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

net/publication/330057873

Sustainability: An Overview of the Triple Bottom Line and

Sustainability Implementation

Article  in  International Journal of Strategic Engineering · January 2019

DOI: 10.4018/IJoSE.2019010103

CITATIONS READS

10 23,014

1 author:

Maria Salome Correia

The University of Northampton
2 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Customer Portfolio Management View project

Sustainability Marketing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Salome Correia on 06 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Strategic Engineering
Volume 2 • Issue 1 • January-June 2019

Sustainability:
An Overview of the Triple Bottom Line
and Sustainability Implementation
Maria Salome Correia, University of Northampton, Northampton, UK

ABSTRACT

Sustainability awareness has become increasingly important to society and a matter of interest by
scholars and professionals. This article presents an overview of the concept and its Triple Bottom
Line and describes the three dimensions of the most commonly accepted models of sustainability
– environmental, economic and social. Given the key role that sustainability plays in organisations,
it is important that they incorporate sustainability into their strategies. Thus, after a discussion on
sustainability implementation, the article examines some issues and examples of sustainability
assessment and measurement.

Keywords
CSR, Integrated Sustainability Assessment, Sustainability Models, Sustainability, Triple Bottom Line

INTRODUCTION

This article discusses seminal approaches to sustainability and the basis of the Triple Bottom Line
of People, Planet and Profit. It attempts to understand the qualitative concept of sustainability and
the role that it plays in the organisations. Further, the article examines why organisations should
integrate sustainability into their strategy and accesses the issues with their implementation. As one
of the most recognized issue, the measurement of the results of sustainability initiatives is discussed
on the remainder of the article. The objective of the article is to provide an overview of the basics of
sustainability and access the actual situation in terms of importance and sustainability assessment.

BACKGROUND

In recent decades, society has faced environmental challenges which can jeopardize the long-term life
on the planet. On one hand, the current rising of greenhouse gas emissions can cause a temperature
rise of 5ºC which means major differences for the Earth. Since this is the temperature difference
between our present time and the last ice age, it is perfectly understandable the importance of this
problem (Harvey, 2015). Contrary to Kyoto protocol and Copenhagen agreement, the Climate Action

DOI: 10.4018/IJoSE.2019010103

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.


29
International Journal of Strategic Engineering
Volume 2 • Issue 1 • January-June 2019

Tracker (Climate Action Tracker, 2015) states that the Paris Agreement 2015 will have a positive
impact on the international capability to limit the negative effects of climate change.
Additionally, the growing population has been a coming issue as it is estimated that the world
population at 2030 will grow to eight billion people (United Nations, 2017). This perspective raises
concerns on resource depletion such as water and commodities (Porritt, 2013), and waste disposal.
As a result, sustainability awareness has become increasingly important to society and a matter of
interest by scholars and professionals.
Although sustainability has been “an old ideal” (Engardio, Capell, Carey, & Hall, 2007, p.52),
new concepts have become common ground, such as sustainable development (Varey, 2011; Borland
& Lindgreen, 2013), corporate sustainability (James et al., 2015), sustainability index (Consolandi et
al., 2009; Singh, Murty, Gupta, and Dikshit, 2009; Babcicky, 2013) green marketing (Tiwari, Tripathi,
Srivastava, & Yadav, 2011; Swar, 2013; Laheri, Dangi, & Vohra, 2014), greenwashing (Bradford,
2007), sustainable fashion (Geiger & Keller, 2017), green fashion (Yang et al., 2017), green cities
(Cohen & Robbins, 2011) and others.
Furthermore, stakeholders, watchdog groups, regulators, and legislators are increasingly putting
pressure on firms to adopt a sustainable approach (Kassinis & Vafeas, 2006; Delmas & Toffel, 2008;
Choi & Ng, 2011; Cronin et al., 2011; Yu et al., 2017). This implies that business leaders should
understand the importance of sustainability from its Triple Bottom Line of People, Planet and Profit,
to make an effective application of the concept.

THE CONCEPT OF SUSTAINABILITY

The environmental awareness began on the 70’s with the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment claiming that adequate measures should be implemented to face these problems (United
Nations, 1972). Still, only in the 80’s sustainability has emerged as a clearer concept, when the World
Commission on Environment and Development brought it into mainstream and defined sustainable
development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their needs” (Harlem, 1987, p.41).
Since then, the term sustainability has been defined in numerous ways. According to Charter and
colleagues (2002, p.10), sustainability means “to maintain or prolong both environmental and human
health and simply good management”. Van de Kerk and Manuel (2008) suggest that it comprises
the depletion of resources, the conservation of nature and other ecological aspects, and the human
well-being and quality of life. In fact, sustainability has been given approximately three hundred
alternative definitions (Santillo, 2007; Hult, 2011; Borowy, 2013). According to (Farsi, Hosseinian-
Far, Daneshkhah, & Sedighi, 2017), understanding the sustainability concept is a major matter as it
is the basis for sustainability assessment.

THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE

The Triple Bottom Line (TBL) of People, Planet and Profit, a term coined by Elkington (1997), has
become an influential approach all over the world (Chabowski et al., 2011; Svensson & Wagner,
2015). This model set up the key of long-term strategies for companies making the transition to
sustainability, based on three important dimensions of sustainable development: environmental quality,
social equity, and economic benefits (Elkington, 1998).
The most commonly accepted model to describe sustainability and the TBL is the nested spheres
model, also called the Venn diagram explanation (Figure 1). Sustainability can be illustrated as the
place where the three dimensions overlap. However, one of the limitations of this approach is that it
does not show levels of hierarchy between the three dimensions. Consequently, Getzner (1999, p.170)
named it “weak approach” to sustainability and suggested instead a “strong approach” to it, portraying
a wider environmental system where both the economic and the social domain, as subsystems, have

30
 International Journal of Strategic Engineering
Volume 2 • Issue 1 • January-June 2019

Figure 1. The nested spheres model (Sandhu et al., 2014, p. 5)

a limit (Figure 2). This model also called also called the Russian doll model, has been seen by many
scholars as a stronger sustainability model (Chapman & Eames, 2007; Hosseinian-Far & Jahankhani,
2015). In similar vein, Lawson and Beckmann (2010, p.179) advocate that this model highlights
that “whatever is conducted in a business system must be compatible with the wider social and
environmental systems”.

Economic Dimension
The economic dimension of TBL – Profit – focuses on the value created by the organisation and
goes beyond its financial performance and financial concepts as sales growth, cash-flow, shareholder
value, etc. to include the economic and operational business impact on the society (Chabowski et
al., 2011). Further, it focuses on the organisation’s performance through the efficient management
of its strategic capabilities such as core competencies (Prahalad & Hamel, 1999), shareholder value
creation (Doyle, 2000), and marketing orientation (Akroush, 2012). According to Choi and Ng (2011),
consumers became more concerned with economic sustainability since the economic downturn in
2008 as it jeopardizes financial stability and, consequently, employment.

Social Dimension
The social dimension – People – encompass the impact of an organisation on the people’s welfare,
including both employees and community, and addressing issues like education assistance, community

Figure 2. The overlapping spheres model (Sandhu et al., 2014, p.7)

31
International Journal of Strategic Engineering
Volume 2 • Issue 1 • January-June 2019

interaction, charitable causes, and fair fare practices (Engardio, 2007). A prevailing topic in this
dimension is the increase in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives which has been receiving
considerable focus not only on research but also on corporate strategies and operations (Hallstedt,
Ny, Robèrt, & Broman, 2010).
A growing body of research suggests positive relationships between CSR behaviour and
consumers’ attitudes toward organisations (Lichtenstein, Drumwright, & Braig, 2004; Baghi,
Rubaltelli, & Tedeschi, 2009; Choi & Ng, 2011). Therefore, in their comprehensive study on CSR,
Luo and Bhattacharya (2006, p.15) stress that “companies should realize that CSR initiatives can
represent a robust public relations strategy, particularly in the current market environment”.

