Sustainable Development

Sust. Dev. 18, 76–89 (2010)

Published online 4 February 2010 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/sd.447

Corporate Sustainability Strategies: Sustainability

Profiles and Maturity Levels
Rupert J. Baumgartner1* and Daniela Ebner2
1
Åbo Akademi University, Åbo/Turku, Finland; University of Leoben, Austria
2
ALPLA Werke GmbH, Hard, Austria

ABSTRACT
Although many companies investigate sustainability management and publish sustainabil-
ity reports, their main focus in this endeavour remains unclear. Often, it seems that sus-
tainability issues are pursued more coincidentally than with a clear strategy.
On one hand, research is done for the identification and determination of distinct aspects
concerning economic, ecological and social dimensions of sustainability. Guidelines to
develop a sustainability report are popular examples of this. On the other hand, scientific
effort is recognizable regarding the establishment of specific sustainability strategies,
e.g. strategies that focus on internal/external orientation of sustainability commitment.
Strategies should be designed to work to improve performance in terms of the issues
identified, but in many cases the link between aspects and sustainability strategies is
missing in practice.
This paper aims to narrow this gap by developing specific aspect profiles for sustain-
ability strategies. Relating to the characteristics of various sustainability strategies, key
sustainability issues are determined, which have to be implemented in order to reach
defined sustainability goals efficiently.
The paper helps companies that already commit to sustainability to verify whether they
are consistent in the implementation of a distinct sustainability strategy. Copyright © 2010
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 18 June 2009; revised 24 November 2009; accepted 8 December 2009

Keywords: corporate sustainability; strategy; CSR; ecological dimension; economic dimension; social dimension; sustainability
strategy; strategic sustainable development

Introduction

B
ESIDES MANY EFFORTS AND ACTIVITIES BY NGOS, AUTHORITIES AND GOVERNMENTS, CORPORATIONS ALSO SEEM TO
show an increasing commitment to a more sustainable behaviour. However, in many cases this is still
done simply on the basis of a changed rhetoric, of green-washing (Laufer, 2003; Ramus, 2005).
One reason for green-washing could be that corporations do not really know how they can integrate

* Correspondence to: Dr. Rupert J. Baumgartner, Åbo Akademi University, Biskopsgatan 8, 20500 Åbo/Turku, Finland.
E-mail: rbaumgar@abo.fi

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Corporate Sustainability Strategies 77

Sustainable Development
Macro-level

Corporate Sustainability
Micro-level

Economic

Ecological

Social
legal societal

technological cultural

market environmental

Figure 1. Corporate sustainability and its interdependences (based on the work of Ebner and Baumgartner (2006), p. 13)

sustainability issues into their business routines and their strategies. It seems that sustainability issues are pursued
more coincidentally than with a clear strategy. With this paper we try to combine two aspects in order to clarify
the relation between business activities and the integration of sustainability aspects. These aspects are on one hand
the identification and determination of distinct issues concerning economic, ecological and social dimensions of
sustainability. On the other hand, scientific effort is recognizable regarding the establishment of specific sustain-
ability strategies, e.g. strategies that focus on internal/external orientation of sustainability commitment.

Corporate Sustainability
Sustainable development became popular with the definition of the Brundtland Report (World Commission on
Environment and Development, 1987). It represents an ethical concept concerning fighting poverty while protect-
ing the environment on a macro-level. Sustainable Development is the process to reach the goal of sustainability,
which can be characterized by four sustainability conditions (Robèrt et al., 2002, p. 199).
Sustainable development is defined on the macro-level of societies. Figure 1 illustrates the link between sustain-
able development and corporate sustainability. Sustainable development when incorporated by the organization is
called corporate sustainability and it contains, like sustainable development, all three pillars: economic, ecological
and social. These three dimensions interact (Ebner and Baumgartner, 2006, p. 13).
For a comprehensive corporate sustainability strategy, it is necessary to consider all dimensions, their impacts
and their interrelations. External influences also affect the corporate orientation on sustainability. Moreover, cor-
porate sustainability also has positive effects on society in the long term; this is indicated by the grey columns,
which reach into the white area of the macro-level in Figure 1.

Corporate Sustainability Strategies

In this section corporate sustainability strategies are discussed (see also Baumgartner, 2009). There are different
types of sustainability strategy (Dyllick, 2000; Hardtke and Prehn, 2001; Schaltegger et al., 2002; Baumgartner,
2005, p. 61).

