Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mindsets for Linking Strategy and Sustainability: Planetary Boundaries, Social Foundations, and Sustainable Strategizing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Rethinking Strategic Management

Part of the book series: CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance ((CSEG))

Abstract

Sustainability today is very different from what it meant only a few years ago. We have crossed at least four planetary boundaries and are facing severe shortfalls in our social foundations. The Earth has entered a new geological epoch called “Anthropocene”. Today, investors, customers, and other groups in and beyond a business ecosystem are increasingly demanding that companies manage their impacts and make effective contributions to sustainable development. A typology of three strategizing mindsets will help corporate leaders to make business sense of sustainability. In Strategizing-as-Usual, sustainability is seen as an unfolding market shift much like any other business opportunity or threat. With a Sustainable Strategizing 1.0 mindset, executives pro-actively seek to create win-win situations between economic and social or ecological performance. Leaders following a Sustainable Strategizing 2.0 mindset consider socio-ecological future fitness as a prerequisite for economic future fitness and ask “What can my business do for sustainability?”. They follow a societal purpose and seek to achieve positive systems impact through a variety of levers. Strategists need to be aware of and reflect their own strategizing mindset before they make strategic decisions toward a thriving future for both business and society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    An earlier milestone was the reports to the Club of Rome (Meadows, Meadows, Randers, & Behrens, 1972; Meadows, Randers, & Meadows, 2004); see also http://donellameadows.org/. For other classics that deepened and broadened the concern for sustainability, see Rome (2015).

  2. 2.

    See also Chap. 3.

  3. 3.

    Exemplary research papers dealing with the link of strategy and sustainability include Bansal and DesJardine (2014), Barnett and Salomon (2012), Carroll, Primo, and Richter (2016), Davies and Walters (2004), Elkington (1994), Grant (2007), Hart (1995), Hart and Milstein (2003), Kaul and Luo (2018), Kolk and Pinkse (2008), Lowitt (2014), Mackey, Mackey, and Barney (2007), McWilliams and Siegel (2011), Neugebauer, Figge, and Hahn (2016), Russo (2003), and Shrivastava (1995a, 1995b).

  4. 4.

    Exemplary management books dealing with the link of strategy and sustainability include Anderson and White (2009), Elkington and Zeitz (2014), Esty and Winston (2006), Gleeson-White (2015), Jones (2017), Kane (2010), Lazlo and Brown (2014), Leleux and van der Kaaij (2019), Lenox and Chatterji (2018), Mackey and Sisodia (2014), Makower (2009), Marcus (2015), Phyper and MacLean (2009), Raworth (2017a), Sroufe (2018), Szekely and Dossa (2017), Werbach (2009), and Willard (2012).

  5. 5.

    See also Forewords by Pratima (Tima) Bansal and John H. Grant.

  6. 6.

    See Chaps. 17 and 18.

  7. 7.

    See Chap. 18.

  8. 8.

    Other sources in which sustainability challenges have been addressed and debated include the World Economic Forum (2018), the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2010) as well as the various World Summits for Sustainable Development (WSSD).

  9. 9.

    The state of planetary boundaries that are not currently being overshot is not shown in this illustration but explained in Sect. 1.2.1.

  10. 10.

    See also Chap. 17.

  11. 11.

    See also Rockström and Klum (2012) as well as Whiteman, Walker, and Perego (2013).

  12. 12.

    See also the comment of Jaramillo and Destouni (2015) with regard to freshwater withdrawals.

  13. 13.

    See also Chap. 18.

  14. 14.

    The Natural Step refers to this approach as “backcasting” from sustainability principles. This is a key element in their Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) as described by Broman and Robèrt (2017). See also Chaps. 8 and 17.

  15. 15.

    See Chap. 7 for a comprehensive discussion of the concept of “value” and how it relates to “impact.”

  16. 16.

    The typology shown in Table 1.3 is an advancement of an earlier conceptualization of the paradigm shift between traditional versus sustainable strategic management (Wunder, 2016a, 2017: 13). For stages of corporate sustainability models see also Landrum (2018).

  17. 17.

    The term “sustainable” in this context does not refer to social, ecological or economic considerations but purely to the durability or half-life period of the competitive advantage.

  18. 18.

    See also Chap. 4.

