Complimentary download of this article (with registration) » Brought to you by: Corporate sustainability has captured the attention of much of the world over the last few years. Trends including the growth of nongovernmental organizations and movements such as Occupy Wall Street suggest that the public is no longer satisfied with corporations that focus solely [...]

The Rio+20 Summit on sustainable development is still weeks away, and yet many already have proclaimed the event a failure....

‘Sustainability’ is a major and growing driver of business change. Its implications for innovation are clear – living and working in a world of up to 9 billion people with rising expectations, providing energy, food and resource security, dealing with climate change, ecosystem degradation, a widening economic divide and a host of other interdependent issues will require massive change in products, services, processes, marketing approaches and the underlying business models which frame them. The focus of this paper is to develop an understanding of new approaches to innovation management required to take account of the growing pressures and emerging opportunities in the ‘sustainability’ agenda. In particular, it draws on case studies of a variety of organisations to help answer the question of what practical actions might be taken beyond the rhetoric of moving towards greater sustainability or ‘greening’ of business.

Publication year: 2012
Source:Journal of Business Research

Chung Hee Kim, Kenneth Amaeshi, Simon Harris, Chang-Jin Suh

The different institutional contexts in which businesses practice corporate social responsibility (CSR) lead researchers to challenge the validity of the extant standardized global approach. This study follows recent studies in employing institutional theory to explore the specific pressures and factors that lead CSR practices to differ between countries, and how they lead to those differences. The study is a detailed qualitative analysis of CSR practice in South Korea, a country with very different value and governance systems from the US and UK where contemporary CSR evolved. Contrary to simplistic expectations, Korea shows a concern for short-termism more than for sustainability; and a normative more than a strategic orientation in its CSR, where CSR lies at a crossroads between implicit and explicit CSR behavior. The practices reflect many Korean institutional factors, but not in simple and direct ways. Institutional factors interact in intricate ways to create complex and dynamic pressures for CSR practice. CSR research needs to consider these interactions and dynamic processes with care and institutional theory can help provide a sufficiently intricate research framework.