Sustainability management department - SUM: Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Kim Adolph, Rebecca Bornhorn, Carolin Bothe, Rieke Oetken
Edited by: Ann-Kathrin Sieberns, Nick Fischer, Lisa Gerdes-Röben, Marleen Christ
Last updated: January 04, 2023

1 Definition

The sustainability management department (or CSR management department), which is the workplace for sustainability managers (or CSR managers), is responsible for planning and implementing corporate social and environmental activities. This includes the analysis, implementation, improvement, control, and communication of economic, social, and environmental aspects. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) includes activities undertaken by organisations that are not necessarily required by law, but done with the view of protecting the welfare of stakeholders as well as the environment at large. CSR concerns an organisation “incurring responsibilities to society beyond profit maximisation”, including “the voluntary actions that a corporation implements as it pursues its mission and fulfills its perceived obligations to stakeholders, including employees, communities, the environment, and society as a whole”. CSR, thus, represents a broad concept, as it can logically include all actions of the firm that holds some benefits to society in general.¹ The advantage of this specific function is that all activities are managed centrally and systematically.² Four different value levels of corporate sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) are: order, success, community, and synergy.³

Thus, the sustainability management department must follow the general corporate strategy while trying to make the company more sustainable. Although this department may also pursue its own projects, much of the work will require collaboration with other departments because sustainability is not an isolated area such as, for example, marketing. Rather, it is an approach to management that can be applied to all areas of business. Sustainability management is cross-functional, and to improve the sustainability performance of a company, “business as usual” behavior must be reconsidered. This often requires specific projects with both operational and centralized departments, such as product development, production, human resources, and communications.⁴

Common tasks of the sustainability department include the following:⁵⁶⁷

Adjusting operating practices and integrating sustainable aspects into the business
Development of a sustainability strategy
Implementation of a sustainability program and tracking of improvement measures
Information management on sustainability topics
Stakeholder communication and stakeholder engagement
Cooperation with customers
Cooperation with other functions within the organization: business strategy, risk management, and management
Creation and communication of sustainability reports
Organization of community involvement

The above-listed tasks are described in greater detail in Chapter 5; however, they do not represent an exhaustive list of the tasks performed by the sustainability management department. The assignment of tasks depends on the specific structure of the department within the company.

Also, the exact configuration of the department varies significantly in practice. For some companies, responsibility lies with one person or an external consultant, while others create an entire department. This is a question regarding the general sustainability strategy. Moreover, there is no single best way of implementing such a department, as evidenced in the scientific literature. Instead, each company must find a way that fits its corporate strategy and structure. Chapter 3 provides an overview of best practice examples in order to show how implementation can appear in practice.⁸

In summary, based on previous explanations, various advantages and disadvantages can result from the implementation of a sustainability management department. For example, clear responsibilities for sustainability issues are assigned to employees with the necessary expert knowledge. Furthermore, sufficient visibility of sustainability efforts is ensured, with the overall result being that sustainability is firmly established in the company. However, there is a risk that the department will act contrary to the implementation of the company’s actual operations, especially if a centralized approach is taken. In the worst case, the sustainability strategy will not fit in with the corporate strategy, in which case, the activities may not be sufficiently accepted by employees, and the necessity may remain invisible.

In order to fully exploit the potential of the function of sustainability and work against the disadvantages described, the sustainability management department must be incorporated into the organizational structure. How to achieve this is described in the next section.

2 Organizational structure

A decisive factor in the successful implementation of sustainability actions is the availability of appropriate expertise, and the sustainability management department serves to consolidate this expert knowledge within the organization. In this respect, large corporations usually have advantages over small and medium-sized enterprises. In large-scale companies, it is usually a matter of coordinating activities that already exist in various areas, although coordination is often regarded as a major challenge. On one hand, it must be ensured that the general strategic direction is followed by all departments; on the other hand, overlaps or blind spots in the handling of sustainability topics must be prevented.⁹ To ensure this, appropriate organizational anchoring is of central importance. Best practice examples show how this can be achieved.

The need for clearly defined responsibilities can be illustrated by the example of a large energy supply company and its adoption of a decentralized approach.

As figure 1 demonstrates, the sustainability management department (yellow box) is embedded in an organizational structure consisting of the board of management, a chief sustainability officer, the supervisory board, the sustainability council, and additional sustainability officers of units and central functions. Within this context, the sustainability management department, which is located at the headquarters, is responsible for the overall coordination of all sustainability activities. The main tasks consist of coordinating the planning and implementation of sustainability initiatives and monitoring their progress and carrying out a materiality analysis to identify non-financial issues; furthermore, sustainability reporting based on this is also of key importance. Another essential driver is seen in the activation of employees toward sustainability.

Together with the sustainability council, which consists of eight company managers with expertise in sustainability matters, the sustainability management department supports the various segments in achieving their sustainability targets. In this regard, responsibility for the operational implementation of sustainability efforts lies with the heads of the individual units. In this decentralized approach, additional sustainability officers are appointed and are in close contact with the sustainability council and the sustainability management department. At the overall level, control is exercised by the board of management, the chief sustainability officer and the supervisory board.¹⁰

Another example that illustrates an organizational structure in which the sustainability management department is integrated is a company that develops technologies for sustainable and connected mobility. Figure 2 presents an organizational overview.

In the figure, the sustainability management department is located in the middle and creates an interface with other aspects such as group functions, the executive board, and additional sustainability coordinators. Furthermore, there is a steering committee, and the main task of the sustainability management department in this case is also coordination.¹¹

With regard to centralized organizational forms of sustainability management, limitations from practice are also highlighted. For example, explanations in the context of Patagonia, which is a global leader in sustainable apparel, show that a sustainability management department can act as a stopping point for sustainability if it is organized in a top-down and departmentally isolated manner, which is one of the reasons that decentralized approaches (see figure 1) are gaining importance.¹²

3 Purpose and goals of the department

In the following chapter, both the tasks and the objectives of sustainability management are examined in more detail. On the one hand, it explains how sustainability can be integrated into corporate strategies and which legal regulations must be complied with. On the other hand, the UN Sustainable Development Goals and ESG indicators, which are indispensable for the implementation of sustainability, are discussed.

3.1 Integration of sustainability as part of the corporate strategy

Sustainable development, and especially the manner in which a firm manages issues regarding environmental, social, and economic aspects, has become more important for stakeholders such as consumers and suppliers,¹³¹⁴ thereby making it the main purpose of a sustainability management department in terms of promoting the sustainable development of the company. Managers have to pursue the goal of integrating sustainability into the corporate strategy and processes.¹⁵ Sustainability focuses not only on the needs of investors and shareholders, but also on the responsibility of stakeholders directly or indirectly affected or connected to the company. Sustainable reporting helps businesses to set goals, assess success, and implement progress to make them more sustainable. Through reporting, an organization analyzes its position in society and communicates its successes and shortcomings in order to strengthen its brand position. This enables differentiation between the organization and its rivals through the openness of the organization’s own activities, thereby boosting their financial results and providing accountability for achieving objectives.¹⁶

One of the goals of this strategy can be to either reduce the risks of non-sustainability by creating a more sustainable business or exploit the opportunities from the products and processes that are already sustainable by opening new areas of business and engaging in constant improvement.¹⁷ In this way, the firm can also pursue the objective of generating competitive advantages through sustainability management.¹⁸ As mentioned in the chapter “Organizational structure”, it is an overall coordination that needs collaboration throughout the firm and has to be carried out in each department through an introduction of a range of instruments to support the sustainable strategy (see, e.g., sustainable supply chain management). Therefore, integrating sustainability into the business can be pursued through implementation in every department. A more detailed description of this implementation can be found in Chapter 5 of this work.

