Each of the four possible business cases has a different key value proposition which could help to find the right approach and is summed up in the following quotation: “Business cases framed as cost and risk reduction focus on trading among what are viewed generally as competing interests; competitive advantage business cases describe payoffs accrued through adapting to the competitive environment; a CSR proposition based on building reputation and legitimacy advocates aligning with political and social norms and expectations; and synergistic value creation approaches are aimed to relating disparate elements in the operating domain, and integrating those elements in novel ways.”
But what initially sounds logic in the truth is nothing else as building a coherent justification for a company to invest in CSR-defined initiatives. Nevertheless this shall be sufficient for this seminar paper to explain the reason why it could be an asset to invest in CSR from an economic point of view.
- Excursion: Cause-related marketing and cause affinity
The perception of negative effect has changed consumers’ consumption patterns a company’s performance nowadays is judged more and more by its impact on the environment and on the society. But as CSR is not easy for the public to comprehend its receptiveness can be enhanced by using an effective communication of the company’s efforts in that way. Therefore cause-related marketing is nowadays widely practiced.
However, this leads to the problem that cause specificity could be more appealing a company more than implementing a good corporate citizenship because it is much easier to communicate, most likely cheaper and more adjustable. Unfortunately this cause affinity of customers connected with the fact that CSR is more or less expected gets companies to rather use cause-related marketing than building up a sustainable corporate citizenship. Otherwise such a decision bears also risks. Because the public is more likely suspecting companies only try to convince them rather than really supporting or only exploiting the original cause, they may tend to react unfavorably to cause-related marketing. So can this indeed be an alternative for sustainable CSR?
If looking at the business cases CSR could be implemented to create a competitive advantage or/and to increase a company’s reputation. “In practice, CSR has been perceived as motivated mainly by marketing purposes” which is result of the very beginning of this excursion: CSR is not easy to comprehend. Therefore an adequate marketing is somehow needed to create a competitive advantage and/or increase a company’s reputation. It is done by selecting areas of focus that fit with company values. This could be supporting a specific business goal or choosing issues related to core products and core markets. But does it also work without or even with negative CSR behind such marketing campaigns?
“Cause-related marketing can be part of CSR, but cause-related marketing alone cannot fully embody CSR.” However cause-related marketing helps to largely compensate negative impressions of unethical behavior if customers are cause affine and support the advertised cause. Therefore a marketing campaign which is tuned toward a target group’s favored cause might be able to safeguard a company against future ethical troubles.
So this short excursion about cause-related marketing and cause affinity shows contemporary CSR is such an important topic which can create competitive advantages and/or reputation gains that it even becomes abused.
- The Relationship between CC and CFP
Implementing CSR can create profits for a company. Orlitzky, Schmidt and Rynes did a meta-analysis in 2003 which supports a positive relationship between CC and the corporate financial analysis (CFP), which means implementing or improving the company’s CC simultaneously improves their financial viability. Besides that CC also seems to reduce business risk. Both of these effects are most likely mediated by the organizational reputation (Crane et al., 2008). So thinking back to the excursion about cause-related marketing, this fact strengthens the assumption that reputation is one key factor when talking about CSR and therefore maybe the most popular business case. Orlitzky and his colleagues also found out that CFP is a positive predictor of future CC whereby CC also predicts CFP. This means that a business can develop mutually beneficial relations with stakeholder groups which might pay off surprisingly fast for the socially responsible company (Crane et al., 2008).
An indicator why CC and CFP are most likely positive correlated could be because CC is helping to improve managerial knowledge and skills as well as enhancing the corporate reputation. For example engaging stakeholders constructively in company activities let them may look more favorably upon a socially responsible company so that such employers may attract better and more committed employees. Also external stakeholders may become more willing to buy the company’s products or pay a premium for the goods from socially responsible companies (Crane et al., 2008)
In short words, following positive effects are most likely expected in future to a company which achieves successfully implementing CC:
- enhancing organizational reputation
- improving internal resources and skills (efficiency)
- increasing rivals costs
- attracting a more productive workforce
- boosting sales revenues
- reducing business risk
But as already said there is also a reverse causation existing, which makes an existing excellent CFP a precursor of a well flourishing CC (Crane et al., 2008).