Environmental Dimension
The environmental dimension – Planet – relates to the organisation´s attempts to minimize
environmental impact as well as their use of energy and waste production, in order to reduce their
ecological footprint. Some evidence that the greening of the marketplace is becoming mainstream is
the proliferation of green products, eco-labelling, and ISO 14001 certification.
Porritt (2007) and Bansal (2005) argue that the environmental dimension of the TBL is the
most important, while the economic and social are secondary because everything else depends on
the Earth’s resources, limits and systems. In fact, the environmental dimension has received most
focus by scholars’ research than the social and economic ones (Seuring & Müller, 2008; James et al.,
2015). Interestingly Sheth, Sethia, and Srinivas (2011) claim for a reshape of this dimension with
reference to consumers, redefining it as the impact of the environmental change on human health
and well-being resultant from consumption.

Other Sustainability Dimensions

Besides, additional dimensions to sustainability models have been suggested. For instance,
Dahl (2012) posits that the TBL should be complemented by an institutional, cultural or ethical
dimension. Similarly, (Burford et al., 2013) conceptualize a fourth pillar of sustainability
consisting of human values, ethics and worldviews. A technological dimension has been proposed
by a growing number of scholars (Fiksel, 2003; Hosseinian-Far, Pimenidis, Jahankhani, &
Wijeyesekera, 2010; Farsi et al., 2017).

IMPLEMENTATION

From the previous discussion, it can be seen that the TBL of Planet, People and Profit has been regarded
as a basis for a competitive position in the marketplace. Consequently, integrating sustainability in
companies’ operations and marketing strategies is paramount to their success (Gimenez et al., 2012;
Foerstl et al., 2015). Still, the challenge for organisations is to find the perfect balance between these
three pillars in implementing business strategies (Mota, Gomes, Carvalho, & Barbosa-Povoa, 2015).
Willard´s (2005) comprehensive study in sustainability suggests reliable evidence that quantifies
the value of a company fully addressing the TBL agenda into its ‘corporate DNA’. The author identifies
five stages of company’s sustainability integration: (1) Pre-Compliance, (2) Compliance, (3) Beyond
Compliance, (4) Integrated Strategy, (5) Purpose and Passion. Willard (2005) posits that very few
companies have achieved the Integrated Strategy stage. Instead, though, many of them are on the
Beyond Compliance stage, cutting costs through higher resource efficiencies and waste reduction,
leading then to financial gains (Hallstedt et al., 2010). Apart from the value of physical assets displayed
on a corporate balance sheet, named by Willard, (2005) as ‘hard stuff’, he argues that ‘soft stuff’, e.g.
image, brand and reputation, can be powerful indicators of future organisation´s performance as well
as easily affected by stakeholder´s perceptions or other sustainability issues. Later, Willard (2012)
demonstrates that a sustainable behaviour can contribute to a company profits by increasing revenue

32
 International Journal of Strategic Engineering
Volume 2 • Issue 1 • January-June 2019

and employee productivity; reduce energy, water, waste and materials expenses; reduce turn-over,
and decrease strategic and operational risks.
More recently, the thorough studies on CSR of Luo and Bhattacharya (2006, 2009) suggest that
a companies’ sustainable behaviour leads to less volatility of their stock prices and positive financial
returns through increased market value and customer satisfaction. By contrast, a lack of sustainability
reputation may expose the company to a high operational risk (Murray, 2013). In the same vein, Choi
and Ng (2011) demonstrated that customers react negatively to poor company sustainability, still,
they value an organization that shares their concern for social causes.