  19. 19.

    This stakeholder approach is fundamentally different from a normative approach to dealing with stakeholders based on moral justifications, which also considers legitimate claims of powerless stakeholders such as the natural environment as well as future generations to which a company has responsibilities but which may seem to be less relevant from a strategic point of view (Waxenberger & Spence, 2003). It also differs from an integrative approach that focuses on managing stakeholder relationships for mutual benefits, i.e. co-creating value for (ideally) all stakeholder groups based on elements from various stakeholder theories (Hörisch, Freeman, & Schaltegger, 2014).

  20. 20.

    See also Chaps. 3, 6 and 19.

  21. 21.

    Similar understandings can be found in a specific view of Corporate Social Responsibility (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Garriga & Melé, 2004; Lee, 2008; Okpara & Idowu, 2013).

  22. 22.

    In the principle of the “Triple Bottom Line” economic (profit), ecological (planet), and social (people) goals are considered together. The term follows the Anglo-American “Profit-and-Loss Statement” which traditionally has profit as the “bottom line.” According to the “Triple Bottom Line” idea, this financial profit perspective at the bottom line should be supplemented by social and ecological output quantities.

  23. 23.

    See also Chap. 3.

  24. 24.

    Sustainability can be a positive driver for values-based and purpose-driven innovation management. See Chaps. 11 and 14.

  25. 25.

    One example is the American Fortune magazine, which is famous for its yearly rankings of the largest corporations by total revenue (e.g. Fortune 100 or 500). In 2015, Fortune initiated an annual ranking of companies who are referred to as “doing well by doing good” in a so-called “Change the World List.” According to its own statements in its initial release of this list, the aim is not to evaluate social responsibility as a whole, but rather to encourage corporations for more sustainable actions through selected examples of corporate practice and projects (Murray, 2015).

  26. 26.

    See Chap. 2.

  27. 27.

    For a similar analogy see the “funnel metaphor” in the Framework of Strategic Sustainable Development (Broman & Robèrt, 2017).

  28. 28.

    In other words, it is about creating shared well-being over a prolonged period of time, i.e. for current and future generations, or what others refer to as prospering, thriving, or flourishing (see Chap. 8).

  29. 29.

    Note that the term “sustainable value” has been used in different ways by various institutions, companies, and authors such as Stuart Hart or Chris Laszlo. The term in this chapter is not linked to a specific framework.

  30. 30.

    For example, numbers “obtained by the Guardian reveal that by 2021 the number of plastic drink bottles produced globally will reach more than half a trillion. But only a tiny fraction of these bottles are recycled. Fewer than half of the bottles bought in 2016 were collected for recycling and just 7% of those collected were turned into new bottles. Instead, most plastic bottles produced end up in landfill or in the ocean” (Laville, 2017).

  31. 31.

    For a comprehensive overview of the “value,”, “impact,” as well as value “sustenance” concepts see Chap. 7.

  32. 32.

    See Chap. 15.

  33. 33.

    See also Chap. 5 and Part III.

  34. 34.

    Examples can be seen in Chaps. 8, 11, 12 and 15. Value co-creation with stakeholders is different from the more traditional approach of overcoming and managing supposed “trade-offs” between expectations of various stakeholder groups in the strategy process (Hörisch et al., 2014).

  35. 35.

    See Chaps. 3, 8, 15, and 17. For ESG analysis including impact measurement see also www.trucost.com.

References

  • Accenture, & UNGC. (2014). The consumer study: From marketing to mattering. The UN Global Compact-Accenture CEO Study on Sustainability. In collaboration with Havas Media RE: PURPOSE, June 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • AGI. (2018). Water sources for hydraulic fracturing. American Geosciences Institute. Retrieved October 18, 2018, from https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/factsheet/pe/water-sources-hydraulic-fracturing

  • Anderson, R. C., & White, R. (2009). Confessions of a radical industrialist: Profits, people, purpose—doing business by respecting the earth. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansoff, H. I. (1976). Managing surprise and discontinuity – Strategic response to weak signals. Zfbfg – Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 28, 129–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, T., & Birkinshaw, J. (2017). Disruption is more than digital, network for business sustainability. Retrieved September 4, 2018, from https://nbs.net/p/what-disruptions-mean-for-sustainable-business-69346929-369c-46ed-b9a3-74e7ae74b82b

