Sustainability strategy - The Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Daniel Friske, Franziska Katharina Hoff, Kristeen Meinecke, Franziska Pabel, Ramona Schöll
Edited by: –
Last updated: May 11, 2026

Executive summary

Strategic sustainability management integrates environmental, social, and economic objectives into core strategic decisions so organizations can create durable value while navigating rising stakeholder expectations and regulation. The field has evolved from isolated CSR initiatives toward approaches that treat sustainability as a source of resilience, innovation, and long-term competitiveness.

Because concepts such as CSR, corporate sustainability, and ESG are often used inconsistently, organizations benefit from clarifying what ‘sustainability strategy’ means for their value chain and governance. Research highlights several lenses for doing so: instrumental ‘business case’ logic, resource-based perspectives (including the natural resource–based view), and institutional and stakeholder perspectives focused on legitimacy and a license to operate. Each lens implies different priorities, capabilities, and measures of success.

Empirical research generally finds a positive relationship between corporate sustainability performance and financial performance, but results vary by measurement approach, time horizon, and context. Sustainability initiatives often require upfront investment, while many benefits (risk reduction, reputation, productivity, and learning) materialize later. Leaders therefore need to manage unavoidable tensions between short-term efficiency and long-term environmental and social goals, rather than assume simple win-win outcomes.

In practice, sustainability-oriented strategy follows the classic strategy cycle—analysis, formulation, and implementation—while expanding tools and governance to address double materiality, ESG risks, and stakeholder impacts across the value chain. Effective execution typically combines clear leadership roles, cross-functional coordination, performance management systems (such as sustainability-balanced scorecards), and employee capabilities and culture that support continuous adaptation.

1 Introduction

1.1 Problem statement and relevance

Today, companies face global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss and geopolitical crises.¹ These developments are closely interlinked and affect environmental, social and economic spheres simultaneously.² In management research, this has led to sustainability increasingly being viewed not as a supplementary task, but as a key component of long-term corporate governance.³

At the same time, the demands placed on companies are increasing significantly due to new regulatory requirements, such as the EU Taxonomy, as well as the expectations of investors and societal stakeholders.⁴ In the context of ESG criteria, sustainability aspects are thus becoming increasingly important from a strategic perspective.⁵ In many companies, however, there remains a gap between stated sustainability goals and their actual implementation in strategic management. In the literature, this problem researchers often describe as the “corporate intention-behavior gap”.⁶

One reason for these difficulties lies in the limitations of traditional strategic models, which were primarily developed for relatively stable market conditions and economic objectives.⁷ Environmental and social challenges are often viewed more as external factors rather than as an integral part of strategic value creation.⁸ This creates conflicts of interest between short-term efficiency requirements and long-term sustainability goals, which are difficult to manage using traditional management approaches.⁶ Since companies must take these conflicting requirements into account on an ongoing basis, the question of how sustainability can be more strongly integrated into strategic management processes is gaining importance.⁹

2 Sustainability strategy: Definition and historical background

2.1 Defining sustainability strategy

Rothaermel defines a strategy as: “[…] a set of goal-directed actions a firm takes to gain and sustain superior performance relative to competitors.”¹⁰ A good strategy implements three characteristics. The first is a study of an institution’s external and internal environments to ensure an assessment of competitive challenges. With this background and as a second step, a strategy can be elaborated upon and implemented into a corporate strategy to create the possibility of mastering competitive challenges. The third characteristic is the execution of coherent actions during the implementation of an elaborated strategy.¹⁰^,¹¹

For a short definition of sustainable development, the Triple Bottom Line is used in this wiki entry. Originally defined by Elkington, it says: “[…] business is now developing new ‘win-win-win’ strategies in this area to simultaneously benefit the company, its customers, and the environment.” This concept has become increasingly popular. Elkington describes it as the answer to the challenges of bringing about real ecological progress, including social and economic factors.¹² Therefore, for sustainable development to be successful, it should always consider social, environmental, and economic factors.

Dyllick and Hockerts specified corporate sustainability as: “[…] meeting the needs of a firm’s direct and indirect stakeholders […], without comprising its ability to meet the needs of the future stakeholders as well.”¹³ Salzmann et al. expanded this definition to include profit-oriented and strategic feedback on the activities of a company’s actions.¹⁴

All the points mentioned above are included in the following definition:

“Sustainability business strategy is the integration of economic, environmental, and social aims into a firm’s goals, activities, and planning, with the aim of creating long-term value for the firm, its stakeholders, and wider society. This means that strategy is formulated and executed so that the needs of the firm and its stakeholders are met today, while protecting, sustaining, and enhancing the natural resources that will be needed in the future.”¹⁵ The definition of a strategy is expanded here by taking the long term and Triple Bottom Line into account. It is not only about competing with other companies and generating optimal performance today but also about maintaining future livelihoods.

2.2 Historical evolution of sustainability in strategic management

The evolution of sustainability in the context of strategic management can be described as a long-term transformation.¹⁶ This evolution spans from early ecological principles and initial approaches to CSR to the current integration of sustainability into core corporate strategies.¹⁶ The earliest foundations of the concept of sustainability can be traced back as far as.¹⁷ At that time, Hans Carl von Carlowitz formulated the principle of “sustained yield” in forestry, which was intended to enable the long-term use of timber resources without depleting them.¹⁶ With the Industrial Revolution and the rapid growth of production and prosperity, this balance came under increasing pressure.¹⁶ However, broader societal awareness of the negative consequences of industrial development did not emerge until after World War II.¹⁶ Issues such as environmental pollution and resource scarcity came increasingly into focus and led to a first wave of scientific publications in the late 1960s.¹⁶

An important milestone in this development was the 1972 report by the Club of Rome (“The Limits to Growth”). It was the first to address the ecological limits of unlimited economic growth on a global scale.¹^,¹⁶ In the 1980s, the discussion increasingly shifted from a purely ecological perspective to questions of CSR.¹⁶ The 1987 Brundtland Report played a central role in this, defining sustainable development as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.¹^,⁴ During this phase, companies initially responded primarily with measures within the framework of CSR.¹⁸ However, these activities were often separate from the actual corporate strategy and limited to individual social or environmental initiatives.¹⁸ As a result, sustainability often played a supplementary role alongside the core business, leading to tensions between economic and sustainability-related goals.¹⁸ A key reason for this was that sustainability was long viewed primarily as a cost factor. Consequently, compliance with regulatory requirements or environmental mandates was often the primary focus, while its strategic value-creation potential was scarcely taken into account.⁸

The early phase of CSR was heavily focused on reputation and public image. Initiatives were often primarily aimed at enhancing a company’s image, without companies making fundamental changes to their business models.⁸^,¹⁸ In the literature, this form of sustainability communication is often referred to as “cosmetic CSR.”¹⁹^,²⁰ It was primarily aimed at securing social acceptance, while actual social and environmental impacts often played only a secondary role.¹⁹^,²⁰

Another problem was that sustainability was scarcely integrated into core business processes. Many initiatives focused on philanthropic measures or so-called “generic social issues,” such as donations or sponsorship.⁸^,²¹ These activities often had no direct connection to the company’s operational activities or specific competencies.⁸^,²¹ As a result, sustainability remained largely disconnected from the core business, meaning that potential contributions to long-term competitiveness were often left untapped.⁸^,²²

Furthermore, the low strategic priority given to sustainability was exacerbated by the short-term focus of many companies. Performance evaluations and incentive systems for executives focused primarily on short-term financial metrics and the enhancement of shareholder value.⁴^,⁸ Long-term investments in sustainability were therefore often deferred in favor of short-term economic gains.⁴^,⁸ Many companies faced the problem that the costs of sustainability-related measures were immediately visible, while positive effects such as greater resilience or innovation capacity often only became apparent in the long-term.²²

Increasing pressure from stakeholders and stricter regulatory requirements gradually led to a shift in thinking.⁸ At the same time, there was a growing recognition that environmental risks can also have direct financial implications.⁸ Companies consequently began to integrate sustainability considerations more closely into their operational processes and routines.¹⁸ One of the goals was to narrow the gap between public communication and actual action.¹⁸ As a result, sustainability increasingly evolved from a predominantly philanthropic form of CSR into a strategically relevant component of corporate management.²³ Today, it many companies regard as a key factor for long-term value creation and for navigating an increasingly uncertain global environment.²³

Since the beginning of the 21st century, research has shown an increasingly strong link between strategic management and sustainability.³ Today, sustainability is no longer viewed merely as a compliance issue or a tool for safeguarding reputation. Instead, it is increasingly regarded as a key factor in innovation, risk management, and long-term competitiveness.³ This trend is further accelerated by changing global conditions.¹ These include, among other things, climate change with increasing extreme weather events, geopolitical conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.¹^,⁷ The literature often describes these interconnected crises as so-called polycrises.¹

Such external shocks often force companies to realign their strategies, as gradual changes within organizations are frequently slow to be recognized.⁴^,⁷ The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, highlighted the vulnerability of global just-in-time systems and shifted the focus more strongly toward resilience and more sustainable value chains.⁷ Sustainability is therefore increasingly viewed not merely as a matter of economic optimization, but as a central prerequisite for the long-term stability and viability of companies in an uncertain global environment.⁷

3 Theoretical foundations at the strategy-sustainability interface

3.1 Sustainability in strategic management research

The academic literature on sustainability strategies has thus far been characterized by a high degree of conceptual fragmentation.²⁴ Terms such as CSR, CS, and ESG are often used inconsistently or are insufficiently distinguished from one another.⁸ As a result, there remains a lack of a consistent theoretical understanding of what a sustainability strategy actually entails.⁸ In research, sustainability researchers therefore often describe as a “contested concept”, the meaning of which is continually negotiated within the tension between social, political, and economic interests.¹⁸

This lack of conceptual clarity also has an impact on business practices.¹⁸ In many cases, sustainability initiatives are not viewed as part of an overarching corporate strategy, but rather exist in isolation from one another.¹⁸ The challenge is therefore no longer merely terminological, but primarily strategic: What role does sustainability actually play within the corporate value chain?⁸^,²¹

However, there is no consensus in the literature regarding the strategic role that sustainability plays within an organization.²⁵ Instead, different perspectives can be distinguished, each based on distinct strategic assumptions.²⁵ The instrumental perspective views sustainability primarily as a means of achieving economic goals and often discusses it in the context of a “business case.”²⁶^,²² The resource-based approach, particularly the NRBV, in contrast, understands sustainability as the foundation of company-specific capabilities and competencies.²⁷^,²⁸ These can contribute to the creation of competitive advantages in the long-term.²⁷^,²⁸ The institutional perspective, on the other hand, views sustainability strategies primarily as a response to external pressure and societal expectations. The aim here is to secure the company’s legitimacy and its “license to operate.”¹^,⁵

To make these different strategic approaches more tangible, the literature has developed various typologies for classifying sustainability strategies.⁸ A key approach is Schneider’s (2015) maturity model, which describes companies along a development path ranging from a reactive compliance orientation (CSR 0.0) to a strategic CSR 3.0.⁸ In the latter case, sustainability is proactively embedded in the core business.⁸ Building on this, Dyllick and Muff (2016) describe a shift in perspective from “business as usual sustainability,” in which economic objectives continue to dominate, toward “true business sustainability.”⁹^,²⁹ This approach views companies as part of a comprehensive socio-ecological system and aligns corporate strategy to actively contribute to solving global challenges.⁹

3.2 Theories at the intersection of strategy and sustainability

Research draws on various theoretical approaches to explain the role of sustainability in strategic management.¹ Some perspectives focus primarily on companies’ internal resources and capabilities, while others emphasize the influence of external stakeholders and societal expectations.¹^,⁷ These include, in particular, stakeholder theory and institutional theory, which view sustainability more within the context of societal demands and regulatory frameworks.¹^,⁷

Stakeholder theory constitutes an important theoretical framework. It posits that a company’s long-term success depends on taking into account the diverse expectations and interests of relevant stakeholders.³⁰ Sustainability is understood as an ongoing process designed to create value for various stakeholders.³^,³⁰ Proactive engagement with these groups many practitioners consider important for promoting transparency and ensuring societal acceptance.³^,³¹ Closely related to this is institutional theory. It views companies as part of an environment shaped by legal requirements, social norms, and cultural expectations.⁵ From this perspective, sustainability strategies often emerge as a response to external pressure, such as stricter regulations like the CSRD, CSDDD, industry-specific standards, or societal expectations.⁵^,¹⁹ Companies thereby seek to secure societal legitimacy, as its loss can jeopardize access to important resources or markets in the long-term.⁵^,¹⁸ While these approaches primarily explain external influences on companies, resource-based perspectives focus more on the question of how sustainability can be translated into competitive advantages internally.¹^,¹⁹

In this context, stakeholder engagement is increasingly recognized as a key component of strategic adaptation processes.³⁰ By engaging with external stakeholders, companies can identify societal expectations at an early stage and incorporate them into their strategic decisions.⁴^,³⁰ At the same time, this process helps align internal resources and capabilities with changing societal and institutional requirements.⁴^,³²

Over time, research on the strategic integration of sustainability has increasingly shifted from a resource-oriented to a more process-oriented perspective.⁶ The starting point for this development is the RBV. This view assumes that sustainable competitive advantages are primarily based on internal resources that are valuable, rare, difficult to imitate, and non-substitutable.³³ In this context, for example, a strong reputation or ethical management processes are considered strategically relevant resources that can differentiate companies from their competitors.³⁰^,²⁷ To incorporate environmental aspects more fully into this perspective, Hart developed the NRBV.²⁷ This approach views environmental challenges not only as a risk but also as a potential source of strategic advantages. For example, companies can reduce costs or differentiate themselves in the market through emission avoidance or greater product responsibility.²⁷

These different approaches are not mutually exclusive; rather, they examine sustainability from different perspectives.³⁰ While the RBV and the NRBV primarily emphasize the value of strategic resources, the Dynamic Capabilities View (DCV) focuses more strongly on companies’ ability to continuously develop these resources and adapt them to change.³⁰ In stable market environments, the NRBV may be sufficient to achieve competitive advantages through measures such as emissions avoidance or product responsibility.³⁰ In dynamic and uncertain environments, however dynamic capabilities gain importance, as companies must continuously adapt their resources and processes to new requirements.³⁰^,³⁴ The key difference between these approaches thus lies less in their objectives and more in their understanding of how competitive advantages arise. While resource-based approaches focus more on existing strategic resources, dynamic capabilities emphasize above all the ability to innovate and adapt in changing markets.³⁰^,²⁸

The empirical results presented in Chapter 3.1 can be better contextualized using these theoretical approaches. For example, the positive relationship between sustainability reputation and financial performance described there can be explained by the RBV, since a strong reputation many practitioners consider a valuable and difficult-to-imitate resource that strengthens stakeholder trust.³⁵ At the same time, the dynamic capabilities perspective helps explain why the empirical results are not always clear-cut.³⁴^,³⁶ While companies may possess sustainability-related resources, they do not automatically derive economic benefits from them. Rather, what is decisive is whether they are able to adapt these resources to changing market conditions and new requirements.³⁴^,³⁶ Furthermore, this approach also explains why the positive effects of sustainability measures often only become apparent in the long-term. Establishing new routines, processes, and learning mechanisms initially requires significant investment before measurable financial benefits can result.²²^,³⁶

Since resource-based approaches are often criticized for being too static, the Dynamic Capabilities View (DCV) is gaining increasing prominence in research.⁶^,³² The RBV focuses primarily on a company’s strategically valuable resources. The DCV, by contrast, places greater emphasis on the ability to adapt these resources to changing conditions and to continuously develop them further.⁶^,³² In this context, the concept of GDC emerged.²⁸ It aims to explain how companies can combine environmental requirements with long-term competitive advantages, particularly in volatile and uncertain environments.²⁸ GDCs enable organizations to identify opportunities and risks early on, deploy resources strategically, and adapt internal structures to new requirements.³²^,³⁶ This allows companies, for example, to better respond to climate risks or regulatory changes.³²^,³⁶

However, the implementation of such dynamic capabilities depends heavily on a company’s specific operating conditions and resources.²⁴^,³⁷ Significant differences emerge between different types of companies. While multinational corporations often have the financial and human resources to establish specialized sustainability structures, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) frequently face much greater challenges.²⁴^,³⁸ For many SMEs, the continuous adaptation of strategies and processes represents a considerable burden, as they often lack technical expertise and suitable systems for data-driven decision-making.³^,³⁸ Consequently, the success of sustainable transformation processes depends largely on whether management succeeds in reconciling long-term environmental goals with the company’s short-term economic resilience.⁶^,³²

Despite their strong explanatory power, dynamic capabilities also have certain theoretical and practical limitations.²²^,³⁹ One frequently cited challenge is the high complexity of the approach. The simultaneous management of processes such as sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring requires a significant amount of coordination, particularly in global supply chains, which can slow down adaptation processes.²²^,³⁹ Furthermore, the empirical measurement of such capabilities proves difficult. Since GDC are often deeply embedded in organizational routines and experiential knowledge, they are difficult to capture using standardized metrics.²³^,²² At the same time, the approach places high demands on management, as it requires long-term integrated thinking as well as expertise in areas such as the circular economy or eco-design.²²^,³⁹ If the necessary competencies are lacking, there is a risk that additional processes will primarily generate administrative overhead without actually contributing to sustainable competitive advantages.²²^,³⁹

3.3 Key debates and strategic tensions

The preceding chapters have shown that integrating sustainability into strategic management is not a simple optimization process. Rather, it gives rise to persistent tensions between economic, environmental, and social objectives. While Chapter 3.1 discussed the inconsistent empirical findings regarding the relationship between sustainability and financial performance and Chapter 3.2 presented various theoretical perspectives, the paradox perspective helps explain why sustainability strategies often reach their limits in practice.³⁹ A central assumption of this approach is that the resulting tensions cannot be fully resolved. Instead, these are enduring contradictions that companies must continually balance.⁶^,⁹

The research also describes a fundamental conflict between economic and normative objectives.³⁰ On the one hand, sustainability can be understood as a means of improving competitiveness and increasing corporate value.³⁰ On the other hand, normative approaches emphasize the moral responsibility of companies toward social and environmental challenges.³⁰ In practice, this gives rise to tensions when societal expectations require measures that do not yield direct financial benefits in the short-term.⁹ While resource-based approaches often prioritize measures that contribute directly to competitiveness, the paradox perspective calls for a broader consideration of social and moral demands.³⁰ This allows companies to make decisions that may entail short-term economic disadvantages but contribute to social legitimacy in the long-term.³⁰

The contradictory results of CSP CFP research described in Chapter 3.1 can also be explained by time lags.²² Sustainability investments often entail high initial costs. Positive effects such as greater resilience or reputational gains often only become apparent in the long-term.³⁰^,²² As a result, short-term financial metrics often come out neutral or negative, while long-term trends tend to be positive.²²^,³⁷ This presents companies with the challenge of balancing short-term economic goals with long-term investments in sustainability.⁵^,²⁶ In this context, strategic management does not mean choosing one side, but rather taking both requirements into account simultaneously.⁵^,²⁶

The theoretical debate between the RBV and GDC can also be viewed from a paradoxical perspective.²⁶ While the RBV tends to emphasize the preservation of stable and valuable resources, GDC focuses on the continuous adaptation and further development of these resources.³² An excessive focus on stability can lead companies to react slowly to environmental changes or external crises.²⁶^,³⁴ Conversely, an exclusive focus on constant adaptation can overburden resources and hinder long-term stability.²⁶^,³⁴ Companies therefore face the challenge of preserving existing structures while simultaneously responding flexibly to new demands.²⁶

From this perspective, the central challenge is not to completely resolve these tensions, but to manage them over the long-term.⁶^,²⁹ While the traditional business case often pursues environmental measures only if they promise short-term economic benefits, the paradox perspective emphasizes the simultaneous consideration of environmental and economic goals.⁹^,²⁵ Tensions between efficiency and sustainability are not merely viewed as a problem but can also foster innovation.⁴ For example, if regulatory requirements increase production costs, this can prompt companies to modify processes or develop new business models that create both environmental and economic benefits in the long-term.¹

Companies can deal with such tensions in various ways.²⁶ One option is to separate certain sustainability activities organizationally from the core business. For example, some companies establish specialized units or foundations for social and environmental projects to protect them from short-term economic pressures.²² Furthermore, sustainability can be considered over longer planning and investment horizons than traditional economic projects.²⁶ At the same time, companies are striving to better align environmental and economic goals. To this end, they utilize, among other things, hybrid governance structures, cross-functional teams, or ESG-related incentive systems.²⁶ The aim of such approaches is not to treat sustainability and economic interests as opposites, but rather to leverage both areas jointly for long-term innovation and corporate development.⁵^,²⁶

If companies fail to balance these conflicting demands, sustainability is often limited to symbolic measures.¹⁸ In such cases, a significant gap often emerges between public communication and actual action.¹⁸ Companies sometimes respond with superficial sustainability measures or greenwashing to meet societal expectations without fundamentally changing their business models.¹⁶^,²⁶ Such inconsistent strategies can not only tie up resources but also pose significant reputational risks.²⁹ If sustainability measures are perceived as lacking credibility by external stakeholders or regulatory authorities, this can undermine the trust of investors and other stakeholders in the long-term.²⁹

Overall, it is evident that successful sustainability strategies are based on managing the inherent tensions between environmental, social, and economic objectives.²⁵ The role of management is not so much to achieve a perfect balance between these areas, but rather to manage conflicting demands over the long-term.²⁵ Success is therefore not assessed solely on the basis of individual financial metrics. Rather, what is decisive is a company’s ability to link environmental and economic goals through appropriate structures and processes and to develop solutions that are sustainable in the long-term.²⁶ These include, for example, the organizational separation of certain activities, hybrid governance structures, or greater integration of sustainability goals into strategic decision-making processes.²⁶

4 Practical implementation of sustainability-oriented strategy

4.1 Strategic analysis

Strategic analysis serves as the starting point for many management processes. The goal is to systematically examine external and internal factors in order to support decisions regarding a company’s positioning and the allocation of resources.⁴⁰

Strategic analysis plays a key role in integrating sustainability into strategic management, as it increasingly takes into account not only economic factors but also environmental and social requirements.²¹ A distinction is often made between an “outside-in” approach, which examines sustainability aspects from the perspective of the company’s competitive environment, and an “inside-out” approach, which focuses on the impacts of the company’s own value chain.²¹ In this context, traditional analytical tools are being expanded. Adapted PESTEL analyses, for example, make it possible to take greater account of environmental, political, or infrastructural developments not only at the corporate level but also along global supply chains.⁴¹ In addition, tools such as ESG risk management are gaining importance in order to incorporate environmental and social risks into strategic decisions at an early stage.⁵ One example of this is the further development of the BCG Matrix, in which traditional criteria such as market share and market growth are supplemented by sustainability aspects or climate resilience to better evaluate investment decisions under uncertain conditions.⁴² As a result, strategic analysis no longer serves merely to evaluate market opportunities but increasingly also to assess long-term risks and sustainability requirements.¹⁶

4.1.1 Classical strategic analysis

The PESTEL framework is frequently used to analyze the macroeconomic environment; it distinguishes between political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal factors.²⁹^,⁴¹ Porter’s Five Forces serves as a complementary tool for analyzing competitive conditions within an industry. This examines the bargaining power of suppliers and customers, the threat of new market entrants and the intensity of competition among existing firms.⁴¹^,⁴⁰ For internal analysis, the RBV focuses on resources and capabilities that are valuable, rare, difficult to imitate, and non-substitutable.³ Finally, the SWOT analysis combines internal strengths and weaknesses with external opportunities and threats.⁴^,¹⁶

Despite their widespread use, traditional analytical tools are increasingly reaching their limits, as they are primarily focused on economic factors and relatively stable market conditions.⁴² Companies are often viewed in isolation, while their embeddedness in social and environmental contexts plays only a secondary role.²^,²² Porter’s Five Forces, in particular, takes only limited account of societal expectations and the influence of external actors outside the immediate competitive sphere.³⁰ This creates a risk of underestimating long-term risks.³⁰ The traditional RBV also has limitations, as resources are primarily understood as existing assets, while ecological changes and necessary adaptation processes are only considered to a limited extent.⁶

This strong focus on economic factors means that traditional analytical tools are increasingly reaching their limits in complex and uncertain environments.⁴¹ Challenges such as climate change or social inequalities are often not viewed as central components of corporate strategy, but rather as external factors.⁴¹ As a result, traditional models struggle to adequately capture long-term tensions between economic efficiency and environmental sustainability.¹⁶ While traditional tools continue to provide important foundations for strategic analysis, they are no longer sufficient on their own to fully capture the complex requirements of sustainable corporate management.¹⁶ Therefore, a sustainability-oriented expansion of these approaches is necessary, one that takes greater account of ecological, social, and stakeholder-related contexts in addition to economic aspects.¹⁶ The following chapter 4.1.2 addresses these expansions.

External environment – PESTEL Model

For a macroenvironment, the PESTEL Model counts as a solid established tool. It builds a framework that sorts the following six external parts: Political, Economic, Sociocultural, Technological, Ecological, and Legal. Taking these segments into account, an organization can scan, monitor, and evaluate its macroenvironment. This is important for an organization because these factors can be both an opportunity and a threat.¹⁰ With this external perspective, an organization analyzes what it might do.⁴³

Internal environment – Value chain analysis

For an internal environment, the value chain analysis by Michael Porter is a common tool. This management concept focuses on the added value and cost of each internal activity. It orders activities and helps analyze and compare individual steps in a value chain. By doing so, an organization can determine which activities already create value and where costs still exceed the created value. Porter differentiated between primary and supporting activities along the value chain. Each of these activities should add value; therefore, costs must be lower than added incremental value.¹⁰ With this internal perspective, an organization analyzes what it can do.⁴³

SWOT analysis

Once the macro- and microenvironments are analyzed, a SWOT analysis is often used to combine both parts for a better general overview. With this tool, an organization can clarify its strengths and weaknesses (internal) and opportunities and threats (external). It gives a useful overview of internal and external environments and can help to finally identify (sustainability) issues that really matter.⁴³^,⁴⁴

4.1.2 Sustainability-oriented analysis

Sustainability-oriented analysis expands upon traditional strategic approaches by incorporating environmental and social perspectives.⁷^,²⁵ While traditional tools often focus primarily on economic factors, a sustainability-oriented analysis places greater emphasis on the interactions between businesses, the environment, and society.⁴¹ This also changes how traditional analytical tools, such as the PESTEL framework, are used.³⁰ In the context of sustainability, it no longer serves merely to describe external influencing factors, but also to identify potential conflicts of interest and unintended consequences of sustainability measures.²⁹^,⁴¹ A traditional PESTEL model, for example, can identify regulation as a political influencing factor, but often fails to account for the environmental or social tensions that may arise when pursuing different sustainability goals simultaneously.²⁹ Expanded approaches such as PESTEL+I or the systematic analysis of sustainability paradoxes are intended to close these gaps and help companies identify transformation risks and structural bottlenecks at an early stage.⁴¹

Similar limitations are also evident in Porter’s Five Forces. The model focuses primarily on market actors such as suppliers, customers, or competitors and takes only limited account of societal actors outside the market.³⁰^,⁴⁵ These include, for example, NGOs, local communities, or future generations, whose influence on companies can be significant due to social pressure or reputational risks.³⁹ Sustainability-oriented approaches seek to broaden this perspective, particularly through materiality analyses.²¹ While Porter’s Five Forces primarily examines how external factors influence a company’s profitability, materiality analysis additionally considers the impacts of business activities on the environment and society.²¹ This allows, for example, the identification of ecological trade-offs or political tensions that are often overlooked in a purely business-oriented analysis.²⁹ A prerequisite for this is a broader stakeholder analysis that includes not only traditional market players but also social groups such as NGOs or local communities.⁴ By systematically analyzing their expectations and influence, companies can respond early to potential conflicts or reputational risks.⁴

A key tool in sustainability-oriented analysis is materiality analysis, particularly the concept of double materiality.¹⁸ Unlike traditional internal analyses, this approach takes into account both the impact of ESG factors on a company’s financial performance and the effects of business activities on the environment and society.¹⁸ This integrates sustainability more deeply into strategic decision-making processes, rather than viewing it merely as a regulatory or operational obligation.³ The results of such analyses are often incorporated into an expanded ESG risk mapping, which enables companies to integrate environmental and social risks more systematically into their risk management.⁵ This can help make companies more resilient to external crises and long-term changes.⁵

Sustainability-oriented analysis is also based on the assumption that there may be inherent tensions between environmental, social and economic goals.²⁵ Unlike the traditional business case perspective, this approach does not assume simple win-win solutions.²⁵ Instead, conflicting goals such as those between short-term cost efficiency and long-term environmental stability should be identified early on. These trade-offs should also be continuously taken into account.⁶ This turns strategic analysis into an ongoing process in which companies continuously monitor societal developments, environmental changes, and stakeholder expectations.³²^,³⁶ This helps identify complex problems early on and prepare adjustments to strategies and resources.³² Sustainability-oriented analysis thus creates the foundation for better managing uncertainties and conflicting goals in dynamic environments.²²

Overall, it is evident that traditional analytical tools often take sustainability into account only when it yields a direct economic benefit.⁵ As a result, long-term conflicts of interest between economic, environmental, and social requirements are frequently not adequately addressed.²² Sustainability-oriented approaches such as ESG risk mapping or the analysis of strategic tensions broaden this perspective.⁶ They help companies identify conflicting goals at an early stage and incorporate them more fully into strategic decisions.⁶ As a result, strategic analysis evolves from a predominantly economically oriented assessment to a continuous process of monitoring and adaptation in dynamic environments.³⁰

4.2 Strategy formulation

The formulation of sustainability strategies involves integrating economic goals more closely with environmental and social requirements.³ Researchers are increasingly criticizing the fact that sustainability many organizations view solely from the perspective of economic benefit.⁵ The so-called business case usually takes social and environmental aspects into account only if they result in a direct economic benefit. Paradox Theory, on the other hand, takes a broader approach and addresses the tensions between economic, environmental, and social objectives without fundamentally prioritizing any one of these perspectives.⁵ Companies can pursue various strategies in this regard, ranging from compliance with minimum legal requirements to a comprehensive alignment of the business model with sustainability.²¹ Often, the goal is to combine economic success with the resolution of societal problems, thereby creating so-called shared value.³ Even traditional competitive strategies such as cost leadership or differentiation are increasingly influenced by ESG factors. Sustainability aspects can, for example, strengthen stakeholder trust and thus contribute to a company’s long-term competitiveness.⁸

4.2.1 Classical strategy formulation

Traditional strategic formulation describes the process by which companies define their long-term direction.³ The goal is to make strategic decisions under uncertain conditions and to align a company’s internal capabilities with external market opportunities.³⁰^,⁴⁰ Traditional approaches to strategy formulation are primarily guided by two perspectives: the positioning school and the RBV.³⁰ While Porter explains competitive advantages mainly through cost leadership or differentiation, the RBV emphasizes the importance of company-specific resources and capabilities as the foundation of long-term competitive advantages.³⁰

However, even at this stage, conflicts between traditional strategic approaches and sustainability goals are already apparent.²¹ Traditional strategic approaches focus primarily on economic efficiency and often view social or environmental impacts merely as additional cost factors.²¹ This is particularly evident in the case of the cost leadership strategy. In this strategy, companies seek to reduce costs as much as possible along the value chain in order to gain price advantages over competitors.³⁰^,³³ In practice, this can lead to tensions with sustainability goals, for example when cost advantages are achieved through low wages or lower environmental standards.⁴^,²¹ As a result, long-term environmental risks or societal consequences often take a back seat, while short-term efficiency and financial metrics take center stage.²⁵

This logic means that companies often have to set priorities where economic and sustainability-related goals compete with one another.⁶ In crisis situations, short-term financial goals are therefore often given higher priority than long-term environmental or social commitments.⁶ The traditional RBV also has limitations in this context, as resources such as human capital or raw materials are predominantly viewed from the perspective of their economic use.⁴ Their dependence on social and environmental conditions is often overlooked.⁴ As a result, traditional strategic approaches struggle to simultaneously account for conflicting economic, environmental, and social requirements.⁹^,²⁶ Sustainability-related tensions are often understood as conflicting goals, requiring a decision in favor of one side.⁹^,²⁵ However, such an “either-or” logic is often no longer sufficient for addressing complex sustainability challenges.⁹^,²⁵

4.2.2 Sustainability strategy formulation

Sustainability-oriented strategy formulation does not completely replace traditional approaches, but rather expands them to include environmental and social objectives.⁹ Sustainability is no longer viewed as a separate, ancillary issue, but is more closely linked to economic decisions.⁹ An important step in this development was initially the Strategic CSR approach, followed by the concept of Creating Shared Value (CSV).⁸ The goal of CSV is to combine economic success with the resolution of societal problems, thereby overcoming the traditional separation between profit orientation and societal benefit.⁸ However, this approach is also viewed critically in research.⁹^,²² CSV focuses primarily on situations in which economic and social interests can be achieved simultaneously.⁹^,²² As a result, conflicts and tensions between objectives are pushed into the background. These tensions often cannot be resolved through simple win-win solutions and characterize many sustainability problems.⁹

The limitations of such win-win approaches are increasingly leading researchers to adopt a paradoxical perspective.²⁵ This approach assumes that companies must deal with persistent tensions between economic, environmental, and social goals.⁶^,⁹ Instead of a classic either-or logic, the paradox perspective therefore emphasizes the simultaneous consideration of conflicting requirements.⁶^,⁹ For practical strategy formulation, this means that companies must use different mechanisms to deal with such tensions.⁶ One option is the spatial or temporal separation of certain objectives. For example, long-term sustainability goals can be pursued in specialized units, while other areas remain more focused on short-term efficiency.⁶^,²⁶ This can partially reduce conflicts between different objectives in day-to-day operations.²⁶ At the same time, companies are attempting to more closely integrate environmental and economic goals through new strategies.⁶^,⁹ This may require, for example, the development of new processes, business models, or organizational capabilities.⁶^,⁹

As a result, sustainability-oriented strategy formulation evolves from a one-time strategic decision into an ongoing process of adaptation.⁹^,³⁰ The sustainability requirements identified during the analysis phase are translated into new strategies, processes, or business models.³⁰ Unlike traditional resource-based approaches, competitive advantages lie not only in the protection of existing resources but also in their continuous development.³⁰ GDC are intended to help companies flexibly adapt their resources and structures to changing environmental conditions and remain capable of acting in the long-term.³⁰ Overall, sustainability-oriented strategy formulation thus offers a broader approach to addressing complex environmental, social, and economic requirements.³⁰ By giving greater consideration to conflicting goals and long-term tensions, the aim is to narrow the gap between strategic sustainability goals and their actual implementation.²⁵

4.2.2 Sustainability strategy pathways

A sustainability strategy can pursue different goals. An efficiency strategy tries to achieve the greatest possible output per unit input.⁴⁶ Accordingly, the focus is not on absolute quantity but rather on generating benefits. An efficiency strategy supports economic efficiency thinking. However, even if it tries to use fewer resources for the same result, this does not ensure resource conservation. A rebound effect can occur in which efficiency gains become overcompensated by an increase in absolute quantity.⁴⁷ The two characteristics of sufficiency are modesty and frugality. Huber equated the pursuit of this with renunciation.⁴⁸ This is about transforming the way we produce and consume nowadays.⁴⁹ A post-growth economy, for example, is oriented toward the idea of sufficiency.⁵⁰ In consistency, the goal is to reintegrate man-made systems and technologies into the natural life cycle.⁴⁶ An example of this is a closed-loop economy in which energy comes from renewable sources. If such technologies are successfully adapted, absolute quantity is no longer a decisive factor.⁴⁷

The challenge of a sustainability strategy is to implement it into a corporate strategy.⁴⁸ A corporate strategy determines where to act in a possible environment, a business strategy describes how to compete there, and a functional strategy determines how to implement that business strategy.¹⁰ During this implementation process, there are different stages and milestones. These have different labels in the literature but build on the same idea. Kashmanian et al. described the stages as “in compliance; beyond compliance; beyond fenceline; and beyond footprint.”⁵¹ Baumgartner and Ebner first named the introverted strategy, which serves to minimize risks. Besides the introverted strategy, there is the extroverted version. Here, the focus is on legitimization and external relations. The conservative strategy, on the other hand, focuses on (ecological) effectiveness and cleaner production. A holistic view is provided by a visionary strategy. All parts of an economy consider aspects of sustainability.⁵²

Similarly, in other elaborations (see, e.g., Caroll and Wartrick as well as Chochran), the four stations of “obstructionist, defensive, accommodative, and proactive” describe comparable circumstances.⁵³ Rosenberg et al. distinguished the penetration of such a strategy by applying a two-dimensional map in which classifications are made. The horizontal axis represents the level of compliance, and the vertical axis represents ecological sensitivity.⁵⁴ When a high intensity is reached for both, this could be compared briefly with the beyond footprint stage, a proactive strategy, and a visionary strategy. This step may be considered an overall goal to ensure value creation from sustainability. It is noteworthy that value creators address sustainability mainly for reasons of corporate strategy (e.g., goals, mission, and values) and making a measurable positive impact, whereas other companies see sustainability as a topic for improving corporate reputation or complying with governmental regulations.⁵⁵ Lastly, Van Bommel added the resign strategy, which decides not to implement sustainability.⁵³

4.2.3 Vision, mission, and values

“Organizations need to embrace an adaptive and emergent yet also workable and practical process to ensure that sustainability is tightly connected to and deeply embedded in the organization’s vision, mission, and overall objectives.”⁴³

Therefore, it is important to clarify why a company exists by differentiating and identifying its vision, mission, and values. A conceptual overview of these key elements of a strategy provide Mirvis et al.:⁵⁶

• Vision (What?): shows the prospective picture of an organization
• Mission (Why?): shows the purpose of the organization
• Values (How?): show how the organization will achieve its vision

4.2.3.1 Vision

According to Mirvis et al., “a vision provides an intellectual framework for company strategy: it defines a strategic direction and presents a conceptual map of how a company moves from its current reality to a desired future state.”⁵⁶

This means that a vision shows where the organization is going in the next years. Thus, it has a mid-to-long-term perspective and is market-oriented. With a vision, an organization creates a statement about how it wants to be seen by the world.⁴⁴ By defining the organization’s desired end goal, a future-out view for the striven achievements arises.⁵⁷

According to this, it is important for an organization to see the clarification of its vision as the first step in its business path. Once the vision is set, the organization has cleared what it wants to achieve while always keeping employees’ motivations in mind. This is important because staff need to internalize the company’s vision for better performance by feeling part of it and realizing the meaning of the work. Therefore, a vision should be inspiring, motivating, and future-oriented. This possible improvement in performance should not only be measured financially in the short term because it often leads to higher success in the long term.¹⁰

4.2.3.2 Mission

When a vision is clear, an organization needs to deliver it. This happens through a mission, which briefly summarizes a purpose – the why. A mission operates as a beginning for a strategy by defining what, who, and how an organization is doing business.⁵⁷ More specifically, it explains what an organization does, what it offers in which markets, and hence how it wants to reach its goals.¹³ As part of a sound strategy, a mission clearly positions an organization in its external environment and leads the way to the required competencies for reaching long-term success.⁴³

4.2.3.3 Values

Values reflect a company’s desired culture and its intended behavior and character.⁴⁴ Hence, these values can be seen as the guiding principles for an organization.⁵⁷ They show commitments and guardrails according to a clarified vision and mission by acting legally and ethically responsible. Setting values is important for a company´s strategy because it breaks down a vision and mission for employees into concrete and tangible pieces. With this, employees can adopt company culture more easily, using the given values as a moral compass.¹⁰

Case study: Vaude

Mission: “We create innovative products, solutions, and services that are both environmentally friendly and socially fair. We minimize our ecological footprint with sustainable quality and circular systems that allow us to operate within planetary boundaries. We are a driving force and role model for sustainable business practices on a global level.”⁵⁸

Vision: “Improving the quality of life with sustainable outdoor products and future-oriented business strategies.”⁵⁸

Values:
“1. Our roots: “The Mountain” The Mountain: The exhilaration of the ascent, the peace at the top, the far-sighted view, and the joy of descent drive us.
2. Value “We” Mountain. Nature. Team. Partnership. Fun. Family. We.
3. Driver “Forward” Trends change as fast as the weather in the mountains. Sustainability endures.”⁵⁹

4.2.4 Targets and key performance indicators

As companies can make a substantial contribution to reaching the goal of sustainable development, targets should be in line with the SDGs.⁶⁰ For better measurability, it is useful to set clear targets and key performance indicators (KPIs). These can be seen as a quantification of a vision that defines the desired results for a sustainability strategy.⁴⁴ A study showed that companies creating value from sustainability focus significantly more on linking their sustainability strategies to targets and measurable KPIs than the other companies analyzed.⁵⁵ Having targets is necessary and even expected from stakeholders to illustrate performance ambitions and make the process judgeable. Therefore, each identified priority needs an assigned target. To set good targets, they need to be meaningful, material, complete, consistent, and ambitious. KPIs have different key characteristics. They should be accessible, relevant, responsive, and comparable.⁵⁷ To measure these sustainability goals even better, it is important for an organization to use certain KPIs for economic, social, and environmental fields, which are shown in the table below.⁴⁸

To measure an organization’s performance, the balanced scorecard (BSC) is a well-known tool.⁶¹ BSC encompasses several dimensions: financial, customer, internal business processes, organizational learning and growth, and sustainability, each obtaining measurable KPIs.⁵¹^,⁶¹ With the sustainability BSC, this tool has been adjusted for social and environmental issues.⁶¹ Therefore, sustainability aspects are either integrated into the original BSC or the entire template is complemented by a nonmarket view.⁶¹ Thus, the sustainability BSC can be seen as a modified tool that helps to turn a developed strategy into certain targets.⁴⁸

Case study: SAP

SAP’s mission is to “help the world run better and improve people’s lives.” Therefore, SAP established a target system including economic, ecological, and social indicators – leading together to the overall goal of profitability. Economic KPIs encompass growth and customer loyalty. Social KPIs include employee engagement, a share of women in management positions, and business health culture (BHC Index). At the ecological level, carbon emissions and energy consumption are the main indicators tracked. SAP goes one step further and shows how the different indicators are intertwined. For instance, BHC fosters employee engagement. Employee engagement drives successful carbon emission reductions, and reducing carbon emissions helps achieve the target of economic growth, as sustainability-related criteria are becoming increasingly important to customers.⁶²^,⁶³

4.3 Strategy implementation

Implementing sustainability strategies is often considered particularly challenging, as many companies struggle to actually put their stated sustainability goals into practice. In the literature, this gap researchers often describe as the “Corporate Intention-Behavior Gap”6 To integrate sustainability into companies over the long-term, environmental and social goals must be more closely integrated into organizational processes as well as into management and control systems.⁶⁴ An important tool in this regard is the Sustainability Balanced Scorecard (SBSC), which takes environmental and social aspects into account alongside financial metrics.⁶⁴ Furthermore, roles such as the Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) are gaining importance, as this allows ESG issues to be more strongly integrated into management’s strategic decision-making processes.⁵ Successful implementation, however, depends not only on formal structures but also on employee skills and corporate culture. Sustainability can only be integrated into business processes in the long-term if employees are actively involved in change processes and possess the necessary skills. This is evident, for example, in sustainable procurement management or in lead buyer concepts within procurement.²² Overall, the implementation of sustainability strategies therefore requires a combination of clear leadership structures, continuous monitoring, and the active involvement of employees.⁵

4.3.1 Classical strategy implementation

Traditional strategy implementation describes the process by which strategic decisions are translated into organizational structures and operational measures.⁸^,³⁰ Traditionally, a distinction is made between strategy formulation and its subsequent implementation.³⁰ A central tenet of this perspective is Alfred Chandler’s “structure follows strategy” principle. According to this principle, successful implementation primarily requires the adaptation of organizational structures and responsibilities. These structures and responsibilities must align with the chosen strategy.⁸ The Balanced Scorecard (BSC) is frequently used for operational management. It translates strategic goals into measurable metrics across the areas of finance, customers, processes, and learning.⁸ In classical management theory, the BSC is regarded as an important tool for managing strategic goals. In the context of sustainability, however, the limitations of this approach become apparent.⁶⁴ Since the BSC relies on clearly measurable metrics, it often focuses primarily on easily quantifiable aspects.⁶⁴ Complex or long-term sustainability issues, on the other hand, are often difficult to capture and thus tend to take a back seat.³⁰^,⁶⁴

Another key approach in traditional strategy implementation is Peter Drucker’s concept of Management by Objectives (MbO). In this approach, employees’ individual goals are linked to overarching corporate objectives using the SMART criteria.⁸ The aim of this approach is to align employee behavior more closely with corporate strategy and to promote goal achievement through incentive systems.⁸ However, a number of problems also arise in this context when it comes to sustainability goals.⁴^,⁸ The strong focus on measurable and often short-term targets can lead to long-term environmental or social aspects being pushed into the background.⁴ At the same time, there is a risk that financial incentives will be given greater weight than ethical convictions or long-term sustainability goals.⁴

The limitations of traditional implementation approaches are particularly evident when it comes to implementing sustainability strategies.¹⁸ There is often a discrepancy between ambitious ESG goals and their actual implementation in day-to-day operations.¹⁸ Companies frequently focus on individual measures that yield visible short-term results, while fundamental changes to their core business fail to materialize.¹⁸ Tools such as the Balanced Scorecard or Management by Objectives primarily support the management of clearly defined and measurable goals within existing organizational structures.⁵^,⁶ However, they are only of limited use for addressing long-term conflicting goals and complex sustainability requirements.⁵^,⁶ In particular, tensions between short-term cost control and long-term resilience are difficult to address using tradition-al management frameworks.⁸^,³⁰ While traditional strategy implementation provides important organizational foundations, it must be expanded to include additional approaches for sustainability strategies.⁵ These include, in particular, greater adaptive capabilities as well as a management mindset capable of addressing conflicting environmental, social, and economic requirements.⁵

4.3.2 Sustainability strategy implementation

Sustainability-oriented strategy implementation describes an ongoing process in which environmental and social aspects are increasingly integrated into core business processes.⁸^,²⁹ Unlike traditional implementation, which relies primarily on fixed organizational structures and hierarchical management, sustainability requires more coordinated and cross-functional forms of collaboration.⁵ In this context, new governance structures are gaining importance, as they take into account stakeholder interests in addition to internal corporate goals.⁵ Chief Sustainability Officers (CSOs) or dedicated sustainability committees play a key role here.²³^,²² They are tasked with better coordinating sustainability issues across different business units and supporting their integration into operational processes.²²

To overcome the limitations of the traditional Balanced Scorecard, the Sustainable Balanced Scorecard (SBSC) was developed, which also takes environmental and social metrics into account.⁶⁴ In practice, however, it has become apparent that social impacts and long-term sustainability effects, in particular, are often difficult to measure.²²^,⁶⁵ As a result, there remains a risk that companies will focus primarily on easily quantifiable metrics, while more complex sustainability issues receive less attention.⁶⁴ To counter this problem, many companies are attempting to integrate sustainability goals more closely into their incentive systems.⁴ For ex-ample, executive compensation is increasingly being linked to ESG-related goals in order to better align short-term financial incentives with long-term sustainability goals.⁴

The practical implementation of sustainability strategies often requires extensive adjustments within the organization.²⁴^,³⁶ These include, for example, changes in product development where environmental experts are more closely integrated into innovation processes, or new workflows and guidelines that incorporate sustainability criteria into day-to-day operations.²⁸ Strategy implementation is not viewed as a one-time step, but rather as an ongoing adaptation process.⁵^,²⁶ Companies must continuously respond to new environmental, social, or regulatory requirements and further develop their processes accordingly.⁵^,²⁶ The goal is to better align economic requirements with sustainability goals in the long-term.⁵^,²⁶ This is intended to narrow the gap between strategic sustainability goals and their actual implementation in day-to-day business operations.²⁷^,²⁹ Flexible structures and continuous adjustments play a central role in this process.²⁷^,²⁹

4.3.2.1 Organizational design

With an adequate organizational design, managers can implement a written strategy into a realized one. Organizational design describes “the process of creating, implementing, monitoring, and modifying the structure, processes, and procedures of an organization.”¹⁰ To implement a strategy, changes within an organizational design are usually necessary. Managers are often too afraid of disturbing current practices (status quo); they cannot make the necessary changes due to unfitting power distribution and resource allocation.¹⁰^,⁶⁶

As organizational design sets general conditions for a company, it must be flexible and adaptable to a new strategy while fostering change and growth.¹⁰ Existing frameworks to describe the key factors of organizational design have yet to be able to include the entire complexity of organizational dimensions. Keeping this in mind, they can still be used to analyze an organization’s ability to adapt to changes, such as the implementation of a sustainability strategy.⁶⁷

A model by Lemus-Aguilar et al. is based on Galbraith’s Star Model⁶⁸ but puts a stronger focus on strategy as a link that connects all factors of organizational design.⁶⁷ With this strategy-centered framework, the importance of aligning all factors to a sustainability strategy should be emphasized.

A strategy sets boundaries for organizational design alternatives and connects all factors. Structure refers to hierarchies, distribution of resources, and responsibilities within an organization. Processes describes information flow, decision-making, and information technologies. People [LINK WIKI HR] refers to human resources and related policies and qualifications. Behavior includes several factors that can also be found separately in other papers: organizational culture, leadership, rewards, and other types of motivation (e.g., acknowledgments, and social incentives that strengthen employee commitment). These are key factors for successful strategy implementation. Lemus-Aguilar et al. added external linkages to the model, which represents circular interactions between internal and external actors to promote sustainability by delivering and capturing social, environmental, and economic value.⁶⁷ This includes e.g., external partners like joint ventures.⁶⁷^,⁶⁹ A CEO of outdoor company VAUDE highlighted that finally, a strategy must be managed at the executive level in everyday business: “It is like a puzzle, everything complements each other. In the center stands the sustainability topic.”⁷⁰

4.3.2.2 Organizational structure

“A mismatch between strategy and structure will lead to inefficiency.”⁷¹ Organizational structure must align with a sustainability strategy; however, in reality, it is oftentimes the other way around.¹⁰ Designing a structure that supports a sustainability strategy is strongly connected to the interdisciplinarity of sustainability itself. The layouts of organizational departments and the location of sustainability decision-making (e.g., a sustainability board) create friction in communication between units of an organization.⁷²

The key elements of organizational structure are specialization, formalization, centralization, and hierarchy.¹⁰ According to an organization’s structure, resources are distributed to teams and individuals. It describes how jobs and tasks are divided and integrated. A structure also sets communication channels and reporting relationships along a hierarchy and defines a team’s coordination of work efforts.¹⁰^,⁷³

The division of tasks into separate jobs and functions is described by specialization and is commonly influenced by a firm’s size. Higher specialization increases productivity but can also have negative impacts (e.g., reduced employee satisfaction due to the repetition of tasks).¹⁰ Sustainability specialists (or sustainability champions) are needed across all levels of an organization to act as multipliers for sustainability approaches in their business units. They can positively affect changes and transfer knowledge across an organization.⁷⁴

The extent of guidelines, rules, and predetermined procedures that steer employee behavior is described by formalization.¹⁰ Depending on the business field, a high formalization might be necessary to ensure safety standards and reliability, although, generally, formalization can slow decision-making, reduce creativity and innovation, and inhibit customer service.¹⁰^,⁷⁵^,⁷⁶

Centralization refers to the convergence of decision-making at the top of an organization.¹⁰ Decentralized organizations can profit from faster response times because problems are solved directly, and decisions are made by employees closer to the source of the issue. However, there is the possibility of communication issues if not all issues are discussed in a central position.¹⁰ Diversity in sustainability knowledge and backgrounds in top management is a powerful factor for a holistic sustainability approach.⁷⁷ Therefore, it is necessary to spread accountability for sustainability goals across multiple departments.⁷⁴ In the initial phase of sustainability implementation, a centralized structure can be helpful to guarantee good coordination. Later, reaching a higher degree of maturity in sustainability integration can lead to unclear communication and accountability.⁷⁸

The term hierarchy summarizes the formal standing of accountability and reporting lines throughout an organization.¹⁰ An organization with many levels between its frontline employees and CEO has a tall structure, while one with only a few levels has a flat structure. Flat structures have a wider span of control, which describes the number of employees who report directly to a manager. Research suggests that a middle way with a span not too wide nor too narrow is most effective because of conflicts of different objectives within an organization.¹⁰^,⁷⁹

Case study: SAP

Software company SAP implemented a network structure in line with a holistic transparency approach. A centralized sustainability team of specialists was originated to plan, evaluate, and execute operational activities in strong teamwork with respective business units. Collaborative decision-making led to higher acceptance and eventually anticipated better outcomes, which justified higher coordination and time efforts. This multiplication effect made it possible to achieve a broad impact on the company. Furthermore, SAP established a champions network for all employees to voluntarily engage in sustainability projects. Participating champions could count up to 10% of their work time, which increased employee engagement and individual motivation. Simultaneously, these champions act as decentralized multiplicators for sustainability implementation in their respective business units. The sustainability team organizes regular sustainability conferences and moderates an intensive exchange on a collaborative platform for SAP sustainability projects worldwide. Furthermore, an external sustainability council consisting of customers, investors, NGOs, workers’ representatives, and partners was established to consult about the strategy and its implementation.⁷⁸

4.3.2.3 Organizational culture

When implementing a sustainability strategy, it should adapt an organization’s culture accordingly to maintain a competitive advantage.⁸⁰ The importance of culture was described by Peter Drucker, who said, “culture eats strategy for breakfast.”⁸¹ It is worth mentioning that a study revealed that of companies creating value from sustainability, almost 60% integrate sustainability as part of their corporate culture, whereas 39% of all the other companies interviewed focused on this matter.⁵⁵ When companies fail, it is often because CEOs were not able to transfer their strategy into a culture.⁸⁰ Culture can be one of the strongest features of an organization; however, at the same time, it can become a downfall if a culture is not adapted to changes in a company’s environment;¹⁰ thus, it represents a driver and a barrier in one. Organizational culture describes “collectively shared values and norms of an organization’s members”¹⁰ and is part of organizational design.⁸² Through socialization, the process of internalizing values and norms during everyday business operations, employees learn about their organization’s culture.⁸³ Strong internalizations of values and norms among the majority of employees create a strong culture.⁸⁰^,⁸³ Culture is expressed via artifacts, which are elements of the design of physical space (e.g., private vs. open-plan office), symbols (e.g., workwear), vocabulary, stories, what events are celebrated, and how (e.g., casual BBQ for reaching a sales target).¹⁰^,⁸⁴

Often, organizational culture is characterized by its founder. As a founder usually sets the initial strategy, this so-called founder imprinting can define a company’s culture for many years.⁸⁵ Examples are Steve Jobs (Apple) and Walt Disney (Disney).¹⁰

Usually, people with similar values to a company’s culture are more attracted to having that company as an employer.⁸⁴^,⁸⁶ This also works the other way around, as recruiters look for people with a mindset that fits a company.⁸⁷ In regards to implementing a sustainability strategy into a culture, it should be considered that concepts of sustainability as a value are highlighted in culture, especially when recruiting new employees.⁸⁴

Case study: EcoLibro

Mobility consulting company EcoLibro shows how entrepreneurial thinking and employees’ personal responsibilities can increase efficiency and productivity while reducing individual accountability through decision-making distribution. High effective commitment to living sustainability values in daily business led to empty car parks, a fleet of bikes and public transport tickets, tremendous know-how, strong employee retention, openness to new possibilities, engagement in decision-making, and creative drive. Experiencing meaningfulness is key to sustainability integration in culture.⁸⁸

4.3.2.4 Leadership and commitment

An effective means for cultural change is new leadership that follows the necessary adaptations in organizational design. To manage this change effectively, strategic (vision), tactical (enabling environment), and operational (everyday practice) action is required.⁷⁴^,⁸⁹ For the integration of a sustainability strategy at all levels, employees need clear guidance on expectations that come along with a new strategy.⁵⁷ Leading by example is key to strengthening sustainability objectives throughout an organization.⁸⁴^,⁹⁰ Furthermore, learning new sustainable practices and unlearning those that are no longer fitting with a sustainable strategy is a crucial part of an implementation process. Therefore, education on new tools for all employees is necessary.⁴³ To achieve higher engagement, creative communication on a rational and emotional level is an effective tool for employees to understand what sustainability means for them and their everyday work.⁵⁷^,⁸⁴ Leaders require a sustainability communication approach along an entire value chain to create a mutual understanding of sustainability with all employees.⁸⁶^,⁹¹ Furthermore, it is possible to gain insights into the effectiveness of set measures and the status of implementation via extensive consultation with employees.⁵⁷

A cross-cultural study by Müller et al. showed a positive correlation between socially sustainable actions (Corporate Social Responsibility) and employees’ effective commitments. The results imply that companies benefit from strong social sustainability.⁹²

4.3.2.5 Controls and rewards

“Strategic control-and-reward systems are internal governance mechanisms put in place to align incentives of principals (shareholders) and agents (employees). These systems allow managers to specify goals, measure progress, and provide performance feedback.”¹⁰ An example of such a mechanism is already found in culture. It can act as a social control system (e.g., values and norms provide controls in unpredictable situations for employees).¹⁰^,⁸⁴

On the one hand, input controls are used to define ways and instruments to achieve strategic goals to achieve a predictable outcome. The most prominent example is budget distribution, for example, when focusing on a sustainability research and development project by allocating a certain amount of money before the start of a project. On the other hand, output controls define expected outcomes, while input factors to achieve those goals can be chosen by employees.¹⁰

Achieving sustainability goals strongly depends on employee motivation. Decisive factors for high intrinsic motivation are autonomy (about what to do), mastery (how to do it), and purpose (why do it).¹⁰^,⁹³ The introduction of performance management systems that connect accomplishments in sustainability goals with rewards brings up a strong enhancement in sustainability goals, values, and strategy.⁸⁴^,⁹⁴

4.3.2.6 Involving stakeholders

With the integration of sustainability into corporate practice, it is important to highlight the value of all dimensions of sustainability. Social sustainability makes it essential to put more focus on stakeholders, especially on a variety of external stakeholders that ‘conventional’ organizations generally do not consider.⁷⁰ This demands a high commitment to extensive interaction with ‘new’ stakeholder groups.⁶⁷ Those groups may have different and maybe conflicting needs and interests and may have further interconnections as well.⁷⁰^,⁹⁵ Therefore, stakeholders can directly or indirectly influence a company’s sustainability performance.⁷⁰^,⁹⁶ Thereby, stakeholder groups’ power, legitimacy, and urgency indicate their influence on a sustainability strategy.⁷⁰^,⁹⁷ A survey of leading firms in Mexico showed that 81.5% of the firms indicated collaboration with an environmental organization as a business opportunity while only 23% saw issues with such an engagement.⁹⁸

Especially important for international organizations is to understand issues of globalization for them to act sustainably entirely.⁴³ Furthermore, stakeholders increasingly expect reporting about organizational sustainability, strategy, performance, and progress. To determine the most relevant reporting topics, a materiality analysis can be useful. Good reporting that includes non-financial aspects creates public trust in an organization’s sustainability efforts.⁵¹ It creates transparency and strengthens organizational learning.⁷⁴ An example of reporting guidelines gives the GRI. Therefore, a sustainability strategy should include comprehensive ways of communicating with stakeholders.⁵¹

5 Drivers and barriers

In the following, drivers and barriers to a sustainability strategy are clustered into three core categories: institutional (beyond a firm’s scope), organizational (within a company’s business), and individual (with a focus on the people representing a firm).⁷⁶ Some of them may both act as drivers and barriers depending on the context. In the best case, potential barriers are handled properly and turned into drivers, e.g., via communication, involvement, and sound fact-based reasoning – the foundation for developing and implementing a sustainability strategy.⁶⁶ After providing an overview of potential drivers and barriers at the mentioned levels, chosen issues considered particularly important will be discussed in detail.

5.1 Institutional level

On the institutional side, compliance with governmental standards and incentives, consumer awareness, and requirements to take responsibility could act as drivers.⁷⁰^,⁹⁹ Also, gaining a strategic competitive advantage and a pioneer position in the field of sustainability via a corporate strategy may foster the development of a sustainability strategy.⁵⁷^,⁷⁰^,¹⁰⁰^,¹⁰¹ The same holds for shareholder interests and requirements, public pressure by NGOs, or suppliers’ requirements.⁹⁹ Contrary to this, weak, unclear environmental and social standards, missing governmental incentives, or actual consumer behavior (e.g., high price sensitivity) may impede motivation for a sustainability strategy.⁷⁰^,¹⁰² Besides, intensive price and cost pressure on the market side and lack of trust and support by shareholders, industrial lobbying groups, or suppliers could make the development and especially the implementation of a sustainability strategy difficult.¹⁰²

Drivers	Barriers
Compliance to governmental standards	Low pressure from regulation side (weak standards)
Governmental incentives	Lack of governmental incentives
Consumer awareness and requirements	Consumer behavior: price sensitivity
Pioneer role among competitors	Loosening competitiveness (price/cost pressure)
Shareholder interest and requirements	Lack of trust and support from shareholders
Public pressure by NGOs	Industrial lobbying groups
Suppliers’ interests and requirements	Lack of trust and support from suppliers

Table 2: Institutional drivers and barriers ²⁰³⁸⁶³⁶⁴⁶⁵⁶⁶

5.1.1 Government regulation

A study stated governmental regulations as a core barrier to engaging in sustainability. Firms consider compliance with the growing number of sustainability-related standards difficult.⁷⁰ In particular, lack of governmental support, missing incentives, and few training or consulting options provided by a government were named.¹⁰³ Thus, a fuzzy, unclear regulatory framework results in uncertainty.¹⁰²^,¹⁰⁴ By contrast, this uncertainty in a fast-changing regulatory context may also lead companies to proactively comply to reduce vulnerability and pressure from stricter regulations.⁹⁹ Therefore, governmental regulations and standards act as important drivers in the same way.⁷⁰^,¹⁰⁴^,¹⁰⁵

A study revealed legal sustainability-related requirements as the means with the greatest influence on a business.⁹⁹ When talking about the relevance of this driver, one has to keep in mind the different levels of compliance: whether a firm simply intends to comply with minimum standards or is willing to proactively go beyond requirements.⁵¹ Compliance with laws may be more relevant for ‘low-sustainability performers than for those who follow a holistic approach in addressing sustainability where they even contribute to the establishment of laws for systemic change.⁹⁹^,¹⁰⁶ These laws will be beneficial to these sustainability leaders over their competitors – thus creating a sustainability-related competitive advantage.¹⁰⁷

5.1.2 Competitive position

Companies may think engaging in corporate sustainability will weaken their competitive position in a market.¹⁰⁶ They believe that sustainable business is costly from the first point of view (e.g., high initial capital cost)¹⁰³ and lacks short-run financial benefits.¹⁰⁶ Due to difficulties in forecasting particular sustainability-related benefits and costs, and the high uncertainty of future framework conditions (e.g., market demand), companies believe they cannot create a successful business case for sustainability.⁹⁹ They are struggling with defining and quantifying sustainability-related (profitable) outcomes (e.g., via KPI).⁷⁴ This impedes motivation for a core strategic approach to sustainability; instead, single sustainability-related initiatives are worked out separately from main business goals.¹⁰⁶

By contrast, 95% of the companies participating in a representative study claimed that sustainability is a vital factor for a successful business in the long run.¹⁰⁵ Also other studies show that this core belief drives engagement in sustainability.⁵³^,¹⁰³^,¹⁰⁸ Cici and D’Isanto linked the integration of sustainability into a strategy to the “ultimate goal of increasing competitiveness and supporting durable profitability.”¹⁰¹ To gain credibility and effectiveness for one’s actions, a firm has to go beyond tapping sustainability in several non-linked operational tasks (e.g., selective engagement in donations or advertisement).¹⁰⁰ By contrast, all sustainability-related actions have to be related to an overall strategy.¹⁰⁹ A study showed that the share of companies successfully creating value from sustainability was significantly higher than the share across all other companies interviewed when it comes to explicitly classifying sustainability as a strategic topic.⁵⁵ This way, a firm will be persuasive and able to set itself apart from the mass of sustainability-related activities on the market.¹¹⁰ By taking a pioneer position based on an integrated sustainability approach, firms will be less reachable to competitors.⁹⁹^,¹⁰⁶ As strategic approaches are set on a long-term basis, they are not easy for competitors to copy; neither are those able to establish the required core competencies shortly nor can they buy the gained reputational position at the organizational level.¹⁰

5.2 Organizational level

Drivers	Barriers
Corporate reputation and brand image	Difficulty to align with other business fields
Increased operational efficiency	Lack of financial resources
Increased revenue streams (e.g., new markets)	Lack of R&D and innovation capabilities
Reduced operational costs	Lack of time and human resources
Open-minded, innovation-oriented culture	Prevalence of deep-routed routines

Table 3: Organizational drivers and barriers ²⁰³⁸⁶³⁶⁴⁶⁵⁶⁶

From an organizational perspective, enhanced brand image and reputation, operational efficiency (e.g., energy savings), higher revenue streams (by tapping new customer segments), reduced costs (e.g., better resource management), and a generally open-minded, innovation-oriented company culture could be seen as success factors.⁷⁰^,¹⁰⁰ By contrast, companies face difficulties in aligning their (competitive) business strategies with sustainability strategies.¹¹¹ Moreover, a lack of financial resources, R&D capabilities, and time and human resources can be obstacles.¹⁰²

5.2.1 Corporate reputation

A core driver for engaging in sustainability is beneficial corporate reputation and image,⁵³ which increasingly determines a business.⁷⁰ It represents the way stakeholders think about a company¹¹² and provides trust, which, according to a 2019 study, is a core condition for remaining competitive in a market for 76% of participating CEOs.¹⁰⁴ Linked to growing public awareness toward sustainability, improving corporate image is among the top drivers of sustainability.¹⁰³ In the worst case, unresponsible social and environmental behavior may also lead to the full breakdown of a company.⁷⁰ Also, the above-mentioned fact that many companies lack a corporate plan for tackling sustainability and instead focus on several non-linked initiatives (e.g., products, employees, and society) with minor changes within the actual business⁹⁹ may threaten a company’s image when thinking of greenwashing.⁵⁴ This phenomenon describes firms using sustainability claims in their communication that do not meet their actual sustainability-related performance.¹¹³ In sum, a firm improving its image and reducing greenwashing-related risks may force active engagement in a sound corporate strategy.

5.2.2 Organizational structure and culture

Organizational structure and culture are essential factors that can drive or impede a successful sustainability strategy.⁷² A study revealed business structure as one of the most relevant barriers to engagement in sustainability.¹⁰³ Organizational structures that rely on the idea of business units and incentive-based systems focused on short-term financial success may foster an old-fashioned mindset and thus impede strategic engagement.¹¹⁴ Linear thinking with hierarchical orders and communication processes putting only a limited view on separate components rather than a big picture of a whole may hinder full integration of sustainability.¹¹⁵ Sustainability has to be interdisciplinarily integrated into the entire company structure.⁷² It is crucial that each organizational unit of a company is aware of the overall company’s strategy and sees how its performance contributes to the latter (what fosters the overall commitment).⁵¹ This requires good internal (and external) communication, which is key to providing transparency – a precondition for reducing and handling complexity and thus reaching a predefined goal (e.g., integration of a sustainability strategy).¹⁰⁰ It represents a culture not focusing on hierarchies, but on networks with horizontal communication including constant feedback flows, and may turn a company into a learning system.¹¹⁵ Organizational learning helps convince people, change mindsets, and develop new daily routines. It may make it easier for employees to understand links between a main vision, a mission, and underlying goals, which increases the probability that they are set open-minded toward a comprehensive strategy.¹⁰⁰

Case study: OTTO Group

At Otto Group, the Corporate Responsibility Department is the head of group-wide sustainability approaches. However, Otto has a decentralized organizational structure such that the implementation of a sustainability strategy lies at the top management level of the respective group companies. Even if there is a close communicational exchange between group managers, sustainability officers, and the CR Department, the development and implementation of a sustainability strategy is carried out separately. With the purpose of “bringing sustainability […] more at the core of [their] business,” the organizational structure was modified. The CR Department is now built by cross-functional CR teams coming out of the respective group companies. In this way, group companies are given more freedom in their decisions and more influence on their overall strategies. All actors involved work together and exchange views within so-called “Expert Circles.” To go further, groups are given an opportunity to actively shape strategic decisions during open discussions about sustainability-related topics in both annual executive board meetings. After making structural changes, the CR board, as the main actor in the field of sustainability, has gained clear legitimacy – allowing them to make sustainability-related decisions independently from the groups’ top management level.¹¹⁶

5.3 Individual level

At the individual level, leadership support and commitment are crucial. The same applies to employee awareness and motivation and qualification and involvement.⁷² Consequently a lack of commitment, awareness, knowledge, skills, and involvement of an entire personnel may act as a barrier.¹⁰²

Drivers	Barriers
Leadership support and commitment	Lack of leadership support and commitment
Employee awareness and motivation	Lack of awareness about responsibility
Employee qualification	Lack of knowledge and skills
Involvement of an entire personnel	Lack of staff involvement and empowerment

Table 4: Individual drivers and barriers ²⁰²⁹³⁸⁶³⁶⁴⁶⁶

5.3.1 Commitment of leadership

Acceptance of management is considered a core condition to successfully implement a sustainable strategy,⁷² simply because strategic approaches are taken at the level of top management.¹¹⁰ This depends on personal values, which influence willingness to engage in sustainability.⁷²^,⁷⁰ Managers often focus on economic performance while they are less willing or able to elaborate on sustainability issues.¹⁰⁰ Priorities lay on operational short-term issues rather than on a strategic long-term view.¹⁰¹ Moreover, there is a lack of understanding of sustainability and its benefits for a business.⁹⁹^,¹⁰³ In addition, old-fashioned mindsets⁹⁹ result in a certain skepticism toward sustainability issues that may hinder institutionalizing sustainability into the above-named company culture.⁷⁰ Hence, poor management could impede ambitions for a sustainability strategy.⁵³ Training courses may help change a mindset and explain opportunities of a sustainability strategy⁷² such that this barrier may be turned into a driving point. Indeed, an active commitment by leadership drives the embedding of sustainability strategies. The formulation and implementation of a corporate strategy is understood as a process that is proactively driven by management and its awareness.⁵³ If a member board decides to engage in sustainability, change may happen faster¹⁰⁶ because proper leadership puts forward the enforcement of sustainable practices and helps encourage all employees.¹⁰⁸

Case study: EcoLibro

At EcoLibro (a provider of innovative mobility solutions), in its founding state, leadership’s understanding was highly influenced by the founders’ former engagement in military service at German Bundeswehr. After an internal revolution, a more democratic, less hierarchical leadership style was adopted. Actors at the top management level are now seen as coaches giving inspiration and providing visions. Information is shared transparently, and employees are actively involved. This change in leadership style has led to higher commitment, greater assumption of responsibility, and an increased open mindset in dealing with each other across the entire company – thus exemplifying a highly supporting factor for CSR approaches such as a corporate sustainability strategy.⁸⁸

5.3.2 Employee engagement

Employees’ support plays a crucial role in bringing management’s formulated strategy into implementation.⁷² Employees’ interest in sustainable initiatives drives their success.⁹⁹^,¹⁰⁸ A recent study revealed that employees are one stakeholder group with the greatest influence on managing sustainability.¹⁰⁴ Individual attitudes and personalities determine motivation. First, a personal attitude is influenced by individual qualifications. To achieve this, it is crucial to empower people by informing and qualifying them (e.g., via training courses).⁷² A study revealed that companies who can create value from sustainability (value-creators) are those that typically engage in training their employees on how to integrate sustainability practices into their work.⁴⁴ Employees have to understand the importance of a sustainability strategy and its integration into daily work routines.⁵⁷ Indeed, 47% of the value-creators in the above-mentioned study said that employees have an understanding of the link between sustainability efforts and an overall strategy; among all the other companies asked, this share was 27%.⁵⁵ A message must be framed in a way that people listen to it.¹¹⁵ Therefore, people have to be addressed on informational and emotional levels.⁵⁷

Besides knowledge and understanding, a strategy requires full commitment by personnel.¹¹⁷ Setting incentives via reward systems may foster their engagement in sustainability implementation, although this drives motivation in the short run. In the long term, improved appreciation would be more helpful⁷² – revealing that employees are a vital part that contributes to the success of a sustainability strategy.⁵¹^,⁵⁷ Overall, it necessitates shared sustainability-related values and the integration of those as core criteria into recruitment, performance evaluation, and employee training methods.¹⁰⁹

Case study: Alcoa

At Alcoa Corporation (a mining and metals company), employees’ children had the possibility of drawing pictures of a sustainable world (through the kids’ eyes). This touchingly shows the own responsibility of engaging in sustainability to preserve our planet for future generations.¹¹⁸ A comparable approach follows Lenzing AG (a textile fiber producing company) with its campaign, “letter to a child.” Within this company’s sustainability report, letters – written by employees to their children – are published in which they explained to them the importance of sustainability for their future. In a way that children can understand, they described their contributions to sustainability through working at a responsible company that follows a corporate sustainability strategy.¹¹⁹

