Introduction

With the continuously changing business environment, the need for non-financial reporting initiatives, such as triple bottom line-based frameworks, is emerging rapidly in businesses. In doing so, businesses are trying to develop sustainable development goals to achieve true sustainability (Dyllick and Muff, 2016). Therefore, there is a need to integrate the sustainable development within the business operations to achieve true sustainability. Various research studies, such as Swain (2018), Gallotta et al. (2016) and Hák et al. (2016), argued the need for relevant indicators to be integrated by the companies for achieving the aims of true sustainability. Therefore, this essay aims to critically discuss different dimensions, including the meaning of true sustainability, examining systematic issues, such as planetary and ecological boundaries, and their relationships with the reporting initiatives. Additionally, this essay will also analyse different organisational examples based on the comparison through theoretical approaches. Subsequently, the essay also aims to reflect the Stakeholder Systems Model, proposed by Mason and Simmons (2014), to develop CSR strategies.

Main Body

With the increase in business activities, the world's resources are getting limited, resulting in the businesses developing alternate strategies for continuing their business operations more effectively. In doing so, they must consider multiple factors, including corporate sustainability, business ethics, and the concept of stakeholders. For this purpose, the business must look for resources that could always be renewable, continuously available, and economically viable. Isaksson et al. (2010) identified that businesses have great potential for sustainable development strategies. These potential are based on various aspects, including change management knowledge, organisational enhancements, and promoting innovations through technology. Therefore, the study argued that these sustainable development practices could increase the opportunities for businesses to focus on the challenges and opportunities for using limited resources more effectively.

Since the businesses are increasingly becoming aware of the challenges and opportunities linked with their business activities' economic, social and environmental effects, they are rapidly developing and implementing sustainable strategies within their strategic planning processes for managing these challenges more effectively and efficiently. For this purpose, Searcy (2016) presented the framework of Enterprise Sustainability Performance Measurement Systems (ESPMSs) for developing solutions for the increasing challenges of sustainability. Based on the understanding of true sustainability, the study argued that the framework ESPMSs focuses on providing solutions for a single organisation only; however, there is a need for more stringent requirements for reporting sustainability performance.

The concept of true sustainability only exists when renewable resources are continuously delivered under economically viable terms. For this purpose, Milne and Gray (2013) criticised the modern disconnection between the practices of sustainability reporting and current sustainable challenges, including sustaining the life-supporting ecological systems. The study argued that the triple bottom line practices and GRI practices are not effective for pervading the business reporting and business engagements to sustain the ecology system of Earth. Therefore, Whiteman et al. (2013) argued in the increasing complexities for the ecological problems and identified that existing sustainability frameworks are not effective for managing the increasing complexities. Therefore, the study identified that to have effective corporate sustainability, the businesses are recommended to integrate the framework of Planetary Boundaries to maintain the life-supporting ecological systems and gain The framework of planetary boundaries is based on mitigating the challenges through different aspects, including the availability of resources, always renewable resources, and economically viable resources. Hence, sustainable practices are continuously evolving with the time for achieving true sustainability in businesses.

Since the sustainability concerns are increasingly rapidly; therefore, businesses are looking for ways to achieve sustainability and more equitable ways for the resources and the business models that could generate reasonable returns on sustainable investments. For this purpose, there are different frameworks developed, including Triple Bottom Line, GRI, and Corporate Social Responsibilities, for achieving the benchmarks of sustainable developments. Hubbard (2011) argued that organisations mostly report to one of the sustainable frameworks for achieving true sustainability. For instance, KPMG has integrated the TBL framework to simultaneously develop strategies regarding profit, people, and the planet. Therefore, it is identified that most organisations integrate only one framework for achieving true sustainability.

However, Milne and Gray (2013) argued that the sustainable strategies of various frameworks, including TBL and GBI, are insufficient for managing the increasing environmental concerns. The researchers argued that organisations are required to work on multiple strategies to understand true sustainability. The study also argued on the case of KPMG and identified that the company usually surveys the reporting by the stand-alone reporting system in most of its countries. Similarly, Weber (2005) presented the five models for benchmarking the achievements of sustainability, which includes the event-related integration of sustainability, sustainability as the new organisational strategy, sustainability as the value driver, sustainability as the requirements of clients, and sustainability as the public mission. Thus, it is analysed that organisations integrate the different sustainability frameworks based on the needs and demands of society and challenges.

Despite the fact, it is analysed that the companies mostly integrate different sustainability frameworks for managing the challenges of environmental concerns, including planetary and biodiversity issues. However, companies must choose only one reporting framework for achieving the objectives of sustainable frameworks. For this purpose, various reporting frameworks are available, including the Corporate Reporting Framework, Connected Reporting Framework, Corporate Social Responsibility framework, and Corporate Responsibility Index. The framework of Corporate Reporting is identified as most suitable for emphasising systematic sustainability issues, such as planetary/ global challenges, loss of biodiversity, sea-level rise, and climate change challenges (Tsalis et al., 2020). Various research studies, including Milne and Gray (2013) and Whiteman et al. (2013), argued on the systematic issues, including planetary and other globalisation challenges. The studies identified the need for a sustainable corporate reporting framework for managing the challenges of systematic issue. Moreover, it is identified that there is a need to find alternative ways for the businesses where they could get beyond the existing practices of TBL change-but-no-change rhetoric of sustainability in order to contribute in a more constructive way for developing the link between the business and sustainability (Kovacs et al., 2020). Similarly, Williams et al. (2017) explored different alternative aspects, including industrial ecology, social-ecological systems, sustainability education, paradigm shifts and leadership innovation, for achieving the goals of true sustainability. Additionally, Polman (2014) argued on the strategy of Capitalism for overcoming the challenges of poverty and expanding access to education and health care services. Nevertheless, the practices of Capitalism are unable to handle emerging systematic challenges, including planetary and other globalisation challenges (Dominelli, 2010).

A recent analysis by Nuttall and Browne (2016) explored the new factors for improving corporate performance and corporate sustainability. The study argued that it is time to think ahead of the traditional corporate social responsibility practices as these practices are unable to support the systematic issues, including planetary and globalisation challenges. For this purpose, the framework of the Stakeholder Systems Approach is introduced by Mason and Simmons (2014). It is argued that CSR and related concepts are now limited to the 'emancipatory rhetoric', which is defined by narrow business interests and serves only to manage the interests of external stakeholders. Moreover, the researchers identified the gaps and challenges within the CSR strategies and offered a new conceptual framework of the Stakeholder System Approach, which is primarily based on answering the concerns of both internal and external stakeholders. Boutilier et al. (2013) argued that the Stakeholder System Approach is a holistic approach that compares the predicted performance of each sustainable initiative and answers the concerns of both internal and external stakeholders. Moreover, it provides the capability to the businesses to influence the stakeholders` network. Therefore, it is identified that the businesses are required to integrate the conceptual framework of the Stakeholder System Approach for setting the benchmark to achieve the sustainable goals for the organisations.

Conclusion

This report had critically explored the concept of true sustainability and examined how the non-financial reporting initiatives, such as TBL and GRI, are integrated for reporting the sustainable development goals for the businesses achieving true sustainability. The analysis showed that the current TBL and GRI practices are not effective for managing the challenges of systematic issues, including planetary and other globalisation issues. Therefore, there was a need identified for managing such challenges. For this purpose, the conceptual framework of Corporate Reporting was identified as effective for managing such challenges more effectively. Moreover, it was identified that businesses are required to integrate only one framework of reporting for managing particular challenges. Furthermore, the advanced concept of the Stakeholders System Approach was identified as an effective strategy for overcoming the challenges and setting-up the benchmark for achieving the sustainable objectives of the organisations. Hence, it was argued that businesses are required to focus on advanced practices, such as Stakeholders System Approach derived from the TBL approach, for managing the increasing concerns regarding systematic issues, including climate change, globalisations, planetary and loss of biodiversity challenges.

References

Boutilier, R., Henisz, W. and Zelner, B., 2013. A systems approach to stakeholder management. In SRMINING 2013 2nd International Conference on Social Responsibility in Mining (pp. 45-54).

Dominelli, L., 2010. Globalization, contemporary challenges and social work practice. International Social Work, 53(5), pp.599-612.

Dyllick, T. and Muff, K., 2016. Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organization & Environment, 29(2), pp.156-174.

Gallotta, B., Garza-Reyes, J.A., Anosike, A., Lim, M.K. and Roberts, I., 2016. A conceptual framework for the implementation of sustainability business processes.

Hák, T., Janoušková, S. and Moldan, B., 2016. Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecological indicators, 60, pp.565-573.

Hubbard, G., 2011. The Quality of the Sustainability Reports of Large International Companies: An Analysis. International Journal of Management, 28 (3), pp. 824.

Isaksson, R., Johansson, P. and Fischer, K., 2010. Detecting Supply Chain Innovation Potential for Sustainable Development. Journal of Business Ethics, 97 (3), pp. 425–442.

Johnston, P., Everard, M., Santillo, D. and Robèrt, K.H., 2007. Reclaiming the definition of sustainability. Environmental science and pollution research international, 14(1), pp.60-66.

Kovacs, E., Hoaghia, M.A., Senila, L., Scurtu, D.A., Dumitras, D.E. and Roman, C., 2020. Sustainability Problematization and Modeling Opportunities. Sustainability, 12(23), p.10046.

Mason, C. and Simmons, J., 2014. Embedding Corporate Social Responsibility in Corporate Governance: A Stakeholder Systems Approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 119 (1), pp. 77–86.

Mason, C. and Simmons, J., 2014. Embedding corporate social responsibility in corporate governance: a stakeholder systems approach, Journal of Business Ethics, 119 (1), pp.77–86. Milne, M.J. and Gray, R., 2013. W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative, and Corporate Sustainability Reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 118 (1), pp. 13–29.

Nuttall, R. and Browne, J., 2016. How companies succeed through radical engagement. Mckinsey and company, (February): 1–4. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/how-companies-succeed-through-radical-engagement [Accessed: 27 March 2021].

Polman, P. 2014. Business, society and the future of Capitalism, McKinsey and Company. Searcy, C., 2016. Measuring Enterprise Sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25 (2), pp. 120–133.

Swain, R.B., 2018. A critical analysis of the sustainable development goals. In Handbook of sustainability science and research (pp. 341-355). Springer, Cham.

Tsalis, T.A., Malamateniou, K.E., Koulouriotis, D., 2020. New challenges for corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the sustainable development goals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27 (4), pp. 1617–1629.

Weber, O., 2005. Sustainability benchmarking of European banks and financial service organizations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 12 (2), pp. 73–87.

Whiteman, G., Walker, B. and Perego, P., 2013. Planetary Boundaries: Ecological Foundations for Corporate Sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50 (2), pp. 307–336.

Williams, A., Kennedy, S., Philipp, F., 2017. Systems thinking: A review of sustainability management research. Journal of Cleaner Production. 148, pp. 866–881.