Search results

This study investigates how organizations in Brazil address sustainability concerns through collaborative governance efforts with strategic stakeholders. Organizations from New Zealand were considered as benchmarks for comparison.

This study is based on a qualitative exploratory research, supported by semistructured interviews. Ten organizations are interviewed, five from each country. Thematic analysis is used to analyze the interview data. Central management practices adopted by organizations are presented, and the goals, benefits, and limitations associated with collaborative initiatives are investigated.

The findings reveal that organizations in Brazil and in New Zealand are employing similar management and sustainability practices. Companies in both countries observe that collaborative efforts with strategic stakeholders improve their ability to meet market demands and jointly develop innovative solutions toward sustainability goals while exchanging knowledge and enhancing their operational effectiveness. Organizations perceive a number of tangible and nontangible value creation outcomes from sustainability practices, such as brand and reputational gains, improved supply chain management, and risk management attainments. The results also present limitations, such as internal limitations of organizations concerning how their executives and general staff incorporate sustainability issues into their organizations’ strategic planning and operational decisions.

Market pressures toward greener and more responsible operations equally affected organizations in both countries, without differentiation in operation between an emerging country such as Brazil and a developed country such as New Zealand. Directions for future research are presented. These are based on how organizations measure sustainability outcomes of management practices and collaborative alliances, and how organizations map upcoming market demands and opportunities to deliver more value to society as the sustainable development debate continues to evolve.

Efforts to increase sustainability are increasingly being promulgated using non-state forms of governance. Currently, there are multiple multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) working to develop sustainability standards and metrics for US agriculture. These include: LEO-4000, Field to Market, and the Sustainability Consortium. Using Paul Thompson’s (2010) tripartite sustainability framework, the proposed sustainability standards and metrics of the three MSIs are assessed. Our findings indicate that the current political economic stakeholder nexus is producing incremental adjustments to the status quo of industrial agriculture. Put differently, the standards and metrics being produced by these initiatives are largely advancing programs of sustainable intensification in which sustainability is equated with increasing resource efficiencies. Hence, our research problematizes the efficacy of non-state governance approaches for transformative change in food and agriculture. The findings in this chapter are based on fieldwork conducted between 2011 and 2013.

The chapter examines and describes the impact of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR) environmental provisions and the UN Global Compact initiatives on environmental sustainability of member countries at a national level and at a firm level.

Composite indexes (Human Development Index, Ecological Footprint Index, and Biocapacity) are used to determine CAFTA-DR country level sustainability. Firm level sustainability is based on a qualitative survey of companies using the Global Reporting Initiative framework and UN Global Compact participation.

Based on the methodology used CAFTA-DR member countries cannot be considered environmentally sustainable. Despite the lack of integration between initiatives proposed by different institutions, firm level sustainability trends are positive and encouraging.

Free access to Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity scores is limited. The research focused on surveying CAFTA-DR and UN Global Compact sustainability initiatives. However, there are many other entities and institutions not included in this research that also encourage sustainability.

The need of a concerted effort to align different organizations and institutions regarding sustainability initiatives in the CAFTA-DR region is apparent.

CAFTA-DR includes environmental provisions that are complementary to the UN Global Compact environmental principle. The synergies between these initiatives should be actively explored.

Most academic work on sustainability has been focused on the organizational level, reflecting the popular “business case for sustainability” idea. However, organizations are certainly not the only locus of entrepreneurial action for sustainability, nor are they the most ideal. This chapter reports on a six-year study of the Sustainability Consortium, a collaboration started in 1999 between large companies that were seeking to lead their industry through innovative initiatives for sustainability. The findings, based on 60 interviews and many other sources of data, identify eight “ecologies of entrepreneurial action,” all of which were critical for driving change. These ecologies are: Individual Aspiration; Network Affiliation; Process Optimization; Entrepreneurial Innovation; Value Chain Collaboration; Industry/Sector Coordination; System-Wide Integration; and Social Transformation. As shown by complexity theory, the interdependent and interconnected nature of these ecologies means that only by expanding beyond organizationally focused endeavors can we help generate the social transformation that will lead to a sustainable world.

Business sustainability urges firms to simultaneously address economic, ecological, and social concerns. It innately combines different potentially competing organizational elements. Therefore, sustainability represents a suitable context for the study and practice of hybridity. Based on an understanding of hybridity as a continuum, in this chapter, the author distinguish between four different forms of hybridity for business sustainability, depending on the degree of integration and autonomy of sustainability initiatives in business organizations. With ceremonial hybridity, businesses only leave the impression to pursue business and sustainability goals but focus their practices on conventional business priorities. Contingent hybridity denotes an approach where ecological and social concerns are only pursued to the extent that they align with business goals. With peripheral hybridity, firms pursue sustainability initiatives in their own right but do not integrate them with core business activities. Full hybridity puts both business as well as sustainability at the core of the organization without emphasizing one over the other. These different forms of hybridity in business sustainability are illustrated with examples from various business organizations. By characterizing different degrees of hybridity in business sustainability, the argument and the examples highlight how organizational hybridity and business sustainability can fruitfully inform one another. The author develop research opportunities for using business sustainability as a context for studying different degrees as well as the dynamics of hybrid organizing and for using different degrees of hybridity for achieving a better understanding of different pathways toward substantive business contributions to sustainable development.

This chapter reports and discusses an empirical study that examines the sustainability practices and strategies of NZ companies. The empirical work for this study was carried out in NZ (Auckland, Wellington, and Waikato) between January and December 2009. There were visits to head offices and regional offices of 15 companies comprising large national and multinational companies (MNCs) operating in NZ. Companies were chosen from different industries including aviation, chemicals, energy and power, financial institutions (banks), pharmaceuticals, retail, and telecommunications.

Over the last 30 years, the University of British Columbia (UBC) in Vancouver, Canada has advanced sustainable development on campus and created a culture of sustainability, with ambitious goals, and strong collaborative relationships. Launched in 2010, the Campus as a Living Laboratory (CLL) initiative utilizes the campus buildings and infrastructure as opportunities for research, teaching, and learning. Projects under the CLL bring together academic researchers, students, staff, and partners to demonstrate, test, research, and learn from new ideas for sustainable development. These projects range in scale from small and discrete educational or research projects, often led by students, to the design and construction of innovative buildings, with multiyear interdisciplinary research programs. CLL projects are opportunities for UBC students to engaged in applied research and learning that enhances their educational experience at the university, and may serve as models for other universities interested in expanding sustainable development on their campuses.

Over the last several decades, the question of the import of firms’ social and environmental responsibilities has taken center stage. While once companies’ obligations to stakeholders and to sustainability were framed as normative issues, these criteria are taking on instrumental worth. Most recently, advocates of Responsible Investment have suggested that firms’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance possesses critical implications for companies’ creation and capture of long-term economic value. Employing textual analysis, this chapter analyzes the accounting, rating, and reporting standards that have been developed by which companies are expected to measure, communicate, and be evaluated for their ESG performance. Drawing from literature on organizational imprinting, this chapter finds significant differences across these standards, in terms of the determination of materiality and firms’ desired stakeholder relations. The divergence present in the meaning and measure of Responsible Investment across these standards possesses important strategic implications for managers in this field who must consider the implications of each guideline for internal and external purposes.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a well-known practice among organizations around the world. It has become a refreshing alternative of conceiving and doing business that encompasses economic, social, and environmental operations for achieving competitive advantage.