- Guidelines on the Example of the European Commission
Another good reason for implementing CSR abandons through all the existing standards, guidelines and declarations which are often basis of governmental subsidies. One of them is from the Commission of the European Communities and about implementing the partnership for growth and jobs by making Europe a pole of excellence on CSR. This communication sees CSR as “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis” (Commission, 2006), which is also one of the above mentioned definitions. “It is about enterprises deciding to go beyond minimum legal requirements and obligations stemming from collective agreements in order to address societal needs.” (Commission, 2006) Because CSR in this definition is fundamentally about voluntary business behavior this communication wishes to give greater political visibility to CSR, acknowledge what European enterprises already do in this field and also encourage them to do more. Due to additional obligations and administrative requirements for business risks being counter-productive the Commission remains on this voluntary basis. It is a “political umbrella for new or existing CSR initiatives” and not “a legal instrument” (Commission, 2006).
Therefore the Commission will further raise awareness by promoting a best practice exchange with emphasis on small and medium entities (SMEs) and member states where CSR is a less well-known concept. Voluntary environmental instruments as well as initiatives to make citizens aware of social and environmental issues and the impact of their consumption and investment choices will also be promoted. To let CSR also become a mainstream business practice it invites business schools, universities and other education institutions to incorporate CSR into the curricula of future managers and graduate students (Commission, 2006).
Something really interesting for this seminar paper can be found in the annex and is written down as followed:
“Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) matters because it mirrors the core values of the society in which we wish to live. It matters to individual companies, big or small, who through innovative products and services, new skills and stakeholder engagement can improve their economic, environmental and social performance in the short and long term. It matters to those who work in and for companies, for whom it can help to create a more rewarding and inspiring working environment. It matters to those who buy from companies, to consumers who are paying more and more attention to the social and environmental credentials of the products and services they buy. It matters to the local communities where companies operate, who want to know that they are living amongst organisations that share their values and concerns. It matters to investors who feel that responsible business behavior needs to be encouraged. It matters to people in other parts of the world who expect European based companies to behave in accordance with European and international values and principles. And it matters to our children and future generations who expect to live in a world which respects people and nature.”
Figure 2: CSR matters to all of us (Commission, 2006)
To end the theoretical part this shows that all of the positive effects of the CC theory and its correlation to the CFP are mentioned. Also regarding the future promotions of the Commission it seemed to be highly political topics which will inevitable have an impact on a company’s reputation. Therefore at least one business case for implementing CSR is always valid. But is this business case really the most frequent because of its obviousness? And how does it look in reality?
