See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335210461

Strategic Approaches to Business Sustainability

Conference Paper · August 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 1,679

1 author:

Padma Misra
Swami Vivekanand Subharti University
7 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PhD thesis 'A study on corporate social responsibility and its impact on performance of corporate sectors' View project

A Study on Employability Skills Gap Analysis (w.r.t. Management and Commerce Graduates.) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Padma Misra on 19 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Special Issue for International Conference on Emerging Role of Leadership, Values and Ethics in Organisational
Development, KIET School of Management, KIET Group of Institutions, Ghaziabad, UP, India.

Strategic Approaches to Business Sustainability

Dr. Padma Misra
Associate Professor
Faculty of Management & Commerce
Swami Vivekanand Subharti University
Meerut, UP, India

Abstract

Achieving a Business Sustainability is a step beyond CSR. It requires a strategic approach to

planning rather than an incremental approach to deliver long term benefits. With current
social, environmental, technological and political challenges facing business it is imperative
we change. This paper explores the value of Strategic Approach to business sustainability,
and discusses the role of different approaches in strategic sustainability for companies.

Key Words: Strategic Approaches, Sustainability, Business Sustainability, Sustainable

Development, Sustainability, Strategic Sustainability, Green Giants, Triple Bottom
Line, CSR.

Introduction

In the 1970s Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize for Economics stated that “the exclusive purpose
of business is to increase its returns to stakeholders”. He argued that companies adopting
CSR would become less competitive as they will be faced with more legal requirements than
companies that did not. He concluded that the only business of business is to earn profits.

Sustainability issues were not considered important back in the 1970s and neither was CSR.
Climate change was not something that was considered threat to future generations and
hence, Friedman’s theory was one of the core business models at the time.

Costanza et al. (2014) estimated that if we had to pay for ecosystem services such as
pollination, soil formation and many other such services that nature provides for free, the
value of these services would exceed the global GDP by a significant margin. This seminal
work has been the basis on which many experts view sustainability nature’s resources (water,
soil and air) are finite and need to be protected and in some case replenished eg watershed
projects.

International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences, ISSN 2250-0588 Page 384

http://indusedu.org
Special Issue for International Conference on Emerging Role of Leadership, Values and Ethics in Organisational
Development, KIET School of Management, KIET Group of Institutions, Ghaziabad, UP, India.

Literature Review

The definition of sustainability was given in the Brundtland Commission’s 1987 report,
‘meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs.’
A sustainable enterprise genuinely contributes to sustainability by delivering economic,
social and environmental benefits simultaneously, i.e., achieving the triple bottom line
(Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002; Elkington, 1998). Triangulating with the state and civil society,
organizations have been developing new strategies, policies and arrangements and redefining
their respective roles, action domains and interdependency (Marrewijk, 2003).

Sustainability & CSR

As Sustainability and CSR converge and encompass similar dimensions they are increasingly
being used as synonymous or comparable terms (Emerson, 2003; Mazon, 2004). Both
concepts involve multiple levels of analysis (individual, group, firm, community, etc.) and
multiple stakeholders (employees, shareholders, clients, suppliers, partners, community
members, etc.). CSR and sustainability deal with issues related to three areas i.e. social,
environmental and economic, that sometimes overlap. The economic area has elements (e.g.
firm’s reputation, relationships, etc) that contribute long-term financial success and is not
limited toshort-term performance indicators such as return on investment [ROI]. Managing
sustainability and CSR implies seeking a balance between short- and long-term
considerations and among them interests of a larger group of stakeholders than those
addressed by traditional management (Raynard & Forstarter, 2002). It is here that the
strategic planning approach is more suited for achieving sustainable business environment.

Sustainable Development
The concept of sustainable development has received growing recognition, but it is a new
idea for many business executives and hence remains abstract and theoretical. Sustainable
development can be defined as
“the means adopting business strategies and activities that meet the needs of the
enterprise and its stakeholders today while protecting, sustaining and enhancing the
human and natural resources that will be needed in the future.”

International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences, ISSN 2250-0588 Page 385

http://indusedu.org
Special Issue for International Conference on Emerging Role of Leadership, Values and Ethics in Organisational
Development, KIET School of Management, KIET Group of Institutions, Ghaziabad, UP, India.

The concept of sustainable development as originally proposed by the World Commission on

Environment and Development is captured by this definition recognizing that economic
development must meet the needs of business organization and its stakeholders. Stakeholders
here are identified to include shareholders, lenders, customers, employees, suppliers and
communities who are affected by the organization’s activities. The definition also focuses on
business’s dependence on human and natural resources, in addition to physical and financial
capital. According to it, economic activity must not irreparably degrade or destroy these
natural and human resources. This definition was meant for helping business directors apply
concept of sustainable development to their own organizations. However, it should be
emphasized that sustainable development cannot be achieved by a single enterprise (or, for
that matter, by the entire business community) in isolation. Sustainable development requires
a concerted effort of all participants of global economy to not only meet today’s needs but
also not to compromise on the ability of the future generations to meet their own.

Integrating Sustainability into Business Practices.

Organizations are increasingly pressurized to integrate society’s expectations into their
business strategies to respond to consumers, employees and other stakeholders while explore
opportunities for creating competitive advantage (Bielak, Bonini, & Oppenheim, 2007;
Bonini, Mendonça, & Oppenheim, 2006). Researchers are seeking to identify a set of factors
with the potential for facilitating effective integration of sustainability into organizational
practices.

The Strategic Approaches

‘Most strategies are built on specific beliefs about the future. Unfortunately, the future is
deeply unpredictable’.

Research shows that above 50% of the time organisations have failed at some point could be
identified with an erroneous strategy as the reason, rather than poor economic situation.
Strategy formulation is time consuming and expensive. Organizations sometimes may
formulate strategies without allocating resources. Over the years many approaches have been
suggested to resolve strategy failures. Sustainability requires formal strategic planning to
ensure greater chances of success for future generations. A formal strategy provides an
organisation with chances to reduce risk and improve possibility of security about its future.
Planning which has its origins in military sphere is the root of a strategy. Sun Tzu’s ‘The Art

International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences, ISSN 2250-0588 Page 386

http://indusedu.org
Special Issue for International Conference on Emerging Role of Leadership, Values and Ethics in Organisational
Development, KIET School of Management, KIET Group of Institutions, Ghaziabad, UP, India.

ofWar’ written 2,500 years ago considered as the first guidelines to strategy. In this legendary
book the author, a Commander of the Chinese army explains the rules for the carrying out of
military operations. M. Porter, D.P. Norton and S. Kaplan, H. Mintzberg and others have also
contributed to the understanding of strategic organisational planning.

The understanding of different schools of thought on strategy is critical, which is otherwise a

abstract term. There is no common concept and strategy could mean different in different
areas. A study of different schools of strategy is important as different metaphors can show
how there are different views on same idea. Business however does not look at strategy
differently. They define, form and explain the strategy in the same way.

The following schools of strategy exist:

1. Design school: process of conception.

Achieving balance between the organization’s internal strengths, weaknesses and

external opportunities and threats.

2. Planning school: formal process.

The formal process has specific steps and is supplemented by control tables. It is supported
by various techniques (especially what refers to different objectives, budgets, schemes,
operational plans)

3. Positioning school: analytical process.

It includes concepts like strategic groups, value chains, etc and the designer of plans becomes
the analyst. It always has some analytical specifics.

4. Entrepreneurial school: process of the vision for future.

The top manager is the key person. The concept key development is that it transformed the
strategy focus from an accurate design, plan or position into an uncertain vision and a broad
perspective.

5.Cognitive school: an intellectual process, where it deals mainly with the research of the
strategy concept. This school also has its trends, interpretations or a constructive view on a
strategy. It is used to construct strategies rather than deal simply with reality charts.

6. Learning school: a process occurring unpredictably.

International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences, ISSN 2250-0588 Page 387

http://indusedu.org
Special Issue for International Conference on Emerging Role of Leadership, Values and Ethics in Organisational
Development, KIET School of Management, KIET Group of Institutions, Ghaziabad, UP, India.

