REGIONAL PhD PROGRAMME IN “ECONOMIA AZIENDALE AND MANAGEMENT”
- XXVIII CYCLE -
BUSINESS MODELS
FORSUSTAINABILITY
IN THE
AGRI-FOOD SECTOR:
THE
ROLE
OFMANAGEMENT CONTROL SYSTEMS
Supervisor:
Professor Angelo Riccaboni
PhD Candidate:
Acknowledgements
This thesis represents the output of a tough but wonderful pathway, during which I had the chance to meet extraordinary people, to whom I extend my most heartfelt thanks.
First of all, a huge thanks goes to my supervisor, Prof. Angelo Riccaboni, for have given me the opportunity to realize what for me was the dream of almost an entire lifetime, as well as for having supported me, not only from an academic point of view, during these last three years. It has been a true honour to work with him, and I hope I have been worthy of the trust he put on me.
I would like to thank Professor Maria Pia Maraghini, Professor Elena Giovannoni and Dr. Antonella Autino, for the infinite patience they had with me during these years. This thanks, of course, joins that addressed to all the members of the Department of Business and Law of the University of Siena, of whom I had the privilege to appreciate the immense human and professional dimensions.
I would also like to thank the coordinators of the PhD programme, Professor Marco Allegrini and Professor Luciano Marchi of the University of Pisa, all the members of the doctoral board, as well as all the Professors of the University of Pisa, Florence and other Universities that I had the privilege to meet over these years, for their valuable lessons.
A sincere thanks goes to Dr. Sébastien Treyer, Dr. Matthieu Brun, Dr. Marie-Hélène Schwoob and all the staff of the Institut pour le Développement Durable et les Relations Internationales (IDDRI) of Paris, for their valuable support in the preparation of the thesis, as well as for having made me feel just like at home in a foreign country.
I would like also to sincerely thank members of Barilla staff, for having accepted to be interviewed, as well as for the enthusiasm and commitment showed towards the good realization of the case study.
Finally, a special thanks goes to my parents, Vincenzo and Katia, and my girlfriend, Lucia, for their help and patience showed during the difficult times I went through in recent years, especially during the last one when, given serious health problems that unfortunately will accompany me throughout all my life, I was in trouble. They were always there for me, supporting me, and making me look at life from a different perspective.
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my two young nieces, Lucrezia and Diletta, hoping to see both of them, at my same age, living in a better world than the one in which I am living now.
Index
Chapter 1
Introduction: motivations and purpose of the research
1.1 Motivations of the research………... 1
1.2 Purpose and structure of the work ………... 3
Chapter 2 Sustainability: Evolution of the Concept 2.1 Introduction ………. 6
2.2 Sustainability: from Early Civilization to Industrial Revolution ………. 8
2.3 The 20th Century……… 12
2.3.1 The 1950s……… 13
2.3.2 The 1960s and the 1970s………. 14
2.3.3 The 1980s……… 17
2.3.4 The 1990s……… 18
2.4 The 21st Century……… 19
2.5 The Development of Sustainability in Italy……….. 20
2.6 Sustainability and Sustainable Development: Systematizing the Ideas ………... 22
Chapter 3 Sustainability and Business: a review 3.1 Introduction ………... 27
3.2 The Concept of Corporate Sustainability: theoretical perspectives……….. 28
3.2.1 Corporate Sustainability in Italy………. 39
3.3 Corporate Sustainability: the Overlap with other Concepts ………. 45
3.3.1 Corporate Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility ……….. 45
3.3.2 Corporate Sustainability and Business Ethics………. 48
3.3.3 Corporate Sustainability and Stakeholder Theory……….. 50
3.3.4 Corporate Sustainability and Corporate Citizenship………... 52
3.4 Conclusions ……….. 56
Chapter 4 Sustainability and Business Models 4.1 Introduction………... 57
4.2 The Concept of Business Model: searching for a common theoretical ground…………. 57
4.2.1 A predecessor of Business Model in Italy: the ‘Formula Imprenditoriale’.……… 66
4.3 Business Models and Sustainability: an emerging field of research………. 68
4.3.1 BMSs and Sustainability Strategies: different concepts, crossed destinies... 81
Chapter 5
Management Accounting and Control for Sustainability
5.1 Introduction……….... 88
5.2 Sustainability and Management Accounting ……… 89
5.2.1 Management Accounting: main theoretical perspectives……… 89
5.2.2 Sustainability and Management Accounting: the ‘Integration’ challenge……… 93
5.3 Sustainability and Management Control ……….. 100
5.3.1 Management Control: the main Approaches and Frameworks……… 100
5.3.2 Sustainability and Management Control: Mapping the territory ……… 114
5.4 Conclusions……… 120
Chapter 6 Methodology and Method: an Interpretive Case Study 6.1 Introduction……….... 128
6.2 Methodology: an interpretive approach ………... 128
6.3 Method: a case study………. 129
6.3.1 Case selection……… 131 6.3.2 Data Collection……… 132 6.3.3 Data Analysis……… 136 6.3.4 Data Validation……… 138 6.4 Conclusions……… 139 Chapter 7 Business Models for Sustainability in the Agri-food sector: the role of Management Control Systems - evidence from the case of Barilla 7.1 Introduction……….... 140
7.2 Barilla: company history and current overview ……… 140
7.3 Sustainability in Barilla: a strategic orientation ……… 145
7.4 Barilla’s Business Model: the main changes towards sustainability………. 152
7.5 The Management Control System for Sustainability in Barilla………. 162
7.5.1 Overview………. 162
7.5.2 Management Control tools for Sustainability in Barilla……….. 163
7.6 Aligning Strategy and Business Models for Sustainability through Management Control Systems: interpreting evidence from the case of Barilla………. 171
7.7 Concluding remarks, main contributions and limitations of the research……… 176
References……… I Consulted Websites ...……… XXVII
1
Chapter 1
Introduction: motivations and purpose of the research
SUMMARY --- 1.1 Motivations of the research; 1.2 – Purpose and structure of the work
1.1 Motivations of the research
There is little doubt that sustainability represents one the greatest imperatives of 21st century. In fact, now that poverty, inequality, environmental and human degradation have almost compromised the survival of life on Earth, the need to pursue different paradigms of development, production and consumption have progressively catalyzed the attention of a growing number academics, practitioners and regulators (as well as society as a whole), to whom the definition of pathways of change able to reverse current global trends has become an absolute priority.
