Tensions in sustainability - The Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Johanna Hensen
Edited by: –
Last updated: January 14, 2026

Executive summary

This article explores the concept of sustainability tensions and their impact on organizations. It defines sustainability as balancing environmental, social, and economic goals and explains why tensions arise when these goals conflict.

The literature review highlights instrumental, integrative, and paradox perspectives, emphasizing the need for holistic approaches. Practical implementation strategies include corporate social responsibility, sustainable leadership, and multistakeholder partnerships.

Organizations must accept tensions, develop adaptive strategies, and foster collaboration among governments, businesses, and individuals. Knowledge gaps and resistance to change remain significant barriers.

Ultimately, managing sustainability tensions requires systemic thinking, continuous innovation, and inclusive partnerships to achieve long-term success and resilience.

1 Introduction

Over the last few decades, the issue of sustainability has become increasingly important. In this rapidly changing world, it emerges as a critical focal point for organizations across all sectors, demanding immediate action.¹ Additionally, it has become a more publicized topic.² All living beings feel the pressure of climate concerns, sometimes even daily.³ This load applies, among others, when fundamental life circumstances change, mainly caused by the increasing frequency of natural disasters.⁴ It not only puts the livelihoods of certain animals or plants in danger, but since we all share this world, our environment is also threatened.⁵ The main difference is that humans can make changes for a better future.

Human activities are widely recognized as the primary driver of climate change and continue to significantly contribute to its progression. In response to these developments, organizations and individuals can apply sustainability-oriented practices to address climate-related challenges.⁶ However, achieving and integrating true sustainability is a complex path that requires careful navigation.⁷ As organizations strive to balance environmental protection, economic growth, and social equity, they often encounter emerging tensions that challenge their sustainability efforts. Existing literature offers various approaches to managing these tensions.⁷ However, a “lack of conceptual clarity in this field is evident in the varying language adopted to describe tensions” (p.385).⁸ Moreover, historical approaches shape organizations’ current actions and structures.⁹ The latest methodologies address and improve upon problems and gaps in traditional findings. These ambiguous methods in the literature illustrate the issue’s complexity and emphasize the emergence of this work. Therefore, a conceptual framework and a strategy are required to adequately manage various tensions and present organizations with a clear path to deal with them. This leads to the essential question about the complexity of sustainability:

How can organizations manage emerging sustainability tensions?

It is imperative to explore strategies and solutions that can harmonize conflicting sustainability goals.⁹ This paper presents concepts for coping with the complex sustainability situation, simultaneously pursuing economic, social, and environmental objectives and overcoming existing tensions. Before diving into the topic, the general definitions are presented.

1.1 Sustainability definition

Sustainability fundamentally encompasses the capability to meet current needs while preserving resources and systems for future generations.¹⁰ The goal is to establish a dynamic equilibrium between the earth’s population and the carrying capacity of its environment. This balance is currently threatened by rapid population growth and human activity.¹¹ However, there is “no consensus on a definition” since the issue of sustainability depends on the individual or organization’s perspective (p.5).⁹ While widely recognized definitions, such as the Brundtland definition, provide a common foundation, interpretations and operationalizations of sustainability still vary across contexts. Sustainability is an unprotected term, meaning every organization defines sustainability differently.¹² This highlights the subjective nature of sustainability, which varies across different stakeholders.

*Figure 1: The three pillars of sustainability (own illustration based on Elkington (1997)¹)*

Realizing sustainability requires integrating three main pillars: environmental protection, economic development, and social equity. These pillars are known as the triple bottom line.¹³ Together, these three pillars build the base for successful sustainability.¹³ It is crucial to note that the whole system is unsustainable if any pillar is weak. Continuous efforts to understand and address their complex interactions for sustainable action are vital to ensure a comprehensive and long-term sustainable business practice. Even if various definitions of sustainability exist, only some researchers focus on sustainability issues like tensions and how to resolve these conflicts.¹⁴^,¹⁵^,¹⁶

1.2 Tensions definition

Tensions constitute a significant issue in sustainability, as they refer to conflicts or contradictions that arise for actors in complex contexts. These actors include individuals, groups, and organizations such as companies or government agencies. In the context of this thesis, tensions involve competing priorities, conflicting goals, or challenges in pursuing sustainable practices. The issues about sustainability tensions are growing with climate change.⁸ Nowadays, a broad social consensus exists regarding the “grand challenges” such as climate change and species extinction. Most people know conflicts will arise due to different priorities and opinions (p.1).¹⁷ Throughout the journey towards sustainability, tensions among different actors are inevitable, as they are integral aspects of change and adaptation.¹⁸ Not only individuals but especially organizations see a need for change. They now prioritize creating practicable solutions to sustainability and climate change in all industries.²^,¹⁹

Ultimately, tensions in sustainability refer to the conflicts and challenges that arise when balancing the three pillars of sustainability: environmental protection, economic development, and social equity. These tensions often manifest when the goals in one area clash with the objectives in another.²^,⁹^,²⁰ This principle of balancing the three pillars, widely acknowledged, is not just an aspiration but a necessity for organizations.¹³

1.3 Organizations

Organizations include businesses, governmental agencies, and other relevant groups. These entities are not just responsible but have the power to make decisions and take actions that can impact sustainability outcomes.²¹^,²²^,²³ Sustainability in organizations involves integrating economic, social, and environmental goals into their operations.²⁴^,²⁵^,²⁶ This approach is rooted in the triple bottom-line framework pioneered by Elkington, which is widely adopted in the literature. It underscores sustainability as aligning an organization’s economic, social, and environmental objectives.¹³ Today, sustainability is integral to every organization, sometimes voluntarily and under regulatory pressure. For instance, large companies’ mandatory reporting of CO2 emissions in some countries compels businesses to enhance sustainability efforts for better reporting outcomes.²⁷ However, many organizations recognize the inherent benefits and self-interest in integrating sustainable practices into their daily operations. Moreover, they often face challenges in implementing sustainability, especially regarding the tensions between the three pillars.⁷^,¹⁹ The relevance of sustainability is prominent, given the complex and interdisciplinary nature of sustainable development processes. Organizations often find themselves in situations where environmental, social, and economic goals compete or influence each other.²^,²⁷^,²⁸^,²⁹^,³⁰ These situations cause tensions.³¹ The literature agrees that “organizations face multiple paradoxical tensions” (p.55).² However, research disagrees with the way of dealing with tensions. Before delving into the various perspectives, it is crucial to clearly understand the two key terms, tensions, and paradox.

1.4 Delimitation of the terms tension and paradox

Tensions emerge within organizations when conflicting forces, demands, or pressures must be navigated to achieve multiple objectives or satisfy various stakeholders. These conflicts manifest as opposing interests, priorities, or values and are generally perceived as challenges that require balancing or mitigating to ensure organizational stability and progress.² Tensions suggest a possibility of resolution or compromise.⁸ For example, a company faces the conflict of maximizing short-term profits while investing in sustainable practices that may incur higher short-term costs.

Unlike tensions, paradoxes involve more complex and intrinsic contradictions yet interdependent elements, even if they seem “inconsistent or incompatible” (p.563).³²^,³³^,³⁴^,³⁵ Paradox research takes a unique approach to addressing tensions, examining how organizations can manage “competing demands simultaneously” (p.391).⁸ Paradoxes represent the persistent and dynamic nature of organizational challenges that cannot be fully resolved in a permanent sense but can be mitigated or temporarily balanced through innovative strategies and continuous management.² For example, a company must drive innovation involving risk and uncertainty while maintaining stability and efficiency. Both requirements are necessary, even though they seem to be contradictions.³⁶ While tensions highlight conflicts and competing demands within organizations, paradoxes underscore more profound, more intrinsic contradictions that necessitate ongoing management and innovative approaches.³⁴^,³⁷

The distinction between tensions and paradoxes clarifies that paradoxes are a specific type of tension, necessitating special attention to comprehend their impact on organizations and formulating appropriate responses.⁸ Thus, paradoxical strategies emphasize developing responses to tensions. A critical insight is that tensions are inherent in every paradox; this does not apply to vice versa.³²^,³⁸^,³⁹

2 Literature review

Exploring tensions in sustainability has roots deeply embedded in historical contexts and has evolved significantly over time. Although the origins of this field differ from those of today’s literature, they marked systematic inquiry and laid the foundation for subsequent developments. This literature review offers a thorough overview of the current body of knowledge, highlighting vital variables, concepts, and metrics that researchers have utilized.

The literature in this domain seeks to convey an understanding of tensions. Researchers have formulated multiple hypotheses and developed theoretical frameworks to explain sustainability’s complex interactions and outcomes. However, despite the extensive research, several gaps and limitations persist in the literature.⁴⁰ Suriyankietkaew and Avery (2016) argue that the empirical results show underexplored deficits.⁴¹

The proposals and suggestions derived from the literature have led to the proposed sections. By synthesizing the existing research, this review not only elucidates the current state of knowledge but also underscores the areas requiring further exploration, thereby setting the stage for future scholarly endeavors.

2.1 Urgency of considering tensions and their impact

Tensions within organizations can significantly impact various aspects of operations, decision-making, and overall performance.²⁰ By acknowledging and managing tensions, organizations can navigate complexities, drive positive change, and enhance their overall performance and impact.⁹ Enhancing their overall performance by resolving tensions and managing paradoxes can contribute to organizations’ long-term success and viability by promoting a holistic and balanced approach to sustainability. These processes can foster innovation and resilience by encouraging organizations to think creatively and adaptively to respond to complex challenges.² However, unresolved tensions can affect relationships with stakeholders and impact reputation and trust, highlighting the importance of considering them.³⁹

In summary, the impact of tensions in corporate sustainability emphasizes the importance of actively addressing and managing conflicts to promote sustainable practices, improve business performance, and increase stakeholder trust and engagement.²^,⁴² Organizations that successfully navigate tensions and embrace complexity are equipped to achieve long-term sustainability and thrive in a rapidly evolving business environment.⁴³

2.2 Drivers and types of tensions in sustainability

The concept of corporate sustainability encompasses economic, environmental, and social dimensions. Dealing with these issues simultaneously is necessary, but it can drive conflicts, leading to diverse tensions at different levels.⁴⁴^,⁴⁵ Drivers of tensions are the underlying factors or causes that generate tensions. They are often external or internal forces that exert pressure on organizations and thus cause various types of tensions.⁴⁶ Since sustainability is a multifaceted issue affecting every living being, different stress poles generate multiple types of tension. Many researchers have classified those in various ways, making it impractical to list them all within the scope of this thesis.⁴⁷^,⁴⁸^,⁴⁹^,⁵⁰ This thesis focuses on the most pivotal and common types identified in the selected literature regarding their respective drivers. This provides a robust foundation for understanding and managing these complex conflicts.⁵¹ To offer an unbundled depiction, a distinction separates these two main areas. The types of tensions within the three sustainability pillars include conflicts between economic growth and environmental protection, social justice and economic efficiency, and environmental protection and social welfare. The second area includes factors influencing the three dimensions externally.⁵² Hahn et al. (2015) consider tensions between “personal and organizational sustainability agendas”, stakeholder interests, “short-term and long-term orientation”, “isomorphism and technological and structural change,” and “efficiency and resilience” (p.17).⁹ It is important to note that beyond the named ones, there are other tensions, such as mission-related or scaling tensions.⁷

2.2.1 Tensions within the context of the three sustainability goals

Economy vs. environment

Organizations’ pursuit of economic growth can clash with environmental goals, leading to tensions between resource consumption and environmental preservation. When organizations focus on expanding their businesses and increasing profits, they often consume more natural resources and generate more waste and pollution, for example, in the oil industry.⁵³ This increase can conflict with efforts to protect the environment and preserve natural resources for future generations.⁵⁴ Conversely, to protect the environment and mitigate damage, the economic perspective often needs to be deprioritized since sustainable practices are typically viewed as more expensive and, therefore, less attractive from a financial and economic standpoint.⁵⁵ Although these investments positively impact the environment, they are unappealing from a short-term economic perspective.⁵⁶

It is challenging to balance preserving the environment and promoting economic growth. The predicament between environmental protection and economic development has been a topic of debate for a long time, making it clear that a solution is ambitious. The issue concerns not only companies but also the government. Friction arises between policy objectives and their implementation, including enforcement, compliance, monitoring, and evaluation of sustainability measures.⁵⁷

Social vs. economy

The social aspect of sustainability deals with issues that benefit the community due to “human rights,” the “health and safety” of employees, and the distribution of resources (p.7).⁵⁸ It also reduces inequalities and ensures access to basic needs and services for all. The economic dimension aims to effectively and efficiently fulfill the economic needs of stakeholders, aiming to achieve the highest possible output with the lowest possible input.⁵⁹ The focus on the respective goals can lead to conflicts between different aspects. For example, organizations seek to reduce labor costs to increase profits, often leading to practices such as outsourcing and automation.⁹ The fair wages and better living standards for workers demanded by social justice aim for the exact opposite goal of increasing labor costs, which reduces profit margins and economic efficiency.¹⁸ These tensions concern not only the costs of labor but also, for example, the allocation of resources. From an economic perspective, organizations must allocate resources to areas that generate the highest economic returns. Socially, resources try to benefit as many members of society as possible, even if this reduces economic efficiency.⁶⁰ Social improvement can have many effects. For example, better working conditions lead to more employee productivity, which generates more money for the company. However, this can also be the case the other way around. Immoral working conditions lead to dissatisfied employees, reducing productivity or even resulting in layoffs.⁴ Investing in social practices may not provide immediate financial returns and may be seen as less economically efficient, therefore creating a conflict. The conflict between social equity and economic efficiency highlights the challenge of balancing fair and inclusive treatment of individuals and the pursuit of optimal economic performance.⁸

Environment vs. social

The tensions between the social and environmental dimensions refer to conflicts and challenges that arise when social and environmental concerns collide or influence each other. These tensions can arise when environmental protection measures reinforce social inequalities or when social measures have negative environmental impacts.⁴^,¹⁸^,⁶¹ An example of these tensions could be the decision to establish a nature reserve, which affects “the livelihoods of local communities that depend on” the area’s natural resources, such as water, land, or forests (p.82).⁶¹ The conflict between protecting the environment and ensuring equitable access to resources for all members of society, especially in global markets with different regional requirements, presents tensions between preserving the environment and the community’s social needs.⁶²