MEASURING SUSTAINABILITY

From an accountability perspective what is not measurable is not manageable (Charter & Tischner,
2017, p.281). Therefore, something must be done to quantify the intangible sustainability assets to
make clear to the organisations how their TBL strategies incorporate their performance and business
value. Interestingly, despite the growing knowledge of how to integrate sustainability into business, it
remains a challenge for many organizations given the lack of how sustainability performance can be
measured. Nevertheless, research has strengthened the idea that companies are increasingly adhering
to a TBL performance evaluation (Leonidou et al., 2013; Svensson & Wagner, 2015).
For this purpose, many indexes and frameworks have been developed in order to measure private
and public organisations’ sustainability performance (Traverso et al., 2010; Babcicky, 2013; Adams
et al., 2014; Mamede & Gomes, 2014; RobecoSAM, 2016; Nyberg, 2017). Also, a growing number
of evaluative rankings and related Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). on sustainability have arisen
(Van de Kerk & Manuel, 2008; Blauvelt, 2014; Ortas et al., 2014). Examples of these are the Dow
Jones Sustainability Stoxx Index (Consolandi et al., 2009), the Global Reporting Initiative index
(Adams et al., 2014) and the EDIE’s Sustainability Leaders Awards (EDIE, 2017).
For instance, Singh, Murty, Gupta, and Dikshit (2009) list twelve types of sustainability indices
such as Eco-system-based Indices (e.g. Ecological Footprint); Investment, Ratings and Asset
Management Indices (e.g. Dow Jones sustainability group indices, FTSE Good Index); Product-based
Sustainability Index (e.g. Life Cycle Index); and Social and Quality of Life-based Indices. Also, the
ISO 14000 series is a standard process for considering the environmental dimension of management
of a product or service widely adopted by companies worldwide (ISO, 2018). Indeed, over the last
years, many companies are accessing sustainability and reporting environmental, social corporate
governance initiatives and KPIs.
Furthermore, recent research has highlighted the importance of developing a strong and integrated
framework for sustainability assessment. For example, Farsi and colleagues (2017) argue that
Integrated Sustainability Assessment (ISA) can be developed to define and evaluate the relationships
between the three TBL dimensions in order to optimize the interactive outcomes while considering
its constraints. The authors define sustainability assessment as “a process to identify and evaluate the
effects of possible initiatives on sustainability” to provide thorough information to the organisations
‘decision process towards sustainability (Farsi et al., 2017, p. 3). For this purpose, the authors purpose
a mathematical and computational integrative method within sustainability assessment, focused on
solving the nonlinear dynamical behaviour of complex systems.

CONCLUSION

The TBL of People, Planet and Profit became an influential approach to organisations´ performance and
reputation (James et al., 2015). Accordingly, nowadays, the competitive advantage of an organization
is strongly based on new or innovative green products and socially responsible strategies (Luo &
Bhattacharya, 2006; Maniatis, 2016). Consumers favour sustainability and there is an interaction
effect between corporate sustainability and consumer support for sustainability (Choi & Ng, 2011).

33
International Journal of Strategic Engineering
Volume 2 • Issue 1 • January-June 2019

However, despite the pursuit for sustainability, it remains difficult for many organizations how
to implement sustainably on their corporate strategy (Lueneburger & Goleman, 2010). One main
reason for this is due to the difficulty in the measure the results of the sustainability strategies. Still, a
wide range of indexes and models for sustainability assessment have been developed (Hosseinian-Far
& Jahankhani, 2015; RobecoSAM, 2016). Nonetheless, as assessment alone has been found having
little impact on the TBL, sustainable operations management are essential for companies to achieve
sustainability (Gimenez et al., 2012).
In conclusion, despite a large room for enhancement on sustainability implementation and
assessment, it could be argued that “Sustainability is no longer an option but an imperative. Rather
than a burden, it is the beta of future growth.” (Parry, 2018).

