Enterprise Sustainability: From Management System to Corporate Social Responsibility

Dear Colleagues,

Enterprise sustainability has emerged as a serious paradigm in the modern business landscape, reflecting the growing recognition that enterprises must balance economic growth with environmental stewardship and social equity (Dyllick et al., 2016). At its core, enterprise sustainability goes beyond the traditional pursuit of profit, emphasizing (short and long-term) value creation through (ir)responsible practices that address ecological, social, and governance challenges (van Zanten et al., 2021). This shift requires organizations to integrate sustainability into their management systems, treating it not as an add-on but as a strategic imperative (Stanitsas et al., 2021).

Effective management systems for sustainability involve embedding (best and worst) practices in different areas, such as resource efficiency, waste reduction, and ethical supply chain management, into operational frameworks. These systems enable organizations to mitigate risks, optimize costs and earnings, and enhance resilience while aligning with global sustainability goals, such as the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations et al., 2015).

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) serves as a cornerstone of enterprise sustainability, extending beyond compliance to (reactive) proactive engagement with stakeholders (Maitland et al., 2021). CSR initiatives—ranging from environmental conservation to community development and ethical labor practices—demonstrate a commitment to societal well-being (Crowther et al., 2021). By aligning CSR strategies with core business objectives, companies can foster trust, strengthen brand reputation, and drive innovation. Also, different pressures, events, and effects may generate contradictory impacts (Porter et al., 2006).

In essence, enterprise sustainability bridges management systems and CSR, creating a holistic approach that balances profitability with purpose (Idowu et al., 2023). As environmental and social pressures intensify, organizations that embrace sustainability as a cultural and operational priority are better positioned to thrive in an increasingly complex and interconnected world (Lozano et al., 2023). This evolution underscores the role of businesses as catalysts for positive change, driving both economic prosperity and planetary health (Elkington et al., 1997).

This Special Issue encourages scholarly submissions that introduce forward-thinking, inspiring, reflective, and original perspectives on enterprise sustainability. The editors particularly request contributions that advance the state of knowledge and practice in sustainability; corporate social responsibility (CSR); and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) streams. Special emphasis will be placed on papers that explore or develop innovative methodologies and frameworks capable of integrating multi-stakeholder engagement and macro and micro level, systemic and comprehensive sustainability approaches.

• (inconsistent) Accountability practices (Michelon et al., 2015).
• (ad hoc) Strategic integration of sustainable goals (Scheyvens et al., 2016).
• (dark) Transparent and standardized sustainability reporting (Hahn et al., 2013).
• (non-) Compliance with environmental and social regulations (Kolk et al., 2008).
• (tangible and intangible) Resources efficiency and circular economy (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017, Chen et al., 2022).
• (lack) Stakeholder engagement (Manetti et al., 2016).
• (doble) Materiality assessment (La Torre et al., 2020).
• (superficial and lack) Metrics of impact measurement (Burritt et al., 2016; Klymenko et al., 2021).
• (myopic and short-sighted) Sustainability governance (Hussain et al., 2021).
• (symbolic) Board oversight (Cho et al., 2015).
• (criticisms) Greenwashing (Delmas et al., 2011).
• (isolated) Sustainability efforts (Engert et al., 2016).
• (erosion) Credibility of enterprise sustainability (Lyon et al., 2015, Bebbington et al., 2020).
• (reactive) Conflict of interest (Bansal et al., 2014).
• (manipulation) Public trust (Siano et al., 2017).
• (false) Eco-claims (Walker et al., 2012).
• (undermines) Consume Education (Brown et al., 2012).
• (limited) Sustainability Literacy (Parguel et al., 2011).
• (Un)sustainability Gap (Boron et al., 2004).

The challenges above reveal that the road to enterprise sustainability is non-linear, marked by tensions, contradictions, and systemic barriers (Hahn et al., 2015). Nonetheless, evidence demonstrates that robust and authentic sustainability management leads to greater resilience, innovation, and long-term value creation (Eccles et al., 2014; López-Pérez et al., 2017). The authors should present papers with all types of methodologies, focusing on economic sectors, based on several countries and approaches.

References

1. Dyllick; Muff, K. Clarifying the Meaning of Sustainable Business: Introducing a Typology from Business-as-Usual to True Business Sustainability. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 156–174.
2. van Zanten; van Tulder, R. Analyzing companies’ interactions with Sustainable Development Goals through network analysis: Four corporate sustainability strategies. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 2575–2590.
3. Stanitsas; Kirytopoulos, K.; Aretoulis, G. Evaluating Organizational Sustainability: A Multi-Criteria Based-Approach to Sustainable Project Management Indicators. Systems 2021, 9, 5.
4. United Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015, United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda.
5. Maitland; Baets, W. The Rise of Emergent Corporate Sustainability: A Self-Organised View. Systems 2021, 9, 35.
6. Crowther; Seifi, S. (Eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility; Springer Nature: 2021.
7. Porter, E.; Kramer, M.R. Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 2006, 84, 78–92.
8. Idowu, ; Schmidpeter, R.; Capaldi, N.; Zu, L.; Del Baldo, M.; Abreu, R. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Sustainable Management. 2023, Springer: Cham, Switzerland.
9. Lozano, R. A Holistic Perspective on Corporate Sustainability Drivers. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2015, 22, 32–44.
10. Elkington, Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. 1997, Capstone.
11. Michelon; Pilonato, S.; Ricceri, F. CSR Reporting Practices and the Quality of Disclosure: An Empirical Analysis. Crit. Perspect. Account. 2015, 33, 59–78.
12. Scheyvens; Banks, G.; Hughes, E. The Private Sector and the SDGs: The Need to Move Beyond ‘Business as Usual’. Sustain. Dev. 2016, 24, 371–382.
13. Hahn; Kühnen, M. Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportunities in an expanding field of research. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 59, 5–21.
14. Kolk, Sustainability, accountability and corporate governance: Exploring multinationals' reporting practices. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2008, 17, 1-15.
15. Geissdoerfer; Savaget, P.; Bocken, N.M.; Hultink, E.J. The Circular Economy—A new sustainability paradigm? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 757–768.
16. Chen; Siddik, A.B.; Li, Y.; Dong, Q.; Zheng, G.-W.; Masukujjaman, M. A Two-Staged SEM–Artificial Neural Network Approach to Analyze the Impact of FinTech Adoption on the Sustainability Performance of Banking Firms: The Mediating Effect of Green Finance and Innovation. Systems 2022, 10, 148.
17. Manetti, ; Bellucci, M. The use of social media for engaging stakeholders in sustainability reporting. Accounting, Audit. Account. J. 2016, 29, 985–1011.
18. La Torre; Sabelfeld, S.; Blomkvist, M.; Dumay, J. Rebuilding trust: Sustainability and non-financial reporting and the European Union regulation. Meditari Account. Res. 2020, 28, 701–725.
19. Burritt, R.; Christ, K. Industry 4.0 and environmental accounting: A new revolution? Asian J. Sustain. Soc. Responsib. 2016, 1, 23–38.
20. Klymenko, ; Lillebrygfjeld Halse, L.; Jæger, B. The Enabling Role of Digital Technologies in Sustainability Accounting: Findings from Norwegian Manufacturing Companies. Systems 2021, 9, 33.
21. Hussain; Rigoni, U.; Orij, R.P. Corporate Governance and Sustainability Performance: Evidence from Global Firms. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 149, 411–432.
22. Cho, H.; Laine, M.; Roberts, R.W.; Rodrigues, M. Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Account. Organ. Soc. 2015, 40, 78–94.
23. Delmas, A.; Burbano, V.C. The Drivers of Greenwashing. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2011, 54, 64–87.
24. Engert; Baumgartner, R.J. Corporate sustainability strategy: Bridging the gap between formulation and implementation. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 822–834.
25. Lyon, P.; Montgomery, A.W. The Means and Ends of Greenwash. Organ. Environ. 2015, 28, 223–249.
26. Bebbington; Unerman, J. Advancing research into accounting and sustainable development: Reflections and propositions. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2020, 33, 1657–1673.
27. Bansal, ; DesJardine, M.R. Business sustainability: It is about time. Strateg. Organ. 2014, 12, 70–78.
28. Siano, ; Vollero, A.; Conte, F.; Amabile, S. “More than words”: Expanding the taxonomy of greenwashing after the Volkswagen scandal. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 71, 27–37.
29. Walker; Wan, F. The harm of symbolic actions and green-washing: Corporate actions and communications on environmental performance and their financial implications. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 109, 227–242.
30. Brown; Lauder, H.; Ashton, D. The global auction: The broken promises of education, jobs, and incomes. 2012, Oxford University Press.
31. (31) Parguel; Benoît-Moreau, F.; Larceneux, F. How Sustainability Ratings Might Deter 'Greenwashing': A Closer Look at Ethical Corporate Communication. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 102, 15–28.
32. Boron; Murray, K. Bridging the Unsustainability Gap: A Framework for Sustainable Development. Sustain. Dev. 2004, 12, 65-73.
33. Hahn; Pinkse, J.; Preuss, L.; Figge, F. Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: Towards an Integrative Framework. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 127, 297–316.
34. Eccles, G.; Ioannou, I.; Serafeim, G. The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance. Manag. Sci. 2014, 60, 2835–2857.
35. López-Pérez, M.E.; Melero, I.; Sese, F.J. Management for Sustainable Development and its impact on firm value. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 138, 365–384.

Prof. Dr. Rute Maria Gomes Abreu
Prof. Dr. Lu Hualiang
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 250 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for assessment.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Systems is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

• sustainability
• management system
• corporate social responsibility
• business management
• governance
• ESG