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

net/publication/254188201

Introduction to the special issue: Integrating sustainability in

business models

Article in Journal of Management Development · October 2011

DOI: 10.1108/02621711111182466

CITATIONS READS
65 1,352

6 authors, including:

Jorge A. Arevalo Itziar Castelló

William Paterson University University of Surrey
35 PUBLICATIONS 706 CITATIONS 26 PUBLICATIONS 946 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Simone De Colle Kerstin Neumann

IESEG School of Management, Paris University of Innsbruck
29 PUBLICATIONS 4,828 CITATIONS 17 PUBLICATIONS 432 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kerstin Neumann on 25 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm

GUEST EDITORIAL Introduction to

the special issue
Introduction to the special issue:
integrating sustainability in
business models 941
Jorge A. Arevalo
William Paterson University, Wayne, New Jersey, USA
Itziar Castelló
Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark
Simone de Colle
Institute of Ethics, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
Gilbert Lenssen
EABIS, Brussels, Belgium
Kerstin Neumann
Institute for Strategy and Management Control,
WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria, and
Maurizio Zollo
Center for Research in Organization and Management (CROMA),
Bocconi University, Milan, Italy
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce this special issue, conceptualized and realized by
a group of scholars engaged in the Global Organizational Learning and Development Network
(GOLDEN) for Sustainability programme. It aims to adopt the overarching research question of the
GOLDEN research programme “How do firms learn to integrate and manage sustainability in their
business models, including their organizational purpose, strategy, processes, systems and culture?” as
the guiding principle for case selection.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper first presents the key ideas underpinning the
previous research question and illustrates the research approach and agenda of GOLDEN for
Sustainability. Second, it introduces the eight case studies presented in this special issue.
Findings – The cases offer good illustrations of the ongoing transition by both medium-sized and
multinational corporations dealing with learning and change challenges posed by the identification
and management of sustainability issues. The selected cases represent firms operating in diverse
contexts and industries, and are developed by scholars specializing in various fields connected to
corporate responsibility and sustainability.
Originality/value – The paper presents cases of organizations that have made sense of the
sustainability challenge and also the different approaches taken to tackle the challenge, and the results
stemming from their efforts..
Keywords Sustainable development, Business development, Modelling, Learning organizations
Paper type Literature review
Journal of Management Development
Vol. 30 No. 10, 2011
The authors would like to thank especially CROMA Bocconi, EABIS – The Academy of pp. 941-954
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Business in Society, Microsoft and WU Vienna University of Economics and Business for their 0262-1711
support to the GOLDEN for Sustainability project and this publication. DOI 10.1108/02621711111182466
JMD The simultaneous pursuit of economic, environmental and social sustainability is
30,10 rapidly becoming a strategic priority for enterprises across sectors and geographical
regions. However, even the companies that have invested significant resources and
efforts in the integration of sustainability issues into their business models find it
increasingly difficult to manage the learning and change processes necessary to tackle
the challenge. At the same time, we are struggling, as management scholars, to develop
942 conceptual frames and empirical evidence on these particularly complex evolutionary
processes.
Despite the significant (and increasing) amount of work on the learning and change
challenges connected to embedding sustainability in business firms, the internal and the
external dynamics that influence the ability of firms to change themselves towards
sustainability are still largely unclear. We also have little understanding of the dynamics
of system change that is needed if firms are to meet the sustainability challenges.
Moreover, the need for empirical foundations for a stakeholder-based view of the firm
has been voiced by several authors in the CSR/sustainable development field (Harrison
and Freeman, 1999; Palazzo and Richter, 2005; Freeman et al., 2010), as well as by
emerging initiatives like Corporation 2020 (www.corporation2020.org). As Barnett and
Carroll (1995) have suggested, identifying the factors that influence firms’ ability to affect
core strategic or structural change consequent to stakeholder expectations is a key step
for any progress in the future of CSR and sustainability research.
This special issue of the Journal of Management Development has been
conceptualized and realized by a group of scholars engaged in the Global
Organizational Learning and Development Network (GOLDEN) for Sustainability
program – a multi-stakeholder initiative aimed at studying and supporting
organizational learning and change towards sustainable business models. The
overarching research question of the GOLDEN research program has been adopted by
the editors of this special issue as the guiding principle for case selection. In its original
formulation (GOLDEN, 2011, p. 4), the research question is the following:
How do firms learn to integrate and manage sustainability in their business models, including
their organizational purpose, strategy, processes, systems and culture?
In this introductory article we would like to, first of all, present the key ideas
underpinning the previous research question and illustrate the research approach and
agenda of GOLDEN for Sustainability. Second, we would like to introduce the eight
case studies presented in this special issue. The cases offer good illustrations of the
ongoing transition by both medium sized and multinational corporations dealing with
learning and change challenges posed by the identification and management of
sustainability issues. The selected cases represent firms operating in diverse contexts
and industries (with a geographic spread including the UK, Italy, Spain, Norway, the
Democratic Republic of Congo, Sri Lanka and Thailand) and are developed by scholars
specialized in various fields connected to corporate responsibility and sustainability.
The reader of these cases will not only learn how each organization has – implicitly
or explicitly – made sense of the sustainability challenge; she will also learn about the
different approaches taken to tackle the challenge, and the results stemming from their
efforts.
This editorial introduction is structured as follows: In the next section, we offer a
brief introduction to GOLDEN for Sustainability[1], and present the criteria for the case
studies selection. In the following section, each of the eight case studies is introduced, Introduction to
building an initial conversation around the key themes at the core of this special edition the special issue
and pointing out some of the issues and key lessons that characterize each case. This
section puts into perspective how the case narratives have attempted to investigate the
different dimensions related to the necessary organizational change towards
sustainability. Finally, in section three we reflect on the cases by developing six
tensions emerging from the case analysis and present some suggestions for further 943
research.

1. The GOLDEN Research Program: understanding (and supporting)

dynamic capabilities for sustainability
GOLDEN for Sustainability is a pioneering, multi-stakeholder research initiative
designed to address some of the key unanswered (and, in some cases, unasked)
questions related to the organizational change and learning challenges that firms face
as they identify, make sense and manage sustainability issues and rapidly evolving
stakeholder expectations on corporate behavior. Its ambition is both to radically
advance our understanding of the factors enabling the evolution towards
sustainability, and to support the firms in this transition, through their own
participation in the research program and their interaction with the scholars and other
practitioners involved.
In studying the multi-dimensional processes of organizational learning and change
towards sustainability, GOLDEN wants to focus on five specific elements that
constitute the firm’s identity – namely, the purpose and history of the firm, its strategic
decision-making process and content, its structure and governance systems, the firm’s
processes, resources and capabilities, and its cultural elements (shared values,
emotional traits, motivations, beliefs, etc.).
To study these dimensions, the program will focus on the key functional aspects
that characterize the activities of the firm, both line functions (supply-chain and
operations, R&D, sales, etc.) and staff functions (strategic business development,
human resources management, financial control, communication, etc.), thus moving
beyond the specialized function(s) often created to deal with sustainability and
Corporate Social Responsibility issues.
More specifically, the potential contribution of the program could be summarized
along the following three areas of inquiry:
(1) The evolutionary processes that characterize the life cycle of internal change
initiatives. We intend to map the processes, as well as the enabling and the
inhibiting factors underlying:
.
the generation of the new idea to change an organizational process, structure
or cultural trait (“generative variations” in evolutionary language);
.
the selection of the change ideas through more or less formal evaluation and
political engagement processes;
.
the diffusion and replication of the selected ideas via knowledge sharing and
transfer processes;
. the retention of the diffused ideas, aimed at facilitating the integration of the
novel process, trait or concept within the ongoing organizational practices
and routines; and
JMD .
the assessment and evaluation of the results from the retention of novel ideas
30,10 will then prime a new round of the cycle by providing an internal stimulus
which, coupled with external ones, will generate new reflections, insights,
ideas and proposed initiatives.
This cyclical process describes how organizational practices evolve through a series of
variation, selection, replication and retention processes, shaping the adaptation of
944 organizational routines to environmental opportunities and threats (Zollo and Winter,
2002). The ability of firms to manage this evolutionary cycle in a reliable and deliberate
way is termed “dynamic capability” in the strategic management literature (Teece et al.,
1997; Zollo and Winter, 2002; Helfat et al., 2007). One of the key conceptual
contributions of the proposed program, therefore, consists of the development and
testing of new theory and managerial wisdom about the development of new types of
dynamic capabilities aimed at the adaptation of strategies, processes and culture to
meet sustainability requirements. We call this new concept “dynamic capabilities for
sustainability” (GOLDEN, 2011, p. 5) and propose to place it at the center of the
conceptual development as well as of the data collection and analytical exercise. The
overall objective of the proposed research program can be therefore rephrased as
follows:
GOLDEN aims to study how organizations develop dynamic capabilities for sustainability,
and, in the process, it aims to support the managerial efforts to develop them.
(2) The interdependence and the interactions between managers and stakeholders in
the firm. The key departure from the standard way of analyzing “stakeholder
engagement” in prior research consists in viewing the role of stakeholders as
primary (potential) facilitators of internal change processes aimed at
sustainability, rather than solely as counterparts of externally oriented social
development initiatives. The distinction is essential to characterize with
sufficient precision the evolutionary process that underlies the transformation
and adaptation of firms. To the extent that stakeholders are engaged in driving
internal change, rather than external social development initiatives, their
impact on the effectiveness of each of the phases of the evolutionary process
described previously can be determinant. One important contribution of
GOLDEN consists therefore in the opening of the current model of how
organizations learn and evolve (and learn to evolve) to include the role of
stakeholders as both potentially inhibiting as well as potentially enabling
factors. The result will be a model of organizational co-evolution and