34
 International Journal of Strategic Engineering
Volume 2 • Issue 1 • January-June 2019

REFERENCES

Adams, , C., Muir, S., & Hoque, Z. (2014). Measurement of sustainability performance in the public sector.
Sustainability Accounting. Management and Policy Journal, 5(1), 46–67. doi:10.1108/SAMPJ-04-2012-0018
Akroush, M. N. (2012). An empirical model of marketing strategy and shareholder value. Competitiveness
Review, 22(1), 48–89. doi:10.1108/10595421211200179
Babcicky, P. (2013). Rethinking the foundations of sustainability measurement: The limitations of the
environmental sustainability index (ESI). Social Indicators Research, 113(1), 133–157. doi:10.1007/s11205-
012-0086-9
Baghi, I., Rubaltelli, E., & Tedeschi, M. (2009). A strategy to communicate corporate social responsibility:
Cause related marketing and its dark side. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
16(1), 15–26. doi:10.1002/csr.174
Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic
Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218. doi:10.1002/smj.441
Blauvelt, R. P. (2014). Systematizing Environmental Indicators and Indices. Journal of Environment and Ecology,
5(1), 15. doi:10.5296/jee.v5i1.4864
Borland, H., & Lindgreen, A. (2013). Sustainability, epistemology, ecocentric business, and marketing strategy:
Ideology, reality, and vision. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 173–187. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1519-8
Borowy, I. (2013). Defining Sustainable Development for Our Common Future : A History of the World
Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission). Defining Sustainable Development
for Our Common Future. Hoboken. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. doi:10.4324/9780203383797
Bradford, R. (2007). Greenwash Confronted: Misleading Advertisement Regulation in the EU and its Member
States. Friends of the Earth Europe.
Burford, G., Hoover, E., Velasco, I., Janoušková, S., Jimenez, A., Piggot, G., & Harder, M. K. et al. (2013).
Bringing the “missing pillar” into sustainable development goals: Towards intersubjective values-based indicators.
Sustainability, 5(7), 3035–3059. doi:10.3390/su5073035
Chabowski, B., Mena, J., & Gonzalez-Padron, T. (2011). The structure of sustainability research in marketing,
1958–2008: A basis for future research opportunities. Official Publication of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 39(1), 55–70. doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0212-7
Chapman, D. & Eames, C. (2007). Position paper: Backgrounding new guidelines for EE/EfS.
Charter, M., Peattie, K., Ottman, J., & Polonsky, M. J. (2002). Marketing and sustainability.
Charter, M., & Tischner, U. (2017). Sustainable solutions: developing products and services for the future.
Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781351282482
Choi, S., & Ng, A. (2011). Environmental and Economic Dimensions of Sustainability and Price Effects on
Consumer Responses. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), 269–282. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0908-8
Climate Action Tracker. (2015). Paris Agreement: near-term actions do not match long term purpose - but stage
is set to ramp up climate action. Retrieved from https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/paris-agreement-
near-term-actions-do-not-match-long-term-purpose-stage-set-ramp-climate-action/
Cohen, N., & Robbins, P. (2011). Green Cities: An A-to-Z Guide. doi:10.4135/9781412973816
Consolandi, C., Jaiswal-Dale, A., Poggiani, E., & Vercelli, A. (2009). Global Standards and Ethical Stock
Indexes: The Case of the Dow Jones Sustainability Stoxx Index. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 185–197.
doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9793-1
Cronin, J., Smith, J., Gleim, M., Ramirez, E., & Martinez, J. (2011). Green marketing strategies: An examination
of stakeholders and the opportunities they present. Official Publication of the Academy of Marketing Science,
39(1), 158–174. doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0227-0