  • Bansal, P., & DesJardine, M. (2014). Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic Organization, 12(1), 70–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L., & Salomon, R. M. (2012). Does it pay to be really good? Addressing the shape of the relationship between social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(11), 1304–1320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manage, 17(1), 99–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beal, D., Eccles, R., Hansell, G., Lesser, R., Unnikrishnan, S., Woods, W., & Young, D. (2017). Total societal impact: A new lens for strategy. Boston, MA: The Boston Consulting Group. Retrieved February 6, 2019, from https://www.bcg.com/Images/BCG-Total-Societal-Impact-Oct-2017-NL_tcm108-174019.pdf

  • Beschorner, T. (2013). Creating shared value: The one-trick pony approach: A comment on Michael Porter and Mark Kramer (2011), “Creating shared value”. Business Ethics Journal Review, 17(1), 106–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonini, S., & Görner, S. (2011, October). The business of sustainability. McKinsey global survey results. Retrieved May 27, 2016, from http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/ourinsights/the-business-of-sustainability-mckinsey-global-survey-results

  • Bové, A. T., D’Herde, D., & Swartz, S. (2017, December). Sustainability’s deepening imprint. McKinsey global survey results. Retrieved June 29, 2018, from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our-insights/sustainabilitys-deepening-imprint

  • Broman, G. I., & Robèrt, K.-H. (2017). A framework for strategic sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140(1), 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canton, J. (2015). Future smart: Managing the game-changing trends that will transform your world. Boston, MA: Da Capo Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, R. J., Primo, D. M., & Richter, B. K. (2016). Using item response theory to improve measurement in strategic management research: An application to corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 37(1, SI), 66–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 85–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, D. (2017). Strategic corporate social responsibility. Sustainable value creation (4th ed.). Southand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chitnis, M., Sorrell, S., Druckman, A., Firth, S. K., & Jackson, T. (2014). Who rebounds most? Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for different UK socioeconomic groups. Ecological Economics, 106(October), 12–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collis, D. J., & Rukstad, M. G. (2008). Can you say what your strategy is? Harvard Business Review, 86(4), 82–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortese, A. (2003, July 20). Business; They care about the world (and they shop, too). New York Times. Retrieved October 1, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/business/business-they-care-about-the-world-and-they-shop-too.html

  • Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L. J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of “creating shared value”. California Management Review, 56(2), 130–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crutzen, P. (2002). Geology of mankind. Nature, 415, 23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Aveni, R., Dagnino, G., & Smith, K. (2010). The age of temporary advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(13), 1371–1385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, H., & Walters, P. (2004). Emergent patterns of strategy, environment and performance in transition economy. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dembek, K., Singh, P., & Bhakoo, V. (2016). Literature review of shared value: A theoretical concept of a management buzzword? Journal of Business Ethics, 2(137), 231–267. Online Version. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2554-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dove, R. (2018, September 22). I saw Florence sending millions of gallons of animal poop flooding across North Carolina. The Washington Post. Retrieved October 18, 2018, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/22/i-saw-florence-sending-millions-gallons-animal-poop-flooding-across-north-carolina/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.575a8f963b2e

  • Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 130–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyllick, T., & Muff, K. (2016). Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organization and Environment, 29(2), 156–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, R. G., & Krzus, M. (2015). The integrated reporting movement: Meaning, momentum, motives and materiality. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenfeld, J. R. (2008). Sustainability by design. A subversive strategy for transforming our consumer culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation – Win-win-win business strategies. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (2018). 25 Years ago I coined the phrase “triple bottom line.” Here’s why it’s time to rethink it. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved October 15, 2018, from https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-ago-i-coined-the-phrase-triple-bottom-line-heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it

  • Elkington, J., & Zeitz, J. (2014). The breakthrough challenge. 10 ways to connect today’s profits with tomorrow’s bottom line. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, J. (2003). The blended value proposition. Integrating social and financial returns. California Management Review, 45(4), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engert, S., Rauter, R., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2016). Exploring the integration of corporate sustainability into strategic management: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2833–2850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esty, D. C., & Winston, A. S. (2006). Green to gold: How smart companies use environmental strategy to innovate, create value, and build competitive advantage. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fink, L. (2018). A sense of purpose, Larry Fink’s annual letter to CEOs. Retrieved September 11, 2018, from https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letter

