# data[].attributes.body
Climate change has emerged as one of the most pressing global challenges, pushing businesses to reconsider their ethical responsibilities. This paper explores corporate environmental responsibility, focusing on the ethical challenges posed by climate action under the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 13). Using insights from two scholarly articles—Values and Multi-stakeholder Dialog for Business Transformation in Light of the UN SDGs (Sebhatu & Enquist, 2022) and Multi-stakeholder Engagement for the SDGs: Introduction to the Special Issue (Nonet et al., 2022)—we will analyze how businesses can integrate ethical practices into their sustainability strategies and the role of multi-stakeholder engagement in achieving global climate goals.

# data[].attributes.body
Article 1: Values and Multi-stakeholder Dialog for Business Transformation in Light of the UN SDGs (Sebhatu & Enquist, 2022): This article examines how businesses can engage stakeholders through dialogue to drive corporate transformation, particularly in the context of sustainability and the SDGs. It highlights how values-driven business models can align corporate strategies with SDG 13, emphasizing the importance of integrating sustainability into every facet of the business.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Values and Multi-stakeholder Dialog for Business Transformation in Light of the UN Sustainable Development Goals

Abstract

The objective of this article is to create an understanding of how the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) can be used to steer stakeholder engagement for transformative change, meeting global challenges, and navigate a new business-societal practice driven by a values-based business model. The article is a conceptual study with case studies of the role that the SDGs play in multi-stakeholder dialog via the kind of sustainable business-societal practice that takes corporate social responsibility (CSR) to the next level, where it is embedded in a values-based business model, creating a new meaning to effect real business-societal transformation. Multi-stakeholder dialog implies interactive and communicative engagement with the full range of stakeholders in order to create value for all, employing a societal perspective and using the value network as a basis for effective decision-making. We explain our methodological approach by presenting multi-stakeholder dialog in practice, in the form of multiple case studies. These empirical settings consisted of two values-driven privately owned companies with a strong reporting mechanism and a clear transformation agenda based on the SDG challenges: IKEA and Löfbergs. The empirical study provides the basis for our proposed model. This article makes an original contribution to the study of the use of SDGs in management and service research. It investigates steering and navigating processes in specific contexts in order to determine what should be subject to legal enforcement and what comprises moral and/or ethical value, particularly at the societal level.

Similar content being viewed by others

Article Open access

Article Open access

Article Open access

Introduction

In order to adapt to a constantly evolving globalized world, business-as-usual based on a narrow neoclassical economic perspective, driven by growth and self-interest, must be problematized and transformed with a new agenda. The neoclassical economic perspective focuses on supply and demand as the driving forces behind the production, pricing, and consumption of goods and services. This neoclassical economic perspective should include and have a focus onto quality of life and sustainability (Lozano, 2012), embedded in both ecological and social contexts (use of the term "ecological" implies a broader reach than "environmental" as it also includes the biosphere). This is currently driven by the SDGs, the fulfillment of which demands stakeholder engagement. This article is a conceptual and empirical study of the role that Agenda 2030 plays in multi-stakeholder dialog via sustainability and sustainable business-societal practice that takes corporate social responsibility (CSR) to the next level, embedding it in a values-based business model to create a new meaning for genuine transformation. The main aim of this article is to create an understanding of business transformation through multi-stakeholder dialog in the light of the United Nations sustainable developmental goals (SDGs)-Agenda 2030 (UN, 2015).1 The study is based on the following research question: How can the SDGs be used to steer stakeholder engagement for transformative change while meeting global challenges and navigating a new business-societal practice in the value networks, which is driven by a more values-based business model? The objective is to assess, by learning from specific contexts, the impact the SDGs can have on a values-based business model and multi-stakeholder dialog and how they can contribute to a broader view of business-societal transformation, in a globalized world, moving from a strictly firm-centric perspective to a new business-societal practice.

Steering and navigation refers to the process of leading organizations to transformation by operating in the new landscape of the SDG challenges, in different networks, to co-create value for customers and other stakeholders. In this article, steering and navigation applies to the role of leaders and managers in making strategic decisions to direct a business toward the achievement of its vision and mission through good governance and management based on values-based thinking and multi-stakeholder dialog. Multi-stakeholder dialog requires interactive and communicative engagement with all stakeholders in order to create value for them (Freeman et al., 2020) based on a societal perspective (Laczniak & Murphy, 2012) while dealing with the value network as a basis for good decision-making.

To elaborate on these ideas, we employ stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984; Freeman et al., 2020) with a societal perspective (Laczniak & Murphy, 2012) in value networks to explain the logic behind steering and navigating for business transformation and to examine the idea of a sustainable service business enlightened by the SDGs. We draw on insights from two proactive enterprises and their transformations in this new business landscape, taking societal challenges, sustainability, and innovation into account. We then define and discuss the concepts and theories that underlie the theoretical frameworks and propose a model for steering and navigating in a value network through multi-stakeholder dialog. We elucidate our methodological approach by describing multi-stakeholder dialog in practice, in the form of multiple case studies. These provide a basis for our empirical discussion, which in turn allows us to propose a model, followed by a discussion, and concluding with a summary, limitations of the study, and directions for future research.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Business Transformation Through the SDGs

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, a transformation is a complete change; a profound, fundamental change that alters the very nature of something.2 Transformational change, whether radical or incremental, needs to be sustainable (Sebhatu et al., 2021). Something that is transformed can never return to exactly what it was before. Transformation to a new business practice, as understood in this article, is predicated on more values-based thinking where values drive value (Edvardsson & Enquist, 2009; inspired by Pruzan, 1998); Pruzan ( 1998) argued for a shift from a focus on efficiency and control to a values-based perspective that includes social and ethical responsibility and a stakeholder orientation. Pruzan's ( 1998) article presents a series of arguments laying out why it is good business, both in a traditional economic sense as well as in an ethical sense, for business leaders to introduce organizational and stakeholder values into the managerial culture and to develop a values-based management perspective (Pruzan, 1998, p. 1381) with a stronger stakeholder orientation (Freeman, 1984) and real societal and sustainability impact. In the present article, we take this values-based perspective a step further, moving from a narrow management view to also include a broader business-societal one.

This article focuses on business transformation meeting global challenges. The aim is to understand how sustainable societal practices can contribute to a broader view of business transformation, and vice versa, in a globalized world. A global transformation agenda that is already in place today is the UN's Agenda 2030 SDGs. Many businesses have already started to outline their own transformation agendas to meet the SDGs (Sebhatu et al., 2021).

As a prerequisite for the implementation of business-societal practice, businesses need to develop a deeper understanding of the interaction between people and planet (Raworth, 2017; Rockström & Klum, 2015) and governance (Bowen et al., 2017)-the interplay between humans and planetary environment can be viewed as a transcendence (Enquist et al., 2015; Vince, 2019). It is vital to understand the important role of sustainability and the SDGs in the process of business transformation in order to address the challenges of a complex and dynamic world (Bowen et al., 2017; Fazey et al., 2020; van Tulder, 2018; van Tulder & Keen, 2018; Waddock et al., 2015).

All the societal and environmental perspectives that businesses are required to adopt are encapsulated in the SDGs (Bowen et al., 2017; van Tulder, 2018; van Zanten & van Tulder, 2018). Instead of regarding such issues as externalities-as per a business-as-usual scenario based on a narrow neoclassical economic perspective (Von Weizsäcker & Wijkman, 2018)-we see them embedded in a more values-based business model. Rockström and Sukhdev ( 2016) developed a systemic hierarchy of the SDGs based on three bottom lines- biosphere, society, and economy -to facilitate a full dialog that simplifies their complexity and effectively illustrates the interdependence of the 17 SDGs.

The transformation from a socioeconomic perspective can be identified in the field of transition management for sustainable development, which focuses on the complexity of governance issues and societal challenges (Bowen et al., 2017; Bragdon, 2016; Grin et al., 2011; Loorbach, 2010, 2014; van Tulder & Keen, 2018). Loorbach ( 2014) identified a significant shift in the transition from the industrial era. The drivers of this new transformation are distributed control, renewable resources, systemic thinking, and a significant shift in mindset (Fazey et al., 2020; Loorbach, 2014). To make the transformation happen, leadership will play a vital role, influencing the implementation of changes in performance toward goal clarity and a reformed organizational culture (Moynihan et al., 2012). In other words, we seek to understand how value is networked and co-created through steering and navigating processes in specific contexts, as this is essential for ensuring a transformative change in businesses by embedding social and environmental perspectives and governance issues to overcome key challenges. A difficult aspect of this is identifying what should be enforced with legal instruments and what comprises moral and/or ethical value, particularly at the social (as opposed to technical) level, as business and ethics should not be considered in isolation from each other (Freeman, 1994). This consideration has a bearing on the ability of connected stakeholders to work together toward a common vision, and will determine the effectiveness of whatever interventions are chosen (Freeman et al., 2020; van Tulder, 2018). A stakeholder is any group or individual that can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's objectives (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). Clarkson's ( 1995) distinction between primary and secondary stakeholders is also important here.

As far as the SDGs are concerned, von Weizsäcker & Wijkman ( 2018, p. 38) claimed that the devil is in the implementation. In order to tackle this challenge of the implementation, it is important to understand the SDGs' interconnectedness. The SDGs are divided into two general goals, besides the dialog (SDG 17). The socioeconomic goals (SDG 1-12) cannot be tackled using conventional growth policies if the environmental goals (13-15) are also to be achieved (Von Weizsäcker & Wijkman, 2018). Furthermore, the planetary boundary (which is actually an amalgamation of nine planetary boundaries) and the social boundary (built on the socioeconomic SDGs) are baked together; this has been described as the doughnut model (Raworth, 2017), a model that offers a deeper understanding of the intertwined relationship of people and nature. The "doughnut" of social and planetary boundaries is a simple visualization of the dual conditions-social and ecological-that underpin collective human well-being. Management research has a strong relationship with business practice, and the Rotterdam school of management, Erasmus University (RSM) is a noteworthy source of such management research. RSM-which launched its new mission statement in May 2017, "RSM is a force for positive change in the world"-uses the SDGs as a reference framework. We will examine this initiative more deeply with help of van Tulder ( 2018), who conducted a critical assessment of the SDGs in Business and the Sustainable Development Goals: A Framework for Effective Corporate Involvement. This booklet, which presents a framework for effective corporate strategies in pursuit of sustainable development, is divided into three parts, which address the questions of why, what and who, and how.

The key message in van Tulder's framework, with which this study concurs, is that transformative change should be part of a new paradigm for positive change in a complex environment (van Tulder, 2018; van Tulder & Keen, 2018). An important reference in this framework is Waddock et al. ( 2015, p. 994) article, which argues that for successful moves toward greater sustainability and social justice, organizations must incorporate the concept of large system change (LSC).

In the present article, we understand business transformation as a map for a change in mindset, breaking old boundaries, thereby guiding steering and navigation to address global challenges through a vision- or values-based change processes in a real context. Van Zanten & van Tulder ( 2018) claimed that the SDGs provide a central and lasting framework in which companies are not only tasked with adapting to a policy agenda in the form of universal goals with specific local adaptations, but also with creating new institutions. Even though complexity is not the focus of our study, to affect a smooth transition business needs to be adaptive: the inherent complexity of a system must match the external complexity it confronts (McKelvey & Boisot, 2009). Transition research has emerged from a range of different stakeholders, including policymakers, citizens, business people, and activists (Grin et al., 2011). The stakeholder concept has been extensively discussed in the literature (Bryson, 2004; Freeman, 1984; Freeman et al., 2020; Savage et al., 1991), as has the need to engage stakeholders in pursuit of common ethical and responsible action to help achieve the SDGs.

The Value Network or Ecosystem and Value Co-creation for Stakeholder Engagement

Stabell & Fjeldstad ( 1998) elaborated on value configurations according to different value-creation logics and argued that value chains entail the transformation of input activities, through long-linked technology, into products. A value network creates value by facilitating a network relationship between organizations and their customers, using mediating technology (Stabell & Fjeldstad, 1998, p. 414-415). Stakeholder theory is about "knowing how" to engage stakeholders and create value for them, rather than the technical "knowing that" a certain thing is the case for all firms, for all times, for all problems, for all configurations of stakeholders (Freeman et al., 2020, p. 217). The knowing how of stakeholder theory is also about organizational and stakeholder values in the managerial culture and developing a values-based management perspective (Pruzan, 1998). Organizational values are embedded on the societal values that form the practice of the daily activities and culture of the organization. Values are understood as the principles, standards, ethics, and ideals by which companies and other actors live (Waddock & Bodwell, 2007; Waddock et al., 2010, p. 14). According to Waddock ( 2008) and Waddock & Bodwell ( 2004), recognition of a stakeholder perspective also involves commitment to what the authors call "total responsibility management" (TRM).

Several authors have used Normann's ( 2001) "value-creating system" to discuss the idea of value creation in networks (Enquist et al., 2011; Gummesson, 2008; Lusch & Webster, 2011; Lusch et al., 2010) as a result of taking full responsibility. According to Lusch et al., ( 2010, p. 21), a "value creation network" or ecosystem builds on loosely coupled social and economic actors who interact through institutions and technology, which are held together by "the trinity of competences, relationships and information,". The value network or ecosystem can be "understood as a complex network mechanism linking customer value and the value of the firm for all of its stakeholders" (Lusch & Webster, 2011, p. 131). The value network or ecosystem perspective is important as a platform for stakeholder interaction (Freeman et al., 2020; Lusch et al., 2010); it is multi-level in nature, and can be viewed at its different levels-micro, meso, and macro-by zooming in and out (Lusch & Vargo, 2014, p. 169).

Social Responsibility Based on a Stakeholder Orientation

CSR and Stakeholder orientation are two different concepts, according to service research (Edvardsson & Enquist, 2009; Enquist et al., 2011; Sebhatu, 2010). In a value network, the links among the nodes-governance, CSR, management, and key performance management/measurement-are socially constructed (Edvardsson et al., 2011) rather than sequential, as they would be in a value chain.

The notion that a service culture, grounded in a company's core values, can be a driver for business development has only been examined partially, and empirically, in service research: in a study of shared values (Edvardsson & Enquist, 2009), and as an expression of CSR (Sebhatu, 2010). Values are operant resources-that is, they are linked to actors-but they are also embedded in social structures. Values also help create meaning and legitimation among actors (Edvardsson et al., 2011; Giddens, 1984). Whether there is resonance or dissonance in values (Edvardsson & Enquist, 2009) can be a factor affecting resource integration, value co-creation, and value in context. Enquist et al. ( 2015) showed the values-based position as a transcendence phenomenon found in sustainable business practices in real-world contexts, and drew from four values-based organizations: Patagonia, IKEA, Starbucks, and Mayo Clinic. Most corporations still have a long way to go, but there is a strong argument in favor of a paradigm shift in which business has a wider purpose of creating value for a community of stakeholders (Williams, 2014, p. 105). A significant problem has always been the concept of CSR simply being deployed for "greenwashing" purposes (now, in the wake of the UN Global Compact and the SDGs, we have witnessed what can be described as "blue-washing" and "SDG-washing" as well). van Zanten and van Tulder's ( 2018) findings have indicated that multinational companies' engagement with the SDGs primarily regards internally actionable targets and in order to avoid negative impacts in the area of sustainable development.

Sustainability and CSR offer means for creating value, through the application of stakeholder approaches in different contexts (Grosser, 2016; Wheeler & Thomson, 2006). Sustainability implies the strategic commitment of business to social and ecological value, as created by means of its own activities (Wheeler et al., 2003). In parallel, the CSR concept is a global phenomenon that creates a market for virtue (Vogel, 2005), although, as noted, the danger of a greenwashing approach persists. CSR can also be an important element in a new type of business model, underpinning a strategy for service development and innovation (Edvardsson & Enquist, 2009; Sebhatu, 2010); and it can be a resource for creating stakeholder value (Enquist et al., 2006). Bhattacharyya ( 2010) called for strategic CSR to be implemented in all organizations and proposed a model that integrates different perspectives of strategic CSR to provide a unified, holistic, and conceptual approach. It is important to understand the tension between an idealized CSR dialog and practical execution in a real-world context (Høvring et al., 2018). The practice of CSR in global business is not related either to charity (Enquist et al., 2008; Høvring et al., 2018), philanthropy, or the notion of "doing good by doing good" to the extent that it once was (Vogel, 2005). Rather, the business case for CSR is more correctly related to doing well (Enquist et al., 2008; Sebhatu, 2010; Williams, 2014) as a means of attaining a sustainable service business (Edvardsson & Enquist, 2009) and multi-stakeholder dialog (Høvring et al., 2018). The triple bottom line (TBL)-thinking in economic, environmental, and social terms-is another established concept geared toward the achievement of sustainability (Elkington, 1998). However, as its author, Elkington ( 2019), has noted, it is now time to rethink TBL as something that is not just used for accounting purposes, but instead works toward a triple helix of value creation, a genetic code for tomorrow's capitalism, spurring the regeneration of our economies, societies, and biosphere. This form of CSR sees environmentally and socially responsible practice as a proactive strategy to find smart solutions and to build a new type of a values-based business model, where such practice is part of the solution (Edvardsson & Enquist, 2009) and is not handled as an externality (van Zanten & van Tulder, 2018; Von Weizsäcker & Wijkman, 2018); rather, it is operationalized according to the organization's different stakeholders (Høvring et al., 2018). Van Tulder's ( 2018) insight into companies' contribution to the SDGs was to use the lens of complexity. He identified four levels of corporate engagement with the SDGs determined according to their approach to CSR. "Level 1" and "Level 2" represent green-, blue-, or SDG-washing; "Level 3" represents a strategic or proactive approach; and "Level 4" represents a systemic or more societal CSR approach (van Tulder, 2018). We consider this taxonomy useful in building our framework in this article.

There is a window of transformation for growth in prosperity, but it must take place within planetary boundaries (Rockström & Klum, 2015). Bragdon ( 2016) described how a transformation is taking root in the corporate world, where priority is being given to an eco-centric transition based on living asset stewardship related to people and nature. In the traditional model of the firm, with a capital-centered mindset, employees are seen as replaceable factors of production, and the biosphere and society are treated as externalities. In a more organic model of the firm, people and nature are more important than capital assets and companies live in harmony with nature. The present article seeks to show that a simple performance management concept is insufficient as a basis for steering and navigating in a value network that pursues sustainable service business. In line with these four key concepts, we identify four types of stakeholder dialog.

Multi-Stakeholder Dialog for Transformative Change: Summary of the Framework

In this summary, we will sketch a preliminary framework and model for transformative change. The framework will be further developed below, once we have assimilated the lessons from the cases in this article. This theoretical and conceptual framework can be conceived as an analysis and interpretation tool for our two cases: Löfbergs and IKEA. So far, our preliminary framework consists of the following:

Business network or ecosystem: A values-based business-societal platform for stakeholder interaction between people and nature. A business network or ecosystem can be viewed from processual, systemic, or institutionalized perspectives and at different levels (micro, meso, and macro).

SDG implications: Using values and multi-stakeholder dialog in a real-world context in the light of the SDGs.

Challenge-driven transformative change: Meeting the ethical, societal, and ecological demands for sustainable development. The challenges are different for each business, always relate to a specific context, and are more societal than firm-centric (Laczniak & Murphy, 2012).

Values-based: Built on the vision and mission of a business, through which sustainable change is guided by the organization's values-based thinking.

Sustainability/CSR practices: "Level 3" CSR, where the approach is strategic or active and "Level 4", where the approach is systemic or proactive, are the appropriate levels for business transformation according to the SDGs (van Tulder, 2018) using multi-stakeholder dialog. Technology and innovation are the tools in which sustainability is a driver for transformation (Rockström & Klum, 2015).

Transformation process: The creation of systemic change is driven by a business's commitment to the future and its engagement with different stakeholders (Sebhatu et al., 2021) to create shared values and shared meanings (Edvardsson & Enquist, 2009) in cross-sector partnerships (CSPs), with the inclusion of multiple stakeholder perspectives, and involving different partnerships (van Tulder & Keen, 2018).

The next section examines this framework further, based on reflexive methodology (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2010) and our own methodological approach.

Research Methodology

Table 1 Definitions of key terms

The context of this study is proactive companies that are engaged in implementing the SDGs. We are searching for new meaning and a deeper understanding of business practice (Enquist et al., 2015; Gummesson, 2017; Uggla, 2010). We are also opening up the dialectic between theory and practice by means of our multidisciplinary theory and conceptual framework (Table 1), built in order to address a specific context based on thick descriptions of the case studies (Enquist et al., 2015; Gummesson, 2017; Uggla, 2010). Our empirical setting in this article consists of two cases, each values-driven privately owned companies-Löfbergs and IKEA-with a strong reporting mechanism and clear transformation agenda guided by the SDGs. These two business organizations have achieved different levels of maturity in terms of innovative services that co-create value; transformation; and integration of resources and sustainability. Both have been enlightened and guided by the SDGs in their transformation processes.

Consistent with the concept of grounded theory, our cases were developed over a long period. The data were collected between 2012 and 2020 (each case over a different time frame) in combination with field data (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2010), such as interviews, interview transcripts, observations, transformation lab (T-lab) discussions, and documents (such as steering documents, field narratives of positive and negative incidents, key performance figures, and annual reports). Our data access was unique (Gummesson, 2017) in that we were independent of any industry funding, yet cooperated with both companies. The sampling choice of these two companies was discriminate: we initially sampled companies with strong sustainability reporting until recurring patterns emerged (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Following Bowen ( 2008), who asserted that it is insufficient to state simply that sampling was concluded until saturation was reached, we adopted specific guidelines, viz. we considered our data to be saturated when the findings fitted all the case studies, as confirmed by interviewee feedback on the analyzed data, which also aligned with prior research. The differences in the two companies' maturity also mean that these companies vary in the way they address development and business transformation and how they frame their understanding of the projects. The most recent primary data were collected via interviews with company leaders and management. Observation and T-lab sessions took place at distinct locations in an innovation park as follows:

We followed IKEA and Löfbergs for over a decade. We met key individuals at the executive and management levels, studied both public and internal documents from each organization, and are in possession of scientific articles and memos from our extensive research into both companies, most of which was from IKEA.

We conducted new interviews with a range of key individuals from both organizations. For IKEA ( 2020), in winter 2020, we interviewed the circular business designer and team leader at INGKA Group ( 2019) and visited the circular economy innovation design center in Malmö. For Löfbergs ( 2019/2020), in spring 2019, we interviewed the director of quality and sustainability at the company HQ in Karlstad. These were follow-ups to our spring 2016 interviews with the sustainability manager (currently the chief sustainability officer) of IKEA, and the head of design of the Inter IKEA Group; and with the chairman of the board and director of sustainability (currently the director of quality and sustainability) of Löfbergs; and visits to the global design and support center in Älmhult for IKEA, and to Löfbergs' HQ in Karlstad.

We also arranged a joint T-lab session in autumn 2016, together with the chairman of Löfbergs, representing the family ownership, and their director of sustainability; a designer and a manager from IKEA of Sweden (the global design and supplier chain arm of IKEA); two professors in business ethics and CSR, each from a distinguished American university; and three leaders of an innovation park. This was held in a neutral location: an innovation park in a service innovation lab. We sought to identify the transformation agenda for meeting sustainability challenges for IKEA and Löfbergs specifically, and to generate a more general discussion about stewardship and hypernorms.

o
We chose to view the T-lab session as a source of primary data because it provided sufficient, highly informative research material (King & Horrocks, 2010) in a "context of discovery" (Hunt, 1991) with high validity (Krueger, 1988), as, it is argued, can result from focus group discussions.

The collected materials were transcribed, thematized, and analyzed through a within- and cross-case analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989) based on the grounded theory (Glaser, 1992). The cases are analyzed based on the description, understanding, and interpretation of the research material.

Values and Multi-Stakeholder Dialog for Business Transformation in Practice

IKEA

Business Network or Ecosystem

IKEA was founded in 1943 by the entrepreneur Ingvar Kamprad in the county of Småland, a poor part of Sweden. Its journey to become the world-leading global enterprise in home furnishing brands that we know today was a long one. Today, IKEA can be seen as an ecosystem with one brand, but many companies. Inter IKEA Group owns the brand, while the IKEA system and the Ingka Group, which is the biggest franchisee of the IKEA concept, run 90 percent of IKEA stores. IKEA is a values-based group institutionalized by Ingvar Kamprad in the mid-1970s, as enshrined in his "testament" document (Kamprad, 1996). This testament is still held as being valid, as revealed in Inter IKEA Group's sustainability report (IKEA SR, 2019, p. 119):

The Inter IKEA Group's way of doing business is based on the values and culture described in IKEA founder Ingvar Kamprad´s "The Testament of a Furniture Dealer". The Inter IKEA Group Code of Conduct is a supplement to those values, transforming values into behavior. It is built around principles for behavior, both within the group and toward business partners and other stakeholders. The standpoint is always to do good business with common sense, based on honesty, respect, fairness and integrity. The Code of Conduct applies to all Inter IKEA Group co-workers.

The values are the compass that guides IKEA co-workers in everything they do, and IKEA's culture is formed when these values are put into action. The value of caring for people and the planet has been especially highlighted in the last decade. Sustainable business is a continuous transformative change process embedded in IKEA's history and heritage and thereby forming the IKEA culture (Edvardsson & Enquist, 2009). The IKEA vision is "to create a better everyday life for the many people." This translates as follows:

A better everyday life includes a healthier, less wasteful and more sustainable way of living that's affordable for the many. Making more from less and finding new, creative ways to deal with limited resources are part of the IKEA way of working. This is more important than ever as society faces huge challenges (Edvardsson & Enquist, 2009, p, 11).

Torbjörn Lööf (CEO) and Lena Pripp-Kovac (chief sustainability officer) of the Inter IKEA Group wrote in their introductory letter to the IKEA Sustainability Report FY19 about how the IKEA transformation addresses global challenges in a more sustainable way:

In FY19 we continued our journey to transform the IKEA business to become people- and planet-positive. This is a transformational change and it means rethinking every aspect of how we do business. ... As a global home furnishing and food business, our focus is on making IKEA products more affordable and accessible for many more of the many people, and at the same time, creating a positive impact for people, society, and the planet. ... We can't achieve all the big changes we want to see alone. Working together, leading by example, and finding better ways to get things done are the IKEA ways of working. Therefore, we are committed working together in a collaborative way with many stakeholders, including NGOs, governments, other businesses, customers and co-workers. We are also teaming up with social entrepreneurs who use business as a way to reduce poverty, empower women and tackle social and environmental challenges in their communities (Edvardsson & Enquist, 2009, pp. 9-10).

SDG Implications

The UN SDGs act as a compass to mobilize change in IKEA's business. Guided by the SDGs, IKEA develops its business to set new ambitions and engage with its partners. It is part of a recognition that the company has a vital role to play in contributing to the achievement of the SDGs using the global influence of the IKEA brand and value chain. "When working with the SDGs, the contribution will impact more than one goal. Most activities will contribute to multiple SDG goals" (IKEA, 2019). SDG 17, "Partnerships for the goals," which seeks to strengthen international cooperation, is becoming increasingly relevant, and for IKEA, it means working both with co-creation, community engagement, stakeholder forums, advisory meetings, and partnerships (IKEA, 2019, p. 113).

Challenges

IKEA has addressed several sustainability challenges that have been brought into focus in its transformation change process: addressing unsustainable consumption, remaining affordable, limiting climate change to 1.5 °C, sourcing recycled materials, improving working conditions, and including vulnerable groups in society. The sustainability challenge has meant that IKEA has expanded its three dimensions of "democratic design" (form, function, and price), which it established in the mid-1990s, to five dimensions (with the addition of sustainability and quality) (interview 2016).

Transformation for Action

The IKEA People & Planet Positive Strategy 2030 is a tool for transformative change to meet the global challenges of climate change, unsustainable consumption, and inequality. The target for IKEA' transformative change is set for 2030, to be in line with the UN SDGs. The strategy declaration is as follows: "We want to have a positive impact on people, society and the planet. For us it's about balancing economic growth and positive social impact with environmental protection and regeneration." (IKEA, 2020, p. 3). This aim is addressed by undertaking stakeholder dialog in a collaborative way.

We don't have all the answers and cannot achieve our goal alone. Therefore, we are committed to working together in a collaborative way and being transparent about what to learn. We will rely on our culture of entrepreneurship, always moving forward and not waiting for perfection. We will work together to achieve continuous improvements. (IKEA, 2015)

Other concepts are also of great importance for the ongoing transformative change process. These include "experience" (for example, the conception of the IKEA showrooms as "experience rooms") for co-creating value, brand, and marketing communication for values resonance (as opposed to dissonance), and leadership by living the values. A major transformation shift since 2015 has been about coming closer to customers. IKEA acknowledges that it finds itself in the midst of its biggest ever transformation change process, seeing strong movements in digital development, store transformations, city expansion, services, and sustainability initiatives. These changes are "bringing IKEA to more people in new ways" making it more affordable, more accessible, and sustainable. In IKEA's transition to becoming an organization driven by circular thinking, circular product design principles have been developed to guide the product design and development teams (interview 2020).

Sustainability Through Sustainable Business Practices: IKEA's 2030 Ambitions

Healthy and sustainable living: Inspire and enable more than 1 billion people to live a better everyday life within the limits of the planet. The company is committed to creating a movement in society around better everyday living; to inspiring and enabling people to live healthier, more sustainable lives; and to promoting circular and sustainable consumption.

Circular and climate-positive: Become climate-positive and regenerate resources while growing the IKEA business. The company is committed to transforming into a circular business, becoming climate-positive, regenerating resources, protecting ecosystems, and improving biodiversity.

Fair and equal: Create a positive social impact for everyone across the IKEA value chain. The company is committed to providing and supporting decent and meaningful work across the IKEA value chain, and being an inclusive business that promotes equality.

Löfbergs

Business Network or Ecosystem

Löfbergs is a values-driven family business, founded over a hundred years (four generations) ago, and it is currently one of the largest family-owned coffee roasters in the Nordic countries. The driving motivations, according to the company's chairman, are as follows: "Our values are our compass, our vision helps us aim high, and our strategies make us goal-oriented" (Chairman of Löfbergs ( 2016/2017)). The company's values are as follows: responsibility, commitment, entrepreneurship, long-term approach, and professionalism. Those organizational values "unite everyone who works within Löfbergs Coffee Group, providing guidelines for our behavior, so that we achieve our goals and create value for all stakeholders" (Löfbergs, 2018/2019).

Löfbergs is one of the largest importers of organic and Fair Trade-certified coffee in the world. The company operates in over 10 markets and is one of the eight founding members of the global Coffee & Climate initiative (Löfbergs, 2018/2019).

In an interview, the chairman explained further:

In our meetings with coffee farmers, we have noticed a desire and a drive among the young farmers who are part of this initiative, and we are already seeing that our cooperation is improving knowledge about how climate change can be addressed. In order to deal with climate change and give a new generation of coffee farmers a reasonable chance to support themselves, demand for sustainable coffee must increase.

SDG Implications

Löfbergs Coffee Group fully supports Agenda 2030 and understands that the company has an effect on all 17 goals, as they are interconnected. The business sector plays a crucial role in achieving the goals, not least with regard to the reduction of climate change and managing the 1.5 °C target. The goals already provide guidance for all of the decisions that Löfbergs makes, whether in relation to its work in producing countries, business development, product development, or day-to-day operations and in its role as an employer. In 2019/20, Löfbergs ( 2019/2020) developed a group-wide strategy for 2030, with Agenda 2030 as the overarching guide (Löfbergs, 2018/2019).