35
International Journal of Strategic Engineering
Volume 2 • Issue 1 • January-June 2019

Dahl, A. L. (2012). Achievements and gaps in indicators for sustainability. Ecological Indicators, 17, 14–19.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.032
Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2008). Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black
box. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10), 1027–1055. doi:10.1002/smj.701
Doyle, P. (2000). Value-based marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 8(4), 299–311.
doi:10.1080/096525400446203
EDIE. (2017). Sustainability Leaders Awards 2017: meet the winners! Retrieved from https://www.edie.net/
downloads/Meet-the-2017-Sustainability-Leaders-Awards-winners-/201
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks : the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone.
Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st‐century business.
Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37–51. doi:10.1002/tqem.3310080106
Engardio, P., Capell, K., Carey, J., & Hall, K. (2007). Beyond the green corporation: Imagine a world in which
eco-friendly and socially responsible practices actually help a company’s bottom line. It’s closer than you think.
Business Week, 4019, 50.
Farsi, M., Hosseinian-Far, A., Daneshkhah, A., & Sedighi, T. (2017). Mathematical and Computational
Modelling Frameworks for Integrated Sustainability Assessment (ISA) BT - Strategic Engineering for Cloud
Computing and Big Data Analytics. In A. Hosseinian-Far, M. Ramachandran, & D. Sarwar (Eds.), Strategic
Engineering for Cloud Computing and Big Data Analytics (pp. 3–27). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52491-7_1
Fiksel, J. (2003). Designing resilient, sustainable systems. Environmental Science & Technology, 37(23),
5330–5339. doi:10.1021/es0344819 PMID:14700317
Foerstl, K., Azadegan, A., Leppelt, T., & Hartmann, E. (2015). Drivers of Supplier Sustainability: Moving Beyond
Compliance to Commitment. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(1), 67–92. doi:10.1111/jscm.12067
Getzner, M. (1999). Weak and strong sustainability indicators and regional environmental resources.
Environmental Management and Health, 10(3), 170–177. doi:10.1108/09566169910275022
Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., & Rodon, J. (2012). Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple bottom line.
International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 149–159. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.035
Hallstedt, S., Ny, H., Robèrt, K.-H., & Broman, G. (2010). An approach to assessing sustainability integration in
strategic decision systems for product development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(8), 703–712. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2009.12.017
Harlem, B. G. (1987). Our common future. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development.
Rio de Janeiro: WCED.
Harvey, F. (2015). NoEverything you need to know about the Paris climate summit and UN talks. The Guardian.
Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/02/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-
paris-climate-summit-and-un-talks
Hosseinian-Far, A., & Jahankhani, H. (2015a). Quantitative and Systemic Methods for Modeling Sustainability.
In M. Dastbaz, C. Pattinson, & B. B. T.-G. I. T. Akhgar (Eds.), Green Information Technology (pp. 83–92).
Boston, MA: Morgan Kaufmann;
Hosseinian-Far, A., & Jahankhani, H. (2015b). Quantitative and systemic methods for modeling sustainability.
In Green Information Technology (pp. 83–92). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-801379-3.00005-X
Hosseinian-Far, A., Pimenidis, E., Jahankhani, H., & Wijeyesekera, D. C. (2010). A review on sustainability
models. In International Conference on Global Security, Safety, and Sustainability (pp. 216–222). Springer.
Hult, G. (2011). Market-focused sustainability: Market orientation plus! Official Publication of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 39(1), 1–6. doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0223-4
ISO. (2018). ISO 14000 family - Environmental management. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/iso-14001-
environmental-management.html

36
 International Journal of Strategic Engineering
Volume 2 • Issue 1 • January-June 2019

James, B., Katie, G., Jitendra, M., & Bharat, M. (2015). “The Big Idea” The Sustainable Economy and the TBL
(triple bottom line). Advances in Management, 8(1), 1–8.
Kassinis, G., & Vafeas, N. (2006). Stakeholder pressures and environmental performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 49(1), 145–159. doi:10.5465/amj.2006.20785799
Laheri, V. K., Dangi, H., & Vohra, A. (2014). Green marketing: Development of construct and its evolution.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 10(2), 147–155. doi:10.1177/2319510X14536220
Lawson, R., & Beckmann, S. (2010). Contemporary perspectives on sustainability and marketing in a financially
challenged environment – Editorial comment. Australasian Marketing Journal, 18(3), 179–180. doi:10.1016/j.
ausmj.2010.06.001
Leonidou, C., Katsikeas, C., & Morgan, N. (2013). “Greening” the marketing mix: Do firms do it and does it pay
off? Official Publication of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 151–170. doi:10.1007/s11747-012-0317-2
Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility
on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 16–32. doi:10.1509/
jmkg.68.4.16.42726
Lueneburger, C., & Goleman, D. (2010). The change leadership sustainability demands. (Report). MIT Sloan
Management Review, 51(4), 49.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market
Value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18. doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.4.1
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2009). The debate over doing good: Corporate social performance, strategic
marketing levers, and firm-idiosyncratic risk. (Report). Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 198–213. doi:10.1509/
jmkg.73.6.198
Mamede, P., & Gomes, C. F. (2014). Corporate sustainability measurement in service organizations: A case
study from Portugal. Environmental Quality Management, 23(3), 49–73. doi:10.1002/tqem.21370
Maniatis, P. (2016). Investigating factors influencing consumer decision-making while choosing green products.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 132, 215–228. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.067
Mota, B., Gomes, M. I., Carvalho, A., & Barbosa-Povoa, A. P. (2015). Towards supply chain sustainability:
Economic, environmental and social design and planning. Journal of Cleaner Production, 105, 14–27.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.052
Murray, S. (2013). Reporting systems vital for reputation. Financial Times. Retrieved from http://www.ft.com/
cms/s/0/0fb8ddec-3724-11e3-9603-00144feab7de.html#axzz43opYBz9q
Nyberg, L. (2017). Do Investors Value Corporate Sustainability and What Firm Characteristics Determine the
Reaction? Evidence from Europe.
Ortas, E., Moneva, J., Burritt, R., & Tingey-Holyoak, J. (2014). Does Sustainability Investment Provide Adaptive
Resilience to Ethical Investors? Evidence from Spain. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), 297–309. doi:10.1007/
s10551-013-1873-1
Parry, A. (2018). Sustainability is no longer an option but an imperative. Financial Times. Retrieved from https://
www.ft.com/content/d5c571e4-47c3-11e8-8ee8-cae73aab7ccb
Porritt, J. (2007). Jonathon Porritt on sustainability. Director, 61(3), 94.
Porritt, J. (2013). Sustainability for All: Jonathon Porritt at TEDxExeter [YouTube video]. Retrieved from https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=39bPjnFBt-o
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1999). The core competence of the corporation. In Knowledge and strategy (pp.
41–59). Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-7506-7088-3.50006-1
RobecoSAM (2016). CSA Guide - Corporate Sustainability Assessment Methodology. Sustainability-Indices.
Retrieved from http://www.sustainability-indices.com/images/corporate-sustainability-assessment-methodology-
guidebook.pdf