2.2.2 Tensions besides the context of the three sustainability goals

Personal vs. organizational sustainability agendas

Personal and organizational sustainability goals can manifest differently as they consist of two poles: individual agency and organizational structure.⁹ Individuals within an organization may have personal values and beliefs that prioritize environmental or social sustainability, which is not always aligned with the organization’s overarching sustainability agenda.⁸ Individual agency refers to the ability of individuals to act independently, make decisions, and influence their environment within an organization. This may lead to conflicts with the organizational structure and puts „[t]he firms […] under great societal pressure“ (p.5).⁴⁴ Hemingway and Maclagan (2004) add that personal values and preferences drive managers to implement sustainability activities.⁶³ As organizational structures constrain individual agency, individual subjectivity restricts these structures from managing tensions objectively.¹⁷ From an organizational perspective, created “rules, norms, and administrative procedures” by organizations can inversely restrict the actions of individuals (p.18).⁹ Thus, these structures can limit individuals’ freedom and initiative. A mismatch between personal values and organizational culture can lead to conflicts in allocating sustainability projects that align with personal beliefs. Managing these tensions, “delicate[s] balance between self-interest and collective-interest in the pursuit of joint value” (p.164).⁷ Companies have to resolve paradoxical tensions when working with individuals and finding a balance between maintaining their own operating practices and adapting to the ideas of individual stakeholders.⁶⁴

Tensions between stakeholder interests

Individual stakeholders and stakeholder groups often have conflicting interests and expectations, which leads to tensions, also known as collaborative tensions.⁷ Thus, any individual or group can reflect a driver of tensions.⁹^,⁶⁵ The breadth of attitudes, values, behaviors, and needs about sustainability is vast, reflecting the diverse nature of society. A general observation is that individuals have different lifestyles and consumption habits, which can impact their ecological footprint.⁶¹ Some people favor a minimalist lifestyle and sustainable consumption, while others negatively impact sustainability. However, not only are one’s decision-making preferences decisive, but the origin and circumstances of the respective country significantly influence individual interests. People, especially from developing countries, have limited access to sustainable alternatives due to financial constraints or a lack of knowledge about sustainable practices. Thus, they generally have different approaches to sustainability depending on their access to resources, education, social circumstances, and political conditions.²⁹ These observations aim at different places of life. However, there are also significant differences within the same nation. There are different types of conflicts within generations. These can arise between today’s older and younger generations, as well as their sense of responsibility to future generations and their views on sustainability. Furthermore, intragenerational tensions are disputes within the same generation, such as conflicts between urban and rural populations, indigenous communities, governments, industry, and environmentalists.⁵³ Personal experiences, education, cultural background, and individual values shape unique perspectives and interests in sustainability.¹¹

Short-term vs. long-term goals

In addition to the personal exacerbating tensions, conflicts between long-term and short-term objectives are “contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time” (p.387).⁸ Tensions often emerge between time-based goals, particularly when priorities and strategies clash.⁴⁹^,⁶⁶ “While the economic dimension emphasizes short-term financial objectives, environmental protection and social equity focus more on long-term concerns” (p.23,24).⁹ It is important to note that both types of goals have their merits and are necessary for organizational progress. While the short-term approach emphasizes immediate results, quick returns, and meeting near-future objectives, a long-term orientation is necessary for involving strategic planning, future sustainability considerations, and enduring value creation to consider the consequences of decisions. As a result, contemporary research is shifting its focus from the aim of a direct output that prioritizes immediate short-term goals to a more comprehensive examination of long-term goals.⁴⁸ However, the temporal perspective presents a complex challenge for organizations, requiring them to consider economic, social, and environmental outcomes in both the short and long term.⁶⁵ Organizations often face a dilemma, balancing the pressure to deliver short-term economic gains for shareholders with the imperative to invest in long-term sustainability initiatives. For example, in the government area, politicians’ terms of office in most countries are only four years, which is the average contract duration of CEOs in the DAX. The limited period of office shows a hurdle concerning implementing long-term goals.⁶⁷

Isomorphism vs. technological and structural change

The essence of structural versus structural and technological change lies in the tension between organizational conformity to established norms and the need to innovate and adapt to achieve sustainability.⁴⁸ Isomorphism, the process by which organizations adopt similar structures, practices, and technologies to align with institutional norms and expectations, can impede radical innovation and structural change.⁹ Organizations are often under pressure to conform to institutional norms for reasons of legitimacy.³⁶ In addition, there is a general need for more available IT systems that allow large companies to create a carbon footprint. However, sustainable development requires organizations to embrace structural and technological change to address environmental and social challenges. Organizations must navigate the tension between the need for change and resistance to deviating from established norms and practices and weigh the risks and opportunities associated with innovation.⁴⁸

The challenge organizations face balancing the pressure to conform to existing norms to legitimize themselves while driving innovation and change for sustainability is the quintessence of isomorphism and structural and technological change in sustainability.³¹

Efficiency vs. resilience

The tension between efficiency and resilience in sustainability shows tensions between optimizing performance and the adaptability to withstand and recover from disruption. Efficiency is about maximizing output while minimizing input, reducing waste, and improving organizational productivity. The benefits are cost savings, increased competitiveness, and improved resource utilization. However, the drive for efficiency, primarily the economic goal of sustainability, can lead to “homogenization, standardization, and centralization”, potentially reducing systems’ variety and adaptability (p.32).⁹ This is where the tension between efficiency and resilience arises. Resilience refers to adapting to changing conditions, absorbing shocks, and recovering from disruptions while maintaining functionality and structure.⁴¹ Diversity, redundancy, flexibility, and decentralized decision-making are required to improve the robustness of the system and its ability to cope with disruptions. Resilience is critical to long-term sustainability, enabling organizations to respond effectively to unforeseen events, uncertainties, and systemic risks.⁶¹

2.3 Recognising tensions

We have established that tensions arise when objectives clash, prioritizing one goal impedes the achievement of another, or competing goals create a dilemma in decision-making.⁵¹ Even if the literature agrees that sustainable development encompasses the three interconnected dimensions – economic, environmental, and social – it does not agree on how to treat these dimensions among each other. It is important to note that the different perspectives must be differentiated in terms of time. New findings constantly supplement and improve previous concepts and prepare them. Thus, problem areas from traditional views are primarily addressed by more current methods. Where traditional literature is based on instrumental logic, recent literature prefers the paradox theory.²^,⁶⁸ However, along with these acknowledgments, there are more concepts to consider.

2.3.1 Instrumental logic

Starting chronologically with the instrumental logic. The instrumental approach is strongly influenced by the work of Milton Friedman (1970), who argues that companies’ primary responsibility is to maximize their profits as long as they operate within legal and ethical boundaries.⁶⁹ This perspective emphasizes that social and environmental responsibility are only relevant as they serve economic goals. Hahn et al. (2015) proposed “that firms can benefit financially when they address environmental or societal concerns” (p.3).⁹ Because of the prioritization of the economic dimension, the instrumental logic is characterized as an “either/or model” (p.155).⁷ Authors like Gao and Bansal (2013) agree that prevailing literature traditionally favors instrumental logic.¹⁹^,⁶⁸^,⁷⁰^,⁷¹ However, not only the traditional but the most significant portion of the literature is based on this thinking.²^,⁴⁴

Van der Byl et al. (2015) analyzed numerous prestigious papers and divided the instrumental logic into win-win and trade-off lense.² The win-win and trade-off approaches are considered instrumental, as they have an “economic focus on shareholders and profit maximization” (p.54).²

The win-win approach attempts to balance social, environmental, and economic goals without one goal coming at the expense of the other.² It involves finding synergies and opportunities to achieve a “positive relationship” in different dimensions (economic, social, environmental) to maximize the overall benefit (p.405).⁷² Thus, improvement in one dimension of sustainability must improve or at least not worsen another.⁷³ Moreover, the literature has improved the win-win approach. For example, in his work “Win-Win-Win Business Strategies for Sustainable Development”, Elkington (1997) discusses ways for businesses to develop strategies that benefit the company, its customers, and the environment all at the same time.¹³^,⁷⁴

The trade-off approach involves the exchange of one benefit for another, “especially the sacrifice of one benefit or advantage for another that is considered more desirable” (p.231).⁷⁵ In other words, achieving progress in one dimension may come at the expense of another.² This approach stems from the belief among academics that companies cannot simultaneously achieve financial profits and enhance environmental and social performance despite what the win-win narrative suggests.

According to Hahn et al. (2010), theoretically, achieving significant social or environmental benefits can go hand in hand with accepting a “small loss in corporate economic performance”, which ultimately contributes positively to sustainable development (p.220).⁷⁶ Strictly speaking, the trade-off concept corresponds to a win-lose position. However, companies generally prioritize financial goals over social goals, leading to a demotion of sustainability objectives. This tendency arises because businesses often consider immediate financial returns more critical than long-term sustainability benefits.⁷⁷^,⁷⁸ From the business management perspective, this is interesting because failure to adhere to social and environmental responsibility can result in substantial long-term costs for companies, such as decreased profits and diminished public perception of their brand.⁷⁹ Conversely, by fostering several responsibilities besides the financial aspect, organizations can boost profitability and positive relationships with society and the environment.⁴³ Thus, authors like Hawken question the instrumental perspective and fundamentally organize the focus differently. “The ultimate purpose of business is not, or should not be, simply, to make money […] [t]he promise of business is to increase the general well-being of humankind” (p.11).¹⁰ Moreover, the long-term costs are not the only concern; significant tensions also emerge. When companies prioritize one goal over another, they resolve the tension between conflicting goals, but sustainability goals may suffer.² Choosing between conflicting elements and treating them individually is only a short-term solution, but the tensions will resurface.²^,⁸ The instrumental logic rejects scenarios where environmental and social issues cannot be reconciled with financial outcomes.²^,⁶⁸ Moreover, overlooking tensions greatly contrasts corporate sustainability’s intricate and multi-layered character.²⁶^,⁸⁰^,⁸¹^,⁸² This “linear, rational thinking” guides to a significant risk of unintended consequences (p.59).²

2.3.2 Integrative perspective

The integrative perspective marked a significant departure from the instrumental logic, as it embraces a “both/and” model, advocating for the simultaneous consideration of economic, environmental, and social aspects (p.59).² A momentous shift towards the integrative perspective in sustainability was developed by John Elkington.¹³ With his concept of the “Triple Bottom Line” (TBL), Elkington (1997) called on companies to give equal consideration to social (people) and environmental (planet) aspects alongside financial gain (profit). The agenda’s social and economic dimensions, already identified in the Brundtland Report (1987), Our Common Future, must be addressed more to achieve real environmental progress.¹³^,⁶⁶ The instrumental logic can be viewed as a correction or, more accurately, an improvement of the instrumental logic, as it “has been developed as a reaction to the dominance of the instrumental view in the sustainability literature” (p.59).²^,⁹

*Figure 2: The shift from either-or to both-and thinking (source: own illustration based on Barbier and Burgess (2017)⁶⁰)*

The shift from “either-or” to “both-and“ represents a fundamental change in how organizations approach decisions and strategies, particularly when dealing with challenges such as sustainability.⁸ However, the Triple-bottom-line characterizes a lack of systematic, relational consideration of the three aspects.⁹ This finding marked a paradigm that encourages companies to understand complex relationships to enable holistic assessment of corporate sustainability.⁷^,⁹ It is not just a change in direction but a crucial step toward a more realistic approach to sustainability issues, aligning more closely with their inherent complexities.¹⁸^,⁷⁰^,⁷¹^,⁷² The integrative perspective “recognizes and accepts the contradictions” between the financial, social, and environmental dimensions (p.244).⁶⁸ Based on this, the integrative approach aims to find synergies and commonalities between these dimensions rather than viewing them as competing priorities, as trade-off theory does. It rather emphasizes holistic thinking and the interconnectedness of various elements of sustainability, promoting a balance between the objectives.⁶⁸^,⁷⁰^,⁷¹^,⁸³ The integrated approaches address tensions by balancing a strong emphasis on economic aspects and a robust consideration of environmental and social aspects.⁸⁴^,⁴^,⁶⁸^,⁷⁶

Most research, for example, Hahn et al. (2010) and Gao and Bansal (2013), uses the term integrative, but some authors like Smith and Tracey (2016) and Preuss et al. (2021) use the term institutional instead.⁸⁴^,⁴^,⁵⁰^,⁶⁸^,⁴⁴^,⁷⁶^,⁸⁵^,⁸⁶ There are parallels between the two constructs, but they are based on different scientific foundations or come from different literatures. According to Smith and Tracey (2016), institutional logic contemplates how organizations pursue their goals, make decisions, and interact with their environment.⁵⁰ Overarching values, norms, and rules influence organizations’ decision-making and strategy development in challenging situations, such as managing tensions in the area of sustainability.⁵⁰ To achieve this, literature by Battilana and Lee (2014) recommends hybrid organization models responsible for the interaction and balance of different institutional logics within an organization.⁸⁷^,⁸⁸ It explores “hybrid organizing as mutable and adaptable processes” (p.460).⁵⁰ Ultimately, external rules guide and shape the actions of organizations.⁸⁹ While the institutional model focuses on how external constraints influence sustainable practices, the integrative model emphasizes aligning sustainability with internal business strategies and operations.⁸⁴^,⁵⁰ However, both models share the common goal of embedding sustainability deeply into the organizational system. They advocate an encompassing, long-term, systemic approach that embraces cultural change and active stakeholder engagement.⁸⁸

2.3.3 Paradox view

Paradoxes refer to contradictory requirements, goals, or practices that organizations must simultaneously manage.⁸ These conflicting but interrelated requirements persist over time and require acceptance and continuous management efforts.⁷^,³⁵ A paradoxical approach involves managing competing demands like tensions, as it sees contradictory elements as coexisting and interdependent.²^,³¹^,³³^,⁴⁵^,³⁴ This requires exploring sustainability-related tensions in more detail and engaging with them rather than resisting or avoiding them.⁸^,⁹ Paradox confirms that conflicts between sustainability dimensions are inevitable in organizational reality.¹⁹

Figure 3: Yin and Yang
(source: own illustration)

The Tai Chi symbol of yin and yang best illustrates paradox because it represents the core characteristic of paradox.⁸ The concept of contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time, with its boundaries of separating yin and yang, highlights their distinctions. However, the circle encompassing both elements emphasizes their interconnections and dynamic relationship.

“The paradox perspective argues that organizations face multiple paradoxical tensions” (p.55).² Decision-makers who approach sustainability with a paradoxical mindset tend to respect the suggested consideration to pursue multiple sustainability goals simultaneously without prioritizing one goal over the other.⁹^,⁴² Moreover, embracing paradoxes improves organizational performance by enabling creative responses to tensions and expanding strategies accordingly.⁹⁰^,⁹¹ Smith and Traces (2016) explain the importance of “exploring and exploiting” in managing tensions. As long as these approaches are pursued, managers succeed in both poles of competing demands; for example, the authors cite the tension between short-term improvements and long-term success (p.459).⁵⁰

However, managing tensions is challenging as actors tend to polarise contradictory information using cognitive schemas to make sense of complex reality. This tendency can lead to adverse outcomes that exacerbate rather than resolve tensions.⁸ Organizational management needs “approaches to reconcile tensions, […] reframing or developing them into a new whole, transcending them through shifting their boundaries, and connecting them through a dynamic interplay between poles” (p.156).⁷ In other words, there is no one-size-fits-all model; instruments must adapt to the respective situation and company structure.

The paradoxes, considered by the integrative and institutional argumentation theories, create the analytical framework for analyzing and explaining the nature and responses to tensions.²^,⁴⁴^,³² These theories support businesses in finding a company-fitting action as they complement each other, generating rich insights about competing demands and the environmental complexity of tension.⁵⁰ Therefore, considering multiple perspectives is recommended as it provides critical thinking approaches to capture and manage the competing demands of the three pillars of sustainable development.⁹^,⁵⁰^,⁵² It provides support as integrating multiple theories improves understanding of the origins and responses to conflicting demands. Applying these perspectives recognizes tensions and balances conflicting aspects of sustainability. It holds significant potential for companies’ contribution to sustainability, a perspective often overlooked in an instrumental view. Thus, the paradox perspective emphasizes the “change of mindset from either/or framing to both/and approaches” (p.459).⁵⁰

2.4 Application of the concepts

Ultimately, several complementary strategies provide valuable solutions for sustainability management.²^,⁹ Because the lenses examined have different origins and assumptions, they have primarily evolved independently. However, recognizing that combined perspectives provide excellent benefits, like comprehensive and multidisciplinary solutions and valuable strategies crucial for managing sustainability.⁴^,²⁰^,⁵⁰

Organizations can develop and investigate sustainable solutions that address multiple dimensions by identifying interfaces and common goals. Adapting to new challenges and developing innovative solutions is essential to successfully managing tensions.⁹ By reflecting on and challenging existing instrumental practices, organizations can rethink their actions and explore alternative perspectives.⁶⁸ Since the integrative view takes up the “shortcomings” of the instrumental view, it is considered appropriate as it considers long-term thinking, multiple perspectives, and holistic thinking to manage tensions successfully (p.3).⁹ The juxtaposition of the two logics and the development of an expanded concept of the interdependence of economic, social, and ecological elements improves the strategy.⁶⁸

Thus, organizations can effectively provide a solid framework by combining methods leading to multidisciplinary approaches.³⁵^,⁹² Alternatively and more accurately, “the integrative view is based on the ability to live with and transcend the tensions based on paradoxical thinking” (p.37).⁹ This combination assists in recognizing and managing tensions.³⁴^,³⁷ The institutional logic, with similar intentions as the integrative view, offers a framework for understanding how targets shape the behavior of individuals and organizations within specific institutional contexts and correlates with the paradox thinking.³²^,³³^,³⁴^,⁵⁰^,⁸⁵

Reflecting the various perspectives of the literature, they have dramatically enhanced the comprehension of sustainability tensions over the years. It offers essential insights into how organizations can effectively tackle challenges such as these. These perspectives underscore the necessity for nuanced and context-specific approaches to sustainability management.⁸ However, organizations must remain flexible and adaptable to respond to changing conditions and requirements in sustainability.⁸⁴ Maintaining flexibility and adaptability allows organizations to respond to evolving sustainability conditions and enhances their ability to engage in effective partnerships and collaborations. Thus, organizations can leverage sustainability tensions to create value. Moreover, the literature emphasizes the importance of partnerships and collaboration within organizations to tackle complex sustainability issues.²⁷^,⁹³^,⁹⁴ Elkington (1997) clarifies that “economic, social, and environmental partnership[s] are needed” (p.37).¹³ “The role of complementary and of partnerships will be crucially important” (p.57).¹³ Partnering with various organizational parties and individual interests leads to innovative ideas that offer environmental and social benefits.⁹⁵

2.5 The role of organizations in managing tensions

Organizations play a crucial role in managing tensions, particularly in the context of sustainability.⁷⁹^,⁸¹^,⁹⁶ Highlighting the significance of sustainability, the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC 2018) calls on organizations to ensure their operations and strategies conform to globally recognized principles.⁹⁷ “In addition, the UNGC encourages organisations to take strategic actions to enhance their sustainable development goals” (p.1).⁹⁸

Research shows that paradoxical tensions become particularly observable considering a multi-level perspective.¹⁷ Starik and Rands (1995) confirm this approach and suggest an “interorganizational basis” to assess an organization’s potential for sustainability (p.922).⁹⁹ Political players, businesses, and individuals are the three main organizational actors that create a multi-level perspective. Since organizations are central to managing tensions in sustainability, most literature primarily examines tension management at the organizational level due to its significant impact on sustainability.⁶²^,⁸³^,¹⁰⁰^,¹⁰¹^,¹⁰² Moreover, the individual perspective is essential.⁹^,⁹⁴ Organizational-level initiatives set the strategic direction and framework for sustainability efforts, while individual actions help drive the implementation and success of these practices.⁸⁰ Each group has specific responsibilities and opportunities to contribute to sustainability. Governments can provide the legal framework and incentives, companies can respond to regulatory requirements and demands due to the implementation, and individuals can influence the market and policy direction through conscious choices and behavior.²⁶ The “intrinsically motivated organizational members persist in doing their best within their roles and duties to accomplish desirable sustainability performance” (p.6).¹⁰³ Since the levels are interconnected, they are considered to illustrate the reinforcement and practice between organizational actions and their realization by individuals.⁴⁴ This synergy is necessary to achieve comprehensive, long-term changes to tackle global sustainability challenges. Smith and Lewis (2011) argue that without interaction, dealing with tensions at one level can create tensions at another.⁸ Identifying and managing these interfaces is critical to achieving sustainability.⁹⁹

This distinction is essential for understanding and addressing the complexity of interactions between individual actors and the organization regarding sustainability issues. Before an interaction occurs, the individual parties must be aware of their responsibilities and actions. A classification between macro, meso, and micro levels is illustrated to understand these.¹⁷ At the macro level, policies and regulations shape the broader landscape. The meso level involves businesses, while the micro level focuses on individuals and their practices.³⁰ This differentiation helps clarify the roles and responsibilities at each level, ensuring that all parties are prepared and informed about their specific contributions to sustainability efforts.

2.5.1 Tasks for the political players

Political actors in this context refer to the government. As a part of implementing sustainable practices, governments are part of the tensions that may arise due to accomplishment. They have great power and, therefore, responsibility. The power level differs in each country; however, decision-makers are generally among the most influential parties in a country or community.⁷⁴ The government sets regulations as a prerequisite for companies, which then realize the implementation of sustainable practices. Thus, their reforms can control business and society’s behavior within a specific framework.¹⁰⁴^,¹⁰⁵ Regulations, such as climate protection laws, recycling laws, emission limits, and waste management guidelines, can promote environmentally friendly practices and restrict harmful activities.¹⁰⁶ Regulations provide incentives and subsidies in addition to the mandatory requirements to make implementation attractive.¹⁰⁷ Offering tax benefits and subsidies promotes sustainable practices and technologies by the other parties to the organization. However, in addition to financial incentives, investments in sustainable infrastructure projects such as public transport, renewable energy sources, and recycling facilities are also crucial.⁷⁴ Finally, educational programs and government campaigns should raise sustainability awareness and encourage organizational behavioral change.¹⁰ Bansal (2023) confirms, “Policymakers can make policies and programs to support and promote existing and potential enterprises and run awareness camps to make their contribution visible to the general public” (p.22).⁷⁴ In this context, social enterprise refers to businesses that address social or environmental issues while generating revenue through business activities. Enforcing norms, laws, and regulations in sustainable practices through policy is challenging due to several difficulties arising, including conflicts of interest, lack of cooperation among partners, resistance to change, technological hurdles, and the complexity of the issues involved.¹⁴ However, overcoming policy inertia, addressing conflicting interests, and promoting cross-sectoral collaboration are critical for achieving sustainability goals.⁵³

2.5.2 Tasks for businesses

Currently, companies face increasing complexity driven by rapid changes in their business environments, such as globalization, scarcity of resources, advanced multimedia and technology, and innovation, but especially the trend toward more sustainability.⁴¹^,¹⁰⁸ Companies are crucial to realizing sustainability.⁶ Large corporations particularly impact markets, supply chains, and consumer behavior economically.¹⁰⁹ Organizations can lead by example by prioritizing sustainability, “demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of sustainable practices”, and inspire other companies and industries. The prioritization of sustainability includes applying theoretical principles and implementation into the entire corporate concept (p.1).¹¹⁰ “Sustainability is one of the most commonly used terms in relation to the way organisations operate“ (p.1).⁶ Most businesses are willing to adopt sustainable practices, recognizing their significant impact and responsibility. However, this includes the environmental awareness of management, the anticipated conduct of managers and employees, and their values and mindset.⁶ The change to more sustainability in organizations is a process that takes time to happen.⁶⁶ Thus, sustainability incrementalism or sustainability partiality is a common phenomenon. Organizations selectively apply sustainability practices rather than embracing sustainability as their ultimate goal. It reflects a strategic approach where organizations adopt sustainability practices in certain areas or activities while neglecting others.⁷⁶ Although, this contrasts the approaches of literature. It is worthwhile for organizations and individuals to put effort into addressing those goals and achieving a dynamic balance.⁸ Many scholars of paradox, such as Smith and Lewis (2011) and Hawken (1993), argue that effectively addressing competing demands simultaneously can lead to numerous positive outcomes in organizational management, including exceptional leadership capabilities, high-performing teams, and improved organizational performance.⁸^,¹⁰ Thus, the paradox perspective emphasizes the “change of mindset from either-or framing to both-and approaches”, considering all sustainable practices contrary to the sustainability incrementalism and sustainability partiality (p.459).⁵⁰ Strategies such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Corporate Sustainability (CS) exist to support companies in pursuing sustainability as their ultimate goal and fulfill their responsibility towards the environment and society. Sustainable leadership (SL) also plays a decisive role in this.¹⁸^,⁴⁰^,⁴¹^,¹¹¹

Reflecting this level, organizations play a central role in sustainability due to resource consumption, economic impact, innovation capacity, and ability to lead and inspire broader societal change.¹¹² Their actions and strategies are critical to promoting sustainability and addressing local, regional, and global environmental challenges. Moreover, decisions and actions made by companies now are long-lasting and will influence the future.¹⁰⁹^,¹¹³

2.5.3 Tasks for individuals

Individuals refer to people of any age, gender, background, or point of view who interact directly or indirectly with an organization.¹¹⁴ From the organizational perspective, individuals include stakeholders, whether internal ones like employees, managers, and owners or external ones like customers, suppliers, creditors, local communities, and the broader society.¹¹⁵ Even if individuals may have less power than companies and the government, they are ultimately closely linked to these parties.²⁷ Firstly, internal stakeholders, as part of organizations, gain power in the specific institution. Secondly, external stakeholders wield diverse control and influence over organizations. For example, customers influence sales and market share, while suppliers can influence production through delivery conditions and prices, as well as the role of sustainability applied and the transparency provided by the respective companies. Investors influence financing and growth, while local communities decide on the social acceptance of companies. These aspects underline the necessity of taking diverse stakeholders into account.¹¹⁶

Thus, not only are the reactions to the given regulations of politics and practices for businesses decisive, but so are the independent decisions and actions. It involves individuals’ actions and behaviors, including promoting sustainability practices in daily activities, making environmentally conscious decisions, participating in sustainability initiatives, and advocating for sustainable practices within the organization.⁴⁴ Conscious changes in daily behavior, such as energy saving, waste separation, recycling, and the choice to use public transport, as well as purchasing decisions, such as the preference for environmentally friendly products and services, can significantly impact the support and participation of offered actions by organizations.⁴ Through the necessary support and acceptance, individuals influence the implementation of sustainability and the management of tensions. This leads to the multilevel approach, a crucial constrict of managing tensions.⁹⁹

2.6 Reflects

Most literature agrees that tensions are realized in three steps. Preuss et al. (2021) and Joseph et al. (2020) convey their approach of separating into acceptance, separation, and synthesis strategies.⁹^,⁴⁴^,⁶⁵ Whereas Hahn et al. (2015) call their three steps context, level, and change.⁵⁶ Both approaches provide a framework for identifying tensions in sustainability; thus, a combined model presentation is evident.⁵⁶^,¹¹⁷ To conclude the theoretical framework, this overview summarizes the basic concept used.

The fundamental step is the acceptance of tensions.⁴⁴ Accepting tensions in organizational management involves acknowledging the existence of contradictory forces, goals, or perspectives. Moreover, it includes recognizing that these tensions are inherent, dynamic, and unavoidable.⁸^,³⁵^,³⁸ The context is paramount in perceiving tensions. By considering the context, organizations can better understand how to deal with sustainability’s inherent tensions and develop flexible solutions that incorporate recognizing the existence of paradoxes and living with them. Precisely, the paradoxical perspective helps organizations to “build an understanding of such tensions” (p.11).⁴⁵

The multi-level nature of corporate sustainability is a theoretical construct in which economic, environmental, and social aspects have different belongings at macro, meso, and micro levels. The values and perceptions of individual decision-makers regarding sustainability can vary considerably and lead to tensions within and between organizational levels.¹¹⁵ Separating different levels helps better understand and analyze the complexity of tensions between political, organizational, and individual approaches to sustainability.⁹

The synthesis strategy integrates conflicting economic, social, and environmental objectives.³⁵^,⁹² Introducing new practices, structures, or processes allows for addressing different paradoxes and finding innovative solutions that address all three dimensions simultaneously. The necessary change that forces companies to transform their existing business processes fundamentally towards sustainability is not a mere recommendation but a necessity. Companies need to revise their business models regarding sustainability, with changes spanning technology and innovation, organizational adjustments, and structural changes. This picks up the institutional logic, which concretizes how organizations absorb new practices – values, norms, and beliefs.⁵⁰ By applying synthesis strategies, organizations can initiate changes that will enable them to overcome paradoxes and find innovative solutions.

*Figure 4: Framework for the analysis of tensions (source: own illustration based on Hahn et al. (2015)¹²)*

3 Practical implementation

To establish sustainability in companies through the concept of integrative perspectives, various approaches to manage tensions in sustainability are suggested. The following section examines the practical implementation of theoretical approaches and analyses how companies implement these concepts in their operational processes.

The practical implementation of sustainability tensions is a complex challenge requiring a holistic approach and careful planning. Companies and organizations must develop effective strategies to balance environmental, social, and economic objectives. This task is complex, involving aligning sustainability goals, stakeholder interests, and often conflicting demands.¹¹⁸ To address tension, it is essential to understand theoretical concepts and identify concrete measures and practices that promote sustainable development. Both internal organization and external cooperation play a decisive role in this.¹¹⁹ Only by implementing an integrative and comprehensive strategy can companies achieve long-term success and make meaningful contributions to society and the environment. However, integration demands the decisive step of accepting tensions. However, varying levels of individual knowledge can present a barrier.⁴¹

3.1 Knowledge barrier

One of the most urgent challenges we face in implementing sustainability approaches is fostering stakeholder understanding. Knowledge gaps, also defined as insufficient education on sustainability, are a significant barrier for organizations to tackle tensions in sustainability.⁹ This disinformation demonstrates a breeding ground for crisis and, therefore, fuels uncertainty and fear. The adverse effects of the climate crisis jeopardize the achievement of sustainability. This makes reliable information all the more important.¹²⁰ The differing knowledge base is not surprising. Explanations vary widely; for example, current controversies over historical methods reduce their credibility. More clarity is needed here. It takes stakeholders, like political players, administrative bodies, and various social interest groups, to expand their understanding. Their comprehension and support form the bedrock of interdisciplinary efforts, underscoring the urgency and significance.¹¹² It directly influences the content of sustainability strategies and impacts the implementation of already determined strategies.¹²¹ Existing literature on corporate sustainability (CS) confirms several gaps in knowledge.¹²² Some authors even argue that the different levels of knowledge in the population are the biggest hurdles to resolving conflicting sustainability goals.⁵¹ However, knowledge gaps are not the sole hurdle; other critical factors such as resource constraints, policy inertia, and organizational limitations also shape the ability to implement sustainability effectively.

To improve the level of knowledge, uncovering the roots and causes must come first. The main reasons are distinguished into three factors. First is the perception of sustainability: actors may differ in understanding and perception. Some may view sustainability as a fundamental aspect of their operations, while others may see it as secondary to profitability.²⁸ Another factor is risk tolerance: the varying risk tolerance levels among actors towards sustainability changes are significant. Some are more open to adopting new practices and technologies, while others are more conservative due to perceived risks or uncertainties. Recognizing these differences can help devising effective change management strategies. The last reason is resource allocation: actors may allocate resources differently towards sustainability changes.

Around the world, wealthy people usually use more resources like fossil fuels or energy due to their lifestyle.¹²³^,¹²⁴ This concerns industrialized countries; developing countries often do not have a choice between more or less sustainable goods and options. Resource usage depends mainly on the financial capacity of countries.¹²⁵ Coherent to what the environment of every individual offers, the priorities of every individual, and the thought of consideration of others, especially the following generations. There are different reasons why and how people use resources based on their knowledge level. A key sentence in this context is that sustainability must be defined as meeting the present generation’s needs without jeopardizing future generations’ ability, which proposes a massive relation to resource allocation.⁶⁶ The sense of urgency is evident across younger generations, as seen in their active participation in initiatives such as “Fridays for Future” to raise awareness about the imperative for sustainable transformations.¹²⁶ Factors such as age, cultural background, level of education, and ideological beliefs influence personal interpretations of sustainability.¹²⁷ The diverse knowledge bases result from the differences between people. Because every human being is unique, their respective knowledge is alsoidiosyncratic. People are different, think differently, and act differently. The varying intensity that considers climate protection arises from the diversity of people and countries. The most significant differences arise between countries depending on their geographical location and wealth status.¹⁸ However, this is an important statement, as people’s complexity is a primary reason for the prevalence of sustainability knowledge. Addressing knowledge gaps around sustainability practices requires a proactive approach to knowledge sharing, communication, learning, and organizational culture.⁸¹

The integrative perspective appears to be a proactive approach. According to the named understanding, problem-solving should systematically consider other factors of the three pillars and include them in the “own” dimension considerations.⁷ By proactively applying the integrative perspective, organizations can better respond to the challenges and opportunities related to sustainability and achieve long-term positive impacts. The necessity of adopting the integrative model has garnered widespread recognition, not only in business circles but also in the political area. This underscores its relevance and credibility as an approach to sustainability.¹¹² For example, political documents on sustainability strategies use this understanding as a guiding principle to create synergies between economic and social development and preserve an intact environment.⁵³^,¹²⁸^,¹²⁹

Organizations can mitigate knowledge leaks and enhance their sustainability performance by fostering a culture of collaboration, transparency, and continuous improvement.⁴⁴ Educating individuals to bring the issue of sustainability to the forefront and make them realize how important it is to support organizations is necessary. Only this will allow the population to understand the concept of sustainability.¹⁸^,⁷² Concrete actions could be disseminating more knowledge about sustainability by using different approaches and communication tools to positively promote sustainable practices, for example, by integrating sustainability topics into school to communicate with the younger generation effectively. Expanding education and awareness campaigns through workshops, seminars, and online platforms can increase knowledge among different demographic groups. Transparent reporting, internal communication campaigns, online resources and social media, partnerships and collaborations, events, and conferences can reinforce knowledge and support spreading awareness.⁴¹ A shared understanding of the various dimensions of sustainability is a critical political challenge for designing and implementing sustainability strategies, as it enables placing the mutual interdependencies in an overall context. Engaging policymakers and influential stakeholders to support evidence-based policies is crucial for further dissemination of knowledge.⁷⁴ These approaches aim to objectively disseminate knowledge about sustainability and its tensions. The different actors must act systematically and coordinate their actions to consider different logics of action.

Sustainability communication

Sustainability communication is a dynamic and evolving discipline.¹⁰⁸ Organizations can communicate sustainability commitments and performance to stakeholders through marketing, reporting, and social media. Decision-makers promote environmental awareness and social well-being by informing individuals about products’ environmental and social impact.¹²⁶ Sustainability communication promotes knowledge. However, challenges remain, as no universal “right” way exists.⁵³ Companies have different goals: Some fulfill reporting obligations, and others see communication as part of brand identity.¹²⁶ The discipline is evolving: in the past, an environmental statement was sufficient; today, targeted communication via various channels is important.¹⁰⁸ Both the organizational framework and the manner of communication are decisive for the success of CR communication. Companies must ensure that their CR communication is both strategically well anchored, transparent, and dialog-oriented to be successful in the long term.¹³⁰

3.2 Strategies to manage tensions

The literature includes possible methods approved by different researchers, which can help companies implement sustainability in a lasting way. However, organizations face significant implementation challenges due to the multiple tensions that must be considered. Tensions are inherent and unavoidable, emphasizing the importance of thoughtful management and decision-making to achieve lasting sustainable results. Authors argue that there is not only one “best practice” but multiple “best practices” that provide a fundamental solution for organizations to address existing tensions (p.18).¹³¹ Thus, this thesis examines various strategies aiming to manage tensions in sustainability, including approaches such as corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporate sustainability (CS), and sustainable leadership (SL) combined with multistakeholder partnerships.

A comprehensive analysis of these strategies demonstrates how organizations and individuals can successfully implement sustainable practices and innovations while balancing the associated tensions. Different approaches depend on the type of organization, so distinctions are made between the various players⁸³^,⁹⁹^,¹⁰¹ In order to find the right models for the respective companies, knowledge about the patterns of the respective companies must be acquired.⁷⁴ A differentiation between the macro, meso, and micro levels is supplied to adapt suitable strategies to the respective parties.

3.2.1 Government

Governments can enact regulations that force organizations to adopt sustainable practices, paving the way for less tension in a sustainable future.⁹⁸ The scope of implementation of political actors, especially governments, in promoting sustainable practices and mitigating tensions is broad. Efforts include providing financial incentives for businesses to invest in infrastructure and promoting educational programs and campaigns. Economic incentives, like tax breaks and subsidies, help companies reduce the cost of implementing sustainable practices.¹³² This reduces financial pressure and facilitates the transition to more environmentally friendly business models. It also motivates companies to invest in research and innovation to develop sustainable technologies and processes; for example, the European Union’s Green Deal offers financial incentives for green technologies, invests heavily in sustainable infrastructure, and promotes awareness and acceptance of sustainable practices among the population through educational programs and campaigns.¹³³ This leads to cost-efficient and environmentally friendly solutions in the long term.¹³⁴

Investing in sustainable infrastructure such as public transportation systems, renewable energy sources, and recycling facilities creates a foundation where businesses and communities can more easily implement sustainable practices. This promotes a low-carbon economy and reduces the environmental footprint. Well-developed sustainable infrastructure increases resilience to environmental impacts, and economic volatility promotes sustainable development.¹¹ Ultimately, education programs and campaigns help address the barrier of knowledge gaps and lead to awareness and behavior change. As educational programs and public campaigns raise awareness of the importance of sustainability, they promote behavior change at both the individual and organizational levels. Well-informed stakeholders are more likely to support and implement sustainable practices.⁴^,⁴¹ Ongoing education and outreach promote a culture of sustainability within organizations and communities. This leads to long-term behavioral change and supports implementing sustainable practices in everyday life.¹¹

By combining these measures, governments can leverage their diplomatic influence to champion sustainability on the global stage.¹⁰⁵ When companies grasp the significant role of governments in shaping sustainable practices, they gain a sense of empowerment and can better address the challenges associated with sustainability. However, addressing sustainability tensions requires a concerted effort by political actors and organizations to create a sustainable future.¹⁴ Beyond that, governments shape global policies and frameworks that promote sustainable development worldwide by leading international efforts and negotiations.¹³⁵ The opportunity to set and pursue national and international sustainability agendas arises through an alliance of several political actors from different countries.¹¹ This includes committing to global agreements, such as the Paris Agreement on climate change, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Through active participation in these agreements, governments ensure that their countries contribute effectively to global sustainability efforts.⁹³

To summarise, governments play a central role in implementing sustainability due to their regulatory power, policy-making capacity, financial resources, and ability to influence national and international agendas. Their involvement ensures that sustainability is not just an individual or corporate endeavor but a coordinated and comprehensive approach that considers society’s and the environment’s needs.²

3.2.2 Businesses

Businesses play a key role in managing tensions in sustainability, however, applying the right methods to integrate environmental, social, and economic considerations into their operations is essential. The activities are wide-ranging and encompass many activities. Thus, Poole and Van de Ven (1989) recommend applying various strategies to manage tensions in CS.³⁵ A crucial task for managers is to tailor sustainability strategies to their business’s specific actions and contexts.⁹ Since multiple types of businesses exist, sustainability strategies depend heavily on their diverse tensions and drivers.⁷⁴ For example, manufacturing companies face different challenges than service companies, realizing that different sectors are more susceptible to certain tensions than others.¹⁸ However, this thesis provides concepts that apply to every business activity. The strategies illustrated can be applied to various types of tensions, allowing companies to adapt them to their specific challenges.

The foundation is provided by identifying and characterizing the tensions and paradoxes in CS, distinguishing them into level, change, and context. To manage tensions, it is essential to look at the specific areas where they arise. By following best practices and utilizing strategies from the literature, companies can improve their ability to manage multiple types of tensions and enhance their commitment to sustainable development. The approach required to address economic, social, and environmental aspects includes integrative10, institutional, and paradoxical perspectives.⁵⁰^,¹⁹ Those perspectives “advocated a shift in managerial cognition” away from the instrumental and toward integrating sustainability dimensions beyond the economic one (p.64).² To do so, considering the social and environmental aspects is necessary and avoids applying the instrumental approach.¹⁸^,⁷⁹^,¹³⁶

Models like CSR and CS help companies consider the named aspects and mindsets accordingly.¹³⁷^,¹³⁸ CSR is a business model in which companies integrate social and environmental concerns into their operations, contributing to community well-being, environmental protection, and social justice.¹³⁹ It involves going beyond legal compliance and profit-making to minimize negative impacts and positively contribute to community development, health, and quality of life.¹⁸^,⁴⁰^,¹¹¹ Apart from integrating the social and environmental dimensions, these models deliver further advantages. CSR proponents presented practical arguments suggesting that adopting CSR practices could reduce regulatory pressures, enhance reputation, and attract and retain employees.¹⁴⁰^,¹⁴¹^,¹⁴² Thus, CSR and CS express a corporate change to address sustainability from a management perspective.⁴¹^,⁸¹ However, Ashrafi et al. (2018) argue that integrating CSR into CS is beneficial, creating a holistic and balanced approach.¹³⁷ This approach reflects the goals of the integrative perspective and aims to ensure that companies create long-term value. It is emphasized that CSR and CS thus guarantee comprehensive responsibility and sustainability.³¹^,¹³⁷

Moreover, “CSR can act as either a transitional or ultimate goal for corporations” (p.8).¹³¹ This calls on the phenomenon where organizations selectively apply sustainability practices rather than embracing sustainability as their ultimate goal, called sustainability incrementalism or sustainability partiality. Sustainability incrementalism arises because comprehensive sustainability measures are perceived as challenging and resource-intensive. Organizations, therefore, focus on easy-to-implement initiatives with immediate benefits. Short-term financial goals are often prioritized over long-term sustainability goals, as sustainability initiatives are perceived as expensive and potentially conflictual. In addition, organizational inertia and resistance to change hinder the adoption of holistic sustainability practices.¹¹⁵^,¹⁴³^,¹⁴⁴ To address sustainability incrementalism, organizations need to shift towards a more comprehensive and integrated approach to sustainability. This involves recognizing sustainability as a strategic priority and embedding sustainability principles into the organization’s mission, vision, and values. It also requires fostering a culture of sustainability where all employees are engaged in advancing sustainability goals.

Three different but interacting methods exist for integration. The distinguishment between external consistency, internal consistency, and coherence provides a multi-faced approach.⁴¹^,⁵⁰^,¹³¹

Kleine and Hauff (2009) illustrate these initiatives in a pyramid-shaped model.⁸⁴ The external consistency occupies the largest part, followed by internal consistency and the peak of coherence. This model focuses on the “fit with societal stakeholder demands” (p.41).⁸⁴

*Figure 5: The three stages of fitting CSR initiatives (source: own illustration based on Kleine and Hauff (2009)²)*

External consistency refers to aligning CSR initiatives with “the requirements and expectations of external stakeholders”, such as society, customers, suppliers, and investors (p.4).¹⁴⁵ Thus, identifying and understanding the expectations of critical stakeholders is essential. However, it is more than the vital understanding of the stakeholders. It is the interaction that creates partnerships and drives sustainability initiatives. This helps to strengthen the trust of stakeholders and build long-term positive relationships with them. Only then can a company’s CSR practices and initiatives ensure alignment with these external stakeholders’ needs and expectations.¹³⁶ Stakeholders’ feedback is valuable in shaping sustainability strategies and constantly adapting practices. Regular audits and assessments ensure compliance with sustainability standards throughout the supply chain. Therefore, communication with all stakeholders is not just important; it is essential to guarantee sustainability in business.¹¹

Building on this, internal consistency refers to integrating CSR with the core business practices, values, goals, and processes. For CSR to be effective, it must be seamlessly embedded into the company’s internal processes and strategies, ensuring it is seen as an integral part of its culture rather than a separate activity.¹⁴⁶ This alignment enhances the impact of CSR on business performance, facilitates efficient implementation, and ensures that CSR efforts have a meaningful influence on corporate culture, employee engagement, and the organization’s long-term success.⁸⁴ The internal implementation must include a balance between proactive and defensive strategies. A proactive approach involves taking measures and initiatives to anticipate and address challenges and promote positive change rather than simply reacting to problems. A defensive approach involves implementing measures to minimize risk and protect a company’s existing position or legitimacy rather than proactively seeking new opportunities or change.¹⁴⁷ Thus, a company must remain faithful to itself and be open to adopting new strategies to adapt to a constantly changing world.⁸¹

Implementing a combination of proactive and defensive strategies with integrated strategies helps businesses effectively manage tensions in sustainability and position themselves for long-term success in a rapidly changing business environment.¹⁹

The peak of the pyramid shows the coherence. The final step is to complete the model and make it successful. Coherence in CSR refers to the alignment and interconnection of various CSR practices, ensuring they form a consistent and holistic approach to social responsibility. By achieving coherence, a company ensures that its different CSR initiatives support and reinforce each other, creating synergies and avoiding isolated efforts.¹³⁷ This integrated strategy helps communicate a clear and consistent message to internal and external stakeholders, enhancing the overall understanding of the company’s commitment to social responsibility. Additionally, coherence improves the efficiency and effectiveness of CSR initiatives by reducing redundancies and optimizing resource use, allowing the company to set long-term goals and pursue a comprehensive approach to social responsibility.⁸⁴

To integrate CSR initiatives into organizational practices for the long term, they need to become a “routinized” operation (p.4).⁸⁴ This process, involving developing recurring CSR initiatives as practices, aligns with the final coherence step.⁸⁴ They must become stable patterns of decision-making and action to improve existing CSR practices and internal and external coherence. Moreover, the initiative ultimately contributes to long-term business performance and sustainability.

However, “achieving corporate sustainability depends on the ability of management to pursue seemingly conflicting sustainability aspects simultaneously” (p.9).⁹ Thus, SL offers a comprehensive approach to integrating CSR and CS into the corporate culture and strategy.⁴¹ Leaders’ decisions and practices that adhere to sustainability principles are critical in ensuring an organization’s performance and addressing tensions in.⁶^,¹¹³ Sustainable leaders are committed to developing and implementing sustainable practices, adhering to ethical standards, and considering the interests of all stakeholders.¹³¹ From a leadership perspective, promoting sustainability is crucial to “creating long-term well-being” and lasting value for all stakeholders (p.1).⁴¹

To summarise, CSR focuses on specific initiatives and external relations. At the same time, SL embodies a comprehensive, integrated approach that embeds sustainability into the organization’s fabric, drives systemic change, and creates lasting value for stakeholders.

3.2.3 Individuals

Individuals can positively influence strategic tensions by aligning their actions and interactions with internal and external stakeholders with sustainability goals.¹⁰ First, stakeholders should engage deeply with sustainability issues and understand their importance to the company in raising awareness of sustainable practices. As a result, conscious decisions can be actively made, for example, in selecting products and services of businesses that prioritize sustainability. Moreover, individuals serve as role models through their behavior and choices, showing others individually that sustainability should be an integral part of their everyday lives. They will feel that they are making an important contribution to sustainability efforts.⁹

Active participation in internal sustainability groups or projects encourages collaboration between different stakeholders and incentivizes the development and implementation of sustainable solutions. Constructive feedback on existing sustainability practices and suggestions for improvement are also important. Ideas and solutions that improve the organization’s sustainability performance must be shared. Thus, personal ideas and values must be incorporated into daily work, even if they do not fully align with the company’s goals. This way, an even and fair distribution of different tension poles, such as corporate structure and individual interests, can be balanced.⁹ By using their position, individuals can drive positive change and raise awareness of sustainable practices.

To support the organization’s strategic sustainability goals, individuals should align their daily actions with these goals and work to align personal goals with the organization’s overarching sustainability goals. Continuous training helps expand knowledge and skills and keep them current with the latest developments. This training can be conducted in various forms, like attending sustainability workshops, reading specialist publications, or taking online courses.⁸¹

This way, each individual can contribute actively to creating and strengthening a sustainable corporate culture. By taking these actions, individuals can not only increase their contribution to sustainability but also help the organization as a whole to achieve its sustainability goals more effectively. This effort requires a balance between personal convictions and organizational requirements and the ability to navigate a complex and often contradictory environment.¹¹⁵ Thus, even if “each of the motivations is described by their distinctiveness”, their potential to manage tensions in sustainability is strengthened through their interactions (p.377).¹¹⁵

3.3 Multistakeholder partnership

Partnerships are the final step in applying the named processes, measures, and tools. They represent the strategic union of stakeholders, ensuring that these components work harmoniously to achieve shared objectives with high assertiveness to maximize global success ultimately. An example is the UN Transformation Agenda 2030, with its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), signed by 193 states.⁹⁷ The adoption of this agreement shows the integration of various processes, measures, and tools, demonstrating the multidisciplinary approaches.³⁵^,⁹² Moreover, it contains the pursuit of common goals, the diversity of stakeholders, and the responsibility to a global cooperation.¹⁴⁸

Multistakeholder partnerships (MSPs) are pivotal in navigating tensions within sustainability efforts as these address complex environmental, social, and economic challenges by harnessing diverse stakeholders’ collective power.²⁷ Partnerships bring together stakeholders from government and businesses, each with their interests, perspectives, and priorities, and thus provide a foundation for exchanging knowledge, skills, and resources.⁵⁸ Authors like Bansal et al. (2023) use the term networking: “Social networking among businesses increases the market worth of social entrepreneurs and allows them to impact social innovation” (p.22).⁷⁴ Moreover, this collaboration aims to achieve common goals and utilize synergies to develop and implement sustainable solutions.⁹⁴^,¹⁴⁹ Thus, partnerships facilitate the integration of diverse perspectives, leading to innovative approaches and holistic solutions to sustainability challenges by leveraging the strengths of public and private partners. Unboxing this sentence explains that emerging tensions can be addressed with the help of multistakeholder partners.²⁷ In addition, MSPs can improve the legitimacy and accountability of sustainability initiatives by involving stakeholders in decision-making processes and ensuring that outcomes reflect the broader interests of society. This facilitates the transition to sustainable practices for individuals by providing practical and targeted approaches.⁹

The two main perspectives, the institutional perspective and the actors’ perspective, can be distinguished.⁹⁴ The first perspective views partnerships as new agreements within the environmental policy framework. It focuses on partnerships as institutional arrangements that contribute to and shape the regulation of environmental and related issues. This perspective considers partnerships in the context of formal structures, rules, and norms that govern the behavior and interactions of organizations and stakeholders.¹⁵⁰ By analyzing partnerships from an institutional perspective, researchers can assess their impact on governance structures, understand the driving forces behind partnership trends, and evaluate their effectiveness as governance arrangements.⁹⁴ Expanding our perspective, global cooperation takes a broader stride. It encompasses a wide spectrum of collaborations between nations, illustrating the inclusivity and breadth of this concept.¹⁵¹ At the international level, achieving common goals, such as environmental protection and sustainable development, is crucial. “[P]ublic and private actors interact across national borders and political jurisdictions” (p.69).¹³² Here, too, the importance of structures, rules, and institutions for cooperation and achieving goals at a global level is emphasized.

Secondly, the actor perspective views partnerships as strategic instruments for achieving goals and solving problems for individual actors. It focuses on partnerships to promote actor-specific goals, such as CSR strategies.¹⁵² In contrast to the institutional perspective, the actor perspective does not question partnerships as a solution to fundamental social problems but examines partnerships as instruments for achieving specific goals.¹⁵³

By adopting an actor perspective, researchers can provide practical recommendations, offering actionable insights on when, how, and with whom to partner. This perspective also helps identify critical success factors for partnerships and improve the design of partnerships as strategic tools for the entities involved.⁹⁴

Both perspectives offer valuable insights into partnerships’ functioning and impact on sustainable development. Thus, Van Huijstee et al. (2007) recommend combining these two approaches, the institutional and actor perspectives.⁹⁴ This holistic view of partnerships for sustainable development, considering both the structural aspects (institutional perspective) and the individual actions of the actors (actor perspective), leads to a more comprehensive understanding of partnerships’ functioning, benefits, and challenges.

Implementation

Multistakeholder partnerships are essential in managing tensions in sustainability initiatives.²⁷

However, despite their potential, multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) face challenges. These include goal alignment between various stakeholders at the local and international levels.⁷⁹ Different disciplines and sectors can lead to rivalries and conflicts of interest as various actors pursue different goals and have different organizational structures and logic of action.¹⁵⁴ Moreover, internal and external stakeholders have diverse requirements and expectations.³⁸ However, Freeman (2023) notes that stakeholder interests are always intertwined.¹⁵⁵ Considering these challenges, several overarching aspects are paramount. Integrating communication, transparency, and a flexible organizational structure is crucial in leveraging partnerships effectively.⁴

First and foremost, communication between stakeholders is empowering.⁴ The knowledge exchange promotes transparency and mutual understanding. Since the issue of sustainability is a global one, it affects us all.⁵ Each actor must be encouraged to communicate openly to address concerns, share perspectives, and build mutual understanding. MSPs foster the inclusion of stakeholders, including businesses, governments, and individuals.⁹⁴^,¹⁴⁹ A cooperative approach that pools the expertise and resources of various actors is vital for tackling global sustainability challenges. Clear communication channels help prevent misunderstandings and proactively resolve conflicts.⁸⁵ By recognizing and understanding the different views and how these influence practices, organizations can find a balance for all stakeholders involved.⁹ Balancing different aspects of managing sustainability aligns with the integrative theory.⁶⁸ Communication thus aligns goals with reducing tensions as misunderstandings are cleared up and transparency is created.²⁷ Thus, the effectiveness of MSPs in managing tensions lies in their ability to promote inclusivity, transparency, and shared responsibility among participants.¹⁵⁶ Participatory decision-making gives all stakeholders a voice in shaping sustainability strategies, thereby increasing parties’ legitimacy, ownership, and acceptance. Capacity-building opportunities and training programs enhance participants’ skills, knowledge, and understanding of sustainability issues, reducing tensions arising from varying levels of expertise. Flexible governance structures can adapt to changing circumstances and address new issues, while robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms track progress and identify opportunities for improvement.¹⁵⁷ By incorporating these aspects into multistakeholder partnerships, stakeholders can effectively address and manage tensions in sustainability initiatives, fostering collaboration, innovation, and resilience in addressing complex environmental and social challenges.⁹³

The importance of partnerships is already recognized in some areas, such as the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a global initiative that prioritizes partnerships. Thus, approaches like Multinational Corporations (MNCs) have already adopted the UN’s SDGs as a framework for strategy direction.⁷ The 17 SDGs encourage the world to achieve sustainable development in ecological, economic, and social areas by.203060

Actions of organizations

The concept of multistakeholder partnerships emphasizes that individual organizations must contribute to a more extensive system to achieve sustainability. Companies are rarely fully independent; they always have “relationships with stakeholders such as suppliers, customers”, and society.¹⁵⁸ According to Elkington, multistakeholder partnerships are essential for achieving sustainability because they leverage different entities’ collective strengths and resources.¹³ Moreover, businesses must communicate with various groups and individuals to apply CS or SL strategies.⁴ “The spotlight in the CSR discourse has traditionally been focused on multinational corporations” (p.1).¹⁵⁹ These large corporations often set the standard for CSR practices and influence smaller organizations through their supply chains and market presence.⁷⁴^,¹⁵⁷ However, sustainable practices and partnerships are needed beyond multinational corporations to include small and medium-sized enterprises. Linking those enterprises equals a large organization in terms of power and responsibility. By working together, organizations can address sustainability challenges more effectively and create value that benefits both business and society. Partnerships related to organizational strategies are not just about formal agreements or collaborations; they also involve aligning values, sharing knowledge, and jointly developing solutions to complex problems.⁹³

In summary, multistakeholder partnerships play a vital role in organizational sustainability strategies. They facilitate the sharing of resources and knowledge, promote effective communication, and align the diverse interests of various stakeholders.²⁷ By leveraging these partnerships, organizations can enhance their sustainability efforts and contribute to broader societal goals.²⁷

3.4 Actions of implementation

The subdivision into the level, context, and change within CS highlights the complexity and multi-layered tensions that can arise when implementing sustainable practices.⁹ This analysis provides valuable insights for developing sustainable pathways that impact organizations and offers approaches to address CS challenges. Recognizing and addressing sustainability tensions is critical to driving sustainable development. However, it necessitates great stakeholder participation and collaboration. Organizations and individuals must work together to develop practical solutions and balance various interests, requiring a holistic view alongside continuous adaptation and innovation.

Before, it is crucial to recognize and constructively address intergenerational, global, economic, social, and environmental tensions. This requires close collaboration between local, national, and international actors and integrating knowledge, innovation, and technology into sustainable solutions.¹³⁵^,¹⁶⁰ Thus, to successfully create sustainable pathways, it is imperative to consider the different levels of sustainability – macro, meso, and micro – and comprehend the complexity of tensions between economic, environmental, and social aspects.¹⁷ Analyzing the context and considering change processes are pivotal in understanding the impact of external factors on sustainable practices and devising appropriate strategies for adaptation and innovation. Organizations should concentrate on integrative approaches that empower them to grasp the relationships and interactions between the different dimensions of sustainability and devise comprehensive solutions to manage tensions.⁸⁴

Important to highlight is the need for constant evolution to inspire and motivate meeting sustainability challenges head-on.³² Being aware of sustainability incrementalism or sustainability partiality and trying to embrace sustainability as a business ultimate goal is vital.

The ultimate objective is to create a balanced strategy that gives equal importance to economic, social, and environmental dimensions, ensuring a sustainable future for all. By integrating principles CSR, CS, and SL, organizations can identify sustainable pathways, minimize adverse impacts, and foster innovative practices to enhance corporate sustainability. Acknowledging and addressing these challenges can forge transformative pathways toward a sustainable future that harmonizes environmental health, social equity, and economic resilience.⁴¹^,⁸¹^,¹⁰³

4 Conclusion and limitation

Conclusion

As the world becomes increasingly globalized, fast-paced, and interconnected, an organization’s ability to navigate and manage competing demands will be crucial for long-term success. The level of ambition of the sustainability goals themselves is crucial regarding the effort required to achieve political or management coordination, bring together or involve stakeholders, set the same objectives, or formulate and implement priorities for the political agenda.¹

Achieving sustainable community development is a formidable task that demands immediate and substantial changes in our systems, mindsets, and principles. Thus, enabling individuals, businesses, and countries to use resources within the existing legal and economic frameworks is crucial to reach the dynamic balance between the earth’s population and the environment’s carrying capacity.¹¹⁹ Given the multi-layered discussion on managing tensions in sustainability, it is clear that recognizing and understanding the tensions between economic, social, and environmental aspects is central to addressing challenges, developing innovative solutions, and taking a holistic approach.²

The research applied integrative and cooperative thinking to distance from the “either-or” thinking and move towards the “both-and” idea. Considering responsibilities and the large impact of actions and decisions in organizations, management’s ability to embed sustainability deeply into the organizational system is needed.⁹ This multidisciplinary approach helps develop innovative solutions to some of the most complex sustainability challenges. This requires cooperation and collaboration among various stakeholders, including governments, businesses, and civil society organizations.¹¹⁹ MSPs promote knowledge transfer, effective communication, and aligning diverse interests toward common goals. Creating a sustainable future requires a collaborative and inclusive approach. It is crucial that each individual and organization takes responsibility and enacts the necessary changes. Ultimately, with the help of joint efforts and creative solutions, it is up to the entire population to balance economic growth, social justice, and environmental protection and thus ensure a sustainable future for future generations.

The work critically reflects on the topic’s complexity and emphasizes the need to consider different perspectives to gain a comprehensive understanding. In addition, it identifies potential challenges that could limit management implementation. These limitations could, for example, be due to knowledge gaps or individual persons, groups of persons, companies, and governments, which make it challenging to develop a unified approach.

The work emphasizes the importance of multi-stakeholder partnerships, innovative approaches, and continuous adaptation and offers valuable concepts for improving tensions in sustainability. Overall, the work provides valuable insight into the challenges and opportunities in pursuing a sustainable future. Thus, sustainability should not be a topic to worry about; suitable approaches offer satisfying prospects to a better and green future.³¹

Limitation

Significant progress has been made over the past years in identifying and proposing frameworks to manage tensions, especially the shift to simultaneously considering the three goals, the complexities associated with including sustainable practices, and the intricacy of the individual level. However, practical implementation remains challenging. In comparison to theoretical research, only a little attention was spent on empirical research, which is why the evidence in the practical realization of functionality is limited.⁴¹ Addressing the weaknesses and bridging the gap between theory and practice is essential for advancing sustainability meaningfully.⁶⁵ More studies are still needed to analyze the tensions and conflicts inherent in corporate sustainability.¹⁹

References

1
Nelson, J. & Grayson, D. in Corporate responsibility coalitions 300-317 (Routledge, 2017).
2
Van der Byl, C., Slawinski, N. & Hahn, T. in Research handbook of responsible management 438-452 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020).
3
Neukirchen, F. Die Folgen des Klimawandels. (Springer, 2019).
4
Liu, G. Impacts of instrumental versus relational centered logic on cause-related marketing decision making. Journal of business ethics 113, 243-263 (2013).
5
Berz, G. in Risiko: Erkundungen an den Grenzen des Wissens (ed Jürgen Pohl und Wolf Dieter Blümel Hans-Georg Bohle) 79-89 (Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2014).
6
Bencsik, A. & Pangsy-Kania, S. Sustainable Leadership Practices Based on the Logic of the Honeybee Pyramid—Comparison of Hungarian and Polish SMEs. Sustainability 15, 13103 (2023).
7
Geradts, T. & Jansen, J. in Handbook on the Business of Sustainability 152-169 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022).
8
Smith, W. K. & Lewis, M. W. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of management Review 36, 381-403 (2011).
9
Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L. & Figge, F. Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of business ethics 127, 297-316 (2015).
10
Hawken, P. The ecology of commerce. (Phoenix London, 1993).
11
Santos, F., Ferreira, P. & Pedersen, J. (s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published …, 2022).
12
Archer, I., Muirhead, L. & Forrester-Wilson, S. (2016).
13
Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. (Capstone, 1997).
14
Bayley, A. & Strange, T. OECD Insights: Nachhaltige Entwicklung: Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft, Umwelt Im Zusammenhang Betrachtet. (OECD Publishing, 2009).
15
Fifka, M. S. Sustainability, Corporate Social Responsibility und Corporate Citizenship–ein Abgrenzungsversuch im Begriffswirrwarr. Nachhaltiges Management–Sustainability, Supply Chain, Stakeholder, 29-49 (2011).
16
Brennan, G. & Tennant, M. Sustainable value and trade‐offs: Exploring situational logics and power relations in a UK brewery’s malt supply network business model. Business Strategy and the Environment 27, 621-630 (2018).
17
Wagner, M. & Löw, J. Spannungen bei der Umsetzung von Nachhaltigkeitszielen. (2023).
18
Margolis, J. D. & Walsh, J. P. Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative science quarterly 48, 268-305 (2003).
19
Daddi, T., Ceglia, D., Bianchi, G. & de Barcellos, M. D. Paradoxical tensions and corporate sustainability: A focus on circular economy business cases. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 26, 770-780 (2019).
20
Jay, J., Borland, H., Orlitzky, M., Lindgreen, A. Seeing Versus Doing: How Businesses Manage Tensions in Pursuit of Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics 164, 349-370 (2018).
21
Wikström, P. A. Sustainability and organizational activities–three approaches. Sustainable Development 18, 99-107 (2010).
22
Borim-de-Souza, R., Zanoni, B. L., Jan-Chiba, J. H. F. & Borinelli, B. Organizations and sustainability: A field of knowledge. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 31, 365-384 (2020).
23
Drucker, P. F. Organizations. Harvard business review 20, 281-293 (1992).
24
Bansal, P. & DesJardine, M. R. Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic organization 12, 70-78 (2014).
25
Bachmann, G. Warum Nachhaltigkeit. UTOPIEkreativ 153, 154 (2003).
26
Porter, M. E. & Linde, C. v. d. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of economic perspectives 9, 97-118 (1995).
27
Pinkse, J. & Kolk, A. Addressing the climate change—sustainable development nexus: The role of multistakeholder partnerships. Business & Society 51, 176-210 (2012).
28
Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I. & Serafeim, G. The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management science 60, 2835-2857 (2014).
29
Salonen, A. O. & Åhlberg, M. Sustainability in everyday life: Integrating environmental, social, and economic goals. Sustainability: The Journal of Record 4, 134-142 (2011).
30
Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J. & Preuss, L. A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. Journal of business ethics 148, 235-248 (2018).
31
Kok, A. M., de Bakker, F. G. & Groenewegen, P. Sustainability struggles: Conflicting cultures and incompatible logics. Business & Society 58, 1496-1532 (2019).
32
Lewis, M. W. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management review 25, 760-776 (2000).
33
Clegg, S. R., da Cunha, J. V. & e Cunha, M. P. Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human relations 55, 483-503 (2002).
34
Smith, W. K. & Tushman, M. L. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization science 16, 522-536 (2005).
35
Poole, M. S. & Van de Ven, A. H. Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of management review 14, 562-578 (1989).
36
Tushman, M. L. & O’Reilly III, C. A. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review 38, 8-29 (1996).
37
Lüscher, L. S. & Lewis, M. W. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of management Journal 51, 221-240 (2008).
38
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S. & Smith, W. K. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of management annals 10, 5-64 (2016).
39
Cameron, K. S. Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management science 32, 539-553 (1986).
40
Walley, N. & Whitehead, B. It’s not easy being green. Reader in Business and the Environment 36, 4 (1994).
41
Suriyankietkaew, S. & Avery, G. Sustainable leadership practices driving financial performance: Empirical evidence from Thai SMEs. Sustainability 8, 327 (2016).
42
Yuan, W., Bao, Y. & Verbeke, A. Integrating CSR initiatives in business: An organizing framework. Journal of Business Ethics 101, 75-92 (2011).
43
Khudhair, A. A., Norwani, N. M., Ahmed, A. & Aljajawy, T. M. The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance of Iraqi Corporations: A Literature. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing 15, 28-33 (2019).
44
Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., Hahn, T. & Figge, F. Travelled roads and novel vistas: Taking stock of empirical studies into tensions in business sustainability. The Routledge companion to corporate social responsibility, 342-354 (2021).
45
Bengtsson, M. & Raza-Ullah, T. Paradoxical tensions at multiple levels and top management team cross-level bridging in coopetition: A conceptual model. Strategic Management Review (2022).
46
Kolk, A., Van Tulder, R. & Welters, C. International codes of conduct and corporate social responsibility: can transnational corporations regulate themselves? Transnational corporations 8, 143-180 (1999).
47
Battilana, J. & Lee, M. Advancing research on hybrid organizing–Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals 8, 397-441 (2014).
48
Andriopoulos, C. & Lewis, M. W. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization science 20, 696-717 (2009).
49
Slawinski, N. & Bansal, P. Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organization Science26, 531-549 (2015).
50
Smith, W. K. & Tracey, P. Institutional complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of competing demands. Strategic organization 14, 455-466 (2016).
51
Böhm, B., Böhm, L., Böttcher, F., Richter, F. & Sell-Greiser, C. in Von Beteiligung zur Koproduktion: Wege der Zusammenarbeit von Kommune und Bürgerschaft für eine zukunftsfähige kommunale Entwicklung 159-191 (Springer, 2022).
52
Sabini, L. & Alderman, N. The paradoxical profession: Project management and the contradictory nature of sustainable project objectives. Project Management Journal 52, 379-393 (2021).
53
Heinrichs, H. Sustainable statehood: Reflections on critical (pre-) conditions, requirements and design options. Sustainability 14, 9461 (2022).
54
Bansal, P. & McKnight, B. Looking forward, pushing back and peering sideways: analyzing the sustainability of industrial symbiosis. Journal of Supply Chain Management 45, 26-37 (2009).
55
York, R., Rosa, E. A. & Dietz, T. Footprints on the earth: The environmental consequences of modernity. American sociological review 68, 279-300 (2003).
56
Pellow, D. N., Weinberg, A. & Schnaiberg, A. The environmental justice movement: Equitable allocation of the costs and benefits of environmental management outcomes. Social Justice Research 14, 423-439 (2001).
57
Barbier, E. B. & Burgess, J. C. The Sustainable Development Goals and the systems approach to sustainability. Economics 11, 20170028 (2017).
58
Najjar, M., Small, M. H. & M. Yasin, M. Social sustainability strategy across the supply chain: A conceptual approach from the organisational perspective. Sustainability 12, 10438 (2020).
59
Siegner, M., Pinkse, J. & Panwar, R. Managing tensions in a social enterprise: The complex balancing act to deliver a multi-faceted but coherent social mission. Journal of cleaner production 174, 1314-1324 (2018).
60
Steffen, W. et al. Global change and the earth system: a planet under pressure. (Springer Science & Business Media, 2005).
61
Cavender-Bares, J. et al. in Encyclopedia of Biodiversity: Second Edition 71-84 (Elsevier Inc., 2013).
62
Jennings, P. D. & Zandbergen, P. A. Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. Academy of management review 20, 1015-1052 (1995).
63
Hemingway, C. A. & Maclagan, P. W. Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of business ethics 50, 33-44 (2004).
64
Sharma, G. & Bansal, P. Partners for good: How business and NGOs engage the commercial–social paradox. Organization studies 38, 341-364 (2017).
65
Joseph, J., Borland, H., Orlitzky, M. & Lindgreen, A. Seeing versus doing: How businesses manage tensions in pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics 164, 349-370 (2020).
66
Brundtland, G. H. World commission on environment and development. Environmental policy and law 14, 26-30 (1985).
67
Persson, T. & Tabellini, G. Political institutions and policy outcomes: what are the stylized facts? (2001).
68
Gao, J. & Bansal, P. Instrumental and integrative logics in business sustainability. Journal of business ethics 112, 241-255 (2013).
69
Friedman, M. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profts. New York Times Magazine 13, 32-33 (1970).
70
Husted, B. W. & de Jesus Salazar, J. Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance. Journal of Management studies 43, 75-91 (2006).
71
Dentchev, N. A. Corporate social performance as a business strategy. Journal of business ethics 55, 395-410 (2004).
72
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L. & Rynes, S. L. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization studies 24, 403-441 (2003).
73
Bonacchi, M. & Rinaldi, L. DartBoards and Clovers as new tools in sustainability planning and control. Business Strategy and the Environment 16, 461-473 (2007).
74
Bansal, S., Garg, I. & Vasa, L. Can social enterprises aid sustainable development? Evidence from multi-stage investigations. Plos one 18, e0281273 (2023).
75
Angus‐Leppan, T., Benn, S. & Young, L. A sensemaking approach to trade‐offs and synergies between human and ecological elements of corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment 19, 230-244 (2010).
76
Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J. & Preuss, L. Vol. 19 217-229 (Wiley Online Library, 2010).
77
Bonini, S., Görner, S., Jones, A., Ballek, M. How companies manage sustainability, 2010).
78
Molderez, I. in Decent Work and Economic Growth 116-128 (Springer, 2020).
79
Kremer, M., van Lieshout, P. & Went, R. Doing good or doing better: development policies in a globalizing world. Vol. 21 (Amsterdam University Press, 2009).
80
Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A. & Steger, U. The business case for corporate sustainability:: literature review and research options. European management journal 23, 27-36 (2005).
81
Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F. & Hansen, E. G. Business cases for sustainability: the role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. International journal of innovation and sustainable development 6, 95-119 (2012).
82
Newton, T. Practical idealism: an oxymoron? Journal of Management Studies 42, 869-884 (2005).
83
Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business strategy and the environment 11, 130-141 (2002).
84
Kleine, A. & Von Hauff, M. Sustainability-driven implementation of corporate social responsibility: Application of the integrative sustainability triangle. Journal of business ethics 85, 517-533 (2009).
85
Ahmadsimab, A. & Chowdhury, I. Managing tensions and divergent institutional logics in firm–NPO partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics 168, 651-670 (2021).
86
Johnson, R. A. & Greening, D. W. The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of management journal 42, 564-576 (1999).
87
Battilana, J. & Dorado, S. Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of management Journal 53, 1419-1440 (2010).
88
Durand, R. & Thornton, P. H. Categorizing institutional logics, institutionalizing categories: A review of two literatures. Academy of Management Annals 12, 631-658 (2018).
89
Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H. & Drumwright, M. E. Mainstreaming corporate social responsibility: Developing markets for virtue. California management review 49, 132-157 (2007).
90
Ogrean, C. & Herciu, M. Business models addressing sustainability challenges—Towards a new research agenda. Sustainability 12, 3534 (2020).
91
Quinn, R. E. & Cameron, K. S. Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. (Ballinger Publishing Co/Harper & Row Publishers, 1988).
92
Ford, J. D. & Ford, L. W. Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of management review 19, 756-785 (1994).
93
Schäferhoff, M., Campe, S. & Kaan, C. Transnational public-private partnerships in international relations: Making sense of concepts, research frameworks, and results. International Studies Review 11, 451-474 (2009).
94
Van Huijstee, M. M., Francken, M. & Leroy, P. Partnerships for sustainable development: A review of current literature. Environmental sciences 4, 75-89 (2007).
95
Orlitzky, M., Siegel, D. S. & Waldman, D. A. Strategic corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability. Business & society 50, 6-27 (2011).
96
Kutzschbach, J., Tanikulova, P. & Lueg, R. The role of top managers in implementing corporate sustainability—A systematic literature review on small and medium-sized enterprises. Administrative Sciences 11, 44 (2021).
97
UNGC. (New York, 2018).
98
Wijethilake, C., Upadhaya, B. & Lama, T. The role of organisational culture in organisational change towards sustainability: evidence from the garment manufacturing industry. Production Planning & Control 34, 275-294 (2023).
99
Starik, M. & Rands, G. P. Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of management Review 20, 908-935 (1995).
100
Bansal, P. Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic management journal 26, 197-218 (2005).
101
Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J. & Krause, T.-S. Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of management Review 20, 874-907 (1995).
102
Shrivastava, P. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of management review 20, 936-960 (1995).
103
Kantabutra, S. & Ketprapakorn, N. Toward a theory of corporate sustainability: A theoretical integration and exploration. Journal of Cleaner Production 270, 122292 (2020).
104
Bijsmans, P. & Altides, C. ‘Bridging the gap’between EU politics and citizens? The European Commission, national media and EU affairs in the public sphere. European Integration 29, 323-340 (2007).
105
Blühdorn, I. The legitimation crisis of democracy: emancipatory politics, the environmental state and the glass ceiling to socio-ecological transformation. Environmental Politics 29, 38-57 (2020).
106
Russo, M. V. & Fouts, P. A. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of management Journal 40, 534-559 (1997).
107
Gunningham, N., Kagan, R. A. & Thornton, D. Shades of green: business, regulation, and environment. (Stanford University Press, 2003).
108
Barkemeyer, R., Figge, F., Holt, D. & Hahn, T. What the papers say: Trends in sustainability: A comparative analysis of 115 leading national newspapers worldwide. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 69-86 (2009).
109
Schmidt, B. & Schmidt, B. Definitorische Grundlagen und theoretische Einordnung des Untersuchungsgegenstands unternehmerischer Nachhaltigkeit. Soziale Nachhaltigkeit bei der Lieferantenauswahl: Eine conjoint-und kausalanalytische ökonomische Untersuchung, 8-57 (2013).
110
Cervantes Puma, G. C., Salles, A., Turk, J., Ungureanu, V. & Bragança, L. Utilisation of Reused Steel and Slag: Analysing the Circular Economy Benefits through Three Case Studies. Buildings 14, 979 (2024).
111
Kaptein, M. & Wempe, J. Sustainability management: Balancing conflicting economic, environmental and social corporate responsibilities. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 91-106 (2001).
112
Laws, N. & Heinrichs, H. in Forum hlz. 141.
113
Bansal, P. & Song, H.-C. Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Annals 11, 105-149 (2017).
114
Martin, J. Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. (Oxford University Press, 1992).
115
Bansal, P. & Roth, K. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of management journal 43, 717-736 (2000).
116
Sharma, A., Borah, S. B., Haque, T. & Adhikary, A. Engaging customers and suppliers for environmental sustainability: Investigating the drivers and the effects on firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1-26 (2024).
117
Randers, J. 2052: A global forecast for the next forty years. (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2012).
118
Jayashree, P., El Barachi, M. & Hamza, F. Practice of sustainability leadership: A multi-stakeholder inclusive framework. Sustainability 14, 6346 (2022).
119
Roseland, M. Sustainable community development: integrating environmental, economic, and social objectives. Progress in planning 54, 73-132 (2000).
120
Die-Bundesregierung. Desinformation: Was die Bundesregierung unternimmt und was Sie tun können, 2024).
121
Tippelt, R. Weiterbildung und Umwelt. Handbuch Erwachsenenbildung/Weiterbildung, 278-292 (1999).
122
Whiteman, G., Walker, B. & Perego, P. Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of management studies 50, 307-336 (2013).
123
Die-Bundesregierung. Über die Klimakrise: Mit Fakten gegen Mythen und Falschmeldungen, 2023).
124
Ritchie, H., Rosado, P. & Roser, M. Energy mix. Our world in data (2024).
125
Blomsma, F. & Tennant, M. Circular economy: Preserving materials or products? Introducing the Resource States framework. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 156, 104698 (2020).
126
Völker Lehmkuhl, K., Reisinger, C. Wegweiser Nachhaltigkeit – Praxisorientierter Überblick zu Berichterstattung und Prüfung. (IDW Verlag GmbH, 2019).
127
in Codio Impact (https://www.codioimpact.com/de-blog/bedeutung-von-nachhaltigkeit, 2022).
128
Tascioglu, M. Sustainable supply chain management: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Management Marketing and Logistics 2 (2015).
129
Deutscher-Bundestag. Konzept Nachhaltigkeit, 1998).
130
Röttger, U. & Schmitt, J. Erfolgsfaktoren der CR-Kommunikation: Eine qualitative Studie zur Kommunikation der gesellschaftlichen Verantwortung von Unternehmen in Deutschland. (Forschungsberichte zur Unternehmenskommunikation, 2014).
131
Pastore, A. & Massacesi, A. Sustainable Leadership in Europe. (Research Report, CEC European Managers 2020. Available online: https://sustainableleaders.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Sustainable-Leadership-in-Europe-Report.pdf 2020).
132
Andonova, L. B., Betsill, M. M. & Bulkeley, H. Transnational climate governance. Global environmental politics9, 52-73 (2009).
133
(ed BMZ) (Bundesministerium für wirtschafltiche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, https://www.bmz.de/de/service/lexikon/european-green-deal-118284, 2019).
134
Dubey, K. in sphera (2022).
135
Zadek, S. Responsible competitiveness: Reshaping global markets through responsible business practices. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 6, 334-348 (2006).
136
Bocken, N. M., Short, S. W., Rana, P. & Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of cleaner production 65, 42-56 (2014).
137
Ashrafi, M., Adams, M., Walker, T. R. & Magnan, G. How corporate social responsibility can be integrated into corporate sustainability: A theoretical review of their relationships. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 25, 672-682 (2018).
138
Carroll, A. B. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & society 38, 268-295 (1999).
139
Friedman, M. in Corporate ethics and corporate governance 173-178 (Springer, 2007).
140
Davis, K. Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California management review 2, 70-76 (1960).
141
Ahenkora, K., Banahene, S. & Quartey, J. Societal value antecedent of corporate social responsibility and business strategy. (2016).
142
Wren, D. A. & Bedeian, A. G. The evolution of management thought. (John Wiley & Sons, 2023).
143
Hoffman, A. J. The next phase of business sustainability. Stanford Social Innovation Review 16, 34-39 (2018).
144
Kolk, A. & Perego, P. Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance statements: An international investigation. Business strategy and the environment 19, 182-198 (2010).
145
Zhang, M., Pawar, K. S. & Bhardwaj, S. Improving supply chain social responsibility through supplier development. Production Planning & Control 28, 500-511 (2017).
146
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal 18, 509-533 (1997).
147
Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K. & Van de Ven, A. H. Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic organization 11, 245-280 (2013).
148
Orzes, G. et al. The impact of the United Nations global compact on firm performance: A longitudinal analysis. International Journal of Production Economics 227, 107664 (2020).
149
Waddock, S. A. & Graves, S. B. The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic management journal 18, 303-319 (1997).
150
Pattberg, P. Private environmental governance and the sustainability transition: functions and impacts of NGO-business partnerships. Klaus Jacob, Manfred Binder and Anna Wieczorek (eds.), 52-66 (2004).
151
Waddell, S. Global action networks: A global invention helping business make globalisation work for all. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 27-42 (2003).
152
Juniper, C. & Moore, M. Synergies and best practices of corporate partnerships for sustainability. Corporate Environmental Strategy 9, 267-276 (2002).
153
Stafford, E. R., Polonsky, M. J. & Hartman, C. L. Environmental NGO–business collaboration and strategic bridging: a case analysis of the Greenpeace–Foron Alliance. Business Strategy and the environment 9, 122-135 (2000).
154
Schneider, V. Bringing society back in: actors, networks, and systems in public policy. (Springer, 2020).
155
Freeman, R. E. in R. Edward Freeman’s selected works on stakeholder theory and business ethics 295-299 (Springer, 2023).
156
Hemmati, M. Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability: beyond deadlock and conflict. (Routledge, 2012).
157
MacDonald, A., Clarke, A. & Huang, L. in Business and the ethical implications of technology 103-120 (Springer, 2022).
158
Mujih, E. C. ‘Co-deregulation’of Multinational Companies Operating in Developing Countries: Partnering against Corporate Social Responsibility? African Journal of International and Comparative Law 16, 249-261 (2008).
159
Jamali, D., Zanhour, M. & Keshishian, T. Peculiar strengths and relational attributes of SMEs in the context of CSR. Journal of business Ethics 87, 355-377 (2009).
160
Nauen, C. E. Common wealth: Economics for a crowded planet. A Review., (2008).

