter 2017).
The systemic view has to consider as well pre-chains of companies. Companies can use cheap
and environmental questionable resources, e.g. high-emission produced product parts, from other
companies to develop high-price products or services. Based on Schmidt and Schwegler (2008)
this would lead to a high eco-efficiency when just the company level will be considered for the
assessment of impacts but the negative impacts on the environment would be blended out. It is
important to show if and how the company contributes to the principles of sustainable development
(Baumgartner 2008) so to achieve sustainable development on a global scale a systemic
assessment is essential (Lang et al. 2007). There is an increasing interest and need for systemic
approaches, e.g. in system innovation (Gaziulusoy 2015; Gaziulusoy and Brezet 2015). As
highlighted by Smith, Voß and Grin (2010), an isolated sustainability evaluation is not enough and
an analysis needs to follow a system context. As defined as “absolute performance” (Smith, Voß
and Grin 2010, p. 5), major changes are needed in whole socio-technical systems. Based on
Smith, Voß and Grin (2010, p. 439), absolute performance “involves purposeful changes in
prevailing techno-economic paradigms and system architectures”. In that case purposeful changes
are changes which consider improvements for a whole system. This system context has to be
considered in sustainability performance assessment to identify the real impact of corporate
sustainability activities. It is important to find a reasonable definition for sustainability performance
to further find assessment methods which show the real impact on a whole system; in this paper
the system includes the company, market, society level and nature.
Baumgartner and Rauter (2017) mention the creation of societal values by referring to both,
impacts on society and environment. Creating societal values increases sustainability performance
and this performance is dependent on the sustainability activities of a company (Baumgartner and
Rauter 2017). Furthermore, whether social and environmental impacts are positive or negative is
related to several conditions, e.g. to socio-cultural and economic conditions or expectations of
stakeholders (Baumgartner and Rauter 2017). These impacts influence the sustainability

18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption
and Production Conference (ERSCP 2017)
performance of both, the company and the whole system. Referring to Baumgartner and Rauter
(2017, p. 85) “the relationship between the company’s performance and its impacts is referred to as
the sustainability impact chain”. This sustainability impact chain explains the interrelations between
a company (internal stakeholder) and its environment, including the society (external stakeholders)
and the nature; thereby sustainability performance on a corporate level has a sustainability impact
on society and nature (Baumgartner and Rauter 2017). This sustainability impact on society and
nature describes sustainability performance properly in a systemic view and is one basis for the
operationalization of 2nd order sustainability performance.
A structured way and framework is needed including a set of criteria to allow an assessment within
the sustainability impact chain of a company. Thus, this paper is an attempt to develop a
comprehensive operationalization of sustainability performance of first and second order. The main
focus in this paper is to asses which corporate sustainability activities drive excellent sustainability
performance. A lot of discussion in science is focusing on measuring environmental and social
performance on a corporate level. As already mentioned, corporate activities influence the wider
system. An interesting missing point is to answer if and how corporate sustainability activities have
an impact on the whole system. Based on a comprehensive literature review and an extensive
discussion within the research team a table has been developed to show possible influences and
the societal value of corporate sustainability activities. To answer the first research question an
existing definition of Baumgartner and Rauter (2017), the principles of the FSSD and a long-term
consideration are proposed and introduced as a basis to define first-order and second-order
sustainability performance. The following research questions are addressed in this paper:
1. How can sustainability performance of first and second order be distinguished?
2. Which corporate sustainability activities can lead to sustainability performance of first/second
order?
2.1. First-order sustainability performance: Which corporate sustainability activities have a
direct effect on corporate sustainability performance (social and environmental
performance)?
2.2. Second-order sustainability performance: Which corporate sustainability activities have a
positive impact on the wider system (company, market, society and nature)?
The paper is structured as follows. A formulation of the problem and an overview of the topic
sustainability performance are given in section 2. A new sustainability performance approach is
then presented in section 3 through an assessment of corporate sustainability activities based on a
comprehensive literature review. In the last part of section 3 a new definition of first-order and
second-order sustainability performance is suggested. Finally, in section 5 a discussion gives a
summary about findings and ideas for further needed research.
2. SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE
There is no clear and agreed definition of sustainability performance as very often only
environmental impacts are considered rather than including social performance too (Henri and
Journeault 2010). Sustainability performance refers to a company’s performance related to
economic, environmental and social aspects. These aspects are assessed and monitored
concerning their impacts through different methods. Much of the corporate sustainability
performance literature has focused on relationships, e.g. between environmental, social and
economic performance (Artiach et al. 2010; Al-Tuwaijri, Christensen and Hughes 2004). As
mentioned by (Baumgartner 2008) a systemic corporate sustainability performance measurement,
by showing the interactions between the system (business, society and environment), is important
to show if corporate activities have a positive impact and contribute to the principles of SD.
Companies have to achieve SD with a systemic sustainability management to realize an
equilibrium between the environment, the society and the economy (Nicolăescu, Alpopi and
Zaharia 2015). To control whether the sustainability management activities attain SD a
measurement system is needed. A corporate Sustainability Performance Measurement System
(SPMS) has to consider the key life cycle (Searcy 2016). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a
common tool to assess single products and services, however an LCA, even if taken for all
products or services of a company, “would still not represent the overall performance of a
company” (Schmidt and Schwegler 2008, p. 1659). The limitation of an LCA is thereby the focus on

18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption
and Production Conference (ERSCP 2017)
just one chain rather than considering the interconnectedness and changes between all affected
chains (Abukhader 2008). Based on Schmidt and Schwegler (2008) analyses have to be done
more comprehensive and the importance of supply chains is increasing. As well Abukhader (2008)
highlights the importance of a supply chain management (SCM) as it includes efficiency (internal
activities) and effectiveness (external activities). As mentioned by (Schöggl, Fritz and Baumgartner
2016), e.g. when sustainability performance of supply chains are assessed there are limitations
dependent on the method and the system boundaries; e.g. not all actors of the supply chain are
considered and the assessment is highly complex. Supply chains are embedded in bigger systems
and this emphasizes the scientific challenge to assess whole systems. Again it is highlighted that
sustainability performance on a corporate level is important but the importance to improve in a
systemic view, by achieving increased sustainability performance on all levels, is even more
fundamental. To operationalize the term of sustainability performance as a first step a definition has
to be developed to make the term clearly distinguishable, understandable and finally measurable.
Corporate performance is not restricted to economic performance. In this paper, sustainability
performance includes environmental and social aspects. Economic performance is seen as given,
as it is the overall goal of every company. Economic aspects can be flexible integrated later, if a
requirement is seen during further research processes. Hence, the main interest of the present
study is about environmental and social impacts of corporate sustainability activities as the
assessment of these is highly challenging.
Environmental sustainability performance generally shows environmental stewardship and
progresses towards environmental sustainability. Environmental sustainability performance verifies
the impact of initiatives related to the environment. This includes for example the protection of
natural resources, pollution prevention and waste reduction. On a company’s level it is strongly
related to environmental business targets, e.g. reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, resource
efficiency as well as decrease of water consumption and waste output (Abidin et al. 2016). The
definition of environmental performance still is not agreed in literature and a systemic perception is
lacking (Henri and Journeault 2010). Thus environmental sustainability performance is the outcome
based on the firm’s ecological goals to generally improve the environmental situation of a company
and its system (Chien and Shih 2007; Abidin et al. 2016).
Corporate sustainability performance includes social issues as well. To increase corporate
sustainability performance companies have to develop strategies to increase social sustainability
performance too rather than just focusing on environmental sustainability. Thus social issues have
to be treated as equally important as environmental issues (Missimer et al. 2010) and a
transformation to social sustainability is needed (Missimer, Robèrt and Broman 2017b). Current
developments show that, depending on the industry (e.g. high focus on labor conditions in apparel
industry) most companies are still just beginning to think of social issues. In the past the social
dimension has often been neglected; as well in theory social sustainability has been least
developed (Gmelin and Seuring 2014; Gould, Missimer and Mesquita 2017; Pullman, Maloni and
Carter 2009; Missimer, Robèrt and Broman 2017a). An increase of social sustainability
performance is supported by using a new definition for social sustainable development of Missimer,
Robèrt and Broman (2017b, p. 47), “in a socially sustainable society, people are not subject to
structural obstacles to health, influence, competence, impartiality and meaning-making”. Corporate
sustainability strategies have to be developed to eliminate these obstacles, for employees on a
company level (e.g. wage assessment and flexible working times) and for society in a systemic
view (e.g. sustainable and safe product development and working conditions of partner companies
within supply chain). Systemic effects and impacts on a system have to be considered when
developing corporate sustainability strategies.
The broader view of businesses is important for a sustainable future (Baumgartner 2008). To
achieve a sustainable future a more systemic approach is needed by considering impacts e.g.
along the whole supply chain (Bocken et al. 2014; Amini and Bienstock 2014) rather than focusing
just on improvements on a firm’s level. Related to Amini and Bienstock (2014) a sustainable
company considers impacts along the whole supply chain rather than just focusing on a company
level. The assessment along the supply chain might still be to narrow, as mentioned by
Baumgartner (2008, p. 118) “it is essential to measure the impact the interactions have on other
systems”. The negative impacts on society and nature have to be reduced (Baumgartner 2014) and
this can be done with a view on the whole system. A company can be seen as embedded in a
market, in a society and in nature as a whole (Hjorth and Bagheri 2006). Those parts taken
together are defined as a system. Every company’s activity influences the system in a more or less

