Corporate Sustainability – From a Fuzzy Concept to a Coherent Reality

Open access


During the last few decades, the search for sustainability has experienced a tremendous momentum, encompassing all the levels of the global system. Fuelled by complex (both proactive and reactive) motivators, the process has surpassed the characteristics of an intellectual endeavor – more preoccupied by idealist goals, and less focused on the actual means to achieve them – and has proved that it can successfully be transposed into the corporate real world – of decision making, objective assessment, and relentless scrutiny. The paper aims to (broadly) explore the world of the most sustainable corporations – based on a descriptive (factual and dynamic) analysis of Corporate Knight’s annual rankings (2016-2018) of the Most Sustainable Corporations – in order to: (a). determine (by comparing and contrasting) the main features these organizations – able to transform the fuzzy concept of corporate sustainability into a coherent reality – display; and (b). set the premises for future (narrower) researches – aiming to explain the “how-s” behind the design, development and implementation of the strategies these corporations follow in their search for (sustainable) competitiveness.


  • Abraham, T., & Dao, V. (2017). An Empirical Investigation of Sustainability Innovation Systems and the Stages of Sustainability Maturity.

  • Adams, C., & Narayanan, V. (2007). The ‘standardization’ of sustainability reporting. Sustainability accounting and accountability, 70-85.

  • Ameer, R., & Othman, R. (2012). Sustainability practices and corporate financial performance: A study based on the top global corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(1), 61-79.

  • Baumgartner, R. J., & Ebner, D. (2010). Corporate sustainability strategies: sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustainable Development, 18(2), 76-89.

  • Brown, B. J., Hanson, M. E., Liverman, D. M., & Merideth, R. W. (1987). Global Sustainability: Toward Definition. Environmental Management, 11(6), 713-719.

  • Clayton, T., & Radcliffe, N. (2015). Sustainability: a systems approach. Routledge.

  • Communication From The Commission (2017). Guidelines on non-financial reporting. (Methodology for reporting non-financial information). (2017/C 215/01).

  • Corporate Knights (2016). 2016 Global 100 results. 100 World’s Most Sustainable Corporations.

  • Corporate Knights (2017). 2017 Global 100 results. 100 World’s Most Sustainable Corporations.

  • Corporate Knights (2018). 2018 Global 100 results. 100 World’s Most Sustainable Corporations.

  • Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups.

  • Ditlev Simonsen, C. D., & Midttun, A. (2011). What motivates managers to pursue corporate responsibility? A survey among key stakeholders. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(1), 25-38.

  • Engardio, P., Capell, K., Carey, J., & Hall, K. (2007). Beyond the green corporation: Imagine a world in which eco-friendly and socially responsible practices actually help a company’s bottom line. It’s closer than you think. Business Week, 4019, 50.

  • Epstein, M. J., & Buhovac, A. R. (2014). Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

  • Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The sustainability balanced scorecard–linking sustainability management to business strategy. Business strategy and the Environment, 11(5), 269-284.

  • Gianni, M., Gotzamani, K., & Tsiotras, G. (2017). Multiple perspectives on integrated management systems and corporate sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 1297-1311.

  • Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2010). Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: you can’t have your cake and eat it. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(4), 217-229.

  • Haywood, L. K., & Van der Watt, C. (2016). Building resilience into business strategy, management and reporting: Principles and maturity tool to facilitate resilience in business, 2016.

  • Hubbard, G. (2009). Measuring Organizational Performance: Beyond the Triple Bottom Line. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(3), 177-191.

  • Ivory, S. B., & Brooks, S. B. (2018). Managing corporate sustainability with a paradoxical lens: Lessons from strategic agility. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 347-361.

  • Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., ... & Faucheux, S. (2001). Sustainability science. Science, 292(5517), 641-642.

  • Lubin, D. A., & Esty, D. C. (2010). The Sustainability Imperative. Harvard Business Review, 88(5), 42-50.

  • Montiel, I., & Delgado-Ceballos, J. (2014). Defining and measuring corporate sustainability: Are we there yet?. Organization & Environment, 27(2), 113-139.

  • Nguyen, D. K., & Slater, S. F. (2010). Hitting the sustainability sweet spot: Having it all. Journal of Business Strategy, 31(3), 5-11.

  • Norton, B. G. (2005). Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. University of Chicago Press.

  • Pal, M., & Jenkins, J. J. (2014). Reimagining Sustainability: An Interrogation of the Corporate Knights’ Global 100. Environmental Communication, 8(3), 388-405.

  • Pinelli, M., & Maiolini, R. (2017). Strategies for Sustainable Development: Organizational Motivations, Stakeholders’ Expectations and Sustainability Agendas. Sustainable Development, 25(4), 288-298.

  • Popa, F., Guillermin, M., & Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2015). A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: From complex systems theory to reflexive science. Futures, 65, 45-56.

  • Searcy, C. (2016). Without a definition of corporate sustainability, how to measure performance?. LSE Business Review.

  • Skjølsvold, T. M. (2013). What we disagree about when we disagree about sustainability. Society & Natural Resources, 26(11), 1268-1282.

  • United Nations (UN). (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

  • United Nations (UN). (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future.

  • Van Marrewijk, M., & Werre, M. (2003). Multiple levels of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business ethics, 44(2-3), 107-119.

  • Verstegen, S. W., & Hanekamp, J. C. (2005). The sustainability debate: Idealism versus conformism–the controversy over economic growth. Globalizations, 2(3), 349-362.

  • Vos, R. O. (1997). Introduction: competing approaches to sustainability: Dimensions of Controversy. Flashpoints in Environmental Policymaking: Controversies in Achieving Sustainabiliw, 1-26.

  • Willard, B. (2012). The new sustainability advantage: seven business case benefits of a triple bottom line. New Society Publishers.

  • York, J. G. (2009). Pragmatic sustainability: Translating environmental ethics into competitive advantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(1), 97-109.

Journal Information


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 25 25 25
PDF Downloads 13 13 13