- From politics to incorporation
- Political Regulations
„The nexus between economic and environmental problems is clearly evident in the widespread and serious social and economic impacts associated with soil erosion, desertification, deforestation, urban congestion and squalor and excessive and unmanaged emissions of pesticides, heavy metals, air pollutants, and solid and liquid industrial and residental waste (Long, 1990 cited by Daniels, 2005, p.454). And moreover „less dependence upon fossil fuels would help ameliorate this major source of global conflict and instability that seems to be undermining the peace and understanding necessary for sustainable societies (Daniels, 2005). From restrictions forced through politics on Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) in 1987, the restriction on the emission of CO2 of the “Kyoto Protocol“ in 1997 to the “Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in EEE“ (RoHS) and “Waste Electronics and Electronical Equipment (WEEE) in 2008, the rise of international environmental regulations and popular environmental consciousness of consumers would bring significant impacts to industries in the world (Chen et al., 2006). And now the question is if it is possible to successfully implement corporate social responsibility actions in a companies strategic guideline to found the basis of future competitiveness on the international market. Concerning this possibility Quiroz and Aitken (2007) point out that CSR is an ill-defined concept which has consequently been interpreted and implemented in numerous different, and even conflicting, ways. And thus there is no clear definition what CSR is, or should be, and consequently there are no clear and unanimous guidelines of how companies or private organizations should adopt CSR. Moreover many companies thought corporate environmental management is an unnecessary investment and would obstruct their development and growth (Chen, 2008). Sustainable development relating to their CSR, the basis of future growth, have begun to rise in the recent years, but according to Kleine and von Hauff (2009) a truly satisfactory implementation of the broad CSR concept, as well as the more specific challenges of corporate sustainability, continue to be an elusive goal at the corporate management level (Smith et al., 2011). In this case you have to distinguish between sustainable development in environmental means or sustainable business by means of surviving for years on the international market. Achieving sustainability is the real issue for humanity, and it is our need to learn to live sustainably, within the bounds of the global ecosystem, and moreover signs of dramatic sustainablility problems through growing economies, such as China or India, is threatening an ecological meltdown and its already affecting people's livelihoods and health. In China the life expectancy is now declining again due to air and water pollution (Borland et al., 2011). The unified concept of „Green Organizational Identity“ by Chen et al. (2011) which is going to a major part in this research section shows up a possibility how to unify CSR, sustainable development and business concepts in a companies strategic vision. But beforehand I will talk about sustainable strategies and theoretical future prospects.
- The Easy Case
Towards a sustainability strategy Borland et al. (2011) mentioned an interesting, but easy case example from a manufacture in China. Company X is manufacture of waxes sold to other manufacturers to make consumer wax products. It became concernced because the effluent water was killing flora and fauna in the nearby lake which was also a major tourist attraction on popular destination for the locals. Then the company decided to changed the technology and processing of the was product. Through this new technology the company could eliminate acids and chlorine from processing. Thus, the waste water was no longer contaminated which reduced the costs of disposal of the contaminents. Moreover the water is now continously re-circulated in the manufacturing process, saving the company money on its water bill. By forcing further improvements company X have earned the title of one of China's most innovatice chemical companies with a technology patent. Through their investemts they gained sustainable competitive advantage in the marketplace with increased sales worldwide (Borland et al., 2011). This case study shows that through technology developments companies can be more environmental friendly on the one side and create a competitive advantage on the other side, and thus a win-win situation has been created.
3.3 The “The green technoeconomic paradigm”
Another interesting research paper and approach has been made by Daniels (2005). „The main objective of this paper is to assess the potential for adopting and utilizing systems of material and energy saving technologies (characterizing a green technoeconomic paradigm (“green TEP“)) in order to achieve higher levels of economic welfare and the long-term maintenance of environmental resources“ (Daniels, 2005, p.455). Besides a number of constraints a green TEP may hold many potential advantages for economic and social development in lower income countries (LIC). By understanding the trade-off between economic welfare and environmental quality, strategies embodied in the concept of “ecological modernisation“ (Huber, 1982; Simonis, 1989) is one of the primary modes of operationalizing sustainable development and moreover resulting in new technology deployments to reduce environmental pressure without compromising growth in economic welfare. In addition to that empirical research and the elaboration of strategies for ecological modernization have been confined primarly to the wealthier, industrialized countries (Daniels, 2005). This paper argues basic propositions of the ecological modernization view become more relevant for LICs if the notion is redefined as the „green technoeconomic paradigm“ whereby the notion was first developed by Freeman (1992), Kemp (1994), Speth (1989) and others. TEPs are theoretical constructs intended to describe reasonably unique historical epoch at the national and supranational level, such as the era of steel,electricity and railways (1880s-1930s), based on innovation, research and development, and other aspects of technology change. There is some inconsistency concerning the exact nature of TEPs, but at least 5 major ones can be identified in higher income nations (Berry, 1997; Freeman, 1992, 1997). The typical TEPs are as follows:
(1) coal, steam, factory establishments and company ownership (industrial revolution);
(2) steel, electricity and railways (1880s-1930s)
(3) oil, petrochemicals and Fordist mass production (1930s-1980s); and
(4) ICT, microelectronics, and just-in-time and lean production methods since the 1980s (Daniels, 2005). The fifth wave is associated with microelectronics, but also has managerial, organizational and social implications. Looking at the characterization from TEPs prior to the ICT all featured falling relative costs, and the increasing intensity of natural resource inputs (for example, coal and steam in the second TEP; steel and electricity in the third TEP, and oil and petrochemicals in the fourth TEP) (Daniels, 2005). Relating this to the increasing consumer awarness, pressure from politics for sustainable development and to the massive destruction of nature in the last decades visible for almost everyone in the world a sixth green TEP seems to be the only possible and understandable result. This new wave will be depicted by energy efficient technologies which also create competitive advantages through saving energy and material and three major outcomes are shown:
(1) improved productivity and competitive advantage;
(2) improved environmental quality; and
(3) a shift toward more appropriate (usually more intensive-intensive) production factor use and
production scale – can interact and enhance positive freedom-capacity (Daniels, 2005)
Looking at the viabililty of the green TEP in LICs it will highly depend on the principle that wealthier nations will help poorer countries to benefit from the “second mover advantage“. Certainly Daniels (2005) idea of the sixth green TEP cannot be with certainty predicted as the new global mode of economic and social development, but the rise of power of political and non-governmental institutions trying to save the environment, such as Greenpeace actions or CSR publications from the Commission of the European Communities, and companies trying to successful enhance their CSR responsibilities could end up in the green TEP.
3.3. From Green Competitive Advantage to “Green Organizational Identity”
Now going away from case-studies and theoretical thinking, I will look closer at the viabililty of new green innovation deployments with the help of research publications. Chen et al. (2006) have made the first study focusing on the influence of the performances of green product innovation on the corporate competitive advantage. Businesses can increase the efficient use of resources through green innovation. Furthermore they will enjoy the “first mover advantage“ asking for higher prices and simultaneously improve their corporate image and even develop new markets (Hart, 1995; Peattie, 1992 cited by Chen et al., 2006). Seeing environmental protection as an obstacle businesses merely fought for environmental protection, but this study focused on finding the correct evaluation and position for green innovation. Whereby green innovation is utilized to improve environmental management to protect the environment in a satisfying manner( Lai et al., 2003). This research divided green innovation into “green product innovation“ and “green process innovation“ and made the following propositions: Propostion 1. The performance of green product innovation is positively associated with corporate competitive advantage. Proposition 2. The performance of green process innovation is positively associated with corporate competitive advantage. A total of 600 questionnaires were sent to the managers in manufacturing, marketing, R&D, or environmental protection departments selected randomly from the “2003 Business Directory of Taiwan“. The effective response rate was 33.8 percent. The empirical result shows that the performances of green product innovation and green process innovation were positively correlated to competitive advantage. Therefore, Propositions 1 and 2 are satisfied. It also indicates the more the investment was, the stronger the corporate competitive advantage was. Consequently investments in both performances are beneficial to the corporations. The subject of the study covered environmental protection and environmental development, which concludes the the concept of “sustainable development“ caring both of environment and economy. Therefore it is suggested to go beyond legal requirements to meet the demand and trend of environmental protection to eventually gain competitive advantage and create win-win situations.
Another interesting research article by Chen (2008a) is exploring whether intellectual capital about environmental management or green innovation has a positive effect on competitive advantages of firms. This study fills the research gap and proposes a novel construct – green intellectual capital. Hereby, this article is relating to the classification of intellectual capital adopted by Johnson (1999) and Bontis (1999) to classify green intellectual into green human capital, green structural capital and green relational capital to explore the impact on competitive advantages of firms and made the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: Green human capital is positively associated with competitive advantages of firms; Hypothesis 2: Green structural capital is positively associated with competitive advantages of firms, whereby green structural capital is referring to organizational commitments, information technology systems, databases, operation processes etc.; Hypothesis 3: Green relational capital is positively associated with competitive advantages of firms, whereby relational capital is referring to relationships with customers, suppliers, and partners about corporate environmental management and green innovation.
The samples were randomly selected from “2005 Business Directory of Taiwan“ and six hundred questionnaires were sent to the managers in manufacturing, marketing, R&D, or environmental protection departments. The active response rate was 21 percent. The result showed that three types of green intellectual capital – green human capital, green structural capital, and green relational capital – were positively correlated to competitive advantage of firms, H1, H2 and H3 were supoorted. Even more the results indicated that the more the investments in the three types of green intellectual capital were, the stronger competitive advantages of firms were. Therefore investments was helpful to businesses. This study focused on the information and electronics industry in Taiwan, so the further studies can focus on other industries or countries and compare with this study and moreover a closer look should be taken to observe the dynamic change of green intellectual capital in the different stages of the development.
The third study Chen (2008b) made proposed another novel construct – green core competence – to explore its positive effects on green innovation and green images of firms, which wraps up the two previously mentioned studies by Chen. There is no study exploring the relationship between green core competence and green innovation performance. The study implied the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 Green core competences of firms are positively associated with their green innovation performance. Hypotheses 1a. Green core competences of firms are positively associated with their green product innovation performance. Hypothesis 1b. Green core competences of firms are positively associated with their green process innovation performance. Moreover no research has been done exploring the positive influence of core competences of firms about green innovation or environmental management upon their green image, resulting in Hypothesis 2. Green core competences of firms are positively associated with their green images. Moreover hypothesis 3,3a and 3b are all referring to if green innovation performance, green product innovation performance and green process innovation performance are positively associated with their green images. 600 questionnaires were sent to randomly selected businesses from “2006 Business Directory of Taiwan“ and the effective response rate was 22,7 percent. The empirical results showed green core competences had positive effects on their green product innovation performance, green process innovation performance, and green images. Moreover green product innovation performance and green process innovation performance were positively correlated to their green images. Hence, H1a, H1b, H2, H3a, and H3b were supported in this study. Consequently, investment in the green core competence, green product innovation performance, and green process innovation performance was suggested. The study found out that making efforts in green core competence could enhance their green innovation and green images in the Taiwanese information and electronics industry and meet international regulations and conventions of environmental protection. This study cannot observe the dynamic change of green core competence.
Finally Chen (2011) concluded these ideas to form a new concept of environmental management - green organizational identity – in compliance with the environmental trends to help companies enhance their green competitive advantages. It is a environmental management model based on the theory of organizational identity, whereby the concept of organizational identity is concerned with collective identity (Albert and Whetten, 1985). In this case an very important and interesting question for companies should be which kind of collective identity the superior one is? Which identity will reduce costs and risks, lead to competitive advantages, ameliorate reputation, endorse synergistic value creation, respectively the previous mentioned business cases and thus maximize profits? The proposed idea creating this kind of superior collective identity in this study is “green organizational identity“ created by Chen (2011). Chen (2011) mentioned two important factors supporting this idea: First, McWilliams and Siegel (2001) found out that there is an ideal level of CSR, and consequently there is a neutral relationship between CSR and financial performance and second Husted and Salazar (2006) demonstrated that it is wiser for companies to act strategically that to be involved into making investments in corporate social responsibility. In addition to that companies won't be faced with the argument of “green-washing“, because their whole strategic concept is underlying the motive of a “green organizational identity“. “Green washing“ is a critical description of PR-methods, creating an environmental-friendly and responsible image. Having a “green organizational identity“ no such PR-methods has to be carrying out to communicate CSR efforts. Chen (2011) study proposes the following hypothesis: H1. Environmental organizational culture of a firm is positively associated with its green organizational identity. The study refers to Hatch and Schultz (2007) and defines “environmental organizational culture“ as a context about environmental management and protection within which interpretations guide behaviors and members' sensemaking. H2. Environmental organizational culture of a firm is positively associated with its green competitive advantage. H3. Environmental leadership of a firm is positively associated with its green organizational identity. Referring to Dechant and Altman (1994) and Cole (1996) who defined “environmental leadership“ as process in which one individual influences others to contribute to environmental management and protection. H4. Environmental leadership of a firm is positively associated with its green competitive advantage, and H5. Green organizational identity of a firm is positively associated with its green competitive advantage. Chen (2011) mentioned three reasons for choosing the Taiwanese manufacturing industry as research object. First, Taiwanese products are highly export-oriented facing environmental regulations, for example RoHS. Second, comparing to multinational enterprises Taiwanese manufacturing companies have fewer resources (Chen et al., 2006). And third, Taiwan is a newly founded manufacturing base in the world and it is interesting how they can enhance their green competitive advantages via green organizational identity. The questionnaires were sent randomly to businesses selected from “2008 Business Directory of Taiwan“. The effective response rate was 34.5%. Measuring the empirical results the study found out that companies with high levels of environmental organizational culture and environmental leadership can not only increase green organizational identity, but also enhance green competitive advantage. Moreover it verified that green organizational identity had a mediation effect on its two antecedents – environmental organizational culture and environmental leadership – and consequently green competitive advantage. H1,H2,H3,H4 and H5 were supported. But this research project also pointed out that the advantages of firm size with respect to green organizational identity, environmental organizational culture, environmental leadership, and green competitive advantage were significant (advantages of resources, the advantages of scale economies etc.) which represents the previous mentioned requirement to help LICs adopt technologies to profit from the “second mover advantage“. It created a new managerial framework which responds to the trend of “sustainable development“ caring both aspects of environmental protection and economy development, resulting in a unified organizational strategic vision. However, observations scrutinizing the dynamic change of green organizational identity, environmental organizational culture, environmental leadership, and green competitive advantages are still missing. Leaving these ideas behind, we will now pay attention to “sustainable development“ strategies in reality to see if any future prospects can be implied.
3.5. Where are CSR and sustainability efforts in reality?
Concerning the implementation of “sustainable development“ strategies, general CSR efforts, and the current stage of “green“ adoption, scholars characterize the reality differently. Milliman et al. (2009) assume that the adoption of sustainable programs by corporations is still in the early stages rather than a done deal. They describe that it is a challenge to secure adequate resources from executives and managers to succesfully implement and perpetuate sustainability programs. Moreover the study points out company executives must follow the lead of the corporate boards of directors. Boards in turn tend to have short-term financial interests (influenced by shareholders) and are therefore an obstacle of incorporating social issues in their thinking. Consequently corporate sustainability initiatives quickly lose momentum. Ladd (2010) on the other side sees the adoption already in progress, because “Most American businesses have embraced social and environmental responsibility as instrinsically valueable to their budgetary considerations“(Ladd, 2010, p.3). Moreover he states that some would characterize it as a (green) revolution in terms of how businesses operate, but others prefer describing as an evolutionary process. Ladd (2010) cites Todd Larsen, director of corporate responsibility programs for Green America “It's not always a question of whether it is too costly to go green. The burden of proof doing something new can be a challenge to every company.“ This clearly identifies an obvious problem companies were facing in the past – why going green. Am I,as company ,still competitive if it is too costly to go green? Leaders should be companies with most power and influence, as for example Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart, the biggest employer in the world, has the power to influence whole supply chains to enhance their environmental friendly production process. The company is beginning to survey its tens of thousands of global suppliers on issues of energy and climate, the resources they use and how green their materials are. Moreover it announced plans to reduce gas house emissions 20 percent at its current facilites by 2012, and cut back by 5 percent the amount of its packaging by 2013. But
