Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reflexivity in Sustainability Accounting and Management: Transcending the Economic Focus of Corporate Sustainability

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

Abstract

In order to enable firms to successfully deal with issues of corporate sustainability, the firms' stakeholders would need to participate in sustainability accounting and management. In practice, however, participative sustainability accounting and management are often unfeasible. The resulting consequence is the risk of misbalancing single aspects of sustainability. The purpose of this article is to show that reflexivity in sustainability accounting and management, that is, an ongoing reflection on the relationship between the goals of corporate sustainability and the overarching objective of sustainable development can, at least, mitigate this problem. Reflexivity has the potential to initiate processes of collective learning and could eventually bring about the realization of business models that integrate economic, ecological, and social considerations.

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

References

  • Adams, C. A., & Whelan, G. (2009). Conceptualising future change in sustainability reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22(1), 118–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arevalo, J. A. (2010). Critical reflective organizations: An empirical observation of global active citizenship and green politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 299–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, S. B. (2007). Corporate social responsibility. The good the bad and the ugly. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, S. B. (2011). ‘Embedding sustainability across the organization: A critical perspective. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(4), 719–731.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B., & Thomson, I. (2007). Theorizing engagement: The potential of a critical dialogue approach. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 356–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benn, S., & Martin, A. (2010). Learning and change for sustainability reconsidered: A role for boundary objects. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(3), 397–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beschorner, T., & Müller, M. (2006). Social standards: Toward an active ethical involvement of businesses in developing countries. Journal of Business Ethics, 73, 11–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boiral, O. (2009). Greening the corporation through organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 221–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. (2009). Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: Taking pluralism seriously. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20, 313–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., & Fraser, M. (2006). Approaches and perspectives in social and environmental accounting: An overview of the conceptual landscape. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15, 103–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, L., & Logsdon, J. M. (1996). How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long Range Planning, 29(4), 495–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burritt, R. L., & Schaltegger, S. (2010). Sustainability accounting and reporting: Fad or trend? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(7), 829–846.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caprar, D. V., & Neville, B. A. (2012). ‘‘Norming’’ and ‘‘conforming’’: Integrating cultural and institutional explanations for sustainability adoption in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 231–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterji, A., & Levine, D. (2006). Breaking down the wall of codes. Evaluating non-financial performance measurement. California Management Review, 48(2), 29–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, A. Y. S., Sawyers, R. B., & Williams, P. F. (1997). Reinforcing ethical decision making through corporate culture. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 855–865.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems: Basic concepts of systems and organization. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson, M. B. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cragg, W. (2012). Ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the corporate responsibility to respect human rights: A critical look at the justificatory foundations of the UN framework. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 9–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crouch, C. (2004). Post-democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunliffe, A. L. (2004). On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education, 28(4), 407–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahan, N. M., Doh, J. P., Oetzel, J., & Jaziji, M. (2010). Corporate–NGO collaboration: Co-creating new business models for developing markets. Long Range Planning, 43, 326–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, M. (2006). Beyond the stalemate of economics versus ethics: Corporate social responsibility and the discourse of the organizational self. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 337–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S. (1999). Transnational democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 7(1), 30–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, 130–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (pp. 97–106). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2005). Economics language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 8–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florea, L., Cheung, Y. H., & Herndon, N. C. (2013). For all good reasons: Role of values in organizational sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 393–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In P. J. DiMaggio & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.

    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 

  • Golsorkhi, D., Leca, B., Lounsbury, M., & Ramirez, C. (2009). Unmasking domination: On our role as scholars of practice, practitioners of social science and public intellectuals. Organization, 16(6), 779–797.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez, P.-Y., & Korine, H. (2008). Entrepreneurs and democracy. A political theory of corporate governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gond, J.-P., Palazzo, G., & Basu, K. (2009). Reconsidering instrumental corporate social responsibility through the Mafia metaphor. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19, 57–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. H. (2006). Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organisational value creation? Whose value? Whose creation? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(6), 793–819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. H., & Bebbington, J. (2000). Environmental accounting, managerialism and sustainability: Is the planet safe in the hands of business and accounting? Advances in Environmental Accounting & Management, 1, 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. H., Bebbington, J., & McPhail, K. (1994). Teaching ethics in accounting and the ethics of accounting teaching: Educating for immorality and a possible case for social and environmental accounting education. Accounting Education, 3(1), 51–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R. H., & Milne, M. (2002). Sustainable reporting: Who’s kidding whom? Chartered Accountants Journal of New Zealand, 81(6), 66–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A. (2004). Strategic knowledge for sustainable development: The need for reflexivity and learning at the interface between science and society. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1(1/2), 150–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1998). Three normative models of democracy. In J. Habermas (Ed.), The inclusion of the other (pp. 239–252). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., & Figge, F. (2011). Beyond the bounded instrumentality in current corporate sustainability research: Toward an inclusive notion of profitability. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 325–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinske, J., & Preuss, L. (2010). Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: You can’t have your cake and eat it. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19, 217–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management Executive, 17, 56–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hines, R. (1988). Financial accounting: In communicating reality, we construct reality. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(3), 251–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliday, C., Schmidheiny, S., & Watts, P. (2002). Walking the talk. The business case for sustainable development. Greenleaf: Sheffield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaak, R. (2002). The making of the Ecopreneur. Greener Management International, 38, 81–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D. (2006). Insights into triple bottom line integration from a learning organization perspective. Business Process Management Journal, 12(6), 809–821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. J. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12, 235–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. (2006). Whence democracy? A review and critique of the conceptual dimensions and implications of the business case for organizational democracy. Organization, 13(2), 245–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, J. L. (2004). The limits of organizational democracy. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 81–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, T., & Harrington, A. (1998). Reconceptualizing rigour: The case for reflexivity. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(4), 882–890.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korhonen, J. (2003). On the ethics of corporate social responsibility—Considering the paradigm of industrial metabolism. Journal of Business Ethics, 48, 301–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korten, D. C. (1996). When corporations rule the world. London: Earthscan Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laine, M. (2010). Towards sustaining the status quo: Business talk of sustainability in Finnish corporate disclosures 1987–2005. European Accounting Review, 19(2), 247–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levick, R. (2011). Making green while being green. Forbes. Retrieved Aug 18, 2013, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardlevick/2011/10/06/making-green-while-being-green-perdue-boeing-even-nascar-reap-significant-solar-energy-benefits/.

  • Mason, R. O. (1969). A dialectical approach to strategic planning. Management Science, 15(8), B403–B414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, R. E., & Hammerschmid, G. (2006). Changing institutional logics and executive identities: A managerial challenge to public administration in Austria. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 1000–1014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M. J., & Gray, R. (2013). W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1543-8.

  • Moon, J. (2007). The contribution of corporate social responsibility to sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 15, 296–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moriarty, J. (2012). The connection between stakeholder theory and stakeholder democracy: An excavation and defense. Business & Society (online first).

  • Müller, M., & Siebenhüner, B. (2007). Policy instruments for sustainability-oriented organizational learning. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 232–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, B. (2005). Stakeholder democracy: Challenges and contributions from social accounting. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(1), 28–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paine, L. S. (1994). Managing for organizational integrity. Harvard Business Review, 72, 106–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (2002). Organizing America: Wealth, power, and the origins of capitalism. Princeton: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirson, M., & Turnbull, S. (2011). Toward a more humanistic governance model: Network governance structures. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 101–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2003). Institutional change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. American Journal of Sociology, 108(4), 795–843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rondinelli, D. A., & London, T. (2003). How corporations and environmental groups cooperate: Assessing cross-sector alliances and collaborations. Academy of Management Executive, 17(1), 61–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie, J. G. (2001). Global_governance.net: The Global Compact as a learning network. Global Governance, 7, 371–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, A., & Scherer, A.G. (2013). Corporate governance in a risk society. Journal of Business Ethics (forthcoming).

  • Scherer, A. G., Baumann-Pauly, D., & Schneider, A. (2013). Democratizing corporate governance: Compensating for the democratic deficit of corporate political activity and corporate citizenship. Business & Society, 52, 473–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidheiny, S. (1992). The business logic of sustainable development. The Columbia Journal of World Business, 27, 18–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, A., & Meins, E. (2012). Two dimensions of corporate sustainability assessment: Towards a comprehensive framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21, 211–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreyögg, G. (1984). Unternehmensstrategie. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 493–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 849–873.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinkle, G. A., & Spencer, J. W. (2012). The social construction of global corporate citizenship: Sustainability reports of automotive corporations. Journal of World Business, 47, 123–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P. (1995a). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 936–960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P. (1995b). Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 183–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P., & Hart, S. (1995). Creating sustainable corporations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 4, 154–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siebenhüner, B., & Arnold, M. (2007). Organizational learning to manage sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16, 339–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence, L. J. (1999). Does size matter? The state of the art in small business ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(3), 163–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spitzeck, H., & Hansen, E. G. (2010). Stakeholder governance: How stakeholders influence corporate decision making. Corporate Governance, 10(4), 378–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Springett, D. (2003). An ‘incitement to discourse’: Benchmarking as a springboard to sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Springett, D. (2005). Education for sustainability’ in the business studies curriculum: A call for a critical agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14, 146–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starik, M., & Rands, G. P. (1995). Weaving an integrated web: Multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 908–935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, J. C., & Grahams, A. C. (2010). Toward an empirical research agenda for sustainability in higher education: Exploring the transition management framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 611–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundaram, A. K., & Inkpen, A. C. (2004). The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, 15(3), 350–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 689–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, & K. Sahlin (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–129). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective. Oxford: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (1987). Critical heuristics of social systems design. European Journal of Operational Research, 31, 276–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (1993). Some difficulties of ecological thinking, considered from a critical systems perspective: A plea for critical holism. Systems Practice, 6(6), 583–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCD. (1992). The Rio declaration on environment and development. Retrieved Dec 21, 2011, from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm.

  • Valente, M. (2012a). Business sustainability embeddedness as a strategic imperative: A process framework. Business & Society (forthcoming).

  • Valente, M. (2012b). Theorizing firm adoption of sustaincentrism. Organization Studies, 33, 563–591.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Marrewijk, M., & Werre, M. (2003). Multiple levels of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 107–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welford, R. (1998). Editorial. Corporate environmental management, technology and sustainable development: Postmodern perspectives and the need for a critical research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 7, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wuelser, G., Pohl, C., & Hirsch Hadorn, G. (2012). Structuring complexity for tailoring research contributions to sustainable development. Sustainability Science, 7, 81–93.

    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, 402–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadek, S. (2004). The path to corporate responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 82(December), 125–132.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank the acting editor and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on previous drafts of this paper. Earlier versions of this paper benefited from comments by Rob Gray, Emilio Marti, and the participants of the 2012 Sustainability Summit at the Leuphana University in Lüneburg, Germany.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CCRS/University of Zurich, Zaehringerstrasse 24, 8001, Zurich, Switzerland

    Anselm Schneider

Authors
  1. Anselm Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anselm Schneider.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schneider, A. Reflexivity in Sustainability Accounting and Management: Transcending the Economic Focus of Corporate Sustainability. J Bus Ethics 127, 525–536 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2058-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2058-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation