Theory
Embracing sustainability as priority of corporate management involves manifold motivations. Those can roughly be subsumed under push-pull factors (Schaltegger et al.,
2010, pp. 34–35; Schaltegger, Hörisch, Windolph, & Harms,
2012, p. 19).
Push factors determining corporate sustainability are relevant legislative provisions or awareness raised within society, for instance, suited for exerting certain pressure of legitimation.
Pull factors are favourable market conditions, inter alia, deemed to induce companies towards sustainability commitment. In other words, do companies rather anticipate beneficial potentials of realizing promising market opportunities
intrinsically, than being
extrinsically forced to comply with external requirements? Affiliated with established research objectives, the underlying research questions are:
1)
Does considering socio-cultural contexts constitute a strategic driving force with regard to corporate sustainability (pull factor)?
2)
Does strengthening cultural aspects of corporate sustainability increase the innovative capacity for business-model development (pull factor)?
3)
Does highlighting comparative advantages of sustainability-oriented manufacturing and branding favour the identification of business cases for sustainability (push factor)?
Taking a look at the overall research interest of how to convey aspects of corporate sustainability across different socio-cultural contexts, different references to respective theories are considered relevant:
1)
Corporate sustainability needs to be elaborated in conjunction with its contesting concepts, such like sustainable entrepreneurship or corporate (social) responsibility;
2)
Corporate contexts stemming from the chosen business case need to be introduced, including marketing in business-to-business relations, business segments in sustainability contexts, and culture-bound or intercultural notions of sustainability.
The rationale behind addressing
corporate sustainability and related
corporate contexts is to establish a theory-based reference framework that is essential prerequisite to analyse corporate sustainability performance (Horbach,
2005; The European Federation of Financial Analysts Societies,
2009) through addressing relevant topics in connection with corporate sustainability management characteristics.
1)
Corporate Responsibility (CR),
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR),
Corporate Citizenship (CC),
Corporate Sustainability (CS), company-related sustainability still remains some blurring, ambiguous concept. Depending on the corporate point of view, there is a considerable range of notions of how corporate sustainability is to be defined and implemented. Differing understanding ultimately results from alternative sources or disciplinary origins sustainability is approached; thus, underlying assumptions comprise of moral-ethical, societal-corporative, legal or managerial aspects emphasized, respectively (Bansal & Song,
2017, pp. 119–122; Wilson,
2003, p. 2).
Acknowledging the variety of notional strands (Bansal & Song,
2017, p. 130; Engert, Rauter, & Baumgartner,
2016, p. 2834; Schaltegger,
2011a, p. 187; Stanger,
2016, 57 et seqq.), least common consensus might certainly be achieved by considering corporate sustainability as
moving target (Schaltegger & Burritt,
2005, p. 193). Given the prevalent inconsistency of use, scholars by trend argue for an
integrated definition: In order to be effective, sustainability must be integrated into organizational goals, internal incentives and evaluation systems, and organizational decision-support systems, above all (Amini & Bienstock,
2014, p. 14; Baumgartner,
2004, 26 et seqq.; Krause,
2016, p. 51; Morioka & de Carvalho,
2016, p. 140).
Referring to
corporate sustainability or
sustainable entrepreneurship, respectively, for business-model development (Choi & Gray,
2008, 558, 559; Gast, Gundolf, & Cesinger,
2017; Hockerts & Wüstenhagen,
2010, 5 et seqq.; Schaltegger,
2011a, p. 189; Weidinger, Schmidpeter, & Fischler,
2014, p. 1), it is considered pivotal to elucidate from scratch the conceptual differences in corporate (social) responsibility (Amini & Bienstock,
2014, p. 13; Asif et al.,
2013, p. 8; Bansal & Song,
2017, 116, 122; Beschorner,
2012; Buchholtz, Brown, & Shabana,
2009; Carroll,
2016; Crane, McWilliams, Matten, Moon, & Siegel,
2009, p. 6; Finch,
2015, pp. 228–229; Idowu, Capaldi, Zu, & Gupta,
2013, vii; Lantos,
2001, 595, 598 et seqq.), corporate citizenship (Schaltegger,
2011b, p. 53), and corporate sustainability (Schaltegger,
2011a, p. 189; Schaltegger & Harms,
2013, p. 14) as corresponding
umbrella term (Amini & Bienstock,
2014, p. 13; Lantos,
2001, 595 et seqq.; Prexl,
2010, 86 et seqq.; Schaltegger,
2011b, pp. 52–53).
