continents are aware of the relevance of societal processes for the world's ecosystems, but many remain confused about the supposed differences between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate sustainability (CS). Explanations and key constructs
An Academic Review
Impact pathways and the sustainability ethic as moral compass
Sustainability professionals believe their work has positive social and environmental impacts in the “real world,” but they recognize that their impactfulness is contingent on a number of other factors, especially the willingness of other, typically more powerful actors to consider their findings and implement their recommendations. In this article, I develop the notion of “impact pathways” to think about the relationship between paths, maps, travelers, terrains, and ethics in the context of what my informants regularly refer to as the sustainability “landscape.” I show how the interpretation of a map and the choice between different possible paths can be partially explained by an actor’s particular ethical framework, in this case something I identify as the sustainability ethic.
Laurent J.G. van der Maesen
people, (3) scientific notions that address comprehensive approaches, and (4) theories and practices regarding “corporate social responsibility” and “corporate sustainability.” With regard to their particular subjects, the articles implicitly address both
Susan Wright and Davydd J. Greenwood
variety of ways (through profit margins, market share, Corporate Social Responsibility, environmental audit and corporate sustainability) ( Pemberton 2014: Chapter 7 ). What remained unclear was who defined the stakeholders, how they were organised to talk