Reviewing the literature, this chapter exposes the concepts of Ecological Economics, Sustainable Management and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in order to verify the conceptual confusion between the latter two. The debate has been marked by conceptual unclarity with both terms being frequently used as synonyms, even though clear distinctions can be highlighted. The first mismatch lands on the historical tradition surrounding both concepts, as CSR has mainly been concerned with the social dimension of organizational impact, marginalizing the environmental length. The second mismatch refers to the reasons why organizations opt for the adoption of CSR strategies or a Sustainable Management paradigm, having a more discretionary decision-making power in the adoption of CSR policies and practices, once historical tradition and empirical evidence shows that some organizations may only choose to be socially responsible in special fields, but may not be fully committed into a Sustainable Management paradigm. The third mismatch arises as these concepts imply a different commitment towards society because the complexity of each is distinct. CSR represents the microeconomic dimension of the macroeconomic concept of Sustainable Management, being a precondition for Sustainable Management. This work provides a useful input as it stresses that these two concepts may be considered as “intrinsically linked” and CSR can be seen as the business contribution to sustainable development. To the best of our knowledge this work is the first so far to directly compare the concepts of CSR and Sustainable Management, exposing their correspondent and opposing points based on a literature review, providing a useful input to bring forth more rigor to fill in the gap of the overlapping and blurred discussion around this topic.

9.1. Introduction

As pointed out by de Groot [GRO 92], the life-support function of ecosystems is connected to their physical, chemical and biological role on the overall system. However, since the 18th Century and with more vigor since the 20th Century, that vital function has been continuously harmed. Indeed, the rapid growth of economic activity, fostered by the analogous increasing growth of the world population, has decisively impacted all socio-economic systems, leading to an urgency in debating the clear symptoms of environmental unsustainability. Indeed, the real economy works as an open system, which, in order to function effectively and efficiently, must extract resources from the environment and place large amounts of waste back into it [KNE 15, AYR 69]. Hence, the awareness of actual and potential conflicts between economic growth and environment conservation originated the debate around the concept of Sustainable Management, aiming at Sustainable Development.

Sustainable Development refers to the process of meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own, ensuring a global and lasting conservation of the environment as well as the development and stabilization of economic and social behavior, balancing nature preservation with economic growth at a planetary scale. To achieve Sustainability, the global community must deal with refined problems, these being cross-scale, transcultural, transdisciplinary, transversal to present and future generations [MAR 06b], operating in an holistic spectrum, as the foundation for the concept of Sustainability is founded on the intertwining of environmental, social, political and economic spheres, whose development should be harmonious [ELK 94]. Such problems are calling out for innovative and inclusive research approaches, interconnecting different fields of study and action, as well as new social institutions as they are increasingly threatening the future existence and well-being of Homo sapiens [BER 00b, GOL 94, HOL 94, VIE 94, COM 92, COS 87].

It is important to highlight that, while classical economists namely Malthus [MAL 98], Ricardo [RIC 17], Mill [MIL 57] and Marx [MAR 67] clearly advocated in their models that economic activity is bounded by the environment, neo-classical economics completely overlooked this central characteristic of real world economics until the 1970s, when the debate had started around the urgency of social and environmental limits to economic growth. Indeed, considering the economy as a system in which firms sell goods and services and then remunerate the production factors (land, labor and capital), traditional neo-classical economics examines the process of price formation conceiving economics in this closed system logics. We see here a “reductionist” paradigm on traditional neo-classical economics, once it assumes the world is divided and separable into relatively isolated units, which, by their end, are possible to examine on their own and then reassemble to provide a picture of the whole complex, summing up the several fragments. As complexities in science increased, this turned to be understood as a very useful approach, given the fact that it enabled the whole problem to be divided into smaller, more tangible, simpler and manageable fragments that could be dissected intensively [COS 96]. In economics, this fostered a rising isolation from the natural resources component of the classical triad of land, labor and capital, as well as a growing segregation from the natural sciences, progressively drifting away from the fruitful outcomes of interdisciplinary approaches. At the same time, economics was becoming absorbed into professionalization. This trend had been profoundly present through until the middle of the 20th Century, and was only put into question around the 1970s, by the time of the renewed environmental awareness.

Ecological Economics has grown in importance ever since, not only in academic research, but also in political debates and in civil society, as it addresses the connections between ecosystems and economic systems in a comprehensive logic, as a means to develop a more intense and rigorous understanding of the entire system formed by the interdependence between humans and nature as a root for the design and execution of effective policies towards sustainability [COS 91]. Indeed, few organizational topics are as broadly reaching as those regarding society and the environment, so that societal and environmental responsibility is increasingly assumed to be a core business issue [ORL 03, WAL 03]. Subsequently, it has gained momentum as a strong approach to address the issues around Sustainable Management and Sustainable Development.

Through a literature review, this chapter aims to expose the concepts of Ecological Economics, Sustainable Management and CSR, in order to verify the conceptual confusion and overlap between the latter two, based on the argument that the conceptual proliferation and the theoretical approaches so far available in the literature have often been presenting and operationalizing such concepts as if they are synonymous, which we do not consider to be accurate. So, this is a descriptive work, mapping the terrain for a conceptual discussion and clarification around CSR and Sustainable Management, framing it on the basis of the theoretical background of Ecological Economics. The remainder of the work is the following: we start by explaining the concept of Ecological Economics, and on the basis of which, we expose the concepts of Sustainable Management and CSR. Based on such argumentation, we then intricate these two concepts, comparing them in order to verify their conceptual common and distinct points and how these then reflect into implications with regards to organizational strategies, management approaches, academic research, political agenda definition and civil society debates towards the sustainability imperative.

We conclude that the debate has indeed been marked by conceptual unclarity in both the terms and their conceptual umbrella frequently used as if they were synonymous. A primary reason for this is due to their relative recency, given the fact that we have only seen a more intense discussion on the topic only since the 1990s. Nevertheless, clear distinctions between both concepts can be highlighted, which we present as mismatches when comparatively analyzing both conceptual structures and their preconized approaches. We have distinguished three such mismatches, which are interconnected even though different from one another. The first mismatch is based on the historical tradition surrounding both concepts, CSR by tradition was once only concerned with the social dimension of organizational impact, marginalizing the environmental dimension. The second mismatch refers to the reasons why organizations opt for the adoption of CSR strategies or for a Sustainable Management paradigm. We argue that organizations have a more discretionary decision-making power in the adoption of CSR policies and practices, in other words they have a more casuistic decision-making approach with regards to CSR, as they casuistically opt for which CSR strategies they wish to implement, in which time frames and with which operative methods to achieve the desired outcomes. Historical tradition and empirical evidence show that some organizations may only choose to be socially responsible and active in special fields, but they may not be fully committed to a Sustainable Management paradigm. So, we suggest that the adoption of CSR strategies is mainly based on the organizations’ self-interest, either to comply with the law (normative case) and/or to achieve competitive advantage, as organizations often understand that the adoption of CSR may provide them with valuable resources, offering them the opportunity to achieve an additional input to incorporate in their value chain. The third mismatch arises as these concepts imply a different commitment towards society, taking into consideration that the complexity of each concept is markedly distinct. Hence, we suggest that a micro analysis is more the case for CSR, but Sustainable Management consists of a holistic approach, requiring a macro analysis [MAR 03]. We argue that CSR represents the microeconomic dimension of the macroeconomic concept of Sustainable Management, thus, CSR acts only as a precondition for Sustainable Management: business sustainability is a consequence of the application of CSR strategies. To fulfil their purpose, CSR strategies must be integrated into the overall business strategy, embedded across the organization horizontally and vertically [FRA 01].

This chapter provides a useful input as it stresses that these two concepts may be considered as “intrinsically linked” and CSR can be understood as the business contribution to sustainable development. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge this work is the first so far to directly compare both the CSR and Sustainable Management concepts, clearly exposing their correspondent and opposing points based on a literature review, providing a useful input to bring forth more rigor to fill in the gap of the confusing, overlapping and blurred discussion around this topic so far.

9.2. Ecological Economics

Ecology and Economics have so far been separate research fields throughout their recent histories in the 20th Century, addressing distinct topics, applying different assumptions and supporting diverse interests in the policy process. The advent of Ecological Economics has reconciled both approaches: for a review on the topic, the works of Nørgård [NOR 13], Costanza [COS 96], Norgaard [NOR 89], Alier [ALI 87a], Alier and Schlüpmann [ALI 87b]; Vitousek et al. [VIT 86], Clark and Munro [CLA 75], Leontief [LEO 70], Ayres and Kneese [AYR 69], Mishan and Mishan [MIS 67], Cumberland [CUM 66], Galbraith [GAL 58] and Ciriacy-Wantrup [CIR 52] are relevant.

In fact, Ecological Economics aims at developing a more profound understanding of the complex connections between ecological and economic systems, using such knowledge to develop efficient and effective policies to construct a world which can be characterized by being ecologically sustainable, articulating a fair distribution and allocation of scarce resources to satisfy not only the present needs, but also safeguarding the satisfaction of future generations’ demands. It is due to the fact that these approaches focus more incisively on the problems facing Homo sapiens’ future existence and well-being, as well as the ecosystems on which civilization rests over the long term. As a result, it is clear that Ecological Economics is nowadays evidently present on an institutional level and global scale. Therefore, we can suggest that Ecological Economics consists of a transdisciplinary effort to bring a connection between the natural and social sciences broadly – especially environmentalism, ecology, management and economics – based on the premise that approaches which eliminate the associations within and between economic and natural systems fall into reductionist paradigms, and analysis taken under such roots are not rigorous as they can originate severe misperceptions and policy failures, given the fact that these days we increasingly observe a robust crystallization of the strength of real-world interdependencies [COS 87].

In light of the above, we can conceive Ecological Economics as an anthropocentric field of study, because it is, at its very core, concerned with the survival and well-being of Homo sapiens on this planet. Also relevant to highlight is the fact that it is simultaneously biocentric as it provides insights on the survival and well-being of all other life forms as well [RAP 93]. Hence, this concept requires “new approaches that are comprehensive, adaptive, integrative, multi-scale, and pluralistic, and that acknowledge the huge uncertainties involved” [COS 96, p. 978], as it is an attempt to design and objectivize a more effective interdisciplinary relationship which can work as a link towards “a truly comprehensive science of humans as a component of nature that will fulfil the early goals of ecology”, attempting to provide a positive contribution which helps in rectifying “the tendency to ignore humans in ecology, while at the same time rectifying the parallel tendency to ignore the natural world in the social sciences” [COS 96, p. 979]. Consequently, Ecological Economics integrates elements of myriad disciplines to offer a cohesive, combined and integrated perspective on the several interdependencies happening on the dyad environment-economy, contributing to structural solutions towards environmental issues [BER 00a].

As the intellectual founders and antecedents of Ecological Economics we can highlight, in the field of Economics, Boulding, Daly, and Georgescu-Roegen; as well as Holling and Odum in the field of Ecology. At the end of the 1960s, Daly boosted a chief input to the long-lasting economic growth debate, as the author advanced the idea of a “steady state economy”, linked at the aim of minimizing the use of materials and energy (“throughput”) in the economy [DAL 96, DAL 92, DAL 91, DAL 68], having also produced a substantial work around international trade, sustainable welfare indicators and, a notable contribution, on the maximum physical scale of the economy. Boulding shared such academic interest in environmental issues. Among his contributions to this topic we can highlight the disparities between the “cowboy economy” and the “spaceship economy” [BOU 66]: while the first represented a metaphor for the local/national open economy, symbolized under the logics of a closed system – where people worry very little about the quality of the environment and nature, merely paying attention to local environmental problems, articulating a microsystem – Boulding sharply acknowledges that was not the correct path to take in the times ahead. To the author, the solution might reside in the migration towards new resources, hence suggesting the metaphor of the “spaceship economy”, this symbolizing the world as a complex and interdependent whole, even if formed by fragmented pieces, consequently being limited on the very first instance on material and food supplies. The author, thus, somehow ended by suggesting Sustainable Management as a solution, advancing it as the most accurate survival strategy, which objectivated the economic use of materials, energy and environment, as well boosting the maximization of recycling substances, materials and products. This “spaceship metaphor” turned into a precursor for the modern interpretation of global environmental problems. Georgescu-Roegen is best known for his contributions to utility theory and activity analysis, enthusiastically criticizing standard neoclassical economics [GEO 76, GEO 71, GEO 66]. On the other hand, Holling’s arguments on ecosystem stability and resilience [HOL 73] are the foremost denoted and discussed in theoretical ecology, and indeed the author’s influence has surpassed this field of study to impregnate other disciplines, influencing approaches to integrated modeling and adaptive management [PER 98, GUN 95]. Specifically, it is noteworthy to highlight Holling’s idea that (terrestrial) ecosystems do not inevitably track and follow a path of succession towards a climax: instead, they can develop in a recurrent cycle [HOL 85]. Odum has influenced Ecological Economics through the EMERGY analysis approach he coined [ODU 71], then applying this method to the combined study of economic-ecological exchanges from local to global scales [ODU 87].

Summarizing the above, we can see that, in their opposition from the prevailing mainstream view, ecological economists frequently cite Georgescu-Roegen’s [GEO 71] theory. It refutes the standard model of economic growth firstly based on the second law of thermodynamics, which entails that there is always an energy deficit in a system, given the fact that, in entropy terms, the cost of any biological or economic action is always greater than the product. That standard model is also refuted on the argument that the free or operational energy (low entropy) used to replace such a deficit embodies a fixed and declining stock, thus “nature really does impose an inescapable general scarcity”, so that it would be a “serious delusion to believe otherwise” [DAL 79, p. 69]. Ecological economists also refute the mainstream trend by arguing that “the basic relation of man-made and natural capital is one of complementarity, not substitutability” [DAL 94, p. 26]. This argument is, nevertheless, undermined due to the fact that it fails to reply to the basic dispute of the mainstream model, which assumes that growing resource scarcity would always generate price signals that would stimulate compensating economic and technological devices, such as resource substitution, recycling, exploration and increased efficiency in resource utilization [CLA 73].

Indeed, mainstream economists ground their models on the premise that the Earth’s carrying capacity cannot be measurably accessed scientifically because it is merely the result of the state of knowledge and technology, therefore, it is biased. Consequently, they base their models trusting to human intelligence and ingenuity, advocating that nature imposes no limits to economic growth, postulating that, as people seek to satisfy their needs and preferences in order to achieve well-being, they choose from among an indefinitely large plethora of alternatives [BAR 13]. Basing themselves on such a premise, mainstream economists offer at least three arguments corroborating that knowledge and ingenuity are expected to always lessen resource shortages. First, they assume that reserves of natural resources are essentially functions of technology, in the sense that the more advanced the technology is, the more reserves become known and recoverable [LEE 93]. Second, they defend that advances in technology make it possible not only to grow available reserves but also to allocate and employ substitutes for resources that have the potential to turn scarce. Third, they claim that the power of knowledge incessantly diminishes the quantities of resources required to produce a continuous or cumulative torrent of consumer goods and services. Ecological economists, in an energetic contrast, reject such ideas based on a different conception of “the limiting factor”: in this new era we live in, the limiting factor in development is not human-created capital, as in the past, but remaining natural capital [COS 91]. Knowledge would be as such a limiting factor in economic production for mainstream economists (considering it would even exist), even though, as long as knowledge progressed, the economy would also be able to expand and such problems would be surpassed. Drucker [DRU 93, p. 8] clearly defended this mainstream economics optimistic view on technological progress and economic growth: “The basic resource – ‘the means of production’, to use the economist’s term, is no longer capital, nor natural resources (the economist’s ‘land’), nor ‘labor’’ It is and will be knowledge.” This evidently diverges from Daly’s argument [DAL 85, pp. 274–275] that “technology and resource substitution” can unceasingly outpace resource scarcity, strongly advocating that economic growth faces (and indeed has to face) limits, because sources of raw materials (natural capital) are fixed and limited, restraining the global economy’s potential growth. Daly [DAL 96] incisively pointed out that it would be an absolute illusion to consider that economic growth would still possible if only organizational, business, political and civil society’s initiatives were labelled as “sustainable” or “green”.

Ecological Economics, then, projects a perspective that, in its roots, opposes a strictly utilitarian conception of value, instead having developed contingent valuation methodologies to assign what through this approach is called shadow prices to intrinsic values [SAG 95]. This also comes from the fact that these approaches provide a central role to uncertainty, once they tightly argue that both ecological and social systems are complex (even chaotic). Therefore, events deriving from the interchange between the two systems are intrinsically unpredictable. As such, ecological economists argue that mainstream economics lacks representation of these systems’ evolutionary nature and of its characteristic nonlinear causation [CHR 89], once those approaches are grounded on complete measurability, value neutrality, objectivity and unidimensional terms. Bearing in mind that particular processes in nature are essentially irreversible [COS 96, LUD 93, COS 92], CLA 75], these models suggest the need to conserve and advance natural capital [COS 92b] in order to retain the ecological life-support systems and the interconnected socioeconomic systems, providing inputs so that they remain resilient to change [PER 98, HOL 94, JAN 94, HAM 93]. The “precautionary principle” is, then, very present in Ecological Economics: such economists propose it as one way to manage the problem of true uncertainty, recommending that society should establish safe minimum standards to protect the planet’s life-support systems [COS 96].

Such examples prove that Ecological Economics proposes viable alternatives to the theoretical foundations and policy recommendations of neoclassical welfare economics. In other words, Ecological Economics can be considered as a particular specialization of neoclassical economics as it concerns two fundamental questions: the issue of environmental externalities, and the optimal intergenerational allocation of non-renewable resources. Following this line, we can see that a revolution in neoclassical economics is taking place (since the 1970s), with which the central conventions of welfare economics are being revised and substituted with more realistic representations of consumer and firm behavior. In regards to this, Gowdy and Erickson [GOW 05, p. 207] sharply advocate that Ecological Economics be assumed today as “the only heterodox school of economics focusing on the human economy both as a social system and as one imbedded in the biophysical universe”, accentuating its positive impact playing “a leading role in recasting the scope and method of economic science” as it comprises an holistic approach.

Ecological Economics acknowledges that ecological and economical rationality are not sufficient to, per se, obtain efficient and effective outcomes, hence, environmental decisions should be designed through a democratic scientific-political decision process [MUN 97]. Given the fact that Ecological Economics regards the socioeconomic system as a component of the overall ecosphere (on its analysis heightening its carrying capacity and scale issues in face of the growth of the human population and its activities, as well as the expansion of fair systems in wealth distribution), it becomes clear that the nucleus of Ecological Economics is associated with the goal of Sustainable Development, which is conceived as referring to both intra- and intergenerational equity, understanding economy as only a subsystem inserted as an active part of a larger local and global ecosystem that decisively imposes limits to the economy’s physical growth [BER 00a].

To conclude this argumentation, we can state that co-evolution and diversity are the vital requests of both Ecological Economics, Sustainable Management and Sustainable Development. Following the line of Munda [MUN 97], the alarm about the carrying capacity of Earth symbolizes a withdrawal from traditional arguments in favor of environmental protection, once they no longer rest on prudential considerations, in the sense that 19th Century environmentalists, framed on a mindset which apprehended nature as full of divinity, looked upon its conservation less as an economic imperative than as a moral test. Hence, Ecological Economics projects an explicit apprehension for future generations and long-term sustainability, exploring questions around untraditional economic topics such as ethics, equity, regional development and multiculturalism [BER 00b, TUR 97], articulating its approaches through models with a wide range of values, providing a more ambitious and rigorous level of study as such models go beyond the partial insights of the current human generation (although these are not ignored).

9.3. Sustainable Management

In light of the above, having Ecological Economics as its theoretical foundation, we can find the roots of the concept of Sustainability back in the end of the 18th Century, where it became obvious that resources had a limited lifetime and were available in nature for human usage at a limited stock. Consequently, human beings could not use it to exhaustion to satisfy their current needs if they considered that such resources were required to remain obtainable in nature for the development of future generations – indeed, there was a mismatch in both ambitions, both needed to be calibrated [GLU 01, p. 9]. Anderson [AND 04] notes the Industrial Revolution era, which originated in England in the late 1700s, as the period since when the environmental awaking had its roots, as it was the period in history in which the most devastating environmental harm originated. It is also important to call attention to this era as the (even though silent) root for the emergence of the concept of Sustainability due to the fact that, according to Hobsbawm and Cumming [HOB 75], it marks the move towards the capitalistic economy, where wealth and profit became the valued goals of individuals and corporations.

