Received: 4 February 2020 Revised: 12 May 2020 Accepted: 29 May 2020

DOI: 10.1002/bse.2553

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Sufficiency economy philosophy: Buddhism-based

sustainability framework in Thailand

Hee-Chan Song

Sasin School of Management, Chulalongkorn

University, Bangkok, Thailand
Correspondence
Hee-Chan Song, Sasin School of Management
Chulalongkorn University Sasa Pathasala,
254 จุาลงกรณ์ มหาิทยาลัย ถนน Wang Mai, Pathum Wan
District, Bangkok 10330, Thailand.
Email: heechan.song@sasin.edu
Abstract
Drawing upon institutional theory, sustainability scholars have demonstrated that
various institutional factors, such as environmental regulations, national business
systems, and global sustainability standards, shape legitimate sustainability frame-
works. However, most of the studies have focused on formal institutions that
have law-like regulations and procedures. Owing to the skewed attention, the
role of informal institutions in shaping sustainability frameworks has remained
largely unexplored. The present study suggests that an informal institution, partic-
ularly religion, can play a significant role in developing a locally driven sustainabil-
ity framework. In particular, this study investigates Thai context where Buddhism
has shaped people's mindset, moral principles and day-to-day economic activity.
For the past few decades, Thailand has theorized its own unique sustainability
framework—sufficiency economy philosophy—based on Buddhist worldview on
interrelationships of economy, society, and environment. By shedding light on
how religion is formalized as a sustainability framework, this research contributes
to institutional approach to sustainability.

KEYWORDS

Buddhism, informal institution, religion, sufficiency economy philosophy, sustainability

framework

1 | I N T RO D UC TI O N practice in a particular country (Ioannou & Serafeim, 2012; Lim &

From an institutional perspective, sustainability scholars argue
that firms are embedded in different institutional environments
where the societal expectations on corporate missions, roles, and
responsibilities vary across countries (Campbell, 2007; Doh &
Guay, 2006; Ioannou & Serafeim, 2012; Matten & Moon, 2008). The
institutional environments include a degree of environmental regulation,
historically codified legal system, national business system, and the civic
society, which defines the legitimate sustainability framework in a
broader societal context (Ansari, Wijen, & Gray, 2013; Briscoe, Gupta, &
Anner, 2015; Delmas, Russo, & Montes-Sancho, 2007; Jackson &
Apostolakou, 2010; Liang & Renneboog, 2017). Institutional theory
suggests that the varied institutional contexts create distinct forms of
corporate environment that guide, enforce, and legitimize sustainability
Tsutsui, 2012).
Although the past studies elucidate the role of institutions in
shaping sustainability frameworks in a certain institutional environ-
ment, they largely underexplore the role of informal institutions in
explaining a culturally and historically informed sustainability frame-
work. Here, informal institutions are defined as “socially shared rules,
usually unwritten, that are created, communicated, and enforced out-
side of officially sanctioned channels” (Helmke & Levitsky, 2004,
p. 727). The past literature tends to focus on formal institutions,
defined as “rules and procedures that are created, communicated, and
enforced through channels widely accepted as official” (Helmke &
Levitsky, 2004, p. 727). Thus, this study suggests that informal institu-
tions can also play a pivotal role in developing a sustainability frame-
work, particularly in Thailand.

Bus Strat Env. 2020;1–11. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bse © 2020 ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1
2 SONG
Specifically, the present study focuses on the roles of Buddhism,
which has historically played a central role in shaping Thai's world-
view, ethical principles, and day-to-day economic lives. Accordingly, I
formally developed a specific research question: how an informal
institution, particularly Buddhist religion, inform sustainability frame-
work emerging in Thailand? In answering the question, I introduce the
notion of sufficiency economy philosophy (SEP) as a Buddhism-based
sustainability framework. SEP is widely embraced as a national eco-
nomic policy in Thailand and has quickly spread to both public and pri-
vate sectors of Thai societal systems (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2016;
Mongsawad, 2010; Piboolsravut, 2004; Kantabutra, 2019 for a
review). Research suggests that the rapid dissemination was possible
because the SEP originates from Buddhism (O'Sullivan & (Matten & Crane, 2005), and corporate sustainable development
Pisalyaput, 2015). Buddhist philosophy views the three elements of
sustainability (i.e., economy, society, and environment) as cyclical as
well as tightly interconnected and interdependent systems and not as
separable or independent entities (Rahula, 1974). This perspective is
historically embedded in Thai culture through its distinct meditative
tradition. In a sense, SEP guides sustainability from a Buddhist
perspective.
By introducing SEP as the unique Thai framework for sustainability,
I aim to contribute to sustainability literature in two ways. First, this
study explicitly links an informal institution, Buddhism in this case, to
sustainability framework. Religion is one of the most important informal
institution that constitutes contemporary societal system (Friedland &
Alford, 1991), yet it has been almost buried in the institutional frame-
work of sustainability literature. The present study unravels how an
informal institution can shape sustainable framework at the national
policy level. Second, this study sheds light on the regional sustainability
framework by exploring the unique relationship between Buddhism and
sustainability in Thailand. In general, scholars have extensively investi-
gated the global diffusion of sustainability frameworks such as sustain-
ability reporting practices, fair trade certifications, and United Nations'
global compact across countries (Byun & Kim, 2017; Delmas, 2002;
Etzion & Ferraro, 2010). However, there was a lack of a locally driven
sustainability framework. The present study addresses how regional
sustainability thinking is adopted as a distinct sustainability framework
rather than focusing on the diffusion process.
In the rest of the paper, I review institutional approach to sustain-
ability including the roles of formal and informal institutions. I then
introduce SEP as a unique Buddhism-based framework on sustainabil-
ity in Thailand and connect some central ideas of Buddhist philosophy
to system thinking. This linkage between system thinking and Bud-
dhism is necessary to disclose the uniqueness of SEP because Bud-
dhism is the central philosophy of SEP, which includes system thinking
(Macy, 1991; O'Sullivan & Pisalyaput, 2015). I conclude this paper by
summarizing the theoretical and managerial implications of the study.
2 | INSTITUTION AND SUSTAINABILITY
In the late 1980s, the international community develops the notion of
sustainability along with consistent efforts to tackle interconnected
socioecological issues across nations (e.g., World Commission on
Environment and Development, 1987). Management scholars adopt
this concept and investigate how corporations can create sustain-
able values that simultaneously benefit corporations, societies, and
environment (Bansal & Song, 2017; Etzion, 2007 for reviews). In
doing so, scholars theorize sustainability framework at an organiza-
tional level, defining it as “a firm-wide adoption of sustain-centric
principles where the integrity of multiple social and ecological sys-
tems is embedded equitably and interdependently in the overarch-
ing purpose and core operations of the firm” (Valente, 2012,
p. 568). Numerous studies conceptualize relevant constructs such
as triple bottom line (Elkington, 1997), corporate citizenship
(Bansal, 2002, 2005) that rely on a different set of theoretical
focus. These studies suggest that sustainability framework can con-
tribute to socioecological well-being via the creation of shared
values between business and society (Kramer, 2011; McWilliams,
Siegel, & Wright, 2006).
2.1 | Formal institution and sustainability
Given that sustainability framework is defined within macro socio-
ecological context, a body of sustainability studies argues that sus-
tainable practice should be understood within the institutional
context (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007;
Campbell, 2007; Doh & Guay, 2006; Jackson & Apostolakou, 2010;
Matten & Moon, 2008). The studies primarily examine the role of
formal institutions.
Institutional theory suggests that once the formal institutions
become taken-for-granted rules for all social actors, the actors no lon-
ger raise questions on the institutions' efficacy and effectiveness
(North, 1990). The actors simply follow the institutions for their
behavioral patterns, structures, and outcomes considering them as
legitimate criteria. Over time, the formal institutions are refined and
redefined within broader sociocultural contexts (Ocasio, Mauskapf, &
Steele, 2016). As a result, the institutions become a rule of game that
all the social actors should follow (North, 1990).
Drawing upon the institutional argument, sustainability scholars
suggest that corporate sustainable framework differs depending on
the institutional context of the firms. For example, in integrating the
institutional argument with corporate social responsibility literature,
Campbell (2007, p. 950) opines that “socially responsible corporate
behavior may mean different things in different places to different
people and at different times.” He observes that responsible corporate
behavior is a socioculturally defined notion and that the meaning of
the term inherently differs across the macroinstitutional context of
each society. Thus, although corporations implement sustainable prac-
tices commonly driven by societal pressure (Campbell, 2007), non-
governmental organization (NGO) activism (Doh & Guay, 2006),
industry regulation and deregulation (Delmas et al., 2007), and
national business system (Ioannou & Serafeim, 2012), these institu-
tional environments vary across the countries.
SONG
Matten and Moon's (2008) comparative study also underpins
these findings. They observe that corporate responsibility signifies dif-
ferent concepts in the United States and Europe. The American firms
tend to prioritize shareholder value, whereas the European firms are
involved in environmental issues and secure stakeholder interests
even at the expense of shareholder value (Matten & Moon, 2008).
Accordingly, corporations implement different types of responsible
practices, “implicit” in Europe and “explicit” in the United States, to
meet the different institutional demands in the two continents
(Matten & Moon, 2008).
Empirical studies support the institutional approach to sustain-
ability (Bansal & Song, 2017). Based on the cross-national analysis of
corporate responsibility, Lim and Tsutsui (2012) establish that the
implementation of a certain corporate sustainable practice is largely
associated with the national political-economic environment. They
also highlight that a sustainable practice recognized as a taken-for-
granted norm in a country can possibly be an unsustainable practice in
other countries. In a similar vein, Ioannou and Serafeim (2012)'s com-
parative study involving 42 nations report that the nations' distinct
political, educational, and cultural systems shape the level of corpo-
rate commitment to sustainability issues. By focusing on corporate
stakeholders, Yang and Rivers (2009) also demonstrate that the
demands of stakeholders with respect to corporate sustainability vary
immensely across countries and are associated with the legitimate
form of practice in each country.
Given that different institutional environments drive dissimilar
types of sustainability practices and levels of commitment to
environmental issues, the other stream of research pays more
attention to identifying which institutions are most salient. The stud-
ies unearth that the broad national business system (Jackson &
Apostolakou, 2010), NGO activities (Doh & Guay, 2006), social
movement (Briscoe et al., 2015), and specific stakeholder groups
(Buysse & Verbeke, 2003) are influential in developing corporate
sustainability framework. For example, Marquis, Glynn, and Davis
(2007) suggest that under a particular institutional environment that
promotes “communitarianism,” corporations donate significantly for
community causes. Doh and Guay (2006) theorize that “political
legacies” can be the most influential factors in explaining the role
played by public sectors, NGOs, and corporations to determine the
preferred form of corporate social and environmental responsibility.
2.2 | Informal institution and sustainability
The past studies demonstrate how institutions lead to corporate sus-
tainability practice and framework, yet the studies largely omit the
role of informal institutions. The gap is surprising because informal
institutions shape one's worldview on the interrelationship of the cen-
tral elements of sustainability framework, that is, economy, society,
and environment (Helmke & Levitsky, 2004).
Exploration of informal institutions is important for two reasons.
First, the mechanism that explain the role of informal institutions in
shaping sustainability framework is different from the one used in
3
past studies with formal institutions. Formal institutions associate
with law-like regulations or legal set-ups to determine legitimate sus-
tainability practice and framework (Helmke & Levitsky, 2004). How-
ever, informal institutions provide a meta-cognitive tool to shape
one's mindset and behavioral pattern (Helmke & Levitsky, 2004;
Pejovich, 1999). Thus, informal institutions are a set of “traditions,
customs, societal norms, ‘shared mental models,’ unwritten codes of
conduct, ideologies, and templates” (Tonoyan, Strohmeyer, Habib, &
Perlitz, 2010, p. 805). They are “the old ethos, the hand of the past or
