Abstract
Although a plethora of alternatives exist, companies often base their sustainability efforts more or less explicitly on the definition of the Brundtland Commission. There are, however, conceptual problems when this definition is removed from its original context, in which it addresses social policies and state institutions. In particular the notions of “needs of the present” and “future generations” reveal the qualitative differences between the socio-political context of the Brundtland Commission and the corporate context. In this paper, we explore the entailing dilemmas, argue why current approaches to solve them are insufficient and analyse common practices for sustainability-related statements of 50 companies in Switzerland. The results support the argument that companies tend to avoid a specific definition of corporate sustainability or transpose the Brundtland definition, instead. Both approaches are inappropriate as guiding principles for corporate policy. Instead, we propose basing the concept of sustainability on the broad premise that “the future is a better, healthier place than the present”, specified and substantiated using functionally formulated corporate values. These corporate values and the vision of a “better place” derived from them gear corporate sustainability efforts towards restitution and/or compensation.
Highlights
If you ask a group of managers from a range of large companies about corporate sustainability, chances are that you will be greeted by a chorus of claims that this is a vitally important topic for their businesses
Their actions can be grouped into three categories: sustainable acts, acting in line with sustainability and contributing to company specific sustainable development
Following the idea that “individual organizations cannot become sustainable: Individual organizations contribute to the large system in which sustainability may or may not be achieved” (Jennings & Zandbergen, 1995), this paper argues that corporate sustainability should contribute to a global sustainable development but can only, and should only, set guiding principles for their domains of corporate activity
Summary
If you ask a group of managers from a range of large companies about corporate sustainability, chances are that you will be greeted by a chorus of claims that this is a vitally important topic for their businesses. The phrase corporate sustainability can be heard in boardrooms and meetings throughout the business world, with many companies declaring that their operations adhere to its principles. Their actions can be grouped into three categories: sustainable acts (random or lacking a comprehensive framework for guiding efforts), acting in line with sustainability (having a framework for guiding efforts but not necessary in line with overall business activity) and contributing to company specific sustainable development (using a framework for guiding efforts, which are aligned with corporate values). Following the idea that “individual organizations cannot become sustainable: Individual organizations contribute to the large system in which sustainability may or may not be achieved” (Jennings & Zandbergen, 1995), this paper argues that corporate sustainability should contribute to a global sustainable development but can only, and should only, set guiding principles for their domains of corporate activity
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.
