Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) convey a three-dimensional model to sustainability, identifying that economic sustainability, environmental sustainability and social sustainability are all aspects of change which must be accounted for in order to understand the short term and long term benefits of change to sustainability.If senior management cannot understand the risks/implications of change, then they cannot extend their support. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(12): 1492–1502.Tags: Sat Essay TopicWriting Results Section Of DissertationGuidelines To Writing A Research ProposalWhat Is An Abstract In A Thesis PaperWorld War 1 Simple EssayEssay ImportantMusic Therapy Essay ConclusionRisk Management Essay FfaParyavaran Suraksha EssayCritical Thinking And Logical Reasoning
Despite the differences throughout these scholarly articles, they are all in concurrence that corporate sustainability is paramount, and relates to a businesses responsibility to improve the prosperity of social and environmental factors, while achieving the objectives and goals of the business (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010; Gladwin, Kennelly, & Krause, 1995; Bansal & Roth, 2000).
Gladwin, Kennelly and Krause (1995) emphasise the importance of corporate sustainability by portraying that the human race acts in an egocentric and material-based manner, which has led to the current unsustainable condition of the planet.
If a business cannot receive the necessary support from management, then the longevity of the sustainability process is damaged (Berns et al, 2009).
Wilkinson, Hill and Golan (2001) accentuate this cruciality of senior management by proffering that internal pressures arise throughout a change management process if senior management does not provide the necessary support.
Borland (2009) asserts that the culture and implementation of sustainability is a process which begins from the influences of senior-management in a top-down approach.
Conversely, Martin (1992) expresses that the culture of change and sustainability is intrinsically embedded within fragmented groups of employees who share commonalities and values, individualistically.The push for competitiveness through sustainability saw businesses developing at rapid rates, as they Barriers of Corporate Sustainability The first barrier for corporate sustainability relates to a lacking of understanding and support from senior management.As mentioned above, senior management, and their role, is beyond crucial.This notion is also associated with the resource- based view, as a business aims to implement ecologically sound practices to benefit their resources in order to gain a competitive advantage (Wernerfelt, 1984).Schaltegge, Ludeke- Freund and Hansen (2012) endorse the idea of ecological competitve advantage by arguing that a key driver is the ability to attain variables which directly correlate to economic affluence, and in turn, the sustaining of a competitve advantage.This drive away from top-down management can allow for variance and independence throughout the organisation, but can also lead to inconsistent viewpoints between middle-managers and senior management, which then opens the door for conflict.Lastly relating to senior management, Berns et al (2009) claim that the lack of support from senior management can be the result of a lack of understanding of the sustainability process, and whether such a change will successfully benefit the business.If a business cannot receive this support, it is then recommended that the push for organisational change and sustainability implementation must come from middle- management in a catalytic approach (Stoughton and Ludema, 2012; Mirvis and Manga, 2010).In doing this, middle-managers can instil the drivers for change across the varied subgroups and cultures among the staff, and enforce the implementation of sustainability measures.They then go forward by declaring that this can be reversed economically by internalising processes of ecological and ‘green’ sustainability.Stoughton and Ludema (2012) proffer that the literature is inconsistent and contradictory when discussing corporate sustainability.