A sustainability service industry has emerged that promotes the adoption of management tools, mechanisms, and procedures. This emergence took place despite a knowledge gap of how sustainability performance occurs in businesses. To understand practices amid the knowledge gap, this article explores through problematization how the performance orientations of practitioners and researchers relate to each other in the business sustainability field. The article unearths that like the sustainability service industry in practice, scholarship implicitly accepts assumptions of contingency in research designs. Because these implicit assumptions are unattended, it seems, to date, not possible for researchers to provide evidence-based guidance to practitioners on how to address business unsustainability. In addition, basic concepts of contingency are not yet established in this field to explain performance, rendering the acceptance of corresponding assumptions unfounded. The article concludes with research suggestions for the development of theory of sustainability performance in businesses.
AdamsC. A. (2002). Internal organisational factors influencing corporate social and ethical reporting: Beyond current theorising. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15, 223-250.
2.
AguinisH.GlavasA. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38, 932-968.
3.
AlvessonM.SandbergJ. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36, 247-271.
4.
AlvessonM.SandbergJ. (2013). Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 128-152.
5.
Aragón-CorreaJ. A.SharmaS. (2003). A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28, 71-88.
6.
ArditoL.DangelicoR. M. (2018). Firm environmental performance under scrutiny: The role of strategic and organizational orientations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25, 426-440.
7.
BaekK. (2018). Sustainable development and pollutant outcomes: The case of ISO 14001 in Korea. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25, 825-832.
8.
BansalP. (2003). From issues to actions: The importance of individual concerns and organizational values in responding to natural environmental issues. Organization Science, 14, 510-527.
9.
BansalP.RothK. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 717-736.
10.
BaronD. P. (1995). Integrated strategy: Market and nonmarket components. California Management Review, 37, 47-65.
BartunekJ. M.RynesS. L.IrelandR. D. (2006). What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter?Academy of Management Journal, 49, 9-15.
13.
BattilanaJ.LecaB.BoxenbaumE. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 65-107.
14.
BelkhirL.BernardS.AbdelgadirS. (2017). Does GRI reporting impact environmental sustainability? A cross-industry analysis of CO2 emissions performance between GRI-reporting and non-reporting companies. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 28, 138-155.
15.
BennS.DunphyD.GriffithsA. (2014). Organizational change for corporate sustainability: A guide for leaders and change agents of the future (3rd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
16.
BjørnA.HauschildM. Z. (2013). Absolute versus relative environmental sustainability: What can the cradle-to-cradle and eco-efficiency concepts learn from each other?Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17, 321-332.
17.
BoiralO. (2007). Corporate greening through ISO 14001: A rational myth?Organization Science, 18, 127-146.
18.
BoiralO.GendronY. (2011). Sustainable development and certification practices: Lessons learned and prospects. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20, 331-347.
19.
BoiralO.HenriJ.-F. (2017). Is sustainability performance comparable? A study of GRI reports of mining organizations. Business & Society, 56, 283-317.
20.
BoiralO.RaineriN.TalbotD. (2018). Managers’ citizenship behaviors for the environment: A developmental perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 149, 395-409.
21.
BondyK.MattenD.MoonJ. (2007). Codes of conduct as a tool for sustainable governance in MNCs. In BennS.DunphyD. (Eds.), Corporate governance and sustainability: Challenges for theory and practice (pp. 165-186). London, England: Routledge.
22.
BromleyP.PowellW. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. Academy of Management Annals, 6, 483-530.
23.
CampbellJ. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 946-967.
24.
ChatterjiA. K.LevineD. I.ToffelM. W. (2009). How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility?Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18, 125-169.
25.
ChoC. H.PattenD. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32, 639-647.
ColesT.DinanC.WarrenN. (2016). Energy practices among small-and medium-sized tourism enterprises: A case of misdirected effort?Journal of Cleaner Production, 111, 399-408.
28.
CorleyK. G.GioiaD. A. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution?Academy of Management Review, 36, 12-32.
29.
CraneA.PalazzoG.SpenceL. J.MattenD. (2014). Contesting the value of “creating shared value.”California Management Review, 56, 130-153.
30.
CrillyD.HansenM.ZolloM. (2016). The grammar of decoupling: A cognitive-linguistic perspective on firms’ sustainability claims and stakeholders’ interpretation. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 705-729.
31.
D’AunnoT.SucciM.AlexanderJ. A. (2000). The role of institutional and market forces in divergent organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 679-703.
32.
DahlmannF.BranickiL.BrammerS. (2017). “Carrots for corporate sustainability”: Impacts of incentive inclusiveness and variety on environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26, 1110-1131.
33.
DarnallN.HenriquesI.SadorskyP. (2010). Adopting proactive environmental strategy: The influence of stakeholders and firm size. Journal of Management Studies, 47, 1072-1094.
34.
DavisM. S. (1971). That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1, 309-344.
35.
De RoeckK.FarooqO. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and ethical leadership: Investigating their interactive effect on employees’ socially responsible behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 923-939.
36.
Delgado-CeballosJ.Aragón-CorreaJ. A.Ortiz-de-MandojanaN.Rueda-ManzanaresA. (2012). The effect of internal barriers on the connection between stakeholder integration and proactive environmental strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 281-293.
37.
DelmasM. A.EtzionD.Nairn-BirchN. (2013). Triangulating environmental performance: What do corporate social responsibility ratings really capture?Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 255-267.
38.
DelmasM. A.Montes-SanchoM. J. (2010). Voluntary agreements to improve environmental quality: Symbolic and substantive cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 575-601.
39.
DelmasM. A.Montes-SanchoM. J. (2011). An institutional perspective on the diffusion of international management system standards: The case of the environmental management standard ISO 14001. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21, 103-132.
40.
DelmasM. A.PekovicS. (2018). Corporate sustainable innovation and employee behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 1071-1088.
41.
DelmasM. A.ToffelM. W. (2004). Stakeholders and environmental management practices: An institutional framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13, 209-222.
42.
DerridaJ. (2008). The animal that therefore I am. New York, NY: Fordham University Press.
43.
DevinneyT. M. (2009). Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, 44-56.
44.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
45.
DioufD.BoiralO. (2017). The quality of sustainability reports and impression management: A stakeholder perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30, 643-667.
46.
DodaB.GennaioliC.GouldsonA.GroverD.SullivanR. (2016). Are corporate carbon management practices reducing corporate carbon emissions?Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23, 257-270.
47.
DonaldsonL. (2011). Contingency theory. In BadieB.Berg-SchlosserD.MorlinoL. (Eds.), International encyclopedia of political science (pp. 434-436). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48.
DyllickT.MuffK. (2016). Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organization & Environment, 29, 156-174.
49.
EngertS.RauterR.BaumgartnerR. J. (2016). Exploring the integration of corporate sustainability into strategic management: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2833-2850.
50.
EntineJ. (2003). The myth of social investing: A critique of its practice and consequences for corporate social performance research. Organization & Environment, 16, 352-368.
51.
EtzionD.FerraroF. (2010). The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting. Organization Science, 21, 1092-1107.
52.
EverndenN. (1993). The natural alien: Humankind and environment (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto University Press.
53.
FernándezJ. L.CamachoJ. (2016). Effective elements to establish an ethical infrastructure: An exploratory study of SMEs in the Madrid region. Journal of Business Ethics, 138, 113-131.
54.
FissP. C.ZajacE. J. (2006). The symbolic management of strategic change: Sensegiving via framing and decoupling. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1173-1193.
55.
FlemingP.JonesM. (2013). The end of corporate social responsibility. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
56.
FreemanR. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
57.
GilbertD. U.RascheA.WaddockS. (2011). Accountability in a global economy: The emergence of international accountability standards. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21, 23-44.
58.
GioiaD. A.CorleyK. G.HamiltonA. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 15-31.
59.
GladwinT. N.KennellyJ. J.KrauseT.-S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20, 874-907.
60.
GraaflandJ.SmidH. (2016). Environmental impacts of SMEs and the effects of formal management tools: Evidence from EU’s largest survey. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23, 297-307.
61.
GraaflandJ. J. (2018). Ecological impacts of the ISO14001 certification of small and medium sized enterprises in Europe and the mediating role of networks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 273-282.
62.
GraedelT. E. (2019). Can we define planetary boundaries on the human use of materials? In EstyD. C. (Ed.), Abstracts from a better planet: Forty big ideas for a sustainable future (pp. 258-265). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
63.
GravesL. M.SarkisJ. (2018). The role of employees’ leadership perceptions, values, and motivation in employees’ provenvironmental behaviors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 576-587.
64.
GrayR.MilneM. J. (2018). Perhaps the Dodo should have accounted for human beings? Accounts of humanity and (its) extinction. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 31, 826-848.
65.
GreeningD. W.GrayB. (1994). Testing a model of organizational response to social and political issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 467-498.
66.
GreenwoodR.JenningsP. D.HiningsB. (2015). Sustainability and organizational change. In HendersonR.GulatiR.TushmanM. (Eds.), Leading sustainable change: An organizational perspective (pp. 323-355). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
67.
GresovC.DrazinR. (1997). Equifinality: Functional equivalence in organization design. Academy of Management Review, 22, 403-428.
68.
HallJ. K.BachorV.MatosS. (2014). The impact of stakeholder heterogeneity on risk perceptions in technological innovation. Technovation, 34, 410-419.
69.
HalmeM.KourulaA.LindemanS.KallioG.Lima-ToivanenM.KorsunovaA. (2016). Sustainability innovation at the base of the pyramid through multi-sited rapid ethnography. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23, 113-128.
70.
HalmeM.RintamäkiJ.KnudsenJ. S.LankoskiL.KuismaM. (2020). When is there a sustainability case for CSR? Pathways to environmental and social performance improvements. Business & Society, 59, 1181-1227. doi:10.1177/0007650318755648
71.
HoejmoseS. U.Adrien-KirbyA. J. (2012). Socially and environmentally responsible procurement: A literature review and future research agenda of a managerial issue in the 21st century. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 18, 232-242.
HörischJ.OrtasE.SchalteggerS.ÁlvarezI. (2015). Environmental effects of sustainability management tools: An empirical analysis of large companies. Ecological Economics, 120, 241-249.
74.
HustedB. W. (2000). A contingency theory of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39, 24-48.
JenningsP. D.ZandbergenP. A. (1995). Ecologically sustainable organizations: An institutional approach. Academy of Management Review, 20, 1015-1052.
77.
KhannaM.BrouhleK. (2009). The effectiveness of voluntary environmental initiatives. In DelmasM. A.YoungO. R. (Eds.), Governance for the environment: New perspectives (pp. 144-182). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
78.
KimY. H.DavisG. F. (2016). Challenges for global supply chain sustainability: Evidence from conflict minerals reports. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1896-1916.
79.
LabelleR.HafsiT.FrancoeurC.AmarW. B. (2018). Family firms’ corporate social performance: A calculated quest for socioemotional wealth. Journal of Business Ethics, 148, 511-525.
80.
LangeD.WashburnN. T. (2012). Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review, 37, 300-326.
81.
LawrenceP. R.LorschJ. W. (1969). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration (2nd ed.). Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
82.
LeipzigerD. (2016). The corporate responsibility code book (3rd ed.). Sheffield, England: Greenleaf.
83.
LinnenlueckeM. K.GriffithsA. (2013). Firms and sustainability: Mapping the intellectual origins and structure of the corporate sustainability field. Global Environmental Change, 23, 382-391.
84.
MaletičM.MaletičD.GomiščekB. (2018). The role of contingency factors on the relationship between sustainability practices and organizational performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171, 423-433.
85.
MargolisJ. D.WalshJ. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268-305.
86.
MatthewsL.PowerD.TouboulicA.MarquesL. (2016). Building bridges: Toward alternative theory of sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 52(1), 82-94.
87.
MillikenF. J.SchipaniC. A.BisharaN. D.PradoA. M. (2015). Linking workplace practices to community engagement: The case for encouraging employee voice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29, 405-421.
88.
MitchellR. K.AgleB. R.WoodD. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.
89.
MontielI.Delgado-CeballosJ. (2014). Defining and measuring corporate sustainability: Are we there yet?Organization & Environment, 27, 113-139.
MoriokaS. N.de CarvalhoM. M. (2016). A systematic literature review towards a conceptual framework for integrating sustainability performance into business. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 134-146.
92.
NasonR. S.BacqS.GrasD. (2018). A behavioral theory of social performance: Social identity and stakeholder expectations. Academy of Management Review, 43, 259-283.
93.
OrsatoR. J. (2006). Competitive environmental strategies: When does it pay to be green?California Management Review, 48, 127-143.
94.
PagellM.ShevchenkoA. (2014). Why research in sustainable supply chain management should have no future. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 50(1), 44-55.
95.
ParkerD. P.VadheimB. (2017). Resource cursed or policy cursed? US regulation of conflict minerals and violence in the Congo. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 4, 1-49.
96.
PattenD. M. (2002). The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27, 763-773.
97.
PaulrajA.ChenI. J.BlomeC. (2017). Motives and performance outcomes of sustainable supply chain management practices: A multi-theoretical perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 145, 239-258.
98.
PhanT. N.BairdK.SuS. (2018). Environmental activity management: Its use and impact on environmental performance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 31, 651-673.
99.
PurserR. E.ParkC.MontuoriA. (1995). Limits to anthropocentrism: Toward an ecocentric organization paradigm?Academy of Management Review, 20, 1053-1089.
100.
ReedD.UttingP.Mukherjee-ReedA. (Eds.). (2012). Business regulation and non-state actors: Whose standards? Whose development?New York, NY: Routledge.
101.
RippleW. J.WolfC.NewsomeT. M.GalettiM.AlamgirM.CristE.. . .LauranceW. F. (2017). World scientists’ warning to humanity: A second notice. BioScience, 67, 1026-1028.
102.
Rodríguez-ArizaL.Cuadrado-BallesterosB.Martínez-FerreroJ.García-SánchezI. M. (2017). The role of female directors in promoting CSR practices: An international comparison between family and non-family businesses. Business Ethics: A European Review, 26, 162-174.
103.
RowleyT.BermanS. (2000). A brand new brand of corporate social performance. Business & Society, 39, 397-418.
104.
RowleyT. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22, 887-910.
105.
RunhaarH. (2016). Tools for integrating environmental objectives into policy and practice: What works where?Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 59, 1-9.
106.
SandbergJ.AlvessonM. (2011). Ways of constructing research questions: Gap-spotting or problematization?Organization, 18, 23-44.
107.
SchalteggerS.BurrittR. (2018). Business cases and corporate engagement with sustainability: Differentiating ethical motivations. Journal of Business Ethics, 147, 241-259.
108.
SchmitzE. A.BaumM.HuettP.KabstR. (2019). The contextual role of regulatory stakeholder pressure in proactive environmental strategies: An empirical test of competing theoretical perspectives. Organization & Environment, 32, 281-308.
109.
SchneiderA.MeinsE. (2012). Two dimensions of corporate sustainability assessment: Towards a comprehensive framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21, 211-222.
110.
SchreyöggG. (1980). Contingency and choice in organization theory. Organization Studies, 1, 305-326.
111.
SharmaS. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 681-697.
112.
SheffiY.BlancoE. (2018). Balancing green: When to embrace sustainability in a business (and when not to). Cambridge: MIT Press.
ShrivastavaP. (1995). Ecocentric management for a risk society. Academy of Management Review, 20, 118-137.
115.
SiebenhünerB.ArnoldM. (2007). Organizational learning to manage sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 339-353.
116.
SilvermanD. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
117.
StarikM.RandsG. P. (1995). Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 908-935.
118.
StevensJ. M.SteensmaH. K.HarrisonD. A.CochranP. L. (2005). Symbolic or substantive document? The influence of ethics codes on financial executives’ decisions. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 181-195.
119.
StoopN.VerpoortenM.van der WindtP. (2018). More legislation, more violence? The impact of Dodd-Frank in the DRC. PLoS One, 13, e0201783.
120.
SwiftT. A.HumphreyC.GorV. (2000). Great expectations? The dubious financial legacy of quality audits. British Journal of Management, 11, 31-45.
121.
TestaF.IraldoF.DaddiT. (2018). The effectiveness of EMAS as a management tool: A key role for the internalization of environmental practices. Organization & Environment, 31, 48-69.
122.
ThijssensT.BollenL.HassinkH. (2016). Managing sustainability reporting: Many ways to publish exemplary reports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 86-101.
123.
Tosti-KharasJ.LammE.ThomasT. E. (2017). Organization or environment? Disentangling employees’ rationales behind organizational citizenship behavior for the environment. Organization & Environment, 30, 187-210.
124.
van de VenA. H.DrazinR. (1985). The concept of fit in contingency theory. In CummingsL. L.StawB. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 333-365). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
125.
VillenaV. H.GioiaD. A. (2018). On the riskiness of lower-tier suppliers: Managing sustainability in supply networks. Journal of Operations Management, 64, 65-87.
126.
VisserW.MattenD.PohlM.TolhurstN. (2007). The A to Z of Corporate Social Responsibility: A complete reference guide to concepts, codes and organisations. London, England: John Wiley.
127.
VogelD. (2008). Private global business regulation. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 261-282.
128.
WaddockS. (2008). Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22, 87-108.
129.
WalshJ. P.MeyerA. D.SchoonhovenC. B. (2006). A future for organization theory: Living in and living with changing organizations. Organization Science, 17, 657-671.
130.
WangD. D. (2018). Unravelling the effects of the environmental technology portfolio on corporate sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25, 457-472.
131.
WangH.TongL.TakeuchiR.GeorgeG. (2016). Corporate social responsibility: An overview and new research directions. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 534-544.
132.
WestphalJ. D.ZajacE. J. (1998). The symbolic management of stockholders: Corporate governance reforms and shareholder reactions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 127-153.
133.
WhitemanG.WalkerB.PeregoP. (2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 307-336.
134.
WoodD. J.JonesR. E. (1995). Stakeholder mismatching: A theoretical problem in empirical research on corporate social performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3, 229-267.
135.
YinH.SchmeidlerP. J. (2009). Why do standardized ISO 14001 environmental management systems lead to heterogeneous environmental outcomes?Business Strategy and the Environment, 18, 469-486.
136.
ZhuQ.SarkisJ.LaiK.-h. (2007). Green supply chain management: Pressures, practices and performance within the Chinese automobile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, 1041-1052.
137.
ZilberT. B. (2008). The work of meanings in institutional processes and thinking. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.SuddabyR.SahlinK. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 150-169). London, England: Sage.
138.
ZobelT. (2018). ISO 14001 adoption and environmental performance: The case of manufacturing in Sweden. In Heras-SaizarbitoriaI. (Ed.), ISO 9001, ISO 14001, and new management standards (pp. 39-57). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
139.
ZolloM.CennamoC.NeumannK. (2013). Beyond what and why: Understanding organizational evolution towards sustainable enterprise models. Organization & Environment, 26, 241-259.
