Abstract
AbstractOur purpose is to develop a comprehensive categorization of organizational sustainability frames. This is necessary because a unified approach that considers the organizational sustainability frames of different organizations (FPOs, NPOs and hybrids) is absent in the extant research. Towards this end, we undertake an integrative review of 158 articles and identify seven frames based on three objective functions: maximization of economic capital, maintaining natural capital and creating social impact. Of the seven, three are dogmatic, each accepting only one objective function as legitimate: economic, natural and social capital; three are instrumental, with one objective function as the ultimate goal and the others as necessary means; and the last one is paradoxical, where tensions between objective functions are accommodated simultaneously rather than eliminated. We contribute to the literature by introducing the ‘dogmatic frame’ category to the ongoing conversation on organizational sustainability frames. We also contribute by demonstrating that instrumental frames exist not only at for‐profit organizations but also at non‐profits and hybrid organizations. Consequently, we link the conversation in these areas with that of organizational sustainability frames. Finally, we problematize the growing attention on the paradoxical frame by discussing its suitability in different contexts and situations.
Highlights
There is continuing scholarly interest in studying frames that guide organizational sensemaking of sustainability challenges (Eberhardt-Toth & Wasieleski, 2013; Hahn et al, 2015; Hockerts, 2015a)
For this reason we further employ problematization as a strategy to identify the assumptions of the reviewed literature (Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011), allowing us to enhance the criticality of our integrative review and make further recommendations to scholars who focus on organizational sustainability frames at for-profit organization (FPO), non-profit organization (NPO) and hybrids (Table 7)
This review reinterpreted the articles about organizational sustainability frames and described three frame categories that guide how FPOs, NPOs and hybrids view sustainability challenges
Summary
There is continuing scholarly interest in studying frames that guide organizational sensemaking of sustainability challenges (Eberhardt-Toth & Wasieleski, 2013; Hahn et al, 2015; Hockerts, 2015a). Frames are cognitive filters that ‘enable individuals or groups or organisations to locate, perceive, identify, and label’ The primary focus of this paper is to describe an organization’s shared assumptions about which objective function(s) it has to prioritize or optimize to maintain its activities. The assumption was that organizations only need to consider a single objective to remain sustainable (e.g. sustainable financial profit). A triple-bottom-line view has emerged over the past three decades that requires balancing economic, natural and social capital (Elkington, 1994, 2013). As we will show in this paper, views still differ about how organizations achieve this balance
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