References

1
Sedovs, E. & Volkova, T. Sustainability: Is It a Strategic Management Research Fashion? Sustainability 16, 7434 (2024).
2
Barnett, M. L., Henriques, I. & Husted, B. W. Sustainability Strategy. in Strategic Management (eds Duhaime, I. M., Hitt, M. A. & Lyles, M. A.) 647–662 (Oxford University PressNew York, 2021). doi:10.1093/oso/9780190090883.003.0036.
3
Mirea, A.-S., Mazare, M. & Baci, A. Mapping the intersection of strategic management and sustainability. in Development Through Research and Innovation IDSC-2025 220–228 (Academy of Economic Studies, 2025). doi:10.53486/dri2025.27.
4
Nygaard, A. Green Marketing and Entrepreneurship. (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2024). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-50333-7.
5
Annesi, N., Battaglia, M., Ceglia, I. & Mercuri, F. Navigating paradoxes: building a sustainable strategy for an integrated ESG corporate governance. Manag. Decis. 63, 531–559 (2025).
6
Supply Management Research: Aktuelle Forschungsergebnisse 2025. (Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, 2025). doi:10.1007/978-3-658-48750-8.
7
Setyadi, A., Pawirosumarto, S. & Damaris, A. Toward a Resilient and Sustainable Supply Chain: Operational Responses to Global Disruptions in the Post-COVID-19 Era. Sustainability 17, 6167 (2025).
8
Helmold, M., Treu, J., Fritz, J. & Hummel, F. ESG, CSR und SDG als langfristiger Wettbewerbsvorteil: Nachhaltigkeit durch innovative Konzepte, Methoden und Tools. (Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, 2024). doi:10.1007/978-3-658-44579-9.
9
Agwu, U. J. & Oftedal, E. M. Embracing paradox and moving away from unsustainability through business model innovation. Sustain. Communities 2, 2480363 (2025).
10
Rothaermel, F. T. Strategic Management. 3rd ed. (McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY, 2017).
11
Rumelt, R. P. Good Strategy, Bad Strategy. The Difference and Why It Matters (Profile Books, London, 2011).
12
Elkington, J. Enter the Triple Bottom Line. In The Triple Bottom Line. Does It All Add Up, edited by A. Henriques & J. Richardson (Earthscan, Hoboken, 2004), pp. 1–16.
13
Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. Beyond the Business Case for Corporate Sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment 11, 130–141; 10.1002/bse.323 (2002).
14
Salzmann, O., Ionescu-somers, A. & Steger, U. The Business Case for Corporate Sustainability. Literature Review and Research Options. European Management Journal 23, 27–36; 10.1016/j.emj.2004.12.007 (2005).
15
Long, T. B. Sustainable Business Strategy. In Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Developmen Goals. Decent Work and Economic Growth, edited by Leal Filho, W., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., Özuyar, Wall, T. (Springer UK2019).
16
Drastichová, M. SWOT Analysis of the Sustainable Development Concept. Probl. Ekorozwoju 19, 6–30 (2024).
17
1713
18
Management for Sustainability: Begleitend zum Nachhaltigkeitskongress der SRH Fernhochschule 2023. (Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, 2025). doi:10.1007/978-3-658-45267-4.
19
Maccarrone, P. & Contri, A. M. Integrating Corporate Social Responsibility into Corporate Strategy: The Role of Formal Tools. Sustainability 13, 12551 (2021).
20
Hardyment, R. Sustainability Strategy: Simplified. Available at https://corporatecitizenship.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/Sustainability-Strategy-Simplified1.pdf (2015).
21
Rasche, A. Strategic Approaches to Corporate Sustainability. in Corporate Sustainability (eds Rasche, A., Morsing, M., Moon, J. & Kourula, A.) 96–116 (Cambridge University Press, 2023). doi:10.1017/9781009118644.007.
22
Valcozzena, S., Riso, V. & Cantele, S. Managing firm sustainability planning process: insights on strategic integration complexity. Manag. Decis. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-12-2023-2421 (2025) doi:10.1108/MD-12-2023-2421.
23
De Oliveira, U. R., Menezes, R. P. & Fernandes, V. A. A systematic literature review on corporate sustainability: contributions, barriers, innovations and future possibilities. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 26, 3045–3079 (2023).
24
Nguyen, H. L. & Kanbach, D. K. Toward a view of integrating corporate sustainability into strategy: A systematic literature review. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 31, 962–976 (2024).
25
Carmine, S. & De Marchi, V. Reviewing Paradox Theory in Corporate Sustainability Toward a Systems Perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 184, 139–158 (2023).
26
Luo, B. N., Tang, Y., Chen, E. W., Li, S. & Luo, D. Corporate Sustainability Paradox Management: A Systematic Review and Future Agenda. Front. Psychol. 11, 579272 (2020).
27
Gabler, C. B., Itani, O. S. & Agnihotri, R. Activating Corporate Environmental Ethics on the Frontline: A Natural Resource-Based View. J. Bus. Ethics 186, 63–86 (2023).
28
Islam, M. F. et al. Strategizing for Sustainability: Examining the Dynamic Interplay of the Circular Economy, Green Technology Innovation, and Green Performance. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 26, 935–961 (2025).
29
Engert, S. & Baumgartner, R. J. Corporate Sustainability Strategy. Bridging the Gap between Formulation and Implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production 113, 822–834; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.094 (2016).
30
Poeschl, H. Strategische Unternehmensführung zwischen Shareholder-Value und Stakeholder-Value. (Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, 2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-8349-4093-3.
31
Armenia, S., Dangelico, R. M., Nonino, F. & Pompei, A. Sustainable Project Management: A Conceptualization-Oriented Review and a Framework Proposal for Future Studies. Sustainability 11, 2664 (2019).
32
De Almeida Barbosa Franco, J., Franco Junior, A., Battistelle, R. A. G. & Bezerra, B. S. Dynamic Capabilities: Unveiling Key Resources for Environmental Sustainability and Economic Sustainability, and Corporate Social Responsibility towards Sustainable Development Goals. Resources 13, 22 (2024).
33
Jasim, B. H. Strategic Management for Sustainable Competitive Advantage: Integrating RBV, Dynamic Capabilities, Digital Transformation, and ESG. South Asian Res. J. Bus. Manag. 7, 420–423 (2025).
34
Shiferaw, R. M. & Amentie Kero, C. Dynamic capabilities view practices of business firms: a systematic literature review. Cogent Bus. Manag. 11, 2336309 (2024).
35
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L. & Rynes, S. L. Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Organ. Stud. 24, 403–441 (2003).
36
Yi, Y. & Demirel, P. The impact of sustainability‐oriented dynamic capabilities on firm growth: Investigating the green supply chain management and green political capabilities. Bus. Strategy Environ. 32, 5873–5888 (2023).
37
Busch, T. & Friede, G. The Robustness of the Corporate Social and Financial Performance Relation: A Second‐Order Meta‐Analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 25, 583–608 (2018).
38
Peters, J. & Simaens, A. Integrating Sustainability into Corporate Strategy: A Case Study of the Textile and Clothing Industry. Sustainability 12, 6125; 10.3390/su12156125 (2020).
39
Kareem, S., Fehrer, J. A., Shalpegin, T. & Stringer, C. Navigating tensions of sustainable supply chains in times of multiple crises: A systematic literature review. Bus. Strategy Environ. 34, 316–337 (2025).
40
Gomes, R. & Carneiro Barbosa, M. The Contributions of Michael Eugene Porter’s Five Competitive Forces in the Strategic Planning of Green Hydrogen Production in Ceará and Its Export to Europe. SSRN Electron. J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5240146 (2025) doi:10.2139/ssrn.5240146.
41
Blümel, L., Siegfried, K., Riedel, F. & Thrän, D. Are strategy developers well equipped when designing sustainable supply chains for a circular bio-economy? Supporting innovations’ market uptake in a PESTEL + I environment. Energy Sustain. Soc. 13, 40 (2023).
42
Vichayanan Rattanawiboonsom. Sustainability-Cantered Portfolio Management: A BCG Matrix Approach to Climate-Resilient Investments: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Inf. Syst. Eng. Manag. 10, 1135–1152 (2025).
43
Harmon, J., Bucy, F., Nickbarg, S., Rao, G. & Wirtenberg, J. Developing a Sustainability Strategy. In The Sustainable Enterprise Fieldbook. When It All Comes Together, edited by J. Wirtenberg, W. G. Russell & D. Lipsky (AMACOM; Greenleaf Publishing, New York, Sheffield, UK, 2009), pp. 89–116.
44
Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. & Barrows Jr., E. A. Developing the Strategy: Vision, Value Gaps, and Analysis. Balanced Scorecard Report 10, 1–5 (2008).
45
Šimonová, T., Malindzakova, M. & Malindzak, D. Integrating Management Strategy and Porter’s Five Forces Model for the Sustainable Recycling of Textile Waste. Sustainability 16, 9283 (2024).
46
Huber, J. Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Strategien für eine ökologische und soziale Erdpolitik (Edition Sigma, Berlin, 1995).
47
Schmidt, M. Die Bedeutung der Effizienz für Nachhaltigkeit – Chancen und Grenzen. In Ressourceneffizienz im Kontext der Nachhaltigkeitsdebatte, edited by S. Hartard, A. Schaffer & J. Giegrich. 1st ed. (Nomos, Baden-Baden, 2008), pp. 31–46.
48
Hristov, I. & Chirico, A. The Role of Sustainability Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in Implementing Sustainable Strategies. Sustainability 11, 5742; 10.3390/su11205742 (2019).
49
Schmelzer, M. & Passadakis, A. Postwachstum. Krise, ökologische Grenzen und soziale Rechte (VSA-Verl., Hamburg, 2011).
50
Paech, N. Befreiung vom Überfluss. Auf dem Weg in die Postwachstumsökonomie (Oekom-Verlag, München, 2012).
51
Kashmanian, R. M., Wells, R. P. & Keenan, C. Corporate Environmental Sustainability Strategy. Key Elements. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 107–130 (2011).
52
Baumgartner, R. J. & Ebner, D. Corporate Sustainability Strategies: Sustainability Profiles and Maturity Levels. Sustainable Development 18, 76–89; 10.1002/sd.447 (2010).
53
Ganescu, M. C. Corporate Social Responsibility, a Strategy to Create and Consolidate Sustainable Businesses. Theoretical and Applied Economics 19, 91–106 (2012).
54
Rosenberg, M. Strategy and Sustainability: A Strategic Logic for Engagement with the Environment. Palgrave Communications 1; 10.1057/palcomms.2015.34 (2015). 24
55
Granskog, A., Hannon, E., Hieronimus, S., Klaeyle, M. & Winkle, A. How Companies Capture the Value of Sustainability: Survey Findings. Available at https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/how-companiescapture-the-value-of-sustainability-survey-findings (2021).
56
Mirvis, P. H., Googins, B. K. & Kinnicutt, S. Vision, Mission, Values: Guideposts to Sustainability. Organizational Dynamics 39, 316–324; 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2010.07.006 (2010).
57
Hardyment, R. Sustainability Strategy: Simplified. Available at https://corporatecitizenship.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/Sustainability-Strategy-Simplified1.pdf (2015).
58
VAUDE. CSR-Report – Integrated Sustainability Strategy. Business operations that are ecological, fair, and successful. Available at https://csr-report.vaude.com/grien/vaude/integrated-sustainability-strategy.php (2021).
59
VAUDE. CSR-Report – Corporate Philosophy. Success with strong corporate values. Available at https://csr-report.vaude.com/gri-en/vaude/corporate-philosophy.php (2021).
60
Global Reporting Initiative. GRI 101 Foundation 2016. Available at https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1036/gri-101-foundation-2016.pdf (2016).
61
Schaltegger, S. & Lüdeke-Freund, F. Sustainability Balanced Scorecard. Concept and the Case of Hamburg Airport (Centre for Sustainability Management, Lüneburg, 2011).
62
SAP SE. 2020 SAP Integrated Report. Available at https://www.sap.com/integratedreports/2020/en.html (2021). 25
63
Berns, M. et al. Sustainability and Competitive Advantage. Forget how Business is Affecting Sustainability … How is Sustainability Affecting Business? The First Annual Business of Sustainability Survey and Interview Project has Answers. MIT Sloan Management Review 51, 18–26 (2009).
64
Engert, S., Rauter, R. & Baumgartner, R. J. Exploring the Integration of Corporate Sustainability into Strategic Management. A Literature Review. Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 2833–2850; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.031 (2016).
65
Cici, C. & D’Isanto, D. Integrating Sustainability into Core Business. Symphonya Emerging Issues in Management 1, 50–65; 10.4468/2017.1.05cici.disanto (2017).
66
Stewart, R., Bey, N. & Boks, C. Exploration of the Barriers to Implementing Different Types of Sustainability Approaches. Procedia CIRP 48, 22–27; 10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.063 (2016).
67
Lemus-Aguilar, I., Morales-Alonso, G., Ramirez-Portilla, A. & Hidalgo, A. Sustainable Business Models through the Lens of Organizational Design. A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 11, 5379; 10.3390/su11195379 (2019).
68
Galbraith, J. R. The Star Model™. Available at https://www.jaygalbraith.com/images/pdfs/StarModel.pdf (2016).
69
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from Performance Measurement to Strategic Management: Part I. Accounting Horizons 15, 87–104; 10.2308/ACCH.2001.15.1.87 (2001).
70
Peters, J. & Simaens, A. Integrating Sustainability into Corporate Strategy: A Case Study of the Textile and Clothing Industry. Sustainability 12, 6125; 10.3390/su12156125 (2020).
71
Hall, D. J. & Saias, M. A. Strategy Follows Structure! Strategic Management Journal 1, 149–163; 10.1002/smj.4250010205 (1980).
72
Engert, S. & Baumgartner, R. J. Corporate Sustainability Strategy. Bridging the Gap between Formulation and Implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production 113, 822–834; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.094 (2016).
73
Soderstrom, S. B. & Weber, K. Organizational Structure from Interaction: Evidence from Corporate Sustainability Efforts. Administrative Science Quarterly 65, 226–271; 10.1177/0001839219836670 (2020).
74
Copper, D. L. Sustainability Transformations. From Theory to Practice. In Corporate Sustainability in Practice. A Guide for Strategy Development and Implementation, edited by P. Taticchi & M. Demartini. 1st ed. (Springer International Publishing; Imprint: Springer, Cham, 2021), pp. 165–190.
75
Fredrickson, J. W. The Strategic Decision Process and Organizational Structure. AMR 11, 280–297; 10.5465/amr.1986.4283101 (1986).
76
Robert Baum, J. & Wally, S. Strategic Decision Speed and Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal 24, 1107–1129; 10.1002/SMJ.343 (2003).
77
Fuente, J. A., García-Sánchez, I. M. & Lozano, M. B. The Role of the Board of Directors in the Adoption of GRI Guidelines for the Disclosure of CSR Information. Journal of Cleaner Production 141, 737–750; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.155 (2017).26
78
Ritzrau, W. Eine nachhaltige Strategie bei SAP. In CSR und Strategisches Management. Wie man mit Nachhaltigkeit langfristig im Wettbewerb gewinnt, edited by T. Wunder (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017), pp. 219–238.
79
Theobald, N. A. & Nicholson-Crotty, S. The Many Faces of Span of Control. Organizational Structure Across Multiple Goals. Administration & Society 36, 648–660; 10.1177/0095399704270585 (2005).
80
Chatman, J. A. & Eunyoung Cha, S. Leading by Leveraging Culture. California Management Review 45, 20–34; 10.2307/41166186 (2003).
81
UN Global Compact. Cultural Integration. Roadmap for Integrated Sustainability. Available at https://d306pr3pise04h.cloudfront.net/docs/issues_doc%2Flead%2Froadmap%2Froadmap -cultural-integration.pdf (n. d.).
82
Barney, J. B. Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage? AMR 11, 656–665; 10.5465/AMR.1986.4306261 (1986).
83
Chao, G. T., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J. & Gardner, P. D. Organizational Socialization: Its Content and Consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology 79, 730–743; 10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.730 (1994).
84
Galpin, T., Whittington, J. L. & Bell, G. Is Your Sustainability Strategy Sustainable? Creating a Culture of Sustainability. Corporate Governance 15, 1–17; 10.1108/CG-01- 2013-0004 (2015).
85
Nelson, T. The Persistence of Founder Influence. Management, Ownership, and Performance Effects at Initial Public Offering. Strategic Management Journal 24, 707– 724; 10.1002/smj.328 (2003).
86
Dessler, G. How to Earn Your Employees’ Commitment. Academy of Management Executive 13, 58–67; 10.5465/ame.1999.1899549 (1999).
87
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W. & Smith, B. The ASA Framwork: An Update. Personnel Psychology 48, 747–773; 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01780.x (1995).
88
Stoverock, S., Schramek, M. & Heidbrink, M. Gleichklang von Vision, Strategie und Unternehmenskultur. Ein Blick auf CSR anhand der Mobilitätsberatung EcoLibro GmbH. In CSR und Geschäftsmodelle. Auf dem Weg zum zeitgemäßen Wirtschaften, edited by P. Bungard (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2018), pp. 459–470.
89
Lahtinen, S. & Yrjölä, M. Managing Sustainability Transformations: A Managerial Framing Approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 223, 815–825; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.190 (2019).
90
Epstein, M. J. & Rejc Buhovac, A. Solving the Sustainability Implementation Challenge. Organizational Dynamics 39, 306–315; 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2010.07.003 (2010).
91
Wirtenberg, J., Russell, W. G. & Lipsky, D. (eds.). The Sustainable Enterprise Fieldbook. When It All Comes Together (AMACOM; Greenleaf Publishing, New York, Sheffield, UK, 2009).
92
Mueller, K., Hattrup, K., Spiess, S.-O. & Lin-Hi, N. The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employees’ Affective Commitment. A Cross-Cultural Investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology 97, 1186–1200; 10.1037/a0030204 (2012).
93
Pink, D. H. Drive. The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us (Riverhead Books, New York, 2009).
94
Porter, M. E. & Kramer, M. R. Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review 84, 78–92; 10.1108/sd.2007.05623ead.006 (2006).
95
Neville, B. A. & Menguc, B. Stakeholder Multiplicity. Toward an Understanding of the Interactions between Stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics 66, 377–391; 10.1007/s10551-006-0015-4 (2006). 27
96
Sharma, S. & Henriques, I. Stakeholder Influences on Sustainability Practices in the Canadian Forest Products Industry. Strategic Management Journal 26, 159–180; 10.1002/smj.439 (2005).
97
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. & Wood, D. J. Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience. Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Review 22, 853–886; 10.2307/259247 (1997).
98
Lloret, A. Modeling Corporate Sustainability Strategy. Journal of Business Research 69, 418–425; 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.047 (2016).
99
Berns, M. et al. Sustainability and Competitive Advantage. Forget how Business is Affecting Sustainability … How is Sustainability Affecting Business? The First Annual Business of Sustainability Survey and Interview Project has Answers. MIT Sloan Management Review 51, 18–26 (2009).
100
Engert, S., Rauter, R. & Baumgartner, R. J. Exploring the Integration of Corporate Sustainability into Strategic Management. A Literature Review. Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 2833–2850; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.031 (2016).
101
Cici, C. & D’Isanto, D. Integrating Sustainability into Core Business. Symphonya Emerging Issues in Management 1, 50–65; 10.4468/2017.1.05cici.disanto (2017).
102
Stewart, R., Bey, N. & Boks, C. Exploration of the Barriers to Implementing Different Types of Sustainability Approaches. Procedia CIRP 48, 22–27; 10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.063 (2016).
103
Aghelie, A. Exploring Drivers and Barriers to Sustainability Green Business Practices within Small Medium Sized Enterprises: Primary Findings. International Journal of Business and Economic Development 5, 41–48 (2017).
104
Gupta, A., Raghunath, A., Gula, L., Rheinbay, L. & Hart, M. The Decade to Deliver. A Call to Business Action. The United Nations Global Compact —Accenture Strategy CEO Study on Sustainability 2019, 2019.
105
Ramboll Deutschland GmbH et al. Managing Sustainability. Key Findings of Ramboll’s 2019 Sustainability Survey. Available at https://indd.adobe.com/view/9e6bc77b-f715- 4b37-ac0a-770df9194394 (2020).
106
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K. & Rangaswami, M. R. Why Sustainability Is Now the Key Driver of Innovation. Harvard Business Review Sept. 2009, 57–64 (2009).
107
Laszlo, C. & Zhexembayeva, N. Embedded Sustainability: A strategy for Market Leaders. The European Financial Review April-May, 38–41 (2011).
108
Eweje, G. A Shift in Corporate Practice? Facilitating Sustainability Strategy in Companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 18, 125– 136; 10.1002/csr.268 (2011).
109
Bonn, I. & Fisher, J. Sustainability – The Missing Ingredient in Strategy. Journal of Business Strategy 32, 5–14; 10.1108/02756661111100274 (2011).
110
Stead, J. G. & Stead, W. E. The Coevolution of Sustainable Strategic Management in the Global Marketplace. Organization & Environment 26, 162–183; 10.1177/1086026613489138 (2013).
111
May, G. & Stahl, B. The Significance of Organizational Change Management for Sustainable Competitiveness in Manufacturing: Exploring the Firm Archetypes. International Journal of Production Research 55, 4450–4465; 10.1080/00207543.2016.1261197 (2017).
112
Roberts, S. Supply Chain Specific? Understanding the Patchy Success of Ethical Sourcing Initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics 44, 159–170; 10.1023/A:1023395631811 (2003). 28
113
Delmas, M. A. & Cuerel Burbano, V. The Drivers of Greenwashing. California Management Review 54, 64–87; 10.1525/CMR.2011.54.1.64 (2011).
114
Halme, M., Lindeman, S. & Linna, P. Innovation for Inclusive Business: Intrapreneurial Bricolage in Multinational Corporations. Journal of Management Studies 49, 743–784; 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01045.x (2012).
115
Milbrath, L. W. Psychological, Cultural, and Informational Barriers to Sustainability. Journal of Social Issues 51, 101–120; 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01350.x (1995).
116
Otto GmbH & Co KG. Annual Report. 19/20. Available at https://www.ottogroup.com/en/about-us/daten-fakten/Annual_Reports.php (2020).
117
Galpin, T. J. Theory in Action. Making Strategy Work. Journal of Business Strategy 18, 12–15; 10.1108/eb039824 (1997).
118
Fairfield, K. D. et al. Employee Engagement for a Sustainable Enterprise. In Wirtenberg, Russell et al. (Hg.) 2009 – The Sustainable Enterprise Fieldbook, pp. 141–161.
119
Lenzing Aktiengesellschaft. Stand up for Future Generations #alettertoachild. Sustainability Report 2020. Non-financial Statement. Available at https://www.lenzing.com/?type=88245&tx_filedownloads_file%5bfileName%5d=fileadm in/content/PDF/04_Nachhaltigkeit/Nachhaltigkeitsberichte/EN/NHB_2020_EN.pdf (2020).