  • Flammer, C. (2015). Does corporate social responsibility lead to superior financial performance? A regression discontinuity approach. Management Science, 61(11), 2549–2568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flammer, C., & Bansal, P. (2017). Does a long-term orientation create value? Evidence from a regression discontinuity. Strategic Management Journal, 38, 1827–1847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management. A stakeholder approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 32–33, 122, 124, 126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, G. (2009). The next 100 years. A forecast for the 21st century. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funk, M. (2015). Windfall. The booming business of global warming. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleeson-White, J. (2015). Six capitals, or can accountants save the planet? Rethinking capitalism for the twenty-first century. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, J. H. (2007). Advances and challenges in strategic management. International Journal of Business, 12(1), 11–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, J. H. (2008). Organizational performance in an interdependent world. In A. M. Rahim (Ed.), Current topics in management (pp. 35–58). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gyori, C., Sharp, L., Busch, C., Brahmam, M., Kazakova, T., & Gyori, B. (2018). North star: Purpose-driven leadership for the 21st century. 2017–2018 Global CEO survey. Washington, DC: Leaders on Purpose.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., & Figge, F. (2011). Beyond the bounded instrumentality in current corporate sustainability research: Toward an inclusive notion of profitability. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 325–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., & Preuss, L. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 297–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, A. (1998). Which world? Scenarios for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannerz, U. (2016). Writing future worlds. An anthropologist explores global scenarios. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J. (2009). Storms of my grandchildren. The truth about the coming climate catastrophe and our last chance to save humanity. New York: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J., & Kharecha, P. (2018). Cost of carbon capture: Can young people bear the Burden? Joule, 8(15), 1405–1407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003): Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 56–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, H. M., & Talwar, A. (2010). How do corporations embed sustainability across the organization? Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(3), 384–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havas Worldwide. (2016). Project Superbrand. 10 Truths reshaping the corporate world. Prosumer Report, January 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgs, K. (2014). Collision course: Endless growth on a finite planet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hörisch, J., Freeman, E., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Applying stakeholder theory in sustainability management. Links, similarities, dissimilarities, and conceptual framework. Organization & Environment, 4(27), 328–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J. (2016). Communicating about climate change with corporate leaders and stakeholders. In M. Nisbet & S. O’Neill (Eds.), Oxford encyclopedia of climate change communication (pp. 2–23). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J. (2018, Spring). The next phase of business sustainability. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 35–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houle, D., & Rumage, T. (2015). This spaceship earth. Pittsfield, MA: David Houle & Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howes, M., Wortley, L., Potts, R., Dedekorkut-Howes, A., Serrao-Neumann, S., Davidson, J., et al. (2017). Environmental sustainability: A case of policy implementation failure? Sustainability, 9(2), 165. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Retrieved October 13, 2018, from http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

  • Jaramillo, F., & Destouni, G. (2015). Comment on “Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet”. Science, 348(6240), 1217c. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa9629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. (2017). Profits and sustainability: A history of green entrepreneurship. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, G. (2010). The three secrets of green business. Unlocking competitive advantage in a low carbon economy. London, UK: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization. How balanced scorecard companies thrive in the new business environment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaul, A., & Luo, J. (2018). The economic case for CSR: The comparative efficiency of for profit firms and the market for social goods. Strategic Management Journal, 39(6), 1650–1677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Blue Ocean strategy. How to create uncontested market space and make the competition irrelevant. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, H., Haanaes, K., Reeves, M., Fuisz-Kehrbach, S.-K., & Kell, G. (2015). Joining forces – Collaboration and leadership for sustainability. MIT Sloan Management Review, 56(3). Retrieved February 5, 2019, from https://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/joining-forces/

  • Kiron, D., Unruh, G., Kruschwitz, N., Reeves, M., Rubel, H., & Meyer zum Felde, A. (2017). Corporate sustainability at a crossroads: Progress toward our common future in uncertain times. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(4). Retrieved February 5, 2019, from https://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/corporate-sustainability-at-a-crossroads/