Challenges

The company faces two sustainability challenges: climate and social. Both of these challenges, as they relate to coffee production, are greatest in the producing countries, so this is the center of Löfbergs' focus: development projects that help small-scale coffee farmers solve climate change-related problems and improve their living conditions. Climate change is probably the greatest threat to the sector and has already negatively affected coffee production. Coffee is cultivated in over 70 countries as a key export commodity. Including processing and retailing, the industry employs over 100 million people worldwide. Smallholder family farmers constitute 70 percent of producers, with a major contribution coming from women, who often provide the majority of the labor. Ninety percent of the world's coffee is produced in developing countries (Löfbergs, 2016/2017). One of Löfbergs' main concerns is to engage with the next generation of smallholders. As the chairman explained:

In our meetings with coffee farmers, we have noticed a desire and a drive among the young farmers who are part of this initiative, and we are already seeing that our cooperation is improving knowledge about how climate change can be addressed. In order to deal with climate change and give a new generation of coffee farmers a reasonable chance to support themselves, demand for sustainable coffee must increase.

Values-Based Vision and Mission

Löfbergs' vision is "Passion, responsibility and taste. Beyond exceptions." The company's values serve as a compass for how its employees act toward each other and the world around them. They provide guidelines for behavior and day-to-day decisions, in order that the company might achieve its goals and produce results. Its values are what distinguish Löfbergs from its competitors and they unite everyone who works at AB Anders Löfberg (2018/2019).

Transformation for Action

The Coffee & Climate initiative, with which Löfbergs is engaged, along with other actors in the industry, representing 50 percent of the sector, is concerned with mitigating and adapting to climate change, funded by voluntary contributions from the coffee sector. As a founding member of this transformation program, which is associated with the SDGs, Löfbergs plays an active part. In the T-lab session, the chairman and the director of sustainability demonstrated the links between Agenda 2030 and Löfbergs' own transformation agenda. This linkage is also reflected in the company's sustainability report of 2018/19 (Löfbergs, 2016/2017, 2018/2019).

Sustainability Through Sustainable Business Practices: Löfbergs' Ambitions

Renewable sustainable energy systems: Support innovation to test and implement low-carbon and climate-resilient technologies. Löfbergs is aiming for 100 percent renewable energy by 2020.

Sustainable and healthy food systems: Climate-smart coffee production can ensure food security. Löfbergs is a proactive member of national and global networks that aim to ensure the prosperity and well-being of producers and consumers.

Circular economic models for business, societies, and communities: Provide income for millions of farmers, enhance climate resilience, and contribute to socially responsible land use for forest, water, and soil conservation. Diversified coffee production can help stabilize ecosystems and landscapes. Taking account of its operations, Löfbergs' climate impact in 2020 will be 40 percent lower than it was in 2005.

Sustainable urban futures in a world in which 70 percent of all people live in cities: The Coffee & Climate initiative helps raise consumer and market awareness about the adoption and valuing of climate-smart solutions. Löfbergs has offered 100 percent certified coffee since 2016. Löfbergs works for long-term relationships and dialog with stakeholders in local and global societies, which includes customers, suppliers/partners, society, co-workers, and owners.

Sustainable transportation systems: Löfbergs has an action program for improving efficiency in production and transportation "from bean to cup" (our analysis and interpretation of material from Löfbergs ( 2016/2017, 2018/2019); internal and interview material from our field studies).

Certification as a means of communicating with stakeholders: "We are certified for ISO standards, but we have also got the new sustainability verification and it is great to be certified and be recognized for the sustainability work that we are doing. The new sustainability verification, for example, is an acknowledgment that our efforts contribute to a more sustainable future" (interview, sustainability director, Löfbergs).

Findings and Discussion

This article has broadened the perspective by zooming out (Lusch & Vargo, 2014; Normann, 2001) on the Agenda 2030 SDGs (van Tulder, 2018) and on transformative change to generate a more interactive study (Gummesson, 2017) with a more societal perspective in a global context. In this broader context, ethical, social, and environmental challenges (Enderle & Murphy, 2015) can be addressed through innovation and sustainability (Nidumolu et al., 2009) for transformation and growth in prosperity within planetary boundaries (Rockström & Klum, 2015). The approach is guided by a values-based vision/mission around shared values and shared meanings (Edvardsson & Enquist, 2009; Enquist et al., 2015), with the understanding that economic growth cannot continue indefinitely.

We have discussed steering and navigating in a value network based on resource integration, which is beneficial for customers as well as other stakeholders navigating the network for value creation. Moreover, it is instrumental in achieving a more sustainable society, in which social and environmental perspectives are embedded. We argue that resource integration entails co-creating value for stakeholders (Freeman et al., 2020) in a network or ecosystem. The process is intended to generate interaction, but some conflict is also to be expected. Interactions in the value network that are based on a more societal perspective (Laczniak & Murphy, 2012) will seek to make the network not just economically robust, but also socially, environmentally, and ecologically robust (Rockström & Klum, 2015; van Tulder, 2018).

The process is driven by an agenda for transformative change. This transformation agenda must be contextualized in the values-based service thinking of each company that operates from a societal perspective rather than a firm-centric one. The Agenda 2030 SDGs can be used as the basis for such a societal perspective and as a means of addressing global sustainability challenges such as poverty elimination, innovation and infrastructure development, community improvement, responsible consumption, and climate action. The transformation agenda provides directions for proactive learning and change processes that interact dialectically: ecological (nature) and societal (people) challenges; sustainability service innovations for change; and sustainable business practices/CSR activities for value co-creation. Social and ecological challenges will be addressed as a vital part of the transformative process rather than as externalities. They must be met by steering and facilitating resource integration in a sustainable and innovative way. However, transformation and innovation take place in complex environments, with both environmental and societal challenges demanding engagement with different stakeholders, and in which businesses have to work innovatively to develop novel systems. Businesses must understand the complexity of the external environment when designing their business practices and developing strategies.

In this article, we have also learned about business transformation from a socioeconomic perspective based on the field of transition management for sustainable development, which focuses on the complexity of the SDG issues and societal challenges. We assert that transformational change and sustainable/CSR practices are interconnected. As such, we have devised a matrix for steering and navigating to co-create stakeholder value and secure sustainable service business in a value network based on multi-stakeholder dialog. The framework assesses both our case companies, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Multi-stakeholder dialog for transformative change: a framework

This article intends to establish the role of Agenda 2030 in multi-stakeholder dialog to create a new meaning for a real transformation. The lessons learned from business transformation through multi-stakeholder dialog in a real-world context at the two companies-IKEA, with its People and Planet Positive strategy, and Löfbergs, as part of the global Coffee & Climate initiative-are values-based or vision-driven transformations that break old boundaries. Sustainable business practices are an illustration of that transformation. The two companies have adopted the Agenda 2030 SDGs and use them to steer stakeholder engagement for transformative change to meet global challenges and navigate for a new business-societal practice in the value networks. We looked at transformative change in both companies, with sustainability in business practices being the driving force for transformation and innovation (addressing transformation, co-creation, and sustainability/CSR practice) based on the SDGs. The idea of a values-based business has been further developed and assessed by examining the two companies' approach to ethical, social, and ecological challenges.

In this study, we have shown that steering and navigation can contribute to successful resource integration, value co-creation, and value networks. We have also sought to understand the nature of multi-stakeholder dialog. Both IKEA and Löfbergs demonstrate the importance of a proactive role, embedded in values-based thinking, in engaging with all stakeholders in the entire business network/ecosystem. Sustainability and the SDGs are important factors of business transformation and serve as guides in navigating the challenges of a complex and dynamic world. Values explain how actors, businesses, and customers operate with their available resources and select from available alternatives (see Fig. 1). Steering the multi-stakeholder dialog in both our case companies requires interactive and communicative engagement with all stakeholders based on a societal perspective and encompassing the value network. Organizational values drive both the management of a business, as well as customers' value creation and assessment processes. Values that resonate both within and outside the organization in relationships with employees and customers, respectively, help to align activities and interactions in business systems-which include customers-by enabling and supporting them.

Values-driven multi-stakeholder dialog

We have examined the interrelationships among various concepts and theories to show how values drive value, which is networked and co-created among stakeholders, and wherein the SDGs are institutionalized. Freeman ( 1984) was the first to raise the idea of stakeholder theory; his work in addressing morals and values in managing organizations has become a key component in the study of business ethics. He argued that business and ethics cannot be separated (1994). The studies and models that followed have recognized a shift from neoclassical firm-centric perspective to a societal one (Laczniak & Murphy, 2012), which has crystallized in the recent institutionalization of the SDGs (van Tulder, 2018; van Tulder & Keen, 2018). However, the shift to business-societal practice is a complex one. We have introduced the transformation agenda for transformative change, which breaks old boundaries and guides vision- or values-based change processes toward something new and different through multi-stakeholder dialog in a real-world context. We have drawn on insights from transition management in this new business landscape and, in so doing, consider the societal challenges of implementing the SDGs. Therefore, the role of transformational leaders and managers is one of making, through steering and navigation, the strategic decisions that direct business toward the achievement of the values-based vision and mission.

Steering and navigating in a value network based on resource integration is beneficial from a value-creation perspective, both for customers and other stakeholders. However, transformative change in businesses must embed social and environmental perspectives and governance issues in order to overcome key challenges. This is something that both our case companies are addressing. Steering organizations toward achieving the SDG goals should be understood as a fundamental part of good governance and sustainability. The business transformation should also be about navigating, via transformational management, the new landscape of the SDG challenges, through different networks based on business-societal practices or CSR. Organizations need to steer and navigate, through values-based thinking and multi-stakeholder dialog, the shift toward the societal perspective brought about by the institutionalization of the SDGs (see Fig. 2).

Steering and navigation framework for transformation

To summarize our findings and discussion, Fig. 3 helps to elucidate the business transformation of businesses toward the achievement of a values-based vision and a societally focused mission driven by the SDGs by steering sustainability/governance, via strategy, to create value, and by navigating business-societal practices in the value network based on values-based thinking and multi-stakeholder dialog.

Transformation as a driving force for steering and navigating multi-stakeholder dialog

We understand transformation as a map for a change of mindset to guide steering and navigation by breaking old boundaries in order to meet global challenges by guiding vision- or values-based change processes in real-world contexts toward something new and different. Sustainable business practices have acquired a new meaning by means of transcending from merely dealing with economic value to an open business model, which also requires a change of mindset in which sustainability is used as a driving force for transformation and innovation (addressing transformation, co-creation, and sustainability/CSR practice).

Our final model is a combination of a framework in which sustainable business-societal practice in real-world contexts addresses transformation as a driving force for steering and navigating multi-stakeholder dialog (see Fig. 3). Using the conceptual and theoretical framework that we have developed to understand IKEA's and Löfbergs's transformative change, we can extrapolate the following societal and managerial implications.