Not disregarding these earlier acknowledgments, the true environmental movement instigated around the mid-1960s and speedily boosted over the following decades is currently cited as a cornerstone for an upsurge in Sustainability debates as during such time societal changes provoked weighty negative effects on the environment, which impacted society’s awareness compelling it to start expecting businesses to take an active stand on assuming a great part of the accountability for the planet’s environmental problems [BUC 93]. Hence, organizations found themselves compelled to accept the challenge of incorporating Sustainable Management initiatives in all of their business functions, facing a precipitous learning curve when adopting such management practices [NAT 99]. The second era of environmental awareness identified by Nattrass and Altomare [NAT 99] traversed the 1980s, when tragic environmental events and the growing environmental deterioration due to climate change harmed environmental and human welfare, as well as companies’ financial records. Thus, organizations gathered efforts to implement management practices and policies towards sustainability as a means to proactively anticipate and best manage such scenarios. Consequently, those problems crystalized as vibrant alerts demanding that organizations should go beyond legal compliance to truly assume themselves as respectable corporate citizens [MCG 63].

With the advancement of time, strategic questions surrounding environmental issues gained notable urgency, turning Sustainable Management into an imperative by organizations. Thus, the 1990s coined the term “eco-efficiency” as this period establishes the third era of environmental consciousness, once organizations began to grasp that sustaining the status quo would not lead to a fruitful future [NAT 99]. In fact, this period was demarcated by a hands-on corporate response to environmental issues, as well (and possibly with sharper impacts) as by the awareness that companies could indeed profit from being environmentally mindful and underscoring unceasing enhancements towards environmental issues, given the fact that such an approach could help them in obtaining a competitive advantage over competitors [POR 95].

Nattrass and Altomare [NAT 99] suggest the new millennium as the final and current era of environmental awareness, in which organizations increasingly displayed high levels of integration of sustainability initiatives at both strategic and operational levels in their management policies and practices, this being so because they deconstructed the idea that environmental and organizational performances are two completely separate fields. Instead, organizations are increasingly acknowledging the positive outcomes, even if in regards to their financial performance, that can be originated if adopting Sustainable Management practices in daily life, thus alongside aligning company and environmental goals. In this era, by assuming environmental issues as a chief concern in all of their business functions, organizations remain competitive in their markets and clearly stand out as a message to be socially responsible and behave according to moral standards.

In light of the above, we can state that Sustainability has its roots on three pillars: economic growth, ecological balance and social responsibility. The advancement of time generalized this concept adding a plethora of ideas for its interpretation [ZIN 05]. However, its core remains unchangeable, and in current times it is absolutely highlighted as an urgent issue: it presents a dyadic dynamics, as it refers to both human beings’ dependence on the environment, as well as to their reaction to global changes in such an environment through its present behavior in the economic, social and/or ecological domains. Malovics et al. [MAL 08] agree with such an argument, herewith, we can defend that Sustainable Management provides a refined management approach to conceive the relationship between business and society, not understanding corporate success, environmental conservation and social welfare as a zero-sum game, instead considering such a relationship as a win-win-win dynamics. Accordingly, we can also clearly see that this concept is grounded in the search for a long-term perspective in regards to human impact on the environment, which is compelled by the premise of attributing equal relevance to human resources, societal balance and the environment [LEP 10], in the first place by understanding the relevance of building sustainable business.

A more specific and widespread conceptualization for Sustainable Management is necessary, but the truth is it is complicated to crystalize a consistent and comprehensive definition on the first instance because it is a relatively new term. Both improved environmental and business performance are elementary goals of Sustainable Management, nevertheless the majority of research on this topic focuses on Environmental Management and Environmental Management Systems as paths to advance such outcomes [FLO 01].

Taylor [TAY 92] defines Sustainable Management as a management concept demanding the commitment of all the organization’s stakeholders, as they recognize being an active part in the community, consequently assuming their responsibility quota on environmental conservation, sustainable development and societal welfare. Thus, in its core this concept involves conceiving the organization in its entirety instead of as a conjunction of fragmented smaller entities, being fully aware that the company is an active and integral part of the community [MAR 03], thus, managing the organization having the long-term as a motto and implementing a holistic approach. The truth is, environmentalism forces organizations to expand their corporate time-horizons because it compels them to be ahead of public opinion. Consequently, under a Sustainable Management paradigm, organizations are enhanced to commit to quality performance standards in the broad scope of the organization’s activities; developing fruitful and close relationships with the customer as well as sustaining motivation and finding creative solutions through the constant engagement and commitment of/towards employees, by acknowledging employees are vital not only to the organization’s profitable performance but also to successfully institute corporate change. Indeed, under this management paradigm, organizations seek to improve not only the quality of the environment but of all activities under the organization’s (and its subsidiaries) scope. Consequently, organizations are increasingly recognizing environmentalism as a crucial factor in assuming themselves as leaders in the market, being the global scale of the competition standard.

Sharing the same logic but putting it in other words, Haden et al. [HAD 09] present the concept as respecting the organization-wide process of applying innovation via continuous learning and development to accomplish sustainability, waste reduction, social responsibility and a competitive advantage, in this sense fully integrating environmental goals and strategies into the organization’s ones. So, in its very essence, Sustainable Management consists of an incessant process of assessment and improvement through the construction of environmental and management excellence, so it requires a deeper and ambitious approach to organizational actions as, at its very core, it makes us change attitudes, structures, policies and processes [TAY 92].

In building sustainable businesses, organizations are constantly under the influence of many forces impacting on the success of their Sustainable Management efforts. The promoters are forces that favor sustainable business, such as the corporate code of ethics and ethics committee, corporate social responsibility strategies, sector operators, government pressure, local communities and non-governmental organizations. The inhibitors, opposingly, embrace the dynamics that halt organizations from conducting business based on sustainability values, namely bad management, economic constraints, high costs of social responsibility programs and competitive environment. Nonetheless, Nelson [NEL 98] and Zairi [ZAI 00] proposed an approach based on three elements for building added societal value, arguing that organizations that have started to make a true headway into the adoption of a Sustainable Management paradigm tend to vividly demonstrate four characteristics: (1) they rely on value-based transformational leadership; (2) they objectivate a commitment to learning and innovation through global networks and partnerships; (3) they crystalize stakeholder linkages, hence taking advantage of mutual benefits via various modes of relationships; and (4) they make use of an extensive assortment of financial and non-financial performance measures reinforced by auditing, verification, reporting and recognition systems, to leverage their performance.

Thus, exploring Sustainable Management as a strategic organizational topic implies examining the means by which it affects the organization’s competitiveness and profitability, and how it can be unified to the firm’s strategic planning processes [BAN 02, JUD 98]: the natural-resource-based perspective of the firm [HAR 95], developed on the basis of the original resource-based view of the firm [WER 84, BAR 91], is indeed one of the predominant theories in regards to such an aspect, suggesting that a firm’s unique resources and capabilities are its main sources of sustainable competitive advantage, basing such an advantage on the organization’s relationship with the natural environment, condensing a conceptual framework which encompasses the interconnected strategies of pollution prevention, product stewardship and sustainable development. Very important to notice is the fact that firms are self-motivated to seek them, in the sense that we may argue that, because Sustainable Management provides outcomes which may be identifiable as public goods, organizations are, on their side, not able to entirely appropriate such value [TEE 07]. Consequently, we can contend that there are likely to be other reasons claiming organizations’ attention to implement Sustainable Management structures, practices and policies [MAR 06a]. In regards to this, Banerjee [BAN 01] advises that the range of an organization’s environmentally-based strategies oscillates from reactive to proactive: as to say, organizations can resist or merely conform and comply with environmental canons, or they can assess environmental issues as a chance to be innovative and obtain a competitive advantage. In fact, and as contended by Taylor [TAY 92, p. 674], Sustainable Management requires up-front investment and changes in the organizational mindset, but “the business advantages are real”, once it “rewards its adherents with: cost reductions and improved efficiencies; new marketing outlets; enhanced corporate image; opportunities to sell new products and services; an improved competitive position; a more dedicated and motivated workforce; and the ability to set the agenda for the industry and public policy”. Consequently, this concept emphasizes three dimensions of corporate performance: economic, social and environmental [STE 05].

9.4. Corporate Social Responsibility

Literature on Environmental Management points out that, organizations being the main cause of environmental problems, they should also play a vital role in addressing those issues and act in regards to them. Subsequently, organizations are, all over the world, progressively moving towards the adoption of advanced environmental practices that underpin their environmental performance as well as their organizational competitiveness. As per the above mentioned issues surrounding Ecological Economics and Sustainable Management, the current global organization is posing higher public expectations on organizations’ social and ethical performance, as globalization has brought with it a broader set of challenges. Thus, new rules of corporate conduct have increasingly been considered: legitimacy, governance, equity, public/private-sector relationships, employment and environmental impact. This means, ethics are decisively present among the core criteria in assessing corporate performance [WIL 00]. Thus, a wide range of eco-initiatives has been launched by organizations as one organizational response to environmental degradation, supported by a developing Sustainable Management model. In regards to this, we can highlight CSR strategies, in the sense that these consist of opportunities provided by the development of business strategies allied with business objectives. CSR emerges, then, as a constituent of the new societal governance.