the carriers of history” (Pejovich, 1999, p. 166). Although law and reg-
ulation, that is, formal institutions, are enacted through economic poli-
cies and law (e.g., North, 1990), informal institutions such as the
tradition, history, and societal norms are deeply involved in the cul-
tural structure of a certain society. Because both types of institutions
differ conceptually, how informal institutions shape sustainability
framework also needs a different explanation. Accordingly, theoretical
implications may differ.
Second, most of previous literature on institutional approach
to sustainability focus on diffusion process of global sustainability
standards such as United Nations' global compact (Perkins &
Neumayer, 2010), global certificate system (Perkins &
Neumayer, 2010), and sustainability reporting practice (Byun &
Kim, 2017; Etzion & Ferraro, 2010). Researchers often describe
that corporations should follow “global pressure” to gain “global
legitimacy” to continue to operate in global market (Brønn &
Vidaver-Cohen, 2009; Davies, 2003). Scholars examined the emer-
gence of global sustainability frameworks through formal institu-
tions and captured their diffusion across countries. Although these
studies offer important insights as to how and why local corpora-
tions adopt the globally formed sustainability frameworks, they
provide little explanation of how locally driven institutions frame
corporate sustainable practices. The present study aims to fill this
gap by exploring the relationship between religion and local sus-
tainability framework.
In the following section, I describe the central idea of SEP frame-
work and then investigate how SEP reflects Buddhism. In doing so, I
particularly address the system thinking aspect of Buddhist philoso-
phy to deepen our understanding of the relationship between the reli-
gion and the SEP framework.
3 | BUDDHISM-BASED SUSTAINABILITY
FR A M E W O R K I N T H A I L A N D
The Thai SEP sustainability framework directly reflects the concept of
Buddhism (Kantabutra, 2019). In fact, the word root of Buddha's
teachings, Dharma (Dhamma in P
ali), literally mean “sustain.” One of
the central doctrines of Dharma is to take a middle path between the
two extremes of continuum, namely, maximizing growth and minimiz-
ing utility or indulgence and asceticism, in terms of people's daily
activity and community development (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2016;
Schumacher, 1974). The idea of middle path is directly reflected in the
core thesis of SEP framework through three practical principles,
4 SONG
“moderation,” “reasonableness,” and “self-immunity (Prudence).”1
These principles promote sufficiency rather than efficiency and maxi-
mization logic (see Figure 1). Although the thesis was symbolically
codified into sufficiency practice in 1970s, it is well known that the
late Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej officially proposed it to the people
on December 4, 1997 (Mongsawad, 2010).
“‘Sufficiency’ economy is a philosophy that stresses the
middle path as the overriding principle for appropriate
conduct by the populace at all levels. This applies to
conduct at the level of the individual, families, and
communities, as well as to the choice of a balanced
development strategy for the nation so as to modern-
ize in line with the forces of globalization while
shielding against inevitable shocks and excesses that
arise. ‘Sufficiency’ means moderation and due consid-
eration in all modes of conduct, as well as the need for
sufficient protection from internal and external shocks.
To achieve this, the application of knowledge
1
“Self-immunity” has been interchangeably used with “prudence” (Kantabutra, 2019;
Mongsawad, 2010; O'Sullivan & Pisalyaput, 2015). Self-immunity may be more direct
translation of the Thai (“poom koomgun nai tua”). Self-immunity and prudence both reflect a
shared meaning that is equivalent to risk management in management literature.
F I G U R E 1 Sufficiency economy
philosophy framework*.
*This framework is adopted from
Mongsawad (2010) [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
(reasonableness) with prudence (self-immunity) is
essential. In particular, great care is needed in the
utilization of untested theories and methodologies for
planning and implementation. At the same time, it is
essential to strengthen the moral fiber of the nation,
so that everyone, particularly political and public offi-
cials, technocrats, businessmen and financiers, adhere
first and foremost to the principles of honesty and
integrity. In addition, a balanced approach combining
patience, perseverance, diligence, wisdom and pru-
dence (self-immunity) is indispensable to cope appro-
priately with the critical challenges arising from
extensive and rapid socio-economic, environmental
and cultural changes occurring as a result of globaliza-
tion” (Mongsawad, 2010, p. 127).2
The late King Bhumibol Adulyadej institutionalizes the sufficiency
thinking in 1997. In fact, the year was a difficult period during which
South-East Asia was experiencing financial crisis. The crunch was due
to a series of failed financial policies, spillover of the Japanese real
2
This statement is approved from the Royal Kingdom of Thailand.
SONG
estate bubble, and the overall on-going economic downturn in
Thailand. The country adopted harsh mandates for restructuring its
economic systems. Market principles and merit-based human resource
system were quickly introduced and institutionalized, and the Thai
collectivism-based societal systems became rapidly westernized and
individualized (Sachayansrisakul, 2012). Besides, materialism and capi-
talistic free-market principles also permeate every corner of the soci-
ety. Scholars reported that the crisis transformed the financial
structure of Thailand and also shifted its societal, cultural, and spiritual
landscapes (Sachayansrisakul, 2012).
During such a crisis, the concept of SEP was declared and institu-
tionalized (Kantabutra, 2019; O'Sullivan & Pisalyaput, 2015). This con-
cept continued to be embraced by many different organizations such
as local communities, government agencies, and educational institu-
tions in Thailand even after recovering from the financial shock
(Kantabutra, 2019; O'Sullivan & Pisalyaput, 2015). Thai corporations
also quickly adopted and implemented SEP as a part of their strategic
principle and sustainability practice (Kantabutra, 2006, 2019; Kan-
tabutra & Siebenhuner, 2011). In other words, SEP is not an instanta-
neously developed framework or policy but a historically inherent
concept in Buddhism (O'Sullivan & Pisalyaput, 2015). To deepen the
understanding of SEP within the Buddhist context, I describe some
important thoughts pertaining to Buddhism and then connect them to
the three elements of SEP.
3.1 | Buddhism and sufficiency economy philosophy
Over more than 2,000 years, Buddhism has shaped the worldview of
East Asian and South-East Asian. In brief, one day, Siddhartha
Gautama (approximately BC 563–BC 483), called Shakyamuni Bud-
dha, took a long journey to explore the nature of human sufferings
and subsequently observed old people, sick people, and dying people.
These observations motivated him to question why humans suffer
and how they can remove such sufferings. Accordingly, he then
formed an ancient assembly of monks with his five disciples in North-
ern India to develop monastic rules and organize an ancient coopera-
tive system to practice meditation (Harvey, 2012). After his decease,
Buddhism spread across South-East Asia including Thailand, Laos, and
Cambodia called Theravada Buddhism and North-East Asia including
China, Korea, and Japan called Mahayana Buddhism.
Over the course of numerous generations, Theravada Buddhist
monks in South-East Asia explored the construction of our world and
the coexistence of individual entities in mutual relationships with it
(Harvey, 2012). They try to realize that no entity is entirely free from
others and that all individuals are tightly interconnected and
interdependent (Rahula, 1974). According to Buddha, phenomena
never occur in isolation. It arises from multiple conditions and numer-
ous sets of causes and effects (Macy, 1991).
Among the Buddhist scholars and monks, the concept is formally
theorized as dependent coarising or dependent origination
 in Pali). For example, Macy (1991, p. 108) con-
(Pratītyasamutpada
nects the Buddhist-dependent coarising to general system theory and
5
describes that “in the world seen in terms of relations, rather than
substance, personal identity appears as emergent and contingent,
defining and defined by interactions with the surrounding medium.”
Thai Venerable Monk Phra Shakyavongsvisuddhi (Anil Sakya), Deputy
Rector for Foreign Affairs of Thailand, more explicitly stated the prin-
ciple of dependent coarising in connecting Buddhism to
3
sustainability.
1 “Buddhism sees that everything in this earth is existed nature and it
operates according to the law of causality. Human is just part of
this natural law of causality. Human beings are part of nature just
like any other creatures or environment.”
2 “Being a part of natural law of causality what human acts does have
direct repercussions to other parts of natural law. Equally, any
changes in nature do have direct impact upon human life both
internally and externally as well as on relationship between human
and nature.”
As such, system thinking is inherent in Buddhism. Buddhist episte-
mology defines all individuals within mutual interactions
(Rahula, 1974). Buddhist economists suggest that business, society,
and ecosystem are tightly interlocked and interdependent
(Schumacher, 1974; Zadek, 1993). Similarly, Buddhist ecologists claim
that community sustainability is deeply rooted in the resilience of
larger macroeconomic, political, and ecological systems that offer
resources for the community's functioning and survival and vice versa
(Darlington, 1998). All these perspectives have been historically
refined and passed onto the subsequent generations of Buddhist
monks, forming a distinct worldview in Thai society (Swearer, 2010;
Wijayaratna, 1990).
Overall, such system thinking of Buddhist worldview undergirds
the three elements of SEP framework, that is, “moderation,”
“reasonableness,” and “self-immunity.” To deepen the Buddhist back-
ground of SEP, I now specify the three central elements of SEP frame-
work subsequently.
3.1.1 | Buddhist backdrop of moderation
First, the notion of “moderation” originates from a middle path

