Organizations have to cope with the complexity of their environment in order to survive. A considerable body of research has shown that organizations may respond to environmental complexity by creating internal complexity -for example, by expanding internal structures and processes. However, researchers know less about how organizations create collaborative complexity collectively -for example, by establishing alliances or developing common standards. This paper uses social systems theory to explore how organizations collaborate in response to complexity and to analyse the conditions under which they create either internal or collaborative complexity (or both) to address environmental complexity. It also examines how these types of complexity feed back into environmental complexity. To illustrate our conceptual model, we use corporate social responsibility (CSR).

Over the last years, many approaches have emerged that attempt to measure the contribution of firms to sustainable development, i.e. corporate sustainability. Our review of existing methodologies for the assessment of corporate sustainability reveals two major shortcomings. First, value creation as a core condition for sustainability as well as for further contributions to economic sustainability is often ignored in these assessments, suggesting that financial and non‐financial organizational processes are separable. Second, existing approaches fail to differentiate between the actual contribution of a firm to sustainability on the one hand, and governance‐related features aimed at attaining this contribution on the other. We argue that the implementation of sustainability‐oriented organizational structures and managerial instruments alone does not necessarily guarantee sustainability performance. Therefore, besides the dimension of current sustainability performance, we introduce the notion of sustainability governance as a second distinct dimension of corporate sustainability assessment. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

In order to enable firms to successfully deal with issues of corporate sustainability, the firms' stakeholders would need to participate in sustainability accounting and management. In practice, however, participative sustainability accounting and management are often unfeasible. The resulting consequence is the risk of misbalancing single aspects of sustainability. The purpose of this article is to show that reflexivity in sustainability accounting and management, that is, an ongoing reflection on the relationship between the goals of corporate sustainability and the overarching objective of sustainable development can, at least, mitigate this problem. Reflexivity has the potential to initiate processes of collective learning and could eventually bring about the realization of business models that integrate economic, ecological, and social considerations.

The extent to which state authorities can regulate the externalities and the behaviour of multinational corporations (MNCs) is limited. This is especially true when MNCs operate in or do business with fragile states that lack the willingness and/or resources to effectively and legitimately regulate businesses. However, MNCs often engage in private regulation to remedy some of the problems that unregulated business behaviour creates. In this article we examine what limits the effectiveness and legitimacy of the contributions made by MNCs to global governance. We explore the mechanisms that state authorities in functioning states can use to overcome these barriers as well as the boundary conditions of these mechanisms at both company and government levels. We provide a framework for governmental CSR policies and describe the ways in which functioning states engage in governance beyond the ‘shadow of hierarchy’ and directly or indirectly influence business conduct beyond the territory in which their legal regulations can be enforced.

Among critics of corporate social responsibility (CSR), there is growing concern that CSR is largely ineffective as a corrective to the shortcomings of capitalism, namely, the negative effects of business on society and the undersupply of public goods. At the same time, researchers suggest that despite the shortcomings of CSR, it is possible to make it more effective in a stepwise manner. To explain the frequent failures of current CSR practices and to explore the possibilities of remedying them, I examine the close relationship between CSR, the persistent expansion of capitalism, and the pressure that capitalism puts on companies to legitimize their business operations. My analysis shows that the failure of CSR to serve as a corrective to the problematic effects of capitalism is, in fact, an inevitable consequence of the problematic dynamics of the capitalist system. On this basis, I suggest that capitalism limits the possibilities of making CSR more effective, argue for change on the systemic level of capitalism, and explore the ways in which CSR research can contribute to this political endeavor.