Important to note first is the normative progress from corporate responsibility towards corporate sustainability, thus inextricably linking responsibility with sustainability. As a result, corporate sustainability reaches beyond corporate responsibility in conceptual terms (Bansal & Song,
2017, p. 130; Schaltegger,
2011a; Schaltegger & Petersen,
2009, p. 70). Second, the entire dimensional scope of sustainability is considered (Baumgartner & Rauter,
2017, p. 84; Elkington,
2002, 69 et seqq.; Gerner,
2013, p. 154; Jeurissen,
2000, p. 229), including cultural aspects, notably. Third, corporate sustainability is implementation-oriented, because “
if corporate social responsibility (CSR) is to exceed the ambition of a general philosophy or to be more than (public relations), corporate sustainability management is required” (Schaltegger & Petersen,
2009, p. 67). In this respect, sustainability-related activities of companies must necessarily be attached to the economic logic (Schaltegger,
2011a, p. 196), so as to accomplish the comprehensive integration of corporate sustainability into strategic management (Engert et al.,
2016, 2834 et seqq.). Put differently,
“corporate sustainability can be seen as the result of management attempts to tackle sustainability challenges” (Schaltegger & Burritt,
2005, p. 195). Fourth, corporate sustainability as long-term target requires structural embedding of key elements into strategic plans – striving for business cases for sustainability (Engert & Baumgartner,
2016, p. 826; Khalili,
2011c; Morioka & de Carvalho,
2016, p. 141; Schaltegger,
2017, 85 et seqq.; Wunder,
2017, 3 et seqq.), and/or modelling of fully-fledged corporate sustainability strategies – aligning with the value proposition alongside the value-adding chain (Lloret,
2016, 420 et seqq.). Fifth, both instances considered – business case and strategy respectively –
corporate sustainability governance gains increasing importance as normative
driving force (Fischer,
2017, 135 et seqq.; Viardot,
2017, 78, 108)
To conclude, corporate sustainability can be regarded as the overarching
integrated concept that incorporates the
selective portfolio of corporate (social) responsibility (Stanger,
2017, p. 62), and which is to be implemented through sustainable entrepreneurs, after all (Asif et al.,
2013, p. 9). What links related concepts with
corporate sustainability is an increasing degree of holism, strategic orientation and normativity, ranging from selective-impulsive-intuitive to integrated-scaling-notional.
As to the research agenda, a thoroughly normative (1) approach towards
cross-cultural corporate sustainability (2) is envisaged, focusing on feasibility (3), addressing strategic embedment (4), and incorporating aspects of governance through connecting frameworks or guidelines (5).
2)
Contexts do matter – approaching corporate sustainability in the proposed
holistic way (Herlyn & Radermacher,
2014, p. 453; Meffert & Hensmann,
2014, p. 24; O'Neill et al.,
2006, p. 34; Schröder, Holbach, & Müller-Kirschbaum,
2014, p. 258) the principal insight gained is normativity (Habisch & Bachmann,
2016, p. 9). Setting standards, rules or procedures requires deciding and implementing power, above all, that represents one major element to be achieved through strategic management. The resulting question is which particular corporate contexts need to be taken into account that influence or drive sustainability-related management? In other words, which framing concepts need to be considered, explained or introduced further? Arguing deductively, i.e. from the general to the specific, three significant contexts find their way into the theoretic framework, consisting of:
a)
Marketing in business-to-business relations
Performing economically in a
business-to-business environment, i.e.
relationships between organizations (Backhaus,
2015, pp. 19–20; Kesting, Kliewe, Korff, & Serbin,
2014, pp. 5–6; Schallmo,
2013, pp. 17–18), requires specific management decisions – so-called
entrepreneurial agility (Backhaus & Muehlfeld,
2015, pp. 97–98; Backhaus & Voeth,
2015, pp. 17–19; Mishra,
2017, 110 et seqq.) – in terms of differing bilateral transfer potential compared to
business-to-consumer (b2c) marketing (Kesting et al.,
2014, p. 6; Klarmann & Fleischmann,
2014, p. 4), self-contained transaction processes or brand management/policy (Baumgarth,
2010a,
2010b, pp. 48–49,
2014; Baumgarth & Binckebanck,
2010), resulting from indirect or derivative demand combined with informational uncertainty about end customers, in particular (Backhaus,
2015, 17 et seqq.; Backhaus & Muehlfeld,
2015, pp. 97–98; Backhaus & Voeth,
2015, p. 21; Baumgarth,
2010b, pp. 48–49; Budt & Lügger,
2013, 68 et seqq.; Kliewe & Kesting,
2014, 5 et seqq.; Rusnjak,
2014; Weber, Bramsemann, Heineke, & Hirsch,
2017, p. 21; Weiber & Wolf,
2014, 23 et seqq.); thus, customer-relationship management (CRM) translates into stakeholder management (Backhaus & Voeth,
2015, p. 21); Budt & Lügger,
2013, p. 69; Komoto & Mishima,
2013) aiming at anticipating and reconciling both supplier
and buyer culture through business-segment-integrating marketing (Cadden, Marshall, & Cao,
2013, 88–89, 94; Homburg,
2017, 1066 et seqq.; Mishra,
2017, pp. 91–93; Weiber & Wolf,
2014, 24 et seqq.).
Conventionally, product-oriented marketing (Backhaus & Muehlfeld,
2015, pp. 103–105) can be attributed to five immanent driving factors, enablers or
key drivers – defined as factors which cause/influence particular phenomena to happen or make progress/develop – towards business success, comprising of (Albers & Krafft,
2013, 10 et seqq.; Baan & Homburg,
2013; Backhaus & Muehlfeld,
2015, 94 et seqq.; Binckebanck,
2013, 8 et seqq.; Budt & Lügger,
2013, 68 et seqq.; Homburg,
2017, 143 et seqq.; Kirchhof & Nickel,
2014; Lun, Lai, & Cheng,
2010, 77 et seqq.; Ternès & Runge,
2015, pp. 1–12):
1)
Trust: Opting for long-term customer-relationship-management (CRM) evoking sentiments of willingness and ability to serve;
2)
Brand reputation: Developing and streamlining an increasingly important branding consistent with the content-based value proposition and applicable both internally for staff and externally for customers;
3)
Unique-selling-proposition (USP): Elaborating the unique idea or feature for value proposition, making the decisive difference from competitors in the customers’ eyes;
4)
Marketing-sales-interface: Incorporating different enriching perspectives of expertise and experience for market cultivation, ranging from product or brand orientation to customer contacts or sales success;
5)
Incentive systems: Thinking of how to measure and value performance conventionally and alternatively (Berndt,
2016, 22 et seqq.; Berndt & Henkel,
2016, 26 et seqq.; Homburg,
2017, 1080 et seqq.; MarketLine,
2014, p. 14).
Correlating corporate responsibility with the aforementioned elements of branding in
business-to-business (b2b) contexts (Baumgarth & Binckebanck,
2010, 487, 493; Klarmann & Fleischmann,
2014, p. 337),
sustainable branding (Meffert & Rauch,
2014, 159 et seqq.) attains considerable importance in the context of sustainability to be dealt with as driving issue of strategic brand management (Baumgarth,
2014; Belz,
2010, 59, 63 et seqq.; Chao, Polonsky, & Jevons,
2009, p. 341; Popoli,
2011).
“In this way, attempting responsible branding (…)
can result in organisations reviewing their overall (corporate) impact, not simply focusing on narrowly defined issues, which has the potential for considerable advantage to society as a whole” (Chao et al.,
2009, p. 334). In consequence, sustainability enters as driving factor into the
business-to-business (b2b) and the corresponding branding network context (Lacoste,
2016, pp. 152–154), respectively:
6)
Sustainability performance: Adopting means of corporate sustainability in a strategic manner significantly redounds to innovation potential and business success (Glaser & Hassler,
2015, pp. 6–7; Stanger,
2017, 61–62, 64). It
“reflects one target end of the move of companies in the corporate responsibilities continuum from corporate conformance and compliance with given standards to corporate performance in relation to stakeholder expectations. In this context, sustainability performance can be defined as the performance of a company in all dimensions and for all drivers of corporate sustainability” (Schaltegger & Wagner,
2006, p. 2). This
“progressive management approach (…)
generates new products and services, management systems, markets and organisational processes that increase the social as well as the environmental value of business activities” (Weidinger & Schmidpeter,
2014, p. 2).
Hence, sustainability needs to be an embedded element of the corporate narrative, meaning that it ought to be incorporated into the brand essence, already (Baumgarth,
2014, p. 220; Lahme & Klenk,
2014, p. 156). Addressing
sustainable branding strategically leads to
sustainable marketing (Bruhn,
2015, 337 et seqq.; Chao et al.,
2009, 334 et seqq.; Eggert, Haas, Ulaga, & Terho,
2015, 488 et seqq.; Kenning,
2014, 6–7, 11–16, 17, 19; Meffert, Kenning, & Kirchgeorg,
2014). To recap, sustainability-oriented marketing (
sustainability marketing) is regarded key to business success of globally-engaged brand manufacturers (Herlyn & Radermacher,
2014, 435 et seqq.). Particularly if strategically underpinned, “
(companies) that have undertaken planned, strategic and quasi-strategic (…)
activities will be viewed more positively by stakeholders than (those) that have only used (corporate responsibility) tactically and piecemeal” (Chao et al.,
2009, p. 342);
b)
Business segments in sustainability contexts
Assessing the corporate sustainability performance implies having identified relevant areas in advance. In order to avoid piecemeal assessments on a purely individual basis because of not making sufficiently clear the nexus between product emergence and its chain of economic value added, business segments alongside the corporate value chain are selected and customized through life-cycle analysis, accordingly (Baumgarth,
2010a, 63 et seqq.,
2014, 325 et seqq.; Baumgarth & Binckebanck,
2010, 487, 493; Bruhn,
2015, 337 et seqq.; d'Heur,
2014b, pp. 3–4; Eggert et al.,
2015, 488 et seqq.; Lacoste,
2016, p. 152; Meffert et al.,
2014, 10 et seqq.; Schaltegger & Wagner,
2011);
Business segments attached to sustainability contexts can best be identified and described alongside value creation. Accordingly, a corporate value chain may be considered the sum of business segments altogether contributing to value-adding, kicking off with the supply chain. Making value chains sustainable is the key to
integrated corporate sustainability that eventually leads to sustainable product or service life-cycles (Bey,
2018, p. 530; Bouchery, Corbett, Fransoo, & Tan,
2017; Herrmann,
2010, p. 118; Lahme & Klenk,
2014, 155, 156; Moltesen & Bjørn,
2018, 51 et seqq.; Nidumolu, Prahalad, & Rangaswami,
2009,
2013, p. 2).
From a generic point of view principal business segments in manufacturing companies are:
-
▪ Supply chain: Sustainable supply-chain management encompasses more than collaborating on refining specifications and logistics; in fact, it is more about promoting product-oriented stewardship through aligning contractual incentives and applying sustainability-related criteria to select as well as maintaining strategic alliances and long-term partnerships with sustainability-driven suppliers (Aquilon,
1997, p. 85; Berning & Venter,
2015, pp. 6257–6258; Bretzke & Barkawi,
2010, p. 21; Cadden et al.,
2013, pp. 87–88; Carter & Rogers,
2008, 372, 377; Davis, Mora-Monge, Quesada, & Gonzalez,
2014, p. 188; Gold, Seuring, & Beske,
2010, p. 142; Hudson,
2005; Lahme & Klenk,
2014, p. 157; Pagell & Wu,
2009, p. 39; Sabbaghi & Sabbaghi,
2011, 109 et seqq.; Seuring & Müller,
2008, p. 460; Walther,
2010, p. 247);
-
▪ Production: Both sustainable manufacturing and sustainable products are considered prerequisite to sustainable consumption based on user-producer interaction. Although manufacturing processes are often associated with centrepiece or core-value-creation of saleable products,
upstream and
downstream processes are equally important constituent parts of corporate sustainability (Baumgartner & Rauter,
2017, p. 86; Hoffmann & Hoffmann,
2012; Lee,
2013, 261, 267; Seliger,
2012; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) & Delft University of Technology,
2006, 21, 63);
-
▪ Packaging and distribution: Both elements are typically subsumed under the logistics terminology though addressing planned, developed, organized, co-ordinated, steered and controlled material or product flows. Sustainability-related packaging and distributing is commonly coined as
sustainable logistics or
green logistics, respectively (Aquilon,
1997, pp. 76–77; Bretzke,
2014; Carter & Rogers,
2008, 370, 378; Deckert,
2016, 3, 23 et seqq.; Giudice,
2013, 323 et seqq.; Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung,
2011, p. 43);
-