(Majjhimapaṭipada in Pali), which is one of the day-to-day Buddhist
moral precepts (Keown, 1991). Institutional theory suggests that
informal institution revolves around moral norm (Thornton, Ocasio, &
Lounsbury, 2012), which is a culturally informed social structure
formed over a historical time in a certain societal system (Thornton
et al., 2012). At an individual level, moral norm influences one's
mindset that governs the perception of “right or wrong,” “good or
bad,” and “just or unjust” (Helmke & Levitsky, 2004). In other words,
moral norm is not a law-like regulation that enforces people to follow,
3
This statement was presented at the Symposium on Sustainable Development at Sasin
Graduate Institute of Business Administration of Chulalongkorn University on
August 17, 2015.
6 SONG
but instead, it is a normative criterion for people to mindfully and
rightfully act.
The Buddhist middle path has operated as such a normative crite-
rion in the corners of Thai society (O'Sullivan & Pisalyaput, 2015). In
Thailand, most local communities are historically formed around Bud-
dhist temples (Swearer, 2010). In the communities, people practice
the middle path through various meditative methods that aim to
reduce one's desire, self-interest, and overindulgence while pursuing
appropriate consumption and satisfaction. Often, this is observed
when people and Buddhist monks together try to realize that the
notion of self-interest actually does not exist in reality (Keown, 1991).
Theoretically, they try to deconstruct self-concept through meditation
by dissolving the linguistic and cognitive boundaries between the self
and other entities (Rahula, 1974).
The deconstruction of self-concept can explain the moderation
element of SEP sustainability framework, as it reduces self-egoistic
tendency to exploit public resources going extremes. Buddhist
scholars argue that the dissolved, fuzzy boundaries between the self
and world can undermine the utilitarian approach to economy
that states maximizing utility alone ensures individual happiness
(Macy, 1991; Schumacher, 1974). If one pursues indulgence, then
others inevitably experience an equal amount of suffering. From
Buddhist perspective, one's utility is not entirely separable from that of
others. In such a world, there is no “self-interest,” but “system-interest”
exists, which includes highly intertwined utilities of subsystems and
individuals. Macy (1991, p. 107) explicitly describes the following:
“Language and society, indeed our very perceptions of
a world “out there” distinct from a self ‘in here,’
encourage the notion that as selves we are separate
and distinct individuals, anchored in separate and dis-
tinct bodies … Such notions are undermined by the
concept and perception of mutual causality, as is evi-
dent in both Buddhism and systems perspectives.”
The first element of SEP sustainability framework, moderation, is
thus understood as a product of meditative practice through the
realization of “nonself.”
Many empirical researches consider moderation as a core
philosophical vision adopted by Thai firms to attain both financial
and socioecological sustainability (e.g., Kantabutra, 2014b;
Kantabutra & Siebenhuner, 2011). For example, Kantabutra and
Siebenhuner's (2011) analysis of 112 Thai firms reveals that modera-
tion is among the five high-level elements of sustainable practices
based on the SEP framework. Similarly, Kantabutra (2014b), in his
analysis of 294 Thai firms, finds that adoption of moderation principle
leads to corporate sustainability in Thailand, defined as “organizational
capacities to deliver competitive performance, endure social and eco-
nomic difficulties, and deliver societal benefits” (Kantabutra, 2014a,
p. 3). These empirical findings suggest two important implications.
First, the notion of moderation is reflected and adopted by Thai firms
as a substantive corporate code of conduct. Second, it helps the firms
to be financially and socioecologically sustainable.
3.1.2 | Buddhist backdrop of reasonableness
The nonseparation thesis between the self and world is more explicit
in the second element of SEP framework, “reasonableness.” This
notion denotes awareness of system thinking inherent in Buddhism. It
implies that one should realize how one's action can influence even
invisible entities and cyclically return to oneself over time. In other
words, one's overindulgence is inevitably related to others' suffering
and also leads to the suffering of oneself through a long-term cyclical
mechanism.
In Buddhism, such a cyclical thinking is considered as the notion
of Karma (Kamma in Pali; Keown, 1991). Literally, Karma means a
deed or action that is intended to happen (Keown, 1991). It also sig-
nifies the outcome of the action, which turns back to one's suffering
or happiness over time (Keown, 1991). Therefore, in comparison with
middle path, which is an ethical principle or moral criterion, the con-
cept of Karma signifies a worldview, knowledge, and a Buddhist
approach to define relationships of entities that prevent wrongdoing.
In this sense, Karma also resides in system thinking.
Ketprapakorn and Kantabutra's (2019a) study on Thai small and
medium enterprises (SMEs)' sustainability practice vividly shows how
Karma is reflected in management philosophy. The study found that
Thai SMEs approach sustainability issues, including employee well-
being and environmental concerns, as core organizational values
(Ketprapakorn & Kantabutra, 2019a). Here, Karma plays a pivotal role
in designing the SMEs' human resource management (Ketprapakorn &
Kantabutra, 2019a). A director of Dhanabadee Ceramic, a Thai SME
that the authors interviewed, spoke that “We don't lay off employees
because we regard everyone as a partner. Everyone should not be put
in trouble. When we are happy, we are happy together. When we are
in difficulty, we try to help each other” (Ketprapakorn &
Kantabutra, 2019a, p. 12). The manager recognizes that all organiza-
tional members constitute a single organizational identity. It also
reflects the manager's mindset that individuals' action, feeling, and
emotion, which are seemingly independent, cause collective outcomes
that influence all the individuals in an organizational setting. Reason-
ableness, in this sense, is mostly reflected in Thai organizations' code
of conduct behind their strategic decision and important organiza-
tional decision making (Kantabutra, 2006).
In fact, such Karma thinking is reflected in various fields of sci-
ence. For example, Peter Drucker (1954, p. 81) wrote that “society is
not just the environment of the enterprise. Even the most private of
private enterprise is an organ of society and serves a social function.”
This notion is also applied to understand the emergent interactions
among individual entities in different fields of study, including genetic