In order to achieve the goals and fully exploit the function of the department, there are various frameworks that the company can and must pursue. First, there are legal requirements that the department must follow, and second, there are voluntary ambitions that management can pursue. Due to space limitations, only the best-known frameworks, such as the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as an overall concept, and the Environment, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria, which are requested by investors, are mentioned here.

3.2 Compliance with legal regulations

The prospect of achieving sustainable development has become a common target for firms in recent years, not only in terms of meeting the expectations of stakeholders but also in complying with legal requirements related to sustainability.¹⁹ Consequently, the department’s sustainability management measures must also meet legal requirements, which can be seen as another departmental goal. Since 2014, in the European Union, large listed companies with more than 500 employees have been required under the Non-financial Reporting Directive (NFRD)²⁰ to publish non-financial reports. The NF Directive requires large entities to publish non-financial information, including social and environmental matters, therefore being an attempt to move toward harmonization of non-financial reporting. The European Union aimed at achieving a similarly high level of transparency across companies in EU States in disclosing impacts and risks related to society and the environment as demanded by public authorities, investors and civil society organizations.²¹ These annual reports create transparency about the sustainable actions of companies and cover policies implemented in the areas of environmental protection, social responsibility and treatment of employees, respect for human rights, anti-corruption and bribery, and diversity on company boards.²² The NFRD adopts a double materiality perspective, stipulating that companies not only disclose how sustainability issues affect them, but also how their activities affect society and the environment. ²³

It is important for organisations to periodically review tasks and activities to ensure that stakeholders understand the role of the organisation and tasks and activities are well planned and aligned to achieve organisational goals. By keeping track of corporate responsibility and sustainability reports, managers can ensure that the new organisation is better than the one being transformed. The use of performance reports on a regular basis will help organizations develop rapid responses to the complex and dynamic challenges in the global environment.²⁴ This directive has been implemented in national contexts; in Germany, for example, it is the so-called CSR-Richtlinien-Umsetzungsgesetz. Therefore, an important aim of the sustainability management department is to meet reporting requirements, through which companies disclose their sustainability efforts.²⁵

In particular, the NFRD requires companies to disclose information about their business models, policies (including implemented due diligence processes), outcomes, risks and risk management, and key performance indicators (KPIs) relevant to the business. At present, around 6 000 of the largest EU companies are required to disclose non-financial information under the NFRD. (EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Author: Nora Hahnkamper-Vandenbulcke Ex-Post Evaluation Unit PE 654.213 – January 2021). Companies have various options to publish the non-financial information. The two main options are to either integrate the information in the management report or to publish it separately in the sustainability or on its website as long as it is linked to the management report through joint publication of reference in the latter.²⁶

3.3 Addressing the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

On an international level, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent common purposes for a range of businesses. In 2015, the member states of the United Nations adopted the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” which includes 17 goals that need to be pursued by both developed and developing countries to ensure a safe future for all people and the planet.²⁷ The member states “[…] recognize that ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth – all while tackling climate change and working to preserve our oceans and forests”.²⁸

To summarize, the 17 SDGs provide a framework of goals that can support sustainable development. Figure 3 presents an overview of these goals.

This figure presents an overall framework that can be adopted by companies in their development toward sustainability. The UN Global Compact, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) devised the SDG Compass to provide instructions to firms on how to implement the SDGs into their sustainability strategy.²⁹³⁰ These goals can be found in the strategy of a majority of firms, and although most of them do not try to achieve all of the goals, they do choose those goals that fit in their corporate strategy.

It also has to be noted that many firms are already doing a great deal in areas such as health care and diversity management, even though these activities are not explicitly listed as SDGs. The framework can help the sustainability management department implement sustainability goals into their strategy. For example, they could include diversity management in the form of the fifth SDG, that is, gender equality, which can make it easier for the department to ascertain a clear commitment and achieve accountability. In addition, accountability relating to the goals is assured through the introduction of the sustainability management department and its employees, who are responsible for monitoring the achievement of the department’s goals and working toward the development of new strategies.³¹

Commitment to the SDGs and the way in which a sustainability management department can implement the framework into the corporate strategy can be shown by the strategy of the Robert Bosch GmbH. The company includes sustainability into its corporate business units and describes it as an overall task for all of them.³² Their strategy includes goals relating to sustainable development and is called “New Dimensions – Sustainability 2025.” It shows the firms’ sustainability goals divided into six fundamental dimensions: climate, energy, water, urbanization, globalization, and health.³³ For each dimension, they describe two specific goals that they would like to achieve. In addition, they have committed to a large part of the United Nations’ SDGs, combining them with their fundamental dimensions, which are illustrated in figure 4.

3.4 Measuring ESG metrics

Regarding the measurement of the sustainability activities of a company, a common management approach is the capture and reporting of key performance indicators (KPIs). In this case, the so-called ESG metrics can be adopted by the sustainability management department. ESG (i.e., environment, social, and governance) describes the dimension of a firm’s corporate social responsibility management. Creating a set of sustainability performance metrics helps organizations and stakeholders in the activity and evaluation of corporate sustainability success, and this is valuable for helping internal decision-making processes and can provide substantial added value to non-financial corporate communication. ³⁴ The metrics are standardized indicators for the environment, social, and government components.³⁵³⁶ Therefore, the ESG KPIs help investors evaluate the company’s contribution toward sustainable development. ESG metrics include the amount of CO2 emissions, share of renewable energy, environmentally relevant events, social aspects such as human capital and product liability, and compliance in the area of governable metrics.³⁷

In a guideline for the integration of ESG by EFFAS, the European Federation of Financial Analysts Societies, essential criteria for useable KPIs for ESG were defined as follows:

They should depict a correlation to risk or success factors of corporate business
They should be significant and relevant for investment decisions
They should be firmly anchored in the corporate management system
They must be quantified, comparable, and benchmarkable from peer to peer
They should depict dynamics, i.e., from reporting period to reporting period
They should be manageable in dimension (” Key “), e.g., small set of 30 KPIs max.

It is recommended that corporates report ESGs and respective KPIs in a table format, which allows for easy data extraction and comparability.³⁸

4 Duties and responsibilities of the department

The sustainability management department of an organization takes on a unique role with a range of functions and responsibilities, which can vary from organization to organization as they are designed to meet the needs of their respective business or company. The main objective of the department and its designated sustainability mangers is to plan, organize, and implement corporate social and environmental activities.

