Distinguishing between descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects, and emphasizing the inter-linkages among these, thus helps us to sharpen the analysis of paradox in corporate sustainability and beyond. It reminds us that an accurate description of organizational phenom- ena and decision makers’ conduct relies on a plurality of descriptive lenses even if they are competing. It helps us to understand multiple, at times competing outcomes beyond dominant categories in a world of ever-increasing com- plexities. Last but not least, it invites us to reconsider the normative foundations on which any inquiry into organi- zational responses to societal challenges is based. Corpo- rate sustainability is an area where tensions and paradoxes are paramount. Adopting a paradox perspective on corpo- rate sustainability helps scholars and practitioners to overcome conceptions of corporate sustainability that systematically emphasize business outcomes over societal concerns. Responses to sustainability challenges that allow businesses and society to thrive, paradoxically , require giving up the categorical primacy of profitability so that firms can iteratively attend to various interrelated, yet competing demands for achieving economically prosper- ous, environmentally healthy, and socially equitable de- velopment paths. Compliance with Ethical Standards Conflict of interest All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Ethical Approval This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. References Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32 (3), 836–863. doi: 10.5465/amr.2007. 25275678 . Allen, S., Marshall, J., & Easterby-Smith, M. (2015). Living with contradictions: The dynamics of senior managers’ identity tensions in relation to sustainability. Organization & Environ- ment, 28 (3), 328–348. doi: 10.1177/1086026615575048 . Aram, J. D. (1989). The paradox of interdependent relations in the field of social issues in management. Academy of Management Review, 14 (2), 266–283. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1989.4282119 . Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34 (1), 51–79. doi: 10.1177/ 0896920507084623 . Bansal, P. (2002). The corporate challenges of sustainable develop- ment. Academy of Management Executive, 16 (2), 122–131. doi: 10.5465/AME.2002.7173572 .
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 14 pages?
- Fall '18
- DR MAAME ADWOA GYEKYE JANDO
- normative aspects, T. Hahn