As in the case for Sustainable Management, Carroll [CAR 08], based on the contributions of Wren [WRE 05], stresses the Industrial Revolution “as a useful starting point”. Hereby exposing a very synthetized summary, in the 1950s it is possible to, not disregarding the above, find the first solid inputs towards the evolution of the CSR concept, whose initial definitions were then expanded during the 1960s, proliferating throughout the 1970s. On the one hand, if fewer innovative classifications flourished throughout the 1980s, during that period there was, on the other hand, more empirical research on the topic, so that alternative topics – including corporate social performance, stakeholder theory and business ethics theory – started to mature and to garner attention both in academic work, as well as in the political agenda and in the civil society [CAR 99]. According to Muirhead [MUI 99], the period after that can be interestingly apprehended as the “prelegalization period” of corporate contributions and, until the present day, according to Eberstadt [EBE 73] corporations started to be conceptualized as institutions to which a plethora of social obligations are continually being addressed, consequently playing an increasingly active role in fulfilling them, alongside the government. This period indeed assumed itself as the “increasingly corporate period” [CAR 08, p. 4].

Several theoretical frameworks have been used to conceptualize CSR (for a review, see [ORL 11, MAT 08, AGU 07, MCW 06, MOI 01]). Defining CSR is a complex task mainly for two reasons, even though the literature presents a vast and increasing body of theoretical works and empirical research on the topic (as an example, see Crane et al. [CRA 08] as well as Lockett et al. [LOC 06]). On the one hand, it is an “essentially contested concept”, presenting a great level of complexity and having fairly open rules of application [MOO 05, pp. 433–434]. In addition, CSR is categorized as a dynamic phenomenon [CAR 99], because it has been presented and used in empirical analysis as an “umbrella term” [CRA 05b] in the sense that it often intersects (considered as synonymous) with other conceptions of business-society relations [MAT 08]. Preston and Post [PRE 75, p. 9] presented such difficulties in defining CSR very well, pointing out the “large number of different, and not always consistent, usages” of such a concept, subsequently articulating “a vague and highly generalized sense of social concern that appears to underlie a wide variety of ad hoc managerial policies and practices”, which “lack, however, any coherent relation to the managerial unit’s internal activities or to its fundamental linkage with its host environment”. Thus, CSR conceptualization has developed mirroring the influence of several theoretical approaches, namely agency theory, the resource-based view of the firm, institutional theory, stakeholder theory and stewardship theory (for a review, see Windsor [WIN 06], van Marrewijk [MAR 03], McWilliams, Van Fleet and Cory [MCW 02], Wartick and Cochran [WAR 85]; Carroll [CAR 79]).

Not neglecting the difficulties highlighted above, it is consensual in the literature around this topic the premise that CSR reflects social imperatives and the social consequences of business success resides at the nucleus of this concept, thus addressing the business’ moral purpose. Steiner [STE 71, p. 164] clearly states this idea by arguing that, while business consists of and must remain essentially an economic institution, “it does have responsibilities to help society achieve its basic goals and does, therefore, have social responsibilities”. In summary, we contend that an organization acting in a socially responsible way is one that performs and develops itself through the establishment and implementation of structures, policies and practices aimed at going beyond compliance and investing further not only into the numerous interdependencies between all stakeholders, but also (and tightly) into human capital and the environment. Such an argument is clearly presented by Davis [DAV 60, p. 73], whose ideas culminated on the premise that “the avoidance of social responsibility leads to gradual erosion of social power”, as the author argued that organizational social responsibility consists of a nebulous idea, nevertheless should be integrated and objectively operationalized in a managerial context, because certain socially responsible organizations’ decisions were able to be vindicated by the means of an extensive and intricate process of reasoning which, as outcomes, propitiated an honorable chance of carrying long-term economic gain to the organization, subsequently rewarding it for its socially responsible management performance. Frederick [FRE 60, p. 60] corroborated such an idea, stressing the relevance of CSR defending that “the economy’s means of production should be employed in such a way that production and distribution should enhance total socio-economic welfare”. Inspired by those authors, back in the 1970s Johnson [JOH 71, p. 69] provided further inputs to clearly understand the long-term orientation CSR seeks: based on the premise that utility maximization is the organization’s prime motivation, organizations are then driven to achieve long-run profit maximization – thus, a socially responsible manager would be one interested not only in his/her own well-being but also in that of the others, imprinting a balance through which the fulfilment of all stakeholders’ needs could be achieved, consequently objectivizing that business should serve a wider range of human values.

Two distinct cases can be analyzed as the basis for implementing CSR practices: the normative and the business case. These are not mutually exclusive, as an organization’s motivation to engage in CSR activities might mirror a combination of the two [SMI 03]. The normative case locates the organizational motivation towards social responsibility on its desire to behave according to moral standards; the business case, on the other hand, focuses on the concept of rational self-interest, considering that paying attention to social responsibility may originate concrete outcomes providing the advantage of furthering the organization’s economic success.

As such, CSR is distinguished both from the business responsibility of accomplishing vital profit-making and from the governmental social responsibilities [FRI 70], which lead Carroll [CAR 79, CAR 91] to systematize the concept by distinguishing its core economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibilities. Benefiting from such inputs, Rochlin and Googins [ROC 05] defended the importance of CSR by maintaining that through the construction of a business strategy to align economic, social and environmental performance to long-term business values, CSR would turn part of the business and provide long-term value for both the company and society. Tuzzolino and Armandi [TUZ 81] developed a broader conceptualization of CSR by suggesting a need-hierarchy framework inspired on Carroll’s [CAR 79] definition and subsequent proposals [CAR 91], an approach based on a reinterpretation of Maslow’s [MAS 82] hierarchy of needs. Such contributions were also later reviewed [SCH 03, KAN 95, TUZ 81]. Tuzzolino and Armandi’s [TUZ 81] suggestion does not redefine CSR, even though it adds an interesting point by contending that organizations, as well as individuals, display needs and goals that should be fulfilled, categorizing them into a broader scope than had previously been proposed by Carroll [CAR 91], who only mentioned economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic needs. Tuzzolino and Armandi [TUZ 81] indeed postulate physiological, safety, affiliative, esteem and self-actualization as organizational needs.

To achieve such goals, organizations acknowledge the need to involve all stakeholders in CSR policies and actions, which in a broader sense may be understood, following Zink’s [ZIN 05, p. 1047] input, as “the ethical behavior of a company towards society”. In this, we need to stress the fact that organizations adhere to CSR strategies on a voluntary basis [EUR 02, p. 7]. Manne and Wallich [MAN 72, p. 40] clarify the voluntary dimension surrounding CSR actions on the premise that an organization must be considered “at least in some measure a free agent”, this meaning that “any of the foregoing social objectives are imposed on the corporation by law, the corporation exercises no responsibility when it implements them”. Nonetheless, it is also clear that some CSR policies and practices are instigated in compliance to a legal foundation. Davis [DAV 73, p. 313] provides further insights on the relationship between law enforcement and voluntary action to understand its interconnection at the core of the CSR concept, advocating that social responsibility would have a proactive dynamics: “It is the firm’s obligation to evaluate in its decision-making process the effects of its decisions on the external social system in a manner that will accomplish social benefits along with the traditional economic gains which the firm seeks.”

The European Union provides additional insights to better understand the concept of CSR, defending that it comprises, in line with the issues mentioned above, two dimensions: internal and external. The internal dimension embraces human resources management, health and safety at work, adaptation to change, management of environmental impacts and natural resources; the external one includes local communities, human rights, global environmental concerns and the business partners/suppliers/consumers triangle. Undeniably, a socially responsible organization designs its structures, outlines its policies, articulates its practices and orients its actions through socially responsible integrated management, marked by socially responsible investment, reporting and auditing, quality in work, as well as by the implementation of social- and eco-labels [EUR 02].

Thus, and as supported by Matten and Moon [MAT 08], CSR (and the concepts covered by its “umbrella”) consist of visibly articulated and communicated organizational policies and practices mirroring business accountability and proactive action towards the extensive societal good. Subsequently, concerns with corporate social performance, stakeholder relationships, connections and actions affecting financial performance, corporate citizenship and new applications of business ethics have stretched CSR theory and practice [GAR 04]. This idea can be strengthened discussing both internal as well as external benefits an organization can take advantage of by implementing CSR strategies [BRA 06, MCW 06]. Grounding such a discussion is the premise that organizations produce sustainable competitive advantages by effectively controlling their rare resources and capabilities, which are valuable because they are not possible to be perfectly imitated, thus no perfect substitutes are available. Hence, investment in socially responsible activities and disclosure may positively impact on the fundamental intangible resources, namely those associated with employees, as it can boost an organization’s know-how and corporate culture – this would be the case for internal benefits. Likewise, it can also foster fundamental intangible resources by affecting corporate image – this would be the case for external benefits.

It is noteworthy that, taking a macro level on the analysis, the assumption of CSR varies between countries, as it is contextualized by national institutional frameworks [CHA 05, VIS 05]. On a micro level, it differs among organizations: as Matten and Moon [MAT 08, p. 405] sharply point out, “the precise manifestation and direction” of CSR lands “at the discretion of the corporation”, an idea also shared by van Marrewijk [MAR 10]. Accordingly, organizations have a discretionary power on the decision and execution of which CSR approach to implement, then facing a different scope of impacts, varying as a function of the chosen strategy’s depth. Actually, choosing the accurate CSR strategy positively effects business by reducing costs and risks, maximizing profits, fostering competitive advantage, increasing market share, enhancing employee motivation as well as customers’ confidence and loyalty, consequently improving corporate reputation and legitimacy, aspects which end up “creating synergistic value” [KUR 08, p. 86]. Dey and Sircar [DEY 12] culminate this argumentation by considering that, in order to achieve such outcomes, CSR efforts must be positioned at the organization’s very center, thus internalized on its structures, policies and practices through an allied incorporation dynamics, a goal that must be prompted not only by the organization’s desire to foster its operational efficiency, to enhance its competitive advantage and, hence, to build a positive global corporate image, but indeed as a condition of developing it as a sustainable business.

In light of the above, reviewing the literature we can retrieve a collection of CSR strategies. Implicit CSR strategies are not considered as a voluntary and deliberate corporate decision, they are rather perceived as a response to, or replication of, the organization’s institutional environment; on the other hand, explicit CSR practices objectify the outcome of an organization’s deliberate, voluntary and often strategic decisions [POR 06]. Also important to keep in mind is the fact that organizations implementing implicit CSR strategies might behave in the same way as those organizations implementing explicit CSR strategies.