4.1 Adjusting the operating practices and integrating sustainable aspects into these practices

As described above, the organizational structure of sustainability management varies from company to company. However, clear structures and responsibilities play a crucial role in the successful implementation of a sustainability strategy (see chapter “Integration of sustainability as part of the corporate strategy”). Sustainability is a cross-functional responsibility; it is not a separate initiative but something that is fully integrated into the strategy and operations of a company.³⁹

One task of the sustainability management department would be to integrate sustainable aspects into operating practices and improve internal operations aimed at eco-efficiency through employee involvement.⁴⁰⁴¹ The sustainability department should develop a sustainability policy that covers the most relevant sustainability issues and should further commit to taking steps toward a more sustainable organization. The sustainability policy could then become part of the company values and should be linked to existing policies.⁴²

4.2 Developing the sustainability strategy, implementing the sustainability program, and tracking improvement measures

The goals of CSR management can be extensive (see Chapter 4), and an important first step in improving or implementing a sustainability management system for the company is to determine the issues of paramount importance. Once the most important issues have been identified, the next essential step in making improvements is to set goals with related measures and deadlines. When these goals and measures are set, the department can begin to develop a sustainability management program. A sustainability program (or action plan) is a systematic compilation of measures associated with goals.⁴³ It is an essential step on the way to improving organization-wide sustainability and lays out a set of strategies for change toward sustainability. The program should target specific audiences (e.g., specific departments within the organization or a specific group of employees). The next step is to measure the outputs and outcomes and adjust the sustainability program accordingly.⁴⁴ Metrics for measuring sustainability should be commonly accepted and referenced by leading international standards,⁴⁵ thus representing a cycle of continuous improvement. Measurements and evaluations of how the organization is doing lead to modification, the redefinition of goals, and even the establishment of new goals.⁴⁶

4.3 Creation and communication of sustainability reports

The sustainability department, together with different functions within the organization, is also responsible for preparing the sustainability report. Whether or not a sustainability report should be mandatory for companies has been a matter of heated debate over the past couple of years. As mentioned earlier, many companies are required under the NFRD to report on their activities (see chapter “Compliance with legal regulations”), and although the report is not mandatory in many countries, the majority of large international companies do prepare it.

To enhance the quality of the reports, common reporting standards should be followed.The GRI provides a globally uniform reporting standard with guidelines for the preparation of sustainability reports.⁴⁷ The report should be prepared following the GRI standards, which have been in place for over 20 years and have been regularly improved with the involvement of stakeholders. The report should reflect a past period and point to strategies for future challenges.⁴⁸

Compliance with the reporting requirement can be achieved in a number of ways. The pharmaceutical company Bayer, for example, combines financial reporting with non-financial statement in its annual report.⁴⁹ An alternative approach is offered by the energy supplier EWE, which publishes a separate non-financial statement.⁵⁰ Nevertheless, the purpose of both variants is to prepare information to be viewed by various stakeholders. In addition to investors, these also include customers, employees, and NGOs. Furthermore, the company’s homepage is also considered an important means of communication. There, the information is usually presented in a well-structured and appealing manner.⁵¹

4.4 Information management on sustainability topics

Once the program has been implemented and sustainability management has begun, this should be communicated throughout the organization. Employees should have access to relevant information, and it is important for them to understand where their employer stands on sustainability. It is the CSR management department’s responsibility to communicate the specifics of goals, targets, and commitments made. The department should also increase awareness and support active engagement.⁵² In order for employees to be able to actively engage, it is essential that they be provided with information on sustainability topics.

The sustainability management department is also responsible for monitoring emerging environmental and social issues. The company should then determine whether it is affected and what precautions should be taken.⁵³ How this is implemented in practice can also be seen in the organizational structures described in chapter “Organizational structure”. The example of Continental (see figure 2) shows that the sustainability management department acts as an interface between various management representatives. Since the employees of this department are considered experts in this field, they often assist management in an advisory capacity.

4.5 Stakeholder communication and stakeholder engagement regarding sustainability topics

Another important task of CSR management involves communication and dialogue with stakeholders as well as stakeholder engagement. The main objective of stakeholder dialogue is to better understand each other and learn about the developments and initiatives being undertaken. The ISO 26000 principles of social responsibility define stakeholder engagement as all activities being undertaken to “create opportunities for dialogue between an organization and one or more of its stakeholders with the aim of providing an informed basis for the organization’s decisions.”⁵⁴ This can include communication with NGOs, politicians, neighbors, taking part in conferences and meetings on sustainability issues, or interviews with scientist, journalists, or students. Stakeholder engagement is intended to improve the information base by systematically involving stakeholders in order to form a well-founded opinion on a specific issue.⁵⁵

As shown in figure 4, the German energy supply company EnBW identified its stakeholders in order to engage in dialogue with them. The aim was to achieve a comprehensive exchange through various communication channels such as stakeholder surveys and roundtable discussions. For this purpose, different dialog formats were established to create a holistic conversation approach. This practical example can serve as a basis for companies to develop their own offerings.

4.6 Cooperation with other functions within the organization: business strategy, risk management, and management

For successful sustainability management, it is crucial to work with other departments within the organization. For example, CSR factors should be integrated into risk management. The sustainability management department should work alongside risk management in designing processes that account for environmental and sustainability risks.⁵⁶ For the successful implementation of the sustainability strategy, it is crucial to educate employees and the workforce on important CSR topics. Once the sustainability plan has been implemented, CSR management can, for example, work with human resources (HR) to initiate training and courses for their employees where appropriate. In order for internal projects to be successful, it is important to have top management support and commitment.⁵⁷

For example, Bank of America introduced several initiatives to engage employees to reduce their environmental impact. They introduced a program called “My environment,” employee reimbursement programs, and environmentally focused volunteer events.⁵⁸ Additionally, employees across the organization receive awareness under the Environmental and Social Risk Policy Framework, and specialized training was introduced for employees who regularly deal with specific environmental issues.⁵⁹

4.7 Organization of community involvement

The sustainability department should also be active in organizing community engagement as this can benefit both the organization and the community. It provides the community with opportunities to raise their concerns and work with the company in its efforts to move toward sustainable development within the industry. In turn, community engagement offers the company opportunities to learn about and address concerns raised by the community.⁶⁰ For example, the Lego Group has a community engagement program that currently operates in 26 countries, the aim of which is to “leverage the power of learning through play to inspire and develop children. The projects are designed to meet local needs, provide opportunities to local children, and leverage the skills and interests of local employees to have the greatest impact on the lives of children.”⁶¹ One of their initiatives is called Build the Change, which aims to give children opportunities to express their views on how to make the world a better place by building their Lego-related ideas. Topics include the environment, the future of learning, and child-friendly cities. Lego also has a program called Lego Replay, which provides consumers with opportunities to pass on their Lego bricks to children in need of play. Consumers can get a free shipping label and pass on their bricks to kids in need.⁶²

As described above, clear structures and responsibilities are essential for successfully improving sustainability within an organization. The following is an example of a well-structured sustainability management system, which illustrates the importance of task division between the different organizational functions.

In chapter “Organizational structure”, the organizational structures of sustainability management were described, and best practice examples for structuring sustainability management were introduced. The following example illustrates how actual tasks related to sustainability management can be distributed between different functions within the company to ensure the best possible implementation, compliance, and success.