37
International Journal of Strategic Engineering
Volume 2 • Issue 1 • January-June 2019

Sandhu, S., McKenzie, S., & Harris, H. (2014). Linking Local and Global Sustainability (Vol. 4). Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9008-6
Santillo, D. (2007). Reclaiming the Definition of Sustainability (7 pp). Environmental Science and Pollution
Research International, 14(1), 60–66. doi:10.1065/espr2007.01.375 PMID:17352129
Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply
chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699–1710. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020
Sheth, J. N., Sethia, N. K., & Srinivas, S. (2011). Mindful consumption: A customer-centric approach to
sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 21–39. doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0216-3
Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., & Dikshit, A. K. (2009). An overview of sustainability assessment
methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 9(2), 189–212. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.05.011
Svensson, G., & Wagner, B. (2015). Implementing and managing economic, social and environmental efforts of
business sustainability. Management of Environmental Quality, 26(2), 195–213. doi:10.1108/MEQ-09-2013-0099
Swar, B. (2013). Green Marketing-Demonstrating a Strong Commitment to the Environment. TSM Business
Review, 1(1), 27–35.
Tiwari, S., Tripathi, D. M., Srivastava, U., & Yadav, P. K. (2011). Green marketing-emerging dimensions.
Journal of Business Excellence, 2(1), 18.
Traverso, M., Finkbeiner, M., Lehmann, A., & Schau, E. M. (2010). Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment.
Sustainability, 2(10), 3309–3322. doi:10.3390/su2103309
United Nations. (1972). Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. Stockholm.
Retrieved from http://www.un-documents.net/aconf48-14r1.pdf
United Nations. (2017). World population to hit 9.8 billion by 2050, despite nearly universal lower fertility rates.
Van de Kerk, G., & Manuel, A. R. (2008). A comprehensive index for a sustainable society: The SSI — the
Sustainable Society Index. Ecological Economics, 66(2), 228–242. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.029
Varey, R. J. (2011). A sustainable society logic for marketing. Social Business, 1(1), 69–83.
doi:10.1362/204440811X570563
Willard, B. (2005). The next sustainability wave: building boardroom buy-in (conscientious commerce). Gabriola
Island, Canada: New Society Publishers.
Willard, B. (2012). The new sustainability advantage: seven business case benefits of a triple bottom line. New
Society Publishers.
Yang, S., Song, Y., & Tong, S. (2017). Sustainable Retailing in the Fashion Industry: A Systematic Literature
Review. Sustainability, 9(7), 1266. doi:10.3390/su9071266
Yu, W., Ramanathan, R., & Nath, P. (2017). Environmental pressures and performance: An analysis of the
roles of environmental innovation strategy and marketing capability. Technological Forecasting andamp. Social
Change, 117, 160–169. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.005

The author has an undergraduate degree in Management and Marketing from the University of Algarve, Portugal,
and a masters on Business Administration from the University of Northampton, UK. Her research interest is
Sustainability Marketing

38
View publication stats