The Coevolution of Sustainable Strategic Management in the Global Marketplace

Stead, Jean Garner; Stead, W. Edward

doi:10.1177/1086026613489138

Cited by 66 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The incorporation of SDGs into a firm's mission changes both the internal and external environment of the organization, which lead to a need for different corporate strategies [25]. Thus, scholars have identified strategic management for sustainability as an emergent area of research, both in the strategic management field and sustainability science [25][26][27][28][29].…”

Section: Conceptual Background Of the Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Retrospective and Foresight: Bibliometric Review of International Research on Strategic Management for Sustainability, 1991–2019

Suriyankietkaew

Petison

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past 30 years, scholars have been calling for modern management theory and research to consider how strategic management tools could be applied to enhance corporate sustainability. While strategic management for sustainability has emerged as a multidisciplinary field, the existing knowledge base has yet to be systematic reviewed. This paper responded to the literature gap by conducting a bibliometric review of strategic management for sustainability. The paper aimed to document the landscape and composition of this literature through the analysis of 988 relevant Scopus-indexed documents. Data analyses found that the strategic management for sustainability knowledge base remained an emergent field with increasing interests from diverse groups of international scholars in various fields, particularly in environmental science, engineering, and strategic business management. Over the past three decades, the literatures have been continuously grown from a few publications in the early 1990s to almost 1000 documents to date. The review found that the most influential journals and authors of this knowledge base were international in scope but predominately from Western developed countries. Five Schools of Thought from author co-citation analysis revealed the intellectual clustering composition of the knowledge base on strategic management for sustainability: corporate sustainability strategy, sustainable waste management, strategic sustainability systems, strategic sustainability management and entrepreneurship, and sustainability assessment strategy. Key topics addressed in this research include the distribution of documents across the most highly cited journals, reflecting the breadth, quality and influential scholars in the strategic management for sustainability knowledge domain, naming of the influential scholars in the field and identification of contemporary foci and research front in the existing literature through the keyword co-occurrence analysis and co-word map. The strategic management for sustainability field has evolved from the key topics related to the green movement at the policy-driven macro level (i.e., ecological or environmental protection/impact, water/waste management and natural resource conservation) to the practicality in organizations with the topics related to social strategic responsibility and business management issues (i.e., corporate strategy, project management, supply chain management, information management, adaptive management, corporate sustainability). In addition to a retrospective, insightful prospective interpretation, practical implication, limitations and future research direction are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Conceptual Background Of the Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Retrospective and Foresight: Bibliometric Review of International Research on Strategic Management for Sustainability, 1991–2019

Suriyankietkaew

Petison

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although this concept is not new to the business management literature (Eisenhardt and Galunic, 2000;Christensen, Schmidt and Larsen, 2003;Lampel and Shamsie, 2003;Flier, Van Den Bosch, and Volberda, 2003;Selsky, Goes and Babüroglu, 2006;Stead and Stead, 2013;Ramírez and Selsky, 2014;Abatecola, 2014;Pontikes and Barnett, 2016), it has recently been shown that companies that are managing turbulence tend to generate new organisational structures capable of modifying their behaviour. As a result, both the environment and the industry undergo metamorphoses that are necessary for businesses to grow.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How to Thrive in Turbulent Business Environments: Case Colombia’s Mobile Telephony Industry

Rivera-Rodriguez¹,

Santos-Álvarez²

2017

Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It also has been seen by some as a label to broadly define the emergent ecosystem that is upending mature business models across the globe, while analysts argue that no single label can neatly encapsulate this movement, as for some the word "sharing" was a misnomer, a savvy-but-disingenuous spin on an industry they felt was more about monetary opportunism than altruism, while for others, more appropriate titles included the Trust Economy, Collaborative Consumption, the On-Demand or Peer-to-Peer Economy (PwC, 2015). These developments have started to challenge traditional thinking about how resources can and should be offered and consumed, supporting arguments that incremental improvements in our existing production and consumption systems are insufficient to transform our global economy toward sustainability (Lovins & Cohen, 2011;Stead & Stead, 2013). …”

Section: The Theoretical-conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 93%

Sharing Economy: The Establishment of Organizational Identity Overtime, Considering Identify Claims and Legitimacy Granting

Cotrim

Nunes²

2017

Eur. j. econ. bus. stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Sharing Economy (SE) has been growing at an impressive rate across the globe (Cohen & Kietzmann, 2014) and emerging as an innovative and rapidly growing sector of the economy (Hira & Reilly, 2017), which attracted the attention of the scientific community. An increasing number of studies have been brought to light helping to document and analyze how SE manifests and evolves across economic systems, thus, contributing to refine and recast existing management theory (Mair & Reischauer, 2017). Nevertheless, there still is a lack of a common understanding of SE and its underlying mechanisms (Knote & Blohm, 2016). As an emergent category, SE has been contoured by being a mutant process, as it has been crafted by multiple and distinct temporal identity and legitimacy events, mechanisms and claims. Showing signs of being an on-going process of evolution, there is a constant need for further research to identify developments in the evolution of SE considering both identify claims (self-referential) and legitimacy (granted by stakeholders), which would offer additional comprehension about the SE phenomenon. The research addresses it by studying what is the role of SE in establishing the identity of organizations belonging to the field, considering both identify claims (selfreferential) and legitimacy (granted by stakeholders)? To answer the research question, the research was designed involving two components inspired on category creation studies (Durand & Paolella, 2013;Glynn & Navis, 2013;Navis & Glynn, 2010;Kennedy & Fiss, 2013;Kennedy et al., 2010;Lounsbury & Rao, 2004;and Wry et al., 2014): 1) four prototypical SE organizations were selected, each of them belonging to Schor's (2014) four SE archetypes of activities: (i) Airbnb -peer-to-peer, for-profit activity -, (ii) Zipcar -business-to-peer, forprofit activity -, (iii) TimeBanks -peer-to-peer, non-profit -and (iv) Make: makerspaces -business-to-peer, non-profit. The content of the evolution of their identity claims was analyzed, using data from their public available reports, as well as, other secondary data available on-line; and 2) considering the same set of SE organizations, legitimacy evolution was analyzed considering how scientific community, investors, customers, media, other analysts and other interested audiences have been constructing category meaning to them, conferring the formation of SE categorical and organizational identities, and perceptions about the viability of their business models (Tripsas, 2009, as cited in Navis & Glynn, 2010. In short, it was analyzed how stakeholders assess the viability of SE categories and organizations and can grant or withhold legitimacy to SE organizations (Zuckerman, 1999, as cited in Navis & Glynn, 2010. This research presents a new layer on framing a detailed understanding of the SE field in its maturing dimension, thus, meeting Mair's and Reischauer's (2017) call for studying the SE, unpack and make sense of an inspiring and complex phenomenon and thereby advancing and sophisticate the existing theo...

show abstract

The Coevolution of Sustainable Strategic Management in the Global Marketplace

Cited by 66 publications

References 42 publications

A Retrospective and Foresight: Bibliometric Review of International Research on Strategic Management for Sustainability, 1991–2019

A Retrospective and Foresight: Bibliometric Review of International Research on Strategic Management for Sustainability, 1991–2019

How to Thrive in Turbulent Business Environments: Case Colombia’s Mobile Telephony Industry

Sharing Economy: The Establishment of Organizational Identity Overtime, Considering Identify Claims and Legitimacy Granting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About