The literature also proposes the factors affecting the choice of the most appropriate strategy and specifies the challenges within the organization and the level of development it aims to achieve [BOM 11, MAR 10]. In fact, organizations can choose different strategies for different aspects of sustainability – namely resign, defensive and offensive strategies [BOM 11]. A resign strategy can be observed in organizations in which it is decided not to initiate the implementation of sustainability, a case commonly observed in organizations with a fragile innovation capacity and situated in contexts marked by a lack of pressures and incentives towards such an aim. Organizations with a fragile innovation capacity may also opt for a defensive strategy, while organizations with a high level of innovation are, opposingly, more likely to implement offensive strategies. Nonetheless, organizations can accumulate both a defensive and an offensive strategy, deciding it through a casuistic basis (meaning, according to specific products or services). The literature presents additional contributions in regards to other classifications of CSR strategies: “obstructionist, defensive, accommodative and proactive” [SAU 05, FIS 04, CAR 00, WAR 85, CAR 79]. Rejecting any form of ethics or social responsibility which mismatches the organization’s economic interest, organizations are acting within an obstructionist strategy; but when they discard only ethical responsibilities and shelter their own interests inside the legal framework, they are adopting a defensive strategy. By its end, accommodative strategy is observed when organizations support only specific ethical responsibilities, particularly those of special stakeholders through a decision on a casuistic basis, not initiating proactive actions towards the common good. Opposingly, proactive companies differentiate themselves as they fully recognize social responsibilities, actively compromising to both minimize their negative environmental impact and satisfy all stakeholders’ needs.

Looking at the analysis on a broader spectrum, we can argue that CSR can be coupled with the ideas of Sustainability. This was once the establishment of a corporate social contract based on CSR strategies and practices [BOW 91, DAV 83], which has been under sharp scrutiny since the advent of globalization, as the implementation of the complex interdependencies brought about by that new global order required a constant connection of the following fields within Sustainability: economic, financial, environmental, workforce and social criteria. The discussion around CSR has thus been facing a reorientation, as it has been gradually compelled to dissect how such a commitment should be made, instead of inquiring why to substantially compromise to CSR [SMI 03].

9.5. Where do the concepts match and mismatch?

The vitality and the frequency of the debate around Ecological Economics, Sustainable Management and CSR is evident. However, the proliferation of CSR definitions, theoretical approaches, assessment processes and tools, as well as the growing themes covered under the Sustainable Management “umbrella” and its diffusion at a global scale – which have proliferated in a more intense rhythm during the past decade – have added uncertainty and confusion to both academic discussions as well as to managerial policies and strategies’ definition and implementation [BAN 05, CAR 99]. Indeed, there has been definitional unclarities on the first instance because both are relatively recent concepts, so rigor implies they still need to mature over time (we need to be aware that their boost was only observed mainly around the 1990s). Hence, the prominent themes which continued to grow and take center stage in the 1990s included corporate social performance, stakeholder theory, business ethics, sustainability and corporate citizenship, in a way that, though initially defined in terms of the natural environment, then evolved into a more encompassing concept that embraced the larger social stakeholder environment, CSR. Especially in the 2000s, the CSR movement has crystalized to be a global phenomenon [CAR 08].

As such, we can propose that, although Sustainable Management and CSR have evolved from slightly different historical pathways, they are pushing towards a common future. They both share the same vision, which intends to balance economic responsibilities with social and environmental ones. In fact, in current theoretical debates and empirical research both CSR and Sustainable Management aim to balance economic prosperity, social integrity, and environmental responsibility into a complex and interdependent relationship, regardless of whether they conceptualize environmental subjects as a subset of social issues or as the third element of sustainability, through the triple bottom line [MON 08]. Therefore, a conceptualization of CSR that assimilates both economic, social and environmental dimensions in a complex and intricated interdependence dynamics; and the triple bottom line conceptualization of Sustainable Management, which equally embraces economic, social and environmental dimensions in a fusion logics, are very similar. This is so because that way both approaches would signal that organizations must balance the three foundations of the triple bottom line to achieve long-term sustainability and social responsibility. Based on these assumptions, we see a notorious trend in current research which seems to propose that, due to their communal environmental and social concerns, CSR and Sustainable Management are increasingly converging, despite their paradigmatic differences.

As such, ambiguous definitions and constructs may prevent managers from identifying CSR and Sustainable Management goals for their organizations, and may also prevent academics from performing empirical research on coherent standards, as both concepts are currently neither well-defined nor clearly bounded, on the first instance because commonly agreed constructs exist. Based on the above discussion, we hereby present the foremost mismatches that can be perceived from a rigorous analysis of the conceptual constructs so far available around Sustainable Management and CSR, interconnecting and systematizing all the information discussed in the three previous sections of this work.

In the first instance, we suggest that a clear initial mismatch can be observed on the historical tradition that was the basis of both terms and their related concepts. Indeed, the topics covered by each concept, respective theoretical approach and conceptual umbrella are different in the scope that has been traditionally addressed to each of them. Sustainable Management links environmental and social management with business strategy, and it also integrates environmental and social information into sustainability reporting [SCH 06]. The truth is that, by historical tradition we can see that research on social concerns has been grounded prevalently in CSR strategies and actions; on the other hand, research on environmental issues has been the case usually for environmental management strategies and practices. In fact, CSR strategies, practices and policies have mainly been concerned with the social impact of organizational performance, marginalizing for a great period of time the environmental dimension of organizational actions: indeed, reviewing literature we can see that special attention has been given to the connection between social responsibility strategy and the business model [TEE 10], to the relationship between corporate social responsibility strategy and social capital [SPE 03] and to the link between social responsibility strategies and branding [POP 11]. Hence, historical tradition reports that under the CSR concept environmental issues consist only of a subdivision of broader social performance dimensions; but in what refers to the Sustainable Management approach, both the environmental and the social dimensions are deeply involved, assuming, with no doubt, vivid organizational concerns, thus transformed progressively into an important part of the organization’s sustainability paradigm.

Indeed, until relatively recently (in the second half of the 20th Century) the business of social responsibility has been mainly based on the entrepreneurs’ goodwill and personal altruism. However, it is now an integral part and a strategic issue towards the sustainable development of organizational structures [BAL 15]. One explanation for the fact that in CSR policies and practices the environmental dimension has by tradition received significantly less attention could be, as evidenced in Carroll’s [CAR 99] literature review, that the environmental breadth was not encompassed in the early definitions for this term. Thus, it can be argued that it might have influenced future and current definitions to not include it either. In fact, either the environmental dimension has not been included in the CSR definition, or such an inclusion has not been explicitly bounded, clearly dissecting which approaches to be taken in order to objectively operationalize such a relationship. In order to understand this argument, attention can be driven at the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s conceptual proposal, once it differentiates between corporate social responsibility and corporate environmental responsibility – subsequently, issuing two separate and distinct definitions of CSR. Even though, once more it is noteworthy to mention that neither of those proposed definitions include the environmental dimension [WOR 00]. However, when CSR is explained in more depth, the environmental dimension and the social dimension are equally emphasized, and when that link is observed it is due to blurred references to Sustainable Management and Sustainable Development standards and core terms.

Sustainable Management consists of an approach beyond social obligation, as often some CSR strategies in organizations are only oriented towards this. Consequently, we suggest that this argument, through which we propose that there is an historical mismatch on the topics addressed to both CSR and Sustainable Management, develops into the assumption that CSR may focus more often on the tension and not so much on the cooperation between the triple bottom line of economic, social and environmental performance. We base this on the premise that contemporary businesses must address economic prosperity, social equity and environmental integrity before they can claim to have socially responsible behavior or sustainable practices.

As a second mismatch between both concepts, we suggest attention be brought towards the reasons behind the adoption of each of them. As discussed in the third section of this chapter, the adoption of CSR policies and practices can oscillate throughout a spectrum in which we can observe both normative or business reasons. So, we suggest that, through this mismatch, organizations have a more discretionary decision-making power in what refers to the adoption of CSR policies and practices, or at least to say, they commonly decide on a casuistic basis which CSR policies and practices they wish to implement, within which time frames and with which operative methods to achieve the desired results. In fact, we advocate that the most common corporate response to today’s global challenges has been neither strategic nor operational, but purely cosmetic public relations and superficical media campaigns, which hardly provides a coherent framework for CSR activities – such initiatives indeed mainly only aggregate clumsy and uncoordinated actions aimed at publicly revealing an organization’s social sensititity. Consequently, the moral appeal (or the voluntary reason to adopt CSR strategies, if we want to put it in other words), seems to be at stake, underestimated by more self-interested goals.

This idea is based on Carroll’s [CAR 79] proposed popular four-part definition of CSR, suggesting that organizations assume four responsibilities towards societal welfare: economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic (we can here clearly see the environmental dimension being neglected, as per the explanation already provided when presenting the first mismatch). Nevertheless, it is true that Sustainable Management involves all of those four dimensions, but historical tradition and empirical evidence indeed shows that some organizations may only choose to be socially responsible and active in special fields. They may still present active strategies and practices of CSR even though neglecting some of the proposed four dimensions of impact, subsequently not being fully committed to a Sustainable Management paradigm. If truly embedded towards a Sustainable Management paradigm, organizations actively and deeply acknowledge that all organizational strategies, policies and practices actively reflect in societal well-being. They cannot just opt to fulfil responsible goals in some areas, as conservation of the planet and societal welfare are comprehended as a whole, they are imperative aims, requiring a broader commitment from the organization, fully entrenching its basilar structures. To reinforce this mismatch, we base it on the ideas of van Marrewijk [MAR 03], as the author supports that the principle of self-determination (more the case for CSR) is balanced by the principle of communion (the case by excellence for Sustainable Management). Hence, the capacity to create added value depends on the organization’s willingness, commitment and duty to be responsible for its impact in the community and to adjust itself to environmental changes.

So, we suggest that the adoption of CSR strategies is mainly grounded on the organizations’ (in the figure of its management team) self-interest, leading it to either comply with legislation and action standards in vigor (normative case), and/or to pursue the achievement of a competitive advantage, as organizations often understand that the adoption of CSR actions may provide them with resources they value, an additional source of value in their value chain (business case). It is, nevertheless, also true that CSR strategies can be adopted in an organization in light of a voluntary willingness, moved towards a broader consciousness that organizational performance impacts the community as a whole. However, this is not the most frequent case, if we analyze once more through an historical perspective – this idea is supported by Hartman et al. [HAR 07], who manifestly report the contrast between CSR as a business case and as an ethical reaction, plainly stating that both approaches were not only different, but indeed evidently separate and disconnected.