▪ Use, maintenance and services: Commonly referred to consumption as the act or process of spending wastefully or utilizing purposefully scarce goods and services, in terms of corporate sustainability there is an observable shift from the classical product use towards a more functional approach. Changing from product-selling business models to functional product-service systems is considered to significantly reduce negative ecological and social impacts of the product. As a result, business models supporting product-service systems are increasingly evolving; they provide
“( …)
an integrated mix of products and services that are together able to fulfil a particular customer demand (to deliver a ‘unit of satisfaction’), based on innovative interactions between the stakeholders of the value-production system (satisfaction system), where the economic and competitive interest of the providers continuously seeks environmentally and socio-ethically beneficial new solutions” (Barquet, Cunha, Oliveira, & Rozenfeld,
2012, pp. 189–190; Baumgartner & Rauter,
2017, p. 90; Khalili, Melaragno, & Haddadian,
2011, 207 et seqq.; Komoto & Mishima,
2013, pp. 634–635; Kwak & Kim,
2013, 177 et seqq.; Maxwell, Sheate, & van der Vorst,
2006, 1468, 1471; Roy,
2000, p. 291; Sakao,
2013, 600 et seqq.; Vezzoli, Ceschin, Diehl, & Kohtala,
2015, p. 2);
-
▪ End-of-life: Product-related end-of-life strategies fulfil a dual role: Optimizing the initial lifetime, and providing product lines with end-of-life systems. Boundary-spanning processes are envisaged through integrating both users/customers and involving stakeholders. Provided essential assumptions on the fully-fledged manufacturing process, the value-chain basis ought to be extended to high added-value end-of-life strategies, ranging from re-use, re-manufacturing or re-furbishing, re-cycling, incinerating, and/or considering local collection or recycling systems, both in formal and informal contexts. Undoubtedly, direct re-use is principally regarded a logistics and monitoring issue, whereas re-manufacturing aims at re-gaining the initial functional performances of the product (Albers, Canepa, & Miller,
2008, 54 et seqq., 98–99; Bauer, Brissaud, & Zwolinski,
2017, 115, 126; Gauthier,
2005; Gemechu, Sonnemann, Remmen, Frydendal, & Jensen,
2015, p. 39; Hoffmann & Hoffmann,
2012; Sonnemann & Margni,
2015; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) & Delft University of Technology,
2006, 66, 69, 110 et seqq.).
Managing business segments alongside value chains in sustainability-oriented contexts demands strategy-driven and implementing momentum. Such
sustainability strategies ensure long-term performance required to establish sustainability as determinant driver of innovation and business success, ultimately. Contexts influence formulating sustainability strategies in a dual,
pushing and
pulling, way (Khalili,
2011a, 23 et seqq.; Orsato,
2014; Schröder et al.,
2014, 259 et seqq.; Stanger,
2017, pp. 62–63; Viardot,
2017, pp. 1–2). To conclude, modelling a competitive sustainability strategy requires
first, a strategic management approach in due consideration of the value-adding business segments and
second, the capability of recognizing relevant sustainability contexts as drivers for business success. Screening the product’s performance, implementation needs then to be based on primary and secondary activities of policy-setting, following an integrated value-chain-management approach towards sustainability (Gemechu et al.,
2015, p. 39; Lozano,
2012, p. 15; Porter,
1985/2004, 317 et seqq.; Porter & Kramer,
2006; van Hemel,
1998, p. 41). Prioritized areas need to be embedded into or subsumed under a corporate strategy for sustainability (Viardot,
2017, 91 et seqq.);
c)
Culture-bound notions of sustainability
Assuming the linkage between performance, context and culture, the cultural dimension is explicitly addressed in order to draw attention to the emerging discourse on cultural/intercultural aspects. More precisely, joined with the case study, how is corporate sustainability managed across culture, either driven through standardizing or differentiating strategies (Archer & Cameron,
2009b; Ayman & Hartman,
2011, 72 et seqq.; Barmeyer,
2009; Dessein et al.,
2015, p. 30; Habisch & Schmidpeter,
2016; Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov,
2010; Lewis,
2000; Moray,
2004; Morioka & de Carvalho,
2016, p. 140; Schaltegger, Windolph, Harms, & Hörisch,
2014; Steinkellner,
2016a; Tilt,
2016, 2 et seqq.; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner,
2012; Weidinger et al.,
2014).
“Generally, culture is referred to as an emergent grouping of beliefs, knowledge, practices, values, ideas, language and worldviews within a social group; each of these elements affects the social group’s ongoing attitudes and behaviour. However, culture is not bound to a given geographical location or fixed in time. Indeed, culture is often thought of as an intergenerational concept. Nevertheless, culture’s broad range of definitions and uses also exposes its inherent complexity due to its distinctly dynamic nature” (Pizzirani et al.,
2014, p. 1317). The broad notional scope particularly applies to transnational-corporate and sustainability contexts.
Culture enables facilitating identity and providing orientation, antagonizing cultural alienation in times of
lacunae of normativity and creating meaning in a globalized world. Directed by
cultural codes societal groups diverge to the extent of being culturally adapted and conditioned (Habisch,
2016, p. 197; Habisch & Bachmann,
2016, 9 et seqq.; Lewis,
2000, 41 et seqq.; Santamaria, Escobar-Tello, & Ross,
2016, p. 17). Such established
software(s) of the mind can be captured as set of
cultural dimensions,
cultural layers or
cultural patterns, respectively (Anbari, Khilkhanova, Romanova, & Umpleby,
2010, p. 2; Aquilon,
1997, 80 et seqq.; Hofstede et al.,
2010, 24 et seqq., 53 et seqq.; Moll,
2012, p. 43; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner,
2012, 123 et seqq., p. 21). According to cultural theory most of the
cultural source code is not visible or observable, at first glance (Marsden,
2018; The Business Zoom,
2015). Doing business in specific and diffuse cultural backgrounds bears the risk and challenge of colliding cultural codes. Such
cultural overlapping situations may potentially result in critical incidents. Managing successfully across cultures requires
intercultural competence that includes context-specific communication skills (Lewis,
2000, 182 et seqq.; Tilt,
2016, 2 et seqq.; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner,
2012, 75 et seqq.).
Is culture linked to sustainability, if so, how? Recalling the dynamic and evolutionary nature, culture can be understood as mental model that emerges through long-term programming, commonly known as
cultural evolution (Brocchi,
2016, pp. 52–66). In this respect, culture is far more than
human variable or
add-on (Chapanis,
2004; Kaplan,
2004, xii), it has always been the driver for transformation. Sustainability is widely recognized as transformational; hence, cultural codes and sustainability constitute the nexus of the mental construct of cultural transformation. Put into a nutshell,
“(c) hanging user’s existing habits, beliefs and activities, and creating new ones for sustainability requires a deep cultural transformation a ‘transition of minds’ rather than purely technological innovations” (Santamaria et al.,
2016, p. 17).
Culture has evolved from
niche topic into meaningful driver of the international policy framework (Arizpe,
2015, 18, 123; Dessein et al.,
2015, p. 15). Over the intervening years, normative settings on the cultural dimension of sustainability have emerged, paying diligently heed to socio-cultural indicators, to the effect that culture turned into strategically positioning determinant in terms of (Dessein et al.,
2015, p. 29), a) supportive and self-promoting role (culture
in sustainable development), b) framing, contextualising and mediating mode (culture
for sustainable development), and c) foundational and structural framework as
underlying dimension (culture
as sustainable development) (Brocchi,
2016, pp. 49–50; Ellson,
2004; Gerner,
2013, 24 et seqq., 33, 154; Kagan & Kirchberg,
2016, p. 1489; Pizzirani et al.,
2014, p. 1325; Romeiro Filho,
2015, p. 4698; Steinkellner,
2016b, p. 4).
To conclude,
“(t) he realization that sustainability cannot be conceived of without a cultural dimension and the argument that sustainability transformation requires wide-ranging cultural transformations is not particularly new, and a range of academic and policy discourses on culture and sustainability have developed over the past few decades” (Dessein et al.,
2015, p. 1489).