  • Kolbert, E. (2014). The sixth extinction. An unnatural history. New York, NY: Picador.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2008). A perspective on multinational enterprises and climate change: Learning from “an inconvenient truth?”. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(8), 1359–1378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landrum, N. (2018). Stages of corporate sustainability: Integrating the strong sustainability worldview. Organization & Environment, 31(4), 287–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laville, S. (2017, October 2). Coca-Cola increased its production of plastic bottles by a billion last year, says Greenpeace. The Guardian. Retrieved October 18, 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/02/coca-cola-increased-its-production-of-plastic-bottles-by-a-billion-last-year-say-greenpeace

  • Lazlo, C., & Brown, J. S. (2014). Flourishing enterprise. The new spirit of business. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. (2008). A review of theories of corporate social responsibility. Its evolutionary path and the road ahead. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(1), 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leleux, B., & van der Kaaij, J. (2019). Winning sustainability strategies: Finding purpose, driving innovation and executing change. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lenox, M., & Chatterji, A. (2018). Can business save the earth? Innovating our way to sustainability. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linnenluecke, M., Verreynne, M.-A., de Villiers Scheepers, R., Grönum, S., & Venter, C. (2014). Planning for a shared vision of a sustainable future: A systematic review. Network for Business Sustainability South Africa. Retrieved November 15, 2018, from nbs.net/knowledge

  • Loewenstein, A. (2015). Disaster capitalism. Making a killing out of catastrophe. London, UK: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowitt, E. (2014). How to survive climate change and still run a thriving business. Harvard Business Review, 92(4), 86–92, 132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüdeke-Freund, F., Carroux, S., Joyce, A., Massa, L., & Breuer, H. (2018). The sustainable business model pattern taxonomy—45 patterns to support sustainability-oriented business model innovation. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 15, 145–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, A., Mackey, T. B., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and firm performance: Investor preferences and corporate strategies. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 817–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackey, J., & Sisodia, R. (2014). Conscious capitalism. Liberating the heroic spirit of business. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MAHB. (2018). The MAHB mission. Millennium Alliance for Humanity and Biosphere. Retrieved October 15, 2018, from https://mahb.stanford.edu/welcome/the-mahb-mission/

  • Makower, J. (2009). Strategies for the green economy. Opportunities and challenges in the new world of business. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manyika, J., Ramaswamy, S., Bughin, J., Woetzel, J., Birshan, M., & Nagpal, Z. (2018, October). Superstars: The dynamics of firms, sectors, and cities leading the global economy. Discussion Paper. McKinsey Global Institute. McKinsey & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, A. A. (2015). Innovations in sustainability: Fuel and food. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Markman, A. (2018, October 11). Why people aren’t motivated to address climate change. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved October 13, 2018, from https://hbr.org/2018/10/why-people-arent-motivated-to-address-climate-change

  • Marshall, G. (2014). Don’t even think about it: Why our brains are wired to ignore climate change. New York: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R. G. (2013). Transient advantage. Harvard Business Review, 91(6), 62–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. S. (2011). Creating and capturing value: Strategic corporate social responsibility, resource-based theory, and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 37(5, SI), 1480–1495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, D., Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. (1972). The limits to growth. New York: Universe Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). Limits to growth, the 30 year update. White River Junction, VA: Chelsea Green.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Opportunities and challenges for industry. Washington, DC: World Resource Institute. Retrieved September 14, 2018, from https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Reports.html

  • Mintzberg, H. (2015). Rebalancing society. Radical renewal beyond left, right, and center. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, A. (2015). Doing well by doing good. Fortune, 172(3), 58 f.

    Google Scholar 

  • NASA. (2018). Global climate change. Carbon Dioxide. Retrieved September 3, 2018, from https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