18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption
and Production Conference (ERSCP 2017)
positive and negative way, dependent on the impacts of corporate sustainability activities. The
assessment of the impacts of corporate sustainability activities is highly difficult because of several
reasons. Primarily, system conditions are not stable and requirements change over time. Secondly,
systems are not always transparent which makes it difficult to define the original initiator or cause
of impact. Thirdly, the relationships between corporate sustainability activities and systemic
impacts are not always clear.
3. A NEW SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE APPROACH
As already highlighted, most definitions focus on just one level of a system (e.g. company’s level)
rather than considering the whole system which is the basis to operationalize sustainability
performance of second order. Several authors already point out the need for a more systemic
approach and that companies have to think “out of their boundary” (Evans et al. 2017). To develop
a comprehensive and clear definition of sustainability performance this paper relates to a definition
of first-order and second-order sustainability performance of Baumgartner and Rauter (2017, p. 86)
by arguing that “first-order levels are related to narrow issues of efficiency, while second-order
levels are broader, and more closely related to systemic effectiveness”. This broader and systemic
aspect is used in the present paper to develop a new sustainability performance approach.
Through increased sustainability performance companies can create values for all levels, the
company itself, the market (supply chain), the society and the nature. Therefore a basis for
companies is needed to hold on. In the course of the assessment of corporate sustainability
activities the FSSD as a comprehensive systemic framework showed promising results. The FSSD
is taken as a basis to achieve sustainable development to improve corporate and systemic
sustainability performance in the long run. This basis is given by the three environmental and five
social principles of the FSSD. Related to Baumgartner and Rauter (2017, p. 85) these principles
offer a “solid, stable and comprehensive basis for assessing whether corporations create societal
values or not”. Societal values relate to a company’s contribution to sustainable development, as all
corporate activities have an impact on people and planet. To achieve a path towards systemic
sustainability a time aspect and the range of the impacts have to be considered as well; this will be
discussed in the following part.
3.1. Corporate sustainability activities towards systemic sustainability
performance
As a starting point existing corporate sustainability activities have been assessed in relation to their
direct effects on corporate sustainability performance (first-order) and in relation to their impacts on
the wider system (second-order). A table has been developed to show if a specific corporate
sustainability activity has a positive (+), neutral (0), negative (-) or positive/negative (+/-) impact.
The positive/negative impact is dependent on the corporate strategies and implementation of
sustainability activities. Based on a literature review and an assessment of the research team the
corporate sustainability activities have been reviewed and evaluated based on the impacts.
To allow a structured assessment of corporate sustainability activities the Sustainable Business
Model Archetypes based on Bocken et al. (2014) have been taken. Social activities are less
considered but the Sustainable Business Model Archetypes offer a promising concept to consider
important corporate sustainability activities. All identified activities have been clustered based on
the eight Sustainable Business Model Archetypes. As mentioned by Bocken et al. (2014, p. 47) the
eight Sustainable Business Model Archetypes “explain different mechanisms for delivering
sustainability”. The Archetypes were a good starting point for the present research and helped to
categorize corporate sustainability activities for the assessment as presented with Table 1.

18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption
and Production Conference (ERSCP 2017)
Table 1 Assessment structure of corporate sustainability activities based on Sustainable Business Model
Archetypes, based on Bocken et al. (2014)
Sustainable Business Model
Archetypes
(Bocken et al. 2014)
Related to …
Assessed corporate sustainability activities
/ strategies
1. maximize material and
energy efficiency
Resource efficiency, energy
efficiency, process efficiency,
lean manufacturing
1. resource efficiency
2. energy efficiency
2. create value from waste
waste management (waste
hierarchy), circular economy
3. substitute with renewables
and natural process
bio-economy, sustainable
innovation, green chemistry
3. bio-economy
4. deliver functionality rather
than ownership
product efficiency (high
qualitative products as
service)
4. product-service-systems
5. adopt a stewardship role
responsible management of
natural resources /
responsibility for society
6. encourage sufficiency
resource efficiency / energy
efficiency / preservation of the
natural environment and
welfare of society
7. repurpose the business for
society/ environment
Strategic Sustainability
Management, Framework for
Strategic Sustainable
Development (FSSD)
5. Environmental Management
Systems
5.1. Environmental Management and
Auditing Scheme (EMAS)
5.2. ISO 14001
8. develop scale-up solutions
green technology,
sustainable innovation,
Cleaner Production
The Table 1 shows the eight Sustainable Business Model Archetypes based on Bocken et al.
(2014) in the first column. The second column includes aspects related to these archetypes. These
relations have been identified based on the paper of Bocken et al. (2014) and the literature review.
Finally the corporate sustainability activities have been chosen for the assessment. An assessment
of all found corporate sustainability activities was not possible in the present research. Therefore
the selection of the six activities has been made based on (1) found adequate literature, (2)
research interest/focus of research team and (3) experiences of the research team related to the
corporate sustainability activities.
Archetype 1: maximize material and energy efficiency – example resource efficiency and energy
efficiency
The first archetype relates to maximization of materials as well as to efficient energy usage.
Resource efficiency is related to the use of material substitution and dematerialization) and energy
(alternative fuels, energy conservation and renewable energy). As mentioned by Mont (2002) there
are three possibilities to reduce the demand in resources: (1) via reducing human population, (2)
via reducing consumption and (3) via technological solutions. Based on Mont (2002) option 1 is not
quickly practicable and option 2 seems to be difficult, e.g. due to industrialized consume patterns.
As the first two options are difficult to achieve other – innovative – solutions are needed, e.g.
through Cleaner Production (CP). Businesses which implement CP focus on efficiency and
sustainable development through sustainable activities related to resource, energy and process
efficiency. Examples include lean manufacturing, increased functionality, substitution and
dematerialization. Dematerialization can be achieved e.g. through focusing on services rather than
products, known as a product-service-systems (PSSs) approach (Aurich, Fuchs and Wagenknecht