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 18, 76–89 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
78 R. J. Baumgartner and D. Ebner

• Introverted – risk mitigation strategy: focus on legal and other external standards concerning environmental
and social aspects in order to avoid risks for the company
• Extroverted – legitimating strategy: focus on external relationships, license to operate
• Conservative – efficiency strategy: focus on eco-efficiency and cleaner production
• Visionary – holistic sustainability strategy: focus on sustainability issues within all business activities; competi-
tive advantages are derived from differentiation and innovation, offering customers and stakeholders’ unique
advantages.
These strategy types describe generic possibilities to deal with the challenge of sustainability, e.g. with different
environmental and social aspects of business activities according to the sustainability principles of Robèrt et al.
(2002).
In an offensive way an extroverted strategy can be transformative. A transformative strategy interacts with the
market and tries to change market conditions actively. This strategy aims to create new market opportunities in
the light of sustainable development, including elements of the conservative and visionary strategy (Baumgartner,
2005, p. 62).
Visionary strategies occur in two different forms: in a conventional way and in a systemic way (Baumgartner
and Biedermann, 2007). Conventional visionary strategies are based on market opportunities in an opportunistic
manner. As long as sustainability issues lead to market advantages, they are part of the strategic management of
conventional visionary oriented companies, so the focus is outside-in: inputs for the strategy formulation are
derived from the market perspective. Systemic visionary strategies combine this view with an inside-out perspec-
tive, the market based view is supplemented with a resource based view and sustainable development is deep
seated in the normative level of the company.

Sustainability Aspects

In order to develop sustainability strategies representing distinct sustainability profiles it is necessary to be aware
of the range of sustainability issues that have to be regarded and also designed in such a strategy. Therefore, in a
first step, such issues are determined. In sustainability literature, various terms are used to describe issues of CSR
(Ebner, 2008, p. 105). Konrad et al. (2006) use the term issue itself, whereas for Perrini et al. (2007) factors of
CSR apply. Two terms are principally used in sustainability discussion: aspect (see, for instance, GRI, 2006;
Welford, 2005; von Geibler et al., 2006) or criterion (see, e.g., DJSI, 2007; FTSE, 2006; Labuschagne and Brent,
2006). The terminology in this paper is based on international standards; hence, the term (sustainability) aspect
is used in keeping with the GRI guidelines.
For corporate sustainability, various approaches that determine sustainability aspects already exist. In order to
define a consistent sustainability framework, the sustainability aspects are based on popular concepts and papers
of sustainability (GRI, 2006; DJSI, 2007; FTSE, 2006; Labuschagne and Brent, 2006). In the following, most
relevant sustainability aspects are briefly discussed, but are divided into three subgroups according to the three
dimensions of sustainable development.

Economic Dimension of Corporate Sustainability

The economic dimension of corporate sustainability is often discussed as the ‘generic dimension’ (Baedeker et al.,
2002; DJSI, 2007). Economic sustainability embraces general aspects of an organization that have to be respected
– next to environmental and social aspects – in order to remain in the market for long time.
The use of such generic aspects seems meaningful, as good results in these aspects are likely to lead to good
financial and sustainability results of the company. Thus the management should regard such aspects in order to
obtain economic success rather than concentrating on aspects that show only financial results. Hence, the aspects
of the economic dimension of corporate sustainability are ‘innovation and technology’, ‘collaboration’, ‘knowledge
management’, ‘processes’, ‘purchase’ and ‘sustainability reporting’. In Table 1 every aspect is explained in detail.

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 18, 76–89 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Corporate Sustainability Strategies 79

Innovation and technology Effort in sustainability related R&D in order to reduce environmental impacts in new products
and in business activities. Use of BAT (best available techniques) and integrated
environmental technologies, concentration on cleaner production and zero-emission
technologies.
Collaboration Good cooperation and active collaboration with various business partners (e.g. suppliers, R&D
institutions, universities, . . .). Working in common programmes and networks on innovative
products and technologies. Exchange of information and knowledge.
Knowledge management Activities and approaches to keep sustainability related knowledge in the organization. Methods
to plan, develop, organize, maintain, transfer, apply and measure specific knowledge and to
improve the organizational knowledge base.
Processes Clear processes and roles are defined so that business activities are efficiently conducted and
that every employee knows what the organization expects from him or her (also concerning
sustainability). Adaptation of process management on sustainability necessities to implement
corporate sustainability systematically. Integration of sustainability into daily business life.
Purchase Consideration of sustainability issues in purchase. Awareness and consideration of sustainability
related issues in the organization as well as alongside the supply chain. Relationship with
suppliers focusing also on sustainability.
Sustainability reporting Consideration and reporting of sustainability issues within company reports, either in a separate
sustainability report or integrated into the corporate one.

Table 1. Economic aspects of corporate sustainability

Ecological Dimension of Corporate Sustainability

This dimension deals with environmental impacts due to corporate activities. There exist several publications about
the most relevant ecological aspects (GRI, 2006; Labuschagne et al., 2005; DJSI, 2007; FTSE, 2006). These envi-
ronmental impacts are caused by resource use, and emissions into air, into water or into ground, as well as waste
and hazardous waste. Additionally, the impact on biodiversity and environmental issues of the product over the
life cycle are of importance (see Table 2). This dimension is mainly measured by impacts, but within corporate
sustainability strategies the focus has to be laid on the effects causing these impacts, e.g., the higher the maturity
levels are the more it has to be concentrated on causes rather than on effects (see Table 6).