  • Neugebauer, F., Figge, F., & Hahn, T. (2016). Planned or emergent strategy making? Exploring the formation of corporate sustainability strategies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(5), 323–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus, W. D. (2013). The climate casino: Risk, uncertainty, and economics for a warming world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okpara, J. O., & Idowu, S. O. (2013). Corporate social responsibility: A review of the concept and analysis of the business case for corporate social responsibility in the twenty-first century. In J. O. Okpara & S. O. Idowu (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility. Challenges, opportunities and strategies for 21st century leaders (pp. 3–16). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Orsato, R. J. (2009). Sustainability strategies: When does it pay to be green. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., & Bansal, P. (2016). The long-term benefits of organizational resilience through sustainable business practices. Strategic Management Journal, 37(8), 1615–1631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage. A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phyper, J.-D., & MacLean, P. (2009). Good to green. Managing business risks and opportunities in the age of environmental awareness. Mississauga, ON: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), 79–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. How to reinvent capitalism and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randers, J. (2012). 2052: A global forecast for the next forty years. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randers, J., Rockström, J., Stoknes, P. E., Goluke, U., Collste, D., Cornell, S., & Donges, J. (2018a, December 2). Achieving the 17 sustainable development goals within 9 planetary boundaries.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randers, J., Rockström, J., Stoknes, P. E., Goluke, U., Collste, D., & Cornell, S. (2018b, October 17). Transformation is feasible: How to achieve the sustainable development goals within planetary boundaries. A report to the Club of Rome, for its 50 years anniversary 17 October 2018 from Stockholm Resilience Centre and BI Norwegian Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raskin, P. (2016). Journey to Earthland. The great transition to planetary civilization. Boston, MA: Tellus Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raworth, K. (2017a). Doughnut economics. London, UK: Penguin Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raworth, K. (2017b). A doughnut for the Anthropocene: Humanity’s compass in the 21st century. The Lancet Planetary Health, 1(2), e48–e49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30028-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raworth, K. (2017c). Supplementary appendix. Supplement to: A doughnut for the Anthropocene: Humanity’s compass in the 21st century. The Lancet Planetary Health, 1(2), e48–e49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(17)30028-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, M., & Harnoss, J. (2017, June 6). The business of business is no longer just business. Companies must raise their economic and political game. The Boston Consulting Group. Retrieved September 17, 2018, from https://www.bcg.com/publications/2017/corporate-strategy-business-no-longer.aspx

  • Reid, W. V., Chen, D., Goldfarb, L., Hackmann, H., Lee, Y. T., Mokhele, K., Ostrom, E., Raivio, K., Rockström, J., Schellnhuber, H. H., & Whyte, A. (2010). Earth system science for global sustainability: Grand challenges. Science, 330(6006), 916–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reporting 3.0. (2018). Projects overview. Retrieved September 10, 2018, from https://reporting3.org/projects/

  • Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D. P., Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., O’Neill, B. C., Fujimori, S., et al. (2017). The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Global Environmental Change, 42, 153–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockström, J. (2017). Beyond the Anthropocene: Presentation at the World Economic Forum. Retrieved March 22, 2019 from https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2017-02-16-wef-2017-beyond-theanthropocene.Html

  • Rockström, J., & Klum, M. (2012). The human quest: Prospering within planetary boundaries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S. III, Lambin, E., et al. (2009). Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32. Retrieved September 6, 2018, from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/

  • Rome, A. (2015). Sustainability: The launch of spaceship earth. Nature, 527, 443–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T. (2018). Strategic management (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M. V. (2003). The emergence of sustainable industries: Building on natural capital. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 317–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. (2005). Corporate sustainability. In H. Folmer & T. Tietenberg (Eds.), The international yearbook of environmental and resource economics 2005/2006. A survey of current issues (pp. 185–222). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. (2015). Business cases and corporate engagement with sustainability. Differentiating ethical motivations. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2938-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2006). Managing and measuring the business case for sustainability. Capturing the relationship between sustainability performance, business competitiveness and economic performance. In S. Schaltegger & M. Wagner (Eds.), Managing the business case for sustainability (pp. 1–27). Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Hansen, E. (2012). Business cases for sustainability: The role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 6(2), 95–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P. (1995a). Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 16(SI), 183–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P. (1995b). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936–960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. C. (2011). The world in 2050. Four forces shaping civilization’s northern future. New York: Plume/Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sroufe, R. (2018). Integrated management. How sustainability creates value for any business. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • State Street. (2018). Environmental sustainability. Retrieved September 28, 2018, from http://www.statestreet.com/values/environmental-sustainability.html