algorithm (Holland, 1992), chemistry (Prigogine, 1984), biology
(Kauffman, 1993), and ecology (Holling, 2001). In a system, one's small
actions are always potentially amplified by numerous mutual interac-
tions (Plowman et al., 2007). Scholars conceptualize the action as
“driving factor” (Meadows & Wright, 2008), “initial factor” (Plowman
et al., 2007), or “critical mass threshold” (Dent, 1999). These concepts
suggest that even one's trivial actions can have an enormous influence
on the destruction of the whole system. Besides, the change swings
SONG
back to one's status and survival in return. By definition, all these
mean Karma. If the agents tightly embedded in a system are not
aware of the cyclical effect (Karma effect), both the system and the
agents would collapse.
Although the above-mentioned studies tend to investigate Karma
effect as a physical and social phenomenon, the present study sug-
gests that the notion of Karma has long played a worldview role in
Thai community. It is the informal institution that is deeply inherent in
Buddhism. It says that the fact that something is not seen does not
mean that it would never exert an influence (R
ahula, 1974).
3.1.3 | Buddhist backdrop of self-immunity
The third element of SEP is “self-immunity.” It characterizes the capa-
bility of people and organizations to protect themselves from external
disturbances and shocks (Ketprapakorn & Kantabutra, 2019a). The
concept is particularly related to community sustainability of rural
economy in Thailand. To illustrate, resilience of the farm-based Thai
community is an important sustainability issue in North-East Thailand
(Sachayansrisakul, 2012). Nonetheless, climate change issues, disas-
trous floods, and fine dust from Southern China significantly impact
the rural economy, which in turn makes the farm-based community
less resilient (Sachayansrisakul, 2012). Self-immunity is the element
that particularly encourages the local communities and people to
appropriately respond to external shock and quickly return to the
predisturbance state (Mongsawad, 2010).
From Buddhist perspective, self-immunity emerges in one's mind
through a combination of mindfulness and Karma (Gunaratana, 2002;
Kabat-Zinn, 1982). Although karma acts as a worldview, mindfulness
(Sati in Pali) is a day-to-day practice that aids the meditation practi-
tioners to interpret novel stimuli in less routinized manners and,
thereby, quickly respond to external threats and risks (An
alayo, 2010).
Arguably, mindfulness is one of the most important spiritual prac-
tices in Buddhist monastic life (Kudesia & Nyima, 2015; Purser &
Milillo, 2015; Weick & Putnam, 2006). This concept has evolved and
refined over 2,500 years of Buddhist history. From Buddhist perspec-
tive, meditators or mindful people monitor the cognitive process of
perceiving external data, such as sight, texture, sound, and smell, and
assign appropriate meanings to them to make better-informed deci-
sions (Purser & Milillo, 2015). Mindful people, therefore, identify
abnormal environmental changes in a relatively easy and quick man-
ner (Langer, 1989). Conversely, less mindful people experience more
difficulty in controlling their habitual and superficial cognitive pro-
cesses and often fail to capture the abnormality in the external envi-
ronment. Buddhist mindfulness signifies how people use their mind
fully to address the external changes by observing the operation of
their mind in relationship to the external world. Hence, self-immunity
is identical to mindfulness in the SEP framework.
Empirical research also supports this observation in Thai context.
Chatjuthamard, Lawatanatrakul, Pisalyaput, and Srivibha (2016), using
all companies listed on the SET 50 index in the Stock Exchange of
Thailand in 2012, examined relationships between overall SEP score
7
developed through a set of questionnaires and firm-specific risk mea-
sured by the standard deviation of residuals from the market. They
found negative relationship, which means firms with high SEP score
are more likely to reduce firm-specific risk without sacrificing share-
holder value. In a similar vein, Ketprapakorn and Kantabutra (2019b)
show that Thai social enterprises develop “prudence (self-immunity)”
that they operationalize as “resilience development” and measure by
14 questionnaires are positively associated with socioeconomic per-
formance. Their study also confirms the indirect positive effect of
self-immunity element on increase in environmental performance. A
key implication of these studies is that self-immunity is an organiza-
tional capacity beyond individual's trait or characteristic.
Meditation is a day-to-day practice in Thailand. Sati may be one
of the most frequently used Buddhist terms in Buddhist community
(Purser & Milillo, 2015), but Thai business community also well adopts
the concept as an organizational practice (Ketprapakorn &
Kantabutra, 2019b). It is also a part of the daily routine in other orga-
nizational types, such as schools and government agencies, in Thailand
(Mongsawad, 2010). The element of self-immunity reflects daily prac-
tice that helps people and organizations identify the environmental
threats quickly and effectively.
4 | DISCUSSION
This study aims to illuminate a Buddhism-based sustainability frame-
work emerging in Thailand. The religion has shaped people's world-
view in the region and has played a crucial role in developing the
national economic policy. SEP framework for sustainability is histori-
cally institutionalized in such a culturally informed context (see
Table 1). It is a Buddhist way of sustainability that has been deeply
entrenched in Thai way of life.
This study contributes to sustainability literature by shedding light
on how Buddhism is philosophically inherent in SEP framework. Spe-
cifically, this study unravels the role of informal institutions and inves-
tigates the locally driven sustainability framework in Thailand. The
contributions have been described below.
4.1 | Theoretical contributions
The institutional approach to sustainability in general and environ-
mental management in particular suggests that institutions shape
corporate sustainability framework and practice in a certain society
(Campbell, 2007; Doh & Guay, 2006; Matten & Moon, 2008).
Empirical studies have revealed how formal institutions shape
sustainability frameworks which guide or enforce the corporations to
engage in socioecological issues (Delmas et al., 2007; Ioannou &
Serafeim, 2012). However, these studies have not described the role
of informal institutions in understanding a locally emerging sustainable
framework. This omission is significant because informal institutions
deeply shape people's worldview and moral norm on day-to-day
economic life, although they are invisible and unwritten (Helmke &
8 SONG