Resources (materials, energy) including recycling Use of renewable and non-renewable resources and energy through
the company including recycled resources
Emissions into the air Emissions into the air due to corporate activities
Emissions into the water Emissions into the water due to corporate activities
Emissions into the ground Emissions into the ground due to corporate activities
Waste and hazardous waste Waste and hazardous waste due to corporate activities
Biodiversity Impact on biodiversity due to corporate activities
Environmental issues of the product Environmental aspects of the product over the whole life cycle

Table 2. Ecological aspects of corporate sustainability

Social Dimension of Corporate Sustainability

It depends on the definition of social sustainability which aspects are considered to be elements of this dimension
and which are not. Social sustainability of an organization ‘. . . is the consciousness of responsibility for its own
actions as well as an authentic and credible commitment (mostly long term) in all business activities and more,

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 18, 76–89 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
80 R. J. Baumgartner and D. Ebner

aiming to stay successfully in the market for a long time. Social sustainability is aimed to positively influence all
present and future relationships with stakeholders. Furthermore, the fulfilment of their needs is focused on for
assuring stakeholders’ loyalty for the company’ (Ebner, 2008, p. 28). In the following, important aspects for social
sustainability are briefly discussed (see details in Ebner, 2008). The aspects are based on and similar to those of
DJSI (2007), FTSE (2006), Labuschagne and Brent (2006), Welford (2005), Kok et al. (2001) and GRI (2006) and
are grouped into internal (see Table 3) and external (see Table 4) aspects.

Corporate governance Transparency in all its activities in order to ameliorate relationship towards its stakeholders.
Giving insight into all relevant data; following rules of (stock)markets on corporate
governance and defining responsibilities and behaviour of the board.
Motivation and incentives Active involvement and exemplary function of management on sustainability topics for
employees. Awareness of needs, claims and motivation factors of employees in order to
implement sustainability sufficiently into the organization due to support of management
for acting in sustainable way (e.g. time, money, resources). Development of incentives
and reward systems (monetary, non-monetary).
Health and safety Guarantee that no health and safety risks occur when working in/for the organization. No
negative impact of employees’ physical health at any time. Operation of programmes for
employees to prevent dangers and to stay generally fit and healthy (e.g. in developing
countries).
Human capital development Development of human capital for sustainability related issues through specific programmes
such as permanent education, mentoring or training. Broad cross-working education (job
enrichment, job enlargement) in order to become aware of the different challenges and
issues of corporate sustainability.

Table 3. Internal social aspects of corporate sustainability

Ethical behaviour and human rights Ethical behaviour towards sustainability consisting of well established, basic
assumptions and principles relating the cooperation within an organization and
the behaviour towards (external) stakeholders. Regarding sustainability, important
elements are a culture of respect, fair rules and behaviour within an organization
(and between its subsidiaries) and fair wealth/profit allocation, as well as serious
consideration of stakeholders’ ideals and needs. No harm of employees, either
concerning their religious belief, gender, nationality or colour or concerning people
who are handicapped or aged.
No controversial activities No holding of shares on organizations that are mostly defined as not sustainable
(e.g. uranium mining). No use or sale of own assets and goods for non-
sustainable activities.
No corruption and cartel Behaving fairly on the market and avoiding manipulating business practices. This
includes no rule-breaking, no price-fixing or joining a cartel and no corruption for
gaining advantage.
Corporate citizenship Being a good corporate citizen on a national level; conservation of subsidiaries in the
country and establishment of economic power of a country as well as an increase
in society’s lifestyle. Support of stakeholders (and others) and their issues on
regional level; participation or creation of sustainability related activities for the
local community. Orientation on future generations without exploiting the present
(or nature).

Table 4. External social aspects of corporate sustainability

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 18, 76–89 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Corporate Sustainability Strategies 81

Profiles of Corporate Sustainability Strategies

The sustainability strategies discussed demonstrate the variety of sustainability approaches and deliver a first ori-
entation for how companies can focus on corporate sustainability. Nevertheless, the typology of such strategies
does not provide distinct recommendations of design and action regarding corporate sustainability. The aim of
this section is to develop specific strategy profiles – based on the sustainability strategies and the previously dis-
cussed sustainability aspects. The focus is on providing a scheme that supports the development, establishment
and persecution of a sustainability strategy for a company. Therefore, it will first be discussed how differently (in
its maturity) each sustainability aspect can occur in a firm. For such a presentation, a four-level maturity grid is
used: level 1 stands for a rudimentary level, maybe beginning consideration of the sustainability aspect in the
company, which means that – if existing – only mandatory rules and laws are respected. Maturity level 2 marks
that an elementary integration of this aspect is focused on compliance with sustainability-related laws but going
slightly further (e.g. due to environmental technology, reduction and consideration of impacts of their business
activities). Level 3 represents a satisfying consideration and maturity of the specific sustainability aspect (often
above the industry average). Sophisticated maturity is defined by level 4, which implicates an outstanding effort
towards sustainability.
In Tables 5–8 the various sustainability aspects with the here defined, reachable maturities are demonstrated.
The variety of the aspects and their definition, as well as the determination of their maturities is from a generic
perspective and not industry specific. In a next step, it will be analysed whether
• specific aspects are proportionately important for each sustainability strategy and/or whether
• sustainability strategies have to (due to their definition) focus on a specific maturity level over all sustainability
aspects.
Every aspect and the suggested maturity level for the sustainability strategy will be individually screened. Finally,
the profiles of all sustainability strategies will be shown in Figure 2.

Introverted Strategy (Risk Mitigation)

The comparison of introverted strategy and sustainability aspects makes it visible that this strategy focuses on a
very low standard of sustainability. A company following the introverted strategy concentrates on the essentials
such as conformity and compliance with sustainability-related rules and guidelines; it does not go deeper into the
sustainability issue. No specific sustainability aspect can be determined to be proportionately important for this
strategy, whereas the profile of the sustainability strategy is mostly based on the poor maturity level of sustain-
ability aspects.

Extroverted Strategy (Legitimization)

Within the extroverted strategy we can differentiate between the conventional and the transformative approach.
Due to their different focuses it seems meaningful to discuss them separately.

Conventional Extroverted Strategy

A company focusing on the conventional extroverted strategy aims at communicating its sustainability commit-
ment to society in order to differentiate itself from the competitors and to increase its credibility. Therefore, it
seems meaningful to engage more in sustainability that it is obliged to do by law – meaning level 2 as the appro-
priate level. Nevertheless, in the extroverted strategy, the responsibility for corporate sustainability is often located
in the PR or communication department, which increases the risk of green-washing in the case of limited coop-
eration between the communication department and other corporate functions and processes. As this strategy is
focused on external presentation of sustainability, these aspects are especially important (level 3 of sustainability

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 18, 76–89 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
 82

Aspect Innovation& technology Collaboration Knowledge management Processes Purchase Sustainability reporting

Beginning Conformity with laws and The company is not an No systematic approach Sustainability Sustainability oriented No consideration of
regulations regarding active partner in towards KM. issues are not purchase is not sustainability issues
technology (BAT). networks. respected in considered. either in a distinct
process sustainability report or
definitions. in the annual report.
Elementary First effort in sustainability Communication and Specific sustainability Most relevant Social and Most relevant
related R&D. Conformity collaboration with related KM activities sustainability environmental sustainability issues are
with laws and most relevant (e.g. IT based KM issues are criteria (based e.g. respected in corporate
regulations regarding business partners activities: databases, IT respected in on human rights) communication
technology (BAT) exists. (supplier, customer). infrastructure) are relevant are defined, which channels (one-way
Integrated conducted in order to business are considered in communication) or in a
environmental generate transfer and to processes. direct purchase distinct sustainability/
technology is partially save sustainability (direct suppliers). annual report.
used. related knowledge.

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
Satisfying Higher effort in Communication and Broad approach and Relevant Definition of social Sustainability issues are
sustainability related collaboration with activities towards sustainability and environmental considered in corporate
R&D than industry stakeholders sustainability related KM, issues are criteria (based e.g. communication
average. The company (business partner, integrating intangible respected in on human rights), channels (one-way
invests proactively in NGOs, R&D assets (resource: human business and which are communication) and in
technology (BAT) and institutions, . . .) capital). Various support considered in the a distinct sustainability/
uses integrated regarding activities are set processes. whole supply chain. annual report.
environmental sustainability issues. regarding organizational Additionally, goals and
technologies and/or learning. measures are defined
cleaner production. and communicated.
Sophisticated/ Significantly higher effort Consequent A systematic and Sustainability Social and Sustainability issues in
outstanding in sustainability related communication and comprehensive approach issues are environmental corporate
R&D than industry collaboration with and activities towards respected in criteria (based e.g. communication
average. BAT is stakeholders sustainability related KM business and on human rights) channels (two-way-
proactively used, also (business partner, (from planning to support are defined which communication) and in
integrated NGOs, R&D improve) is processes are considered and a distinct sustainability/
environmental institutions, . . .) is implemented. Focus is sufficiently. actively verified annual report are
technologies, cleaner conducted. The laid on organizational Roles and within the whole considered.
production and zero company has a learning. responsibilities supply chain. Additionally, goals and
emission. proactive and leading are defined. measures are defined
role in creating these and communicated.
networks relating
sustainability.

Table 5. Maturity levels of economic sustainability aspects

DOI: 10.1002/sd
Sust. Dev. 18, 76–89 (2010)
R. J. Baumgartner and D. Ebner
 Aspect Resources (materials, energy) Emissions into the air, water Waste and hazardous waste Biodiversity Environmental issues of
including recycling or ground the product

Beginning For the use of resources only Conformity with laws and Conformity with laws and Conformity with laws and Not considered or only in
economic and technical criteria regulations regarding regulations regarding regulations regarding conformity with laws and
are considered. emissions into the air, (hazardous) waste bio-diversity. regulations.
water or ground (e.g. BAT). (e.g. BAT).
Elementary For the use of resources Conformity with laws and Conformity with laws and Conformity with laws and Identification of
Corporate Sustainability Strategies

economic, technical and/or regulations regarding regulations regarding regulations regarding environmental impacts
environmental/social criteria emissions into the air, (hazardous) waste bio-diversity. Most and their reduction for
are partially considered. water or ground (e.g. BAT). (e.g. BAT). Definition of relevant impacts on bio- certain products.
Resource efficiency is measured Definition of reduction reduction goals for major diversity are identified

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
for some business processes. goals for major emissions. waste flows. and considered.
Satisfying For the use of resources Conformity with laws and Conformity with laws and Bio-diversity and the Environmental impacts and
economic, technical and/or regulations regarding regulations regarding organizational impact their reduction for the
environmental/social criteria emissions into the air, (hazardous) waste on it in strategy, policy majority of products are
are considered. Resource water or ground (e.g. BAT). (e.g. BAT). Reduction and processes are identified.
efficiency is measured for Reduction goals for most goals for most emissions considered.
business processes; goals for emissions are defined. are defined. Cleaner
resources management are Cleaner production production technologies
defined. Sustainability technologies are used. are used.
principles are partly considered.
Sophisticated/ For the use of resources a Conformity with laws and Conformity with laws and Outstanding activities and Identification of
outstanding combination of economic, regulations regarding regulations regarding approach in order to environmental impacts
technical, environmental and emissions into the air, (hazardous) waste diminish the and their reduction for all
social criteria are considered. water or ground (e.g. BAT). (e.g. BAT). Ambitious organizational impact products. Optimization of
Resource efficiency is controlled Ambitious reduction goals reduction goals for on bio-diversity are the environmental
for all processes. Long-term for air emissions are waste flows are defined. implemented. performance of the
resource management strategy defined. Emissions due to (Hazardous) waste is products within the supply
is aligned with the zero emission activities are avoided due to zero- chain (also in collaboration
sustainability principles. avoided. emission activities. with business partners).

Table 6. Maturity levels of ecological sustainability aspects

DOI: 10.1002/sd
Sust. Dev. 18, 76–89 (2010)
83
84 R. J. Baumgartner and D. Ebner

Aspect Corporate governance Motivation and incentives Health and safety Human capital
development

Beginning Mandatory frameworks Motivation of employees in order Health and safety is respected No specific human capital
towards corporate to achieve sustainability goals to the extent of legal development measures
governance are is not focused on or has a obligation; it is not actively are set regarding
focused on. dysfunctional impact on focused on. sustainability.
sustainability.
Elementary Mandatory and voluntary In several areas of the Health and safety is respected Certain human capital
frameworks towards organization, incentive to the extent of legal development measures
corporate governance measures to improve obligation. Measures are set regarding
are focused on. motivation are set regarding towards health and safety sustainability.
sustainability. are set, when specific
dangerous situations or
accidents occur.
Deployment is more of
reactive character rather
than systematically
planned.
Satisfying Mandatory and voluntary In most areas of the Health and safety is Various education
frameworks towards organization, incentive systematically planned and programs and
corporate governance measures to improve deployed in most areas of measures are offered.
are focused on. Further motivation are set regarding the company. Activities are Most employees are
measures to ensure sustainability. Top set to avoid health and trained regarding
corporate transparency management has an safety risks in long term. sustainability issues.
are set. exemplary function regarding
sustainability issues.
Sophisticated/ Mandatory and voluntary Top management has an Health and safety approach Various education
outstanding frameworks towards exemplary function regarding supports organizational programs and
corporate governance sustainability issues. goals towards measures are offered.
are focused on. Further Employees are efficiently sustainability. It is Every employee is
measures to ensure supported by appropriate systematically planned and trained regarding
corporate transparency (monetary and non-monetary) deployed throughout the sustainability issues.
are set. Proactive motivation and incentives. company. Activities are set
commitment Due to these, sustainability to avoid health and safety
respective stronger principles are internalized and risks in long-term and are
rules are given. change behavior. consequently improved.

Table 7. Maturity levels of internal social sustainability aspects

maturity), which supports the increase of credibility in society such as corporate citizenship, no corruption or
cartel, health and safety and also collaboration to improve the relationship and working together with stakeholders
on related sustainability issues.

Transformative Extroverted Strategy

The general orientation of transformative extroverted strategy is the same as that of conventional extroverted
strategy. However, it aims at positively influencing the basic conditions of corporate sustainability. A company
following this strategy is a driver for corporate sustainability in society and gains therefore much higher credibil-
ity. On the other hand, it is also necessary to assure through the implementation of sustainability a high maturity
in internal sustainability aspects. The maturity level over all aspects is generally one level higher than in the con-
ventional extroverted strategy. Again, most important are society-related aspects (those that have major impact
(positive) on society and those for which society reacts sensitively to whether they are fulfilled or not).

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 18, 76–89 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Corporate Sustainability Strategies 85

Aspect Ethical behavior and No controversial activities No corruption and cartel Corporate citizenship
human rights

Beginning Human rights are generally No declaration against Conformity with laws and Corporate citizenship is not
respected, but no codes controversial activities regulations regarding focused on in the organization.
and guidelines exist as exists. corruption and cartel
well as no corporate exists.
common behavior/
within the organization.
Elementary Human rights are Firm declares itself to be to Compliance with laws and Certain corporate citizenship
respected. Principal be aware of to whom it regulation; most projects are initiated or
rules how to behave sells its goods. important impacts supported (mostly in monetary
within the organization regarding corrupt terms). The link between CC
are defined. practices are identified. projects and the corporate
business is rarely given.
Satisfying Definition of corporate Organization is aware to Impacts regarding corrupt Corporate citizenship is
codes and guidelines whom it sells its goods practices are fully systematically planned and
regarding (internal) and sets measures to identified and conducted (monetary and non-
behavior throughout the reduce controversial measures set to avoid monetary commitment). The
whole organization activities. them. link between CC projects and
exist. the corporate business is
mostly given.
Sophisticated/ Corporate codes and Organization is known as Impacts regarding corrupt Corporate citizenship is
outstanding guidelines regarding non-controversial acting practices are fully systematically planned and
(internal) behavior firm. It shows credibility identified. Distinct conducted (monetary and non-
throughout the whole in that it offers and rules exist to monetary commitment) and
organization are follows possibilities to demonstrate all kinds focused on long-term-
defined. Controlling and avoid negative use of its and (internal) commitment. Most employees
proactive improvement products, based on consequences of are integrated into the process.
of these codes. stakeholder corrupt practices and The link between CC projects
requirements. measures set to avoid and the corporate business is
them at all. mostly given.

Table 8. Maturity levels of external social sustainability aspects

Conservative Strategy (Efficiency)

Conservative strategy is oriented mostly towards internal measures, focusing on cost efficiency and very well
defined processes. Therefore, the sustainability aspect ‘processes’ is the most important within this strategy and
should represent an outstanding maturity. Within this strategy, commitment is especially crucial in the investment
in appropriate technology, sophisticated health and safety for employees and above all ecological sustainability.
Also, the measures have to be derived in order to analyse and to increase the processes and to assess, based on
appropriate measures, corporate sustainability. Other sustainability aspects are not much focused on in conserva-
tive strategy; in particular, society-related issues are less important.

Visionary Strategy (Holistic)

Visionary strategies can be divided into conventional and systemic strategies. Visionary strategies show a highly
developed sustainability commitment in order to become a market leader in sustainability issues. The two strate-
gies are similar; they differ from each other in the question of motivation and orientation. The conventional
visionary strategy is very much oriented towards its impact on the market, whereas the systemic visionary strategy
combines outside-in and inside-out perspectives in order to achieve a unique competitive position, but based on
an internalization and continuous improvement of sustainability issues inside the company.

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 18, 76–89 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
86 R. J. Baumgartner and D. Ebner

SustainabilityAspect Maturity Level 1: Maturity Level 2: Maturity Level 3: Maturity Level 4:

Poor Sufficient Satisfying Sophisticated

Innovation & Technology Systemic

Introverted visionary
Collaboration

Knowlegde Management

Processes

Purchase

Sustainability Reporting

Resources inc. Recycling

Emissions into the air

Conventional
Emissions into water Extroverted
Emissions into ground

Waste & hazardous water Conventional

visionsary
Biodiversity

Environmental issues of the product

Ethicalbehaviour & Human Rights

No controversial activities

No corruption & cartel

Corporate Governance Transformative

Extroverted
Motivation & Incentives
Conservative
strategy
Health & Safety

Human capital development

Corporate citizenship

Figure 2. Profiles of sustainability strategies

Conventional Visionary Strategy

As already mentioned, the level of sustainability maturity of visionary strategies is very high, mostly on a high
sophisticated level. Only for some aspects does a lower level (3) seem to be sufficient, too, as in processes and
purchase, in no controversial activities or in corporate citizenship, as these have not enough direct impact to affect
the situation in the market as sustainability leader.

Systemic Visionary Strategy

In contrast to the conventional strategy, for companies following the systemic visionary strategy it is important to
show in all sustainability aspects very good results, as the company has to show stakeholders and market its sus-
tainability commitment, and moreover to be active in changing positively basic conditions towards sustainability
(effort).
In conclusion, Figure 2 shows all sustainability strategies and their occurrence in maturity. It becomes obvious
that each maturity level stands more or less for a specific sustainability strategy. Nevertheless, depending on the

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 18, 76–89 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Corporate Sustainability Strategies 87

sustainability strategy, specific aspects can also be identified that are crucial for the implementation of the strategy.
It is important to mention that the profiles show the minimum standard to follow a specific strategy. It is never-
theless possible to increase the sustainability commitment to higher levels where it is appropriate in the specific
situation of a company.
It may occur that, depending on the industry, on the size of the company or on other basic conditions, some
sustainability aspects are more important than others so that the sustainability profile changes towards these
aspects, or that further sustainability issues are relevant, which have to be focused on (e.g. pharmaceuticals: ethics
in production, the harm to animals). For these, maturity levels can also be defined and finally assigned to the
distinct sustainability strategy to complete its profile.