Wal-Mart is not the only company underlining their sustainability efforts. Intel Corporation, placed fourth overall in the Newsweek's magazine 2009 Green Ranking, was quoted for an initiative that ties annual employee bonuses directly to the attainment of specific greening objectives,Google is creating one of the largest solar installations in the U.S. To power its California headquarters, and many more examples could be given. The publication refers to sustainability programs as emerging trends, whereby greening has had a beneficial effect on business growth and investment, industry observers agree (Ladd, 2010). But nevertheless promoting sustainability programs is always a danger – The danger of this is accusations of corporate greenwashing, even when they are unwarranted (Roberts, 2010). Furthermore sustainability efforts made by many businesses are not recognized by consumers and therefore sustainability communications agencies are one of the most requested external services, according to the CSR Professional Services Directory. As mentioned before companies are faced with the problem of cause-related marketing and how to communicate these efforts to benefit in sales, reputation, or trust. Therefore the importance of effective communication has risen in the last years caused by the development of social media networks and other online plattforms, such as Amazon. Looking back at our proposed framework constructed by Chen et. Al (2011) these problems would be minimized. The probability of being accused to “greenwash” is almost zero, and it is very likely that their cause-related marketing efforts will be gratefully accepted rather than questioned by consumers.
4. Summary and Future Thinking
Looking at the environmental impacts in the last decades and the importance of sustainable development to save the environment politics have started already in 1987 with the restriction of CFC, but concering companies it seems that there is still much to do. But why are companies not concerned about the environment? One major reason is because the nature is for free, actually it was free in some parts. The Kyoto Protocol and the resulting C02 carbon certificates are the first way to pay off nature somehow, but there is still room for improvement. But looking for example at polluting a river it is hard to measure the damage and sometimes even harder to say who did it. Another reason is that there is a lack of an effective implementation of CSR efforts in a companies strategic vision. Most likely caused through on the one side the companies' unflexible structure, the absence of the courage ( or maybe fear) to change something and on the other side it seems that companies could not find many ways to profit from new regulations, for example. As mentioned in Part 2.2. one of the four mainstream theories is Corporate Citizenship, which suggests that business is a part of society and society's expectations that businesses will engage in social activities. The previously mentioned Green Organizational Identity theoretical framework is an idea for a collective corporate identity, respecting environment. Connecting these two ideas a new concept can be formed - “Green Corporate Citizenship” - unfiying a companies strategic vision, a good corporate citizenship and environmental concerns all in one theoretical framework. Companies who advocate and implement this vision would contribute to a sustainable future. As shown in three researches by Chen et al. Technolgy improvements and other investments can result in green competitive advantages and consequently in higher profits. Therefore CSR implementations shouldn't be seen as short-term approaches by companies, but rather implement sustainable development programs in the companies' strategic guideline.. Forcing these ideas contribute to reputation and publications of these or cause-related marketing programs will be appreciated by consumers. Moreover companies would be prepared for new political regulations and restrictions and prepared for the possible green TEP. All in all this study tried to illustrate that there are possible ways to implement sustainable development approaches in a companies strategic vision, not only to respect the environment, it can lead to competitive advantages, higher profit and reputation.
- Literature index
Berry, M. A. and D. A. Rondelli: 1997, “Proactive Corporate Environmental Management: A New Industrial”, Academy of Management Executive 12(2), 38-50.
Bontis, N.:1999, “Managing Organizational Knowledge by Diagnosing Intellectual Capital: Framing and advancing the state of the field”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 18 No.5/6/7/8, 433-462.
Borland, H. and S. Paliwoda: 2011, “Marketing responsibility in an era of economic and climactic challenge”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 29 No.1, 49-62.
Chen, Y-S.,Lai, S-B and Wen, C-T. : 2006, “The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67 No.4, 331-339.
Chen, Y-S.: 2008a, “The positive effect of green intellectual on competitive advantages of firms”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 77 No. 3, 271-286.
Chen, Y-S.: 2008b, “The driver of green innovation and green image – green core competence”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 81 No. 3, 531-543.
Chen, Y-S.: 2011, “Green organizational identity: sources and consequence”, Management Decision, Vol. 49 No.3, 384-404.
Cole, G.A.: 1996, Management: Theory and Practice, DP Publications, London.
Dechant, K. and Altman, B.: 1994, “Environmental leadership: from compliance to competitive advantage”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 8 No. 3, 7-20.
Daniels, P.L.: 2005, “Technology revolutions and social development”, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 32 No. 5, 454-482.
Freeman, C.: 1992, The Economics of Hope, Pinter Publishers, London.
Freeman, C.: 1997, “The political economy of the long wave”, in Tylecote, A. and van der Straaten, J. (Eds), Environment, Technology and Economic Growth: The Challenge to Sustainable Development, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Hart, S. L.: 1995, “A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm”, Academy of Management Review 20(4), 986-1014.
Hatch,M.J. And Schultz M.: 2007, “Third wave branding: Breaking the ice”, Communication Director, Issue 4, 58-62.
Huber, J.: 1982, Die verlorene Unschuld der Ökologie, S. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main.
Husted, B.W. And Salazar J.J.: 2006, “Taking Friedman seriously: maximizing profits and social performance”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 1, 75-91.
Johnson, W. H. A.: 1999, “An Integrative Taxonomy of Intellectual Capital: Measuring the Stock and Flow of Intellectual Capital Components in the Firn”, International Journal of Technology Management 18(5-8), 562-575.
Kemp, R.: 1994, “Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability, Futures, Vol. 26 No. 10, 1023-1045.
Kleine, A. and von Hauff, M.: 2009, “Sustainability-driven implementation of corporate social responsibility: application of the integrative sustainability triangle”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85, 517-534.
Ladd, S.: 2010, “Corporate greening: good for the soul, but is it good for the bottom line?”, Financial Executive, Vol. 25 No.2, 36-42.
Quiroz-Onante, D. and Aitken, M.: 2007, “Business and human rights: a critical assessment of the notion of CSR and measurement”, Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, Vol. 6 No. 2, 79-90.
Lai, S.-B..,C.-T. Wen and Y.-S.: 2003, The Exploration of the Relationship between the Environmental Pressure and the Corporate Competitive Advantage, 2003 CSMOT Academic Conference (National Chiao Tung University, Hsin-Chu).
Long, B.L.: 1990, “Sustainable economic growth and industry: an OECD perspective”,
Sustainable Growth and Industrial Development, report of the 47th Meeting of the National Science and Industry Forum, Thredbo, February 1990. Australian Academy of Science, OECD, Canberra.
McWilliams, A. and Siegel D.:2001, “Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, 117-27.
Milliman, J.,Ferguson,J.,Grosskopf, J. and Sylvester, K.: 2009, “Securing executive support for sustainability programs integrative and partnering skills”, Environmental Quality Management, Vol. 19 No.2, 1-12.
Peattie K., 1992, Green Marketing (Pitman Publishing Corp., London, UK).
Roberts, J.: 2010, “Voicing your ethical stance (sustainable (green) business practices as public relations for marketing functions)”, Marketing Week, Vol.33 No. 10, 14-19.
Simonis, U.E.: 1989, “Ecological modernization of industrial society – three strategic elements”, in Nijkamp, P. and Archibugi, F. (Eds), Economy and Ecology: Towards Sustainable Development, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordecht.
Smith, P. A. C. and Sharicz, C.: 2011, “The shift needed for sustainability”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 18 No. 2, 73-86.
Speth, J.A.:1989, The Greening of Technology, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Berlin.
Blowfield, Murray, 2011, 6-10
Blowfield, Murray, 2011, 17-18
Wood, 1991b: 693 -> Handbook 49
Wood, 1991a: 68 -> Handbook 49
Friedman in the New York Times Magazine in 1970 -> Handbook 55
Clarkson, 1995 -> Handbook 63