Sustainable Management may, therefore, be characterized as more anticipatory and preventive; and CSR, opposingly, as more reactive. In light of the above, we hereby suggest another mismatch between both concepts, which relates to the issues discussed previously, as these concepts imply a different commitment towards society, requiring a different engagement level from organizations, management teams and each person. Thus, the complexity and the scope of each concept is markedly distinct. Following that logic, we also suggest that CSR may focus more on the tension – and not so much on the cooperation – between the triple bottom line of economic, social and environmental performance, contrasting to what can be observed if discussing the Sustainable Management concept. Each level of analysis includes and transcends the previous ones, as each orientation represents a higher level of complexity. Hence, we suggest that a micro analysis is more the case for CSR; Sustainable Management, on the other hand, consists of a holistic approach, directed towards a broader scope, requiring a macro analysis [MAR 03]. We argue that CSR represents the microeconomic dimension of the macroeconomic concept of Sustainable Management, being also noticeably related to the concept of Sustainable Development.

We advocate, thus, that CSR acts only as a precondition for Sustainable Management: business sustainability is a consequence of the application of CSR strategies. In other words, we suggest that to fulfil their purpose, CSR strategies must be integrated into the overall business strategy [DEY 12], so should be embedded across the organization horizontally and vertically [FRA 01]. Inspired by Jones [JON 80], who postulated that CSR initiatives should be conceived as a process, we then argue that CSR strategies may be conceptualized as an integral part of the Sustainable Management concept and managerial approach, a remarkable contribution into the business environment to the achievement of the Sustainable Development objectives, yet depending on the compromise the organization wishes to make (as already explained in the discussion around the reasons to engage in CSR actions, namely the differences between the normative, the business and the voluntary cases). We defend that CSR is located in wider responsibility systems in which business, governmental, legal and social actors operate according to standards of mutual responsiveness, interdependency, choice and capacity, according to Matten and Moon [MAT 08]. So, it is located in broader systems managed according to the sustainability imperative, articulated within a sustainable management paradigm. As such, we can postulate that CSR is an operative tool of Sustainable Management.

This assumption shares the line of Lyon [LYO 04], who emphasizes that to incorporate CSR into long-term strategies and decision-making criteria, organizations must transition from a target-driven to a value-driven culture. Indeed, and as pointed out by Heslin and Ochoa [HES 08], a sophisticated ambition level on CSR interventions implies a supporting institutional framework and the respective value system, which may be achieved if in the organization we truly assist in the engagement towards the implementation of a Sustainable Management paradigm, decisively affecting the organizations’ values, mission, vision, structure and objectives. Consequently, we advocate that organizations must build on their corporate values to create an organizational culture that is receptive to change and can sustain a CSR strategy over the long-term, towards a real Sustainable Management paradigm. This argument is supported by Maon et al. [MAO 09], who state that, in order to achieve a Sustainable Management paradigm and effectively have CSR simultaneously as their objectivation and as an objective pre-condition towards it, the first step would involve translating values, visions or policy statements into commitments, expectations and guiding principles, directing efforts towards goal setting and the development of targets and performance measures, based on the premise that, to be a sustainable organization, actions must be institutionalized into the organization and considered an integral part of its culture. This argument is also supported by the idea Cramer [CRA 05a: 588] had already intensely pointed out: “In any company, drawing up short- and longer-term strategies is a familiar procedure. What is often still missing up till now is the integration of the three P’s (planet, people and profit) into the strategy and the action plans which derive from it.”

9.6. Conclusion

This work aimed at, through a literature review, exposing the concepts of Ecological Economics, Sustainable Management and CSR, in order to verify the conceptual confusion and overlap between the latter two concepts. We conclude that the debate has been marked by definitional unclarity surrounding both terms and their conceptual umbrella frequently used as if they were synonymous, primarily due to their relatively recency. In fact, only since the 1990s have we witnessed a more intense discussion on the topic. Nevertheless, clear distinctions between both concepts can be highlighted, which we presented as mismatches if comparatively analyzing both conceptual structures and their preconized approaches. We have distinguished three such mismatches, all of which are related even though different from one another.

The first is based on the historical tradition surrounding both concepts. CSR strategies, practices and policies have mainly been concerned with the social impact of organizational performance; opposingly, Sustainable Management vividly acknowledges the environmental domain as an active and integral part of the triple bottom line, as it consists of an approach that goes beyond social obligation. The second mismatch refers to the reasons that from the basis of the organizations’ decision towards the adoption of CSR strategies or of a Sustainable Management paradigm. CSR policies and practices can oscillate throughout a spectrum in which we observe normative, business and/or voluntary reasons, which we argue to mean that organizations have a more discretionary decision-making power with regards to the adoption of CSR policies and practices, as they can opt on a casuistic basis which CSR policies and practices they wish to implement, within which time frames and with which operative methods. Historical tradition and empirical evidence show that some organizations may only choose to be socially responsible and active in special fields, not being fully committed into a Sustainable Management paradigm. So, by this mismatch we suggest that the adoption of CSR strategies is mainly grounded on the organizations’ self-interest, either to comply with the law (normative case) and/or to achieve competitive advantage, as organizations often understand that the adoption of CSR may provide them with valuable resources, an additional input to incorporate in their value chain. Sustainable Management may, therefore, be characterized as more anticipatory and preventive, CSR more reactive. Hence, the third mismatch arises as these concepts imply a different commitment level towards society, requiring a different engagement from organizations, management teams and each individual. Thus, the complexity and the scope of each concept is markedly distinct. Subsequently, we suggest that a micro analysis is more the case for CSR, but Sustainable Management consists of a holistic approach, requiring a macro analysis [MAR 03]. We argue that CSR represents the microeconomic dimension of the macroeconomic concept of Sustainable Management, thus, CSR acts only as a precondition for Sustainable Management: business sustainability is a consequence of the application of CSR strategies; hence, we can postulate that CSR is an operative tool of Sustainable Management.

Consequently, we advocate that such concepts should be used in their original semantic sense in order to prevent them becoming more diffuse, as the overlap creates blurred contributions and harms empirical research on rigorous standards. Confusing conceptualizations may also hinder organizations from assertively designing and implementing strategies that actively direct organizational performance towards sustainability. In addition, civil society debates become distorted and unclear, political agendas find obstacles to clearly define strategies, policies and practices to achieve sustainable development goals.

This chapter provides a useful input as it stresses that these two concepts may be considered “intrinsically linked” and CSR can be seen as the business contribution to sustainable development, so that organizations are seen as contributing to sustainable development “by managing their operations in such a way as to enhance economic growth and increase competitiveness whilst ensuring environmental protection and promoting social responsibility” [EUR 02, p. 7]. Thus, and based on where the organization’s CSR strategies are located in the spectrum, progress towards sustainability in organizations is an ongoing dynamic which can waver throughout a series of phases, namely rejection, ignorance, compliance, efficiency, proactive strategy and corporate sustainability [HOL 10].

To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to directly compare both the concepts of CSR and Sustainable Management, clearly exposing their corresponding and opposing points based on a literature review, in order to provide a useful input to bring forth more rigor to fill in the gap of the confusing, overlapping and blurred discussion around the topic. Nevertheless, it also aims to foster research to provide more contributions in this regard, as important research questions remain. A primary challenge focuses on the fact that, in line with Dahlsrud [DAH 08], CSR definitions are commonly a describing phenomenon, failing to provide a clear direction on the management of challenges within such a phenomenon. Consequently, we still need to truly understand how CSR originates, configures and develops as a socially constructed case within a specific context; as well as the way through which such a phenomenon is then transversally assimilated into the design and implementation of organizational strategies, policies and practices. Furthering this suggestion, in line with McWilliams et al. [MCW 06], we also advocate that there is a need to improve the measurement precision of the private and social returns of CSR initiatives, to better evaluate its contributions towards Sustainable Development. As Post [POS 78] argued, any conceptual and theoretical approach dealing with the intricated connection between business and society should, at its core, trial the wide-ranging and enduring organization-society interaction. Thus, future research around CSR should also shed more light on the complex network between organizations and their direct/indirect stakeholders. In addition, we recommend that it would be important to expand the focus of research by including CSR and Sustainable Management imperatives in the context of globalization. We also suggest the relevance of further research around the vigorous debate regarding managerial motives – instrumental [SIE 09] versus non-instrumental [MAR 09] – that drive environmental sustainability in organizations.

9.7. References

[AGU 07] AGUILERA R.V., RUPP D.E., WILLIAMS C.A. et al., “Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 836–863, 2007.

[ALI 87a] ALIER J.M., “Economía y ecología: Cuestiones fundamentales”, Pensamiento Iberoamericano, vol. 12, pp. 41–60, 1987.

[ALI 87b] ALIER J.M., SCHLÜPMANN K., Ecological Economics: Energy, Environment, and Society, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 1987.

[AND 04] ANDERSON R., “Climbing mount sustainability”, Quality Progress, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 32–37, 2004.

[AYR 69] AYRES R.U., KNEESE A.V., “Production, consumption, and externalities”, The American Economic Review, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 282–297, 1969.

[BAL 15] BALABANOV V., BALABANOVA A., DUDIN M., “Social responsibility for sustainable development of enterprise structures”, Asian Social Science, vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 111–118, 2015.

[BAN 01] BANERJEE S.B., “Managerial perceptions of corporate environmentalism: Interpretations from industry and strategic implications for organizations”, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 489–513, 2001.

[BAN 02] BANERJEE S.B., “Corporate environmentalism: The construct and its measurement”, Journal of Business Research, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 177–191, 2002.

[BAN 05] BANSAL P., “Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development”, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 197–218, 2005.

[BAR 91] BARNEY J., “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 99–120, 1991.

[BAR 13] BARNETT H.J., MORSE C., Scarcity and Growth: The Economics of Natural Resource Availability, Routledge, New York, 2013.