The series of international events occurred during 2015 seemed to confirm the crucial role played by sustainability in the societal agenda for the future: among the others, in fact, the Milan Expo, the Conference of Parties on Climate Change (COP21) and, above all, the agreement on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that have characterized the year will constitute the cornerstone of the process of definition of future sustainability challenges, and will certainly serve as a guide for humanity in the pursuit of different trajectories of development.
Despite recent events just mentioned (especially the agreement on the SDGs) made possible to update sustainability priorities in the light of changes occurred in global scenarios, it must be underlined that, alongside the definition of new sustainability priorities, the effective tackling of sustainability challenges should pass through a greater commitment to the concrete implementation of such priorities by all societal actors. Among the actors involved in such process of transition towards sustainability, companies certainly play a prominent role. Recent years, in fact, have witnessed how devastating the effects of reckless corporate behavior can be: frauds, breach of work regulations, as well as increasing pollution caused by business activities represent just some of the events that symbolized the failure of profit maximization-oriented business paradigm in creating fairer societies and healthier natural environment.
2 Faced with such a serious reality, both business academics and practitioners have therefore focused their efforts on the research of theoretical constructs that could synthetize the need for companies to embrace economic, social and environmental issues in their core business from an integrated standpoint, allowing the concrete implementation of sustainability at all different organizational levels, with the consequence that many concepts promoting the adoption of sustainability principles in companies appeared in literature during the years. However, the majority of such concepts often seemed (and seem) to suffer of a lack of an integrated view about the different sustainability dimensions.
It is moving from this context that the concept of Corporate Sustainability, as the fullest expression of the integration of sustainability dimensions within companies, gradually established itself. With the advent of Corporate Sustainability, in turn, the need for progressively change the way in which companies think about what they produce, how they produce what they produce, as well as about the effects that their activities have on society and environment emerged, leading scholarly efforts to focus on the concept of Business Model and, in particular, to question the adequacy of the existing Business Models, accused to do not value the impact of social and environmental aspects in the creation of value appropriately.
The need to conceptualize Business Models in which economic, social and environmental aspects are fully integrated between them, in particular, made emerge the term Business
Model for Sustainability, certainly not without difficulties. The concept of Business Model per se (became prevalent during the second half of the 1990s) has in fact been subject to
multiple definitions over time, leading to a general disagreement about its exact meaning. Such disagreement has then subsequently shifted to the concept of Business Model for Sustainability, as showed by several conceptualizations through which the term has been identified over time.
Disagreement over the exact definition of Business Model for Sustainability, however, have not weakened the need to move away from “Business-As-Usual” trajectories in order to embrace a new way of thinking about business, a way according to which business is considered as a factor able to improve societal and environmental conditions keeping, at the same time, adequate profitability levels (Bocken et al. 2015). On the contrary, this had important consequences in terms of research: rather than focusing on the elaboration of specific and precise definitions of Business Model for Sustainability a priori, in fact, an
3 always more consistent part of literature has begun to focus on the process of transition from “traditional” Business Models to Business Models for Sustainability (with a particular emphasis on the role played by innovation), as well as on possible typologies of Business Models for Sustainability that this process could originate. Moreover, alongside the need for mapping main changes towards sustainability in Business Models, the need to align Business Models for Sustainability with sustainability strategies emerged as an interesting field of research within Corporate Sustainability area. Despite strategy and Business Model are now considered as two distinct concepts, in fact, a close relationship between them has been highlighted by several authors.
Once the importance of aligning Business Model and strategy for sustainability has been highlighted, the need to individuate the elements that can foster such alignment emerged. In this sense, literature has showed that Management Accounting and, above all, Management Control can play a key role both in formulation and implementation of sustainability strategies. Nevertheless, while the relationship between Management Control Systems and sustainability strategies has been analysed extensively (and important research results have been achieved in this sense), the relationship between Management Control Systems and Business Models for Sustainability has been underexplored. As above mentioned, however, literature seems to increasingly agree on the fact that an appropriate formulation and implementation of sustainability strategies should be accompanied by consistent changes in the Business Models or, in other words, changes in strategies and Business Models for Sustainability should be aligned between them, especially in terms of the degree of incorporation of sustainability issues within each of them. Therefore, the role that MCSs have in the implementation of Business Model for Sustainability and, above all, the role that MCSs have in aligning strategies and Business Models for Sustainability should be analysed in more detail.
1.2 Purpose and structure of the work
Given this premise, purpose of this work is to explore the role played by Management Control Systems in aligning sustainability strategies and Business Models for Sustainability. To do this, a case study on Barilla, an Italian multinational company operating in Agri-food sector, is presented.
The choice of both such typology of company and sector has been motivated by some specific reasons. First of all, despite high exposure to public opinion, extreme and
4 multidimensional heterogeneity intrinsic in the nature of multinational companies (Roth and Kostova, 2003), as well as severity of social and environmental impacts deriving from their activities make the implementation of sustainability within them a particularly challenging (but essential) process, much seems have yet to be done in order to explore the relationship between multinational companies and sustainability. Secondly, agriculture and food represents two of the key themes within the debate over the future of life on Earth, especially within sustainability research domain. Given the key role played by agriculture in the global economic scenario, in fact, now that conventional agricultural paradigms are more than ever threatening natural environment, a consistent part of scholarly attention is always more focusing on the theorization of possible pathways to reverse such discouraging global agricultural trends. Environmental threats caused by conventional agriculture and current Agri-food value chains, in turn, has had severe consequences on food supply levels, making quite difficult for food systems to provide adequate nutrition to a significant part of world population (Riccaboni, 2015).
From a structural point of view, the work is articulated in the following chapters:
Chapter 2 provides an overview on the historical development of sustainability concept, by examining relevant contributions provided by academics and practitioners, as well as by national and international institutions over time;
Chapter 3 explores the evolution of the concept of Corporate Sustainability, from its origins until recent developments, by taking as reference literature on both Corporate Sustainability and similar concepts which overlapped to it over time, and highlighting similarities and/or differences between them;
Chapter 4 analyses the concept of Business Model for Sustainability by, first of all, exploring the development of the concept of Business Model through the review of main contributions provided both by academics and practitioners, and then by analysing how the concept of Business Model has been studied with reference to sustainability issues, also highlighting its relationships with that one of sustainability strategy;
Chapter 5 provides an overview on Management Accounting and Control for sustainability, by reviewing relevant literature on the relationship between sustainability and accounting at first, and then highlighting the main trends characterizing current research on the topic. Drawing on such exploration, major contributions on Management Control and sustainability are evidenced, with a particular emphasis on
5 that ones analysing the role of Management Control Systems in the implementation of sustainability at company level;
Chapter 6 illustrates the methodology (interpretive) and method (case study) employed in the work, at first by providing an overview on interpretive methodology in accounting, and then by focusing on case study method, also illustrating the key steps in the development of the case study object of the work;
Chapter 7 presents the case of Barilla, by both illustrating what are the main sustainability aspects introduced at both strategy, Business model and Management Control System level and analysing the role that the Management Control Systems played in the alignment of sustainability strategy and Business Model for Sustainability, and then by discussing main evidence arising from the case study, to finally provide some concluding remarks, also highlighting main contribution and limitations of the study.
6
Chapter 2
Sustainability: Evolution of the Concept
SUMMARY --- 2.1 Introduction; 2.2 - Sustainability: from Early Civilization to Industrial Revolution; 2.3 - The 20th Century; 2.4 - The 21st Century; 2.5 - The development of sustainability in Italy; 2.6 - Sustainability and Sustainable Development: Systematizing the Ideas.
2.1 Introduction
Long range future of humanity certainly represents one of the most worrying themes of recent years. Poverty, inequality, environmental and human degradation that are always more characterizing global economic, social and environmental scenario, in fact, proved to threaten the survival of life on Earth very seriously. Defining pathways of change able to reverse such devastating trends became therefore the priority for all Countries of the World. In particular, the need for different paradigms of development, production and consumption emerged (Porter and Kramer, 2011) and attention of academics, practitioners, companies, regulators and society as a whole focused on an ever important paradigm. That paradigm is sustainability.
As pointed out by Kidd (1992: 3), sustainability evolved “from a concept put forward by a few scholars to a widely accepted and influential idea in the continuing debate over the future of the world”, soon becoming, however, object of many critiques. In this sense, for example, Brown et al. (1987: 713) argued that
“the meaning of the term [sustainability] is strongly dependent on the context in which it is applied and on whether its use is based on a social, economic, or ecological perspective”.
Similarly, Toman (1992: 3) pointed out that “the word sustainability […] means many things to different people and can be used in reference to a number of important issues”. Again, Dresner (2008: 2) highlighted that sustainability represents “a ‘contestable concept’, like liberty or justice. Most people support these goals but disagree about what exactly constitutes liberty or justice”.
Multifaceted nature of sustainability, in turn, raised questions about feasibility of its effective operationalization. In this respect, Wiersum (1995: 138) pointed out that
7 vagueness of sustainability implies that its operationalization “should be based on a thorough analysis of the perceptions of different user” as well as that it “should be context-specific and flexible with respect to local social, cultural, and political as well as ecological conditions” (: 138). Similarly, Milne (1996: 137) evidenced that
“although it might be generally accepted that ‘sustainability’ is about integrating social, economic and ecological values, less agreement exists on how such a concept is to be interpreted and, subsequently, how sustainability might be operationalized”.
Given existing disagreement on what sustainability exactly is, as well as on how it should be properly operationalized, analysis of the historical roots of this concept seems to be particularly relevant, for at least three reasons:
Such kind of analysis may highlight various “intellectual and political streams of thought that have molded concepts of sustainability” (Kidd, 1992: 3) over the years; Looking at sustainability from an historical perspective may provide theoretical bases
needed to better understand current trends in sustainability research;
Historical analysis can better clarify different origins of the terms sustainability and
sustainable development. Although the two concepts are often used interchangeably, in
fact, they refer to different things (see e.g. Jabareen, 2008).
In doing this, however, it is important to always keep well clear in mind that
“literature relating to sustainability is so voluminous that full analysis is not practical. And if it were practical it would probably not be worth the effort” (Kidd, 1992: 3).
Therefore, a complete literature review on this concept goes beyond the purpose of this chapter. Rather, the chapter aims at providing an overview on the development of sustainability through the analysis of the most important steps in its evolution. To do this, relevant contributions provided by academics and practitioners, as well as by national and international institutions will be examined. The chapter is structured as follows: section 2.2 focuses on the evolution of sustainability concept from early civilization to the industrial revolution; section 2.3 follows in the analysis by examining the development of sustainability during the 20th century; section 2.4 completes the general overview by taking
8 as reference the 21st century; section 2.5 focuses on the development of sustainability in Italy. Finally, a summary of evidence arising from the chapter is provided in section 2.6.
2.2 Sustainability: from Early Civilization to Industrial Revolution
As argued by Kidd (1992), origins of sustainability lie in the concept of carrying capacity, according to which
“the natural system possesses self-regulating mechanisms, which are composed of a complex web of positive and negative feedback systems operating within the context of the carrying, regeneration, and assimilation capacity of the respective systems” (Mebratu, 1998: 494)
or, put more simply, “a given ecosystem can provide a sustenance for a maximum number of given species” (Kidd, 1992: 6). However, since natural environment provides
“the air we breathe, the water we drink, and food we eat. It defines in fundamental ways the communities in which we live and is the source for renewable and nonrenewable resources on which civilization depends” (Committee on Incorporating Sustainability in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et al. 2011: 15)
the more human activity on Earth became intense, the more the need for environmental resources grew powerful. In particular, once agriculture emerged1 (and first human
settlements were established) natural resources began to be exploited in a more intensive way. This, from a side, made possible to end migrations and allowed for population increase but, from the other side, led to first episodes of environmental crisis (Du Pisani, 2006).
Moreover, natural resources played a fundamental role in shifting from an agricultural-based paradigm of society to an industry-agricultural-based one. In this sense, wood has been the first important resource for human development in chronological order, representing the fundamental “raw material up to at least 18th century” (Du Pisani, 2006: 85). However, when overconsumption of wood began to be experienced in Europe, especially during the last decades of 17th century, a more “responsible use of natural resources in the interest of the present and future generations” (Du Pisani, 2006: 85) began to be invoked in different publications. One of the most relevant contributions in this sense was John Evelyn’s Sylva,
1
9
or A Discourse of Forest-Trees and the Propagation of Timber in His Majesty's Dominions
(1662), where the danger deriving from timber resources depletion in England was highlighted, and the need for a better conservation of forests was advocated. The book, considered the manifesto of the Conservation Movement2, had a profound influence on
other texts, first of all on Sylvicultura Oeconomica: Anweisung zur wilden Baumzucht (Instruction for cultivating wild trees), written by Hans Von Carlowitz in 1713 that, as pointed out by Du Pisani (2006), represented the first text in which the term Nachhaltigkeit (sustainability) appeared3. Inspired by the book, other approaches to Nachhaltigkeit,
mainly focused on intra and intergenerational equity aspects, were then theorized (Von Moser, 1757; Hartig, 1795).
The end of 18th century was also characterized by first concerns about the capacity of natural resources to sustain population growth, concerns that were expressed in a series of publications, the most important of which was An Essay on the principle of Population as
it affects the future improvement of society, written by Thomas Robert Malthus in 1798.
According to Malthus (1798: 4) “population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio” or, in other words, “though the produce of the earth might be increasing every year, population would be increasing much faster” (: 45). By relying on the “limits on the supply of good quality agricultural and land and the resultant diminishing returns in agricultural production” (Mebratu, 1998: 498), in particular, Malthus (1798: 45) focused on the fact that, in order to prevent an otherwise unavoidable starvation “the redundancy [of population] must necessarily be repressed” through an ad hoc system of population growth checks, aimed both at reducing birth rate and increasing death rate, and addressed to both higher and lower social classes.
Although Malthus had certainly the merit of being among the first authors to take into consideration the overpopulation problem (Mebratu, 1998), his ideas did not receive general consensus. From a side, in fact, some scholars pointed out that advances in technology and increased investment in capital could compensate decreasing marginal
2 The Conservation Movement is a political, social and environmental movement aimed at protecting natural
resources (above all forests). It was born during the first thirty years of the 18th century and, after suffering a setback by laissez-faire economics, lived a second youth during the second half of the 18th century, and then up to our days also through the efforts carried on by U.S. presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon.
3
This expression was coined by moving from the concept of Nachhaltige Nutzung (sustainable utilization) of forests, as “maintaining a balance between harvesting old trees and ensuring that there were enough young trees to replace them” (Du Pisani, 2006: 85-86).
10 productivity of land and, as a consequence, had sustained growth. In this sense, for example, Emerson (1884: 156) emblematically argued that
“Malthus, when he stated that the mouths went on multiplying geometrically and the food only arithmetically, forgot to say that the human mind was also a factor in political economy, and that the augmenting wants of society would be met by an augmenting power of invention”.
From the opposite side, however, other scholars supported Malthusian theories. In particular, Mill (1885) levered on Malthus to theorize a stationary state of economy. Mill (1885: 592) suggested that “it must always have been seen, more or less distinctly, by political economists, that the increase of wealth is not boundless”, pointing out that money
“being the instrument of an important public and private purpose, is rightly regarded as wealth; but everything else which serves any human purpose, and which nature does not afford gratuitously, is wealth also” (: 59).
By relying on this premise, Mill (1885: 593) then suggested that
“even in a progressive state of capital, in old countries, a conscientious or prudential restraint on population is indispensable, to prevent the increase of numbers from outstripping the increase of capital, and the condition of the classes who are at the bottom of society from being deteriorated”.
Mill (1885: 593) was therefore “inclined to believe that it would be, on the whole, a very considerable improvement on our present condition” since
“a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. Even the industrial arts might be as earnestly and as successfully cultivated, with this sole difference, that instead of serving no purpose but the increase of wealth, industrial improvements would produce their legitimate effect, that of abridging labor” (: 595).
Following Mill (1885: 594), in particular, a stationary state of economy would have led to “a well-paid and affluent body of laborers; no enormous fortunes, except what
were earned and accumulated during a single lifetime; but a much larger body of persons than at present, not only exempt from the coarser toils, but with sufficient leisure, both physical and mental, from mechanical details, to cultivate freely the graces of life”.
11 It is of worth to underline the importance that Mill had for sustainability debate: the search of alternatives to growth will represent the core principle of steady-state economy
movement that will live its zenith during the 1970s. Nevertheless, Mill was just one of the
authors of 19th century who witnessed the shift from wood to coal as the most important raw material for industrial production (Du Pisani, 2006).
When potentialities of fossil fuels were discovered and consequent industrial, technological and scientific growth began to deploy its effects, in fact, emergency of natural resources overexploitation became more than ever serious. Accordingly, other scholars began to think about potential environmental crises deriving from the industrial revolution. As argued by Du Pisani (2006), in particular, among the most important there were Jevons (1866), who warned about overexploitation of British coal reserves and highlighted how an eventual depletion of the reserves would lead to disastrous consequences for the British economy hitherto dominant4; Wallace (1898), who
retrospectively discussed the wicked withdrawal of natural resources, especially wood, coal, oil, gas and minerals; Marsh (1864), who evidenced both the possible desertification to which deforestation could lead and its lethal consequences on humankind as a whole. Analysis provided in this section allowed to highlight two very important aspects of sustainability history:
Sustainability origins lie in the relationships between man and environment. In its primary meaning, in fact, sustainability referred to the ability of natural resources to regenerate themselves at a higher rate than that one at which they were consumed. From this point of view, human beings became the most critical factor in determining the rate at which natural resources were withdrawn, given their role of primary consumers of natural resources. This explains concerns about both natural resources deterioration and consumption, as well as those about unchecked population growth;
Issues belonging to current sustainability debate (such as environmental degradation and overpopulation) had already been proposed by scholars at least two hundred years ago. This is a key characteristic of sustainability history: different streams of thought are proposed, then abandoned, then proposed again, sometimes after centuries of history.
4
Jevons is also considered the first author to have analysed the concept of Rebound Effect (see Chapter 4, section 4.4).
12 2.3 The 20th Century
The 20th century certainly represented a period of “fluctuation between optimistic and pessimistic outlooks with regard to human development” (Du Pisani, 2006: 87). When the 20th century began, in particular, ideas on growth, development and sustainability began to concentrate around two opposite positions (Du Pisani, 2006):
From a side,
“population growth, increase in consumption after the Industrial Revolution, and the danger that crucial resources such as wood, coal and oil could be depleted boosted the awareness of the need to use resources in a sustainable way. Fears that present and future generations might not be able to maintain their living standards stimulated a mode of thinking that would inform discourses which prepared the way for the emergence and global adoption of sustainable development” (Du Pisani, 2006: 87).
