Myriads of sustainability measurement schemes are in place to assess the societal impact of firms and other organizations. While these schemes aim to encourage positive social and environmental outcomes, they often fall short. We identify interest comprehensiveness, cognitive accuracy, and practical feasibility as the aspired dimensions of these schemes to argue why they are bound to be imperfect. Next to difficulties within each dimension, sustainability measurement schemes face inherent tensions between the three dimensions, which we conceptualize as commensuration, scope, and scale ambivalence. We introduce the three papers for this themed section that develop salient frameworks and rich empirical insights into these tensions as well as the upsides of sustainability measurement schemes from very different theoretical and methodical perspectives. We conclude that while the inherent tensions within and between the aspired dimensions render the accomplishment of perfect schemes a mission impossible, there are viable solutions that pave the way to more effective sustainability measurement schemes. Promising pathways to which organizational scholars can make significant contributions include improving the governance of schemes to enhance transparency and balance power, using innovative data to more accurately and exhaustively feed these schemes, streamlining the numerous schemes to remove redundancy, and simplifying schemes to make them more robust.
ArjalièsDiane-LaureDurandRodolphe (2019). Product categories as judgment devices: The moral awakening of the investment industry. Organization Science, 30, 885–911.
2.
BansalPratimaDurandRodolpheKreutzerMarkusKunischSvenMcGahanAnita M. (2025). Strategy can no longer ignore planetary boundaries: A call for tackling strategy’s ecological fallacy. Journal of Management Studies, 62, 965–985.
3.
BansalPratimaKimAnnaWoodMichael O. (2018). Hidden in plain sight: The importance of scale in organizations’ attention to issues. Academy of Management Review, 43, 217–241.
4.
BazermanMax H. (1997). Judgment in managerial decision making (4th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
5.
BerchicciLucaKingAndrew A. (2022a). Building knowledge by mapping model uncertainty in six studies of social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 43, 1319–1346.
6.
BerchicciLucaKingAndrew A. (2022b). Corporate sustainability: A model uncertainty analysis of materiality. Journal of Financial Reporting, 7, 43–74.
7.
BergFlorianKölbelJulian F.RigobonRoberto (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26, 1315–1344.
8.
BitzerVerenaFranckenMaraGlasbergenPieter (2008). Intersectoral partnerships for a sustainable coffee chain: Really addressing sustainability or just picking (coffee) cherries?Global Environmental Change, 18, 271–284.
9.
BoiralOlivierGuillaumieLaurenceHeras-SaizarbitoriaIñakiTayoTene, Christian Valery (2018). Adoption and outcomes of ISO 14001: A systematic review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20, 411–432.
10.
BoiralOlivierTalbotDavidBrothertonMarie-ChristineHeras-SaizarbitoriaIñaki (2021). Sustainability rating and moral fictionalism: Opening the black box of nonfinancial agencies. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 34, 1740–1768.
11.
BromleyPatriciaPowellWalter W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. The Academy of Management Annals, 6, 483–530.
12.
BushSimon R.ToonenHildeOosterveerPeterMolArthur P. J. (2013). The ‘devils triangle’ of MSC certification: Balancing credibility, accessibility and continuous improvement. Marine Policy, 37, 288–293.
13.
CarlosChadLewisBen W. (2018). Strategic silence: Withholding certification status as a hypocrisy avoidance tactic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63, 130–169.
14.
CascaddenMaggieHealesKylieKingstonMattHeidakPiaJenningsDevereaux (2025). Hybridizing sustainability metric applications with local stakeholder inputs: A life cycle assessment with a co-design demonstration. Organization Studies, 46, 693–720.
15.
ChatterjiAaron K.DurandRodolpheLevineDavid I.TouboulSamuel (2016). Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 1597–1614.
16.
ChoCharles H.LaineMatiasRobertsRobin W.RodrigueMichelle (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 78–94.
de la Cruz JaraMarcelo F.SpanjolJelenaDoppstadtTheresa (2025). Strategic social value orientation and sustainability performance: A commensuration perspective. Organization Studies, 46, 635–666.
19.
DesJardineMark R.LiBoshuoShiWei (2025). Information-based competition: The case of rival owners in rating agencies. Academy of Management Journal, 68, 221–256.
20.
DesJardineMark R.MartiEmilioDurandRodolphe (2021). Why activist hedge funds target socially responsible firms: The reaction costs of signaling corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 64, 851–872.
21.
DobbinFrank (2009). Inventing equal opportunity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
22.
Du PlessisChrisnaBrandonPeter (2015). An ecological worldview as basis for a regenerative sustainability paradigm for the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 109, 53–61.
23.
DurandRodolpheHawnOlgaIoannouIoannis (2019). Willing and able: A general model of organizational responses to normative pressures. Academy of Management Review, 44, 299–320.
24.
EspelandWendy NelsonStevensMitchell L. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 313–343.
25.
EspinosaAngelaWalkerJon (2011). A complexity approach to sustainability: Theory and application. London: Imperial College Press.
FriedlingsteinPierreO’SullivanMichaelJonesMatthew W.AndrewRobbie M., et al. (2022). Global Carbon Budget 2022. Earth System Science Data, 14, 4811–4900.
28.
GehmanJoelGrimesMatthew (2017). Hidden badge of honor: How contextual distinctiveness affects category promotion among certified B corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 60, 2294–2320.
29.
GeorgeGerardHaasMartine R.PentlandAlex (2014). From the editors: Big data and management. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 321–326.
30.
GilbertDirk UlrichRascheAndreasWaddockSandra (2011). Accountability in a global economy: The emergence of international accountability standards. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21, 23–44.
31.
GoodhartCharles (1975). Problems of monetary management: The UK experience. Papers in Monetary Economics, 1, 1–20.
32.
HahnTobiasFiggeFrankPinkseJonatanPreussLutz (2010). Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: You can’t have your cake and eat it. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 217–229.
33.
HessCharlotteOstromElinor (2007). Introduction: An overview of the knowledge commons. In HessCharlotteOstromElinor (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice (pp. 3–26). Cambridge: MIT Press.
JacqueminetAnneDurandRodolphe (2020). Ups and downs: The role of legitimacy judgment cues in practice implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 63, 1485–1507.
36.
JellemaSylke F.WernerMirjam D.RascheAndreasCornelissenJoep (2022). Questioning impact: A cross-disciplinary review of certification standards for sustainability. Business & Society, 61, 1042–1082.
KaufmannLaurenKrlevGorgiBrownMaoz (2025). In plain sight: Mechanisms of means–ends decoupling in impact investing. Organization Studies, 46, 667–692.
40.
KerrSteven (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 769–783.
41.
KimYong H.DavisGerald F. (2016). Challenges for global supply chain sustainability: Evidence from conflict minerals reports. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1896–1916.
42.
KimEun-HeeHiattShon R.ZhouMaggie (2024). Green screening: Firm environmental strategy amidst policy implementation uncertainty in the European Union. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13085
43.
KingAndrew A.LenoxMichael J. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s Responsible Care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 698–716.
44.
KingAndrew A.PuckerKenneth P. (2021). Heroic accounting. Stanford Social Innovation Review, September20.
45.
KonietzkoJanDasAnkitaBockenNancy (2023). Towards regenerative business models: A necessary shift?Sustainable Production and Consumption, 38, 372–388.
46.
LahnemanBrookeWallsJudith LouiseUnterKerrigan Marie MachadoHoward-GrenvilleJennifer (2025). (Re)focusing on planetary boundaries for corporate sustainability research. Strategic Organization. https://doi.org/10.1177/14761270251315632
47.
LeeBrandon H.HiattShon R.LounsburyMichael (2017). Market mediators and the trade-offs of legitimacy-seeking behaviors in a nascent category. Organization Science, 28, 447–470.
48.
LevyDavidReineckeJulianeManningStephan (2016). The political dynamics of sustainable coffee: Contested value regimes and the transformation of sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 53, 364–401.
49.
McGahanAnita M.PongeluppeLeandro S. (2023). There is no Planet B: Aligning stakeholder interests to preserve the Amazon rainforest. Management Science, 69, 7860–7881.
50.
MenaSébastienPalazzoGuido (2012). Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22, 527–556.
51.
MillerAlice M. M.BushSimon R. (2015). Authority without credibility? Competition and conflict between ecolabels in tuna fisheries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 137–145.
52.
OcasioWilliam (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 187–206.
53.
Perez-AlemanPaolaSandilandsMarion (2008). Building value at the top and the bottom of the global supply chain: MNC–NGO partnerships. California Management Review, 51(1), 24–49.
54.
PonteStefano (2008). Greener than thou: The political economy of fish ecolabeling and its local manifestations in South Africa. World Development, 36, 159–175.
55.
PuckerKenneth P. (2021). Overselling sustainability reporting. Harvard Business Review, May–June, 134–143.
56.
QuattronePaolo (2022). Seeking transparency makes one blind: How to rethink disclosure, account for nature and make corporations sustainable. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 35, 547–566.
57.
RawhouserHansCummingsMichael E.HiattShon R. (2019). Does a common mechanism engender common results? Sustainable development trade-offs in the global carbon offset market. Academy of Management Discoveries, 5, 514–529.
58.
ReineckeJulianeAnsariShaz (2016). Taming wicked problems: The role of framing in the construction of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, 53, 299–329.
59.
ReineckeJulianeDonagheyJimmy (2017). Collective action and social partnership in global supply chains: Lessons from the Bangladesh Accord. Annual Review of Social Partnerships, 12, 32–37.
60.
ReineckeJulianeDonagheyJimmy (2022). Transnational representation in global labour governance and the politics of input legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 32, 438–474.
61.
ReineckeJulianeManningStephanVon HagenOliver (2012). The emergence of a standards market: Multiplicity of sustainability standards in the global coffee industry. Organization Studies, 33, 791–814.
62.
RindovaViolina P.MartinsLuis L.SrinivasSantosh B.ChandlerDavid (2018). The good, the bad, and the ugly of organizational rankings: A multidisciplinary review of the literature and directions for future research. Journal of Management, 44, 2175–2208.
63.
RockströmJohanSteffenWill.NooneKevinPerssonÅsaChapinF. StuartIII, et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475.
64.
SchulerDouglas A.ChristmannPetra (2011). The effectiveness of market-based social governance schemes: The case of Fair Trade coffee. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21, 133–156.
SerafeimGeorgeYoonAaron S. (2022). Understanding the business relevance of ESG issues. Journal of Financial Reporting, 7, 207–212.
67.
SharkeyAmandaKovácsBalázsHsuGreta (2023). Expert critics, rankings, and review aggregators: The changing nature of intermediation and the rise of markets with multiple intermediaries. Academy of Management Annals, 17, 1–36.
68.
SlawinskiNatalieBansalPratima (2015). Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organization Science, 26, 531–549.
69.
TaylorScottSirmonDavidHiattShon R. (2025). Patterns in certification emergence: When, where, and what certifications emerge. USC Marshall School of Business Research Paper Sponsored by iORB. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=5133855
Van ZantenJan AntonVan TulderRob (2021). Improving companies’ impacts on sustainable development: A nexus approach to the SDGS. Business Strategy and The Environment, 30, 3703–3720.
75.
WhitemanGailWalkerBrianPeregoPaolo (2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 307–336.
76.
WiessnerYannick T.GiulianiElisaWijenFrankDohJonathan (2024). Towards a more comprehensive assessment of FDI’s societal impact. Journal of International Business Studies, 55, 50–70.
77.
WijenFrank (2014). Means versus ends in opaque institutional fields: Trading off compliance and achievement in sustainability standard adoption. Academy of Management Review, 39, 302–323.
78.
WijenFrankChiroleu-AssoulineMireille (2019). Controversy over voluntary environmental standards: A socioeconomic analysis of the Marine Stewardship Council. Organization & Environment, 32, 98–124.
79.
WijenFrankFlowersMallory E. (2023). Issue opacity and sustainability standard effectiveness. Regulation & Governance, 17, 772–790.
80.
WilliamsAmandaKennedyStevePhilippFelixWhitemanGail (2017). Systems thinking: A review of sustainability management research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 148, 866–881.
81.
WilliamsAmandaPeregoPaoloWhitemanGail (2024). Boundary conditions for organizations in the Anthropocene: A review of the planetary boundaries framework 10 years on. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13150
82.
ZickfeldKirstenHerringtonTyler (2015). The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission. Environmental Research Letters, 10, 031001.