Assuming culture and sustainability to be closely intertwined concepts, how do they apply to corporate context, put differently, in which way do they affect corporate sustainability? Since studies of comparing corporate-sustainability performance at global scale are progressively point of reference, the corporate-cultural question of sustainable development is highly relevant (Leszczynska,
2011, 341 et seqq.; Schaltegger et al.,
2014). On the one hand, corporations are embedded into a macro-socio-cultural environment. In this regard, the nexus to the abovementioned culture as mental model applies, typically defined as
“web of meanings made of repetitive habits and emotional responses which reflects the way the people feel, think, and perform” (Viardot,
2017, p. 9). On the hand, there is a micro-cultural level of distinct
corporate cultures determining
“how things are done through a set of behaviours, values, and visible symbols” within an entrepreneurial context (Handfield,
2013, 62 et seqq.; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner,
2012, pp. 103–104; Viardot,
2017, p. 9). Both scopes are interdependent, thus, many issues addressed are likewise important to both micro- and macro-cultural contexts, inter alia a) how to shape
cultural change through addressing cultural sustainability in terms of heritage, vitality, socio-economic viability, diversity, locality, or nature-culture interfaces of eco-cultural civilization (Beschorner,
2006; Birkeland, Burton, Novoa, & Siivonen,
2017; Dessein et al.,
2015, 28 et seqq.; and b) how to manage cross-cultural stakeholder dialogues vis-à-vis minorities’ participation and representation in the context of cultural landscapes, indigenous cultural or tribal values, and impacts resulting from corporate activities (Acosta,
2013, 106 et seqq.; Cubillo-Guevara, Hidalgo-Capitán, & García-Álvarez,
2016, 34 et seqq.; Fatheuer,
2011, 26 et seqq.; Grimm & Saner,
2011, 1–8, 247–258; Pizzirani et al.,
2014, pp. 1318, 1325, Tilt,
2016, p. 4).
In conclusion,
“sustainability is about developing a long-term perspective and approach to all business matters. The concept is best developed by those who genuinely care about progressing towards a more stable future for the benefit of all” (Schmidpeter & Lewtas,
2016, p. 1). Due to that cultural sustainability ought to be attended/integrated more into economic models and embodied as source of
creative resilience into corporate sustainability (Anbari et al.,
2010, p. 1; Archer & Cameron,
2009a, 179 et seqq.; Habisch & Schmidpeter,
2016, 53 et seqq.; Kagan & Kirchberg,
2016, p. 1490; Steinkellner,
2016b, 8 et seqq.; Viardot,
2017, 3 et seqq.).
Collaborative cultures for sustainability stem from culture-sensitive, context-driven and performance-oriented business practices that show cultural sustainability as vibrant individual and organizational issue of corporate management (Archer & Cameron,
2009b, 89 et seqq.; Dessein et al.,
2015, p. 30; Moray,
2004, pp. 51–52; Morioka & de Carvalho,
2016, p. 140). Related business cases displaying added value by addressing corporate responsibility and culture, and implementing cultural aspects into life-cycle analyses and assessments, respectively, are promising, predominantly affiliated to small-and-medium-sized enterprises (Hemmers,
2006, 127 et seqq.; Romeiro Filho,
2015, p. 468; Steinkellner,
2016a, 195 et seqq.). However, cultural sustainability is not yet considered an impact-category indicator; thus, recognition in related discourses is still rather limited (Paech,
2005, 57 et seqq.; Pizzirani et al.,
2014, 1318, 1319); dealing with culture-bound notions of sustainability on the corporate level involves:
1)
Ambiguity: Managing across cultural borders requires sustaining cultural uncertainty, even though doing business with global mind-sets.
Tolerance to ambiguity is prerequisite to transnational solutions (Bartlett & Ghosbal,
1987, 43, 51; Bartlett & Ghoshal,
2008; Di Norcia,
1991; Guo,
2015; Keinert,
2008; Popoli,
2011, p. 426; Shister,
2004, p. 17; Solomon & Schell,
2009, 217 et seqq.);
2)
Branding:
Universal versus
particular is the frequently cited formula applicable to most strategy-related corporate contexts, most notably in formulating strategies within the scope of corporate responsibility. Diversified approaches tend to outweigh
one-size-fits-all solutions of global branding which do not work for different markets, because
“the legitimacy that companies seek through (corporate-responsibility) practices is obtained across multiple cultures and countries: Legitimacy is not just a home country phenomenon, it must be viewed globally. As a consequence, brand strategy must enhance both home and host country perspectives”. In order to comply with the paradigm of cultural adapting and awareness, guidelines are proposed which encompass the identification of culturally relevant issues, acknowledgement of cultural heterogeneity, measurement, and interpretation (Chao et al.,
2009, pp. 331–332; Harps,
2003, p. 85; Popoli,
2011, pp. 420, 430; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner,
2012, pp. 31–32).
The following trends can be observed when summarizing the state of culture-integrating into corporate sustainability:
1)
Approaches are mostly centred on supply chains. Despite acknowledging that
“cultural complexities that can throw even the best managed global supply chains an unexpected curveball”, the scope of cultural adaptiveness or
cultural fit primarily relates to corporate cultures explaining differences between supplier versus buyer culture, for instance (Cadden et al.,
2013, 86, 94–95; Davis et al.,
2014, 190, 194; Hudson,
2005);
2)
In logistics and distribution practice, cultural differences are rather considered obstacles to global sourcing. Making this business segment work given increasing complexity requires further efforts of intercultural understanding in corporate relationship management (Aquilon,
1997, 77 et seqq.; Harps,
2003);
3)
Cultural heterogeneity needs to be addressed to an increasing degree, particularly in international sales and operations planning (van Hove,
2013).
Internationally-operating corporations usually comprise global production and/or trading division structures, i.e. subsidiaries, branch offices and manufacturing sites, respectively. Consequentially, colliding cultures, intercultural encounters or critical incidents are typically and frequently met situations of companies in transnational/global business contexts. Culture can be both chance and challenge of international management. Many companies clearly accommodate cultural challenges as
business opportunity; segments alongside the value chain do transversally capture
sense-making as means of common corporate understanding.
Corporate cultural responsibility is primarily attributed to driver of success through meeting the requirements of global stakeholders. However, culture is far more; it is creative resource to corporate evolution and sustainability, and should be planted into the core-business domain, accordingly. Corporate cultural responsibility ensures attractiveness of generations to come, and serves as source of workforce inspiration. Corporate marketing relies on culture in order to intensify the perception of products and services by adding a unique-selling aspect. Moreover, culture serves as foundation or
least-common denominator that enables economic value creation and individual interaction, without the necessity of constantly negotiating for underlying values and beliefs (Fürst,
2014, p. 167; Schaltegger et al.,
2014; Steinkellner,
2016a,
2016b, p. 11; Tilt,
2016, p. 4; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner,
2012, 186 et seqq.).
What can be learned from this theory approach: Is there anything like a normative
narrative towards a sustainability shift in business paradigms (Ayman & Hartman,
2011, 57 et seqq.)?
To conclude, on corporate-sustainability grounds, there is a notable trend from selective towards integrated notions of corporate responsibility corresponding to normative, culture-bound, implementing, strategically framed and aligned concepts of corporate sustainability. First of all, in terms of marketing in business-to-business (b2b) relations, another driver of competitiveness needs to be taken into consideration, adding up to trust, brand reputation, unique-selling-proposition, marketing-sales-interface, incentive systems, and sustainability performance. Once the corporate narrative of sustainability is incorporated into the brand essence, sustainable branding turns into sustainable marketing. Second, drawing on business segments, in sustainability-oriented contexts those need to rely on strategy and respective implementation alongside the value chains. Sustainability strategies are pivotal to long-term performance, establishing sustainability as determinant driver of innovation in both pushing and pulling contexts. Third, and last but not least, in view of culture-bound notions, sustainability is to be considered as cross-cutting approach to all business matters, and source of creative resilience, known as collaborative cultures for sustainability. Dual challenges of ambiguity and branding need to be embraced as business opportunity overtly attributed to corporate cultural responsibility and driver of success.
In a nutshell, recalling the research questions raised, theory-based insights obtained through literature review lead to the triple arguments that
1)
Socio-cultural contexts are increasingly taken into account for corporate sustainability; however, there is little case-related evidence that those might constitute a strategic driving force to corporate sustainability governance;
2)
Cultural aspects are related to corporate sustainability through underlying value systems; however, there is hardly any case-related analysis that it might increase the innovative capacity for business-model development;
3)
Comparative advantages of sustainability-oriented manufacturing and branding are at hand with corporate sustainability management; however, there is need to elucidate how these practices might favour the identification of business cases for sustainability.
In further replicating these findings with case-distinctive elements there is:
-
▪ Little evidence that corporate sustainability is related to the company’s brand essence by taking into account brand awareness and recognition;
-
▪ Limited embedding of cultural aspects into an integrated corporate strategy for sustainability in fostering business innovation alongside business segments;
-
▪ Promising potential for sustainability as corporate matter of business-to-business (b2b) and business-to-consumer (b2c) relations for identifying applicable business cases.