These two approaches exemplify and confirm that the current literature on corporate sustainability is contradictory and inconsistent.
Drivers for Corporate Sustainability The first driver for sustainability identified for the purposes of this paper is competitiveness, and ultimately achieving competitve advantage (Bansal & Roth, 2000).
They argue that a top-down management approach proliferates the prospects of success in sustainability, as they allow for employee empowerment and support.
This approach, now, has indirectly confirmed Borland’s (2009) theory that sustainability can be a successful process which will thrive with the support and leadership of senior management.
They then go forward by declaring that this can be reversed economically by internalising processes of ecological and ‘green’ sustainability.
Stoughton and Ludema (2012) proffer that the literature is inconsistent and contradictory when discussing corporate sustainability.If a business cannot receive the necessary support from management, then the longevity of the sustainability process is damaged (Berns et al, 2009).Wilkinson, Hill and Golan (2001) accentuate this cruciality of senior management by proffering that internal pressures arise throughout a change management process if senior management does not provide the necessary support.Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) convey a three-dimensional model to sustainability, identifying that economic sustainability, environmental sustainability and social sustainability are all aspects of change which must be accounted for in order to understand the short term and long term benefits of change to sustainability.If senior management cannot understand the risks/implications of change, then they cannot extend their support. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(12): 1492–1502.They argue that the preceding literature fails to note this, and is contradictory when addressing businesses rational perspectives on change when attempting to incorporate sustainability.This is clearly evident through the disparities between Borland (2009) and Martin (1992).This revolves around the concept that there are manifold articles which suggest opposing views about a businesses approach to sustainability, how a business implements sustainability through change, and how sustainability grows as a culture throughout a business.Stoughton and Ludema (2012) claim that there are various perspectives in which sustainability, growth and change all occur, and this is consistent with the cultural perspective on change as it considers the values and beliefs of a company from the top down.The push for competitiveness through sustainability saw businesses developing at rapid rates, as they Barriers of Corporate Sustainability The first barrier for corporate sustainability relates to a lacking of understanding and support from senior management.As mentioned above, senior management, and their role, is beyond crucial.