1
Nelson, J. & Grayson, D. in Corporate responsibility coalitions 300-317 (Routledge, 2017).
2
Van der Byl, C., Slawinski, N. & Hahn, T. in Research handbook of responsible management 438-452 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2020).
3
Neukirchen, F. Die Folgen des Klimawandels. (Springer, 2019).
4
Liu, G. Impacts of instrumental versus relational centered logic on cause-related marketing decision making. Journal of business ethics 113, 243-263 (2013).
5
Berz, G. in Risiko: Erkundungen an den Grenzen des Wissens (ed Jürgen Pohl und Wolf Dieter Blümel Hans-Georg Bohle) 79-89 (Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2014).
6
Bencsik, A. & Pangsy-Kania, S. Sustainable Leadership Practices Based on the Logic of the Honeybee Pyramid—Comparison of Hungarian and Polish SMEs. Sustainability 15, 13103 (2023).
7
Geradts, T. & Jansen, J. in Handbook on the Business of Sustainability 152-169 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022).
8
Smith, W. K. & Lewis, M. W. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of management Review 36, 381-403 (2011).
9
Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L. & Figge, F. Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of business ethics 127, 297-316 (2015).
10
Hawken, P. The ecology of commerce. (Phoenix London, 1993).
11
Santos, F., Ferreira, P. & Pedersen, J. (s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published …, 2022).
12
Archer, I., Muirhead, L. & Forrester-Wilson, S. (2016).
13
Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. (Capstone, 1997).
14
Bayley, A. & Strange, T. OECD Insights: Nachhaltige Entwicklung: Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft, Umwelt Im Zusammenhang Betrachtet. (OECD Publishing, 2009).
15
Fifka, M. S. Sustainability, Corporate Social Responsibility und Corporate Citizenship–ein Abgrenzungsversuch im Begriffswirrwarr. Nachhaltiges Management–Sustainability, Supply Chain, Stakeholder, 29-49 (2011).
16
Brennan, G. & Tennant, M. Sustainable value and trade‐offs: Exploring situational logics and power relations in a UK brewery’s malt supply network business model. Business Strategy and the Environment 27, 621-630 (2018).
17
Wagner, M. & Löw, J. Spannungen bei der Umsetzung von Nachhaltigkeitszielen. (2023).
18
Margolis, J. D. & Walsh, J. P. Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative science quarterly 48, 268-305 (2003).
19
Daddi, T., Ceglia, D., Bianchi, G. & de Barcellos, M. D. Paradoxical tensions and corporate sustainability: A focus on circular economy business cases. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 26, 770-780 (2019).
20
Jay, J., Borland, H., Orlitzky, M., Lindgreen, A. Seeing Versus Doing: How Businesses Manage Tensions in Pursuit of Sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics 164, 349-370 (2018).
21
Wikström, P. A. Sustainability and organizational activities–three approaches. Sustainable Development 18, 99-107 (2010).
22
Borim-de-Souza, R., Zanoni, B. L., Jan-Chiba, J. H. F. & Borinelli, B. Organizations and sustainability: A field of knowledge. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 31, 365-384 (2020).
23
Drucker, P. F. Organizations. Harvard business review 20, 281-293 (1992).
24
Bansal, P. & DesJardine, M. R. Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic organization 12, 70-78 (2014).
25
Bachmann, G. Warum Nachhaltigkeit. UTOPIEkreativ 153, 154 (2003).
26
Porter, M. E. & Linde, C. v. d. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of economic perspectives 9, 97-118 (1995).
27
Pinkse, J. & Kolk, A. Addressing the climate change—sustainable development nexus: The role of multistakeholder partnerships. Business & Society 51, 176-210 (2012).
28
Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I. & Serafeim, G. The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management science 60, 2835-2857 (2014).
29
Salonen, A. O. & Åhlberg, M. Sustainability in everyday life: Integrating environmental, social, and economic goals. Sustainability: The Journal of Record 4, 134-142 (2011).
30
Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J. & Preuss, L. A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. Journal of business ethics 148, 235-248 (2018).
31
Kok, A. M., de Bakker, F. G. & Groenewegen, P. Sustainability struggles: Conflicting cultures and incompatible logics. Business & Society 58, 1496-1532 (2019).
32
Lewis, M. W. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management review 25, 760-776 (2000).
33
Clegg, S. R., da Cunha, J. V. & e Cunha, M. P. Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human relations 55, 483-503 (2002).
34
Smith, W. K. & Tushman, M. L. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization science 16, 522-536 (2005).
35
Poole, M. S. & Van de Ven, A. H. Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of management review 14, 562-578 (1989).
36
Tushman, M. L. & O’Reilly III, C. A. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review 38, 8-29 (1996).
37
Lüscher, L. S. & Lewis, M. W. Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of management Journal 51, 221-240 (2008).
38
Schad, J., Lewis, M. W., Raisch, S. & Smith, W. K. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of management annals 10, 5-64 (2016).
39
Cameron, K. S. Effectiveness as paradox: Consensus and conflict in conceptions of organizational effectiveness. Management science 32, 539-553 (1986).
40
Walley, N. & Whitehead, B. It’s not easy being green. Reader in Business and the Environment 36, 4 (1994).
41
Suriyankietkaew, S. & Avery, G. Sustainable leadership practices driving financial performance: Empirical evidence from Thai SMEs. Sustainability 8, 327 (2016).
42
Yuan, W., Bao, Y. & Verbeke, A. Integrating CSR initiatives in business: An organizing framework. Journal of Business Ethics 101, 75-92 (2011).
43
Khudhair, A. A., Norwani, N. M., Ahmed, A. & Aljajawy, T. M. The Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance of Iraqi Corporations: A Literature. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing 15, 28-33 (2019).
44
Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., Hahn, T. & Figge, F. Travelled roads and novel vistas: Taking stock of empirical studies into tensions in business sustainability. The Routledge companion to corporate social responsibility, 342-354 (2021).
45
Bengtsson, M. & Raza-Ullah, T. Paradoxical tensions at multiple levels and top management team cross-level bridging in coopetition: A conceptual model. Strategic Management Review (2022).
46
Kolk, A., Van Tulder, R. & Welters, C. International codes of conduct and corporate social responsibility: can transnational corporations regulate themselves? Transnational corporations 8, 143-180 (1999).
47
Battilana, J. & Lee, M. Advancing research on hybrid organizing–Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals 8, 397-441 (2014).
48
Andriopoulos, C. & Lewis, M. W. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization science 20, 696-717 (2009).
49
Slawinski, N. & Bansal, P. Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organization Science26, 531-549 (2015).
50
Smith, W. K. & Tracey, P. Institutional complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of competing demands. Strategic organization 14, 455-466 (2016).
51
Böhm, B., Böhm, L., Böttcher, F., Richter, F. & Sell-Greiser, C. in Von Beteiligung zur Koproduktion: Wege der Zusammenarbeit von Kommune und Bürgerschaft für eine zukunftsfähige kommunale Entwicklung 159-191 (Springer, 2022).
52
Sabini, L. & Alderman, N. The paradoxical profession: Project management and the contradictory nature of sustainable project objectives. Project Management Journal 52, 379-393 (2021).
53
Heinrichs, H. Sustainable statehood: Reflections on critical (pre-) conditions, requirements and design options. Sustainability 14, 9461 (2022).
54
Bansal, P. & McKnight, B. Looking forward, pushing back and peering sideways: analyzing the sustainability of industrial symbiosis. Journal of Supply Chain Management 45, 26-37 (2009).
55
York, R., Rosa, E. A. & Dietz, T. Footprints on the earth: The environmental consequences of modernity. American sociological review 68, 279-300 (2003).
56
Pellow, D. N., Weinberg, A. & Schnaiberg, A. The environmental justice movement: Equitable allocation of the costs and benefits of environmental management outcomes. Social Justice Research 14, 423-439 (2001).
57
Barbier, E. B. & Burgess, J. C. The Sustainable Development Goals and the systems approach to sustainability. Economics 11, 20170028 (2017).
58
Najjar, M., Small, M. H. & M. Yasin, M. Social sustainability strategy across the supply chain: A conceptual approach from the organisational perspective. Sustainability 12, 10438 (2020).
59
Siegner, M., Pinkse, J. & Panwar, R. Managing tensions in a social enterprise: The complex balancing act to deliver a multi-faceted but coherent social mission. Journal of cleaner production 174, 1314-1324 (2018).
60
Steffen, W. et al. Global change and the earth system: a planet under pressure. (Springer Science & Business Media, 2005).
61
Cavender-Bares, J. et al. in Encyclopedia of Biodiversity: Second Edition 71-84 (Elsevier Inc., 2013).
62
Jennings, P. D. & Zandbergen, P. A. Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. Academy of management review 20, 1015-1052 (1995).
63
Hemingway, C. A. & Maclagan, P. W. Managers’ personal values as drivers of corporate social responsibility. Journal of business ethics 50, 33-44 (2004).
64
Sharma, G. & Bansal, P. Partners for good: How business and NGOs engage the commercial–social paradox. Organization studies 38, 341-364 (2017).
65
Joseph, J., Borland, H., Orlitzky, M. & Lindgreen, A. Seeing versus doing: How businesses manage tensions in pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics 164, 349-370 (2020).
66
Brundtland, G. H. World commission on environment and development. Environmental policy and law 14, 26-30 (1985).
67
Persson, T. & Tabellini, G. Political institutions and policy outcomes: what are the stylized facts? (2001).
68
Gao, J. & Bansal, P. Instrumental and integrative logics in business sustainability. Journal of business ethics 112, 241-255 (2013).
69
Friedman, M. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profts. New York Times Magazine 13, 32-33 (1970).
70
Husted, B. W. & de Jesus Salazar, J. Taking Friedman seriously: Maximizing profits and social performance. Journal of Management studies 43, 75-91 (2006).
71
Dentchev, N. A. Corporate social performance as a business strategy. Journal of business ethics 55, 395-410 (2004).
72
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L. & Rynes, S. L. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization studies 24, 403-441 (2003).
73
Bonacchi, M. & Rinaldi, L. DartBoards and Clovers as new tools in sustainability planning and control. Business Strategy and the Environment 16, 461-473 (2007).
74
Bansal, S., Garg, I. & Vasa, L. Can social enterprises aid sustainable development? Evidence from multi-stage investigations. Plos one 18, e0281273 (2023).
75
Angus‐Leppan, T., Benn, S. & Young, L. A sensemaking approach to trade‐offs and synergies between human and ecological elements of corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment 19, 230-244 (2010).
76
Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J. & Preuss, L. Vol. 19 217-229 (Wiley Online Library, 2010).
77
Bonini, S., Görner, S., Jones, A., Ballek, M. How companies manage sustainability, 2010).
78
Molderez, I. in Decent Work and Economic Growth 116-128 (Springer, 2020).
79
Kremer, M., van Lieshout, P. & Went, R. Doing good or doing better: development policies in a globalizing world. Vol. 21 (Amsterdam University Press, 2009).
80
Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A. & Steger, U. The business case for corporate sustainability:: literature review and research options. European management journal 23, 27-36 (2005).
81
Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F. & Hansen, E. G. Business cases for sustainability: the role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. International journal of innovation and sustainable development 6, 95-119 (2012).
82
Newton, T. Practical idealism: an oxymoron? Journal of Management Studies 42, 869-884 (2005).
83
Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business strategy and the environment 11, 130-141 (2002).
84
Kleine, A. & Von Hauff, M. Sustainability-driven implementation of corporate social responsibility: Application of the integrative sustainability triangle. Journal of business ethics 85, 517-533 (2009).
85
Ahmadsimab, A. & Chowdhury, I. Managing tensions and divergent institutional logics in firm–NPO partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics 168, 651-670 (2021).
86
Johnson, R. A. & Greening, D. W. The effects of corporate governance and institutional ownership types on corporate social performance. Academy of management journal 42, 564-576 (1999).
87
Battilana, J. & Dorado, S. Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of management Journal 53, 1419-1440 (2010).
88
Durand, R. & Thornton, P. H. Categorizing institutional logics, institutionalizing categories: A review of two literatures. Academy of Management Annals 12, 631-658 (2018).
89
Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H. & Drumwright, M. E. Mainstreaming corporate social responsibility: Developing markets for virtue. California management review 49, 132-157 (2007).
90
Ogrean, C. & Herciu, M. Business models addressing sustainability challenges—Towards a new research agenda. Sustainability 12, 3534 (2020).
91
Quinn, R. E. & Cameron, K. S. Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. (Ballinger Publishing Co/Harper & Row Publishers, 1988).
92
Ford, J. D. & Ford, L. W. Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of management review 19, 756-785 (1994).
93
Schäferhoff, M., Campe, S. & Kaan, C. Transnational public-private partnerships in international relations: Making sense of concepts, research frameworks, and results. International Studies Review 11, 451-474 (2009).
94
Van Huijstee, M. M., Francken, M. & Leroy, P. Partnerships for sustainable development: A review of current literature. Environmental sciences 4, 75-89 (2007).
95
Orlitzky, M., Siegel, D. S. & Waldman, D. A. Strategic corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability. Business & society 50, 6-27 (2011).
96
Kutzschbach, J., Tanikulova, P. & Lueg, R. The role of top managers in implementing corporate sustainability—A systematic literature review on small and medium-sized enterprises. Administrative Sciences 11, 44 (2021).
97
UNGC. (New York, 2018).
98
Wijethilake, C., Upadhaya, B. & Lama, T. The role of organisational culture in organisational change towards sustainability: evidence from the garment manufacturing industry. Production Planning & Control 34, 275-294 (2023).
99
Starik, M. & Rands, G. P. Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of management Review 20, 908-935 (1995).
100
Bansal, P. Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic management journal 26, 197-218 (2005).
101
Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J. & Krause, T.-S. Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of management Review 20, 874-907 (1995).
102
Shrivastava, P. The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of management review 20, 936-960 (1995).
103
Kantabutra, S. & Ketprapakorn, N. Toward a theory of corporate sustainability: A theoretical integration and exploration. Journal of Cleaner Production 270, 122292 (2020).
104
Bijsmans, P. & Altides, C. ‘Bridging the gap’between EU politics and citizens? The European Commission, national media and EU affairs in the public sphere. European Integration 29, 323-340 (2007).
105
Blühdorn, I. The legitimation crisis of democracy: emancipatory politics, the environmental state and the glass ceiling to socio-ecological transformation. Environmental Politics 29, 38-57 (2020).
106
Russo, M. V. & Fouts, P. A. A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of management Journal 40, 534-559 (1997).
107
Gunningham, N., Kagan, R. A. & Thornton, D. Shades of green: business, regulation, and environment. (Stanford University Press, 2003).
108
Barkemeyer, R., Figge, F., Holt, D. & Hahn, T. What the papers say: Trends in sustainability: A comparative analysis of 115 leading national newspapers worldwide. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 69-86 (2009).
109
Schmidt, B. & Schmidt, B. Definitorische Grundlagen und theoretische Einordnung des Untersuchungsgegenstands unternehmerischer Nachhaltigkeit. Soziale Nachhaltigkeit bei der Lieferantenauswahl: Eine conjoint-und kausalanalytische ökonomische Untersuchung, 8-57 (2013).
110
Cervantes Puma, G. C., Salles, A., Turk, J., Ungureanu, V. & Bragança, L. Utilisation of Reused Steel and Slag: Analysing the Circular Economy Benefits through Three Case Studies. Buildings 14, 979 (2024).
111
Kaptein, M. & Wempe, J. Sustainability management: Balancing conflicting economic, environmental and social corporate responsibilities. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 91-106 (2001).
112
Laws, N. & Heinrichs, H. in Forum hlz. 141.
113
Bansal, P. & Song, H.-C. Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Annals 11, 105-149 (2017).
114
Martin, J. Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. (Oxford University Press, 1992).
115
Bansal, P. & Roth, K. Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of management journal 43, 717-736 (2000).
116
Sharma, A., Borah, S. B., Haque, T. & Adhikary, A. Engaging customers and suppliers for environmental sustainability: Investigating the drivers and the effects on firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1-26 (2024).
117
Randers, J. 2052: A global forecast for the next forty years. (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2012).
118
Jayashree, P., El Barachi, M. & Hamza, F. Practice of sustainability leadership: A multi-stakeholder inclusive framework. Sustainability 14, 6346 (2022).
119
Roseland, M. Sustainable community development: integrating environmental, economic, and social objectives. Progress in planning 54, 73-132 (2000).
120
Die-Bundesregierung. Desinformation: Was die Bundesregierung unternimmt und was Sie tun können, 2024).
121
Tippelt, R. Weiterbildung und Umwelt. Handbuch Erwachsenenbildung/Weiterbildung, 278-292 (1999).
122
Whiteman, G., Walker, B. & Perego, P. Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of management studies 50, 307-336 (2013).
123
Die-Bundesregierung. Über die Klimakrise: Mit Fakten gegen Mythen und Falschmeldungen, 2023).
124
Ritchie, H., Rosado, P. & Roser, M. Energy mix. Our world in data (2024).
125
Blomsma, F. & Tennant, M. Circular economy: Preserving materials or products? Introducing the Resource States framework. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 156, 104698 (2020).
126
Völker Lehmkuhl, K., Reisinger, C. Wegweiser Nachhaltigkeit – Praxisorientierter Überblick zu Berichterstattung und Prüfung. (IDW Verlag GmbH, 2019).
127
in Codio Impact (https://www.codioimpact.com/de-blog/bedeutung-von-nachhaltigkeit, 2022).
128
Tascioglu, M. Sustainable supply chain management: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Management Marketing and Logistics 2 (2015).
129
Deutscher-Bundestag. Konzept Nachhaltigkeit, 1998).
130
Röttger, U. & Schmitt, J. Erfolgsfaktoren der CR-Kommunikation: Eine qualitative Studie zur Kommunikation der gesellschaftlichen Verantwortung von Unternehmen in Deutschland. (Forschungsberichte zur Unternehmenskommunikation, 2014).
131
Pastore, A. & Massacesi, A. Sustainable Leadership in Europe. (Research Report, CEC European Managers 2020. Available online: https://sustainableleaders.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Sustainable-Leadership-in-Europe-Report.pdf 2020).
132
Andonova, L. B., Betsill, M. M. & Bulkeley, H. Transnational climate governance. Global environmental politics9, 52-73 (2009).
133
(ed BMZ) (Bundesministerium für wirtschafltiche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, https://www.bmz.de/de/service/lexikon/european-green-deal-118284, 2019).
134
Dubey, K. in sphera (2022).
135
Zadek, S. Responsible competitiveness: Reshaping global markets through responsible business practices. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society 6, 334-348 (2006).
136
Bocken, N. M., Short, S. W., Rana, P. & Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of cleaner production 65, 42-56 (2014).
137
Ashrafi, M., Adams, M., Walker, T. R. & Magnan, G. How corporate social responsibility can be integrated into corporate sustainability: A theoretical review of their relationships. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 25, 672-682 (2018).
138
Carroll, A. B. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & society 38, 268-295 (1999).
139
Friedman, M. in Corporate ethics and corporate governance 173-178 (Springer, 2007).
140
Davis, K. Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California management review 2, 70-76 (1960).
141
Ahenkora, K., Banahene, S. & Quartey, J. Societal value antecedent of corporate social responsibility and business strategy. (2016).
142
Wren, D. A. & Bedeian, A. G. The evolution of management thought. (John Wiley & Sons, 2023).
143
Hoffman, A. J. The next phase of business sustainability. Stanford Social Innovation Review 16, 34-39 (2018).
144
Kolk, A. & Perego, P. Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance statements: An international investigation. Business strategy and the environment 19, 182-198 (2010).
145
Zhang, M., Pawar, K. S. & Bhardwaj, S. Improving supply chain social responsibility through supplier development. Production Planning & Control 28, 500-511 (2017).
146
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. & Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal 18, 509-533 (1997).
147
Jarzabkowski, P., Lê, J. K. & Van de Ven, A. H. Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strategic organization 11, 245-280 (2013).
148
Orzes, G. et al. The impact of the United Nations global compact on firm performance: A longitudinal analysis. International Journal of Production Economics 227, 107664 (2020).
149
Waddock, S. A. & Graves, S. B. The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic management journal 18, 303-319 (1997).
150
Pattberg, P. Private environmental governance and the sustainability transition: functions and impacts of NGO-business partnerships. Klaus Jacob, Manfred Binder and Anna Wieczorek (eds.), 52-66 (2004).
151
Waddell, S. Global action networks: A global invention helping business make globalisation work for all. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 27-42 (2003).
152
Juniper, C. & Moore, M. Synergies and best practices of corporate partnerships for sustainability. Corporate Environmental Strategy 9, 267-276 (2002).
153
Stafford, E. R., Polonsky, M. J. & Hartman, C. L. Environmental NGO–business collaboration and strategic bridging: a case analysis of the Greenpeace–Foron Alliance. Business Strategy and the environment 9, 122-135 (2000).
154
Schneider, V. Bringing society back in: actors, networks, and systems in public policy. (Springer, 2020).
155
Freeman, R. E. in R. Edward Freeman’s selected works on stakeholder theory and business ethics 295-299 (Springer, 2023).
156
Hemmati, M. Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability: beyond deadlock and conflict. (Routledge, 2012).
157
MacDonald, A., Clarke, A. & Huang, L. in Business and the ethical implications of technology 103-120 (Springer, 2022).
158
Mujih, E. C. ‘Co-deregulation’of Multinational Companies Operating in Developing Countries: Partnering against Corporate Social Responsibility? African Journal of International and Comparative Law 16, 249-261 (2008).
159
Jamali, D., Zanhour, M. & Keshishian, T. Peculiar strengths and relational attributes of SMEs in the context of CSR. Journal of business Ethics 87, 355-377 (2009).
160
Nauen, C. E. Common wealth: Economics for a crowded planet. A Review., (2008).