Conclusion and Implications

In this article, we comprehend value as networked and co-created through steering and navigating processes in specific contexts-in this case, of IKEA's and Löfbergs's values-based business model-to address both what should be enforced by legal instruments and what comprises moral and/or ethical value, particularly at the social level. This has a bearing on the ability of connected stakeholders to work together toward a common vision driven by the SDG challenges, which determine the effectiveness of the stakeholders' chosen intervention. The moral and/or ethical value of stakeholder engagement contribute to the attainment of a sustainable business, imbued with social and environmental perspectives on governance, in accordance with multi-stakeholder dialog. We have found that steering and navigation is important in enabling leading organizations to navigate the new landscape of SDG challenges, and to steer through different networks to co-create value for customers and other stakeholders. Transformation of businesses toward the achievement of a values-based vision and a societally focused mission is also driven by the SDGs by steering sustainability/governance, via strategy, to create value, and by navigating business-societal practices in the value network based on values-based thinking and multi-stakeholder dialog.

In this case, business transformation is a map for a change of mindset to guide steering and navigation by breaking old boundaries of businesses in order to meet global challenges by guiding vision- or values-based change processes in real-world contexts toward something new and different.

Sustainable business has acquired a new meaning by changing the traditional business mindset to a more organic model that seeks more sustainable and innovative solutions. The SDGs use sustainability as a driving force for multi-stakeholder dialog and transformation to make a positive difference in people's lives. The ecological and societal challenges within the business ecosystem at the micro, meso, and macro levels prove that business and ethics cannot be separated. Agenda 2030 is used as a plan of action for people, planet, prosperity, and partnership to meet real-world challenges by outlining a values-driven route for transformative change.

Finally, this study was conducted in the context of two companies, so further research should examine two aspects. The first is how successful companies in various industries (such as retail and private-public partnerships) have used the Agenda 2030 SDGs to establish sustainable businesses, founded on multi-stakeholder dialog for steering and navigation; this will involve the investigation of theoretical challenges in a different context. We note the need to examine the role played by value co-creation and value networks and different stakeholder dialogs in steering and navigating the various business models where the SDGs have been successfully implemented, and comparing them with those of less successful organizations. The second area for future research is an investigation of responsibility in multi-stakeholder dialog and responsibility management in the value chain. Researchers could also explore how responsible value co-creation and networks affect strategic decisions, business models, leadership development, reward systems, and interactive communication platforms.

Data Availability

We declare that we only had access to interviews, necessary information and data, and visits for observation.

Notes

Henceforth, we use the official United Nations "Transforming Our World" agenda (A/RES/70/1) to describe the SDGs unless it is referenced.

References

Bowen, K. J., Cradock-Henry, N. A., Koch, F., Patterson, J., Häyhä, T., Vogt, J., & Barbi, F. (2017). Implementing the "sustainable development goals": Towards addressing three key governance challenges-Collective action, trade-offs, and accountability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26-27, 90-96.

Google Scholar

Elkington, J. (2019). 25 years ago i coined the phrase "triple bottom line." here's why it's time to rethink it. Harvard Business Review

Fazey, I., Schäpke, N., Caniglia, G., Hodgson, A., Kendrick, I., Lyon, C., et al. (2020). Transforming knowledge systems for life on Earth: Visions of future systems and how to get there. Energy research & social science 70, 101724, 1-18.

Löfbergs (2016/2017) Our sustainability report, 2016/17. AB Anders Löfberg, Karlstad.

Löfbergs. (2018/2019). Our sustainability report, 2017/18. AB Anders Löfberg

Löfbergs. (2019/2020). Our sustainability report, 2018/19. AB Anders Löfberg

Loorbach, D. (2014). To transition! Governance panarchy in the new transformation. Dutch Research Institute for Transitions, Erasmus University

Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 87(9), 56-64.

Google Scholar

Rockström, J., & Sukhdev, P. (2016). New way of viewing the sustainable development goals and how they are all linked to food. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University. Available at: https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2016-06-14-how-food-connects-all-the-sdgs.html, accessed April 2020

Sebhatu, S. P. (2010). Corporate social responsibility for sustainable service dominant logic. Doctoral Thesis. Karlstad University Studies

UN. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. A/RES/70/1. United Nations, New York

Download references

Acknowledgements

There is also no specified grant received for this study, from any other external institution or organization, to declare.

Funding

Open access funding provided by Karlstad University. We have not received any financial or non-financial support/benefits from both companies used as a case study in our article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Karlstad Business School and Service Research Center-CTF, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden

Samuel Petros Sebhatu & Bo Enquist

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samuel Petros Sebhatu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We, the authors, declare that there is no any conflict of interest concerning our article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sebhatu, S.P., Enquist, B. Values and Multi-stakeholder Dialog for Business Transformation in Light of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. J Bus Ethics 180, 1059-1074 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05195-x
Download citation

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Values and Multi-stakeholder Dialog for Business Transformation in Light of the UN Sustainable Development Goals - Journal of Business Ethics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The objective of this article is to create an understanding of how the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs) can be used to steer stakeholder engagement for transformative change, meeting global challenges, and navigate a new business-societal practice driven by a values-based business model.

# data[].attributes.body
Article 2: Multi-stakeholder Engagement for the SDGs: Introduction to the Special Issue (Nonet et al., 2022): This article focuses on the role of multi-stakeholder engagement in achieving the SDGs, particularly how businesses can collaborate across sectors—government, non-profit, and academia—to tackle global challenges such as climate change. It points out that achieving SDG 13 requires cross-sector partnerships and a deeper integration of ethical principles into corporate decision-making.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Multi-stakeholder Engagement for the Sustainable Development Goals: Introduction to the Special Issue - Journal of Business Ethics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The world is not on track to achieve Agenda 2030—the approach chosen in 2015 by all UN member states to engage multiple stakeholders for the common goal of sustainable development. The creation of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) arguably offered a new take on sustainable development by adopting hybrid and principle-based governance approaches, where public, private, not for profit and knowledge-institutions were invited to engage around achieving common medium-term targets. Cross-sector partnerships and multi-stakeholder engagement for sustainability have consequently taken shape. But the call for collaboration has also come with fundamental challenges to meaningful engagement strategies—when private enterprises try to establish elaborate multi-stakeholder configurations. How can the purpose of businesses be mitigated through multi-stakeholder principle-based partnerships to effectively serve the purpose of a common sustainability agenda? In selecting nine scholarly contributions, this special issue aims at advancing this discourse. To stimulate further progress in business studies, this introductory essay, furthermore, identifies three pathways for research on multi-stakeholder engagement processes in support of the Decade of Action along three coupling lines: multi-sector alignment (relational coupling), operational perception alignment (cognitive coupling) and goal and strategic alignment (material coupling).

# data[].attributes.body
Utilitarianism: From a utilitarian perspective, businesses have a moral obligation to minimize their carbon footprint and promote sustainability for the greatest good. The articles highlight how engaging multiple stakeholders can maximize positive environmental impacts, aligning with utilitarian ethics by considering the broader societal benefits of reducing climate risks.

# data[].attributes.body
Deontology: Deontological ethics suggests that businesses have a duty to adhere to ethical standards, including compliance with climate regulations and international agreements. Sebhatu & Enquist’s discussion on values-based business models stresses the duty of businesses to incorporate sustainability as a core value, which aligns with deontological principles of adhering to ethical obligations.

# data[].attributes.body
Stakeholder Theory: The stakeholder theory emphasizes that businesses should not only focus on shareholder interests but also consider the impact of their actions on all stakeholders, including the environment. Both articles underscore the importance of involving multiple stakeholders—customers, communities, governments—in the fight against climate change, thus supporting a stakeholder-oriented approach to business ethics.

# data[].attributes.body
The ethical responsibility of businesses to address climate change can be explored through various theories. Utilitarianism supports minimizing harm to society by reducing environmental impact, while deontology emphasizes the moral obligation businesses have to comply with environmental laws and sustainability principles. Stakeholder theory, as discussed in both articles, argues that businesses should prioritize the interests of a wide range of stakeholders, including the environment, as they work towards achieving SDG 13.

# data[].attributes.body
Corporate responsibility in reducing carbon emissions is critical for achieving SDG 13. The articles both emphasize that businesses cannot work in isolation to address climate challenges; instead, they must engage in multi-stakeholder dialogue and cross-sector partnerships. This is particularly evident in Nonet et al. (2022), where cross-sector collaborations between businesses, governments, and non-profit organizations are seen as essential to overcoming climate-related obstacles. Similarly, Sebhatu & Enquist (2022) argue that businesses can integrate sustainability into their operations through values-driven transformations, ensuring that they meet both ethical responsibilities and global climate targets.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility: Creating Value for Business, Society and the Environment2

This article from the Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility discusses how corporations are increasingly adopting responsible behaviors to create value for business, society, and the environment2. It highlights the link between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and financial performance2.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This research builds on the previous theoretical underpinnings of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) agenda, including corporate social performance (Waddock and Graves 1997, Griffin and Mahon 1997, Wang and Choi 2013), stakeholder management (Freeman 1984, Berman et al. 1999, Carroll and Buchholtz 2014), corporate citizenship (Carroll 1998, Maignan et al. 1999, Fombrun et al. 2000, Matten and Crane 2005), strategic CSR (Burke and Logsdon 1996, Lantos 2001, McWilliams et al. 2006, Falck and Heblich 2007) and creating shared value (Camilleri 2017, Porter and Kramer 2011, 2014, European Union 2011, Elkington 2012, Crane et al. 2014). Moreover, it reviews the corporate sustainability and responsibility perspectives (Van Marrewijk and Werre 2003, Salzmann et al. 2005, Montiel 2008, Visser 2011, Benn et al. 2014). Corporate sustainability and responsibility is increasingly being recognised as a concept that offers ways of thinking and behaving. This approach toward sustainable business has potential to deliver significant benefits to business, society and the environment.

The subject of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has continuously been challenged by those who want corporations to move beyond transparency, ethical behaviour and stakeholder engagement. Today, responsible behaviours are increasingly being embedded into new sustainable business models that are designed to meet environmental, societal and governance deficits. Although there are numerous theories and empirical analyses on CSR constructs (Carroll 1979, Margolis and Walsh 2001, McWilliams and Siegel 2001, Fombrun 2005, Wang and Choi 2013, Strand et al. 2015), there is still scant theoretical research that links corporate sustainability with corporate social responsibility and environmental management. Therefore, this contribution aims at filling this academic gap by examining the conceptual developments of the "corporate sustainability and responsibility" notion. This review paper reiterates that that there is a business case for CSR as organizations can pursue profit-making activities (i.e. corporate sustainability). Businesses are encouraged to strategically re-align their products, services, and operations with responsible behaviors (Husted and Allen 2009). Strategic CSR outcomes may include responsible management of internal practices and forging relationships with external stakeholders. It is in the organizations' interest to forge closer ties with the regulatory authorities and with their neighbouring communities. Responsible behaviours add value to the firm, society and the environment (Camilleri 2017). Therefore, businesses ought to utilize their skills, resources, and management capability that lead to social progress (see Beschorner 2014, Porter and Kramer 2011: 77). This is consistent with the expectation that much of CSR is developed in order to improve the firm's image and reputation, possibly allowing it to differentiate its products in the market (Fombrun 2005).

The underlying objective of this research is to advance the corporate sustainability and responsibility concept. Hence, this contribution provides a critical analysis of the literature that has inevitably led to the conceptual development of this value-based construct. This research elaborates on the business case for CSR and the related stakeholder theory. It provides a logical link between them. Following relevant theoretical underpinnings, this review article also puts forward a conceptual model representing a graphical illustration of 'corporate sustainability and responsibility'.

Literature review

Corporate social responsibility

The discussion on social responsibility grew in popularity and took shape during the 60s. Many authors have indicated that the CSR notion was a fertile ground for theory development and empirical analysis (McWilliams et al. 2006). However, the businesses' way of thinking has changed dramatically since Levitt in 1958 (and Friedman in 1962) held that the companies' only responsibility was to maximise their owners' and shareholders' wealth, rather than looking after societal (and environmental protection) issues. At the time, these corporations had considerable bargaining power, and their power called for responsibility (Davis 1960). Arguably, these businesses had responsibilities towards society beyond their economic and legal duties. In the 60s and 70s, the most important social movements included civil rights, women's rights, consumers' rights as well as environmental movements. The period was characterised as an issue era, where companies began noticing specific societal problems arising from social, environmental and community issues. There was a focus on philanthropy and a noticeable manifestation in charitable donations. The gifts in-kind have expanded to the groups representing the health and social services, culture, arts, and the community at large. In a book entitled, 'Corporate Social Responsibilities', Walton ( 1967) addressed many facets of CSR in society. He came up with several models for social responsibility as he underlined that CSR involved a degree of voluntarism, as opposed to coercion. Moreover, back then, the corporations were incurring discretionary costs for their CSR engagement (Walton 1967). Without doubt, the clarification of CSR's meaning is a significant strand within the research agenda. Table 1 reports a list of concepts that have emerged from the CSR paradigm:

Table 1 A non-exhaustive list of concepts relating to corporate social responsibility

The CSR notion has developed as a rather vague concept of moral good or normative behaviour (Carroll 1991). This construct was described as a relativistic measure of 'the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary expectations that society had of organizations at a given point of time' (Carroll 1979). CSR tackled 'social problem(s)' to engender positive 'economic benefit(s)' to ensure 'well paid jobs, and ... wealth' (Drucker 1984). This was consistent with academia's call toward corporate social performance (CSP). The CSP theory had evolved from previous theoretical approaches. CSP reconciled the importance of both corporate social responsibility and corporate social responsiveness (Carroll 1979). It also placed an emphasis on achieving better performance out of the socially-responsible initiatives. Many researchers have used the corporate social performance (CSP) construct to establish a definitive causal relationship between the firms that were doing good (CSP) and those doing well (Corporate Financial Performance, i.e. CFP) (Waddock and Graves 1997, Orlitzky et al. 2003, Margolis and Walsh 2001).

There were several unresolved theoretical debates about whether there was a clear link between CSP and financial performance. Despite certain controversies regarding the validity of some empirical findings, most studies have reported a positive relationship between the two (Waddock and Graves 1997, Preston and O'bannon 1997). The working assumption of CSP research was that corporate social and financial performance were universally related. Yet, it may prove hard for businesses and academia to demonstrate how CSR could lead to tangible improvements in the firms' bottom lines.

It may appear that there was no explicit statement that describes how socially responsible practices could possibly translate into specific results that affect the profit and loss account (Murillo and Lozano 2006). At times, the empirical research did not yield the desired results as the findings were mixed (McWilliams and Siegel 2001). Alternatively, they yielded inconsistent evidence (Vogel 2005). Some authors have argued that the CSP-CFP link was pointless, as they were unable to find a positive relationship between the responsible business and the firms' performance. Alternatively, another pertinent research question was to determine whether corporate profitability could be a sufficient motive for the avoidance of irresponsible behaviours (Vogel 2005).

The business case for corporate social responsibility

CSR can be much more than a cost, a constraint, or a charitable deed. It is 'a source of opportunity, innovation and competitive advantage' (Porter and Kramer 2006). However, its successful implementation could be influenced by a variety of factors including the firm's size, diversification, research and development and market conditions (McWilliams and Siegel 2001). Very often academic research tried to follow and capture trends in the broader societal debate on the businesses' social responsibilities. For instance, CSR's domains often include, commercial responsibility, ethical responsibility and social responsibility (Singh and Del Bosque 2008). One of the businesses' commercial responsibilities is their continuous development of high quality products or services. Companies are also expected to be fair and truthful in their marketing communications, whist they promote their offerings to customers (Singh and Del Bosque 2008). Secondly, the ethical responsibility is concerned with the corporations fulfilling their obligations towards their shareholders, suppliers, distributors and other agents with whom they make their dealings. Their ethical responsibility includes safeguarding the human rights and the norms that are (not necessarily) defined in the law when carrying out business activities. The ethical principles in business relationships could have more priority over achieving superior economic performance for some responsible corporations (Singh and Del Bosque 2008). Hence, the other social responsibility domain focuses on philanthropic behaviours. In this case, businesses could allocate part of their budget to the natural environment, or toward social issues that favour the most vulnerable in society. This form of social responsibility supports the development of financing stewardship principles including corporate donations to charitable institutions, religious, sports, cultural and heritage activities. This latter perspective is concerned with improving societal well-being.

Other scholars examined innovation and the level of differentiation in the industry as moderators in the relationship between corporate social performance and financial performance (Hull and Rothenberg 2008). A study reported that corporate social performance strongly affected financial performance in low-innovation firms and in industries with little differentiation (Hull and Rothenberg 2008). Ideally, social performance ought to be consistent over time and across stakeholder domains (Waddock and Graves 1997, Johnson and Greening 1999). For example, job seekers are attracted by CSP and organizational ethics that mirror their own values (Turban and Greening 1997, Jones et al. 2014). Hence, there is an opportunity that socially-responsible businesses could differentiate themselves from other companies. They may leverage their firm's image relative to other organizations. Lozano ( 2015) held that external drivers for CSR include reputation, customer demands and their expectations, as well as regulation and legislation. His findings suggest that one of the CSP outcomes is to communicate the corporations' commitment to socially-responsible and sustainability values that stakeholders share.

CSR can help to build reputational benefits, it enhances the firms' image among external stakeholders and could lead to a favourable climate of trust and cooperation within the company (Camilleri 2014). The expenditures on CSR activities are typically intended as long- term investments that are likely to yield financial returns. Corporations "give back" to their constituencies because they believe it to be in their best financial interests to do so. Many authors held that CSR is a driver for innovation and economic growth. They believed that it will help the company to achieve a competitive advantage (Burke and Logsdon 1996, Lantos 2001, Sen et al. 2006) by deriving positive benefits for both societal stakeholders and for the responsible firms. Therefore, companies should devote their attention to CSR strategies which add value to the business and disregard others' activities which do not add value to the business (Camilleri 2017). In this context, the corporate philanthropy should be deeply rooted in the firm's competences and linked to its business environment (Porter and Kramer 2002). Thus, strategic CSR behaviours may lead to the creation of value for both business and society (Burke and Logsdon 1996, Lantos 2001, McWilliams et al. 2006, Porter and Kramer 2011). Strategic CSR could increase the financial performance of businesses, it minimises their costs through better operational efficiencies, boosts the employee morale, creates job satisfaction and reduces the staff turnover, along with other benefits (Camilleri 2017).

Strategic CSR

CSR can bring a competitive advantage if there are appropriate relationships with multiple stakeholders. Therefore, it is in the interest of business to engage in ongoing communications and dialogue with employees, customers, marketplace and societal groups (Morsing and Schultz 2006, Union 2016, Bhattacharya et al. 2009). Businesses may also need to recognise the potential of building fruitful networks with key marketplace stakeholders, including suppliers, regulatory authorities and the community at large. These stakeholder relationships are needed to bring external knowledge sources, which may in turn enhance organizational skills and performance. Acquiring new knowledge must be accompanied by mechanisms for dissemination. Arguably, there is scope in sharing best practices, even with rival firms. It is necessary for the responsible businesses to realise that they need to work in tandem with other organizations to move the CSR agenda forward.

In the past, the stakeholder theory has demonstrated how businesses could develop long-term mutual relationships, with a wide array of stakeholders. The businesses' closer interactions with stakeholders could be based on relational and process-oriented views (Godfrey 2005). Thus, many firms are already forging strategic alliances in their value chain to run their businesses profitably. Many multinational corporations including Nestlé, Google, IBM, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, Unilever, and Wal-Mart have embraced the 'shared value' approach (Porter and Kramer 2011, Union 2011, Camilleri 2017). In many cases, they are building partnership and collaborative agreements with external stakeholders (including suppliers) hailing from different markets. The most successful businesses are increasingly promoting the right conditions of employment within their supply chains. They are instrumental in improving the lives of their suppliers (Porter and Kramer 2011). They do this as they would like to enhance the quality and attributes of their products, which are ultimately delivered to customers and consumers. They have economic responsibilities toward their owners and shareholders (Godfrey et al. 2009, Desai and Dharmapala 2009). Many businesses do not always pay their fair share of taxes to government. Alternatively, they may be accused of not providing the right conditions of employment, or they may even pay lousy wages to their employees (Trejo 1997).

Some commentators on the subject of CSR often suggested that the factors that should contribute towards creating value in business and society are often qualitative in nature, and that there are variables that may prove very difficult to measure and quantify, such as, employee morale, corporate image, reputation, public relations, goodwill, and popular opinion (Maignan et al. 1999, Fombrun et al. 2000). Therefore, any discretionary expenditure on altruistic or strategic CSR activities may be regarded as long-term investments that are likely to yield financial returns (McWilliams et al. 2006, Falck and Heblich 2007). Hence, corporate philanthropy, stewardship and cause-related marketing could be re-aligned with the businesses' profit motives (Camilleri 2017). This perspective resonates very well with the agency theory (Eisenhardt 1989). In the past, scholars argued that the companies' only responsibility was to maximise their owners' and shareholders' wealth (Levitt 1958, Friedman 1970). Hence, companies were often encouraged to undertake CSR strategies which add value to their business and to disregard other activities which were fruitless. Moreover, at times, the fulfilment of philanthropic responsibilities could simultaneously benefit the bottom line (Lantos 2002). Although, it could be difficult to quantify the returns of responsible behaviours, relevant research has shown that those companies that practiced social and environmental responsibility did well by doing good, in the long run (Falck and Heblich 2007, Porter and Kramer 2011). However, other research has shown that it was also possible to overspend on CSR activities (Camilleri 2017, McWilliams and Siegel 2001, Lantos 2001).

The corporate social responsibility, environmental and ethical behaviours could be triggered by genuine altruism and self-preservation (Hemingway and Maclagan 2004, Van Marrewijk 2003). Some of the contributions on this topic suggest that corporate philanthropy should be deeply rooted in the firms' competences and linked to their business environment (Porter and Kramer 2002, Godfrey 2005). Many authors often referred to CSR's core domains (economic, legal and ethical responsibilities) that were compatible and consistent with the relentless call for the business case of CSR (Carroll and Shabana 2010, Vogel 2005). The ethical responsibilities demand that businesses ought to abide by moral rules that define appropriate behaviours within a particular society. Another category of corporate responsibility is related to discretionary, voluntary or philanthropic issues. Corporate philanthropy is a direct contribution by a corporation to a charity or cause, most often in the form of cash grants, donations and/or in-kind services (Kotler and Lee 2008). This category of social responsibility is totally dictated at the "discretion" of the organization as there are no laws or codified expectations that guide the corporations' activities (Rasche et al. 2013).

Discretionary responsibilities include those business activities that are not mandated by law, and they are not expected from businesses in an ethical sense (Carroll 1979). Practically, some examples where organizations meet their discretionary responsibilities include, when they provide day-care centres for working mothers, by committing themselves to philanthropic donations, or by creating pleasant work place aesthetics (Carroll 1979). Evidently, the CSR approach had established a new way of doing business that has led to the creation of value (Porter and Kramer 2011, Union 2011, Wheeler et al. 2003) with a respectful and proactive attitude towards stakeholders (Freeman 1984, Lantos 2001). The stakeholder theory provides opportunities to align business practices with societal expectations and sustainable environmental needs. The stakeholder relationships support the principle of inclusivity, as the business practitioners ought to strike a balance between the conflicting demands of different stakeholders. Inevitably, businesses need to reconcile disparate stakeholders' wants and needs (e.g. employees, customers, investors, government, suppliers et cetera).

The CSR's responsibilities include the obligations toward customers. The businesses maintain economic growth, and meet the consumption requirements in the market. This economic component of CSR represents the fundamental responsibility of businesses. Many firms produce goods and services and sell them at fair prices to customers (including other businesses). This will in turn allow them to make a legitimate profit and to pursue growth and competitiveness. The legal responsibilities of businesses imply that these entities must fulfil their economic mission within the extant framework of rules and regulatory parameters. This legal component recognises the firms' obligations to obey the relevant laws in the countries where they are trading. Of course, it could prove hard to define and interpret the ethical responsibilities of businesses. This component is often referred to as a "grey area", as it involves activities that are not necessarily mandated by law but may still entail certain organizational behaviours that are expected by society (Carroll 1979).

The economic, legal and ethical responsibilities of corporations are compatible with the business case for CSR (Carroll and Shabana 2010), as firms create value to society in the long term with a respectful and proactive attitude towards different stakeholders, including their human resources (Carroll 1991). Many commentators argued that the CSR agenda had potential to bring a new wave of social benefits as well as gains for the businesses themselves (Fombrun et al. 2000, Porter and Kramer 2011) rather than merely acting on well-intentioned impulses or by reacting to outside pressures (Van Marrewijk 2003). Lozano ( 2015) indicated that leadership and the business case are the most important internal drivers for responsible companies. Thus, proper incentives may encourage managers 'to do well by doing good' (Falck and Heblich 2007). If it is a company's goal to survive and prosper, it can do nothing better than to take a long-term view and understand that if it treats society well, society will return the favour. Companies could direct their discretionary investments to areas (and cost centres) that are relevant to them (Jamali 2007, Gupta and Sharma 2009). The reconciliation of shareholder and other stakeholders addresses the perpetual relationship between business and society, at large.

The legitimate businesses' response to the demands of stakeholders allow them to meet and even exceed legal, ethical, and public societal expectations (Carroll 1979). Therefore, CSR offers prospects for greater credibility and value added as it involves linking altruistic interventions with long-term strategic goals (Jamali 2007). Therefore, corporate philanthropic activities, including stewardship programmes could also create social value to the business practitioners themselves (Camilleri 2017, Baron 2001, Carroll and Shabana 2010). Certain CSR variables including voluntarism, centrality and visibility could possibly relate to value creation (Husted and Allen 2009). One would expect that greater voluntarism would lead to greater creation of value, particularly when CSR initiatives arise as the result of industry, tax, or regulatory constraints (Burke and Logsdon 1996, Husted and Allen 2009). In a similar vein, the environmental regulation can also stimulate the innovation and competitiveness among firms (Orlitzky et al. 2011). The incorporation of multiple elements of competitive advantage increases the likelihood that a CSR initiative will succeed and create value for the firm (Burke and Logsdon 1996). There could be an optimal level of spending on CSR and environmental responsibility, as businesses are expected to continuously balance conflicting stakeholder interests for long term sustainability (Orlitzky et al. 2011, Camilleri 2017).

Environmental sustainability and corporate sustainability

The term "sustainable development" has been defined in many ways, but the most frequently quoted definition is from "Our Common Future", also known as the Brundtland Report, that was published way back in 1987. A central contribution of this report was the intermittent link between human development and actions toward environmental responsibility for the benefit of future generations (Camilleri 2014). Thirty years ago, the sustainable development agenda necessitated empirical research data. Debatably, today academia is calling for more policy and concrete action. Many governments as well as businesses are changing their stance on sustainability as they are becoming more proactive rather than reactive on social and environmental issues. Porter and Kramer ( 2011: 74) recommended that national governments could set performance standards to big businesses. They suggested that they should not interfere with the methods to achieve them, "those are left to companies" (2011:74). In this day and age, we are increasingly witnessing a growing consensus on principles and regulatory guidelines. The initial flurry of codes and guidelines seem to have settled around a few core standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative's Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, the UN Global Compact and the Sustainable Development Goals, the World Resources Institute's Greenhouse Gas Protocol and the UN Principles for Responsible Investment. This change toward sustainable and responsible business is a long-term process, but the momentum is important to reach the necessary tipping points in public opinion, policy response and business action. As a matter of fact, most of the largest corporations are continuously re-articulating their codes of conduct, certifiable standards, corporate programmes, industry initiatives, green politicians, triple-bottom-line reports and documentaries about sustainability (Brundtland 1987). Nevertheless, many of the global challenges are still present today - be they climate change, water depletion, biodiversity loss, bribery and corruption or income inequality, among others.

The term "sustainability" can mean different things to a variety of constituencies. While there may be no objection to the sentiments expressed by multiple stakeholders on the respective definitions for sustainable business, most of them are far from holistic. The sustainability systems may be too complex and varied, and their applications could be quite diverse. Some authors have attempted to relate sustainability with the corporations' responsible behaviours: Interestingly, the corporate sustainability construct was also related to a nested system consisting of economic, societal, and ecological systems. These pillars are interconnected to each other where the economy is part of society, which is also a fundamental part of the larger ecological system. Corporate sustainability relies on six criteria: eco-efficiency, socio-efficiency, eco-effectiveness, socio-effectiveness, sufficiency and ecological equity (Dyllick and Hockerts 2002). These corporate sustainability imperatives can be structured into value systems that could result in a better financial performance (Salzmann et al. 2005, Van Marrewijk 2003). A few researchers have developed (self)-assessment tools, that could be used to audit, analyse and interpret corporate sustainability (Van Marrewijk 2003, Clarkson 1995). However, corporate sustainability may be contingent on different parameters (e.g. technology, regime and visibility) that could vary across industries, plants and countries (Salzmann et al. 2005). Corporate sustainability could reduce the downside operational risk as it comprises relevant measures that are intended to increase eco-efficiency, and health and safety performance among other issues (Porter and Kramer 2002, Porter and Kramer 2011, Camilleri 2014). This means that the economic value of sustainable business strategies could be materialised in the long-term (Weber 2008, Guenster et al. 2011).

Notwithstanding, there are the long term effects of corporate sustainability on intangible assets (e.g. brand value, employee loyalty) could be difficult to quantify (Salzmann et al. 2005, Dyllick and Hockerts 2002). Although some commentators have voiced their opposition to the normative calls in favour of the "sustainability rhetoric" (Salzmann et al. 2005, Vogel 2007), it may appear that we are witnessing a relentless progression from active antagonism, through indifference, to a strong commitment to actively furthering sustainability values, not only within the organization, but across many industries and in our society as a whole. These recent developments imply that the organizations' commitment to responsible behaviours may represent a transformation of the corporation into a truly sustainable business that is adding value to the business itself, whilst also adding value to society and the environment. Perhaps, there is scope for more collaboration between CSR and corporate sustainability fields. This synergy could help to increase the impact of social and environmental performance research within the field of strategic management. Ultimately, the corporate sustainability's strategic goals are economic development, institutional effectiveness, stakeholder orientation and sustainable ecosystems (Dyllick and Hockerts 2002, Shrivastava 1995).

Creating value for all: Seeking win-win outcomes with stakeholders

Firms create simultaneous, pluralistic definitions of value whilst targeting their stakeholders. In a similar vein, the resource based view (RBV) theory suggests that the resources of the firm affect its activities and growth, profits and the level of sustained competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). Significant areas of study which are synonymous with the corporate sustainability and responsibility approach include, 'the Virtuous Circles' (Pava and Krausz 1996, Preston and O'bannon 1997, Waddock and Graves 1997), 'The Sustainable Local Enterprise Networks' (Wheeler et al. 2005, 'The Triple Bottom Line Approach' (Elkington 1998), 'The Supply and Demand Theory of the Firm' (McWilliams and Siegel 2001), 'The Value Based Networks' (Wheeler et al. 2003), 'The Base of Pyramid Approaches' (Anderson and Markides 2007, Landrum 2007), 'the Win-Win Perspective for CSR practices' (Falck and Heblich 2007), 'Creating Shared Value' (Porter and Kramer 2011, Union 2011), 'Value in Business' (Lindgreen et al. 2012), 'The Stakeholder Approach to Maximizing Business and Social Value' (Bhattacharya et al. 2012) and 'Value Creation through Social Strategy' (Husted et al. 2015), among others.

Very often, these value-based theories suggest that businesses should continuously monitor and evaluate their performance in terms of their economic results. It may appear that many of these propositions focus on identifying and expanding the connections between societal and economic progress. Whilst the traditional school of thought for CSR's had primarily focused on responsibility, Porter and Kramer ( 2011) argued that their creating shared value (CSV) approach is inherently different than CSR. Yet, other academics did not view CSV as unrelated to strategic CSR practices (de los Reyes et al. 2016, Beschorner 2014). Porter and Kramer ( 2011) contended that their proposed strategy has set out new business opportunities as it creates new markets, improves profitability and strengthens the corporations' competitive positioning. The reason for this is that the businesses processes in the value chain operate in an environmental setting within their wider community context (Porter 2001). It may appear that Porter and Kramer ( 2011) had focused on the value chain activities that could bring opportunities for competitive advantage. The authors contended that there is shared value when the organizations' social value propositions are integrated into their corporate strategies. Therefore, companies could benefit from insights, skills, and resources that cut across profit/non-profit and private/public boundaries. On the other hand, companies will be less successful if they attempt to tackle societal problems on their own.

Porter and Kramer ( 2011) maintained that companies could create shared value opportunities by reconceiving products and markets. Hence, new products and services that meet social needs or serve overlooked markets will require new value chain choices in areas such as production, marketing, and distribution. These revised configurations will create demand for equipment and technology that could save energy, conserve resources, and support employees. They argued that their shared value approach redefines productivity in the value chain by enabling local cluster development. They reiterated that their suggested avenues for creating shared value are mutually reinforcing as corporations, their marketplace stakeholders and the governments ought to work together to develop clusters that enable more local procurement and less dispersed supply chains. For example, Nestlé can be considered as a pioneer of the shared value initiative. The multinational organization has accessed new products, reconfigured and secured the value chain by tapping into new or better resources (through partners and cluster development) whilst improving their capabilities (in terms of skills, knowledge and productivity) of its suppliers. Nestlé sources its materials from thousands of farms in developing countries, where it provides training to farmers for sustainable production. This way, the company protects its procurement, raises its standards and maintains a high quality of the raw materials it uses. At the same time, these suppliers run profitable farms, as they offer their children a fairer future through better education. Moreover, both Nestlé and its suppliers are committed to protecting their natural environmental resources for their long-term sustainability. Nestlé's business principles have incorporated ten United Nations Global Compact Principles on human rights, labour, the environment and corruption. The company maintains that it complies with international regulatory laws and acceptable codes of conduct, as it improves its company's operations. Firms don't just need to prepare financial reports. In a lot of countries, they're legally required to report social and environmental information. And they have to build up accounting systems to do so (Rasche et al. 2013). Very often the companies' responsible management may involve designing business processes and activities in a way that they meet certain social and environmental minimum standards.

Relevant academic literature is indicating that today's businesses are strategically re-orienting themselves toward corporate sustainability and corporate responsibility whilst focusing on their stakeholders' needs. Strand et al. ( 2015) suggested that CSV necessitates heightened forms of collaboration and stakeholder management as they remarked about the apparent links between creating shared value and stakeholder theory. Strand et al. ( 2015) posited that Porter and Kramer's ( 2011) shared value proposition is a response to the competitive, conflict-based view of strategic management that Michael Porter himself helped to create (Strand 2014). However, some critics have argued that 'shared value' is based on a shallow conception of the corporation's role in society (de los Reyes et al. 2016, Crane et al. 2014, Beschorner 2014) For instance, Crane et al. ( 2014) held that CSV looks naïve by ignoring the tensions that could exist between social and economic goals. They suggested that this proposition simplifies the role of corporations in society and ignores the challenges arising from business compliance. Their argument was that there are alternative ways to re-invent capitalism (Corazza et al. 2017). This strategic approach cannot cure all of society's ills as not all businesses are good for society, nor would the pursuit of shared value eliminate all injustice (Porter & Kramer, 2014). Beschorner ( 2014) also noted that the creation of business value and social value may not always go hand in hand. He regarded Porter and Kramer's ( 2011) shared value approach as a reformulation of a classical strategic stakeholder approach that tends to prioritise the relevance of stakeholders according to their influence on the business' activities. Although shared value seems to address "win-win" business and society issues, it leaves managers ill-equipped to legitimately manage issues where they face the prospect of "win-lose" or "lose-win" social engagements (de los Reyes et al. 2016).

The way forward: -corporate sustainability and responsibility

In the past, CSR may have been more associated with corporate philanthropy, stewardship principles, contributions-in-kind toward social and environmental causes, environmental protection, employees' engagement in community works, volunteerism and pro-bono service among other responsible initiatives. Very often, such altruistic CSR activities may have not resulted in financial performance to the business per se. On the contrary, certain discretionary expenses in corporate philanthropy could have usurped the businesses' slack resources (including financial assets, labour and time) without adding much value (in terms of corporate reputation and goodwill) to the businesses. Nevertheless, this research reported that the contemporary discourses on corporate social responsibility are opening new opportunities for the businesses themselves. The academic discourse about CSR is moving away from 'nice-to do' to 'doing-well-by-doing-good' mantra. Evidently, the value-based approaches that were discussed in this paper could be considered as guiding principles that will lead tomorrow's businesses to long term sustainability (in social and economic terms). Debatably, the profit motive (the business case or corporate sustainability concepts) could be linked with the corporate responsibility agenda. This way, the multinational corporations could be better prepared to address their societal and environmental deficits across the globe, whilst adding value to their business.

This review paper has built on the previous theoretical underpinnings of the corporate social responsibility agenda including Stakeholder Management, Corporate Citizenship and Creating Shared Value as it presents the latest Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility perspective. This value-based model reconciles strategic CSR and environmental management with a stakeholder approach to bring long term corporate sustainability, in terms of economic performance for the business, as well as corporate responsibility's social outcomes. Recently, some international conferences including Humboldt University's gatherings in 2014 and 2016 have also raised awareness on this proposition. The corporate sustainability and responsibility concept is linked to improvements to the companies' internal processes including nvironmental management, human resource management, operations management and marketing (i.e. Corporate Sustainability). At the same time, it raises awareness on the businesses' responsible behaviours (i.e. Corporate Responsibility) toward stakeholders including the government, suppliers, customers and the community, among others. The fundamental motivation behind this approach is the view that creating connections between stakeholders in the value chain will open-up unseen opportunities for the competitive advantage of responsible businesses, as illustrated in Table 2.

Table 2 The Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility Model

Corporate sustainability and responsibility focuses on exploiting opportunities that reconcile differing stakeholder demands as many corporations out there are investing in corporate sustainability and responsible business practices (Lozano 2015). Their active engagement with multiple stakeholders (both internal and external stakeholders) will ultimately create synergistic value for all (Camilleri 2017).

Multinational organizations are under increased pressures from stakeholders (particularly customers and consumer associations) to revisit their numerous processes in their value chain activities. Each stage of the company's production process, from the supply chain to the transformation of resources could add value to their businesses' operational costs as they produce end-products. However, the businesses are always expected to be responsible in their internal processes toward their employees or toward their suppliers' labour force. Therefore, this corporate sustainability and responsibility perspective demands that businesses create economic and societal value by re-aligning their corporate objectives with stakeholder management and environmental responsibility. In sum, corporate sustainability and responsibility may only happen when companies demonstrate their genuine willingness to add corporate responsible dimensions and stakeholder engagement to their value propositions. This occurs when businesses opt for responsible managerial practices that are integral to their overall corporate strategy. These strategic behaviours create opportunities for them to improve the well-being of stakeholders as they reduce negative externalities on the environment. The negative externalities can be eliminated by developing integrated approaches that are driven by ethical and sustainability principles. Very often, multinational businesses are in a position to mitigate risk and to avoid inconveniences to third parties. For instance, major accidents including BP's Deep Horizon oil spill in 2010, or the collapse of Primark's Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh, back in 2013, could have been prevented if the big businesses were responsible beforehand.

In conclusion, the corporate sustainability and responsibility construct is about embedding sustainability and responsibility by seeking out and connecting with the stakeholders' varied interests. As firms reap profits and grow, there is a possibility that they generate virtuous circles of positive multiplier effects (Camilleri 2017). Therefore, corporate sustainability and responsibility can be considered as strategic in its intents and purposes. Indeed, the businesses are capable of being socially and environmentally responsible 'citizens' as they are doing well, economically. This theoretical paper has contributed to academic knowledge as it explained the foundations for corporate sustainability and responsibility. Although this concept is still evolving, the debate among academic commentators is slowly but surely raising awareness on responsible managerial practices and on the skills and competences that are needed to deliver strategic results that create value for businesses, society and the environment.

Limitations and future research avenues

No research is without limitations. This conceptual paper could not have featured all of the contributions that are related to CSR's value driven notions. However, the scope of this paper has been reached. The corporate sustainability and responsibility proposition could appeal to business practitioners themselves, as sustainable and responsible behaviours may bring significant improvements to their firms' bottom lines. Of course, there are diverse contexts across different industry sectors (and jurisdictions) that will surely influence the successful implementation of corporate sustainability and responsibility practices and their reporting mechanisms. Notwithstanding, it may prove difficult to quantify the tangible and intangible benefits of corporate sustainability and responsibility. Future theoretical and empirical research may address these challenging issues, in further detail. Indeed, there is also potential for more conceptual development in this promising area of strategic management.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Corporate sustainability and responsibility: creating value for business, society and the environment - Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today's corporations are increasingly implementing responsible behaviours as they pursue profit-making activities. A thorosugh literature review suggests that there is a link between corporate social responsibility (CSR) or corporate social performance (CSP) and financial performance. In addition, there are relevant theoretical underpinnings and empirical studies that have often used other concepts, including corporate citizenship, stakeholder management and business ethics.

# data[].attributes.body
2. A Systematic Literature Review on Corporate Sustainability: Contributions, Barriers, Innovations and Future Possibilities4

This paper from Environment, Development and Sustainability reviews published studies on corporate sustainability, emphasizing the environmental approach4. It explores contributions, barriers, innovations, and future possibilities in corporate sustainability4.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This book provides a concise and authoritative guide to corporate social responsibility (CSR) and related paradigms, including environmental responsibility, corporate sustainability and responsibility

# data[].attributes.body
In conclusion, corporate responsibility for climate action is not only a legal requirement but also an ethical imperative. By adopting values-driven models and engaging in multi-stakeholder partnerships, businesses can play a significant role in achieving SDG 13. Through the application of ethical theories such as utilitarianism, deontology, and stakeholder theory, it becomes clear that companies must consider the broader societal and environmental impacts of their actions. As both articles suggest, addressing climate change requires collective effort and the integration of sustainability into every aspect of business operations, ensuring a positive impact on future generations.

# data[].attributes.body
Sebhatu, S. P., & Enquist, B. (2022). Values and multi-stakeholder dialog for business transformation in light of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Business Ethics, 180, 1059–1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05195-x

Nonet, G. A., Gössling, T., Van Tulder, R., & Bryson, J. M. (2022). Multi-stakeholder engagement for the Sustainable Development Goals: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Business Ethics, 180, 945–957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05192-0