At BASF SE, the central committee for sustainability is the Corporate Sustainability Board (CSB), which is comprised of the heads of business, corporate and functional units, including for the regions. The CSB at BASF SE is responsible for many of the tasks described earlier in this chapter. It defines sustainability goals, monitors the implementation of the sustainability strategy and cross-divisional initiatives, and approves corporate position papers on sustainability topics. In addition to the CSB, BASF SE has introduced the Sustainability Core Team, which supports the CSB and supervises the sustainability initiative and performance measures. This team is also responsible for connecting with sustainability communities, which are cross-divisional and cross-regional teams working on practical challenges regarding the implementation of the sustainability strategy of their businesses. The communities are also responsible for ensuring consistency and knowledge sharing regarding sustainable development worldwide. In addition to the CSB, Core Team, and communities, the BASF SE has a Sustainability Strategy Team that supports the organization’s sustainability activities by providing consultancy services to assess business opportunities and risks, evaluate products and processes, and support the development of strategies. BASF SE also has a Stakeholder Advisory Council, which is external and independent. The external members help the company expand its strengths and identify weaknesses by bringing an external perspective.⁶³

In terms of the extensive list of tasks of sustainability departments, it is clear that sustainability management is cross-functional. BASF SE’s structure is a great example of how these tasks can be carried out by different functions within the organization. With support from the upper-management level, BASF SE established a steering team comprised of people from different organizational areas, with the highest level, that is, the CSB, being responsible for approving and implementing strategies. Because the board and management are usually not as familiar with day-to-day processes and not as close to employees and workers, a different function, in this case the Sustainability Community, was responsible for implementing the strategies in their businesses and working on practical challenges arising during these everyday processes. The Core Team works as a link between the board and community. The Sustainability Strategy Team was not part of management or the workforce, which is why they were able to offer impartial consulting services.

5 Drivers and barriers

5.1 Drivers

Several drivers and barriers influence the implementation of a sustainability management department. It is important to consider these factors so that the goal of promoting sustainability can be achieved and that the implementation succeeds. Several internal and external factors are explained in greater detail below.

Drivers external to the company primarily include government regulations and industry-specific codes of conduct. The driving effect arises especially from costs incurred if these regulations are not complied with, including fines and penalties, legal costs, loss of productivity due to additional inspections, possible closure of operations, and associated reputational impacts.⁶⁴ However, governments are not the only drivers of corporate policies on sustainability; non-governmental organizations and interest groups also exert external pressure,⁶⁵ and as a result, companies are increasingly seeking legitimacy. Legitimacy in this context means that corporate actions “are perceived as desirable or appropriate against the background of societal norms or values.”⁶⁶ There is much to suggest that society, as well as stakeholders, will then perceive companies as more meaningful, predictable, and trustworthy. This can increase the ability of companies to compete for resources and gain stakeholder approval.⁶⁷ These resources include labor, capital, and a willingness to purchase the company’s products and services.⁶⁸

However, not only do regulatory and societal aspects play an important role in drivers external to the company, they also play an important role in the market. Customers and consumers increasingly include in their consumption decisions whether and the extent to which companies take environmental and social aspects into account, thus making them important competitive factors.⁶⁹ For this reason, market success has also become an important driver of sustainability management, as consumers can reward the company’s commitment through their purchasing and investment decisions. In this context, market success is understood as an increase in sales, competitiveness, brand value, or innovation.⁷⁰

In addition to the external drivers of a sustainability management department, some internal drivers can be identified. On one hand, cost savings and revenue increases can be realized through the implementation of sustainability in the company through the more efficient use of resources, product and process improvements, and a reduction in regulatory fines for non-compliance. Furthermore, revenues can also increase due to higher sales, as a focus on sustainability has a positive impact on corporate image.⁷¹

However, one of the most important internal factors in the introduction, implementation, and institutionalization of change, especially in terms of sustainability aspects, is the area of corporate leadership and management.⁷² According to Fernández et al. (2006), managers can exhibit some characteristics in their behavior within the company, thereby positively influencing sustainability management. These include a higher degree of openness to change as well as professional, interpersonal, and communication skills.⁷³ Support from senior management is also important to ensure that the sustainability management department is fully integrated into the work of the company. The department’s activities cannot be viewed in isolation from those of other departments and must be integrated into them. Here, in conjunction with managerial activities, the corporate culture also plays a major role. If sustainability is highly relevant throughout the company, including among employees, the sustainability management department will enjoy greater acceptance.

Therefore, numerous factors, both internal and external to the company, drive the implementation of a sustainability management department. External factors primarily lead to reactive measures in which the company acts as a black box, while internal factors are initially ignored. Internal drivers act proactively to a greater extent and out of intrinsic motivation on the part of the company. Nevertheless, there is a danger that, due to the internal perspective, companies are viewed as isolated islands, which leads to the neglect of external influences. However, both factors correlate with each other, and there are interactions between the different drivers.⁷⁴ Thus, the goal of companies should be to recognize the relationship between business and society in order to best manage their economic, environmental, and social responsibilities in the area of sustainability.

5.2 Barriers

Sustainability management is also faced with implementation problems that can slow down the sustainability orientation of companies. Like drivers, barriers can also be divided into factors that are both external and internal to the company. External barriers present themselves as particularly problematic as companies have limited options for overcoming them. These barriers include pressure from competitors, regulations, legislation, and lack of interest from consumers and investors.⁷⁵ Furthermore, uncertainty regarding the future technological, environmental, and legal environment as well as high investment costs and financial risks are factors that hinder sustainability management.⁷⁶

Nevertheless, most barriers are found within companies. This is explained by the fact that although sustainability is implemented by sustainability management departments, it also requires the commitment and cooperation of numerous stakeholders.⁷⁷ However, sustainability management departments often complain that the competencies and resources allocated to them are not sufficient to initiate the necessary company-wide developments, including strategic realignments, adjustments to the business model, or even the introduction of new measures and instruments to help the company become more sustainability oriented.⁷⁸

The reasons for this lack of competence transfer are manifold. A key factor here is the corporate culture, which can lack openness and a willingness to innovate and experiment.⁷⁹ Formalistic, hierarchical corporate cultures act as a barrier as linear ways of thinking prevail, and the focus is on the fulfillment of duties. Companies with such a culture often do not consider how processes can be improved ecologically and socially, and there is hardly any critical reflection. Furthermore, such a system of norms leads to a deep entrenchment of routines and structures that cannot easily be changed.⁸⁰ The stronger a corporate culture and the greater the change required to achieve greater sustainability, the stronger the forms of resistance it faces. The reason is the uncertainty that arises when deeply rooted routines and structures are changed. This resistance can find expression in both covert or explicit forms, for example, through struggles for resources, expressions of doubt, or unwillingness to commit to the change effort.⁸¹

Another internal factor that can slow down the company’s sustainability efforts is the lack of integration of the sustainability management department into the organizational structure of the company. Often, this department is set up as a staff unit that works in parallel with the rest of management, thereby giving it a special operational function that lies outside conventional management tasks. However, sustainability affects and influences all operational and functional areas; therefore, integrating the department into other departments and management is indispensable. Sustainability issues have a cross-sectional character, and therefore, outsourcing to an officer or group of people does not make sense.⁸²

The previous explanations demonstrated that internal corporate barriers to sustainability development are often of a human nature. One company that has recognized this problem and developed a strategy to overcome it is the German energy supply company EnBW. The company recognized that it had to convince and involve all employees in order to ensure the acceptance of strategic innovations for sustainability promotion. To achieve this, EnBW took it upon itself to put people at the center of attention, including within the company. The company believes that current transformation processes on the path to greater sustainability can only succeed if employees support them, consciously participate in them, and implement them in practice. For this reason, EnBW supports the professional development of employees and involves them in shaping its future.⁸³

An approach like that of EnBW means that the previously analyzed barriers to sustainability promotion by the sustainability management department can be overcome with the active involvement of employees. This creates a more open corporate culture that prevents uncertainties. In addition, the sustainability concept is integrated into all departments so that there is no danger of the sustainability management department being set up as a staff unit that has no connection with the rest of the company.

