Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Scholarly and managerial interest in corporate sustainability has increased significantly in the past two decades. However, the field is increasingly criticized for failing to effectively contribute to sustainable development and for its limited impact on managerial practice. We argue that this criticism arises due to a fundamental ambiguity around the nature of corporate sustainability. To address the lack of concept clarity, we conduct a systematic literature review and identify 33 definitions of corporate sustainability. Adopting the Aristotelian perspective on definitions, one that promotes reducing concepts to their essential attributes, we discern four components of corporate sustainability. These components offer a conceptual space of inquiry that, while being parsimonious, offers nuanced understanding of the dimensions along which definitions of corporate sustainability differ. We discuss implications for research and practice and outline several recommendations for how advancements in construct clarity may lead to a better scholarly understanding of corporate sustainability.
Meuer et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: