Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reframing Business Sustainability Decision-Making with Value-Focussed Thinking

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Per definition business sustainability demands the integration of environmental, social, and economic outcomes. Yet, managerial decision-making involving sustainability objectives is fraught with tension and the way managerial decision-makers frame sustainability issues in their mindset influences how sustainability tensions are managed at the organisational level. In the bid to better understand what types of managerial mindsets, or cognitive frames, foster integrative business sustainability practices that simultaneously advance environmental, social, and economic objectives, extant research has focussed on the underlying logics that drive the acknowledgement of sustainability tensions. However, the existing logics-based constructs do not sufficiently explain this link, and it has been suggested that managers perceive and manage sustainability tensions based on the values that they hold. To clarify the roles of managerial values and logics as antecedents in business sustainability decision-making, we integrate Keeney’s value-focussed thinking approach with managerial and organisational cognition perspectives. Drawing on data from a survey with 169 senior procurement managers in Australia we found three types of cognitive frames which demonstrate that stronger sustainability values are associated with a more holistic perception of sustainability tensions and vice versa. We also found that managers’ cognitive framing of sustainability is strengthened by more holistic organisational cognitive frames and discuss according implications for managerial decision-making in theory and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The original text used the pronoun “he”, which we have replaced with the gender-neutral pronoun “they” to acknowledge the diversity of genders in managerial leadership positions.

  2. The full review table of sustainability indicators has been excluded from this paper for brevity, but is available from the author upon request.

