Sustainability is one of the most complex composite constructs to have emerged in the last decade. Having a clear understanding of its meanings is critical as actions based on these understandings impact all walks of life. We track the conceptualizations and measurements of sustainable development in the areas of government, business, education, and the trades. We explore what stakeholders in these groups value in sustainability by observing where they develop initiatives, invest funds, and report progress. What emerges is a picture of diversity in how stakeholders view sustainable development, one of multiple identities, driven by distinct logics and motives. Based on these findings, we propose that, instead of reconciling these diverse perspectives, we might focus on constructing shared understandings around critical values.

There are many different conceptualizations sustainable development and these different approaches to conceptualization may have led to confusion among the public. The paper explores identities of the term and how the confused identity may be leading to problems for sustainable development efforts. Design: The design is exploratory in nature that used both secondary and primary data to understand the different sustainable development concepts. Findings: There is not a consistent understanding or use of the term sustainable development among various groups. Research Implications: Future research should include a larger sample that is more representative of people from different backgrounds and geographical areas. Practical Implications: The public is generally willing to support only projects that it understands. Without a clear understanding of sustainable development the public will be less inclined to support these efforts. Originality: The study that examines the perceptions and understandings of the term by the general public representing different generations.

Purpose This study aims to test Mattingly and Berman’s (2006) taxonomy of social actions and develops divergent expectations for corporate social responsibility (CSR) dimensions directed toward institutional and technical stakeholders, with an aim to determine when CSR directed to different stakeholders is most likely to improve corporate reputation. Design/methodology/approach A longitudinal sample of 285 major US corporations was used to quantitatively test the hypotheses. Data was sourced from KLD, Osiris and Fortune MAC. Findings Strengths in CSR and actions directed toward technical stakeholders influence corporate reputation in a more profound way, when compared to those directed toward institutional stakeholders. Contrary to the authors’ prediction, institutional concerns do not demonstrate a significant growth or reduction over the five-year period. Research limitations/implications This study provides a longitudinal test of Mattingly and Berman’s (2006) taxonomy of CSR actions and makes an important methodological contribution by operationalizing CSR not as a continuum from strengths to concerns, rather as two distinct constructs. Practical implications Management practice can benefit from a more fine-grained approach to stakeholder expectations and reputation outcomes. The results of this study leverage relevant stakeholder impact while allowing firms to appreciate the change in CSR actions and to measure it accordingly, such that the undesirable status quo that leads to potential loss in reputation growth can be avoided. Social implications As organizations explore ways to effectively engage stakeholders for mutual benefit, this research shows how firms can have a positive impact. Originality/value This study tests and extends theory through an integrated lens, built on the stakeholder and resource dependence theories, while directing management attention to the broader reputational outcomes of targeted CSR initiatives. It provides justification for CSR investments over time.

Purpose -In this paper we develop a theoretical explanation of conflicts and incompatible interpretations of events between agents of Multinational Corporations (MNCs) and actors present in certain host countries. We situate the argument in comparative economic systems as a part of a broader social system. The socio-economic system can be modeled using institutional theory, particularly using Scott's ( 2001) three pillars and the concept of formal and informal institutions. Within different socioeconomic systems a dominant logic is developed, and this becomes internalized among actors and agents as behavioral scripts.Design/ methodology/approach -We use a multi-level and multi-disciplinary conceptual analysis, developing a model of dominant logic and behavioral scripts with MNC agents and traditional emerging economy actors. Findings -MNC agents and traditional emerging economy actors have difficultycomprehending the logic of the other, creating a fertile context for conflict.Research implications -An ideal type template is developed that can be used for empirical investigations focusing on situations where disagreement and conflict occur when MNCs operate in traditional emerging economies.Practical implications -By integrating our conceptualization into training for expatriate managers, the potential for conflict can be reduced.Originality/value -This multi-level and multi-disciplinary model allows grounded development of our understanding of conflicts or potential conflicts in the MNC agenttraditional emerging economy actor context.

No abstract