co-learning which links the company’s managers with its diverse type of
stakeholders, a potentially important breakthrough in our current
conceptualization of the challenges faced by managers and the processes
through which they can be met.
(3) The relative effectiveness of different approaches to implement change initiative.
At a finer level of detail, GOLDEN intends to tackle the problem of identifying
the most effective ways to enact specific change initiatives, given contextual,
organizational and individual/group level conditions. For example, consider the
objective to integrate principles of responsibility and sustainability in the
procurement function of a firm. The number of ways in which this general goal
can be approached is potentially very large, especially if the network of
 suppliers is engaged and consensus solutions, as well as coordinated Introduction to
implementation processes, are being sought. How should the firm select the the special issue
most appropriate course of action? And how does “the most appropriate” course
of action vary depending on the idiosyncratic characteristics of the firm, of its
stakeholders, of the industry and institutional environment in which it is
immersed?
945
The call for case studies and the criteria for case selection
The Call for Case Studies was framed around the overarching research question
mentioned previously, and detailed a number of specific sub-questions that were
expected to be addressed in the submitted cases. Authors of the most insightful cases
were invited to present and discuss their work in an international workshop hosted at
Bocconi University in Milan on January 7-8, 2011. The cases reflecting the best
examples of sustainability integration were then selected for this special issue of the
Journal for Management Development.
Particular emphasis has been placed on studies of established companies that have
undergone significant internal change in their mission, practices, strategies and
cultural traits. Our aim was to identify cases that analyze innovative, path-breaking
examples of corporations that have been able to transform the way that they “see”
themselves, strategize and operate to move towards their own ideal model of
sustainability.
No restrictions were placed on the sector and geography of the case study company,
nor on its length and the degree of novelty (cases already in use were acceptable).
Similarly, there was no restriction on the type of research methodology and conceptual
lenses applied, so long as the content of the case addresses all dimensions of the
previous research question and the potential “answers” described in the following.
Submissions were analyzed and selected on the basis of three key criteria:
(1) Addressing the research question in its entirety through a set of dimensions,
including:
.
purpose and history; the sense of purpose of the business, what it stands for,
and whether/how that drives strategic decisions embedded in a context and
sense of history;
.
sensing and strategic decision-making; the ability of managers to
understand sustainability issues and diverse stakeholder interests and the
degree to which sustainability issues and stakeholder interests are reflected
in the strategy-making process;
.
governance and organizational structure; the degree to which the firm has
put in place and developed structures and processes connected specifically to
the management of social and environmental sustainability within its
operations;
.
processes, resources and capabilities: the factors that distinguish the firm in
its ability to successfully introduce, diffuse and retain practices for
competitive advantage; and
.
cultural and systemic challenges inherent to the nature of sustainability
issues such as climate change, pandemics or water scarcities.
JMD (2) Demonstrating in-depth, comprehensive, analysis of the firm that underwent the
30,10 transformation along the chosen dimension(s) of analysis. For example, the case
could address how the change influenced and was implemented across all the
key functional areas in the firm. Alternatively (or in addition) it could evaluate
how it was conducted vis-à-vis the most relevant classes of stakeholders.
(3) Promoting openness and collaboration. Special consideration was given to cases
946 where scholars:
.
adopt(ed) an engaged scholarship (Van de Ven, 2007) approach, involving
scholars and practitioners in the longitudinal and joint assessment of facts
and the development of insights;
.
seek/sought opportunities for collaboration with other research centers,
e.g. to achieve broader international coverage of the case company;
.
are/have been granted deep and broad access, so that the relevant internal
processes and the impacts of the company’s sustainability-related initiatives
could be objectively observed and reported; and
.
describe in un-ambiguous and candid terms the objectives of the project that
led to the development of the case (including eventual pedagogical
purposes), the conceptual lenses adopted in the design of the study, the
methodology applied in the execution, the potential contributions and
insights from the analysis of the data and the limitations of the approach.

2. The case conversations

This special issue consists of eight cases, sequenced in a way to lead the reader
through an interesting set of conversations that reflect some of the different
approaches to sustainability integration. Of course, these conversations are neither
mutually exclusive nor exhaustive and, while we consider each of these cases in
relation to a dimension (or set of dimensions) previously described in this special issue
introduction, we acknowledge that they might easily be associated with other
themes/dimensions as may be conceived by the readers.
Mària and Devuyst examine the challenges of prioritizing stakeholder interests in
SGM, a mining company in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The context in which
the company operates is fraught with strong social tensions, which cause corporations
to be often strongly de-legitimized by citizens. In their reflections, the authors focus on
how SGM managers deal with the cultural evolution processes related to moving from
a paternalistic, almost philanthropic, approach to a more integrative and holistic
understanding of sustainability. The case clarifies also the future steps required to
complete the process, and in particular the need to develop new forms of dialogue
among a variety of stakeholders.
Likewise, Hunter and Van Wassenhove present the dilemma of one multinational
corporation, Hayleys PLC, dealing with the alignment of its business strategy with the
sustainability challenges stemming from their operations in Sri Lanka. Their departing
question – how transparency and sustainability practices create value to the company
– leads them to address issues such as company-supplier relations and the creation of
ethical markets through some innovative initiatives aiming at the enhancement of
employee empowerment.
 The Deutsche Post DHL case provides fresh insights on the integration of CSR and Introduction to
sustainability activities from an Asian-Pacific subsidiary perspective. Ferguson the special issue
focuses the attention on the development of local initiatives and potential solutions to
local sustainability issues that could potentially contribute towards the company’s
global strategic objectives. In the process of incorporating the global sustainability
strategy in Thailand, the author argues that some of the “local issues and
opportunities” have actually presented a new scope for decision making and 947
management accountability for the global organization. The key insight in this case
has to do with what the author calls a “loose fit tactic” of integrating bottom-up with
top down decision-making processes in the context of significant differences in the
socio-cultural context and consequently in business management models.
Next, Ragusa examines the evolution of the sustainability policies in the Autogrill
Group. Autogrill is the world’s largest retailer in travel related food services, based in
Italy. Ragusa reflects on the processes that shaped the evolution of sustainability
policies within the last ten years including the efforts to develop a system of key
indicators, its communication practices and the integration of sustainability in their
market strategy. As a key challenge, Autogrill’s management team has to deal with the
capacity development processes necessary to take into account the expectations and
interests of key stakeholders in the core business operations and delivery channels.
The case illustrates sustainability as a “gradual” learning process that involves all the
different elements of the business model. Ragusa puts emphasis on the operational
integration and routinization of sustainability through tools and systems based on the
total quality management approaches put in place by the company.
In the Marks & Spencer case, Grayson explores the concept of sustainability
leadership and its operationalization. Marks & Spencer aspires to be the world’s most
sustainable major global retailer by 2015. Grayson examines the strategy and business
practices identified by the company to achieve this goal, the so-called Plan A. Plan A
aims to integrate sustainability into every business function and strategic business unit
of the firm. It defines activities and measurable targets, timescales, accountabilities, and
involves suppliers, employees and customers in the process. Grayson analyzes the role of
knowledge-management and training investments in the implementation process, as
well as the importance of building partnerships and collaborations with stakeholders
including investors. Grayson reflects on how the sustainability team at Marks & Spencer
has evolved into an internal change-management consultancy and coach/catalyst for
continuous improvement and for developing new business capabilities. Finally, Grayson
analyzes sustainability leadership as a differentiation mechanism for strategic
positioning in a highly competitive market such as the British retail sector.
Sustainability for Marks & Spencer has become a differentiation strategy, which is
not only designed but also effectively driven by the top management team during the
implementation phase in a top-down approach.
Along similar lines, Arenas, Fosse and Murphy explore Acciona’s differentiation
strategy based on sustainability values. Acciona is one of the major global infrastructure
and energy groups in the Spanish and Latin American markets. Arenas et al. reflect on
the challenge of internal organizational transformation towards a sustainable enterprise
model. The case illustrates the difficulties that the new CEO has in helping his
management team make sense of the challenges posed by sustainability to their current
business model, and the consequent importance of undertaking a fundamental
JMD transformation process. At the same time, these authors analyze the interests of different
30,10 stakeholders, such as government agencies and NGOs, and their critical views of
Acciona’s transition towards a strategy based on sustainability goals in the new
“post-2008 crisis” political environment. Acciona’s new CEO faces not only external lack
of credibility but also internal skepticism towards the proposed new market positioning.
The key insight from this case illustrates the problems of developing new narratives in
948 companies that have not yet achieved market credibility for the new strategies and
related business activities. It also reflects on the importance of political and economical
context and how companies can suffer processes of backwards learning on sustainability
pressured by economic crisis and stakeholder influence.
The case of Sabaf, an Italian manufacturer of components for domestic gas cooking
appliances, illustrates the complexities of organizational learning, especially with
regard to the transformation of leadership values in the management team. The
authors argue that, whereas on the surface the change process Sabaf went through can
be regarded as a move from an implicit to a more explicit approach to corporate
responsibility, it is also possible to interpret it as an attempt to develop a more
“humanistic” management approach. The term “corporate responsibility” in Sabaf
became a way to describe much broader (and older) concepts of business that valued
people and the natural environment alongside economic performance concerns. Roome
and Louche reflect on the company’s learning trajectory as one characterized by
significant experimentation, together with more standard approaches. One of the key
insights from this case comes, thus, from the appreciation of the need for varied
learning approaches to tackle the challenge of going beyond the operating and
strategic elements of sustainability, and enabling the necessary collective
sense-making processes to transform the organizational culture. The good news is
that the case highlights the link between these learning and cultural change processes
with a significant enhancement of the economic performance of the firm.
Last, but clearly not least, Hoivik places emphasis on the importance of employee
understanding of sustainability for the internationalization in two Norwegian SMEs.
Hoivik studies the difficulties of understanding CSR as part of a strategic change
process, and in particular the importance of linking business goals with social and
environmental development goals. The case illustrates the role of participatory dialogue
as a process for involving employees in the assessment of their own company’s
relationship with major stakeholders. The learning and knowledge creation process
related to sustainability issues is linked in these cases to the implementation of the ISO
26000 standard. The key insight in this case revolves around the interdependence of the
“hard” and the “soft” learning and change processes for the success in integrating
sustainability within business models. One without the other would not suffice.

3. Learning from case studies and open questions for future research
What do we learn by taking an integrative perspective on the individual insights
drawn from the eight cases? The very first element that links all cases is the core role of
evolutionary change processes in the understanding and management of
sustainability. Even in cases were radical change is highlighted, such as Marks
& Spencer, the core problem in the analysis remained the unavoidably slow process of
collective sense-making, which generates the cognitive emotional identity-based
adaptations, which in turn produce the desired behavioral change. This is in line with
the direction of the recent academic debate on learning processes in sustainability Introduction to
contexts. For instance, this links to the idea that firm evolution contains a certain the special issue
number of cycles or stages of learning (Lenssen et al., 2009; Zadek, 2004), with constant,
yet complex, feedback loops between the actions of the organization and changes in the
environment (Berthoin-Antal et al., 2001). As van Marrewijk (2003), p. 612) argues, the
cases provide a “sense of evolution in which each level of CSR includes and transcends
the previous ones, and each orientation represents a higher level of complexity”. 949
However, evolutionary change is fraught with a number of tensions that we as
scholars are only partially cognizant about, and which managers need to both
understand and tackle through appropriate initiatives. Our analysis of the collective
wisdom embedded in the eight cases allowed us to identify the following tensions:
(1) Differentiation strategy vs collective action. All the cases reveal an explicit intention
by firms to leverage sustainability as a strategic tool for differentiation from
competitors, and consequent development of competitive advantage. However,
many of them also identify the need to develop a collaborative strategy within the
ecosystem in which the company is embedded, which includes competitors. These
two types of strategic intent are clearly at odds with each other: how can firms
build a differentiation advantage on sustainability while aligning with their
competitors the way they integrate it within their business models?
(2) Differentiation strategy vs introduction of sustainability standard. A similar
tension is present as one combines the strategic logic of leveraging
sustainability as differentiation advantage with the value perceived in the
introduction of sustainability standards (like ISO 26000, GRI, etc.) as tools for
learning and change in business models. Even if such introduction can be a
powerful way to initiate and sustain the internal dialogues and learning
processes necessary for sustainability integration, the consequence of all
players in an eco-system applying the same standards of sustainability will
weaken the possibility for any of them to build a differentiation advantage
vis-à-vis the others. Further research is needed in order to explore how
companies can re-define their strategies to differentiate from eco-system
practices as well as how companies can lead the development of sustainability
standards to their own, as well as common, benefit.
(3) Top-down vs bottom-up direction of change. Another interesting tension that is
evident in the analysis of the cases has to do with the different approach taken
to the source and leadership of change processes. In some cases, such as Marks
& Spencer and Autogrill, the emphasis is clearly put on a top-down logic, where
both the initiative and the implementation is driven by a top management team
that has achieved a sufficient level of cohesion on the relevance and the
direction of change towards sustainability. In others, such as Hayley and the
Norwegian SMEs, the emphasis is placed on employee empowerment and
participatory dialogue as drivers of internal learning and change. The two
approaches are typically viewed as mutually exclusive, which begs two key
questions, left for future research work:
.
under what conditions is one approach to be preferred vis-à-vis the other?
. what allows a firm to learn how to manage change simultaneously in both
ways?
JMD (4) Center vs periphery driven learning and change. The Deutsche Post DHL case
30,10 highlights a different version of the tension described previously in number 3.
The impetus for change and learning can either come from the headquarters of
the organization or from some of its subsidiaries. The tension has to do with the
weight of hierarchical processes in the diffusion of sustainability-related
innovation, especially when it is generated in the periphery and is supposed to
950 be accepted and diffused by the center. The questions about the conditions
under which one of the two approaches might be preferable, as well as the
capabilities to handle them simultaneously, apply for this tension as well.
(5) Standard vs experimental learning and change approaches. Another dimension
where the cases differ quite substantially has to do with the type of learning and
change approach chosen by the company in its integration of sustainability. In
some cases, a formal approach to the learning challenge, with structured
training programs and knowledge transfer processes, is applied. In others, more
emergent and experimental approaches, such as dialogic workshops,
experiential and introspective learning techniques are favored. Again, we
currently have relatively little guidance to offer as to the conditions under
which one approach is likely to generate better results, when compared to the
other. Even less we can say about the likelihood of synergistic, rather than
substitutive types of interdependencies between the two. Future research might
also aim at enhancing our understanding of the characteristics of the learning
processes related to sustainability challenges, if and how they are different from
other processes of learning and how this relates to different sensing processes
focused on sustainability issues.
(6) A cycle of resource commitment, capability building and legitimacy enhancement.
As the case of Acciona illustrates the success of driving the integration of
sustainability depends on the degree of credibility and legitimacy that the
company has achieved at the moment of the launch of the initiative. This in turn
is influenced by the combination of significant resource commitments in the
new sustainability oriented strategy as well as in the combination with stock of
competence to manage the required change processes as well as the business
dynamics in the new model. The causal linkages between resource commitment,
the capability building processes and the stocks of legitimacy can actually be
viewed in either an evolutionary cycle, since the enhancement of legitimacy
allows increasing levels of resource commitment and consequently of capability
building. We have little knowledge on the nature of this cycle and we need to
invest in further research to better understand the causal linkages.
Furthermore, the role of stakeholders as both potentially inhibiting as well as
potentially enabling forces for learning and change could be further explored in
order to improve our understanding of credibility and legitimacy in the
integration of sustainability into the business model.

All the six tensions identified are potential sources of insight both for future research
initiatives as well as for classroom discussions. We invite the discriminating reader,
whether scholar, practitioner or instructor, to leverage the richness of the cases for
building cogent research designs, appropriate change interventions as well as
engaging class discussions.
 As far as potential responses to the challenges highlighted by these tensions are Introduction to
concerned, we submit that they can fundamentally be understood and managed via the the special issue
development of “evolved” forms of dynamic capabilities (Zollo and Verona, 2011). The
key issue, from both a research and managerial standpoint, relates to transcending the
process- and routine-based notions of dynamic capabilities highlighted in the received
literature. To handle the various trade-offs and tensions emerging from the analysis of
these cases, in fact, companies need to develop competencies that, first of all, act upon 951
much more complex and subtle elements of the business model, such as purpose,
motivation, strategic intent, cultural traits, identities and even individual psychological
dispositions. Furthermore, these “evolved” forms of dynamic capabilities need to be in
turn supported and fueled by innovative forms of learning processes, which might be
significantly different from the ones that both management scholars and practitioners
are used to.

4. Conclusions
We trust that this special issue will be useful to academics, managers, and specialized
consultants in several ways. On the one hand, it provides a conceptual frame for the
appreciation of the sustainability integration challenge, which was missing in prior
literature. It also showcases relevant empirical evidence that illustrates the concepts,
and helps practitioners navigate their way around the challenges of organizational
change and learning for sustainability.
Finally, we would like to see this issue as a way to stimulate new and constructive
conversations within and between the different approaches to embedding corporate
responsibility and sustainability. The notion itself of sustainability has been purposefully
left undefined, since the way organizations understand and practice sustainability is part
of the research quest that academics and practitioners need to tackle.
However, the analysis and reflection on the case studies presented in this special
issue intends to be only an initial step in the process of developing a grounded
understanding of the integration of sustainability in the firm’s business model. Further
research is needed to undertake in-depth, comprehensive analysis of organizational
learning and change along the proposed dimensions of inquiry. The GOLDEN research
program is one effort in this direction, aiming to engage with research centers and
corporations all over the world to further our knowledge on these complex processes.
At the same time, it proposes a research approach based on “engaged scholarship”
(Van de Ven, 2007) involving scholars and practitioners in a collaborative work along
all the phases of the research, including the research design, its piloting and
finalization, the sense-making of the facts observed and the development of further
insights. The challenges posed by sustainability require the willingness and ability of
all actors involved to collaboratively innovate in the processes and the means with
which they are confronted. Anything short of that is likely to produce marginal
adjustments and partial solutions, which might serve to move in the right direction
along the existing trajectory, but will not suffice to shift to a novel trajectory where
sustainable business models are the rule, rather than the exception.

Note
1. The program is coordinated by the Center for Research in Organization and Management
(CROMA) at Bocconi University (Italy) together with the Interdisciplinary Center for
JMD Organizational Architecture (ICOA) at AARHUS University (Denmark), the Vienna
University of Economics and Business (WU, Austria) and EABIS – The Academy of
30,10 Business In Society (Belgium). The initiative was initiated by some of the most respected
scholars and thought leaders in sustainability, corporate responsibility and strategic
management. Visit www.goldenforsustainability.org for the latest updates and information
regarding the project.
952
References
Barnett, W. and Carroll, G. (1995), “Modeling internal organizational change”, Annual Review of
Sociology, Vol. 21, pp. 217-36.
Berthoin-Antal, A., Dierkes, M., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (2001), “Organizational learning and
knowledge: reflections on the dynamics of the field and challenges for the future”,
in Dierkes, M., Antal, A.B., Child, J. and Nonaka, I. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational
Learning and Knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 921-39.
Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B.L. and de Colle, S. (2010), Stakeholder
Theory: The State of the Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
GOLDEN (2011), The GOLDEN for Sustainability Research Program, March, available at: www.
goldenforsustainability.org
Harrison, J.S. and Freeman, R.E. (1999), “Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance:
empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 42, pp. 479-85.
Helfat, C.E., Finkelstein, S. and Mitchell, W. (2007), Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding
Strategic Change in Organizations, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA.
Lenssen, G., Tyson, S., Pickard, S. and Bevan, D. (2009), “Corporate responsibility and
sustainability: leadership and organisational change”, Corporate Governance:
The International Journal of Business in Society, Vol. 9 No. 4.
Palazzo, G. and Richter, U. (2005), “CSR business as usual? The case of tobacco industry”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 61, pp. 387-401.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.
Van de Ven, A. (2007), Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
van Marrewijk, M. (2003), “Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability:
between agency and communion”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 44, pp. 95-105.
Zadek, S. (2004), “The paths to corporate responsibility”, Harvard Business Review, December.
Zollo, M. and Verona, G. (2011), “Understanding the human side of dynamic capabilities: a holistic
model”, in Easterby-Smith, M. and Lyles, M.A. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational
Learning and Management, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford (forthcoming).
Zollo, M. and Winter, S.G. (2002), “Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities”,
Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 339-51.