References

  • Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, A., Walker, H., & Naim, M. (2014). Decision theory in sustainable supply chain management: a literature review. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(5/6), 504–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Song, H. (2017). Similar but not the same: Differentiating Corporate Sustainability from corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 105–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 15–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barter, N., & Russell, S. (2014). Two snapshots reinforcing systemic thinking and responsibility. Journal of Global Responsibility, 5(1), 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beal, B. D., & Neesham, C. (2016). Systemic corporate social responsibility: micro-to-macro transitions, collective outcomes and self-regulation. Social Responsibility Journal, 12(2), 209–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, I., Cunningham, P., & Drumwright, M. (2007). Mainstreaming corporate social responsibility: developing markets for virtue. California Management Review, 49(4), 132–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, S. J., & Harrison, C. H. (2009). Internet Survey Methods. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Applied Social Research Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, S. J., & Krueger, B. (2004). Internet data collection. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breuer, H., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2017). Values-based network and business model innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919617500281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calinski, T., & Harabasz, J. (1974). A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Computational Statistics, 3(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castree, N. (2002). False antitheses? Marxism, nature and actor-networks. Antipode, 34(1), 111–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2007). The promise of a managerial values approach to corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4), 345–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coakes, S. J., & Ong, C. (2011). SPSS Version 18.0 for Windows. Analysis without Anguish. Milton: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. (2012). Three ethical roots of the economic crisis. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberhardt-Toth, E., & Wasieleski, D. M. (2013). A cognitive elaboration model of sustainability decision making: Investigating financial managers’ orientation toward environmental issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(4), 735–751.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1981). Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Annual Review of Psychology, 32(1), 53–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, M., Buhovac, R., & Yuthas, K. (2015). Managing social, environmental and financial performance simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 48(1), 35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everitt, B. (2011). Cluster analysis (5th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figge, F., & Hahn, T. (2012). Is green and profitable sustainable? Assessing the trade-off between economic and environmental aspects. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 92–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1970). Utility theory for decision making. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, S., Maule, J., & Papamichail, N. (2009). Decision behaviour, analysis and support. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, S. D., & Singh, H. (1989). CEO succession and stockholder reaction: The influence of organizational context and event content. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 718–744.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, J., & Bansal, P. (2013). Instrumental and integrative logics in business sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(2), 241–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T.-S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874–907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goebel, P., Reuter, C., Pibernik, R., & Sichtmann, C. (2012). The influence of ethical culture on supplier selection in the context of sustainable sourcing. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewatsch, S., & Kleindienst, I. (2018). How organizational cognitive frames affect organizational capabilities: The context of corporate sustainability. Long Range Planning, 51(4), 607–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haffar, M., & Searcy, C. (2019). How organizational logics shape trade-off decision-making in sustainability. Long Range Planning, 52(6), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J., & Preuss, L. (2018). A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 235–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 297–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Preuss, L., Pinkse, J., & Figge, F. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39(4), 463–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halme, M., Lindeman, S., & Linna, P. (2012). Innovation for inclusive business: Intrapreneurial bricolage in multinational corporations: Intrapreneurial bricolage in multinational corporations. Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 743–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hockerts, K. (2015). A cognitive perspective on the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(2), 102–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkinson, G. P., & Healey, M. P. (2008). Cognition in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 387–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iivonen, K. (2018). Defensive responses to strategic sustainability paradoxes: Have your coke and drink it too! Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 309–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joseph, J., Borland, H., Orlitzky, M., & Lindgreen, A. (2020). Seeing versus doing: How businesses manage tensions in pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(2), 349–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassel, K. (2012). The circle of inclusion: Sustainability, CSR and the values that drive them. Journal of Human Values, 18(2), 133–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L. (1996). Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. European Journal of Operational Research, 92(3), 537–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value treadeoffs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, R. D., & Vereecke, A. (2012). Social issues in supply chains: Capabilities link responsibility, risk (opportunity), and performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 103–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleindorfer, P. R., Singhal, K., & Van Wassenhove, L. (2005). Sustainable operations management. Production and Operations Management, 14(4), 482–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lankoski, L., & Smith, N. C. (2018). Alternative objective functions for firms. Organization and Environment, 31(3), 242–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H. (2010). Don't tweak your supply chain: Rethink it end to end. Harvard Business Review, 88(10), 62–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, R. (2008). Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(17), 1838–1846.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lozano, R. (2012). Towards better embedding sustainability into companies' systems: an analysis of voluntary corporate initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 25, 14–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manninen, K., & Huiskonen, J. (2019). Sustainability goal setting with a value-focused thinking approach. In A. Aagaard (Ed.), Sustainable business models: Innovation, implementation and success. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, T. J. (2002). Creating the new ecological order? Elias and actor-network theory. Academy of Management Review, 27(4), 523–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palys, T., & Atchison, C. (2008). Research decisions: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Toronto, Canada: Thomson Nelson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papagiannakis, G., Voudouris, I., & Lioukas, S. (2014). The road to sustainability: Exploring the process of corporate environmental strategy over time. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(4), 254–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (2010). Building sustainable organizations: The human factor. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1), 34–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pullman, M. E., Maloni, M. J., & Carter, C. R. (2009). Food for thought: social versus environmental sustainability practices and performance outcomes. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(4), 38–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radner, R. (1997). Bounded rationality, indeterminacy, and the managerial theory of the firm. In Z. Shapira (Ed.), Organizational decision making. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rerup, C., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: the role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 577–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, A. V., Schroeder, R. G., Huang, X., & Kristal, M. M. (2008). Handbook of metrics for research in operations management: Multi-item measurement scales and objective items. Los Angeles: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological contract. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 511–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudelius, W., & Buchholz, R. A. (1979). Ethical problems of purchasing managers. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 8–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, G., & Jaiswal, A. (2018). Unsustainability of sustainability: Cognitive frames and tensions in Bottom of the Pyramid projects. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(2), 291–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P. (1995). Ecocentric management for a risk society. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 118–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man social and rational: Mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taeger, D., & Kuhnt, S. (2014). Statistical hypothesis testing with SAS and R. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, T. E., & Lamm, E. (2012). Legitimacy and organizational sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 191–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titov, E., Virovere, A., Meel, M., & Kuimet, K. (2013). Estonian managerial values in value systems in ensuring the sustainability of organizations. Journal of Management and Change, 30(31), 66–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todaro, N. M., Testa, F., Daddi, T., & Iraldo, F. (2019). Antecedents of environmental management system internalization: Assessing managerial interpretations and cognitive framings of sustainability issues. Journal of Environmental Management, 247, 804–815.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, E., Viswanathan, M., & Walford, G. (2010). Reflections on social measurement: How social scientists generate, modify, and validate indicators and scales. In G. Walford, E. Tucker, & M. Viswanathan (Eds.), measurement. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Byl, C., & Slawinski, N. (2015). Embracing tensions in corporate sustainability: A review of research from win-wins and trade-offs to paradoxes and beyond. Organization and Environment, 28(1), 54–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vonderembse, M. A., Ragunathan, T. S., & Rao, S. S. (1997). A post-industrial paradigm: To integrate and automate manufacturing. International Journal of Production Research, 35(9), 2579–2599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, M., & Mercado, H. (2016). Environmentally responsible value orientations: Perspectives from public assembly facility managers. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23(5), 271–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6(3), 280–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, W., & Tilley, F. (2006). Can businesses move beyond efficiency? The shift toward effectiveness and equity in the corporate sustainability debate. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(6), 402–415.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology, John Street, Hawthorn, 3122, Australia

    Julia Benkert

Authors
  1. Julia Benkert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia Benkert.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that she has no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the respective institutions’ codes of good practice, codes of ethics, and the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. The management of data is compliant with the Australian Privacy Act 1988. All participants provided formal consent prior to answering any questions of the questionnaire. All responses were anonymous and neither individual participants nor participating institutions are identifiable from the data.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Illustration of the last three steps of the thematic analysis to establish the construct dimensions for managerial sustainability values

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Benkert, J. Reframing Business Sustainability Decision-Making with Value-Focussed Thinking. J Bus Ethics 174, 441–456 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04611-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04611-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation