Difference between the Social and Environmental Sustainability and the Financial Sustainability - Essay Example

INTRODUCTION Long term orientation has evolved as the key to business success. This awareness has evolved since the businesses have realized that short-term orientation by the businesses and their respective stakeholders has been a key player in the global financial crisis (CIMA, n,d.). As a consequence of such awareness penetrating into roots, the multinationals are undergoing scrutiny by different stakeholders mainly after 2000 (Cedillo Torres, et al, 2012). In this context, this report produces the review of the evolving concepts of sustainability in business. To be specific considering the underlying report discusses the growing dimensions with respect to different in sustainability in social and environmental factors as well as financial sustainability that is interpreted as going concern for business. In addition, the ways to reconcile the difference between two concepts, obstacles and future implications with respect to the operation and reporting are discussed. In due course, different conceptual aspect is noted and discussed with examples. Finally, the recommendation based conclusion is proposed to adapt the real sustainability imperative that brings financial, social and environmental aspects all on a single page. OVERVIEW OF SUSTAINABILITY The raising concerns related to the adverse impacts that businesses are creating on society traces its history in the 1700. The concerns arose as a result of growing child labor and working conditions in factories and mines in UK. However, it was late in 1970s when the voice gained momentum and finally with the turn of the century, the concept is now set as among the priority concerns of the business (Honeyman, 2007 and Ceres, n.d.). The overall evolution of sustainability has grown from rejection for the concept of the transformation of business as shown waves of sustainability as follows: (Benn, Dunphy, and Griffiths, 2007) According to the definition put forward by United Nation’s Global Compact, a sustainability is an imperative for the for success in the long-term with the assurance that the business also delivers value all across the society (UN Global Pact, n.d.). However, the concept of value varies. For example, Golub, et al. (2000) discussed the value delivery to customers while Hartlen (2014) clearly states that the definition of value varies from the interest of one stakeholder to another. Hence, for providing the direction for value to the business, UN Global impact has identified five dimension of delivering value to the society. The five dimensions are depicted in the image below: (UN Global Pact, n.d.) All these collectively result in the value delivery in the financial, environmental, social and an ethical aspect. Each of the aspects is provided with the checklist, and broadly ten principles are identified to remain in conformity with the long-term imperative of sustainability as follows: (UN Global Pact, n.d.) Different frameworks and models are also identified for assessing the sustainability strength of the business. For example, Global Reporting Index has developed a comprehensive guideline for ensuring the sustainability in the business. GRI reporting framework provides a complete guideline for testing the sustainability viability of business aspects such as a quality of the annual report, strategy analysis, and the disclosures, etc (Global Reporting, n.d.). On the other hand, evolution is also witnessed in the accountancy profession for guiding adaptive and sustainable role of business in society (Benn, Dunphy, and Griffiths, 2007). Furthermore, Hollingworth, (2009) has identified a 360 degree sustainability model that has the potential of winning a competitive edge for the business in the long term in addition to giving value to the society: (Hollingworth, 2009) However, the level of response to the integration of sustainability measures in business still varies from country to country and even within the country from business to business. For example, with respect to the supply chain of the businesses in countries different countries are have adopted varying levels of sustainable measures for dealing with challenges as presented below: ( Accenture Strategy, 2015) However, the concept of sustainability is evolving with the growing awareness related to the impact of sustainability measures on business as well as on the society. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONCEPTS OF SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND THE FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY, THE ACCOUNTANT’S IDEA OF “GOING CONCERN The growing role of the sustainability has changed its treatment in discrete isolation to an integrated framework. The integration implies across all business processes, functions, and the reporting channels that have an impact on the scare resources; hence, have an impact on the society. As the name implies, social and environmental sustainability simply mean adopting business practices that add value to the society (CIMA, 2014). However, Orlitzky, Siegel, and Waldman, (2011) in a debate have reported that social sustainability has faced considerable fundamental conceptual deviation. For example, Jensen (2002) cited shareholder’s wealth maximization as the core of social sustainability while other held a view with a broader vision of generating a balanced growth of value for the stakeholders. Adding to this vein, McWilliams and Siegel (2001, p. 117) presented a broader view that all activities that add good value to the society along with the value of the firm on priority basis, are CSR. The definition also clearly noted the important role of abiding by the law in such value generation for the society as well as the firm. Further, Van Oosterhout & Heugens, (2008) has further broadened the role of CSR with the involvement of: community adding value through philanthropic donations effective and well reported corporate governance greening the business policies and practices along with other of actions. On the other hand, Schaltegger, Bennett, and Burritt, (2006) defines financial sustainability as the generation and development of the financial information related to the environmental, social, and economics related for the improved performance of business in of the mentioned arena. The financial sustainability assesses the timing, location and the type of impact in a broader way than traditional financial reporting. The conceptual depiction of evolution is as follows: (Schaltegger, Bennett, and Burritt, 2006) Despite fact of the theoretical adoption to the concept of financial sustainability as discussed above, the accounts’ concern of financial sustainability is more driven by the idea of going concern. Going concern is the principal that implies that business in operation will continue its operations in the long term and are not expected to cease part or all of its operations in the long term. Hernádi, (2012) sheds light on the accountants’ view of financially sustainability being driven by on-going concern. As a result the corporate or on-going financial sustainability assumes the long-term perspective of increasing the base capital of the business along economic, social and environmental dimensions. With this idea at affect, the accountants are only concerned to increase the shareholders value by meeting the social and environmental sustainability factors that are imposed on them. Hence, agreed upon areas of sustainability includes the concept put forward in the definition of Wilson (2003) as follows: Defining the corporate sustainability targets for economic, environmental and social dimensions of business. Ethical motivation for the working towards sustainability achievement. Involvement and consideration of the stakeholders Meeting the reporting obligations for meeting the regulatory and ethical requirement. IMPLICATIONS OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND THE FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY On arriving on the fact that the environment, social and financial sustainability are one and the same thing (from theoretical aspects at-least) and each attempting to add improve the value for the society from different dimension. However, practical implications in business operations and reporting clearly reflect the difference. The evident difference lies not only in the going concern priority of accountants as compared to overall sustainability; also the difference is evident in claimed and performed environmental and social sustainability by businesses: BUSINESSES OPERATE The sustainability imperative in business at effect has led activities in business to be driven in way where not only the resources are efficiently and fairly allocated and distributed respectively. Also it has led to the consideration that the resources and opportunities are well distributed between the current and future generations. The concept also requires considering a scale of an economic activity is relatively fair to the ecological life and the support systems of resources used (Gray, and Milne, 2002). According to the Hart and Milstein (2003) sustainability determines has a broader imperative of value for society from every dimension of business is determined as follows: (Hart and Milstein, 2003) Forbes listed top ten sustainable companies in the world (from the list of Global 100) and noted the growing number of American companies in the list (Smith, 2014). For example, given below the sustainability model of Coca Cola: (Coca-Cola, 2013) Around the elements of each of these elements, the company has determined its targets and working to achieve those targets for the overall improvement in the society. For example, for achieving Zero Waste goal for the plant in Japan the company 100 recycles the coffee grounds and used tea leaves for feeding the livestock and as fertilizer (Coca-Cola, 2013). Other leading firms are also taking measures for integrating sustainability in their overall business activity and other related factors. Wide range of initiatives is implemented from different business for achieving the sustainable business development. Another example, related to Kingfisher plc which is DIY retailer and is dependent on the timber for its products alongside plants more wood than it takes for its business (CIMA, 2014). However, it is important to mention that sustainability measures have reduced the level of harm that such businesses were doing to the society and the environment. Therefore, the value to the society is only added in a way of reducing the harm and got adding value. Various researches can be used to justify such facts. For instance, Cedillo, et al., (2012) produced a review of the four multinational companies with respect to the CSR and concluded Apple, Coca-Cola, Canon, and Wal-Mart and concluded almost each of the companies conflict their sustainability claims. Furthermore, the businesses are financially sustainable (on-going concern) despite incurring the economic and social cost incurred as these cost are not reflected in the accounting (Bent and Richardson, 2003). Hence, Gray and Milne (2002) criticized the concept of sustainability and claimed that wider definitions of sustainability at work does not actually account the entire impact such organizations are creating on the society or environment. The author further put forwards the need to define more precise definition of sustainability that encourages the business in integrating the real sustainability and openly publicizing it. THE WAYS IN WHICH THEY REPORT ON THEIR ACTIVITIES The reporting of the business activities has evolved considerably from the simple financial measures based on the income statement and balance sheet to covering wider aspects. For example, Carrots and Stick (2013) reported the following variation in the reporting patterns in different parts of the world: (Malan, 2013) The most profound impact on the reporting is evident from the publications of sustainability report by different multinationals. The role of accountants has much to do in the context. For example, UN has recently presented the framework for the reporting of the human rights related aspects. Additionally, for the systematic reporting, different matrices and models are used so that linkages between the variables can be effectively identified (UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework, 2015). For example, the pyramid given below implies the higher level of risk imposed to business as a result of the risk to the human rights: (UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework, 2015) On the other, Baab and Jungk (2012) have predicted a model based on Arc while the idea that any variable can have wider impact on the business irrespective of its impact or relationship with other factors. Companies also use Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) for Sustainability Reporting of their business with respect to profile, performance and the management approach employed by the business (Ford, 2013). The information presented using GRI reporting ensured that the report is balanced, comparable, accurate, and timely, have clarity and provided reliable information (Global Reporting, n.d.). The reporting is also changed as indicators (what is to be measure for gauging sustainability) and metrics (how indicator will be measured) are defined and compared which in turn provides business and stakeholders a comprehensive review of the improving or deteriorating position of sustainability of performance (ICAEW, n.d.). In addition to the role of reporting firms, the role of accountants is also pronounced as the accountants in current work are adapting to the sustainability assurance services. Accountants have expanded their role in the public interest as for promoting an agenda of sustainability in firm they are working for. Also, incorporating the rigorous agenda in auditing business and adapting to the future needs of the accounting services that is capable of assessing and guiding the sustainability integration in business (Duff, and Guo, 2011). As a matter of fact, the reporting practices have improved there is also a contrasting view on that. Gray (2006) has also reported that sustainability reporting, if really implied, will reveal some contrasting results as compared to the claimed performances by the businesses. The reporting standards are though requiring extended information to be provided in the reports, but disclosures also provide an escape gate to the businesses in form of ssuperficial and cosmetic adjustments. RECONCILIATION IN THE VIEW AND MAJOR OBSTACLES AFFECTING DIFFERING VIEWS Reconciliation is also important in safeguarding the overall stakeholders’ interest. For example, the accounting regulation SFAS 106 was issued, it was highly debated that though the regulation was good from accounting and reporting perspectives; however, has also provided companies with power to amend and confiscate the health care coverage for the retired employees (Pearson, Jerris, and Brooks, 2011). As discussed above that financial and the social and environmental corporate responsibility aim to ultimately contribute towards the development of better value for the society; hence, the concepts have much potential to reconcile at a point. Moreover, reconciliation measures are also under process as different organizations are making efforts to align both concepts on single fact despite fact of having similar long term objective. For example, with the evolution of the above concept the idea has also grown from the traditional objective that implied financial sustainability as the growth of the financial capital, to the idea that financial sustainability for a going concern is further dependent on the natural, human, social, and manufactured capital (White, 2009). Further, the concept of Tripple Bottom defines the above two distinct ideas as one where accounting framework goes beyond the traditional profit assessment to the inclusion of environmental and social dimensions (Slaper, and Hall, 2011).  Another move to reconciliation is depicted in the image below where businesses are reconciling to give equal attention to each of the imperatives: (Widok, 2009) However, the reconciliation has long way to go despite theoretical agreement on the matter due to number of obstacles that underway. Such obstacles would require major change in the overall accounting framework as well the attitudes. For example, the confusion between the continuity and the sustainability must be clarified and businesses must be prepared to realize that it cannot continue without being sustainable. As a matter of fact sustainability requires generating value for the stakeholders without compromising value for the future stakeholders. Therefore, the information from the business must be provided to another level which is future stakeholders (Aras and Crowther, 2012) . Collection and system of such information is also taken as an administrative burden by many businesses while deciding the suitable reporting index and framework among large number of systems will spur another debate (Carrots and Stick, 2013). Moreover, McKinsey & Company (2011) have cited challenges that business leaders face in implementing sustainability imperative all across business: (McKinsey & Company, 2011) Additionally, it will also be a challenge to convince the investors or direct stakeholders for making business sustainable. For instance, discussing the definition of the sustainability by Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes, (2011, p. 9), Hernádi (2012) noted that the implementation of eco-and social friendly business activities has much potential to drive the business to failure. This will be for the fact that sustainable businesses will then consider eco-foot prints and social equalities which in turn will be reflected in the net income and dividends. Hence, investors will no longer invest in businesses that will not be able to pay attractive returns, at least in short term. Another obstacle lies in the fact that there is not precise definition given for the sustainability (Van Marrewijk, and Werre, 2003). Hence, every company will consider itself sustainable in its own capacity. Finally, management of the business will also be in daunting dilemma of providing short-term stewardship plan that is actually curbs the short term only profit orientation in favor of long term goals. The challenge will increase when managers or decision makers will not be able pin down any time horizon in future (CIMA, n,d.). Another obstacle will be needed to change the auditors’ processes and authorities (CIMA, 2014). In case of such reconciliation will auditors be able to issue going concern warning to businesses that might be doing good on economic sustainability but bad on environment and social aspects (Johnson, 2009). Hence, agreement on the fact that final destination of the financial and social and environmental sustainability is similar has already achieved the grounding milestone. Therefore, like the sustainability imperative that was accepted in later times despite being fully rejected in initial stages, this reconciliation will finally converge at the same point only if the efforts towards are materialized on all levels. It is important to mention alongside that challenges will be faced in the implementation of the agreed upon theory (Gary, Fagerström, and Hassel, 2011). IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF BUSINESS (OPERATIONAL AND REPORTING) FROM RECONCILED AND NON-RECONCILED VIEW Research by McKinsey has revealed that companies that have sustainability imperative embedded are performing better than other on almost all dimensions as follow: (McKinsey & Company, 2011) Hence, future business can take these companies as test case and embed the sustainability all in their practices before such measures are mandated by regulators. However, reconciliation in views will call for major changes in the business processes as well as reporting. Overall accounting will be changed as follows: (Hernádi, 2012) Bent and Richardson (2003) exemplified the new reporting ways as follows: (Bent and Richardson, 2003) (Bent and Richardson, 2003) (Bent and Richardson, 2003) Adoption of such factors will requires business to revamp business model in order to clearly identify the each of the elements of social, environmental and economic aspect. Revamping will extend to the point Gary, Fagerström, and Hassel, (2011) have implied to be reflected in the product prices also. There is growing agreement on the fact that businesses that do integrate ethics and sustainability does not only win competitive advantage but also failure in adapting to it undermines the long term prosperity potential (Smart, Barman, and Gunasekera, 2010). As a result it can be concluded that depletion rate of natural resources and growing awareness of the role of capital in business success other than financial capital only is paving way for mandating the sustainability imperative in businesses. Hence, businesses that will be adapting to the models that are aligned with financial, economic and social sustainability will be better position to flexibly align with the business while rest may face a challenge of survival. There exist limited chances that two differently put sustainability concepts will not be reconciling in future, as can be presumed from the information collected in the assessment above. Still in such case the ambiguities in the concept of sustainability will prevail and will continue to provide business with opportunities to claim more sustainable practices than reality as it will not be reflecting in the financial performance. CONCLUSION Sustainability being the longevity imperative has been discussed on the above report. The discussion assessed the difference in the practical application of social and environmental sustainability with financial sustainability and concludes that despite being similar in core idea all factors are practically implied with differences. To elaborate the matter, it is inferred from the underlying review of the subject that sustainability of a business is defined the by meanings of value each and every stakeholder perceived from the firm. The success in terms of sustainability of a firm is highly dependent on the management of value for different stakeholders in different dimensions including social and environment concerns as well as sustainability of firm’s financial well being. For the purpose of being value implemented, united nation has summarized the matter in the 10 principles of four areas. Those four areas include anti-corruption means reporting and financial standards, environment in terms of maintaining less harmful effects of the business on nature, human rights is to positively affect societies and finally labor is to commit the living standards equality and fairness. References Accenture Strategy. (2015). Supply Chain Sustainability Revealed: A Country Comparison- Supply Chain Report 2014–15.CDP. Available from https://www.cdp.net/CDPResults/CDP-Supply-Chain-Report-2015.pdf [Accessed 29 April 2015]. Aras, G., & Crowther, D. (2012). Evaluating sustainability: a need for standards. Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting, vol.2, no.1, pp. 19-35. Baab, M.E. and Jungk. M.(2012). Th e Arc of Human Rights Priorities A New Model for Managing Business Risk. The Danish Institute of Human Rights. Available from http://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/arc-human-rights-priorities-9-mar-2011.pdf [Accessed 29 April 2015]. Benn, S., Dunphy, D., & Griffiths, A. (2007). Organizational Change for Corporate Sustainability: A Guide for Leaders and Change Agents of the Future (Routledge Studies in Organizational Change & Development). Routledge. Bent, D., & Richardson, J. (2003). The Sigma Guidelines Toolkit–Sustainability Accounting Guide.[on-line], London, The SIGMA Project, c2003,[cit. 5. 4. 2008]. Available fromhttp://www.projectsigma.co.uk/toolkit/sigmasustainabilityaccounting.pdf [Accessed 29 April 2015]. Cedillo Torres, C. A., Garcia-French, M., Hordijk, R., Nguyen, K., & Olup, L. (2012). Four Case Studies on Corporate Social Responsibility: Do Conflicts Affect a Companys Corporate Social Responsibility Policy?. Utrecht Law Review, vol.8, no.3, pp. 51-73. Ceres. (n.d.). 25 Years of Impact. Available from http://www.ceres.org/about-us/our-history[Accessed 29 April 2015] CIMA. (2014). Accounting for Natural Capital The elephant in the boardroom.. Available fromhttp://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Accounting-for-natural-capital/$FILE/EY-Accounting-for-natural-capital.pdf [Accessed 29 April 2015]. CIMA. (n,d.). Building world-class businesses for the long term: challenges and opportunities. Available fromhttp://www.cimaglobal.com/Documents/Thought_leadership_docs/Sustainability%20and%20Climate%20Change/World_Conference_building-better-businesses-report.pdf [Accessed 29 April 2015]. Coca-Cola. (2013). Coca –Cola Sustainability Report. Available fromhttp://j.cocacola.co.jp/positively/pdf/2013/ccjc2013_e_all.pdf [Accessed 29 April 2015]. DOW JONES SUSTAINABILITY INDEXES – SUSTAINABLE ASSET MANAGEMENT AG (SAM) (2011): Dow Jones Sustainability World Indexes Guide Book, Version 11.6, no. 7, pp. 9. Duff, A. and Guo, X. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility And The Professional Accounting Firm: The Development Of Sustainability Service Lines- Briefing. ICAEW. Available fromhttps://www.icaew.com/~/media/corporate/archive/files/technical/sustainability/tecpln10671%20cbp%20briefing%20csr%20service%20lines.ashx [Accessed 29 April 2015]. Ford. (2013). Sustainability Report 2013-14. Available fromhttp://corporate.ford.com/microsites/sustainability-report-2013-14/gri.html [Accessed 29 April 2015]. Gary, C. M., Fagerström, A., & Hassel, L. G. (2011). Accounting For Sustainability: What Next? A Research Agenda. THE ANNALS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ORADEA, 97. Global Reporting. (n.d.). GRI G3.1 Quick Reference Sheet. Available fromhttps://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/g3.1-quick-reference-sheet.pdf [Accessed 29 April 2015]. Golub, h., Henry, J., Forbis, J.L., Mehta, N.T., Lanning, M.J., Michaels,E.G., and Ohmae, K. (2000). Delivering value to customers. McKinsey& Company. Available fromhttp://www.mckinsey.com/insights/strategy/delivering_value_to_customers [Accessed 29 April 2015]. Gray, R. (2006). Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organisational value creation? Whose value? Whose creation?. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol.19, no.6, pp. 793-819. Gray, R., & Milne, M. (2002). Sustainability reporting: whos kidding whom?.Chartered Accountants Journal of New Zealand, vol.81, no.6, pp. 66-70. Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. The Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 56-67. Hartlen, B. (2014). Delivering Business Value with Your IT Project – How to Define Value. Blue Print. Available from http://www.blueprintsys.com/delivering-business-value-with-your-it-project-how-to-define-value/ [Accessed 29 April 2015]. Hernádi, B. H. (2012). Green Accounting for Corporate Sustainability. Theory Methodology Practice (TMP), vol.8, no.02, pp. 23-30. Hollingworth, M. (2009). Building 360 organizational sustainability. Ivey Business Journal, vol.73, no.6, pp. 2. Honeyman, K. (2007). Child workers in England, 1780-1820: parish apprentices and the making of the early industrial labour force. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. ICAEW. (n.d.). Examples of corporate responsibility measures. Available fromhttp://www.icaew.com/~/media/corporate/archive/files/technical/sustainability/kpi%20measures.ashx [Accessed 29 April 2015]. Jensen, M. C. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, vol.12, no.2, pp.235-256. Johnson, F. (2009). The Growing Concern over “Going Concern”. CFO. Available from http://ww2.cfo.com/accounting-tax/2009/03/the-growing-concern-over-going-concern/[Accessed 29 April 2015]. Malan, D. (2013). Carrots and sticks: Sustainability reporting policies worldwide-todays best practice, tomorrows trends. Carrots and Sticks. McKinsey & Company. (2011). The business of sustainability: McKinsey Global Survey results.. Available fromhttp://www.mckinsey.com/insights/energy_resources_materials/the_business_of_sustainability_mckinsey_global_survey_results [Accessed 29 April 2015]. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of management review, vol.26, no.1, pp. 117-127. Orlitzky, M., Siegel, D. S., & Waldman, D. A. (2011). Strategic corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability. Business & society, vol.50, no.1, pp. 6-27. Pearson, T. A., Jerris, S. I., & Brooks, R. (2011). Accounting For OPEBs: Does Better Accounting Serve The Public Interest?. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), vol.11, no.3, pp. 1-6. Schaltegger, S., Bennett, M., & Burritt, R. (Eds.). (2006). Sustainability accounting and reporting Vol. 21. Springer Science & Business Media. Slaper, T. F., & Hall, T. J. (2011). The triple bottom line: what is it and how does it work. Indiana Business Review, vol.86, no.1, pp. 4-8. Smart, V., Barman, T., & Gunasekera, N. (2010). Incorporating Ethics into Strategy: Developing sustainable business models. CIMA. Available fromhttp://www.cimaglobal.com/Documents/Professional%20ethics%20docs/Incorporatingethicsintostrategyweb1.pdf [Accessed 29 April 2015]. Smith, J. (2014). The Worlds Most Sustainable Companies Of 2014. Forbes. Available fromhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2014/01/22/the-worlds-most-sustainable-companies-of-2014/ [Accessed 29 April 2015]. UN Global Pact. (n.d.). Guide to Corporate Sustainability Available fromhttps://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/publications/UN_Global_Compact_Guide_to_Corporate_Sustainability.pdf [Accessed 29 April 2015]. UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework. (2015). Reporting Framework With Implementation Guidance. Available from http://www.ungpreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/UNGuidingPrinciplesReportingFramework_withimplementationguidance_Feb2015.pdf [Accessed 29 April 2015]. Van Marrewijk, M., & Werre, M. (2003). Multiple levels of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, vol.44, no.2-3, pp. 107-119. Van Oosterhout, J., & Heugens, P. P. M. A. R. (2008). Much ado about nothing: A conceptual critique of corporate social responsibility. The Oxford Handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 197-223). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. White, G. B. (2009). Sustainability reporting: Managing for wealth and corporate health. Business Expert Press. Widok, A. (2009). Social Sustainability: Theories, Concepts, Practicability. Environmental Informatics and Industrial Environmental Protection: Concepts, Methods and Tools, no.1-9, pp. 43-51 Wilson, M. (2003). Corporate sustainability: What is it and where does it come from. Ivey Business Journal, vol.67, no.6, pp. 1-5. Read More