TABLE 1 Sufficiency economy philosophy as a Buddhism-based sustainability framework

Moderation Reasonableness Self-immunity (prudence)

Definition Moderation is to take the middle path Reasonableness is a set of accumulated Self-immunity is the capability to
to reduce our undried desire, knowledge and experience, which identify external changes and threats
self-interest, and overindulgence enables one to be aware of the so as to protect one's core
while pursuing appropriate interconnectedness and functioning while addressing the
consumption, satisfaction, and interdependency of individual external disturbance quickly
growth entities
Buddhist 
Middle path (Majjhimapaṭipad a in Pali) Karma (cycle of action, Kamma in Pali) Mindfulness (Sati in Pali)
background
Relevant theory System theory System theory, amplification, and System theory, mindfulness,
and concept emergence sensemaking, and resilience
Implication By avoiding the extremes, namely, By being aware of the fact that the By always being mindful of external
radical growth and nongrowth, a outcome of one's action can return threats and risks, the business and
business can coexist with the society to oneself over time, businesses can community can be resilient to
and environment prevent wrongdoing sudden environmental shock

Levitsky, 2004). By shedding light on the relationship of informal insti-
tution and sustainability framework, this study contributes to the
institutional explanation of sustainability.
Specifically, this study focuses on religion among other informal
institutions. The institutional theory has suggested that religion is one
of the most influential informal institutions (Friedland & Alford, 1991).
Friedland and Alford (1991) describe contemporary Western society
as interinstitutional systems of “market,” “democracy,” “family,”
“state,” and “Christianism.” Dominant Western values including indi-
vidualism, rationality, agency, and freedom are historically constructed
by the five institutional systems that are now widely conceptualized
as institutional orders (Thornton et al., 2012; Ocasio et al., 2016).
Classic literature shows that Christianism shapes managers' moral
interpretation of profit-seeking activities (Weber, 1905 [1930]), per-
ception of corporate social responsibility (Bowen, 1953), and work
ethic (Thornton et al., 2012, p. 103–111). It offers “socially con-
structed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values,
beliefs and rules” (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999, p. 804). By analyzing the
three elements of SEP along with the central ideas of Buddhism, the
present study suggests that Buddhism can play a significant role in
Thailand, equivalent to Christianism in the Western society, particu-
larly in shaping sustainability framework.
Second, this study contributes to sustainability literature by eluci-
dating a locally driven sustainability framework. Most previous studies
focus on the diffusion process of global sustainability practice (Byun &
Kim, 2017; Etzion & Ferraro, 2010; Perkins & Neumayer, 2010). They
effectively capture how global pressure on sustainability leads to dif-
fusion of global sustainability standard across nations (Brønn &
Vidaver-Cohen, 2009; Davies, 2003). One of the important streams of
this research area was to investigate how international community
collectively develops effective sustainability framework (e.g., Etzion &
Ferraro, 2010). The process involves formal legislation, regulation, and
other forms of international agreement and institutionalization
(Etzion & Ferraro, 2010; Hoffman, 1999).
The present study deviates from the past studies, as it illumi-
nates an alternative way of developing sustainability framework. As
discussed, institutional theory alludes that informal institutions are
uniquely developed within a nation's historical origin and sociocul-
tural background (Ocasio et al., 2016). The local meaning of corpo-
rate sustainability and responsibility is, therefore, not the same
across countries (Matten & Moon, 2008; O'Sullivan &
Pisalyaput, 2015). Aligning with the literature, the present study
turns its attention from global diffusion to a local framework
emerging in a culturally and historically informed national context.
SEP is a different way of viewing sustainability based on the idea
of Buddhism. The SEP framework suggests how we could reduce
our desire and self-interest while being sufficiently satisfied with
appropriate consumption level and growth. It is a locally emerging
sustainability framework and an alternative framework that pro-
poses a different way of being sustainable.
4.2 | Managerial implications
The focus of this study was to examine how religion shapes sustain-
ability framework in a certain institutional context, but it also has
some managerial implications that specifically arise from the self-
immunity and moderation elements of SEP. First, the notion of moder-
ation informs an alternative way of tackling certain managerial con-
flicts inherent in corporate sustainability practice. Mainstream
sustainability literature tends to consider that economic profit and
socioecological value create tensions because of their distinct motiva-
tion for being profitable and socially responsible (Margolis &
Walsh, 2003). Scholars frame the tensions as shareholder versus
stakeholder (Hillman & Keim, 2001), short-term return versus long-
term goal (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014), and self-regarding value versus
other-regarding values (Adams, Licht, & Sagiv, 2011). As per the
notion of middle path, tensions arise because managers and organiza-
tions simultaneously pursue growth and social/environmental com-
mitment. An alternative approach to resolve such tensions might be
to explore the existence of a boundary between the two elements.
The middle path indicates that if one removes the boundary and
SONG
focuses on how to reduce, not how to pursue both, the tensions may
disappear.
Second, the notion of self-immunity—Buddhist way of mindful-
ness (Sati)—in SEP framework guide the managers in resolving the
external risk practically. Recently, studies on organizational mindful-
ness reveal that mindful managers are more heedful of sudden envi-
ronmental changes that could be potentially disastrous if
uncaptured (e.g., Gärtner, 2013; Rao & Greve, 2018; Weick &
Sutcliffe, 2006). Micro scholars also find that organizational mem-
bers can improve task-related performance by meditation training
(Dane, 2011; Good et al., 2016 for reviews). A common thread of
these studies suggests that meditation practice is not just for the
monks' spiritual achievement. This study also argues that the prac-
tice can be useful for the secular people's organizational life and
even for the business to be sustainable (e.g., Gelles, 2015;
Tan, 2012).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to acknowledge the following people for their helpful
advice in the development of this manuscript: Nick Pisalyaput (Sasin),
Vasu Srivibha (Sasin), Stephen B. Young (Sasin), and Sooksan
Kantabutra (Mahidol). I owe a special debt of gratitude to Venerable
Phra Shakyavongsvisuddhi and Thai Buddhist monks for their
wisdom and encouragement. The backbone of this article was written
while I was a visiting doctoral student at Sasin Sustainability and
Entrepreneurship Center at Sasin Graduate Institute of Business
Administration of Chulalongkorn University in Thailand.
ORCID
Hee-Chan Song https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8637-8933
RE FE R ENC E S
Adams, R. B., Licht, A. N., & Sagiv, L. (2011). Shareholders and stake-
holders: How do directors decide? Strategic Management Journal,
32(12), 1331–1355. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.940
Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting
the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of
social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(3),
836–863. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275678
Analayo (2010). Sattipatthana: The direct path to realization. Birmingham,
UK: Windhorse Publications.
Ansari, S., Wijen, F., & Gray, B. (2013). Constructing a climate change logic:
An institutional perspective on the “tragedy of the commons”. Organi-
zation Science, 24(4), 1014–1040. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.
0799
Avery, G. C., & Bergsteiner, H. (2016). Sufficiency thinking: Thailand's gift to
an unsustainable world. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Bansal, P. (2002). The corporate challenges of sustainable development.
Academy of Management Executive, 16, 122–131.
Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate
sustainable development. Strategic management journal, 26(3),
197–218.
Bansal, P., & DesJardine, M. R. (2014). Business sustainability: It is about
time. Strategic Organization, 12(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1476127013520265
Bansal, P., & Song, H. C. (2017). Similar but not the same: Differentiating
corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility. Academy of
9
Management Annals, 11(1), 105–149. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.
2015.0095
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibility of the businessman. New York,
NY: Harper.
Briscoe, F., Gupta, A., & Anner, M. S. (2015). Social activism and practice
diffusion: How activist tactics affect non-targeted organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 60(2), 300–332. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0001839215579235
Brønn, P. S., & Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2009). Corporate motives for social ini-
tiative: Legitimacy, sustainability, or the bottom line? Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 87(1), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-
9795-z
Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A
stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal,
24(5), 453–470. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.299
Byun, H., & Kim, T. H. (2017). Identity claims and diffusion of sustainability
report: Evidence from Korean listed companies, 2003–2010. Journal of
Business Ethics, 140(3), 551–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
015-2669-2
Campbell, J. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially respon-
sible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility.
Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967. https://doi.org/10.
5465/amr.2007.25275684
Chatjuthamard, P., Lawatanatrakul, V., Pisalyaput, N., & Srivibha, V. (2016).
Sufficiency Economy Philosophy and Firm Risks. Available at SSRN
2858216.
Dane, E. (2011). Paying attention to mindfulness and its effects on task
performance in the workplace. Journal of Management, 37(4),
997–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310367948
Darlington, S. M. (1998). The ordination of a tree: The Buddhist ecology
movement in Thailand. Ethnology, 37, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.2307/
3773845
Davies, R. (2003). “The business community: Social responsibility and cor-
porate values”. In J. H. Dunning (Ed.), Making Globalisation Good - The
Moral Challenges of Global Capitalism, New York, NY: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Delmas, M. A. (2002). The diffusion of environmental management stan-
dards in Europe and in the United States: An institutional perspective.
Policy Sciences, 35(1), 91–119. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:101610880
4453
Delmas, M. A., Russo, M. V., & Montes-Sancho, M. J. (2007). Deregula-
tion and environmental differentiation in the electric utility industry.
Strategic Management Journal, 28(2), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.
1002/smj.578
Dent, E. B. (1999). Complexity science: A worldview shift. Emergence, 1(4),
5–19. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327000em0104_2
Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public pol-
icy, and NGO activism in Europe and the United States: An
institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies,
43(1), 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00582.x
Drucker, P. F. (1954). The practice of management. New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st cen-
tury business. Vancouver, Canada: New Society Publishers.
Etzion, D. (2007). Research on organizations and the natural environment,
1992-present: A review. Journal of Management, 33(4), 637–664.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307302553
Etzion, D., & Ferraro, F. (2010). The role of analogy in the institutionaliza-
tion of sustainability reporting. Organization Science, 21(5),
1092–1107. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0494
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols,
practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell &
P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis
(pp. 232–263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10
Gärtner, C. (2013). Enhancing readiness for change by enhancing mindful-
ness. Journal of Change Management, 13(1), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14697017.2013.768433
Gelles, D. (2015). Mindful work: How meditation is changing business from
the inside out. Boston, MA: Eamon Dolan.
Good, D. J., Lyddy, C. J., Glomb, T. M., Bono, J. E., Brown, K. W.,
Duffy, M. K., … Lazar, S. W. (2016). Contemplating mindfulness at
work: An integrative review. Journal of Management, 42(1), 114–142.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315617003
Gunaratana, B. H. (2002). Mindfulness in plain English. Boston, MA: Wisdom.
Harvey, P. (2012). An introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, history and prac-
tices. UK: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Helmke, G., & Levitsky, S. (2004). Informal institutions and comparative
politics: A research agenda. Perspectives on Politics, 2(4), 725–740.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592704040472
Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholder value, stakeholder
management, and social issues: What's the bottom line? Strategic
Management Journal, 22(2), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-
0266(200101)22:2<125::AID-SMJ150>3.0.CO;2-H
Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmental-
ism and the US chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal,
42(4), 351–371.
Holland, J. (1992). Genetic algorithms. Scientific American, 267, 66–72.
https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0792-66
Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the complexity of economic, ecologi-
cal, and social systems. Ecosystems, 4, 390–405. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10021-001-0101-5
Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2012). What drives corporate social perfor-
mance?: The role of nation-level institutions. Journal of International
Business Studies, 43(9), 834–864. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.
2012.26
Jackson, G., & Apostolakou, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in
Western Europe: An institutional mirror or substitute? Journal of
Business Ethics, 94(3), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
009-0269-8
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982). An outpatient program in behavioral medicine for
chronic pain patients based on the practice of mindfulness meditation:
Theoretical considerations and preliminary results. General Hospital
Psychiatry, 4(1), 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0163-8343(82)
90026-3
Kantabutra, S. (2006). Relating vision-based leadership to sustainable busi-
ness performance: A Thai perspective. Kravis Leadership Institute Lead-
ership Review, 6(3), 37–53.
Kantabutra, S. (2014a). Exploring the corporate sustainability process: A
Thai perspective. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Man-
agement, 2017(22), 170–189.
Kantabutra, S. (2014b). Measuring corporate sustainability: A Thai
approach. Measuring Business Excellence, 2014(18), 73–88.
Kantabutra, S. (2019). Achieving corporate sustainability: Toward a practi-
cal theory. Sustainability, 11(15), 4155. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11154155
Kantabutra, S., & Siebenhuner, T. (2011). Predicting corporate sustainabil-
ity: A Thai approach. Journal of Applied Business Research, 27(6),
123–134. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v27i6.6471
Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection
in evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Keown, D. (1991). The nature of Buddhist ethics. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Ketprapakorn, N., & Kantabutra, S. (2019a). Culture development for sus-
tainable SMEs: Toward a behavioral theory. Sustainability, 11(9), 2629.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092629
Ketprapakorn, N., & Kantabutra, S. (2019b). Sustainable social enterprise
model: Relationships and consequences. Sustainability., 11(14), 3772.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143772
Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89,
62–77.
SONG
Kudesia, R. S., & Nyima, V. T. (2015). Mindfulness contextualized: An
integration of Buddhist and neuropsychological approaches to cog-
nition. Mindfulness, 6(4), 910–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-
014-0337-8
Langer (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Liang, H., & Renneboog, L. (2017). On the foundations of corporate social
responsibility. The Journal of Finance, 72(2), 853–910. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jofi.12487
Lim, A., & Tsutsui, K. (2012). Globalization and commitment in corporate
social responsibility: Cross-national analyses of institutional and
political-economy effects. American Sociological Review, 77(1), 69–98.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411432701
Macy, J. (1991). Mutual causality in Buddhism and general systems theory:
The dharma of natural systems. Albany, NY: Suny Press.
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking
social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2),
268–305. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556659
Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Community isomorphism
and corporate social action. Academy of management review, 32(3),
925–945.
Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended
theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management review, 30(1),
166–179.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A conceptual
framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social
responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193458
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social
responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies,
43(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00580.x
Meadows, D. H., & Wright, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Hart-
ford, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Mongsawad, P. (2010). The philosophy of the sufficiency economy: A con-
tribution to the theory of development. Asia-Pacific Development Jour-
nal, 17(1), 123–143.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic perfor-
mance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.
1017/CBO9780511808678
Ocasio, W., Mauskapf, M., & Steele, C. W. (2016). History, society, and
institutions: The role of collective memory in the emergence and evo-
lution of societal logics. Academy of Management Review, 41(4),
676–699. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0183
O'Sullivan, P., & Pisalyaput, N. (2015). The sufficiency economy: A Thai
response to financial excesses. In P. O'Sullivan, N. F. B. Allington, &
M. Esposito (Eds.), The Philosophy, Politics and Economics of Finance in
the 21st Century (pp. 316–325). London, UK: Routledge.
Pejovich, S. (1999). The effects of the interaction of formal and informal
institutions on social stability and economic development. Journal of
Markets & Morality, 2(2), 164–181.
Perkins, R., & Neumayer, E. (2010). Geographic variations in the early dif-
fusion of corporate voluntary standards: Comparing ISO 14001 and
the Global Compact. Environment and Planning a, 42(2), 347–365.
https://doi.org/10.1068/a4249
Piboolsravut, P. (2004). Sufficiency economy. ASEAN Economic Bulletin,
21(1), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1355/AE21-1H
Plowman, D. A., Baker, L. T., Beck, T. E., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S. T., &
Travis, D. V. (2007). Radical change accidentally: The emergence and
amplification of small change. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3),
515–543. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.25525647
Prigogine, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: Man's new dialogue with nature.
New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Purser, R. E., & Milillo, J. (2015). Mindfulness revisited: A Buddhist-based
conceptualization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(1), 3–24. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1056492614532315
R
ahula, W. (1974). What the Buddha taught. New York, NY: Grove Press.
SONG
Rao, H., & Greve, H. R. (2018). Disasters and community resilience: Span-
ish flu and the formation of retail cooperatives in Norway. Academy of
Management Journal, 61(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.
0054
Sachayansrisakul, N. (2012). Sufficiency economy: A reasonable
approach for Thailand's future. NIDA Development Journal,
49(2), 1–22.
Schumacher, E. F. (1974). Small is beautiful. London: Abacus, UK.
Swearer, D. K. (2010). The Buddhist world of Southeast Asia. New York, NY:
Sunny Press.
Tan, C. M. (2012). Search inside yourself: Increase productivity, creativity and
happiness. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical
contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the
higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American journal of
Sociology, 105(3), 801–843.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics
perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford,
U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Tonoyan, V., Strohmeyer, R., Habib, M., & Perlitz, M. (2010). Corruption
and entrepreneurship: How formal and informal institutions shape
small firm behavior in transition and mature market economies. Entre-
preneurship Theory and Practice, 34(5), 803–832. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00394.x
Valente, M. (2012). Theorizing firm adoption of sustaincentrism. Organiza-
tion Studies, 33, 563–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406124
43455
11
Weber, M. (1905 [1930]). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism.
London: Allen & Unwin.
Weick, K. E., & Putnam, T. (2006). Organizing for mindfulness: Eastern
wisdom and Western knowledge. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(3),
275–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492606291202
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2006). Mindfulness and the quality of
organizational attention. Organization Science, 17(4), 514–524. https://
doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0196
Wijayaratna, M. (1990). Buddhist monastic life: According to the texts of the
Theravada tradition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common
future (Brundtland report) (Vol. 383). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Yang, X., & Rivers, C. (2009). Antecedents of CSR practices in MNCs' sub-
sidiaries: A stakeholder and institutional perspective. Journal of Business
Ethics, 86(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0191-0
Zadek, S. (1993). The practice of Buddhist economics? Another view.
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 52(4), 433–445. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1536-7150.1993.tb02567.x
How to cite this article: Song H-C. Sufficiency economy
philosophy: Buddhism-based sustainability framework in
Thailand. Bus Strat Env. 2020;1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bse.2553