A Proposed Typology for the Validation of Corporate Sustainability

Abstract

Corporate sustainability is a multi-stakeholder approach with a Triple or Quadruple Bottom Line focused on long-term horizons and the creation of shared or triple value. The objective of this study is to present a theoretical framework for the implementation and measurement of corporate sustainability within companies and to propose a set of measurement scales for assessing levels of sustainability implementation. This study offers a novel conceptual model that enables the systematic classification and benchmarking of sustainability maturity levels in companies. The methodology involves a literature review and the application of the Dyllick–Muff matrix (2016), which identifies three distinct levels of sustainability: Sustainability 1.0, Sustainability 2.0, and Sustainability 3.0. This framework uses three dimensions: objectives (the “what”), value creation (the “why”), and organizational perspective (the “how”). The study highlights the scarcity of research on the practical implementation of sustainability. Furthermore, there is no widely adopted framework for measuring sustainability implementation. The diversity and fragmentation of existing sustainability measurement models make comparative analysis particularly challenging. This study concludes that the Dyllick–Muff matrix is a suitable tool for determining a company’s level of sustainability and for conducting comparative analyses across organizations.

1. Introduction

Climate change and geopolitical conflicts are generating numerous social and environmental impacts that necessitate managing the economy from a different perspective, both in the public and private sectors [1]. In the private sector, there is a growing need to integrate sustainability at various levels of corporate strategy, understanding it as a process through which to manage and measure the creation of triple value—namely, economic–financial value, social value, and environmental value [2,3]. In this context, corporate sustainability (CS) aims to ensure the long-term continuity of firms while contributing to the present and future progress of society by balancing economic, social, and environmental dimensions [4,5,6,7].

Sustainability has its roots in the concept of sustainable development [8,9], introduced at the United Nations Summit in the report Our Common Future [10]. However, sustainable development and sustainability are two distinct yet related concepts. While the former encompasses primarily macro-level policies aimed at ensuring a good quality of life for current and future generations by protecting society and the planet, sustainability refers to the process through which organizations manage their triple value. At present, sustainable development is implemented through the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), introduced at the United Nations Summit held in New York in 2015, marking the first time that businesses have been actively involved in achieving these goals through their economic activities [11].

To date, research on corporate sustainability has primarily focused on analyzing non-financial reports or sustainability disclosures to quantify firms’ contributions to triple value creation [12,13,14,15]. This indicates that CS has been approached mainly from a measurement perspective, which represents a partial and biased view that hinders its integration into corporate strategy [16,17].

However, we argue that the strategic potential of sustainability should not rely solely on measuring the triple value created by firms (sustainability measurement), but also on strategically managing the actions that lead to such value creation and integrating them into the company’s strategy (CS management) [18]. Therefore, it is necessary to study CS as an approach based on the integration of sustainability into corporate strategy—an area with limited published research, most of which remains theoretical [4,5,19,20]. There is little literature on how to implement a sustainability strategy [17], and even less on the level of sustainability that companies have achieved (CS implementation) [21,22,23,24]. Thus, there is a significant knowledge gap regarding the implementation of sustainability strategies.

This study aims to address this issue by analyzing the degree of sustainability implementation in companies using a classification system that identifies different levels of sustainability among firms. We hypothesize that the Dyllick–Muff matrix, extended with construct-specific indicators, can effectively categorize firms based on their sustainability implementation maturity. The following research questions are posed: (a) What sustainability actions and strategies are companies undertaking? (b) How do they implement and measure sustainability? (c) What level of sustainability have they achieved? The objective of this study is to understand how companies are integrating sustainability into their strategies, thereby enabling an assessment of their role in achieving triple value. Additionally, validating a proposed set of sustainability measurement scales may support benchmarking efforts in the field.

The methodology employed involves the application of the Strategic Matrix developed by Dyllick and Muff [17], which identifies three distinct levels of sustainability: Sustainability 1.0, Sustainability 2.0, and Sustainability 3.0. This framework uses three dimensions: objectives (the “what”), value creation (the “why”), and organizational perspective (the “how”). Given the lack of empirical studies on this topic, our work proposes a set of measurement scales for the sustainability levels outlined by Dyllick and Muff [17]. A subsequent study will conduct a quantitative empirical analysis to validate the proposed measurement scales.

This article is structured into six sections, including this introduction. The second section presents the theoretical framework for CS implementation. The third section discusses the theoretical framework for sustainability measurement scales. The fourth section explains the use of the Dyllick and Muff matrix [17]. The fifth section proposes sustainability measurement scales based on the Dyllick and Muff matrix [17], which will be validated in future research. The sixth and final section presents the conclusions.

2. Methods

Corporate sustainability (CS) is a management approach characterized by its multi-stakeholder orientation [25,26], its inclusion of the three dimensions of sustainable development—economic, social, and environmental [27,28]—its long-term time horizon, and its foundation in shared value creation or co-creation [3]. These features give CS a strategic, global, and integrated nature, implying that sustainability must be embedded within the company’s overall strategy [4,29,30,31]. Several authors have emphasized the holistic nature of CS [31,32,33,34,35].

From this, it follows that CS should be understood as a strategy that can help create a competitive advantage for a firm, enhancing its market positioning while generating value for all stakeholders [36,37]. CS must ensure the company’s long-term survival by making it competitive (economic value) and contributing to societal and environmental improvement (social and environmental value). Its implementation depends on the commitment and involvement of top management, who must formulate and execute it [5,38,39]. It also requires an organizational culture that promotes sustainability as a core value through a proactive mindset and stakeholder engagement, particularly from employees [5,23]. Likewise, it must extend across the supply chain, encouraging the participation of suppliers and partner firms in sustainability implementation [40]. However, for a long time, sustainability was not considered important or necessary for business [41,42,43].

The strategic approach to sustainability implies that it must be both formulated and implemented by the company, making it a process through which the firm evolves over time [44]. Integrating it into corporate strategy means treating it as a central component of business decision-making [30,45,46]. Applying the strategic process to sustainability involves (1) defining sustainability objectives, (2) formulating a sustainability strategy to achieve those objectives, (3) implementing the strategy through action plans and resource allocation, (4) evaluating the impacts and outcomes of the strategy, as well as measuring and communicating them to stakeholders via sustainability reports.

Therefore, companies that adopt sustainability must manage it strategically, integrating, formulating, implementing, and measuring it within their corporate strategy [32,47].

2.1. A Typology of Sustainability in Corporate Strategy

The debate around CS must focus on three conceptual challenges to address the current misalignment or disconnect [17,48,49,50]: (1) addressing the lack of integration of the various thematic approaches to sustainability, (2) bridging the gap between macro-level and micro-level organizational perspectives in society, (3) shifting the definition of business success from profit maximization to the pursuit of the common good.

Several authors have conducted bibliometric analyses to identify the most relevant studies on the integration of sustainability into corporate strategy, including Engert et al. [5] and Johnson & Schaltegger [20], among others.

According to Engert et al. [5], sustainability has a triple positive impact on firms: it accelerates shared value creation through differentiation, reduces costs by increasing productivity, and serves as a driver of innovation. There is an extensive literature on the competitive advantages of sustainability, with most studies highlighting the following benefits or enablers.

First, developing a sustainability-oriented vision and strategy enables organizations to design a sustainability strategy aimed at achieving a sustainable competitive advantage, ensuring long-term survival [30,51,52,53]. Sustainability is generally associated with gaining a competitive advantage through differentiation, which translates into market distinction, access to new customer segments, and the opening of new business opportunities [40,54,55,56]. However, it can also contribute to cost reduction through increased productivity (cost leadership strategy) [30,31,51,55,57].

Additionally, sustainability helps mitigate financial, legal, and reputational risks associated with environmental and social issues, while enhancing a corporation’s image, reputation, and ability to attract investors, talent, and sustainability-conscious consumers [47,58,59,60]. Responsible citizens value corporate actions associated with social responsibility, ethics, and good governance. This translates into an improved brand image and value, as well as increased trust from stakeholders, facilitating stronger relationships [61,62].

Another benefit is the improvement of internal processes, resource optimization, and operational efficiency. Sustainability can serve as a roadmap for defining organizational objectives and guiding internal improvements [43,63]. It can also function as a tool for internal evaluation and control, enabling the assessment of objectives, analysis of success levels, identification of deviations, and implementation of corrective actions. This positions sustainability as a pathway to excellence, shifting from a means-oriented to an end-oriented approach [44].

Sustainability also enables a strategic diagnosis of a company’s situation from a sustainability perspective, identifying strengths and weaknesses to inform strategic actions aimed at reinforcing strengths and mitigating weaknesses. This aspect is analyzed through the lens of the Resource-Based View [40,64,65].

Another benefit of sustainability is its role in attracting, motivating, and retaining organizational personnel. Employees are central and essential assets in the sustainability process, and their well-being is crucial to the success of corporate sustainability strategies. Through sustainability initiatives targeted at this stakeholder group, companies can foster highly motivated human resources [44].

Sustainability also acts as a lever for innovation within organizations by facilitating improvements and changes to business models through an inclusive approach. This leads to strategic innovations that yield greater benefits for the company. Social innovations are also a key type of innovation in the sustainability process [66,67].

Table 1. Key benefits of integrating sustainability into corporate strategy.

Source/Author(s)	Type of Benefit	Description	Strategic Implication
[5]	Triple Positive Impact	Accelerates shared value creation, reduces costs through productivity, and drives innovation	Enhances overall firm performance and innovation capacity
[30,51,52,53]	Sustainable Competitive Advantage	Designing a sustainability strategy to achieve long-term competitive advantage	Ensures long-term survival and competitive positioning
[40,54,55,56]	Market Differentiation	Market differentiation, access to new customer segments, and business opportunities	Leads to market distinction and new business opportunities
[30,31,51,55,57]	Cost Leadership	Enhancing productivity and reducing operational costs	Supports cost leadership strategies and operational efficiency
[47,58,59,60]	Risk Reduction	Mitigating financial, legal, and reputational risks associated with environmental and social issues	Reduces exposure to risks and enhances corporate resilience
[61,62]	Corporate Image Enhancement	Improving brand value and stakeholder trust through responsible corporate actions	Strengthens reputation and attracts investors, talent, and consumers
[43,63]	Operational Efficiency	Resource optimization and greater operational efficiency	Improves internal processes and operational effectiveness
[44]	Internal Evaluation and Control	Assessing goal achievement, identifying deviations, and implementing corrective actions	Transform sustainability into a pathway to organizational excellence
[40,64,65]	Strategic Diagnostics	Identifying strengths and weaknesses to adopt strategic actions	Supports strategic planning and decision-making
[5,38,39]	Human Capital Management	Attracting, motivating, and retaining employees through sustainability measures	Fosters a motivated and committed workforce
[66,67]	Innovation Driver	Facilitating improvements and changes in the business model through an inclusive approach	Drives strategic and social innovations for greater benefits

summarizes the key benefits of integrating sustainability into corporate strategy. In addition to the main benefits derived from the integration of sustainability, the main references that justify these benefits, as well as the strategic implications of each, have been included in the table.

However, the success of sustainability lies not only in generating economic benefits for primary stakeholders (owners and executives), but also in creating triple value or triple impact for all stakeholders and in achieving improvements for society and the planet [68,69]. Savitz and Weber [70] emphasized the need to strike a balance between corporate satisfaction and stakeholder satisfaction, which they refer to as the Sustainability Sweet Spot, where economic benefits align with the pursuit of the common good. This fosters stronger stakeholder relationships, as sustainability can be seen as a strategy through which stakeholders recognize the organization’s efforts in this area. It also promotes transparency (access to information and ease of communication), resulting in greater stakeholder engagement in the development of the company’s sustainability strategy.

Furthermore, following Engert et al. [5], the integration of sustainability within a company is influenced by a set of internal and external factors. Internal factors include organizational size [71,72,73,74,75,76,77], scope of activity, and organizational structure [4,63,75,77]. External factors include industry type [78,79] and the company’s structure and position within the industry [74,80,81,82,83].

Finally, several factors may act either as enablers or barriers to the integration of sustainability into corporate strategy. These include management control systems [42,57,84], stakeholder involvement [43,66], organizational learning and managerial knowledge [85,86,87,88], transparency and communication [62], leadership attitudes and behaviors [89], organizational culture [23,46,89], organizational complexity [39,89,90], and investment capacity [52,66].

Table 2. Factors influencing the integration of sustainability into corporate strategy.

Factor Type	Specific Factor	Description	Key References
Internal	Organization Size	Influences the firm’s capacity to integrate sustainability.	[71,72,73,74]
Internal	Scope of Activity	Affects how sustainability is embedded across operations.	[4,63,75]
Internal	Organizational Structure	Determines the ease of integrating sustainability into decision-making.	[4,77]
External	Industry Type	Shapes the relevance and urgency of sustainability practices.	[78,79]
External	Industry Structure and Position	Influences competitive dynamics and sustainability expectations.	[74,80,83]
Enabling/Obstructing	Management Control Systems	Can facilitate or hinder sustainability integration.	[42,57,84]
Enabling/Obstructing	Stakeholder Involvement	Engagement of stakeholders supports integration efforts.	[43,66]
Enabling/Obstructing	Organizational Learning	Enhances the firm’s ability to adapt and innovate sustainably.	[85,86,87]
Enabling/Obstructing	Transparency and Communication	Builds trust and accountability in sustainability practices.	[62]
Enabling/Obstructing	Managerial Attitudes and Behavior	Leadership commitment is critical for successful integration.	[87]
Enabling/Obstructing	Organizational Culture	A sustainability-oriented culture supports long-term integration.	[23,46,88]
Enabling/Obstructing	Organizational Complexity	High complexity may hinder effective integration.	[39,89,90]
Enabling/Obstructing	Investment in Sustainability	Financial commitment is essential for implementation.	[52,66]

summarizes the key factors affecting the integration of sustainability into corporate strategy. The table includes the most notable references that cover each of the factors analyzed.

2.2. Scales for Measuring Sustainability

Measurement is an integral part of sustainability implementation [21,36,37,45]. Through measurement, companies provide information on the triple value created by their actions, quantifying the social and environmental value generated [43,91,92].

Several challenges associated with the use of sustainability measurement scales have been identified in the literature [93]: (1) the variety and diversity of existing measurement scales can create confusion and hinder benchmarking across companies and sectors, (2) differences across the three dimensions to be measured (economic, social, and environmental) and their interconnections increase complexity; (3) collecting accurate and reliable data associated with sustainability dimensions can be difficult and costly; (4) measuring sustainability actions does not guarantee their effective implementation unless accompanied by genuine cultural and strategic change.

Additionally, some tools fail to include corporate governance in their assessments, offering an incomplete view of sustainability; and even when included, governance is often measured separately from sustainability [59,94].

Various methods have been used to measure sustainability, which, while addressing some of these limitations, do not resolve them entirely [95,96]. According to Maignan & Ferrell [97] and Turker [95], the most appropriate approaches for measuring sustainability include (1) reputation indices, which are not based on theoretical foundations but on practical approximations dependent on the researcher’s experience; (2) databases, which have narrow evaluation criteria and often include only companies listed in specific markets; (3) unidimensional and multidimensional indicators, which may not adequately represent the overall structure of sustainability, even when multiple indicators are used; (4) content analysis of publications, which depends on the reliability of the companies studied—some may not actually do what they claim—though this is the oldest method used; (5) surveys of organizational members, which are limited in estimating actual sustainability actions due to their subjective nature, making them more suitable for identifying managerial perceptions than for analyzing corporate behavior; (6) perception scales, which also struggle to measure corporate participation in sustainability actions, as they focus on individual perceptions.

Measuring sustainability also requires selecting the variables to be studied, which must be framed within a specific reference model. The two most used frameworks are (1) the stakeholder approach, which includes the most relevant stakeholders for the company [98,99,100,101,102]; (2) the three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social, and environmental) [38,78,103,104,105].

Less common frameworks include the corporate associations model and Carroll’s Pyramid ([106], revised in [8,107]), which include economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic dimensions [99]. While all these models agree that sustainability is a multidimensional construct, they differ in the number of dimensions and the variables used to define them. However, some studies have adopted a unidimensional concept.

Research based on Freeman’s [25] stakeholder approach varies in the number and type of stakeholders included. Most studies identify five main groups: owners, employees, suppliers, customers, and society [96,99]. Some studies also include corporate governance [102], the environment [99,100,101,102], diversity [108], and product quality or safety. However, many studies using this approach consider only a limited number of stakeholders, which represents a significant limitation in sustainability measurement that must be addressed [105].

Table 3. Sustainability measurement methods.

Method	Characteristics and Limitations
Perception scales	Characteristics: Focuses on individual perceptions Limitations: Difficult to measure corporate participation
Surveys	Characteristics: Subjective, suitable for identifying managerial perceptions Limitations: Difficult to estimate actual actions
Content analysis	Characteristics: Depends on the reliability of the companies studied Limitations: Companies may not do what they claim
Unidimensional and multidimensional indicators	Characteristics: May not represent the overall sustainability structure Limitations: May not be sufficiently representative
Databases	Characteristics: Narrow evaluation criteria, limited to specific markets Limitations: Limited scope, narrow evaluation
Reputation indices	Characteristics: Practical approximations, not theory-based Limitations: Not based on theoretical foundations

summarizes the main characteristics and limitations of each of the principal methods for measuring sustainability. The table includes each of the main characteristics and limitations corresponding to each of the methods analyzed for the purpose of comparative analysis.

Numerous studies have examined sustainability measurement through the lens of the three dimensions of sustainable development—economic, social, and environmental [78,97,103,109]. Some of these studies have employed Elkington’s Triple Bottom Line framework [38,104,105].

The economic dimension assesses a company’s ability to provide long-term viable economic activities that benefit most stakeholders [26,38,99,104]. According to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), this includes aspects such as economic performance, market presence, indirect economic impacts, procurement practices, anti-corruption, unfair competition, and taxation.

The social dimension evaluates the company’s capacity to create social value for stakeholders [38,104]. GRI indicators in this area include employment, labor–management relations, occupational health and safety, training and education, diversity and equal opportunity, non-discrimination, freedom of association and collective bargaining, child labor, forced or compulsory labor, security practices, rights of Indigenous peoples, human rights assessments, local community engagement, supplier social assessments, public policy, customer health and safety, marketing and labeling, customer privacy, and socioeconomic compliance.

The environmental dimension measures a company’s ability to generate value for the planet [38,99,104]. According to the GRI, this includes materials, energy, water, biodiversity, emissions, waste, environmental impacts of products and services, transportation, environmental compliance, and supplier environmental assessments.

One limitation of this approach is that, by measuring the three dimensions separately, it fails to account for the relationships and balance among them—factors that are crucial for accurately assessing sustainability [110]. Additionally, it overlooks a key component in sustainability measurement: corporate governance [59,96,99].

The Quadruple Bottom Line (QBL) approach is an evolution of Elkington’s TBL, which adds to the three dimensions (Profit, People, and Planet) a fourth dimension called Purpose [28,111]. This fourth dimension includes elements such as culture [112,113], spirituality [114], governance [115,116], place [117], and well-being [118].

Studies that incorporate this fourth dimension of sustainability—governance—have considered aspects such as [119] (1) transparency, including the functioning of decision-making bodies, executive compensation, and the traceability of decisions made by governance bodies; (2) sustainable leadership, including commitment development, the quality of reports and disclosures, responsible bodies for sustainability strategy, clarity of purpose and values, and transparency in the application of sustainability policies [2]; (3) the structure and functioning of management bodies, including the separation of roles, independence of board members and committees, board diversity (gender, culture, age, disability, etc.), minority shareholder rights, inclusive participation, compliance with good governance codes, long-term stakeholder interest alignment, incentive structures, responsibility protocols, and publication of organizational charts; (4) risk management, including risk identification, transparency in risk management methodologies, and the establishment of risk management systems; (5) ethics management, including codes of ethics, anti-bribery and anti-corruption measures, anti-money-laundering policies, and public policy engagement.

Table 4. Primary indicators associated with each of the four dimensions of sustainability.

Dimension	Key Indicators	Representative References
Economic	Economic performance, market presence, indirect economic impacts, procurement practices, anti-corruption, unfair competition, taxation	[26,38,98,103]
Social	Employment, labor–management relations, occupational health and safety, training and education, diversity and equal opportunity, non-discrimination, freedom of association and collective bargaining, child labor, forced or compulsory labor, security practices, rights of Indigenous peoples, human rights assessments, local community engagement, supplier social assessments, public policy, customer health and safety, marketing and labeling, customer privacy, socioeconomic compliance	[38,103]
Environmental	Materials, energy, water, biodiversity, emissions, waste, environmental impacts of products and services, transportation, environmental compliance, supplier environmental assessments	[38,98,103]
Governance	Transparency, sustainable leadership, structure and functioning of management bodies, risk management, ethics management	[47,95,98,110]

provides a summary of the primary indicators associated with each of the four dimensions of sustainability. The table also includes the main references for each of the four dimensions considered, justifying their use in our study.

3. Results

In the study by Dyllick and Muff [17], a matrix was proposed to establish a typology of companies engaged in sustainability-related actions. The matrix classifies companies based on the identification of three dimensions: (1) objectives (the “what”), distinguishing between economic objectives, triple objectives, and sustainability as an objective; (2) value creation (the “why”), depending on whether value is created for owners, for owners and other interested parties, for all stakeholders, or for the common good; (3) organizational perspective (the “how”), differentiating between an inside-out perspective and an outside-in perspective.

Dyllick and Muff [17] classified companies into four different types based on their degree of sustainability: (1) usual companies, which pursue economic objectives, create value for their owners, and show an inside-out organizational perspective; (2) sustainable companies 1.0, which pursue the three dimensions of objectives (economic, social, and environmental), create value for their owners and other close parties such as managers, and show an inside-out organizational perspective (refined management of owner value); (3) sustainable companies 2.0, which pursue the three dimensions of objectives (economic, social, and environmental), create value for all their stakeholders, and show an inside-out organizational perspective (management for Triple Bottom Line); (4) sustainable companies 3.0, which pursue sustainability as an end (and not as a means), create value for the common good (not just for their stakeholders), and show an outside-in organizational perspective (true sustainability). The typology described is graphically represented in

Table 5. Typology of sustainable companies.

Business Sustainability Typology	Objectives (What)	Value Creation (Why)	Organizational Perspective (How)
Usual companies	Economic	Owners	Inside-out
Sustainable companies 1.0	Three dimensions	Owners and related parties	Inside-out
Sustainable companies 2.0	Three dimensions	Triple Bottom Line	Inside-out
Sustainable companies 3.0	Initiate sustainability challenges	Creating value for the Common Good	Outside-in
Main changes:	Expand company objectives	Expand the type of value created	Change in perspective

Dyllick and Muff [17].

.

3.1. Sustainable Companies 1.0

Sustainable companies 1.0 represent the initial level of the matrix and include firms that utilize non-financial reporting and sustainability disclosures.

Cafés Novell (Catalonia, Spain) is a Spanish SME based in Vilafranca del Penedès, Catalonia, specializing in the production and distribution of high-quality coffee. Founded in 1958, the company has expanded its operations internationally while maintaining a strong commitment to sustainability and corporate responsibility. Cafés Novell operates under a product-oriented business model focused on premium coffee, offering both retail and professional solutions. Its sustainability strategy is integrated into its operations through organic- and fair-trade-certified products; sustainable packaging, including compostable coffee capsules; energy-efficient production processes; and non-financial reporting, including sustainability reports aligned with Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).

According to the typology of the Dyllick and Muff matrix, Cafés Novell can be classified as a sustainable company 1.0 because (1) it incorporates the three dimensions of sustainability (economic, social, and environmental) into its strategy; (2) it creates value for its owners and close stakeholders (e.g., employees, suppliers, customers), but does not yet fully integrate the needs of broader societal or planetary stakeholders; (3) its sustainability approach is internally driven, leveraging its own resources and capabilities to address stakeholder expectations, rather than being driven by external societal challenges.

The objective of these companies encompasses the three dimensions of sustainable development—economic, social, and environmental. They create value for their owners and executives, as well as for stakeholders closely connected to the firm, but not for the broader stakeholder ecosystem. Their organizational perspective is oriented from the inside out, meaning they seek to address stakeholder needs by leveraging their internal resources and capabilities.

3.2. Sustainable Companies 2.0

Sustainable companies 2.0 correspond to the second highest level of the matrix and include companies that hold some type of sustainability certification, such as B Corps.

Certified B Corporations (B Corps) are for-profit companies that voluntarily meet rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency. The certification is granted by the nonprofit organization B Lab and evaluates companies across five key dimensions: governance, workers, community, environment, and customers. Key characteristics include the following [120,121,122]: (1) Hybrid Purpose Orientation: B Corps aim to balance profit with purpose, integrating social and environmental goals into their core business models. This hybrid identity distinguishes them from traditional for-profit firms. (2) Stakeholder Governance: These companies adopt governance structures that prioritize the interests of all stakeholders—not just shareholders—aligning with stakeholder theory and institutional logics. (3) Voluntary Certification and Accountability: B Corps undergo a comprehensive impact assessment and must amend their legal governing documents to reflect their commitment to stakeholder governance. (4) Transparency and Impact Measurement: Certified companies are required to publish public reports on their social and environmental performance, fostering transparency and accountability. (5) Strategic Differentiation: Many firms pursue B Corp certification to signal authenticity, differentiate themselves in the market, attract talent, and align with consumer and investor expectations for sustainability. (6) Global and Sectoral Diversity: The B Corp movement spans over 8000 companies across more than 100 countries and 160 industries, reflecting its global relevance and adaptability.

Danone S.A. (Paris, France) is a French multinational food products corporation operating in over 120 countries. It specializes in dairy and plant-based products, bottled water, early-life nutrition, and medical nutrition. In 2018, Danone North America became the largest certified B Corporation globally, marking a significant milestone in the integration of sustainability into large-scale corporate operations. Danone’s business model is rooted in its “dual project” philosophy, which seeks to combine economic success with social progress.

This approach is operationalized through health-focused product lines that promote nutrition and well-being; inclusive governance structures that prioritize stakeholder engagement, sustainable sourcing, and production practices across the supply chain; and impact-driven subsidiaries, many of which are individually certified as B Corps. As of 2022, over 45 Danone brands and subsidiaries—representing approximately 70% of its global sales—had achieved B Corp certification. Danone exemplifies how multinational corporations can adopt and scale the B Corp ethos. Its strategic alignment with B Lab’s certification framework demonstrates that large enterprises can be both profitable and purpose-driven, contributing meaningfully to global sustainability goals.

According to the Dyllick and Muff matrix, Business Sustainability 2.0 refers to companies that go beyond compliance and efficiency to actively integrate sustainability into their core strategies. These companies aim to create value not only for shareholders but also for a broader range of stakeholders, while aligning their business models with societal and environmental concerns. Danone exemplifies this level of sustainability for the following reasons: (1) The Strategic Integration of Sustainability: Danone embeds sustainability into its corporate mission, “One Planet. One Health,” which reflects a commitment to human and planetary well-being. Sustainability is not treated as a peripheral activity but as a strategic driver of innovation, product development, and market positioning. (2) Stakeholder-Oriented Value Creation: The company creates value for a wide range of stakeholders, including employees, suppliers, consumers, local communities, and the environment. This is evident in its inclusive sourcing practices, health-focused product lines, and community development programs. (3) Voluntary Standards and Certifications: Danone has pursued B Corp certification for many of its subsidiaries, demonstrating a voluntary commitment to high standards of social and environmental performance, transparency, and accountability. This aligns with the 2.0 model’s emphasis on proactive engagement with sustainability standards. (4) Sustainability Reporting and Impact Measurement: Danone publishes comprehensive sustainability and integrated reports, aligned with frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These reports reflect a commitment to transparency and continuous improvement. (5) Internal and External Orientation: While Danone leverages its internal capabilities to address sustainability challenges, it also responds to external societal and environmental needs. This dual orientation—internal and external—is a hallmark of the 2.0 model. (6) Leadership and Advocacy: Danone plays a leadership role in promoting sustainable business practices globally. It actively participates in multi-stakeholder initiatives and advocates for systemic change in the food and beverage industry.

The objective of this type of company encompasses the triple dimensions of sustainable development; that is, it not only considers economic and financial goals but also integrates social and environmental objectives. Furthermore, value creation is aligned with the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) approach, aiming to generate value for all stakeholders, both internal and external. Lastly, the internal perspective is oriented from the inside out, meaning that the company seeks to address stakeholder needs by leveraging its internal resources and capabilities.

3.3. Sustainable Companies 3.0

Sustainable companies 3.0 correspond to the highest level of the matrix and include Common Good Companies [34,35]. These companies create value for each of their stakeholders (suppliers, owners, financial institutions, employees, customers, other businesses, and the social environment) through four principles: human dignity, solidarity and social justice, environmental sustainability, and transparency and democratic participation.

Each of these four principles is translated into variables to be measured for each of the five types of stakeholders. For example, human dignity in the workplace is measured through the implementation of an organizational culture that focuses on people (job turnover rate, average seniority in the organization, number of job applications, number and frequency of surveys measuring the company’s work environment, and provision and hours of professional and personal training per employee and by category), the promotion of health and safety at work (sick leave rate, number and severity of work-related accidents, and content and hours of training on the subject per employee), and diversity and equal opportunities (employees by job category according to diversity and gender equality criteria, training provided on diversity and gender equality, social diversity of the environment, number of maternity and paternity leave in months, and rotations and new hires broken down by diversity and gender equality criteria).

VAUDE (Tettnang, Germany) is a German-based multinational outdoor apparel and equipment manufacturer. It is widely recognized for its leadership in sustainability and corporate responsibility. VAUDE has integrated the principles of the Economy for the Common Good (ECG) into its corporate governance and sustainability reporting, making it one of the most prominent multinational companies aligned with this alternative economic model. VAUDE operates under a sustainability-driven business model that emphasizes ecological innovation, ethical supply chains, and stakeholder engagement. Its core strategies include eco-design and circular economy principles in product development, fair labor practices, long-term partnerships with suppliers, transparency and participatory governance—including employee involvement in decision-making—and climate neutrality across its operations, achieved through renewable energy use and carbon offsetting. VAUDE exemplifies how a multinational enterprise can operate within the principles of the Economy for the Common Good. Its commitment to transparency, stakeholder engagement, and ecological integrity positions it as a pioneer in redefining corporate success beyond financial metrics.

Business Sustainability 3.0 represents the most advanced level in the Dyllick and Muff matrix. Companies at this level are characterized by a genuine outside-in perspective, where they actively address pressing societal and environmental challenges through their core business strategies. These firms go beyond stakeholder management and internal optimization to become agents of systemic change. VAUDE exemplifies this level for the following reasons: (1) Purpose-Driven Mission Aligned with Societal Needs: VAUDE’s mission is explicitly oriented toward solving environmental and social problems, such as climate change, resource depletion, and social inequality. Its business model is designed not only to minimize harm but to positively contribute to the common good, aligning with planetary boundaries and social foundations. (2) Common Good Balance Sheet: VAUDE voluntarily adopts the Economy for the Common Good (ECG) framework, publishing a Common Good Balance Sheet that evaluates its performance across ethical dimensions such as human dignity, solidarity, ecological sustainability, and democratic participation. This reflects a deep commitment to systemic accountability beyond conventional financial metrics. (3) Outside-In Strategic Orientation: The company’s sustainability initiatives are driven by external societal and environmental imperatives rather than internal efficiency or compliance. For example, VAUDE has implemented climate-neutral production, eco-design principles, and inclusive employment policies in response to global sustainability challenges. (4) Systemic Innovation and Advocacy: VAUDE actively promotes transformational change in the textile and outdoor industries. It engages in policy advocacy, collaborates with NGOs and academic institutions, and shares best practices to foster industry-wide sustainability transitions. (5) Holistic Stakeholder Engagement: Unlike Sustainability 2.0 companies that focus on direct stakeholders, VAUDE considers the well-being of future generations, ecosystems, and marginalized communities. Its stakeholder engagement is inclusive and oriented toward long-term societal impact. (6) Transparency and Cultural Integration: Sustainability is embedded in VAUDE’s organizational culture, governance, and employee participation. The company fosters a culture of transparency, ethical leadership, and continuous learning, which supports its role as a sustainability pioneer.

The objective of this type of company is to transform sustainability into a challenge for the company; in other words, sustainability becomes a goal in itself. Furthermore, value creation is focused on the common good or general interest, rather than on specific types of stakeholders. Finally, the organizational perspective is from the outside in, meaning the company focuses its efforts on understanding and responding to the needs of society and the planet rather than relying solely on its internal capabilities.

3.4. Practical Application of the Matrix

This matrix can be practically applied to classify companies according to the level of sustainability achieved in their implementation. Studies that have used the Dyllick and Muff matrix [17] for this purpose are still very scarce. A search for literature reviews in two main databases—Web of Science and Scopus—identified six studies, as shown in

Table 6. Published studies on the application of the Dyllick and Muff matrix [17].

Author(s)	Methodology	Description
[123]	Literature review	This analysis examines the models outlining the stages of corporate sustainability development at the micro level, as well as sustainable social development at the macro level.
[108]	GAPFRAME methodology	A tool for planning the implementation of sustainability and for use as a teaching resource for students.
[123]	Theoretical grounding	A critical analysis of the work of Dyllick and Muff.
[23]	Case analysis	This paper validates the Dyllick and Muff typology and proposes tools for implementing sustainability in companies.
[24]	Quantitative analysis	This study analyzes the sustainability levels attained by Russian companies, using the Dyllick and Muff matrix as a framework.
[124]	Qualitative analysis	The study applies the Dyllick and Muff model to the context of academic libraries.

.

Landrum’s [119] work presented a theoretical analysis based on a literature review. Using the typology of sustainable companies created by Dyllick and Muff [17], it creates a unified model based on five stages of corporate sustainability: compliance, business-centered, synthetic, regenerative, and co-evolutionary. Moratis and Melissen [123] presented a theoretical study in which they conduct a critical and constructive review of Dyllick and Muff’s [17] work. Muff, Kapalka, and Dyllick [108] developed their own methodology (GAPFRAME) that serves to implement sustainability in a company.

The other three studies are empirical studies that apply the Dyllick and Muff typology with the aim of validating it. Muff [23] conducted a case analysis of companies across different sectors and proposed tools for implementing corporate sustainability. Keller [124] conducted a qualitative analysis of the application of the Dyllick and Muff model [17] in the university library sector. Blagov and Petrova-Savchenko [24] conducted a quantitative analysis using 2019 data for 45 Russian and multinational companies operating in Russia to identify their levels of corporate sustainability. Most of the analyzed companies were found to be at the Sustainability 2.0 level.

4. Discussion: Methodological Proposal for Measuring the Levels of Corporate Sustainability

The following is a proposed methodology for measuring the levels of sustainability in companies based on the Dyllick and Muff matrix [17].

Following the Dyllick and Muff sustainability matrix [17], the three dimensions of the matrix are identified as the three constructs to be measured: (1) objectives pursued by the company (the what of sustainability), (2) values created by the company (for what of sustainability), and (3) organizational perspective (the how of sustainability).

From the literature review of the various studies published on the Dyllick and Muff matrix, a series of variables have been identified that can be used to measure each of the three constructs. These variables are presented in

Table 7. Measurement scales of the constructs.

Constructs	Variables	Options *
1. Objectives: [23,24,123,124]	1.1. Proposed objectives:	Economics/Social/Environmental
	1.2. Timeframe of objectives:	Short Term/Long Term
	1.3. Company capital:	Economics/Social/Environmental
	1.4. Company transparency:	Internal/External
	1.5. Code of ethics for:	Owners/Executives/Employees/Other Stakeholders
	1.6. Code of good governance for:	Owners/Executives/Employees/Other Stakeholders
	1.7. Includes SGDs:	Which and How Many SDGs Included
2. Created Values: [24,38,47,78,102,103,104]	2.1. For whom value is created:	Owners/Executives/Employees/Customers/Suppliers/Social Environment
	2.2. Value proposition:	Economics/Social/Environmental
	2.3. Uses instruments to measure triple value:	Usual/Adapted Usual/Specific
	2.4. Company externalities:	Does no value/Value/Seeks to Eliminate
	2.5. Distributes economic–financial value to:	Owners/Executives/Employees/Other Stakeholders
	2.6. Decisions based on the following aspects:	Economics/Social/Environmental
	2.7. Created value is focused on:	Shareholders/Stakeholders/Common Good
3. Organizational Perspective: [24,95,98,99,100,101,124]	3.1. Identified challenges:	Internal/Society/Planet.
	3.2. Dialogue with its stakeholders:	Employees/Customers/Suppliers/Social Environment
	3.3. Which stakeholders participate in decisions:	Owners/Executives/Employees/Customers/Suppliers/Social Environment
	3.4. Sustainability is part of the strategy:	Functional/Business/Corporate
	3.5. Sustainability is integrated into:	One Area/Several Areas/Entire Organizations

* The response may include one, several, or all of the proposed options.

.

It should be noted that there is no published empirical study that has employed the methodology proposed by Dyllick and Muff; therefore, we cannot rely on any specific reference to justify the use of the proposed variables. Consequently, to justify the variables selected to measure each of the constructs, we refer to the most significant studies published over the past five years on the evaluation of corporate sustainability [125,126,127].

To measure the construct “objectives,” seven different variables are proposed. The first variable, the type of objectives set by the company (economic, social, and environmental), has been used in previous studies to demonstrate that relying solely on financial objectives does not guarantee the creation of positive added value; social and environmental objectives are also necessary [128,129,130]. Regarding the second variable, some empirical studies have shown that the time horizon of the objectives (short, medium, or long term) is critical for assessing the authenticity and effectiveness of sustainability strategies [131,132]. The type of capital the company possesses or utilizes (economic, social, and environmental) is also a determining variable, as some empirical studies demonstrate that the combined use of all three types of capital allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of corporate sustainability performance [133]. The variable of corporate transparency (both internal and external) contributes to improving reputation, business efficiency, and customer loyalty [125]. The use of a code of ethics influences ethical performance and enhances corporate sustainability [134,135]. The implementation of a corporate governance code serves as an accountability mechanism, strengthening stakeholder trust and the company’s long-term sustainability [136]. Finally, the inclusion of the SDGs in corporate strategy not only responds to institutional legitimacy but also generates economic value [137,138].

To measure the construct “value created,” seven different variables are proposed. The first variable refers to whom the company creates value for; some empirical studies conclude that this variable is essential for assessing corporate sustainability [139,140,141]. The triple value proposition is key to meeting stakeholder expectations and achieving sustainable competitive advantages [125,142,143]. The use of tools adapted and tailored to the organizational context for measuring triple value enables a more accurate and useful sustainability assessment [144,145,146]. The assessment of corporate externalities is a key variable in sustainability measurement, as it focuses on their monetization and relevance for decision-making [147,148]. The distribution of economic and financial value to corporate stakeholders is a key variable in sustainability measurement, as it seeks to directly link sustainability with tangible economic benefits for stakeholders [149]. Decision-making based on the three dimensions of sustainable development is a more effective variable for achieving sustainability [150,151]. Lastly, when the value created by the company is oriented toward the common good, it provides a more balanced and comprehensive view of corporate sustainability [148,152].

To measure the construct “organizational perspective,” five different variables are proposed. The triple challenge faced by companies (internal, social, and environmental) must be addressed in a structured and participatory manner and contributes to the formulation of an integrated and balanced sustainability strategy [130,148]. Corporate dialogue with stakeholders enhances legitimacy and resilience [153], anticipates social and environmental risks [154], and generates win–win–win relationships [155]. Stakeholder participation in corporate decision-making influences the quantity and depth of disclosed information, prevents resistance from certain groups [154], and improves environmental sustainability and corporate performance [155]. When sustainability is part of the company’s corporate strategy, it facilitates the integration of sustainability into a business strategy and enhances resilience and social legitimacy [148,153,155]. Finally, when sustainability is integrated throughout the organization [156], it transforms organizational culture, measurement systems, and decision-making processes [47], enabling continuous improvement in environmental performance, reputation, human resource management, and stakeholder relations [155].

Based on the data obtained from the sustainability reports of the analyzed companies, the selected measurement variables for each of the constructs or dimensions of the Dyllick and Muff matrix [17] are applied to conduct a scale validation through a two-step analysis: first exploratory, then confirmatory. Exploratory factor analysis provides tools for examining the structure of interrelationships among many variables by defining sets of variables (factors) that are highly correlated. The general objective of this analysis is to summarize the information contained in a series of original variables (items) into a smaller set of new, composite dimensions (factors) with minimal loss of information; in other words, to identify and define the fundamental constructs or dimensions presumed to underlie the original variables.

Confirmatory factor analysis allows us to confirm or reject a preconceived measurement theory: we proceed to specify both the number of factors and the observed variables according to the previous measurement theory, assign each variable or observed item to a single factor, and perform the calculations using JASP, employing the robust maximum likelihood extraction method as an estimator.

To obtain the sustainability reports, different international databases will be used: Global Reporting Initiative and Sustainalytics and the Yearbook of sustainable companies worldwide and The Sustainability Yearbook 2023 (https://www.spglobal.com/esg/csa/yearbook/) (accessed on 29 July 2025).

To improve the validity of the results and prevent extraneous variables from influencing them, the use of certain control variables is proposed. These variables help to interpret complex data and facilitate the identification of causal effects. Based on the literature review presented in the previous section of this study, the proposed control variables are listed in

Table 8. Control variables.

Variable	Main References
Ownership structure or legal form	[24,52,66]
Industry or sector (economic activity)	[4,63,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83]
Company age	[5,78,79,80,81,83]
Company size	[71,72,73,74,75,76,77]

.

5. Conclusions

This study offers a comprehensive theoretical contribution to the field of corporate sustainability (CS) by addressing the persistent gap between conceptual frameworks and their practical application within organizations. While the literature on sustainability measurement is extensive, it often lacks coherence and comparability due to the diversity of models, indicators, and methodologies. This fragmentation hinders the ability of companies and researchers to effectively benchmark sustainability performance or track progress over time.

Adopting the Dyllick and Muff matrix [17] as a foundational framework, this study proposed a structured and multidimensional approach for assessing the degree of sustainability implementation in companies. The matrix’s three dimensions—objectives (what), value creation (why), and organizational perspective (how)—provide a holistic lens through which to evaluate corporate sustainability maturity. The proposed measurement scales, derived from a rigorous literature review, aim to operationalize these dimensions and offer a replicable tool for both academic research and managerial practice.

The framework proposed by Dyllick and Muff, which categorizes corporate sustainability into three levels—refocusing, reconnecting, and regenerating—offers a transformative lens that goes beyond traditional reporting and compliance models. While the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) emphasizes the standardized disclosure of sustainability metrics and the SDG Index focuses on alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, both tend to prioritize external accountability and benchmarking. In contrast, Dyllick and Muff’s matrix encourages a deeper organizational transformation, urging companies to embed sustainability into their core purpose and value creation logic. Similarly, the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) model—centered on economic, social, and environmental performance—shares conceptual ground with the Dyllick and Muff framework, but often lacks the strategic integration and systemic change orientation that the latter promotes. Therefore, while all models aim to advance corporate sustainability, Dyllick and Muff’s approach is more holistic and aspirational, advocating for sustainability as a driver of innovation and societal impact rather than merely a reporting obligation.

This study emphasizes that sustainability should not be treated merely as a reporting obligation or a reputational strategy, but as a core element of corporate strategy that drives long-term value creation for all stakeholders. Integrating sustainability into business models can yield competitive advantages, foster innovation, enhance stakeholder trust, and contribute to societal and environmental well-being; however, achieving this integration requires a shift in organizational culture, leadership commitment, and the development of robust measurement and evaluation systems.

Despite its contributions, the study is not without limitations. First, the proposed measurement scales have not been empirically validated. Their effectiveness and reliability must be tested through quantitative research involving a diverse sample of companies across sectors and regions. Second, the study is conceptual in nature and does not include primary data collection or case-based analysis, which limits the ability to draw conclusions about real-world implementation challenges. Third, the influence of contextual variables—such as industry dynamics, regulatory environments, and cultural factors—on sustainability implementation was acknowledged but not explored in depth.

The indicators proposed for measuring the three constructs of the Dyllick and Muff matrix can be transformed into strategic KPIs for each of a company’s functional areas, linking sustainability to operational-level decision-making. For instance, within the human resources department, these indicators can be used to assess the level of sustainability in talent management or in improving the workplace environment. Objectives may range from legal compliance to going beyond legal requirements, such as promoting work–life balance or enhancing maternity leave policies. In terms of value creation, companies could implement wellness and diversity programs. From an organizational perspective, employee and customer feedback could be incorporated into decision-making processes.

These indicators can also be used in a complementary manner alongside those from frameworks such as GRI, the SDG Index, or the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), offering a more comprehensive and integrated view. For example, GRI standards may be used to report quantitative data, while the proposed measurement approach based on the Dyllick and Muff matrix can help to interpret the level of organizational transformation underlying that data.

Similarly, this methodological proposal can serve as a tool for periodic evaluation, analyzing the company’s progress in its sustainability strategy and identifying new challenges for the future with the aim of advancing the implementation of corporate sustainability. This approach can foster a culture of continuous improvement in sustainability.

Finally, the methodological proposal based on the Dyllick and Muff matrix can be used as a reference framework in sustainability reports, structuring them according to the three proposed levels. It can also serve as an evaluation criterion in internal audits to identify the extent to which sustainability is integrated into the company’s corporate strategy.

Future research should prioritize the empirical validation of the proposed scales through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Longitudinal studies could provide insights into how sustainability implementations evolve over time and how they correlate with organizational performance, resilience, and innovation capacity. Comparative studies across industries and countries would also help to identify the best practices and contextual enablers or barriers. Moreover, integrating digital transformation, ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) metrics, and stakeholder engagement mechanisms into the measurement framework could enhance its relevance and applicability in dynamic business environments.

In conclusion, this study lays the groundwork for a more systematic and strategic approach to measuring corporate sustainability implementation. By bridging theoretical insights with practical tools, it aims to support organizations in their transition toward more sustainable, inclusive, and future-oriented business models. The proposed framework invites further empirical exploration and refinement with the goal of advancing both academic understanding and corporate practice in the pursuit of sustainable development.