However, the department itself can also hinder efforts to achieve greater sustainability by setting the wrong goals. If the goal is merely to comply with legal requirements in order to escape potential costs, no motivational effect will be developed. Such a defensive and reactive sustainability strategy does not promote ambition, commitment, or motivation. It is also problematic when only the symptoms of sustainability challenges are addressed and not the causes.⁸⁴ The reason for this behavior can be the lack of perceived strategic opportunities for sustainability, short-term cost thinking instead of long-term success thinking, and a lack of consideration of the entire product life cycle. The focus of the measures is then usually very limited and lies on preventive measures regarding the creation of damage, recycling, and waste management.⁸⁵ In summary, most barriers to sustainability promotion are internal to the company. In many cases, lack of awareness, entrenched behaviors, and power structures overshadow sustainability management. In business operations, short-term success orientation, lack of time, and one-sided cost-related thinking often dominate decisions to act.⁸⁶ Overcoming such obstructive structures requires a high degree of persuasion, persistence, negotiation skills, and tolerance of frustration.⁸⁷

References

1
Adae, E.K., Kosiba, J.P.B., Hinson, R.E., Twum, K.K., Newman, N., Nutsugah, F.F. (2021). An Introduction to Responsible Management: A Corporate Social Responsibility, Green Marketing, and Sustainability Management Perspective. In: Adae, E.K., Kosiba, J.P.B., Hinson, R.E., Twum, K.K., Newman, N., Nutsugah, F.F. (eds) Responsible Management in Emerging Markets. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76563-7_1.
2
Schaltegger, S. (2013). Sustainability Management. In S. O. Idowu, N. Capaldi, L. Zu & A. D. Gupta (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 2384-2388). Berlin, Deutschland: Springer.
3
Kuei C., Lu M.H. (2013). “Integrating Quality Management Principles into Sustainability Management.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 24.1-2: 62-78. Web.
4
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
5
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
6
Loew, T., & Rohde, F. (2013). CSR und Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement – Definitionen, Ansätze und organisatorische Umsetzung im Unternehmen. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
7
Zhu et al. (2008)
8
Delai, I., & Takahashi, S. (2016). Sustainability Management Evolution: Literature Review and consolidative Model. Brazilian Journal of Management, 9, 115-331.
9
Deloitte (2021). Strategien zur Umsetzung von Nachhaltigkeit: Unterschiedliche Prioriäten bei Konzernen und Mittelstand. Retrieved on 08/20/2021: https://www2.deloitte.com/de/de/pages/trends/nachhaltigkeit-konzerne-und-mittelstand.html.
10
E.ON SE (2021). Organisation. Retrieved on 20/08/2021: https://www.eon.com/en/about-us/sustainability/organisation.html.
11
Continental AG (2021). Organization and Management. Retrieved on 08/20/2021: https://www.continental.com/en/sustainability/sustainable-corporate-governance/organization-and-management/.
12
Dilley, M. (2014). Patagonia’s New, Decentralized Approach to Sustainability Man-agement. Retrieved on 20/08/2021: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2014/patagonias-new-decentralized-approach-sustainability-management/39021
13
Dilley, M. (2014). Patagonia’s New, Decentralized Approach to Sustainability Management. Retrieved on 20/08/2021: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2014/patagonias-new-decentralized-approach-sustainability-management/39021
14
Epstein, M. J., & Buhovac, A. R. (2014). Making sustainability work. 2nd edition: Best Practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. San Francisco (CA, US): Berrett-Koehler Publishers
15
Dilley, M. (2014). Patagonia’s New, Decentralized Approach to Sustainability Management. Retrieved on 20/08/2021: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2014/patagonias-new-decentralized-approach-sustainability-management/39021
16
Oprean-Stan C., Oncioiu I., Iuga I.C., Stan S. (2020) “Impact of Sustainability Reporting and Inadequate Management of ESG Factors on Corporate Performance and Sustainable Growth.” Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland) 12.20 : 8536. Web.
17
Hasenmüller, M. P. (2013). Nachhaltige Entwicklung im unternehmerischen Kontext. In Herausforderungen im Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement (pp. 17-59). Wiesbaden, Deutschland: Springer Gabler.
18
Dilley, M. (2014). Patagonia’s New, Decentralized Approach to Sustainability Management. Retrieved on 20/08/2021: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2014/patagonias-new-decentralized-approach-sustainability-management/39021
19
Epstein, M. J., & Buhovac, A. R. (2014). Making sustainability work. 2nd edition: Best Practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. San Francisco (CA, US): Berrett-Koehler Publishers
20
Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups. Retrieved on 08/29/2021: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/95/oj.
21
Aureli S., Salvatori F., Magnaghi E. (2020) “A Country-Comparative Analysis of the Transposition of the EU Non-Financial Directive: An Institutional Approach.” Accounting, Economics, and Law 10.2: Web.
22
Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups. Retrieved on 08/29/2021: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/95/oj.
23
Christensen H.B., Hail L, Leuz C. (2021). “Mandatory CSR and Sustainability Reporting: Economic Analysis and Literature Review.” Review of Accounting Studies 26.3: 1176-248. Web.
24
Kuei C., Lu M.H. (2013). “Integrating Quality Management Principles into Sustainability Management.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 24.1-2: 62-78. Web.
25
Loew, T., & Rohde, F. (2013). CSR und Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement – Definitionen, Ansätze und organisatorische Umsetzung im Unternehmen. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability
26
Humbert F. (2018). “Sustainability Reporting: A Critical Assessment of the E.U. CSR Directive and Its German Implementation from A Human Rights Perspective.” Schmalenbach Business Review 71.2: 279-85. Web.
27
United Nations Department of Economic and Social affairs (United Nations) (2021). The 17 Goals. Retrieved on 18/08/2021: https://sdgs.un.org/goals.
28
United Nations Department of Economic and Social affairs (United Nations) (2021). The 17 Goals. Retrieved on 18/08/2021: https://sdgs.un.org/goals.
29
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
30
GRI, United Nations Global Compact, & WBCSD (2015). SDG Compass. The guide for business action on the SDGs. Retrieved on 08/20/2021: https://sdgcompass.org.
31
Loew, T., & Rohde, F. (2013). CSR und Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement – Definitionen, Ansätze und organisatorische Umsetzung im Unternehmen. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
32
Robert Bosch GmbH (2021a). Sustainability strategy. Retrieved on 08/26/2021: https://www.bosch.com/sustainability/sustainability-strategy/.
33
Robert Bosch GmbH (2021a). Sustainability strategy. Retrieved on 08/26/2021: https://www.bosch.com/sustainability/sustainability-strategy/.
34
Oprean-Stan C., Oncioiu I., Iuga I.C., Stan S. (2020) “Impact of Sustainability Reporting and Inadequate Management of ESG Factors on Corporate Performance and Sustainable Growth.” Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland) 12.20: 8536. Web.
35
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
36
E.ON SE (2021). Nachhaltigkeit in Zahlen. Retrieved on 08/24/2021: https://www.eon.com/de/ueber-uns/nachhaltigkeit/daten-und-fakten.html.
37
E.ON SE (2021). Nachhaltigkeit in Zahlen. Retrieved on 08/24/2021: https://www.eon.com/de/ueber-uns/nachhaltigkeit/daten-und-fakten.html.
38
A Guideline for the Integration of ESG into EFFAS THE EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF FINANCIAL ANALYSTS SOCIETIES.(2009). Key Performance Indicators for Environmental, Social & Governance Issues Financial Analysis and Corporate Valuation. KPIs for ESG Version 1.2: DVFA / EFFAS EFFAS THE EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF FINANCIAL ANALYSTS SOCIETIES. https://effas.com
39
Lacy et al. (2010)
40
Loew, T., & Rohde, F. (2013). CSR und Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement – Definitionen, Ansätze und organisatorische Umsetzung im Unternehmen. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
41
Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K., & Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2005). „Sustainable Operations Management“, Production and Operations Management, 14 (4), 482-492.
42
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
43
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
44
EERE, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (2021). Institutional Change Process Step. Federal Energy Management Program. Retrieved on 27/08/2021: https://www.energy.gov/eere/femp/institutional-change-process
45
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
46
EERE, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (2021). Institutional Change Process Step. Federal Energy Management Program. Retrieved on 27/08/2021: https://www.energy.gov/eere/femp/institutional-change-process
47
Hussain, N., Rigoni, U., & Orij, R. P. (2016). Corporate governance and sustainability performance: Analysis of triple bottom line performance, Journal of Business Ethics, 149, 411-432.
48
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
49
Bayer AG (2021). Annual Report 2020. Retrieved on 08/27/2021: https://www.bayer.com/sites/default/files/2021-02/Bayer-Annual-Report-2020.pdf.
50
EWE AG (2021). Combined non-financial Group report of EWE AG 2020. Retrieved on 27/08/2021: https://www.ewe.com/en/investor-relations/publications.
51
Robert Bosch GmbH (2021). Sustainability. Retrieved on 08/27/2021. https://www.bosch.com/sustainability/.
52
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
53
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
54
ISO (2010). Guidance on social responsibility. International Standard ISO/DIS 26000. Geneva: International Organisation for Standardisation.
55
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
56
BMU (2011). Verantwortung neu denken: Risikomanagement und CSR. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit.
57
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
58
Bank of America (2021). Making an Impact. Our commitment to environmental sustainability. Retrieved on 29/08/2021: https://about.bankofamerica.com/en/making-an-impact/environmental-sustainability.
59
Bank of America (2021). Bank of America Corporation Environmental and Social Risk Policy Framework. Retrieved on 08/29/2021: https://about.bankofamerica.com/content/dam/about/pdfs/environmental-and-social-risk-policy-framework-report.pdf.
60
Abdullah, A., Yaacob, M.R., Bin Ismail, M, Bin Zakaria, M.N., Bin Abdullah, Z., & Radya, S. (2017). Corporate Engagement with the Community: Building Relationship through CSR. Medwell Journals: Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 12 (6), 1538- 1542.
61
LEGO (2021). Local Community Engagement. Retrieved on 08/28/2021: https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/local-community-engagement.
62
LEGO (2021). Local Community Engagement. Retrieved on 08/28/2021: https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/local-community-engagement.
63
BASF SE (2021). Sustainability: Structure. Retrieved on 08/27/2021: https://www.basf.com/global/en/who-we-are/sustainability/management-goals-and-dialog/management/structure-basf.html.
64
Epstein, M. J., & Buhovac, A. R. (2014). Making sustainability work. 2nd edition: Best Practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. San Francisco (CA, US): Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
65
Fernández, E., Junquera, B., & Ordiz, M. (2006). Managers’ profile in environmental strategy: a review of the literature. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13 (5), 261-274.
66
Windolph, S. E., Harms, D., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Motivations for corporate sus-tainability management: Contrasting survey results and implementation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(5), 272-285.
67
Babiak, K., & Trendafilova, S. (2011). CSR and environmental responsibility: motives and pressures to adopt green management practices. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 18 (1), 11-24.
68
Windolph, S. E., Harms, D., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Motivations for corporate sustainability management: Contrasting survey results and implementation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(5), 272-285.
69
Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2008). Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29 (10), 1027-1055.
70
Windolph, S. E., Harms, D., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Motivations for corporate sustainability management: Contrasting survey results and implementation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(5), 272-285.
71
Epstein, M. J., & Buhovac, A. R. (2014). Making sustainability work. 2nd edition: Best Practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. San Francisco (CA, US): Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
72
Lozano, R. (2013). A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 22 (1), 32-44.
73
Fernández, E., Junquera, B., & Ordiz, M. (2006). Managers’ profile in environmental strategy: a review of the literature. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13 (5), 261-274.
74
Lozano, R. (2013). A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 22 (1), 32-44.
75
Lozano, R. (2012). Are companies planning their organisational changes for corporate sustainability? An analysis of three case studies on resistance to change and their strategies to overcome it. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(5), 275-295.
76
Leitschuh-Fecht, H., Salzmann, O., & Steger, U. (2003). Kann Nachhaltigkeit zum Geschäftsmodell werden?. UmweltWirtschaftsForum, 11(4), 1-10.
77
Schaltegger, S., & Hasenmüller, P. (2005). Nachhaltiges Wirtschaften aus Sicht des “Business Case of Sustainability”. CSM Lüneburg, Deutschland.
78
Schaltegger (2012)
79
Leitschuh-Fecht, H., Salzmann, O., & Steger, U. (2003). Kann Nachhaltigkeit zum Geschäftsmodell werden?. UmweltWirtschaftsForum, 11(4), 1-10.
80
Hasenmüller, M. P. (2013). Nachhaltige Entwicklung im unternehmerischen Kontext. In Herausforderungen im Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement (pp. 17-59). Wiesbaden, Deutschland: Springer Gabler.
81
Lozano, R. (2012). Are companies planning their organisational changes for corporate sustainability? An analysis of three case studies on resistance to change and their strategies to overcome it. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(5), 275-295.
82
Schaltegger, S., & Hasenmüller, P. (2005). Nachhaltiges Wirtschaften aus Sicht des “Business Case of Sustainability”. CSM Lüneburg, Deutschland.
83
EnBW AG (2021). Ecological sustainability and climate protection. Retrieved on 08/29/2021: https://www.enbw.com/integrated-annual-report-2020/acting-for-tomorrow/
84
Hasenmüller, M. P. (2013). Nachhaltige Entwicklung im unternehmerischen Kontext. In Herausforderungen im Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement (pp. 17-59). Wiesbaden, Deutschland: Springer Gabler.
85
Lozano, R. (2012). Are companies planning their organisational changes for corporate sustainability? An analysis of three case studies on resistance to change and their strategies to overcome it. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(5), 275-295.
86
Hasenmüller, M. P. (2013). Nachhaltige Entwicklung im unternehmerischen Kontext. In Herausforderungen im Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement (pp. 17-59). Wiesbaden, Deutschland: Springer Gabler.
87
Schaltegger, S., & Hasenmüller, P. (2005). Nachhaltiges Wirtschaften aus Sicht des “Business Case of Sustainability”. CSM Lüneburg, Deutschland.

1
Adae, E.K., Kosiba, J.P.B., Hinson, R.E., Twum, K.K., Newman, N., Nutsugah, F.F. (2021). An Introduction to Responsible Management: A Corporate Social Responsibility, Green Marketing, and Sustainability Management Perspective. In: Adae, E.K., Kosiba, J.P.B., Hinson, R.E., Twum, K.K., Newman, N., Nutsugah, F.F. (eds) Responsible Management in Emerging Markets. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76563-7_1.
2
Schaltegger, S. (2013). Sustainability Management. In S. O. Idowu, N. Capaldi, L. Zu & A. D. Gupta (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 2384-2388). Berlin, Deutschland: Springer.
3
Kuei C., Lu M.H. (2013). “Integrating Quality Management Principles into Sustainability Management.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 24.1-2: 62-78. Web.
4
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
5
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
6
Loew, T., & Rohde, F. (2013). CSR und Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement – Definitionen, Ansätze und organisatorische Umsetzung im Unternehmen. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
7
Zhu et al. (2008)
8
Delai, I., & Takahashi, S. (2016). Sustainability Management Evolution: Literature Review and consolidative Model. Brazilian Journal of Management, 9, 115-331.
9
Deloitte (2021). Strategien zur Umsetzung von Nachhaltigkeit: Unterschiedliche Prioriäten bei Konzernen und Mittelstand. Retrieved on 08/20/2021: https://www2.deloitte.com/de/de/pages/trends/nachhaltigkeit-konzerne-und-mittelstand.html.
10
E.ON SE (2021). Organisation. Retrieved on 20/08/2021: https://www.eon.com/en/about-us/sustainability/organisation.html.
11
Continental AG (2021). Organization and Management. Retrieved on 08/20/2021: https://www.continental.com/en/sustainability/sustainable-corporate-governance/organization-and-management/.
12
Dilley, M. (2014). Patagonia’s New, Decentralized Approach to Sustainability Man-agement. Retrieved on 20/08/2021: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2014/patagonias-new-decentralized-approach-sustainability-management/39021
13
Dilley, M. (2014). Patagonia’s New, Decentralized Approach to Sustainability Management. Retrieved on 20/08/2021: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2014/patagonias-new-decentralized-approach-sustainability-management/39021
14
Epstein, M. J., & Buhovac, A. R. (2014). Making sustainability work. 2nd edition: Best Practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. San Francisco (CA, US): Berrett-Koehler Publishers
15
Dilley, M. (2014). Patagonia’s New, Decentralized Approach to Sustainability Management. Retrieved on 20/08/2021: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2014/patagonias-new-decentralized-approach-sustainability-management/39021
16
Oprean-Stan C., Oncioiu I., Iuga I.C., Stan S. (2020) “Impact of Sustainability Reporting and Inadequate Management of ESG Factors on Corporate Performance and Sustainable Growth.” Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland) 12.20 : 8536. Web.
17
Hasenmüller, M. P. (2013). Nachhaltige Entwicklung im unternehmerischen Kontext. In Herausforderungen im Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement (pp. 17-59). Wiesbaden, Deutschland: Springer Gabler.
18
Dilley, M. (2014). Patagonia’s New, Decentralized Approach to Sustainability Management. Retrieved on 20/08/2021: https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2014/patagonias-new-decentralized-approach-sustainability-management/39021
19
Epstein, M. J., & Buhovac, A. R. (2014). Making sustainability work. 2nd edition: Best Practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. San Francisco (CA, US): Berrett-Koehler Publishers
20
Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups. Retrieved on 08/29/2021: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/95/oj.
21
Aureli S., Salvatori F., Magnaghi E. (2020) “A Country-Comparative Analysis of the Transposition of the EU Non-Financial Directive: An Institutional Approach.” Accounting, Economics, and Law 10.2: Web.
22
Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups. Retrieved on 08/29/2021: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/95/oj.
23
Christensen H.B., Hail L, Leuz C. (2021). “Mandatory CSR and Sustainability Reporting: Economic Analysis and Literature Review.” Review of Accounting Studies 26.3: 1176-248. Web.
24
Kuei C., Lu M.H. (2013). “Integrating Quality Management Principles into Sustainability Management.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 24.1-2: 62-78. Web.
25
Loew, T., & Rohde, F. (2013). CSR und Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement – Definitionen, Ansätze und organisatorische Umsetzung im Unternehmen. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability
26
Humbert F. (2018). “Sustainability Reporting: A Critical Assessment of the E.U. CSR Directive and Its German Implementation from A Human Rights Perspective.” Schmalenbach Business Review 71.2: 279-85. Web.
27
United Nations Department of Economic and Social affairs (United Nations) (2021). The 17 Goals. Retrieved on 18/08/2021: https://sdgs.un.org/goals.
28
United Nations Department of Economic and Social affairs (United Nations) (2021). The 17 Goals. Retrieved on 18/08/2021: https://sdgs.un.org/goals.
29
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
30
GRI, United Nations Global Compact, & WBCSD (2015). SDG Compass. The guide for business action on the SDGs. Retrieved on 08/20/2021: https://sdgcompass.org.
31
Loew, T., & Rohde, F. (2013). CSR und Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement – Definitionen, Ansätze und organisatorische Umsetzung im Unternehmen. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
32
Robert Bosch GmbH (2021a). Sustainability strategy. Retrieved on 08/26/2021: https://www.bosch.com/sustainability/sustainability-strategy/.
33
Robert Bosch GmbH (2021a). Sustainability strategy. Retrieved on 08/26/2021: https://www.bosch.com/sustainability/sustainability-strategy/.
34
Oprean-Stan C., Oncioiu I., Iuga I.C., Stan S. (2020) “Impact of Sustainability Reporting and Inadequate Management of ESG Factors on Corporate Performance and Sustainable Growth.” Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland) 12.20: 8536. Web.
35
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
36
E.ON SE (2021). Nachhaltigkeit in Zahlen. Retrieved on 08/24/2021: https://www.eon.com/de/ueber-uns/nachhaltigkeit/daten-und-fakten.html.
37
E.ON SE (2021). Nachhaltigkeit in Zahlen. Retrieved on 08/24/2021: https://www.eon.com/de/ueber-uns/nachhaltigkeit/daten-und-fakten.html.
38
A Guideline for the Integration of ESG into EFFAS THE EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF FINANCIAL ANALYSTS SOCIETIES.(2009). Key Performance Indicators for Environmental, Social & Governance Issues Financial Analysis and Corporate Valuation. KPIs for ESG Version 1.2: DVFA / EFFAS EFFAS THE EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF FINANCIAL ANALYSTS SOCIETIES. https://effas.com
39
Lacy et al. (2010)
40
Loew, T., & Rohde, F. (2013). CSR und Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement – Definitionen, Ansätze und organisatorische Umsetzung im Unternehmen. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
41
Kleindorfer, P.R., Singhal, K., & Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2005). „Sustainable Operations Management“, Production and Operations Management, 14 (4), 482-492.
42
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
43
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
44
EERE, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (2021). Institutional Change Process Step. Federal Energy Management Program. Retrieved on 27/08/2021: https://www.energy.gov/eere/femp/institutional-change-process
45
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
46
EERE, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (2021). Institutional Change Process Step. Federal Energy Management Program. Retrieved on 27/08/2021: https://www.energy.gov/eere/femp/institutional-change-process
47
Hussain, N., Rigoni, U., & Orij, R. P. (2016). Corporate governance and sustainability performance: Analysis of triple bottom line performance, Journal of Business Ethics, 149, 411-432.
48
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
49
Bayer AG (2021). Annual Report 2020. Retrieved on 08/27/2021: https://www.bayer.com/sites/default/files/2021-02/Bayer-Annual-Report-2020.pdf.
50
EWE AG (2021). Combined non-financial Group report of EWE AG 2020. Retrieved on 27/08/2021: https://www.ewe.com/en/investor-relations/publications.
51
Robert Bosch GmbH (2021). Sustainability. Retrieved on 08/27/2021. https://www.bosch.com/sustainability/.
52
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
53
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
54
ISO (2010). Guidance on social responsibility. International Standard ISO/DIS 26000. Geneva: International Organisation for Standardisation.
55
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
56
BMU (2011). Verantwortung neu denken: Risikomanagement und CSR. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit.
57
Loew, T., Cruz, C.I., Denys, E.S., & Werner, F. (2019). Practical Guide for Companies developing a sustainability management system. Berlin: Institute for Sustainability.
58
Bank of America (2021). Making an Impact. Our commitment to environmental sustainability. Retrieved on 29/08/2021: https://about.bankofamerica.com/en/making-an-impact/environmental-sustainability.
59
Bank of America (2021). Bank of America Corporation Environmental and Social Risk Policy Framework. Retrieved on 08/29/2021: https://about.bankofamerica.com/content/dam/about/pdfs/environmental-and-social-risk-policy-framework-report.pdf.
60
Abdullah, A., Yaacob, M.R., Bin Ismail, M, Bin Zakaria, M.N., Bin Abdullah, Z., & Radya, S. (2017). Corporate Engagement with the Community: Building Relationship through CSR. Medwell Journals: Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences 12 (6), 1538- 1542.
61
LEGO (2021). Local Community Engagement. Retrieved on 08/28/2021: https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/local-community-engagement.
62
LEGO (2021). Local Community Engagement. Retrieved on 08/28/2021: https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/local-community-engagement.
63
BASF SE (2021). Sustainability: Structure. Retrieved on 08/27/2021: https://www.basf.com/global/en/who-we-are/sustainability/management-goals-and-dialog/management/structure-basf.html.
64
Epstein, M. J., & Buhovac, A. R. (2014). Making sustainability work. 2nd edition: Best Practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. San Francisco (CA, US): Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
65
Fernández, E., Junquera, B., & Ordiz, M. (2006). Managers’ profile in environmental strategy: a review of the literature. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13 (5), 261-274.
66
Windolph, S. E., Harms, D., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Motivations for corporate sus-tainability management: Contrasting survey results and implementation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(5), 272-285.
67
Babiak, K., & Trendafilova, S. (2011). CSR and environmental responsibility: motives and pressures to adopt green management practices. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 18 (1), 11-24.
68
Windolph, S. E., Harms, D., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Motivations for corporate sustainability management: Contrasting survey results and implementation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(5), 272-285.
69
Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2008). Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29 (10), 1027-1055.
70
Windolph, S. E., Harms, D., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Motivations for corporate sustainability management: Contrasting survey results and implementation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21(5), 272-285.
71
Epstein, M. J., & Buhovac, A. R. (2014). Making sustainability work. 2nd edition: Best Practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts. San Francisco (CA, US): Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
72
Lozano, R. (2013). A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 22 (1), 32-44.
73
Fernández, E., Junquera, B., & Ordiz, M. (2006). Managers’ profile in environmental strategy: a review of the literature. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 13 (5), 261-274.
74
Lozano, R. (2013). A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 22 (1), 32-44.
75
Lozano, R. (2012). Are companies planning their organisational changes for corporate sustainability? An analysis of three case studies on resistance to change and their strategies to overcome it. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(5), 275-295.
76
Leitschuh-Fecht, H., Salzmann, O., & Steger, U. (2003). Kann Nachhaltigkeit zum Geschäftsmodell werden?. UmweltWirtschaftsForum, 11(4), 1-10.
77
Schaltegger, S., & Hasenmüller, P. (2005). Nachhaltiges Wirtschaften aus Sicht des “Business Case of Sustainability”. CSM Lüneburg, Deutschland.
78
Schaltegger (2012)
79
Leitschuh-Fecht, H., Salzmann, O., & Steger, U. (2003). Kann Nachhaltigkeit zum Geschäftsmodell werden?. UmweltWirtschaftsForum, 11(4), 1-10.
80
Hasenmüller, M. P. (2013). Nachhaltige Entwicklung im unternehmerischen Kontext. In Herausforderungen im Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement (pp. 17-59). Wiesbaden, Deutschland: Springer Gabler.
81
Lozano, R. (2012). Are companies planning their organisational changes for corporate sustainability? An analysis of three case studies on resistance to change and their strategies to overcome it. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(5), 275-295.
82
Schaltegger, S., & Hasenmüller, P. (2005). Nachhaltiges Wirtschaften aus Sicht des “Business Case of Sustainability”. CSM Lüneburg, Deutschland.
83
EnBW AG (2021). Ecological sustainability and climate protection. Retrieved on 08/29/2021: https://www.enbw.com/integrated-annual-report-2020/acting-for-tomorrow/
84
Hasenmüller, M. P. (2013). Nachhaltige Entwicklung im unternehmerischen Kontext. In Herausforderungen im Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement (pp. 17-59). Wiesbaden, Deutschland: Springer Gabler.
85
Lozano, R. (2012). Are companies planning their organisational changes for corporate sustainability? An analysis of three case studies on resistance to change and their strategies to overcome it. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(5), 275-295.
86
Hasenmüller, M. P. (2013). Nachhaltige Entwicklung im unternehmerischen Kontext. In Herausforderungen im Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement (pp. 17-59). Wiesbaden, Deutschland: Springer Gabler.
87
Schaltegger, S., & Hasenmüller, P. (2005). Nachhaltiges Wirtschaften aus Sicht des “Business Case of Sustainability”. CSM Lüneburg, Deutschland.