  • Stead, J., & Stead, W. (2014). Sustainable strategic management (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., & McNeill, J. R. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature? Ambio, 36, 614–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffen W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S., Fetzer I., Bennett, E., et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855. Retrieved September 5, 2018, from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T. M., Folke, C., Liverman, D., et al. (2018). Trajectories of the earth system in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(33), 8252–8259. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115. Retrieved September 5, 2018, from http://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stout, L. (2012). The shareholder value myth. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Teaching sustainability to business students: Shifting mindsets. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(3), 206–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szekely, F., & Dossa, Z. (2017). Beyond the triple bottom line: Eight steps toward a sustainable business model. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TWI2050 – The World in 2050. (2018). Transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Report prepared by The World in 2050 initiative. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria. www.twi2050.org

  • Tyson, N. D. (2017, April 19). Science in America. Retrieved September 18, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MqTOEospfo

  • UNDP. (2016). United Nations Development Programme. Human development report 2016. Retrieved September 5, 2018, from http://hdr.undp.org/en/2016-report/download

  • United Nations. (2015). Sustainable development goals: 17 goals to transform our world. Retrieved September 6, 2018, from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

  • Unruh, G., Kiron, D., Kruschwitz, N., Reeves, M., Rubel, H., & Meyer zum Felde, A. (2016). Investing for a sustainable future. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(4). Retrieved February 5, 2019, from https://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/investing-for-a-sustainable-future/

  • Visser, W. (2014): CSR 2.0. Transforming corporate sustainability and responsibility. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Weizäcker, E. U., & Wijkman, A. (2018). Come on! Capitalism, short-termism, population and the destruction of the planet – A report to the club of Rome. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R. (2012). Future files. A brief history of the next 50 years. Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waxenberger, B., & Spence, L. (2003). Reinterpretation of a Metaphor: From stakes to claims. Strategic Change, 12(5), 239–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WBCSD, & BCG. (2018a). World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and The Boston Consulting Group (BCG). The new big circle: Achieving growth and business model innovation through circular economy implementation. Retrieved June 29, 2018, from http://docs.wbcsd.org/2018/01/The_new_big_circle.pdf

  • WBCSD, & BCG. (2018b). World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and The Boston Consulting Group (BCG). Bridging the gap: The role of green projects in scaling climate investments. Retrieved June 29, 2018, from http://docs.wbcsd.org/2018/02/Bridging_the_gap.pdf

  • WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werbach, A. (2009). Strategy for sustainability. A business manifesto. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfeld, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Ten years after. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weybrecht, G. (2014). The sustainable MBA: A business guide to sustainability (2nd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 307–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, R., Hautz, J., Seidl, D. (2017): Open strategy: Transparency and inclusion in strategy processes. Long Range Planning 50(3), 297-426.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • World Business Council on Sustainable Development. (2010). Vision 2050. The new agenda for business. Geneva. Retrieved September 14, 2018, from https://docs.wbcsd.org/2018/02/Vision2050.pdf

  • World Economic Forum. (2018). The global risks report 2018 (13th ed.). Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. (2015). Climate change, capitalism, and corporations. Processes of creative self-destruction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wunder, T. (2016a). Sustainable strategic management: Re-orientation or new paradigm of strategic management? Paper presentation. Fifth Sustainability, Ethics and Entrepreneurship (SEE) Research Conference, Denver, Colorado, May 18, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunder, T. (2016b). Essentials of strategic management. Effective formulation and execution of strategy. Stuttgart: Schaeffer-Poeschel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wunder, T. (2017). Nachhaltiges Strategisches Management: Anknüpfungspunkte und Impulse für die praktische Strategiearbeit. In: Wunder, T. (Hrsg.), CSR und Strategisches Management. Wie man mit Nachhaltigkeit langfristig im Wettbewerb gewinnt (S. 1–41). Berlin: Springer Gabler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeh, N., & Chen, Y. (2011). On the everyday life information behavior of LOHAS consumers: A perspective of lifestyle. Journal of Educational Media & Library Science, 48(4), 489–510.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences, Neu-Ulm, Germany

    Thomas Wunder

Authors
  1. Thomas Wunder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Wunder .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences, Neu-Ulm, Germany

    Thomas Wunder

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wunder, T. (2019). Mindsets for Linking Strategy and Sustainability: Planetary Boundaries, Social Foundations, and Sustainable Strategizing. In: Wunder, T. (eds) Rethinking Strategic Management. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06014-5_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation