Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the current developments to “mainstream” and standardise sustainability reporting and the consequences of those changes. Those changes give rise to the colonisation of sustainability reporting through the adoption of financial reporting concepts.

This research draws on critical theory, particularly the work of Foucault, to understand the dynamics of accounting change. This approach provides an alternative to the current narrative that the concepts that underpin reporting are universal and timeless.

It is suggested that if the aim of mandatory sustainability reporting is to promote companies adopting sustainable business models, then it must properly reflect the context of the company. Both transactive and relationship information is critical to providing an account that can be used to judge the performance of the corporation beyond its production of short-term net positive cash flows.

The design of standard setting arrangements for sustainability reporting needs to recognise that it may be unhelpful to simply adopt financial reporting concepts for the purposes of directing corporate behaviour towards sustainable development.

Continuing to adopt a view of the corporation as a nexus of contracts with no clear accountability to stakeholders is likely to stymie efforts to deal with the environmental and social crisis facing people and planet.

Whilst other works have considered the development of sustainability reporting, to the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study to consider the impacts of “mainstreaming” it within mandatory corporate reporting.

This chapter is about helping you provide a solid platform for your organisation to engage with impact, by shining a light on what sits behind the decisions you make. This chapter will firstly set out why focussing on societal impact, whilst historically relevant, is really not a natural thing for today's organisations – in a sense, it goes against everything we have told ourselves about business for the past number of decades. At the same time, uniting the energy of an organisation to drive positive wellbeing impact is where the heart of the current revolution to address our multifaceted sustainability crises lies. It is a challenge we must rise to.

Many useful frameworks of sustainability/corporate responsibility maturity exist that can help us think about impact (e.g., Schaltegger, Hansen, & Lüdeke-Freund, 2015; Baumgartner & Ebner, 2010; Ainsbury & Grayson, 2014). This chapter extends this by delving deeper into the underlying economic mental models that structure existing organisational decision-making logics regarding impact. It outlines three archetypes of impact logic and the level of impact you would expect to be able to achieve if you operate from each one. All three sit within a ‘capitalist’ approach. Two of them are tightly bounded with neo-classical economic assumptions that have dominated business, the third marks a seismic break with these assumptions. In clarifying these archetypes, this chapter sets a trajectory that leaders can follow if they want to move towards delivering greater impact. The leadership lesson is that when it comes to delivering impact, if you want to go far, you have to go deep.

Business enterprises…are organs of society. They do not exist for their own sake, but to fulfil a specific social purpose and to satisfy a specific need of a society, a community or individuals.

Drucker (1974, p. 39).

Business enterprises…are organs of society. They do not exist for their own sake, but to fulfil a specific social purpose and to satisfy a specific need of a society, a community or individuals.

This paper aims to narrow the gap caused by the lack of literature relating the three concepts of corporate sustainability, organizational resilience and corporate purpose in the context of corporations. A framework that explains how these three concepts are related and effectively merged for long-term corporate survival are proposed.

A systematic review is carried out. It is explained, first, initial search strategies to identify those documents that define each concept and to identify concepts with which each concept is associated. Subsequently, it is designed a search strategy combining all three concepts and their associated concepts to gather and analyze all the possible studies that have tried to connect these concepts. Finally, it is identified some gaps in the understanding of how these three concepts are related.

Results indicate that corporate sustainability, organizational resilience and corporate purpose merge to achieve long-term corporate survival. There exists a two-way relationship between these three variables. Findings also present gaps and future directions that should be addressed to foster an increase in knowledge about the relationships between corporate sustainability, organizational resilience and corporate purpose.

Nowadays, some authors endeavor to explain how aspects such as corporate sustainability, organizational resilience and corporate purpose are crucial in the dynamic environment facing corporations every day. Nevertheless, there needs to be more understanding of how these three concepts are related and effectively merged for long-term corporate survival. This paper contributes to the literature by closing this gap.