This school focuses on learning as you go or strategies are created unpredictably. They can be
found all across the organisation. The link between formulation and implementation exists,

7. Power school: negotiating process.

Power school is further divided into two sub-groups, the micro power group and the major
power group. Micro power concept sees the strategy development as an internal policy –
process which includes negotiations, putting pressure upon and confrontation between the
power players. Macro power concept stresses that an organisation is a person that exercises
power over others and between its partners within the alliance, joint ventures, and other types
of networking. It exists with the purpose of agreement on ‘collective’ strategies in the interest
of the organisation.

8. Culture school: a social process.

The strategic concept focuses is on collective interests and integration. It is emphasized that
formulation of a strategy is a social process rooted in the culture of an organisation.

9. Environment school: a reactive process.

The concept includes ‘probability theory’ which examines what reactions could be expected
from an organisation in the respect to its environmental circumstances. The ‘population
ecology’ is seen as imposing severe limits to strategic choices. ‘Institutional theory’ describes
the institutional pressure that organisations face. This concept of strategy is a hybrid of the
power and cognition school.

10. Configuration school: a process of transformation.

Organisations are not considered as separate entities but as configurations ie. clusters of
common behaviours and characteristics. If ‘status’ can be used to describe organization, then
the changes can be referred to as dynamic process of transformation where the organization
due to the change moves from one status to another.

This classification of strategy schools is not the only one. Elfring and Volberda (2001) also
have classified the strategic management approaches into three strategic schools:

1. Limitation school – Deals with the issue where to draw the boundaries of an organisation
and how to manage the process across the division line.

International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences, ISSN 2250-0588 Page 388

http://indusedu.org
Special Issue for International Conference on Emerging Role of Leadership, Values and Ethics in Organisational
Development, KIET School of Management, KIET Group of Institutions, Ghaziabad, UP, India.

2. Dynamic capabilities school – The strategic management is collective learning process and
the purpose is to develop special organisational capabilities which are difficult to copy.

3. Configuration school – It perceives strategy as the rising and declining process of an

organisational configuration, strategic techniques, archetypes and stages of development.

These classification of approaches to strategic management is not various theories or creation

of new theories, they are main trends in the area of strategic management. The different
schools of thought deliberate on the priorities assigned by organisations in the process of
strategy creation to its different parts, although most include areas as defined by Peter
Drucker for development of strategic objectives.

Discussion:

Every company operates differently having a unique organizational structure, supply chain,
employee base and geographic footprint, therefore sustainability strategies must be catered to
each company in its own unique way as no two companies are the same. This clearly
demonstrates that no one strategic approach may be sufficient. References can be taken of
other companies in the industry or region, but what might work for one organization may not
work for the other. In such case an positioning school approach may be helpful since its
involves analytics. Whereas planning school approach may help to identify and prioritise
material issues to focus resources. Companies with successful sustainability strategies
connect their sustainability efforts with issues and activities that are material to the business
and so the entrepreneurial, cognitive and cultural approaches may be more suited to develop
innovative ideas to solve sustainability issues.

Developing a sustainability strategy that will create long value for the company and
communicate that to shareholders is a major hurdle for businesses worlwide. Challenge for
many companies is crafting an approach that improves the environmental and social impacts
of their operations while simultaneously contributing to bottom lines. Demonstrating that the
strategy can create value from a business perspective is the key to getting support from
shareholders. Hence, strategy becomes the bridge that links sustainability to profit instead of
cost.

Cultural approach will help engage and consult with middle management. The under
representation of middle management in sustainability strategy development can be improved

International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences, ISSN 2250-0588 Page 389

http://indusedu.org
Special Issue for International Conference on Emerging Role of Leadership, Values and Ethics in Organisational
Development, KIET School of Management, KIET Group of Institutions, Ghaziabad, UP, India.

when sustainability becomes a organizational culture nurtured with a cultural approach to

strategic planning. This will increase employee engagement and self worth and there will be
less resistance to change. A cultural approach to strategic planning will result in
better Communication, patience and persistence is essential to get middle management
onboard.

Positioning and Power schools approach will help establish KPIs tied to important tangible
goals with clear assignment of responsibilities. Managing and monitoring sustainability
progress is important, without it, efforts will flounder. Positioning approach will help plan
resources and their allocation which essential to performance check. Consideration should be
given for establishing a separate function in the company to conduct this task.

Learning approach could help organizations improve on the company wide sustainability
activities. The transformation strategy could help incorporate new mission and vision for
company helping them to identify what their status is and where are the headed

Conclusion

More than 40 years have passed since Milton Friedman gave is famous observation and the
world today is seening a new generation of billion dollar “Green Giants” emerging into the
market. Green Giants are businesses with a billion U.S. dollar or more in annual revenue
directly as a result of a product, service or line of business with sustainability or social good
at its core. Chipotle (valued at US$4.1 billion), Unilever (valued at US$ 52.27 billion),
Whole Foods Market (valued at US$14.19 billion), Natura (valued at US$2.65 billion) and
Tesla (valued at US$3.2 billion) are some of the examples Green Giants. Their success
proves sustainability does not contradict with profits and is the driving force of their business
that generates value socially, environmentally and economically.

The difference these companies have from other firms is that sustainability isn’t just a
department within their organization which looks for energy saving solutions and paper-less
offices. Their sustainability is build into the system. The entire corporation has been build
around sustainability and the common feature in all of them is that they have a workable and
profitable sustainability strategy. Many companies claim to estabilish sustainable strategy but
it is only a short-term approach or a incremental approach, where compliance to legal and
regulatory authorities is a priority. Some companies who do have a sustainability strategy, it
International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences, ISSN 2250-0588 Page 390

http://indusedu.org
Special Issue for International Conference on Emerging Role of Leadership, Values and Ethics in Organisational
Development, KIET School of Management, KIET Group of Institutions, Ghaziabad, UP, India.

is linked to their overall business strategy, including supply chain and customers. In case of
companies like the Green Giants, their sustainability strategy is their business strategy.

The success of these companies is a clear indication there is a general rising trend and
demand for businesses to incorporate aspects of sustainability into their business model. It is
time for companies to understand that having a sustainability strategy is necessary in order
for them to be competitive and corporate sustainability is no longer a marginal or money-
losing set of activities.

Hence, there is no one fixed strategy to resolve complex issues related to sustainability.
Sustainability requires a good mix of different approaches which complement one another in
achieving a business sustainability.

References:

1. The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits by Milton Friedman

(http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-
business.html)

2. Green Giant – How Smart Companies Turn Sustainability into Billion-dollar

Businesses by E. Freya Williams

3. Corporate Sustainability at a Crossroads – Progress Towards Our Common Future in

Uncertain Times (http://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/corporate-sustainability-at-a-
crossroads/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=enews&utm_campaign=susrpt17)

4. Bonini, S. M., Mendonca, L. T., & Oppenheim, J. M. (2006). When social issues
become strategic. McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 20.
5. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate
sustainability. Business strategy and the environment, 11(2), 130-141.
6. Ecoservices downloaded from http://www.robertcostanza.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/2017_J_Costanza-et-al.-20yrs.-EcoServices.pdf
7. Elfring, T., & Volberda, H. W. (2001). Schools of thought in strategic management:
Fragmentation, integration or synthesis.
8. Elkington, J. (1998). Accounting for the triple bottom line. Measuring Business
Excellence, 2(3), 18-22.

International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences, ISSN 2250-0588 Page 391

http://indusedu.org
 Special Issue for International Conference on Emerging Role of Leadership, Values and Ethics in Organisational
Development, KIET School of Management, KIET Group of Institutions, Ghaziabad, UP, India.

9. Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of
21st‐century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37-51.
10. https://community-wealth.org/sites/clone.community-
wealth.org/files/downloads/article-costanza-et-al.pdf
11. Raynard, P., & Forstater, M. (2002). Corporate social responsibility: Implications for
small and medium enterprises in developing countries.
12. Strategic Planning downloaded from
https://www.bcci.bg/projects/latvia/pdf/9_Strategiska_planosana_GALA_GB_EN.pdf
13. Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate
sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of business ethics, 44(2-3), 95-
105.
14. Volberda, H. W., & Elfring, T. (Eds.). (2001). Rethinking strategy. Sage.

International Journal of Research in Engineering, IT and Social Sciences, ISSN 2250-0588 Page 392

http://indusedu.org

View publication stats