18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption
and Production Conference (ERSCP 2017)
2006; Maxwell, Sheate and van der Vorst 2006; Mont 2002; Roy 2000). The PSS-approach is
explained in detail later within archetype 4.
Based on Bocken et al. (2014) archetype 1 contributes to a system-wide decrease of general
resource demand, but just if products are slower introduced to markets. Energy and material
efficiency, amongst others, are given through improvements in production processes. However,
e.g. an improvement in production processes can lead to ‘rebound effects’ (Herring and Sorrell
2009). These rebound effects can have either positive or negative impacts dependent on the point
of view. If an industry becomes more efficient the production can get cheaper leading to more and
low-price products or services. The drop in prices for goods or services causes a rise in demand
(direct effect) which finally can support the creation of new jobs (increased social performance).
The decrease of prices can affect the behavior of consumers. The consumers save money and
may spent it for another product or service (indirect effect) which means that additional energy is
needed to produce that good or service (decreased environmental performance). This shows that
first-order sustainability performance can be achieved through resource and energy efficiency but
the impact on the wider system is not always clear and the result can be even a negative impact on
the environment. These results are shown in the following Table 2.
Table 2 Assessment of first-order and second-order sustainability performance of resource and energy
efficiency
first-order and second-
order sustainability
performance
first order
impact / direct effect on
corporate sustainability
performance
impact on wider system
(market, society and nature)
Sustainability
management activities
Corporate
environmental
performance
Corporate
social
performance
Systemic
environmental
performance
Systemic
social
performance
1. resource efficiency
+
+ (0)
+/-
0
2. energy efficiency
+
+ (0)
+/-
0
Archetype 3: substitute with renewables and natural process – example bio-economy
The third archetype focuses on renewable resources and natural processes and highlights the
need for sustainable solutions to reduce the current global resource demand. Based on Bocken et
al. (2014) archetype 3, focusing on a substitution of non-renewable resources with renewable ones,
helps to reduce the resource demand, waste and emission generation. Examples are bio-economy,
sustainable innovation, green chemistry and The Natural Step (TNS). The concept of bio-economy
is discussed in detail concerning corporate and systemic sustainability performance.
Based on a definition of the European Commission (2012, p. 3), bio-economy “encompasses the
production of renewable biological resources and their conversion into food, feed, bio-based
products and bioenergy. It includes agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and pulp and paper
production, as well as parts of chemical, biotechnological and energy industries.” This definition
shows a wide spectrum of the bio-economy concept. The potential of eco-economy is very high,
e.g. in relation to promoting and developing new effective technologies (Majore et al. 2015) and
new innovations (European Commission 2012). Referring to of Majore et al. (2015), bio-economy
can be very powerful to tackle challenges for the environment, society and economy. The report of
the European Commission (2012) highlights several benefits and risks based on a survey. From
the private, academic and public sector as well as from NGOs (European Commission 2012). The
respondents emphasized several benefits in relation to bio-economy and included a better waste
management (reduced waste, increased bio-waste/waste usage), pollution reduction, provision of
agricultural advisory services as well as better communication with farmers (European Commission
2012). Nearly half of all respondents saw high risks related to bio-economy, mainly in relation to
competing food and non-food crops, deforestation and a decrease in food security and resource
supply in developing countries.
In bio-economy biomass is seen as the most important resource and it is highlighted that this
resource is used as efficient as possible (Asveld, Ganzevles and Osseweijer 2015). An example is
given by Venier et al. (2015) who discuss forest biomass (deadwood) as source for bioenergy. As
mentioned by Waito and Johnson (2010) and Roach and Berch (2014) forest biomass can
contribute to job-creation in forestry and energy sectors, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
and – in the case of Canada in their studies – a diversification of the energy portfolio. Additionally,
Roach and Berch (2014) argue that, i.e in Canada, an increase in forest biomass harvesting can

18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption
and Production Conference (ERSCP 2017)
reduce fire hazards, facilitate access to forests, improve regeneration of trees and combat vermin
such as the bark beetle. However, an increase in demand for forest biomass can cause negative
impacts for the whole forest ecosystem (Venier et al. 2015), they see a growing complexity to
manage both, an increased interest in forest biomass (utilization) and the need to maintain
ecosystems (retention) (Venier et al. 2015). Koukios et al. (2017) even mention bio-resource wars
and that these have to be avoided. Asveld, Ganzevles and Osseweijer (2015) emphasizes the
most efficient use of biomass by taking edible parts for the food sector and non-edible parts e.g. for
the energy sector. Waramit (2012) remarks that a technology improvement is needed to achieve
sustainable development by the bio-economy concept. As well Asveld, Ganzevles and Osseweijer
(2015) argue, that several aspects have to be considered to increase sustainability based on bio-
economy, e.g. avoiding transport kilometers, focusing on (reduction of) waste streams and
promotion of supply chain networks. To allow a promising bio-economy concept Waramit (2012)
mentions the importance of skilled and educated workers and the need to use crops in the most
meaningful way. Land which cannot be used for food growing any more should be used
alternatively, e.g. for biomass crops (Waramit 2012).
Interestingly, the focus on sustainability aspects related to bio-economy is low (Staffas, Gustavsson
and McCormick 2013). Aquilani et al. (2017) describe the bio-economy concept as controversial.
This is highlighted by Asveld, Ganzevles and Osseweijer (2015) who discuss bio-economy in
relation to synthetic biology, which on the one hand potentially increases biofuel resources but on
the other hand destroys small farmers’ existences. As well it is mentioned that the need for new
plants, especially in rural areas, worsens the conditions for people living there and that the quality
of the delivered biomass is very difficult identified (Asveld, Ganzevles and Osseweijer 2015).
Accordingly, bio-economy can but does not necessarily improve systemic sustainability
performance. The corporate environmental performance can be improved, e.g. through the use of
more renewable resources whereby an improvement in corporate social performance has not been
found in the present literature review. A well-established bio-economy concept can improve
systemic environmental and social performance. However, discussed examples above show
potential risks and disadvantages related to bio-economy too. The concept of the bio-economy
concept is highly related to the way of implementation and consideration of systemic aspects.
These implications are represented in the following Table 3.
Table 3 Assessment of first-order and second-order sustainability performance of bio-economy
first-order and second-
order sustainability
performance
first order
impact / direct effect on
corporate sustainability
performance
impact on wider system
(market, society and nature)
Sustainability
management activity
Corporate
environmental
performance
Corporate
social
performance
Systemic
environmental
performance
Systemic
social
performance
3. bio-economy
+
0
+/-
+/-
Archetype 4: deliver functionality rather than ownership – example product-service-systems (PSSs)
Referring to Bocken et al. (2014) moving towards functionality rather than manufacturing (new)
products is important and the focus of archetype 4. By considering several aspects this archetype
can have high impacts on a system level. These aspects include amongst others an efficient
innovation of business models and waste management as well as an adaptation of the usage of
products and services (Bocken et al. 2014). Concerning environmental impacts the durability of
products is important and use patterns of consumers have to be more considered and assessed
(Hicks 2017). The usage of a product (or PSS) influences the environmental impact (Mont 2002).
As mentioned by Abukhader (2008) the consumers’ demand to own products has to be replaced by
an interest in functionality. Therefore the PSS-approach is proposed as a possible sustainability
activity of companies to achieve corporate and systemic sustainability performance.
The development of sustainable products and services, e.g. via the Sustainable Product and/or
Service Development (SPSD) approach targets an improvement in both, environmental and social
performance (Maxwell, Sheate and van der Vorst 2006). One of these approaches is known as
PSS which is a mix of product(s) and services to fulfil consumer and humans needs in a new
service economy (Roy 2000). As one of the first definitions by Goedkoop et al. (1999, p. 18) a PSS
is described as „a marketable set of products and services capable of jointly fulfilling a user’s

18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption
and Production Conference (ERSCP 2017)
need“. The focus on the ‘user’s need’ (use phase) is characteristically for a PSS by combining
products and goods and by optimizing this combination in the best way (Mont 2002). Roy (2000)
argues that the development of PSSs might include the demand for more eco-efficient products,
e.g. through eco-design. Eco-design is related to material efficiency (e.g. renewable materials),
product efficiency (e.g. weight reduction), cleaner production (e.g. less waste), optimized waste
management and reduced environmental impacts (Roy 2000). Baumgartner and Rauter (2017, p.
87) mention in their paper in proposition 2e that “product-service systems can significantly reduce
the negative environmental and social impacts of a product”. Rather than delivering more and more
products the PSS-approach focuses on the function or result (e.g. mobility instead of own cars) by
considering a systemic view (Maxwell, Sheate and van der Vorst 2006; Roy 2000).
The systemic level is highlighted by Williams (2006) as well who argues that a PSS is a powerful
approach to achieve system innovations. Williams (2006) explains several benefits related to PSS
based on the change of ownership for the product from the customer to the producer. Producing
companies are more interested in the development of e.g. easy reusable or repairable products,
which leads to a longer durability of products and a reduced resource demand (Williams 2006).
However, a PSS does not guarantee an increase in sustainability performance (Pigosso and
McAloone 2015; Tukker and Tischner 2006) as there are many more or less sustainable
alternatives to deliver the needed function or result (Roy 2000). Tukker and Tischner (2006) argue
too that PSS approaches are not always related to improved sustainability as these approaches
have to be developed and “realized by a careful design” (Tukker and Tischner 2006, p. 1555).
An increase in environmental performance is dependent on the context (Mont 2002; Maxwell,
Sheate and van der Vorst 2006) and a careful design (Tukker and Tischner 2006). Past research
shows possible improvements for the environment through PSSs (Goedkoop et al. 1999; Maxwell,
Sheate and van der Vorst 2006). Maxwell, Sheate and van der Vorst (2006) highlight in their paper
that the improvement of environmental performance based on a PSS in their Case Studies was
related, amongst others, to a consideration of the wider system. The sustainable offering was best
developed through a consideration of several aspects; namely the “functionality, systems, all life
cycle stages and a closed loop approach” (Maxwell, Sheate and van der Vorst 2006, p. 1476).
Williams (2006) mentions the need for a communication between companies and consumers to
reduce negative environmental impacts, as these could be avoided essentially during the use
phase. Pigosso and McAloone (2015) summarize several environmental advantages based on an
increase in efficiency and effectiveness due to a PSS. They mention that advantages of a PSS are
given through a reduced resource demand (less demand for materials and energy), an increased
longevity of products, an improved quality of end-stock, an improved waste management (less
down-cycling and more re-use) and an improvement of technologies (eco-efficiency) (Pigosso and
McAloone 2015).
However, the problem is that an improvement in environmental performance is not always given
(Afshar and Wang 2011). An example of the washing technology discussed by Roy (2000) shows
that an improvement of environmental impacts was just partly proofed when private washing
machines were replaced with laundry centers. The reduced effect was based on a need for higher
washing temperatures, for an increased use of laundry dryer as well as an higher energy demand
based on an increase in transport needs (Roy 2000). Another example for probable negative
impacts is given through a possible need for more transport kilometers based on an offered take-
back service for the consumers (Williams 2006). These negative impacts, related to an increase of
emissions (Williams 2006), would deteriorate the sustainability performance on both, the corporate
and systemic level. Pigosso and McAloone (2015) even mention a higher negative environmental
impact based on PSS approaches when compared to traditional products.
The negative environmental impacts can happen through “rebound effects” (Tukker and Tischner
2006). As mentioned by Abukhader (2008) technology efficiency can cause an increased usage of
a product. Examples for the rebound effect are mentioned within the energy and automobile
industry, when consumer increased the energy demand and car usage after energy and fuel
efficiency programs/innovations were developed by companies (Abukhader 2008). These negative
effects could be overcome with an offering of addition services. Trainings for driver to reduce the
fuel amount can contribute to reduce the environmental burden (Aurich, Fuchs and Wagenknecht
2006). This example highlights the need for a careful design of the PSS (Afshar and Wang 2011)
and shows that PSS approaches can potentially improve sustainability performance.
Several PSS concepts lack a consideration of social aspects, as highlighted by Oman (2003), in
her comparison study of PSS initiatives, other and more robust methods are needed including

18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption
and Production Conference (ERSCP 2017)
social criteria as well. The need for a measurement of social impacts related to implemented PSS
approaches is essential (Williams 2006). Maxwell, Sheate and van der Vorst (2006, p. 1474)
mentions even “potentially negative social impacts” due to changes in personal needs in
companies based on a PSS-approach. Technical services are integrated activities of PSSs and
these can contribute to e.g. an increase in employment as more service activities with skilled
workers are needed (Aurich, Fuchs and Wagenknecht 2006) but in the long-term a decrease in
employment can be expected due to a need for more automated processes (Mont 2002) As well it
is questionable if a focus on services rather than product ownerships is always beneficial and
appropriate for consumers (Mont 2002). Social performance is neglected in studies about PSS-
approaches and positive social impacts related to PSSs, based on Pieroni et al. (2017), are
mentioned just in the paper of Aurich, Fuchs and Wagenknecht (2006).
It cannot be generally assumed that a PSS increases sustainability performance, neither for the
corporate nor for the systemic level. Based on the discussed results above it can be assumed that
a PSS can but does not necessarily improve corporate or systemic environmental and social
performance, as shown within Table 4.
Table 4 Assessment of first-order and second-order sustainability performance of PSSs
first-order and second-order
sustainability performance
first order
impact / direct effect on
corporate sustainability
performance
impact on wider system
(market, society and nature)
Sustainability management
activity
Corporate
environmental
performance
Corporate
social
performance
Systemic
environmental
performance
Systemic
social
performance
4. product-service-systems
+/-
+/-
+/-
+/-
Archetype 7: re-purpose the business for society/ environment – example Environmental
Management Systems (EMSs)
An integration of the stakeholder interests by improving social and environmental impacts is the
focus of archetype 7 (Bocken et al. 2014). To re-purpose businesses changes and influential
instruments/frameworks are needed. EMSs focus on understanding the impacts of business
activities and on improving the sustainability performance (Andrews et al. 2003; Iraldo, Testa and
Frey 2009; Melnyk, Sroufe and Calantone 2003). EMSs have been reviewed if they can first-order
or second-order sustainability performance.
EMS provide supportive management tools for companies to improve their sustainability
(environmental) performance and to increase their efficiency in business (Andrews et al. 2003;
Iraldo, Testa and Frey 2009; King, Lenox and Terlaak 2005). An EMS offers companies structured
processes and a continuous framework to achieve their sustainability targets. This continuous
framework, known as Plan-Do-Check-Act-cycle (P-D-C-A-cycle), ensures long-term success in
environmental performance. An improvement of performance and consequently long-term success
is given through a formal EMS and even increased with a certificated system (Melnyk, Sroufe and
Calantone 2003). A study of Andrews et al. (2003) showed improved environmental performance
related to EMSs in facilities based on indicators. During the observed period of about 2.5 years 68
percentages of the indicators improved (Andrews et al. 2003). Melnyk, Sroufe and Calantone
(2003) showed significant improvement of corporate performance based on environmental
activities using performance variables. These improvements are dependent on several aspects, as
it cannot be generalized, that EMS automatically lead to improved performance (Iraldo, Testa and
Frey 2009; Melnyk, Sroufe and Calantone 2003). One significant factor is the “age of the EMS”
(Melnyk, Sroufe and Calantone 2003). Relating to a study of Melnyk, Sroufe and Calantone (2003)
and Iraldo, Testa and Frey (2009), the longer the EMS is already implemented in a company, the
higher is the (environmental) performance. As well the size of a company can have an impact on
the performance and improvement of environmental performance can be slower in SMEs; e.g. due
to missing know-how or organizational lacks of smaller companies (Iraldo, Testa and Frey 2009).
An EMS can be developed in compliance with the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) or
the ISO 14001:2015.
EMAS is a management system which promises continuous improvements in environmental
performance to foster sustainable development. The EMAS is based on the EU-Regulation
1221/2009 which includes all requirements for the implementation (European Parliament, Council

18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption
and Production Conference (ERSCP 2017)
of the European Union 2009). As proposed by Iraldo, Testa and Frey (2009) EMAS-registered
organizations work more effective as sustainability aspects are more integrated. As effectiveness is
an important factor when working towards second-order sustainability performance (Baumgartner
and Rauter 2017), an implemented EMAS can lead to higher sustainability performance. The lack
of an EMAS is its high focus on environmental aspects rather than considering systemic social
features. This has been highlighted by Seuring and Müller (2008) when discussing management
systems that environmental aspects are more developed than social ones. Zito and Egan (1998)
argue that an EMAS implementation is very “European-focused” and the focus on international
impacts is neglected. EMAS ensures compliance with national laws and this can fade-out global
needs and effects. As well, an EMAS is seen as a state control (Freimann and Walther 2002).
EMAS and ISO 14001 are seen as useful tools to increase environmental performance on a
corporate level. For example, a study of Schylander and Martinuzzi (2007) found considerable
improvements through the ISO 14001 standard related to waste reduction and recycling.
Improvements in this study have been presented, as approximately three-fourth of all respondents
mentioned that environmental aspects got more important since the ISO 14001 standard has been
implemented in the company (Schylander and Martinuzzi 2007). Arimura, Hibiki and Katayama
(2008) showed positive effects between the ISO 14001 standard and natural resources and solid
waste generation. However, (additional) sustainability reporting is mentioned as a more powerful
tool to motivate companies to constant improvements (Arimura, Hibiki and Katayama 2008).
Additionally, performance is not always seen when discussing other aspects, e.g. social
performance based on stress-related impacts on employees (Haslinda and Fuong 2010).
Based on the given information the assessment of EMAS and ISO 14001 is shown in Table 5.
EMSs focus on improvements of structures and processes within companies rather than
considering results and impacts of activities (Freimann and Walther 2002). Improvements based on
an EMS are not dependent on the used standard (Andrews et al. 2003), as observed “corporate
benefits are nearly the same for EMAS and ISO 14001” (Freimann and Walther 2002, p. 8). It
cannot be clearly argued if EMAS results in higher environmental performance than the ISO 14001
standard as improvements and deteriorations have been observed related to both standards.
Researchers highlight the relationship between EMS and improved environmental performance
(Potoski and Prakash 2005; Link and Naveh 2006); however as mentioned by Freimann and
Walther (2002), improvements in performance are primarily observed on a corporate level.
Therefore, the systemic impact and improvement cannot be proved so far. It can be summed up
that EMSs are able to, but do not necessarily improve environmental performance (Arimura et al
2008). When looking for relationships between EMSs and social performance, quantification and
an evidence of improvements gets more difficult. Increased standard of living and improvements in
quality of live are mentioned in EMAS; however, the focus is on energy and material efficiency,
waste reduction and pollution control. A study of Haslinda and Fuong (2010) even mentioned
negative relationships between EMSs and social performance, as an implementation of e.g. the
ISO 14001 standard resulted in higher stress for employees, causing frustration, anger and other
related negative feelings. Other studies linked the ISO 14001 standard to increased awareness,
morale building and customer satisfaction (Schylander and Martinuzzi 2007; Haslinda and Fuong
2010; Zutshi and Sohal 2004). Awareness building can be seen as an important trigger to increase
sustainability performance, as awareness building is necessary as a first step in direction of
changing behavior, which can finally lead to organizational commitment and proactive
environmental culture (Ferreira, Lopes and Morais 2006; Gelbmann and Peskoller 2016). “High
organizational commitment and a proactive environmental culture obviously form the prerequisite
for subsequent environmental improvements” (Schylander and Martinuzzi 2007).
Thus, first-order sustainability performance can be achieved through EMSs as shown in Table 5,
but second-order sustainability performance is not assured as a focus on a corporate level can
suppress important systemic indirect effects. An example is a focus on renewable resources, e.g.
wood as substitute for existing non-renewable materials and not considering biodiversity (massive
deforestation). This shows an urgent need for further studies to show relationships between EMSs
and corporate and as well systemic sustainability performance.

18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption
and Production Conference (ERSCP 2017)
Table 5 Assessment of first-order and second-order sustainability performance of EMS: 10.1 EMAS and 10.2
ISO 14001
first-order and second-
order sustainability
performance
first order
impact / direct effect on
corporate sustainability
performance
impact on wider system
(market, society and nature)
Sustainability
management activity
Corporate
environmental
performance
Corporate
social
performance
Systemic
environmental
performance
Systemic
social
performance
5. Sustainability
Management Systems /
Instruments
5.1. EMAS
+
+ (0)
+/-
+/-
5.2. ISO 14001
+
+ (0)
+/-
+/-
3.3. Sustainability performance of first and second order – the path to
systemic sustainability
The path to systemic sustainability is through moving from low corporate sustainability performance
to high, second-order sustainability performance. Based on the assessment of the corporate
sustainability activities in this paper it got clear, that single activities will not lead to and guarantee
improved corporate and systemic sustainability performance at all. To achieve systemic
sustainability performance one of the activities has been identified as a promising tool to increase
corporate and achieve systemic sustainability performance. The FSSD gives a good basis to
achieve sustainable development and move towards systemic sustainability performance through a
framework including five levels. The systemic relevance is given through level one. Level one
relates to the whole system and shows interrelations and dependence between companies and the
global system, e.g. biogeochemical cycles, biodiversity and human beings constitutions (Broman
and Robèrt 2017). The definition of sustainable development based on the Brundtland definition
highlights the importance of long-term strategies, as it defines the need for sustainable
development in an intra- and inter-generational context (Brundtland). Sustainability performance
increases through continuous improvement and long-term goals, on an environmental and social
dimension. The consideration of long-term effects is mentioned by Afshar and Wang (2011) too.
They argue in their paper that a system consideration is important by giving the example that “the
small amount of a toxic material produced in a production process may not be significant in a short
period of time but its cumulative volume over time can be a major concern” (Afshar and Wang
2011, p. 271).
The FSSD focuses on possible solutions for problems nowadays and in the future as it relates to a
systems-based definition and it focuses on all dimensions of sustainability; the ecological, social
and environmental dimension. (Schöggl, Baumgartner and Hofer 2017). The FSSD is proposed as
a systemic approach and as a basis for the definition of first-order and second-order sustainability
performance. Furthermore, the range and a time-scale are considered. The time-scale is essential,
as corporate sustainability strategies have to tackle current but as well long-term future problems
(Gaziulusoy and Brezet 2015).Therefore sustainable development has to be achieved by
considering long-term impacts of corporate sustainability activities. The range is important as the
impact of corporate sustainability activities has to be assessed in a systemic view. As a first step
the assessment of the corporate sustainability activities is based on a new definition of
sustainability performance through dividing the term into first and second order. Sustainability
performance of first order refers to corporate sustainability performance. This means improvements
and direct effects are given on a corporate level (of a focal firm). Sustainability performance of
second order relates to impacts on the wider system, in this paper the market, society and nature
(Figure 2) (Baumgartner and Rauter 2017). This means corporate sustainability activities have a
positive influence on all levels in the system.

18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption
and Production Conference (ERSCP 2017)
Figure 1 Sustainable impacts through sustainability performance on corporate and systemic level (based on:
Baumgartner and Rauter 2017)
The importance of a systemic view is highlighted by Porter and Kramer (2011) by arguing that
value creation should not happen in a ‘corporate bubble’. Level two of the FSSD relates to the
success by defining the vision based on basic sustainability principles (Broman and Robèrt 2017;
Robèrt 2000; Robèrt 2002). These principles are seen as a contribution to identify unsustainable
corporate behavior, which can be seen as an important step towards increased sustainability
performance and especially to allow sustainable development in the whole system (Robèrt,
Broman and Basile 2013). Relating to Baumgartner (2008) the principles of sustainable
development are essential when corporate sustainability performance is assessed, as companies
have to find out whether they fulfill all principles or not. The principles of the FSSD offer a
promising basis as they are robust, comprehensive and generic (Baumgartner and Rauter 2017;
Broman and Robèrt 2017). The FSSD principles integrate a variety of essential perspectives to
finally find a systemic definition by focusing on environmental and societal values. By considering
the funnel metaphor these principles are fundamental that systems do not degrade systematically
(Broman and Robèrt 2017). Through a continuous process of development the FSSD has been
advanced since more than 25 years to extend the four basic principles to three environmental ones
and five societal ones (Broman and Robèrt 2017). The existing FSSD principles are as follows:
In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing:
1. concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth’s crust (e.g. fossil carbon, metals),
2. concentrations of substances produced by society (e.g. nitrogen compounds, endocrine
disrupters),
3. degradation by physical means (e.g. large scale clear-cutting of forests, over-fishing),
and in a sustainable society people are not subject to structural obstacles to
a. health (e.g. dangerous working conditions, insufficient rest times),
b. influence (e.g. by suppression of free speech, neglect of opinions),
c. competence (e.g. by obstacles for education, insufficient development options),
d. impartiality (e.g. by discrimination, unfair treatment) and
e. meaning-making (e.g. by suppression of cultural expression). (Missimer, Robèrt and
Broman 2017a; Missimer, Robèrt and Broman 2017b; Missimer et al. 2010; Robèrt 2000;
Robèrt 2002; Robèrt, Broman and Basile 2013; Robèrt et al. 2002; Broman and Robèrt
2017)

18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption
and Production Conference (ERSCP 2017)
The levels three to five contain strategic guidelines, actions and tools to allow success for the
whole system (Broman and Robèrt 2017). For the development of the definition these levels are
not considered as they are more related to strategic steps towards a sustainable vision of a
company. The target of this paper is not to give proposals and develop strategies for companies.
Based on (Baumgartner and Rauter 2017) and the results of this paper second-order sustainability
performance is related to systemic sustainability performance and long-term achievements by
considering the principles of the FSSD. Hardi and Zdan (1997, p. 2) mention sustainable
development has to “include review of the whole system as well as its parts”. It is important to find
a definition to allow sustainability performance in a global context. Therefore, the definition of
second-order sustainability performance is proposed as follows based on Baumgartner and Rauter
(2017):
“Second-order sustainability performance relates to corporate sustainability activities by
considering long-term impacts and improvements on the whole system, namely the company itself,
the market (supply chains), the society and the nature by considering systemic effectiveness and
the principles for sustainable development of the FSSD rather than just relating to narrow issues of
efficiency, which are defined as first-order sustainability performance”
4. CONCLUSIONS
This paper provides a definition of first-order and second-order sustainability performance by
focusing on Baumgartner and Rauter (2017) and an assessment of sustainability activities based
on that definition. To achieve systemic sustainability performance, in this paper named as second-
order sustainability performance, structured long-term strategies and a structured planning of
corporate sustainability activities are needed. Sustainability activities have been categorized based
on the eight business model archetypes (Bocken et al. 2014). It is important to plan corporate
sustainability activities (a corporate sustainability strategy) by considering the capabilities,
responsibilities of a company as well as local and time aspects (Baumgartner and Rauter 2017).
Focusing on one sustainability activity might be insufficient which is highlighted by Bocken et al.
(2014) who argue that an isolated application of archetypes (activities) may not achieve real
sustainability. For example, adopting an EMS alone may not be sufficient (Iraldo, Testa and Frey
2009); a combination and set of activities and strategies are needed rather than just focusing on
one tool.
The research process identified that single sustainability activities might not be enough to achieve
second-order sustainability performance. Second-order sustainability performance requires a
thinking in the direction of systemic effectiveness (Baumgartner and Rauter 2017). Based on the
literature review none of the assessed corporate sustainability activities guarantee an achievement
of first-order and second-order sustainability performance. Results show that several approaches
focus either on just one level or lack in considering environmental and social performance. For
example, relating to a study of Oman (2003), PSSs often focus on environmental aspects by
suppressing social features. Bio-economy demands using more renewable resources which can
improve corporate sustainability performance but may lead to negative systemic impacts. As well
Baumgartner and Rauter (2017) highlight that the impact on the whole system (society, nature) is
often blended out by companies. As identified by Bocken et al. (2014) a “system-wide perspective
(Bocken et al. 2014, p. 55) is needed which is a similar result to the present research process.
This paper contributes to the definition of first-order and second-order sustainability performance of
Baumgartner and Rauter (2017) by adding a time-perspective (long-term) and the principles of the
FSSD. This is a fist attempt to operationalize first-order and second-order sustainability
performance. There are limitations of the present study. Firstly, the assessment of the sustainability
activities has been done through a literature review. Further research is needed to find appropriate
methods to measure sustainability performance in a systemic view. Secondly, the research on
several activities rather than just focusing on one allowed a comprehensive but maybe not deep
enough literature search for the present study. However founded papers and studies mostly
discussed same topics and results and it is questionable if a deeper research of e.g. just one
sustainability activity would change the implications made in this paper.
Through this research a need for a more detailed assessment and the importance of a systemic
definition of sustainability performance have been identified. Further studies and research

18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption
and Production Conference (ERSCP 2017)
opportunities are proposed, e.g. an empirical study gathering data from Case Studies (companies)
to further develop the definition of first-order and second-order sustainability performance and to
find a way to operationalize this new important term.
REFERENCES
Abidin, R., Abdullah, R., Hassan, M.G. and Sobry, S.C. 2016. Environmental Sustainability Performance: The
influence of supplier and customer integration, The Social Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 11, pp. 2673–2678.
Abukhader, S.M. 2008. Eco-efficiency in the era of electronic commerce – should ‘Eco-Effectiveness’
approach be adopted?, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, No. 7, pp. 801–808.
Afshar, M. and Wang, D. 2011. Systems Thinking for Designing Sustainable Product Service Systems: A
Case Study Using a System Dynamics Approach, Design Principles & Practices: An International Journal, Vol.
4, No. 6, pp. 259–273.
Al-Tuwaijri, S., Christensen, T.E. and Hughes, K.I. 2004. The Relations Among Environmental Disclosure,
Environmental Performance, and Economic Performance: A Simultaneous Equations Approach, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 29, pp. 447–471.
Amini, M. and Bienstock, C.C. 2014. Corporate sustainability: an integrative definition and framework to
evaluate corporate practice and guide academic research, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 76, pp. 12–19.
Andrews, R.N.L., Amaral, D., Darnall, N., Gallagher, D.R., Edwards Jr., D., Hutson, A., D'Amore, C., Sun, L.
and Zhang, Y. 2003, Environmental Management Systems: Do they improve performance? National database
on Environmental Management Systems. Project Final Report: Executive Summary.
Aquilani, B., Silvestri, C., Ioppolo, G. and Ruggieri, A. 2017. The challenging transition to bio-economies:
Towards a new framework integrating corporate sustainability and value co-creation, Journal of Cleaner
Production, pp. 1–9.
Arimura, T.H., Hibiki, A. and Katayama, H. 2008. Is a Voluntary Approach an Effective Environmental Policy
Instrument? A Case of Environmental Management Systems, Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management, Vol. 55, pp. 281–295.
Artiach, T., Lee, D., Nelson, D. and Walker, J. 2010. The determinants of corporate sustainability
performance, Accounting and Finance, Vol. 50, pp. 31–51.
Asveld, L., Ganzevles, J. and Osseweijer, P. 2015. Trustworthiness and Responsible Research and
Innovation: The Case of the Bio-Economy, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Vol. 28, No. 3,
pp. 571–588.
Aurich, J.C., Fuchs, C. and Wagenknecht, C. 2006. Life cycle oriented design of technical Product-Service
Systems, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14, No. 17, pp. 1480–1494.
Baumgartner, R.J. 2008. Corporate sustainability performance: Methods and illustrative examples,
International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 117–131.
Baumgartner, R.J. 2014. Managing Corporate Sustainability and CSR. A Conceptual Framework Combining
Values, Strategies and Instruments Contributing to Sustainable Development, Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 258–271.
Baumgartner, R.J. and Rauter, R. 2017. Strategic perspectives of corporate sustainability management to
develop a sustainable organization, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 81–92.
Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P. and Evans, S. 2014. A literature and practice review to develop
sustainable business model archetypes, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 65, pp. 42–56.
Broman, G.I. and Robèrt, K.-H. 2017. A framework for strategic sustainable development, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 140, Part 1, pp. 17–31.
Chien, M.K. and Shih, L.-H. 2007. An empirical study of the implementation of green supply chain
management practices in the electrical and electronic industry and their relation to organizational
performances, International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 383–394.
Chih, H.-L., Chih, H.-H. and Chen, T.-Y. 2010. On the determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility:
International evidence on the financial industry, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 93, pp. 115–135.
European Commission 2012, Commission staff working document. Accompanying the document.
Communication on Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/201202_innovating_sustainable_growth_en.pdf [Accessed 14
September 2017].

18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption
and Production Conference (ERSCP 2017)
European Parliament, Council of the European Union 2009, Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in a
Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), repealing Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 and
Commission Decisions 2001/681/EC and 2006/193/EC. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009R1221&from=en [Accessed 15 September 2017].
Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Holgado, M., van Fossen, K., Yang, M., Silva, E.A. and Barlow, C.Y. 2017.
Business Model Innovation for Sustainability. Towards a Unified Perspective for Creation of Sustainable
Business Models, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 26, No. 5, pp. 597–608.
Ferreira, A.J.D., Lopes, M.A.R. and Morais, J.P.F. 2006. Environmental management and audit schemes
implementation as an educational tool for sustainability, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14, 9-11, pp. 973–
982.
Freimann, J & Walther, M (eds.) 2002, The Impacts of Corporate Environmental Management Systems - A
Comparison between EMAS and ISO 14.001. Available from:
http://www.sustainability.at/easy2002/easy_eco1/pdf/freimann.pdf [Accessed 23 May 2017].
Gaziulusoy, A.I. 2015. A critical review of approaches available for design and innovation teams through the
perspective of sustainability science and system innovation theories, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 107,
pp. 366–377.
Gaziulusoy, A.I. and Brezet, H. 2015. Design for system innovations and transitions. A conceptual framework
integrating insights from sustainability science and theories of system innovations and transitions, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 108, pp. 558–568.
Gelbmann, U. and Peskoller, A. 2016. Resilienz im Spannungsfeld von CSR und Changemanagement in CSR
und Organisationsentwicklung. Die Rolle des Qualitäts- und Changemanagers, eds B Schram & R
Schmidpeter, Gabler, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 15–36.
Gmelin, H. and Seuring, S. 2014. Determinants of a sustainable new product development, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 69, pp. 1–9.
Goedkoop, M.J., van Halen, C.J.G., te Riele, H.R.M. and Rommens, P.J.M. 1999, Product Service systems,
Ecological and Economic Basics, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment Communications
Directorate, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Gould, R., Missimer, M. and Mesquita, P.L. 2017. Using social sustainability principles to analyse activities of
the extraction lifecycle phase: Learnings from designing support for concept selection, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 140, pp. 267–276.
Hardi, P. and Zdan, T. 1997, Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in Practice. Principles in
Practice, Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data, Winnipeg, Manitoba / Canada.
Haslinda, A. and Fuong, C.C. 2010. The Implementation of ISO 14001 Environmental Management System in
Manufacturing Firms in Malaysia, Asian Social Science, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 100–107.
Henri, J.-F. and Journeault, M. 2010. Eco-control: The influence of management control systems on
environmental and economic performance, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35, pp. 63–80.
Herring, H. and Sorrell, S. 2009, Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Consumption: The Rebound Effect.
Energy, Climate and the Environment, Macmillian Publishers Limited, Palgrave Macmillan, United Kingdom.
Hicks, A.L. 2017. Saving energy through multifunctional consumer products: an analysis utilizing current
literature and life cycle assessment methodology, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, pp. 1–
12.
Hjorth, P. and Bagheri, A. 2006. Navigating towards sustainable development. A system dynamics approach,
Futures, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 74–92.
Iraldo, F., Testa, F. and Frey, M. 2009. Is an environmental management system able to influence
environmental and competitive performance? The case of the eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) in
the European union, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17, No. 16, pp. 1444–1452.
ISO 2013, ISO 14031:2013. Environmental management - Environmental performance evaluation -
Guidelines, International Standard Organisation (ISO). Available from:
https://www.iso.org/standard/52297.html [Accessed 13 September 2017].
King, A.A., Lenox, M.J. and Terlaak, A. 2005. The strategic use of decentralized institutions: Exploring
certification with the ISO 14001 management standard, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp.
1091–1106.
Koukios, E., Monteleone, M., Carrondo, M.J.T., Charalambous, A., Girio, F., Hernández, E.L., Mannelli, S.,
Parajó, J.C., Polycarpou, P. and Zabaniotou, A. 2017. Targeting sustainable bioeconomy: A new development