Fit Between Sustainability Strategies and Corporate Competitive Strategies

An important point in the discussion of corporate sustainability strategies is the fit between sustainability strategy
and corporate competitive strategy. Porter developed the model of generic competitive strategies (Porter, 1980,
1985). This model explains that there are two generic possibilities for a company to be successful in the market:
either the company can deliver unique products and services (product differentiation) or the company can deliver
products and services with the lowest price (cost leadership). Trying to do both equally is in Porter’s view risky
and will lead to significantly lower performance than other strategies. According to this model every company has
to decide how it will try to be successful. The model is based on an outside-in view, as the strategy is formulated
based on an investigation of market opportunities, e.g. low price or special features of the product/service, and is
therefore also known as a market based view. The concept of hybrid strategies goes beyond Porter’s model of
generic strategies. In contrast to Porter’s model, a company can use differentiation and cost leadership simultane-
ously (Ostendorf, 2000, p. 28; Thornhill and White, 2007).
To analyse the relation between sustainability and competitive strategies two criteria are used: the costs caused
by the sustainability strategy and the addressee or the receiver of the benefits due to the corporate sustainability
strategy.
Concerning the cost effects a sustainability strategy can lead to decreased, increased or constant cost. Sustain-
ability activities can be beneficial either for society in general (for instance fewer emissions) or the customer (for
instance less energy demand of the product). We use these criteria to analyse the relation between corporate
sustainability and competitive strategies (see Table 9) on the basis of four levels: force, pressure, option and
forbidden.
‘Force’ means that the sustainability strategy is supportive and essential for the corporate competitive strategy
(for instance, decreased costs due to the sustainability strategy are also essential for the cost leadership strategy).
‘Pressure’ indicates that the sustainability strategy is very helpful for the competitive strategy and ‘option’ indicates
that the sustainability strategy is one possibility for the company, whereas ‘forbidden’ shows that there are conflict-
ing goals between the sustainability and competitive strategy (for instance increased costs due to the sustainability
strategy for cost leadership strategies).
Introverted strategies are independent of benefit and cost effects, as these strategies are executed due to external
pressure on the company. For all other types of sustainability strategy, the relationship to the corporate competitive
strategy is as presented in Table 9. This table can be used as instrument in the process of strategy planning and
strategy deployment, as it reveals the comparability between sustainability and competitive strategies.

Conclusion

In this paper we discuss the relation between corporate sustainability strategies, corporate competitive strategies
and sustainability aspects. In doing so, we think we can support a company in becoming a sustainable corporation.
Profiles and maturity levels for corporate sustainability strategies are developed. They are based on maturity levels
and divided into introverted, conservative, extroverted and visionary sustainability strategies. The relationship of

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 18, 76–89 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
88 R. J. Baumgartner and D. Ebner

Costs* Sustainability strategy Benefits for

Introverted Extroverted Conservative Visionary

lower I III V VII society

force for CL force for CL force for CL force for CL
force for DI pressure for DI pressure for DI pressure for DI
force for HS force for HS force for HS force for HS
II IV VI VIII customer
force for CL force for CL force for CL force for CL
force for DI pressure for DI pressure for DI pressure for DI
force for HS force for HS force for HS force for HS
equal IX XI XIII XV society
force for CL option for CL pressure for CL pressure for CL
force for DI pressure for DI option for DI pressure for DI
force for HS pressure for HS option for HS pressure for HS
X XII XIV XVI customer
force for CL pressure for CL force for CL force for CL
force for DI force for DI pressure for DI force for DI
force for HS force for HS pressure for HS force for HS
higher XVII IXX XXI XXIII society
force for CL forbidden for CL forbidden for CL forbidden for CL
force for DI option for DI forbidden for DI option for DI
force for HS option for HS forbidden for HS option for HS
XVIII XX XXII XXIV customer
force for CL forbidden for CL forbidden for CL forbidden for CL
force for DI option for DI forbidden for DI option for DI
force for HS option for HS forbidden for HS option for HS

Table 9. Fit between competitive strategy and corporate sustainability strategy

* Cost effects due to the implementation of the sustainability strategy.
CL = cost leadership strategy, DI = product differentiation strategy, HS = hybrid strategy.

these strategies to competitive strategies of cost leadership, of product differentiation or of hybrid strategies is
analysed. The maturity levels of corporate sustainability strategies and their relation to competitive strategies are
both helpful in the process of strategy planning and strategy deployment in the case of developing a sustainable
corporation. Taking them simultaneously into account, it can be assured that a sustainability strategy fits in an
appropriate way to the general strategic orientation of the firm.

References
Baedeker C, Haeuer P, Klemisch H, Rohn H. 2002. Handbuch zur Anwendung von SAFE – Sustainability Assessment for Enterprises. Wuppertal
Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie GmbH: Wuppertal. http://www.wupperinst.org/uploads/tx_wibeitrag/ws25.pdf [7 January 2008].
Baumgartner RJ. 2005. Sustainable business management: Grundlagen, Strategien und Instrumente einer nachhaltigen Unternehmensfüh-
rung. In Wertsteigerung durch Nachhaltigkeit, Baumgartner RJ et al. (eds). Rainer Hampp: Munich; 51–72.
Baumgartner RJ. 2009. Organizational culture and leadership: preconditions for the development of a sustainable corporation. Sustainable
Development 17: 102–113.
Baumgartner RJ, Biedermann H. 2007. Organisationskultur und Nachhaltigkeitsmanagement: Erlaubt die Organisationskultur ambitionierte
Nachhaltigkeitsstrategien? In Unternehmenspraxis und Nachhaltigkeit, Baumgartner RJ et al. (eds). Rainer Hampp: Munich; 37–52.
Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI). 2007. Dow Jones Sustainability World Indexes Guide. http://www.sustainability-index.com/djsi_pdf/
publications/Guidebooks/DJSI_World_Guidebook_90.pdf [7 January 2008].
Dyllick T. 2000. Strategischer Einsatz von Umweltmanagementsystemen. Umweltwirtschaftsforum 8(3): 64–68.

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 18, 76–89 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
Corporate Sustainability Strategies 89

Ebner D. 2008. Assessing Corporate Social Responsibility in Industrial Firms: the CSR-Assessment. Montanuniversität Leoben.
Ebner D, Baumgartner RJ. 2006. The Relationship Between Sustainable Development and Corporate Social Responsibility. www.crrconference.org
[17 September 2007].
FTSE. 2006. FTSE 4 Good Index Series – Inclusion Criteria. http://www.ftse.com/Indices/FTSE4Good_Index_Series/Downloads/FTSE4Good_
Inclusion_Criteria_Brochure_Feb_06.pdf [7 January 2008].
GRI. 2006. Sustainability Reporting Guidelines – G3. GRI: Amsterdam. http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/ED9E9B36-AB54-4DE1-
BFF2-5F735235CA44/0/G3_GuidelinesENU.pdf [7 January 2008].
Hardtke A, Prehn M. 2001. Perspektiven der Nachhaltigkeit 1. Gabler: Wiesbaden.
Kok P, van der Wiele T, McKenna R, Brown A. 2001. A corporate social responsibility audit within a quality management framework. Journal
of Business Ethics 31(4): 285–297.
Konrad A, Steurer R, Langer ME, Martinuzzi A. 2006. Empirical findings on business–society relations in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics
63(1): 89–105.
Labuschagne C, Brent AC. 2006. Social indicators for sustainable project and technology life cycle management in the process industry.
International Journal of Life-Cycle Assessment 11(1): 3–15.
Labuschagne C, Brent AC, van Erck R. 2005. Assessing the sustainability performance of industries. Journal of Cleaner Production 13(4): 373–
385.
Laufer WS. 2003. Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics 43(3): 253–261.
Ostendorf RJ. 2000. Dynamische Ökologieführerschaft: eine Wettbewerbsstrategie gewinnorientierter Unternehmen – theoretische Darstellung und
praktische Überprüfung am Beispiel der Automobilindustrie. Wissenschaft und Praxis: Sternenfels.
Perrini F, Russo A, Tencati A. 2007. CSR strategies of SMEs and large firms. Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics 74(3): 285–300.
Porter ME. 1980. Competitive Strategy. Free Press: New York.
Porter ME. 1985. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press: New York.
Ramus CA. 2005. When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing? Business and Society 44(4): 377–414.
Robèrt K-H, Schmidt-Bleck B, Aloisi de Laderel J, Basile G, Jansen JL, Kuehr R, Price Thomas P, Suzuki M, Hawken P, Wackernagel M. 2002.
Strategic sustainable development – selection, design and synergies of applied tools. Journal of Cleaner Production 10(3): 197–214.
Schaltegger S, Dyllick T. 2002. Nachhaltig managen mit der Balanced Scorecard. Gabler: Wiesbaden.
Thornhill S, White RE. 2007. Strategic purity: a multi-industry evaluation of pure vs. hybrid business strategies. Strategic Management Journal
28(5): 553–561.
von Geibler J, Liedtke C, Wallbaum H, Schaller S. 2006. Accounting for the social dimension of sustainability: experiences from the biotech-
nology industry. Business Strategy and the Environment 15(5): 334–346.
Welford R. 2005. Corporate social responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia. 2004 survey results. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship
17: 33–52.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 18, 76–89 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/sd