In this sense, Shaler (1905: 1, quoted in Kidd, 1992: 7) well synthetized priorities of that time when argued that
“we may be sure that those who look back upons us and our deeds from the centuries to come will remark upon the manner in which we use our heritage, and theirs, as we are now doing, in the spend-thrift way, with no care for those to come”.
Alongside Shaler, however, other scholars showed their interest for natural resource consumption and environmental damage, especially with reference to economic theory. Among the others, Pigou (1920) introduced the concept of externality5
, highlighting the possibility to correct negative externalities through the payment of a tax6. Similarly,
Hotelling took into consideration the theme of non-renewable resources, especially through the elaboration of the so called Hotelling’s rule7
;
From the other side, a part of scholars seemed to ignore the side effects of human life on Earth. Since data were showing an unprecedented growth in production, consumption and wealth, economic prosperity achieved by western society was perceived as the starting point of a virtuous circle that would have led to a continuous process of advance
5 For a rigorous definition of externality see Buchanan and Stubblebine (1962). 6
The so called Pigouvian Tax.
7
According to Hotelling’s Rule, in particular, “the net price of the natural resource - its asset price - must grow at the rate of interest” (Gaudet, 2007)
13 towards human progress. In this sense, orthodox neo-classical economists, although “aware of sustainability problems related to consumption of resources” (Du Pisani, 2006: 87) were continuing to assume that “once a product or a factor input would become scarce, new technologies would be introduced to economize on the scarce input” (: 87).
These two opposite positions continued to characterize the debate on growth, development and sustainability until at least the end of the 1970s, when the concept of sustainable development began to appear in public documents. During the 1980s, sustainable development began to spread progressively, to then finally impose itself (alongside sustainability) as a global priority during the 1990s.
2.3.1 The 1950s
The 1950s were characterized by growing awareness of the dark side of progress. Evil effects of technological and scientific advances on natural environment, as well as their potential danger for the whole mankind, were progressively reported in several publications, which caught the attention of public opinion and made waver certainties of Modernization Theory8, responsible to have provided the basis for “the reign of free
market, for colonial exploitation of non-western societies, and for ravaging the biosphere” (Du Pisani, 2006: 89). This clearly emerges from the analysis of main streams of thought in sustainability research characterizing that decade, so:
From a side, a renewed attention to Malthusian theories. The most important contributions of the time in this sense were Vogt’s Road to survival (1948), closely examining the relationship between food supplies and world population; Fairfield Osborn Jr.’s Our plundered planet (1948) and The limits of the earth (1953), both stressing the importance of natural resources preservation to ensure the survival of humanity on Earth; Brown’s The challenge of man’s future (1954), pointing out that “no matter where we place the limit of the number of persons that can be comfortably supported, at a some point in history population must stop” (: 18);
From the other side, despite still primarily focused on environmental issues, the first attempts to frame a more systemic approach to sustainability. The main example of this is represented by Thomas Jr.’s Man’s Role in Changing the Face of Earth (1956) in
8
14 which, as pointed out by Kidd (1992: 6), “every aspect of current discussion on sustainability was mentioned”.
2.3.2 The 1960s and the 1970s
While the 1950s were focused on the adequacy of resources to sustain economic and population growth, during the 1960s and the 1970s emphasis was moved to the upkeep of environmental quality, despite some authors persisted in the adoption of a Malthusian approach to sustainability (Kidd, 1992).
With reference to the 1960s, those years were characterized by many influencing publications in the field of sustainability. In particular, the decade was opened by the publication of The Silent Spring (1962), written by the American marine biologist Rachel Carson. The book documented the devastating effects of pesticides on the environment, imposing itself as spokesman of that part of public opinion believing that companies and governments were doing a very bad job in protecting the environment. Four years later, Kenneth Ewart Boulding published The Economics of the coming Spaceship Earth (1966), underlining that
“in the past economists had viewed the world like cowboys of the Old West might have viewed their world; an open expanse full of resources and opportunities for the taking; a world with no binding constraint to growth” (Elliott, 2005: 267)
as well as that resources of Earth were finite and could be therefore exhausted. Similarly, Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb (1968) suggested to control population growth (in order to reach the zero growth rate), as well as to increase food production. Hardins’ Tragedy of
Commons (1968), instead, highlighted the fundamental role of society in educating citizens
to the preservation of public resources, since technological advances per se were not sufficient to guarantee the future anymore.
With the advent of the 1970s, concerns on the deterioration of the environment gradually moved from U.S.A. to Western Europe. This shift represented the prelude to the definitive development of sustainability. Belongs to that decade, in fact, A Blueprint for Survival (1972), in which sustainability was presented as a goal for the whole society for the first time (Kidd, 1992). As pointed out by the authors of the book, in particular,
15 “our task is to create a society which is sustainable and which will give the
fullest possible satisfaction to its members. Such a society by definition would depend not on expansion but on stability. This does not mean that it would be stagnant - indeed it could well afford more variety than does the state of uniformity at present being imposed by the pursuit of technological efficiency” (Goldsmith et al. 1972: 39).
The book, like other contemporary works such as Farvar and Milton’s The Careless
Technology: ecology and international development (1972) and Schumacher’s Small is beautiful: A study of Economics as if People Mattered (1973) recognized some conditions
for such a stable society to exist, such as
“minimum disruption of ecological processes; maximum conservation of non-renewable resources; population stability with birth rate equal to death rate; and a social system which ensures that individuals can enjoy rather than be restricted by the first three conditions”9
and encouraged life in small, decentralized and de-industrialized communities, considered as full of opportunities for people, in terms of more ecologically sound agricultural and business practices, reduction of environmental impact and, more generally, holistic and ecologically integrated worldviews.
In the same year, the outcome of the work of a group of scientists and industrialists called the Club of Rome was reported in the book The Limits to Growth (1972). Contrary to A Blueprint for Survival, The Limits to Growth used the word sustainability in a merely collateral way (Kidd, 1992). Notwithstanding this, the book was certainly one of the most impacting texts of that period: by exploiting System Dynamics (Forrester, 1971), in fact, it provided a simulation of different scenarios, concluding that the world would collapse in few years if growth trends in some aspects like population or natural resources consumption were not changed. Ideas expressed by the book, in which the call to Malthus and Mill was clear, originated a heated debate. In particular, while from a side Cole et al. (1973) questioned the validity of its assumptions, from the opposite side the idea of a steady state economy for the promotion of ethical values and superior societal goals expressed in the book was shared by other works published during the same period of time, such as Georgescu-Roegen’s The Entropy law and the Economic Process (1971), Daly’s
9
16
Toward a steady state economy (1973), as well as Pirages and Ehrlich’s Ark II: Social Responses to Environmental Imperatives (1974).
Parallel to the release of The Limits to Growth, the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment took place in Stockholm. The conference, aimed at discussing the state of the global environment in order to make emerge the recognition of poverty alleviation for environmental protection, is widely recognized as the event in which modern political and public awareness of global environmental problems were consolidated (Kidd, 1992). In particular, the Conference originated twenty-six guiding principles, the founding one of which was the maintenance of environment, without however contemplating the no-growth philosophy. The Conference was also the event in which environmental concerns were institutionalized, through the creation of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)10. UNEP played a key role for sustainability within United Nations: by drawing on
the concept of Eco-development11, it stressed the importance of development (as
reconciliation between needs of present and future generations) and orientation to the future of decision taken, included protection of physical environment. With UNEP, social aspects (in terms of equity in the access to resources) began to be taken into greater consideration, especially through the emphasis placed on active participation of communities in decision-making process (Kidd, 1992).
It is important to underline that direction undertaken by UNEP was an expression of the trend to overcome the steady state logic characterizing the late 1970s. Despite authors like Meadows (1977) were still evoking a sustainable steady state economy, in fact, something had changed with respect to recent past: Pirages, that only four years before was talking about no growth, in his The sustainable society: Implications for limited change and the
sustainable society (1977) defined sustainable growth in terms of “economic growth that
can be supported by physical and social environments for the foreseeable future” (: 10). Similarly, Cleveland (1979) began to talk of growth, by analyzing many of the concepts that will be object of discussion on sustainability. In particular, the author underlined that
sustainable growth should imply the “compatibility with limitations of natural resources
10 UNEP’s mission was (and still is) “to provide leadership and encourage partnership in caring for the
environment by inspiring, informing and enabling nations and peoples to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations” (www.unep.org).
11
The concept of eco-development was coined by Professor Ignacy Sachs, who defined it as “an approach to development aimed at: harmonizing social and economic objectives with ecologically sound management, in a spirit of solidarity with future generations” (Sachs, 1979: 113).
17 and environmental absorption capacity” (: 276) and, above all, that it should encompass “issues of intergenerational equity” (: 276).
2.3.3 The 1980s
The 1980s represented the decade in which sustainability became popular. In 1980, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and UNEP set up the World Conservation Strategy. The strategy identified the need to integrate environmental and development goals, and was the first to talk about
development that is sustainable by defining it in terms of both improvements in human life
and conservation of natural resources12.
In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), an independent group established in 1983 with the aim to investigate complex relationships between development and environment, published its final report Our Common Future. The report, also known as Brundtland Report13, defined sustainable development as the
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987: 45).
The report recognized the needs of poor Countries as a priority issues. In other, it highlighted the requirement for economic, social and environmental development to be considered together in order to achieve sustainable development. Our Common Future has been fundamental for the evolution of sustainability, for different reasons:
Its definition of sustainable development significantly contributed to popularize sustainability issues;
By highlighting the nexus between environment, economic growth and poverty reduction, the report introduced the three-pillar logic of sustainability which, in turn, gave a significant contribution to the definition of sustainability dimensions.
12 According to (IUCN, WWF and UNEP, 1980: introduction), in particular, conservation represents the
“management of human use of the biosphere so that it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations”.
13
So called from the name of the president of WCED, and former Norwegian Prime Minister (1981-1981/ 1986-1989/1989-1996) Gro Harlem Brundtland.
18 2.3.4 The 1990s
Ten years after the first World Conservation Strategy was set up, IUCN, WWF and UNEP set up another strategy for the 1990s, called Caring for the Earth. The strategy (that, similarly to the previous one, used the expression development that is sustainable) was launched in order to promote joined initiatives to face sustainability issues, which were becoming always more complex and interconnected between them.
After the launch of Caring for the Earth, the following important step in the development of sustainability was the UN Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED), which took place in Rio de Janeiro during 1992. Although sharply criticized (see e.g. Hildyard, 1995), the Conference made possible a shift in the concept of sustainability from different points of view (Drexhage and Murphy, 2010). In particular, the Summit significantly contributed to give visibility to both sustainable development and sustainability, also thanks to the huge number of heads of State attending the event. Three were the outputs of the Conference: the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21 and the Commission on Sustainable Development. Agenda 21, in particular, was the key document of the Summit: a volume in which advices and good practices for the achievement of sustainable development were provided, covering a broad range of fields, such as efficient use of resources, quality of life, protection of global commons and sustainable economic growth. The Agenda represented the means through which the Conference reaffirmed the importance of a strategy embracing economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainability, as well as the role of governance (considered in all its levels) in pursuing it: one of the aims of the Agenda, in fact, was that Countries prepared a national strategy for sustainable development. Subsequently, in order to ensure that Agenda 21 impacted on all levels of Governance, the Commission for Sustainable Development was created.
Five years after the Rio Earth Summit, the Conference on Climate Change took place in Kyoto. This Conference was characterized by general disagreement among Countries involved: after a first phase of adjustment, during which EU proposed a sharp cut of CO2 emissions and U.S.A. suggested to stabilize them, industrialized Countries got to agreed emission reductions targets, which were formalized in the Kyoto Protocol. Unfortunately, not all Countries accepted to ratify it. In other, even after the protocol was adopted, there had been controversies on how to comply to it, since the protocol did not clarify how the basic features for compliance would operate.
19 2.4 The 21st Century
In 2000, the world agreed on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), referring to the period 2000-2015. With respect to Rio Earth Summit of 1992, this one (called the
Millennium Summit) was characterized by a more practical approach. In particular, the
summit represented a reflection of that trend to equilibrate economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainability begun with Our Common Future. With respect to the previous Summit, in other, major emphasis on poverty, education and health was placed.
The Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) of 2002, instead, was characterized by the integration of MDGs with other objectives concerning emerging issues, like use of chemicals, access to basic sanitation and conservation of fish stocks. The Summit stressed the importance of socioeconomic aspects of sustainability, promoting partnerships between the UN, governments, NGOs and, above all, companies, by stressing the importance of economic, social and environmental effects deriving from their actions. While the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change of 2009 was focused on the research of an agreement on targets of CO2 reduction, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, also called Rio+20), was the third Conference on sustainable development after the 1992 Earth Summit and the Johannesburg WSSD, representing, in particular, a follow-up of 1992 Rio Conference. As the two previous Conferences did, the Rio+20 was aimed at renewing the importance of political commitment to sustainability, conceived in its three dimensions: economic, social and environmental. In particular, the Conference focused on Agenda 21, discussing the gaps in implementation of its objectives and individuating emerging themes. Output of this Conference was the report The Future We Want, where the importance of actions included in Agenda 21 was reaffirmed. In other, an agreement on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was reached, with the final aim to clarify objectives of that holistic vision on sustainable development required by current political, social, economic and environmental scenario. In the wake of Rio+20, the UN Secretary-General then announced the launch of
20 the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) in August 201214.
SDSN pointed out that sustainable development encompasses
“economic development (including the end of extreme poverty), social inclusion, environmental sustainability, and good governance including peace and security” (SDSN, 2013: x).
It is important to underline that, as above mentioned, 2015 has represented a crucial year for sustainability. 2015, in fact, is the year in which the Milan Expo “Feeding the Planet. Energy for Life” has taken place. Moreover, during September 2015, the SDGs have been officially approved at the Annual General Assembly of the United Nations and, in the following December, the 21st Conference of Parties on Climate Change (COP21) has taken in place in Paris. Such events will constitute the cornerstone of the definition of future sustainability challenges, and will serve as a guide for humanity in the pursuit of different pathways to the future. However, the achievement of such challenges must necessarily pass through a greater commitment of all the actors of society in the concrete implementation of the objectives fixed. Therefore, alongside the definition of new sustainability objectives, it is more than ever urgent to shift from “why” sustainability should be pursued to “how” sustainability should be practically implemented or, in other words, how it should be materially executed at all the different dimensions and levels of society and environment. Such pathway certainly must encompass a greater involvement of the Italian socio-economic scenario that, starting from the first half of the 20th century, began to make of sustainability a societal priority. The development of sustainability in Italy will be analysed in the next section.
2.5 The Development of Sustainability in Italy
According to CNEL (2005), the development of sustainability in Italy can be divided into two different phases:
1955-1990. During this period of time, public awareness about the importance of environmental issues for economy and society as a whole drastically increased, although it was characterized mainly by social and political connotations, rather than
14
SDSN represents “an independent global network of research centers, universities, businesses and other institutions of civil society that aims to find and facilitate the adoption of solutions that promote sustainable development paths” (www.unsdsn.org)
21 institutional ones (CNEL, 2005). The series of environmental disasters in which Italy was involved (such as the flood of Florence in 1966 and the explosion of a chemical reactor in Seveso during 1976) led to the proliferation of environmentalist organizations. This period was also characterized by increased political commitment on environmental issues. During the 1970s and 1980s, in fact, a series of laws concerning with environmental protection was enacted (see e.g. laws no. 319/76 on water pollution, no. 979/82 on seawaters defense and no. 431/85 on landscape protection). However, these efforts in regulating environmental issues were not sufficient to give to Italy a greater weight in the international debate on sustainability. Notwithstanding the progress made, in fact, the gap with other Countries was still very large15. Moreover, the
Ministry was equipped with too limited powers to undertake a complete institutionalization of an environmental policy (CNEL, 2005);
1990-present days. After the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, Italy was asked to redact a national plan for the implementation of Agenda 21. The plan, undersigned in 1993 by the Italian Interministerial Committee for Economic Planning (CIPE), was however incapable to produce substantial actions (CNEL, 2005). To have a more concrete and structured approach to environmental policy it was necessary to wait 1996. In that year, in fact, the Italian Ministry for the environment undertook a plan for giving to Italian government the needed sustainable development policy. In particular, according to CNEL (2005), this change in the approach to environmental policy found its first (and maximum) expression in two actions: first, the sustainable development planning; second, the execution of the agreement on CO2 emissions reached during 1997’s Kyoto climate change conference. The Ministry then followed by elaborating the Environmental Action Strategy for Sustainable Development, approved by the CIPE in 2002, few weeks before the WSSD. The strategy (inspired by the CIPE plan of 1993) was aimed at pursuing
“the progressive dematerialization of the economy, with the reduction of natural resources withdrawal; reduction of risks associated to specific forms of pollution and of environmental deterioration, in order to overcome the emergency logic; the aware participation of all stakeholders” (CNEL, 2005, p. 52, translation)
15
For instance, the Italian Ministry for the environment was established only in 1986, 17 years after the establishment of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
22 and was articulated in four areas: climate and atmosphere; protection of nature and biodiversity; quality of the environment and quality of life in urban environment; resources withdrawal and waste production. For each perspective specific targets, goals and indicators were provided. It is of worth to underline how the strategy recognized the fundamental role of the local Agenda 21 in translating strategic guidelines for sustainable development coming from the central government into more operative actions at local governments’ level. Numerous, in fact, are the Italian regions which are carrying on policies aiming at encouraging the application of Agenda 21 principles at local level (e.g. Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna). Moreover, this activity of encouragement is part of that broader EU funding activity aiming at rewarding the best projects in the field of sustainable development at local level.
The analysis provided in this section reveals that, during the last twenty years, Italy has undertaken a process aiming at collaborating at international level on sustainability issues. There is no doubt that this process has provided good results, in terms of shared strategies and models for sustainability management, as well as of Italian contributions to the international sustainability debate. However, the process of integration is far from being completed. In particular, a shift from shared strategies to shared actions seems to be more than ever urgent.
2.6 Sustainability and Sustainable Development: Systematizing the Ideas
Historical analysis of the concept of sustainability allowed to highlight the different streams of thought that have modeled it during its history. In this section, various points of view on sustainability will be systematized, in order to have a clearer picture of what there is inside “the world of sustainability” (Jabareen, 2008: 181). Analysis of the literature, in particular, shows that sustainability can be broken up into the following streams of thought:
Economy. According to this perspective, quality of life through the productive capacity of organizations and individuals in society should be pursued (Holliday et al. 2002); Environment. This stream of thought relies on the protection of the environment, as
“the stock of all environmental and natural resource assets, from oil in the ground to the quality of soil and groundwater, from the stock of fish in the
23 ocean to the capacity of the globe to recycle and absorb carbon” (Pearce et
al. 1990: 1).
In this sense, sustainability refers to “an ecosystem’s potential for subsisting over time, with almost no alteration” (Jabareen, 2008: 181). Therefore, according to this perspective, dealing with sustainability requires that the existence of limits to growth imposed by nature is recognized;
Society. Within this stream of thought are comprised themes such as
“social and economic justice, social equity, equal rights for development, quality of life, equal economic distribution, freedom, democracy, public participation and empowerment” (Jabareen, 2008: 183).
The social dimension of sustainability stresses both intergenerational and intragenerational issues, where the former refer to “the fairness in allocation of resources between current and future generations” (Jabareen, 2008: 183) and the latter imply that “current decisions should not damage the prospects for maintaining or improving living standards in the future” (Repetto, 1985: 10);
Economy, Environment and Society. Such kind of approach represents sustainable development, aimed at reconciling the three approaches to sustainability above mentioned. In particular, sustainable development combines the terms sustainability and
development which, if simply juxtaposed, would originate paradoxical situation
(Redclift, 1987; Jabareen, 2008). In fact, while sustainability “is seen as a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained indefinitely” (Jabareen, 2008: 181) development is “environmental modification, which requires deep intervention in nature and exhausts natural resources” (: 181). Under the umbrella of sustainable development, instead, sustainability (that lies its origins in the relationship man/environment) and development (that stresses economy) are joint and combined together and also with social issues. In this sense,
“sustainability is seen as an environmental ‘logo’ and development as an economic one. The concept of Sustainable Development aims to mitigate and moderate […] the paradox between the two” (Jabareen, 2008: 181).
The moderating role of sustainable development certainly represents an important element both in explaining the time gap in the appearance of the two terms and in clarifying
24 differences between them. Despite this, terminological confusion and numerous challenges involving both sustainability and sustainable development still exist. An example of the latter is the heated debate on what conception of sustainability should be embraced: from a side, weak sustainability relies upon the idea that human-made resources can compensate for the consumption of natural resources (Solow, 1974; Hartwick, 1977); from the opposite side, strong sustainability paradigm suggests that “natural capital cannot be substituted by man-made capital” (Davies, 2013: 113).
With reference to the persistent terminological confusion between sustainability and sustainable development, instead, it is important to underline that it may seriously undermine the achievement of a broader social consensus on sustainable development. In this sense, as suggested by Lélé (1991: 619), proponents of sustainable development should:
Refuse “the attempts […] to focus on economic growth as a means to poverty removal and/or environmental sustainability” (: 619);
Recognize “the internal inconsistencies and inadequacies in the theory and practice of neoclassical economics” (: 619);
Recognize “the existence of structural, technological and cultural causes of both poverty and environmental degradation” (: 619) and “develop methodologies for estimating the relative importance of and interactions between these causes in specific situations” (: 619);
Achieve awareness of “the multiple dimensions of sustainability, and attempt to develop measures, criteria and principles for them” (: 619);
Investigate “what patterns and levels of resource demand and use would be compatible with different forms or levels of ecological and social sustainability, and with different notions of equity and social justice” (: 619).
For the purpose of this work, sustainability and sustainable development will be used as analogues. In particular, with both sustainability and sustainable development will be indicated the simultaneous pursuit of environmental integrity, economic prosperity and social equity. This choice is dictated merely by reasons of simplicity: as just illustrated, in fact, differences between the two terms exist.
25
Environmental degradation & Resources
Consumption Growth & Resources Consumption
E nvir on m ent al degra da ti on & R es ou rc es C onsumpt ion Evelyn (1662) Von Carlowitz (1713) Marsh (1864) Wallace (1898) Pigou (1920) Hotelling (1931) Carson (1962) Jevons (1866) Thomas Jr. (1956) Meadows et al. (1977) Cleveland (1979) Goldsmith et al. (1972) Farvar and Milton (1972) Schumacher (1973) Moser (1757) Hartig (1795) Shaler (1905) Hardins (1968) Soci a l We lf are & Int er gene rat iona l E qu it y Su st a inab le D eve lop m en t
IUCN, WWF and UNEP (1980,1991) WCED (1987)
SDSN (2013)
Malthus (1798) Boulding (1966) Mill (1848) Ehrlich (1968) Vogt (1948) Georgescu-Roegen (1971) Fairfield Jr. (1948, 1953) Meadows et al. (1972) Brown (1954) Cole et al. (1973) Lipset (1959) Daly (1973) Rostow (1960) Pirages and Ehrlich (1973)
26 Given their prominent role in society and economy, companies play a fundamental role in the transition to a sustainable society. The role of companies for sustainability will be object of the next chapter.
27
Chapter 3
Sustainability and Business: a review
SUMMARY --- 3.1 Introduction; 3.2 - The Concept of Corporate Sustainability: theoretical perspectives; 3.3 - Corporate Sustainability: the Overlap with other Concepts; 3.4 - Conclusions.
3.1 Introduction
As mentioned in the introduction of the previous chapter, current paradigms of production and consumption have proven to be devastating from both a social and environmental point of view. In response to this emergency, local and international institutions and policymakers, as well as academics and practitioners began to stress the importance of sustainability for the promotion and implementation of different models of human development. Among the actors involved in this process of transition towards sustainability, companies certainly play a prominent role. While from a side companies are perceived as fundamental means through which sustainability can be implemented (Hawken et al. 1999; Gray, 2010), in fact, from the other side they are at the heart of concerns about both natural resources deterioration and social inequalities production. In this sense, recent years witnessed how devastating the effects of reckless corporate behavior can be: frauds, breach of work regulations, as well as increasing pollution created by business activities represent just some of the events that symbolized the failure of profit maximization-oriented paradigm in creating fairer societies and healthier natural environment (Coda, 1988; Stubbs and Cocklin, 2008).
Growing awareness of the importance that companies have for environment and society as a whole made possible that ideas about the role of companies for sustainability proliferated, with the consequence that the term Corporate Sustainability (hereafter CS) dramatically gathered momentum. Greater attention paid to CS had two most important consequences, opposite to each other: from a side, it contributed to make increase the awareness of the importance that companies have for the achievement of sustainability; from the other side, however, multiple and different points of view converging on CS created definitional problems, especially with reference to the relationships between CS and other concepts such as, for instance, Corporate Social Responsibility (and the fields of research deriving from it) and Corporate Citizenship. As a consequence, the need to clarify