[BER 00a] VAN DEN BERGH J.C., Ecological economics: Themes, approaches, and differences with environmental economics, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper, No. 00-080/3, Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam, 2000.

[BER 00b] BERKES F., COLDING J., FOLKE C., “Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management”, Ecological Applications, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 1251–1262, 2000.

[BOM 11] VAN BOMMEL H.W., “A conceptual framework for analyzing sustainability strategies in industrial supply networks from an innovation perspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 895–904, 2011.

[BOU 66] BOULDING K.E., “The economics of the coming spaceship earth”, in JARRET H. (ed.), Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1966.

[BOW 91] BOWIE N.E., “New directions in corporate social responsibility”, Business Horizons, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 56–66, 1991.

[BRA 06] BRANCO M.C., RODRIGUES L.L., “Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 111–132, 2006.

[BUC 93] BUCHHOLZ R.A., Principles of Environmental Management: The Greening of Business, Prentice Hall, New York, 1993.

[CAR 79] CARROLL A., “A three dimensional model of corporate performance”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 497–505, 1979.

[CAR 91] CARROLL A., “The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders”, Business Horizons, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 39–48, 1991.

[CAR 99] CARROLL A., “Corporate social responsibility – Evolution of a definitional construction”, Business and Society, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 268–295, 1999.

[CAR 00] CARROLL A., BUCHHOLTZ A.K., Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, 2000.

[CAR 08] CARROLL A., “A history of corporate social responsibility: Concepts and practices”, in CRANE A., MCWILLIAMS A., MATTEN D. et al. (eds), The Oxford Handbook on Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 19–46, 2008.

[CHA 05] CHAPPIE W., MOON J., “Corporate Social Responsibility in Asia: A seven country study of CSR website reporting”, Business and Society, vol. 44, pp. 415–441, 2005.

[CHR 89] CHRISTENSEN P.P., “Historical roots for ecological economics: Biophysical versus allocative approaches”, Ecological Economics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 17–36, 1989.

[CIR 52] CIRIACY-WANTRUP S.V., Resource Conservation, University of California, Berkeley, 1952.

[CLA 73] CLARK C.W., “The economics of overexploitation”, Science, vol. 181, no. 4100, pp. 630–634, 1973.

[CLA 75] CLARK C.W., MUNRO G.R., “The economics of fishing and modern capital theory: A simplified approach”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, vol. 2, pp. 92–106, 1975.

[COM 92] COMMON M., PERRINGS C., “Towards an ecological economics of sustainability”, Ecological Economics, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 7–34, 1992.

[COS 87] COSTANZA R., “Social traps and environmental policy”, BioScience, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 407–412, 1987.

[COS 91] COSTANZA R., “Ecological economics: A research agenda”, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 335–357, 1991.

[COS 92a] COSTANZA R., CORNWELL L., “The 4P approach to dealing with scientific uncertainty”, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 12–42, 1992.

[COS 92b] COSTANZA R., DALY H.E., “Natural capital and sustainable development”, Conservation Biology, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 37–46, 1992.

[COS 96] COSTANZA R., “Ecological economics: Reintegrating the study of humans and nature”, Ecological Applications, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 978–990, 1996.

[CRA 05a] CRAMER J.M., “Experiences with structuring corporate social responsibility in Dutch industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 583–592, 2005.

[CRA 05b] CRANE A., MATTEN D., “Corporate citizenship: Missing the point or missing the boat? A reply to van Oosterhout”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 681–684, 2005.

[CRA 08] CRANE A., MCWILLIAMS A., MATTEN D. et al. (eds), The Oxford Handbook on Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008.

[CUM 66] CUMBERLAND J.H., “A regional interindustry model for analysis of development objectives”, Papers of the Regional Science Association, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 65–94, 1966.

[DAH 08] DAHLSRUD A., “How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2008.

[DAL 68] DALY H.E., “On economics as a life science”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 76, no. 3, , pp. 392–406, 1968.

[DAL 79] DALY H.E., “Entropy, growth, and the political economy of scarcity”, in SMITH, V.K. (ed.), Scarcity and Growth Reconsidered, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 67–94, 1979.

[DAL 85] DALY H.E., “Moving to a steady-state economy”, in EHRLICH P.R., HOLDREN J.P. (eds), The Cassandra Conference: Resources and the Human Predicament, Texas A&M Press, Texas, pp. 271–287, 1985.

[DAL 91] DALY H.E., Steady-State Economics, 2nd edition, Island Press, Washington D.C., 1991.

[DAL 92] DALY H.E., “Allocation, distribution, and scale: Towards an economics that is efficient, just and sustainable”, Ecological Economics, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 185–193, 1992.

[DAL 94] DALY H.E., “Operationalizing sustainable development by investing in natural capital”, in JANSSON A., HAMMER M., FOLKE C. et al. (eds), Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability, Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 22–37, 1994.

[DAL 96] DALY H.E., Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development, Beacon Press, Boston, 1996.

[DAV 60] DAVIS K., “Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities?”, California Management Review, spring, vol. 2, pp. 70–76, 1960.

[DAV 73] DAVIS K., “The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities”, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 312–322, 1973.

[DAV 83] DAVIS K., “An expanded view of the social responsibility of business”, in BEACHAMP T.L., BOWIE N.E. (eds), Ethical Theory and Business, 2nd edition, Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey, 1983.

[DEY 12] DEY M., SIRCAR S., “Integrating corporate social responsibility initiatives with business strategies: A study of some Indian companies”, The IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, vol. XI, no. 1, pp. 36–51, 2012.

[DRU 93] DRUCKER P.F., Managing for the Future, Routledge, New York, 1993.

[EBE 73] EBERSTADT N.N., “What history tells us about corporate responsibilities”, Business and Society Review/Innovation, autumn, pp. 76–81, 1973.

[ELK 94] ELKINGTON J., “Towards the sustainable corporation”, California Management Review, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 90–100, 1994.

[EUR 02] EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Corporate Social Responsibility – A Business Contribution to Sustainable Development, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2002.

[FLO 01] FLORIDA R., DAVISON D., “Gaining from green management: Environmental management systems inside and outside the factory”, California Management Review, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 64–84, 2001.

[FRA 01] FRANKENTAL P., “Corporate social responsibility – A PR invention?”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 18–23, 2001.

[FRE 60] FREDERICK W.C., “The growing concern over business responsibility”, California Management Review, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 54–61, 1960.

[FRI 70] FRIEDMAN M., “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”, New York Times, no. 13, pp. 122–126, 1970.

[GAL 58] GALBRAITH J.K., “How much should a country consume?”, in JARRET H. (ed.), Perspectives on Conservation, The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, pp. 89–99, 1958.

[GAR 04] GARRIGA E., MELÉ D., “Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 53, no. 1–2, pp. 51–71, 2004.

[GEO 66] GEORGESCU-ROEGEN N., Analytical Economics: Issues and Problems, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1966.

[GEO 71] GEORGESCU-ROEGEN N., The Entropy Law and the Economic Process, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1971.

[GEO 76] GEORGESCU-ROEGEN N., Energy and Economic Myths, Pergamon, New York, 1976.

[GLÜ 01] GLÜCK A., “Das Prinzip Nachhaltigkeit–Zukunftsorientiertes Denken und Handeln in ausgewählten Lebensbereichen”, Politische Studien, Sonderheft. Das Prinzip Nachhaltigkeit Zukunftsorientiertes Handeln in ausgewählten Lebensbereichen, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–77, 2001.

[GOL 94] GOLLEY F.B., “Development of landscape ecology and its relation to environmental management”, Ecosystem Management: Principles and Applications, vol. 2, pp. 34–41, 1994.

[GOW 05] GOWDY J., ERICKSON J.D., “The approach of ecological economics”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 207–222, 2005.

[GRO 92] DE GROOT R.S., Functions of Nature: Evaluation of Nature in Environmental Planning, Management and Decision Making, Wolters-Noordhoff B.V., Groningen, 1992.

[GUN 95] GUNDERSON L.H., HOLLING C.S., LIGHT S.S. (eds), Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions, Columbia University Press, New York, 1995.

[HAD 09] HADEN S.S., OYLER J.D., HUMPHREYS J.H., “Historical, practical, and theoretical perspectives on green management: An exploratory analysis”, Management Decision, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 1041–1055, 2009.

[HAM 93] HAMMER M., JANSSON A.M., JANSSON B-O., “Diversity change and sustainability: Implications for fisheries”, Ambio, vol. 22, pp. 97–105, 1993.

[HAR 95] HART S.L., “A natural-resource-based view of the firm”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 986–1014, 1995.

[HAR 07] HARTMAN L.P., RUBIN R.S., DHANDA K.K., “The communication of corporate social responsibility: United States and European Union multinational corporations”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 373–389, 2007.

[HES 08] HESLIN P.A., OCHOA J.D., “Understanding and developing strategic corporate social responsibility”, Organizational Dynamics, vol. 37, pp. 125–144, 2008.

[HOB 75] HOBSBAWM E.J., CUMMING M., Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991, Abacus, London, 1975.

[HOL 73] HOLLING C.S., “Resilience and stability of ecological systems”, Annual Review of Ecological Systems, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 1973.

[HOL 85] HOLLING C.S., Resilience of Ecosystems: Local Surprise and Global Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.

[HOL 94] HOLLING C.S., “An ecologist view of the Malthusian conflict”, in LINDAHL K.K., LANDBERG H. (eds), Population, Economic Development, and the Environment, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 79–103, 1994.

[HOL 10] HOLTON I., GLASS J., PRICE A.D., “Managing for sustainability: Findings from four company case studies in the UK precast concrete industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 152–160, 2010.

[JAN 94] JANSSON A., Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1994.

[JOH 71] JOHNSON H.L., Business in Contemporary Society: Framework and Issues, Wadsworth, Belmont, 1971.

[JON 80] JONES T.M., “Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined”, California Management Review, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 59–67, 1980.

[JUD 98] JUDGE W.Q., DOUGLAS T.J., “Performance implications of incorporating natural environmental issues into the strategic planning process: An empirical assessment”, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 241–262, 1998.

[KAN 95] KANG Y.C., WOOD D.J., “Before-profit social responsibility: Turning the economic paradigm upside down”, Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society, vol. 6, pp. 809–829, 1995.

[KNE 15] KNEESE A.V., AYRES R.U., D’ARGE R.C., Economics and the Environment: A Materials Balance Approach, Routledge, New York, 2015.

[KUR 08] KURUCZ E.C., COLBERT B.A., WHEELER D., “The business case for corporate social responsibility”, in CRANE A., MCWILLIAMS A., MATTEN D. et al. (eds), The Oxford Handbook on Corporate Social Responsibility, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 83–112, 2008.

[LEE 93] LEE K.N., Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the Environment, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1993.

[LEE 08] LEE M., “A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: Its evolutionary path and the road ahead”, International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 53–73, 2008.

[LEO 70] LEONTIEF W., “Environmental repercussions and the economic structure: An input-output approach”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 262–271, 1970.

[LEP 10] LEPINEUX F., ROSE J.J., BONANNI C. et al., La RSE. La responsabilité sociale de l’entreprises : théories et pratiques, Dunod, Paris, 2010.

[LOC 06] LOCKETT A., MOON J., VISSER W., “Corporate social responsibility in management research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of influence”, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 115–136, 2006.

[LUD 93] LUDWIG D., HILBORN R., WALTERS C., “Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: Lessons from history”, Science, vol. 260, pp. 17–36, 1993.

[LYO 04] LYON D., “How can you help organizations change to meet the corporate responsibility agenda?”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 133–139, 2004.

[MAL 98] MALTHUS T.R., An Essay on the Principle of Population, Reeves & Turner, London, 1798.

[MAL 08] MALOVICS G., NAGYPAL N.C., KRAUS S., “The role of corporate social responsibility in strong sustainability”, Journal of Socio-Economics, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 907–918, 2008.

[MAN 72] MANNE H.G., WALLICH H.C., The Modern Corporation and Social Responsibility, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C., 1972.

[MAO 09] MAON F., LINDGREEN A., SWAEN V., “Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: An integrative framework grounded in theory and practice”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 71–89, 2009.

[MAR 67] MARX K., Capital, Vintage, New York, 1867.

[MAR 03] VAN MARREWIJK M., “Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 95–105, 2003.

[MAR 06a] MARCUS A., ANDERSON M., “A general dynamic capability: Does it propagate business and social competencies in the retail food industry?”, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 19–46, 2006.

[MAR 06b] MARCUS A., KAISER S., Managing Beyond Compliance: The Ethical and Legal Dimensions of Corporate Responsibility, North Coast Publishers, Ohio, 2006.

[MAR 09] MARCUS A., FREMETH A.R., “Green management matters regardless”, Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 17–26, 2009.

[MAR 10] VAN MARREWIJK M., “Strategic orientations: Multiple ways for implementing sustainable performance”, Technology and Investment, vol. 1, pp. 85–96, 2010.

[MAS 82] MASLOW A., Toward a Psychology of Being, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1982.

[MAT 08] MATTEN D., MOON J., “‘Implicit’ and ‘explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 404–424, 2008.

[MCG 63] MCGUIRE J.W., Business and Society, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963.

[MCW 02] MCWILLIAMS A., VAN FLEET D.D., CORY K., “Raising rivals’ costs through political strategy: An extension of the resource-based theory”, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 707–723, 2002.

[MCW 06] MCWILLIAMS A., SIEGEL D.S., WRIGHT P.M., “Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications”, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2006.

[MIL 57] MILL J.S., Principles of Economics, Parker, London, 1857.

[MIS 67] MISHAN E.J., MISHAN E.J., The Costs of Economic Growth, Staples Press, London, 1967.

[MOI 01] MOIR L., “What do we mean by corporate social responsibility?”, Corporate Governance, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 16–22, 2001.

[MON 08] MONTIEL I., “Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: Separate pasts, common futures”, Organization & Environment, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 245–269, 2008.

[MOO 05] MOON J., CRANE A., MATTEN D., “Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society”, Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 429–453, 2005.

[MUI 99] MUIRHEAD S.A., Corporate Contributions: The View from 50 Years, The Conference Board, New York, 1999.

[MUN 97] MUNDA G., “Environmental economics, ecological economics, and the concept of sustainable development”, Environmental Values, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 213–233, 1997.

[NAT 99] NATTRASS B., ALTOMARE M., The Natural Step for Business, New Society Publishers, Canada, 1999.

[NEL 98] NELSON J., “Leadership companies in the twenty-first century: Creating shareholder value and societal value”, Visions of Ethical Business, Financial Times Management, vol. 1, pp. 21–26, 1998.

[NOR 89] NORGAARD R.B., “Three dilemmas of environmental accounting”, Ecological Economics, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 303–314, 1989.

[NØR 13] NØRGÅRD J.S., “Happy degrowth through more amateur economy”, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 38, pp. 61–70, 2013.

[ODU 71] ODUM H.T., Environment, Power, and Society, Wiley, New York, 1971.

[ODU 87] ODUM H.T., “Models for national, international and global systems policy”, in BRAAT L.C., VAN LIEROP W.F. (eds), Economic-Ecological Modelling, Elsevier Science Publishing, New York, 1987.

[ORL 03] ORLITZKY M., SCHMIDT F.L., RYNES S.L., “Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis”, Organization Studies, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 403–441, 2003.

[ORL 11] ORLITZKY M., SIEGEL D.S., WALDMAN D.A., “Strategic corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability”, Business & Society, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 6–27, 2011.

[PER 98] PERRINGS C., “Resilience in the dynamics of economy-environment systems”, Environmental and Resource Economics, vol. 11, nos 3–4, pp. 503–520, 1998.

[POP 11] POPOLI P., “Linking CSR strategy and brand image: Different approaches in local and global markets”, Marketing Theory, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 419–433, 2011.

[POR 95] PORTER M.E., VAN DER LINDE C., “Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 97–118, 1995.

[POR 06] PORTER M.E., KRAMER M.R., “The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility”, Harvard Business Review, vol. 84, no. 12, pp. 78–92, 2006.

[POS 78] POST J.E., Corporate Behaviour and Social Change, Reston Publishing, Reston, 1978.

[PRE 75] PRESTON L., POST J.E., Private Management and Public Policy: The Principle of Public Responsibility, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1975.

[RAP 93] RAPPORT D.J., “Book review of Man, Nature, and Technology”, Ecological Economics, vol. 7, pp. 79–83, 1993.

[RIC 17] RICARDO D., On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1817.

[ROC 05] ROCHLIN S.A., GOOGINS B.K., The Value Proposition for Corporate Citizenship, The Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College, Chestnut Hill, 2005.

[SAG 95] SAGOFF M., “Carrying capacity and ecological economics”, BioScience, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 610–620, 1995.

[SAU 05] SAUSER W.I., “Ethics in business: Answering the call”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 345–357, 2005.

[SCH 03] SCHWARTZ M.S., CARROLL A., “Corporate social responsibility: A three-domain approach”, Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 503–530, 2003.

[SCH 06] SCHALTEGGER S., WAGNER M., “Integrative management of sustainability performance, measurement and reporting”, International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2006.

[SIE 09] SIEGEL D.S., “Green management matters only if it yields more green: An economic/strategic perspective”, Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 5–16, 2009.

[SMI 03] SMITH N.C., “Corporate Social Responsibility: Whether or how?”, California Management Review, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 52–76, 2003.

[SPE 03] SPENCE L.J., SCHMIDPETER R., HABISCH A., “Assessing social capital: Small and medium sized enterprises in Germany and the U.K.”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 17–29, 2003.

[STE 71] STEINER G.A., Business and Society, Random House, New York, 1971.

[STE 05] STEURER R., LANGER M.E., KONRAD A. et al., “Corporations, stakeholders and sustainable development: A theoretical exploration of business–society relations”, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 263–281, 2005.

[TAY 92] TAYLOR S.R., “Green management: The next competitive weapon”, Futures, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 669–680, 1992.

[TEE 07] TEECE D.J., “Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance”, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 28, no. 13, pp. 1319–1350, 2007.

[TEE 10] TEECE D.J., “Business models, business strategy and innovation”, Long Range Planning, vol. 43, nos 2–3, pp. 172–194, 2010.

[TUR 97] TURNER R.K., PERRINGS C., FOLKE C., “Ecological economics: Paradigm or perspective”, in VAN DEN BERGH J.C., VAN DER STRAATEN J. (eds), Economy and Ecosystems in Change: Analytical and Historical Approaches, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 1997.

[TUZ 81] TUZZOLINO F., ARMANDI B.R., “A need-hierarchy framework for assessing corporate social responsibility”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 21–28, 1981.

[VIE 94] VIEDERMAN S., The Economics of Sustainability: Challenges, Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation, New York, 1994.

[VIS 05] VISSER W., MIDDLETON C., MCINTOSH M., “Corporate citizenship in Africa”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, vol. 18, pp. 17–124, 2005.

[VIT 86] VITOUSEK P.M., EHRLICH P.R., EHRLICH A.H. et al., “Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis”, BioScience, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 368–373, 1986.

[WAL 03] WALSH J.P., WEBER K., MARGOLIS J.D., “Social issues and management: Our lost cause found”, Journal of Management, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 859–881, 2003.

[WAR 85] WARTICK S.L., COCHRAN P.L., “The evolution of the corporate social performance model”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 758–769, 1985.

[WER 84] WERNERFELT B., “A resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 171–180, 1984.

[WIL 00] WILSON I., The New Rules of Corporate Conduct: Rewriting the Social Charter, Quorum Books, Westport, 2000.

[WIN 06] WINDSOR D., “Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches”, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 93–114, 2006.

[WOR 00] WORLD BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, Corporate Social Responsibility: Making Good Business Sense, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva, 2000.

[WRE 05] WREN D.A., The History of Management Thought, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New Jersey, 2005.

[ZAI 00] ZAIRI M., “Social responsibility and impact on society”, The TQM Magazine, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 172–178, 2000.

[ZIN 05] ZINK K.J., “Stakeholder orientation and corporate social responsibility as a precondition for sustainability”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, vol. 16, nos 8–9, pp. 1041–1052, 2005.