Further reading
Matten, D. and Crane, A. (2005), “Corporate citizenship: toward an extended theoretical
conceptualization”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 30, pp. 166-79.
About the Guest Editors Introduction to
Jorge A. Arevalo is based at William Paterson University, New Jersey. He is Assistant Professor
of Management, in the Department of Marketing and Management Sciences, Cotsakos College of the special issue
Business. He earned his PhD and MS from Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, and his
BA from Montclair State University. His primary research interests broadly intersect Strategy
and Organization Management, Voluntary Global CSR Initiatives, Implementation of CSR
Practices, International Business and Development of Globalized Curricula. He has previously
held appointments in the airline industry and public utilities sector. His scholarly work has been 953
published in the Journal of Business Ethics, Corporate Governance, The International Journal of
Business in Society, and Business Ethics: A European Review.
Itziar Castelló, PhD, is Assistant Professor at Copenhagen Business School (CBS),
Researcher at the Center for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Associated Researcher
at the Center for Responsible Business, Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley. Her research
interests intersect Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) with strategy and new online
communications. She looks at how sustainability agenda is developed, legitimized and
understood by managers and civil society. She holds previous appointments at the Institute
for Social Innovation, ESADE Business School; AccountAbility, where she worked as senior
researcher; PricewaterhouseCoopers and General Electric where she was manager and Six
Sigma Master Black Belt. Her publications include articles in The Journal of Business Ethics,
Corporate Governance, and Research Policy and in a number of books and non-academic
journals.
Simone de Colle is Lecturer in Business Ethics at the Institute of Ethics, Dublin City
University, Ireland, and an Adjunct Professor of CSR Management Systems in the Faculty of
Economics, University of Trento (Italy). His research interests focus on stakeholder theory, code
of ethics development, and implementation, and on the sources of organizational ethical failures.
In 2010 he co-authored with Ed Freeman et al. Stakeholder Theory: The State of The Art. Simone
received his PhD in Management & Business Ethics from the Darden School of Business of the
University of Virginia.
Gilbert Lenssen is President of EABIS – The Academy of Business in Society and was
formerly Professor of International Management at the College of Europe, Oxford University and
Leiden University. He is currently Professor of Strategy and Governance at ENPC Paris, and
Visiting Professor at the Universities of Reading, and Cranfield. He has widely published on
Corporate Responsibility and Strategy. Prior to his academic career, he was a business executive
for BP in Belgium, the UK, the USA, India, the Middle East, Germany and Spain. As a Christian
of Catholic Tradition, he became familiar with other religions and traditions during his executive
postings (Anglican, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic traditions).
With Ted Malloch of Yale University and Andrew Kakabadse of Cranfield University, he
initiated the project Practical Wisdom for Management for the Religious and Spiritual
Traditions. Gilbert Lenssen is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
gilbert.lenssen@eabis.org
Kerstin Neumann is Assistant Professor at the Institute for Strategy and Management
Control at WU Vienna University of Economics and Business. Within the area of strategy, her
research focuses on external corporate development activities. Specifically, boundary decisions,
the governance and post-formation management of alliances and post-merger integration are
emphasized in her work. She holds a doctoral degree of WU Vienna in Business Administration.
Her work has appeared in journals such as Management Accounting Review and European
Management Review and in a number of book chapters. She is a Research Coordinator of
GOLDEN and is responsible for the development of the GOLDEN research protocol.
Maurizio Zollo is Chaired Professor in Strategy and Corporate Responsibility and Director of
the Center for Research in Organization and Management (CROMA) at Bocconi University in
Milan. He serves on the Executive Committee of the European Academy of Management and of
the European Academy of Business in Society (of which he was one of the co-founders). He is the
JMD Program Chair of the Innovation and Knowledge interest group of the Strategic Management
Society and a past member of Executive Committee of the Strategy Division of the Academy of
30,10 Management. He is Editor of the European Management Review, the official journal of the
European Academy of Management (EURAM). He also serves as associate editor or on the
editorial board of four other leading academic journals in the strategy and organization studies
fields. Before joining Bocconi University in September 2007, he served for ten years on the
faculty of INSEAD in the strategy department. He holds a PhD degree in management from the
954 Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Maurizio Zollo is the Academic Director of
GOLDEN.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats