Companies commonly issue sustainability or corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports. This study seeks to understand worldviews of corporate sustainability, or the corporate message conveyed regarding what sustainability or CSR is and how to enact it. Content analysis of corporate sustainability reports is used to position each company report within stages of corporate sustainability. Results reveal that there are multiple coexisting worldviews of corporate sustainability, but the most dominant worldview is focused on the business case for sustainability, a position anchored in the weak sustainability paradigm. We contend that the business case and weak sustainability advanced in corporate sustainability reports and by the Global Reporting Initiative are poor representations of sustainability. Ecological embeddedness, or a locally responsive strategy that is sensitive to local ecosystems, may hold the key to improved ecological sensemaking, which in turn could lead to more mature levels of corporate sustainability worldviews that support strong sustainability and are rooted in environmental science. This must be supported by government regulation.

Businesses are increasingly adopting sustainability, yet the environment continues to decline. This research responds to Dyllick and Muff’s assertion that this paradox is caused by a constricted understanding of the meaning of corporate sustainability, lack of inclusion of constructs from related streams of literature, and failure to integrate micro and macro perspectives of sustainability. The current research addresses these concerns through an integration of 22 micro- and macro-level models of stages of development from literature in corporate sustainability, corporate social responsibility, environmental management, and sustainable development. This integration results in a new unified model of stages of corporate sustainability that broadens the current narrowly constricted understanding of corporate sustainability, extends the paradigm of corporate sustainability beyond the business case and into the realm of ecological science and strong sustainability, and sheds light on the paradox.

Purpose This study aims to identify the content in introductory business sustainability courses in the USA to determine the most frequently assigned reading material and its sustainability orientation. Design/methodology/approach In total, 81 introductory sustainable business course syllabi reading lists were analyzed from 51 US colleges and universities. The study utilized frequency counts for authors and readings and R analysis of key words to classify readings along the sustainability spectrum. Findings The study reveals the most frequently assigned authors and readings in US sustainable business courses (by program type) and places them along the sustainability spectrum from weak to strong. In total, 55 per cent of the top readings assigned in the sample advocate a weak sustainability paradigm, and 29 per cent of the top readings advocate a strong sustainability paradigm. Research limitations/implications This study focused on reading lists of introductory courses in the USA; cases, videos and supplemental materials were excluded, and the study does not analyze non-US courses. Practical implications The findings of this study can inform instructors of the most commonly assigned authors and readings and identify readings that align with weak sustainability and strong sustainability. Instructors are now able to select sustainable business readings consistent with peers and which advance a weak or strong sustainability orientation. Originality/value This is the first research to identify the most commonly assigned authors and readings to aid in course planning. This is also the first research to guide instructors in identifying which readings represent weak versus strong sustainability.

Organizations in need of strategic turnaround often seek charismatic leaders to lead change efforts. With the growing popularity of democratizing workplaces, team‐based approaches to strategic change are emerging. The literature on each of these change approaches is reviewed. Several research propositions are offered which suggest that strategic teams can be a better choice than charismatic leaders for turning around an organization. The authors also note the need for future research to compare the effectiveness of charismatic leaders with the effectiveness of strategic teams in planning and initiating strategic change.

No abstract