1
Sedovs, E. & Volkova, T. Sustainability: Is It a Strategic Management Research Fashion? Sustainability 16, 7434 (2024).
2
Barnett, M. L., Henriques, I. & Husted, B. W. Sustainability Strategy. in Strategic Management (eds Duhaime, I. M., Hitt, M. A. & Lyles, M. A.) 647–662 (Oxford University PressNew York, 2021). doi:10.1093/oso/9780190090883.003.0036.
3
Mirea, A.-S., Mazare, M. & Baci, A. Mapping the intersection of strategic management and sustainability. in Development Through Research and Innovation IDSC-2025 220–228 (Academy of Economic Studies, 2025). doi:10.53486/dri2025.27.
4
Nygaard, A. Green Marketing and Entrepreneurship. (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2024). doi:10.1007/978-3-031-50333-7.
5
Annesi, N., Battaglia, M., Ceglia, I. & Mercuri, F. Navigating paradoxes: building a sustainable strategy for an integrated ESG corporate governance. Manag. Decis. 63, 531–559 (2025).
6
Supply Management Research: Aktuelle Forschungsergebnisse 2025. (Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, 2025). doi:10.1007/978-3-658-48750-8.
7
Setyadi, A., Pawirosumarto, S. & Damaris, A. Toward a Resilient and Sustainable Supply Chain: Operational Responses to Global Disruptions in the Post-COVID-19 Era. Sustainability 17, 6167 (2025).
8
Helmold, M., Treu, J., Fritz, J. & Hummel, F. ESG, CSR und SDG als langfristiger Wettbewerbsvorteil: Nachhaltigkeit durch innovative Konzepte, Methoden und Tools. (Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, 2024). doi:10.1007/978-3-658-44579-9.
9
Agwu, U. J. & Oftedal, E. M. Embracing paradox and moving away from unsustainability through business model innovation. Sustain. Communities 2, 2480363 (2025).
10
Rothaermel, F. T. Strategic Management. 3rd ed. (McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY, 2017).
11
Rumelt, R. P. Good Strategy, Bad Strategy. The Difference and Why It Matters (Profile Books, London, 2011).
12
Elkington, J. Enter the Triple Bottom Line. In The Triple Bottom Line. Does It All Add Up, edited by A. Henriques & J. Richardson (Earthscan, Hoboken, 2004), pp. 1–16.
13
Dyllick, T. & Hockerts, K. Beyond the Business Case for Corporate Sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment 11, 130–141; 10.1002/bse.323 (2002).
14
Salzmann, O., Ionescu-somers, A. & Steger, U. The Business Case for Corporate Sustainability. Literature Review and Research Options. European Management Journal 23, 27–36; 10.1016/j.emj.2004.12.007 (2005).
15
Long, T. B. Sustainable Business Strategy. In Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Developmen Goals. Decent Work and Economic Growth, edited by Leal Filho, W., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., Özuyar, Wall, T. (Springer UK2019).
16
Drastichová, M. SWOT Analysis of the Sustainable Development Concept. Probl. Ekorozwoju 19, 6–30 (2024).
17
1713
18
Management for Sustainability: Begleitend zum Nachhaltigkeitskongress der SRH Fernhochschule 2023. (Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, 2025). doi:10.1007/978-3-658-45267-4.
19
Maccarrone, P. & Contri, A. M. Integrating Corporate Social Responsibility into Corporate Strategy: The Role of Formal Tools. Sustainability 13, 12551 (2021).
20
Hardyment, R. Sustainability Strategy: Simplified. Available at https://corporatecitizenship.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/Sustainability-Strategy-Simplified1.pdf (2015).
21
Rasche, A. Strategic Approaches to Corporate Sustainability. in Corporate Sustainability (eds Rasche, A., Morsing, M., Moon, J. & Kourula, A.) 96–116 (Cambridge University Press, 2023). doi:10.1017/9781009118644.007.
22
Valcozzena, S., Riso, V. & Cantele, S. Managing firm sustainability planning process: insights on strategic integration complexity. Manag. Decis. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-12-2023-2421 (2025) doi:10.1108/MD-12-2023-2421.
23
De Oliveira, U. R., Menezes, R. P. & Fernandes, V. A. A systematic literature review on corporate sustainability: contributions, barriers, innovations and future possibilities. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 26, 3045–3079 (2023).
24
Nguyen, H. L. & Kanbach, D. K. Toward a view of integrating corporate sustainability into strategy: A systematic literature review. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 31, 962–976 (2024).
25
Carmine, S. & De Marchi, V. Reviewing Paradox Theory in Corporate Sustainability Toward a Systems Perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 184, 139–158 (2023).
26
Luo, B. N., Tang, Y., Chen, E. W., Li, S. & Luo, D. Corporate Sustainability Paradox Management: A Systematic Review and Future Agenda. Front. Psychol. 11, 579272 (2020).
27
Gabler, C. B., Itani, O. S. & Agnihotri, R. Activating Corporate Environmental Ethics on the Frontline: A Natural Resource-Based View. J. Bus. Ethics 186, 63–86 (2023).
28
Islam, M. F. et al. Strategizing for Sustainability: Examining the Dynamic Interplay of the Circular Economy, Green Technology Innovation, and Green Performance. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 26, 935–961 (2025).
29
Engert, S. & Baumgartner, R. J. Corporate Sustainability Strategy. Bridging the Gap between Formulation and Implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production 113, 822–834; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.094 (2016).
30
Poeschl, H. Strategische Unternehmensführung zwischen Shareholder-Value und Stakeholder-Value. (Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, 2013). doi:10.1007/978-3-8349-4093-3.
31
Armenia, S., Dangelico, R. M., Nonino, F. & Pompei, A. Sustainable Project Management: A Conceptualization-Oriented Review and a Framework Proposal for Future Studies. Sustainability 11, 2664 (2019).
32
De Almeida Barbosa Franco, J., Franco Junior, A., Battistelle, R. A. G. & Bezerra, B. S. Dynamic Capabilities: Unveiling Key Resources for Environmental Sustainability and Economic Sustainability, and Corporate Social Responsibility towards Sustainable Development Goals. Resources 13, 22 (2024).
33
Jasim, B. H. Strategic Management for Sustainable Competitive Advantage: Integrating RBV, Dynamic Capabilities, Digital Transformation, and ESG. South Asian Res. J. Bus. Manag. 7, 420–423 (2025).
34
Shiferaw, R. M. & Amentie Kero, C. Dynamic capabilities view practices of business firms: a systematic literature review. Cogent Bus. Manag. 11, 2336309 (2024).
35
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L. & Rynes, S. L. Corporate Social and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Organ. Stud. 24, 403–441 (2003).
36
Yi, Y. & Demirel, P. The impact of sustainability‐oriented dynamic capabilities on firm growth: Investigating the green supply chain management and green political capabilities. Bus. Strategy Environ. 32, 5873–5888 (2023).
37
Busch, T. & Friede, G. The Robustness of the Corporate Social and Financial Performance Relation: A Second‐Order Meta‐Analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 25, 583–608 (2018).
38
Peters, J. & Simaens, A. Integrating Sustainability into Corporate Strategy: A Case Study of the Textile and Clothing Industry. Sustainability 12, 6125; 10.3390/su12156125 (2020).
39
Kareem, S., Fehrer, J. A., Shalpegin, T. & Stringer, C. Navigating tensions of sustainable supply chains in times of multiple crises: A systematic literature review. Bus. Strategy Environ. 34, 316–337 (2025).
40
Gomes, R. & Carneiro Barbosa, M. The Contributions of Michael Eugene Porter’s Five Competitive Forces in the Strategic Planning of Green Hydrogen Production in Ceará and Its Export to Europe. SSRN Electron. J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5240146 (2025) doi:10.2139/ssrn.5240146.
41
Blümel, L., Siegfried, K., Riedel, F. & Thrän, D. Are strategy developers well equipped when designing sustainable supply chains for a circular bio-economy? Supporting innovations’ market uptake in a PESTEL + I environment. Energy Sustain. Soc. 13, 40 (2023).
42
Vichayanan Rattanawiboonsom. Sustainability-Cantered Portfolio Management: A BCG Matrix Approach to Climate-Resilient Investments: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Inf. Syst. Eng. Manag. 10, 1135–1152 (2025).
43
Harmon, J., Bucy, F., Nickbarg, S., Rao, G. & Wirtenberg, J. Developing a Sustainability Strategy. In The Sustainable Enterprise Fieldbook. When It All Comes Together, edited by J. Wirtenberg, W. G. Russell & D. Lipsky (AMACOM; Greenleaf Publishing, New York, Sheffield, UK, 2009), pp. 89–116.
44
Kaplan, R. S., Norton, D. P. & Barrows Jr., E. A. Developing the Strategy: Vision, Value Gaps, and Analysis. Balanced Scorecard Report 10, 1–5 (2008).
45
Šimonová, T., Malindzakova, M. & Malindzak, D. Integrating Management Strategy and Porter’s Five Forces Model for the Sustainable Recycling of Textile Waste. Sustainability 16, 9283 (2024).
46
Huber, J. Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Strategien für eine ökologische und soziale Erdpolitik (Edition Sigma, Berlin, 1995).
47
Schmidt, M. Die Bedeutung der Effizienz für Nachhaltigkeit – Chancen und Grenzen. In Ressourceneffizienz im Kontext der Nachhaltigkeitsdebatte, edited by S. Hartard, A. Schaffer & J. Giegrich. 1st ed. (Nomos, Baden-Baden, 2008), pp. 31–46.
48
Hristov, I. & Chirico, A. The Role of Sustainability Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in Implementing Sustainable Strategies. Sustainability 11, 5742; 10.3390/su11205742 (2019).
49
Schmelzer, M. & Passadakis, A. Postwachstum. Krise, ökologische Grenzen und soziale Rechte (VSA-Verl., Hamburg, 2011).
50
Paech, N. Befreiung vom Überfluss. Auf dem Weg in die Postwachstumsökonomie (Oekom-Verlag, München, 2012).
51
Kashmanian, R. M., Wells, R. P. & Keenan, C. Corporate Environmental Sustainability Strategy. Key Elements. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 107–130 (2011).
52
Baumgartner, R. J. & Ebner, D. Corporate Sustainability Strategies: Sustainability Profiles and Maturity Levels. Sustainable Development 18, 76–89; 10.1002/sd.447 (2010).
53
Ganescu, M. C. Corporate Social Responsibility, a Strategy to Create and Consolidate Sustainable Businesses. Theoretical and Applied Economics 19, 91–106 (2012).
54
Rosenberg, M. Strategy and Sustainability: A Strategic Logic for Engagement with the Environment. Palgrave Communications 1; 10.1057/palcomms.2015.34 (2015). 24
55
Granskog, A., Hannon, E., Hieronimus, S., Klaeyle, M. & Winkle, A. How Companies Capture the Value of Sustainability: Survey Findings. Available at https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/how-companiescapture-the-value-of-sustainability-survey-findings (2021).
56
Mirvis, P. H., Googins, B. K. & Kinnicutt, S. Vision, Mission, Values: Guideposts to Sustainability. Organizational Dynamics 39, 316–324; 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2010.07.006 (2010).
57
Hardyment, R. Sustainability Strategy: Simplified. Available at https://corporatecitizenship.com/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/Sustainability-Strategy-Simplified1.pdf (2015).
58
VAUDE. CSR-Report – Integrated Sustainability Strategy. Business operations that are ecological, fair, and successful. Available at https://csr-report.vaude.com/grien/vaude/integrated-sustainability-strategy.php (2021).
59
VAUDE. CSR-Report – Corporate Philosophy. Success with strong corporate values. Available at https://csr-report.vaude.com/gri-en/vaude/corporate-philosophy.php (2021).
60
Global Reporting Initiative. GRI 101 Foundation 2016. Available at https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/media/1036/gri-101-foundation-2016.pdf (2016).
61
Schaltegger, S. & Lüdeke-Freund, F. Sustainability Balanced Scorecard. Concept and the Case of Hamburg Airport (Centre for Sustainability Management, Lüneburg, 2011).
62
SAP SE. 2020 SAP Integrated Report. Available at https://www.sap.com/integratedreports/2020/en.html (2021). 25
63
Berns, M. et al. Sustainability and Competitive Advantage. Forget how Business is Affecting Sustainability … How is Sustainability Affecting Business? The First Annual Business of Sustainability Survey and Interview Project has Answers. MIT Sloan Management Review 51, 18–26 (2009).
64
Engert, S., Rauter, R. & Baumgartner, R. J. Exploring the Integration of Corporate Sustainability into Strategic Management. A Literature Review. Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 2833–2850; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.031 (2016).
65
Cici, C. & D’Isanto, D. Integrating Sustainability into Core Business. Symphonya Emerging Issues in Management 1, 50–65; 10.4468/2017.1.05cici.disanto (2017).
66
Stewart, R., Bey, N. & Boks, C. Exploration of the Barriers to Implementing Different Types of Sustainability Approaches. Procedia CIRP 48, 22–27; 10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.063 (2016).
67
Lemus-Aguilar, I., Morales-Alonso, G., Ramirez-Portilla, A. & Hidalgo, A. Sustainable Business Models through the Lens of Organizational Design. A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 11, 5379; 10.3390/su11195379 (2019).
68
Galbraith, J. R. The Star Model™. Available at https://www.jaygalbraith.com/images/pdfs/StarModel.pdf (2016).
69
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from Performance Measurement to Strategic Management: Part I. Accounting Horizons 15, 87–104; 10.2308/ACCH.2001.15.1.87 (2001).
70
Peters, J. & Simaens, A. Integrating Sustainability into Corporate Strategy: A Case Study of the Textile and Clothing Industry. Sustainability 12, 6125; 10.3390/su12156125 (2020).
71
Hall, D. J. & Saias, M. A. Strategy Follows Structure! Strategic Management Journal 1, 149–163; 10.1002/smj.4250010205 (1980).
72
Engert, S. & Baumgartner, R. J. Corporate Sustainability Strategy. Bridging the Gap between Formulation and Implementation. Journal of Cleaner Production 113, 822–834; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.094 (2016).
73
Soderstrom, S. B. & Weber, K. Organizational Structure from Interaction: Evidence from Corporate Sustainability Efforts. Administrative Science Quarterly 65, 226–271; 10.1177/0001839219836670 (2020).
74
Copper, D. L. Sustainability Transformations. From Theory to Practice. In Corporate Sustainability in Practice. A Guide for Strategy Development and Implementation, edited by P. Taticchi & M. Demartini. 1st ed. (Springer International Publishing; Imprint: Springer, Cham, 2021), pp. 165–190.
75
Fredrickson, J. W. The Strategic Decision Process and Organizational Structure. AMR 11, 280–297; 10.5465/amr.1986.4283101 (1986).
76
Robert Baum, J. & Wally, S. Strategic Decision Speed and Firm Performance. Strategic Management Journal 24, 1107–1129; 10.1002/SMJ.343 (2003).
77
Fuente, J. A., García-Sánchez, I. M. & Lozano, M. B. The Role of the Board of Directors in the Adoption of GRI Guidelines for the Disclosure of CSR Information. Journal of Cleaner Production 141, 737–750; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.155 (2017).26
78
Ritzrau, W. Eine nachhaltige Strategie bei SAP. In CSR und Strategisches Management. Wie man mit Nachhaltigkeit langfristig im Wettbewerb gewinnt, edited by T. Wunder (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2017), pp. 219–238.
79
Theobald, N. A. & Nicholson-Crotty, S. The Many Faces of Span of Control. Organizational Structure Across Multiple Goals. Administration & Society 36, 648–660; 10.1177/0095399704270585 (2005).
80
Chatman, J. A. & Eunyoung Cha, S. Leading by Leveraging Culture. California Management Review 45, 20–34; 10.2307/41166186 (2003).
81
UN Global Compact. Cultural Integration. Roadmap for Integrated Sustainability. Available at https://d306pr3pise04h.cloudfront.net/docs/issues_doc%2Flead%2Froadmap%2Froadmap -cultural-integration.pdf (n. d.).
82
Barney, J. B. Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage? AMR 11, 656–665; 10.5465/AMR.1986.4306261 (1986).
83
Chao, G. T., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J. & Gardner, P. D. Organizational Socialization: Its Content and Consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology 79, 730–743; 10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.730 (1994).
84
Galpin, T., Whittington, J. L. & Bell, G. Is Your Sustainability Strategy Sustainable? Creating a Culture of Sustainability. Corporate Governance 15, 1–17; 10.1108/CG-01- 2013-0004 (2015).
85
Nelson, T. The Persistence of Founder Influence. Management, Ownership, and Performance Effects at Initial Public Offering. Strategic Management Journal 24, 707– 724; 10.1002/smj.328 (2003).
86
Dessler, G. How to Earn Your Employees’ Commitment. Academy of Management Executive 13, 58–67; 10.5465/ame.1999.1899549 (1999).
87
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W. & Smith, B. The ASA Framwork: An Update. Personnel Psychology 48, 747–773; 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01780.x (1995).
88
Stoverock, S., Schramek, M. & Heidbrink, M. Gleichklang von Vision, Strategie und Unternehmenskultur. Ein Blick auf CSR anhand der Mobilitätsberatung EcoLibro GmbH. In CSR und Geschäftsmodelle. Auf dem Weg zum zeitgemäßen Wirtschaften, edited by P. Bungard (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2018), pp. 459–470.
89
Lahtinen, S. & Yrjölä, M. Managing Sustainability Transformations: A Managerial Framing Approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 223, 815–825; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.190 (2019).
90
Epstein, M. J. & Rejc Buhovac, A. Solving the Sustainability Implementation Challenge. Organizational Dynamics 39, 306–315; 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2010.07.003 (2010).
91
Wirtenberg, J., Russell, W. G. & Lipsky, D. (eds.). The Sustainable Enterprise Fieldbook. When It All Comes Together (AMACOM; Greenleaf Publishing, New York, Sheffield, UK, 2009).
92
Mueller, K., Hattrup, K., Spiess, S.-O. & Lin-Hi, N. The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Employees’ Affective Commitment. A Cross-Cultural Investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology 97, 1186–1200; 10.1037/a0030204 (2012).
93
Pink, D. H. Drive. The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us (Riverhead Books, New York, 2009).
94
Porter, M. E. & Kramer, M. R. Strategy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review 84, 78–92; 10.1108/sd.2007.05623ead.006 (2006).
95
Neville, B. A. & Menguc, B. Stakeholder Multiplicity. Toward an Understanding of the Interactions between Stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics 66, 377–391; 10.1007/s10551-006-0015-4 (2006). 27
96
Sharma, S. & Henriques, I. Stakeholder Influences on Sustainability Practices in the Canadian Forest Products Industry. Strategic Management Journal 26, 159–180; 10.1002/smj.439 (2005).
97
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. & Wood, D. J. Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience. Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts. Academy of Management Review 22, 853–886; 10.2307/259247 (1997).
98
Lloret, A. Modeling Corporate Sustainability Strategy. Journal of Business Research 69, 418–425; 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.047 (2016).
99
Berns, M. et al. Sustainability and Competitive Advantage. Forget how Business is Affecting Sustainability … How is Sustainability Affecting Business? The First Annual Business of Sustainability Survey and Interview Project has Answers. MIT Sloan Management Review 51, 18–26 (2009).
100
Engert, S., Rauter, R. & Baumgartner, R. J. Exploring the Integration of Corporate Sustainability into Strategic Management. A Literature Review. Journal of Cleaner Production 112, 2833–2850; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.031 (2016).
101
Cici, C. & D’Isanto, D. Integrating Sustainability into Core Business. Symphonya Emerging Issues in Management 1, 50–65; 10.4468/2017.1.05cici.disanto (2017).
102
Stewart, R., Bey, N. & Boks, C. Exploration of the Barriers to Implementing Different Types of Sustainability Approaches. Procedia CIRP 48, 22–27; 10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.063 (2016).
103
Aghelie, A. Exploring Drivers and Barriers to Sustainability Green Business Practices within Small Medium Sized Enterprises: Primary Findings. International Journal of Business and Economic Development 5, 41–48 (2017).
104
Gupta, A., Raghunath, A., Gula, L., Rheinbay, L. & Hart, M. The Decade to Deliver. A Call to Business Action. The United Nations Global Compact —Accenture Strategy CEO Study on Sustainability 2019, 2019.
105
Ramboll Deutschland GmbH et al. Managing Sustainability. Key Findings of Ramboll’s 2019 Sustainability Survey. Available at https://indd.adobe.com/view/9e6bc77b-f715- 4b37-ac0a-770df9194394 (2020).
106
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K. & Rangaswami, M. R. Why Sustainability Is Now the Key Driver of Innovation. Harvard Business Review Sept. 2009, 57–64 (2009).
107
Laszlo, C. & Zhexembayeva, N. Embedded Sustainability: A strategy for Market Leaders. The European Financial Review April-May, 38–41 (2011).
108
Eweje, G. A Shift in Corporate Practice? Facilitating Sustainability Strategy in Companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 18, 125– 136; 10.1002/csr.268 (2011).
109
Bonn, I. & Fisher, J. Sustainability – The Missing Ingredient in Strategy. Journal of Business Strategy 32, 5–14; 10.1108/02756661111100274 (2011).
110
Stead, J. G. & Stead, W. E. The Coevolution of Sustainable Strategic Management in the Global Marketplace. Organization & Environment 26, 162–183; 10.1177/1086026613489138 (2013).
111
May, G. & Stahl, B. The Significance of Organizational Change Management for Sustainable Competitiveness in Manufacturing: Exploring the Firm Archetypes. International Journal of Production Research 55, 4450–4465; 10.1080/00207543.2016.1261197 (2017).
112
Roberts, S. Supply Chain Specific? Understanding the Patchy Success of Ethical Sourcing Initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics 44, 159–170; 10.1023/A:1023395631811 (2003). 28
113
Delmas, M. A. & Cuerel Burbano, V. The Drivers of Greenwashing. California Management Review 54, 64–87; 10.1525/CMR.2011.54.1.64 (2011).
114
Halme, M., Lindeman, S. & Linna, P. Innovation for Inclusive Business: Intrapreneurial Bricolage in Multinational Corporations. Journal of Management Studies 49, 743–784; 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01045.x (2012).
115
Milbrath, L. W. Psychological, Cultural, and Informational Barriers to Sustainability. Journal of Social Issues 51, 101–120; 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01350.x (1995).
116
Otto GmbH & Co KG. Annual Report. 19/20. Available at https://www.ottogroup.com/en/about-us/daten-fakten/Annual_Reports.php (2020).
117
Galpin, T. J. Theory in Action. Making Strategy Work. Journal of Business Strategy 18, 12–15; 10.1108/eb039824 (1997).
118
Fairfield, K. D. et al. Employee Engagement for a Sustainable Enterprise. In Wirtenberg, Russell et al. (Hg.) 2009 – The Sustainable Enterprise Fieldbook, pp. 141–161.
119
Lenzing Aktiengesellschaft. Stand up for Future Generations #alettertoachild. Sustainability Report 2020. Non-financial Statement. Available at https://www.lenzing.com/?type=88245&tx_filedownloads_file%5bfileName%5d=fileadm in/content/PDF/04_Nachhaltigkeit/Nachhaltigkeitsberichte/EN/NHB_2020_EN.pdf (2020).

Executive summary

1 Introduction

1.1 Problem statement and relevance

2 Sustainability strategy: Definition and historical background

2.1 Defining sustainability strategy

2.2 Historical evolution of sustainability in strategic management

3 Theoretical foundations at the strategy-sustainability interface

3.1 Sustainability in strategic management research

3.2 Theories at the intersection of strategy and sustainability

3.3 Key debates and strategic tensions

4 Practical implementation of sustainability-oriented strategy

4.1 Strategic analysis

4.1.1 Classical strategic analysis

4.1.2 Sustainability-oriented analysis

4.2 Strategy formulation

4.2.1 Classical strategy formulation

4.2.2 Sustainability strategy formulation

4.2.2 Sustainability strategy pathways

4.2.3 Vision, mission, and values

4.2.3.1 Vision

4.2.3.2 Mission

4.2.3.3 Values

4.2.4 Targets and key performance indicators

4.3 Strategy implementation

4.3.1 Classical strategy implementation

4.3.2 Sustainability strategy implementation

4.3.2.1 Organizational design

4.3.2.2 Organizational structure

4.3.2.3 Organizational culture

4.3.2.4 Leadership and commitment

4.3.2.5 Controls and rewards

4.3.2.6 Involving stakeholders

5 Drivers and barriers

5.1 Institutional level

5.1.1 Government regulation

5.1.2 Competitive position

5.2 Organizational level

5.2.1 Corporate reputation

5.2.2 Organizational structure and culture

5.3 Individual level

5.3.1 Commitment of leadership

5.3.2 Employee engagement

References

Your feedback on this article