18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption
and Production Conference (ERSCP 2017)
strategy for Southern European countries. The Manifesto of the European Mezzogiorno, Journal of Cleaner
Production, pp. 1–11.
Lang, D.J., Scholz, R.W., Binder, C.R., Wiek, A. and Stäubli, B. 2007. Sustainability Potential Analysis (SPA)
of landfills – a systemic approach. Theoretical considerations, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15, No. 17,
pp. 1628–1638.
Link, S. and Naveh, E. 2006. Standardization and discretion: Does the environmental standard ISO 14001
lead to performance benefits?, Engineering Management, Vol. 53, No. 4, pp. 508–519.
Lourenço, I.C. and Branco, M. 2013. Determinants of corporate sustainability performance in emerging
markets: the Brazilian case, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 57, pp. 134–141.
Lozano, R. 2012. Towards better embedding sustainability into companies’ systems: an analysis of voluntary
corporate initiatives, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 25, pp. 14–26.
Majore, G., Zakis, V., Zake, M., Ginters, E., Zakis, K. and Fjodorovs, A. 2015. Holistic Benchmarking of the
Bio-economy in Protected Landscape Areas, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 43, pp. 118–126.
Maxwell, D., Sheate, W. and van der Vorst, R. 2006. Functional and systems aspects of the sustainable
product and service development approach for industry, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14, No. 17, pp.
1466–1479.
Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R.P. and Calantone, R. 2003. Assessing the impact of environmental management
systems on corporate and environmental performance, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp.
329–351.
Missimer, M., Robèrt, K.-H. and Broman, G. 2017a. A strategic approach to social sustainability – Part 1:
Exploring the social system, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 32–41.
Missimer, M., Robèrt, K.-H. and Broman, G. 2017b. A strategic approach to social sustainability – Part 2. A
principle-based definition, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 42–52.
Missimer, M., Robèrt, K.-H., Broman, G. and Sverdrup, H. 2010. Exploring the possibility of a systematic and
generic approach to social sustainability, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18, 10-11, pp. 1107–1112.
Mont, O.K. 2002. Clarifying the concept of product–service system, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 10,
No. 3, pp. 237–245.
Nicolăescu, E., Alpopi, C. and Zaharia, C. 2015. Measuring corporate sustainability performance,
Sustainability, Vol. 7, pp. 851–865.
Oman, I. 2003. Product Service Systems and their Impacts on Sustainable Development., Frontiers, pp. 1–34.
Pieroni, M.d.P., Marques, C.A.N., Moraes, R.N., Rozenfeld, H. and Ometto, A.R. 2017. PSS Design Process
Models. Are They Sustainability-oriented?, Procedia CIRP, 9th CIRP IPSS Conference: Perspectives on PSS,
Vol. 64, pp. 67–72.
Pigosso, D.C.A. and McAloone, T.C. 2015. Supporting the Development of Environmentally Sustainable PSS
by Means of the Ecodesign Maturity Model, Procedia CIRP, 7th Industrial Product-Service Systems
Conference - PSS, industry transformation for sustainability and business, Vol. 30, pp. 173–178.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. 2011. Creating Shared Value: How to reinvent capitalism - and unleash a wave
of innovation and growth, Harvard Business Review, January-February 2011, pp. 63–70.
Potoski, M. and Prakash, A. 2005. Covenants with weak swords: ISO 14001 and facilities' environmental
performance, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 745–769.
Pullman, M.E., Maloni, M.J. and Carter, C.R. 2009. Food for thought: Social versus environmental
sustainability practices and performance outcomes, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp.
38–54.
Roach, J. and Berch, S.M. 2014, A Compilation of Forest Biomass Harvesting and Related Policy in Canada,
Crown Publications, Queen's Printer, Province of British Columbia, Victoria.
Robèrt, K.-H. 2000. Tools and concepts for sustainable development, how do they relate to a general
framework for sustainable development, and to each other?, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.
243–254.
Robèrt, K.-H. 2002, The Natural Step Story - Seeding a quiet revolution, New Society Publishers, New
Catalyst Books edition 2008, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada.
Robèrt, K.-H., Broman, G.I. and Basile, G. 2013. Analyzing the Concept of Planetary Boundaries from a
Strategic Sustainability Perspective. How Does Humanity Avoid Tipping the Planet?, Ecology and Society,
Vol. 18, No. 2.

18th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption
and Production Conference (ERSCP 2017)
Robèrt, K.-H., Schmidt-Bleek, B., Alois de Larderel, J., Basile, G., Jansen, J.L., Kuehr, R., Price Thomas, P.,
Suzuki, M., Hawken, P. and Wackernagel, M. 2002. Strategic sustainable development - selection, design and
synergies of applied tools, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 197–214.
Roy, R. 2000. Sustainable product-service systems, Futures, Vol. 32, No. 3-4, pp. 289–299.
Schmidt, M. and Schwegler, R. 2008. A recursive ecological indicator system for the supply chain of a
company, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, No. 15, pp. 1658–1664.
Schöggl, J.-P., Baumgartner, R.J. and Hofer, D. 2017. Improving sustainability performance in early phases of
product design: A checklist for sustainable product development tested in the automotive industry, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 140, pp. 1602–1617.
Schöggl, J.-P., Fritz, M.C. and Baumgartner, R.J. 2016. Toward supply chain-wide sustainability assessment:
a conceptual framework and an aggregation method to assess supply chain performance, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 131, pp. 822–835.
Schylander, E. and Martinuzzi, A. 2007. ISO 14001 – experiences, effects and future challenges: A national
study in Austria, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 16, pp. 133–147.
Searcy, C. 2016. Measuring Enterprise Sustainability, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 25, No. 2,
pp. 120–133.
Seuring, S. and Müller, M. 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply
chain management, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, pp. 1699–1710.
Smith, A., Voß, J.-P. and Grin, J. 2010. Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the
multi-level perspective and its challenges, Research Policy, Vol. 39, No. 4.
Staffas, L., Gustavsson, M. and McCormick, K. 2013. Strategies and Policies for the Bioeconomy and Bio-
Based Economy: An Analysis of Official National Approaches, Sustainability, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 2751–2769.
Tukker, A. and Tischner, U. 2006. Product-services as a research field. Past, present and future. Reflections
from a decade of research, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14, No. 17, pp. 1552–1556.
Venier, L.A., Hébert, C., De Grandpré, L., Arsenault, A., Walton, R. and Morris, D.M. 2015. Modelling
deadwood supply for biodiversity conservation: Considerations, challenges and recommendations, The
Forestry Chronicle, Vol. 91, No. 4, pp. 407–416.
Waito, B & Johnson, L 2010, A National Scan of Regulations & Practices Relevant to Biomass Harvesting.
Available from: http://assets.wwf.ca/downloads/biomass_report_2010.pdf [Accessed 06 September 2017].
Waramit, N. 2012. Developing a Bioeconomy in Thailand, Journal of ISSAAS, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 34–44.
Williams, A. 2006. Product-service systems in the automotive industry. The case of micro-factory retailing,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 172–184.
Zito, A.R. and Egan, M. 1998. Environmental management standards, corporate strategies and policy
networks, Environmental Politics, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 94–117.
Zutshi, A. and Sohal, A. 2004. A study of the environmental management system (EMS) adoption process
within Australasian organisations - 2. Role of stakeholders, Technovation, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 371–386.