Management Decision Governance and sustainability PDF

Management Decision
Governance and sustainability: An investigation into the relationship between corporate
governance and corporate sustainability
Güler Aras David Crowther
Article information:
To cite this document:
Güler Aras David Crowther, (2008),"Governance and sustainability", Management Decision, Vol. 46 Iss 3
pp. 433 - 448
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740810863870
Downloaded on: 08 February 2015, At: 16:06 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 66 other documents.
To copy this document: [e-mail]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 6926 times since 2008*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Roshima Said, Yuserrie Hj Zainuddin, Hasnah Haron, (2009),"The relationship between corporate social
responsibility disclosure and corporate governance characteristics in Malaysian public listed companies",
Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 212-226 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17471110910964496
Alan L. Jones, Clive H. Thompson, (2012),"The sustainability of corporate governance – considerations for
a model", Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, Vol. 12 Iss 3 pp. 306-318
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14720701211234573
Güler Aras, David Crowther, (2009),"Making sustainable development sustainable", Management Decision,
Vol. 47 Iss 6 pp. 975-988 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251740910966686
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 549148 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guid
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as w
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of downloa
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)

Governance and sustainability
An investigation into the relationship between
corporate governance and corporate
sustainability
Gu¨ler Aras
Institute of SocialScience, Yildiz TechnicalUniversity, Istanbul, Turkey, and
David Crowther
Leicester Business School, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show that corporate governance is fundamentalto the
continuing operation of any corporation; hence much attention has been paid to the procedures of such
governance.Similarly sustainability is fundamentalto the continuing operation of any corporation,
and is arguably the fashionable concept of the moment.While it is clear what is generally meant by
corporate governance it is much less clear what is meant by sustainability and the paper starts by
investigating this concept.
Design/methodology/approach – For two such fundamental concepts however it would seem that
there should be a relationship between the two, although little work has been undertaken on exploring
this relationship.The centralpart of this paperis therefore based upon an exploration ofthe
relationship between governance and sustainability,by investigating the FTSE100 companies and
their corporate governance policies.
Findings – This analysis found some strengths– and hence cause foroptimism – and some
weaknesses – and hence cause for concern.Areas where further work is needed are identified.
Research limitations/implications – The paper has implications in enhancing the understanding
of the necessary components of corporate governance, although it is necessarily limited by the size of
the sample.
Originality/value – This paper increases the understanding of the relationship between corporate
governance,sustainability and sustainable development.
Keywords Corporate governance, Economic sustainability, Financial performance,
Sustainable development
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Every time society faces a new problem or threat then a new legislative process of
some sort is introduced which tries to protect that society from a future reoccurrence
(Romano,2004).Recently we have seen a wide range ofproblems with corporate
behaviour,which has arguably led to prominence being given to corporate social
responsibility (see for example Boele et al., 2001).Part of this effect is to recognise the
concerns of all stakeholders to an organisation, and this has been researched by many
people (forexample Johnson and Greening,1999;Knox and Maklan,2004)with
inconclusive findings. Accordingly therefore corporations, with their increased level of
responsibility and accountability to their stakeholders, have felt that there is a need to
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm
Governance and
sustainability
433
Received September 2007
Revised January 2008
Accepted January 2008
Management Decision
Vol.46 No.3,2008
pp.433-448
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0025-1747
DOI 10.1108/00251740810863870
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)

develop a code for corporate governance so as to guide them towards appropriat
stakeholder relations.
A great deal of concern has been expressed all over the world about shortcom
the systems ofcorporate governance in operation:Britain,Australia,mostother
Anglo-Saxon and English speaking countries, and many other countries, have a s
system ofgovernance (Michaeland Gross,2004).Conversely Germany is a good
example of where the distance between ownership and control is much less than
USA, while Japan’s system ofcorporate governance is in some ways in between
Germany and the USA,and in other ways different from both (Shleifer and Vishny,
1997).By contrast,in India the corporate governance system in the public sector ma
be characterized as a transientsystem,with the key players (namely politicians,
bureaucrats,and managers) taking a myopic view of the system of governance.Such
international comparisons illustrate different approaches to the problem of corpo
governance and the problem ofensuring thatmanagers actin their shareholders’
interest. Recently of course much attention to this issue has been paid by institu
investors (Cox et al.,2004).
Good governance is of course important in every sphere of the society whethe
the corporate environmentor generalsociety orthe politicalenvironment.Good
governance levels can, for example, improve public faith and confidence in the p
environment. When the resources are too limited to meet the minimum expectat
the people, it is a good governance level that can help to promote the welfare of
And of course a concern with governance is at least as prevalent in the corporate
(Durnev and Kim,2005).
Corporate governance can be considered as an environment of trust,ethics,moral
values and confidence – as a synergic effort of all the constituents of society – th
the stakeholders,including government;the generalpublic etc;professional/service
providers – and the corporate sector.One of the consequences of a concern with the
actions ofan organisation,and the consequences ofthose actions,has been an
increasing concern with corporate governance (Hermalin, 2005). Corporate gove
is therefore a current buzzword the world over. It has gained tremendous importa
recent years.Two of the main reasons for this upsurge in interest are the economic
liberalisation and deregulation ofindustry and business and the demand for new
corporate ethos (Joyner and Payne,2002) and stricter compliance with the law of the
land.One more factorthathas been responsible forthe sudden exposure ofthe
corporate sector to a new paradigm for corporate governance that is in tune with
changing timesis the demand forgreateraccountability ofcompaniesto their
shareholders and customers (Bushman and Smith,2001).
Sustainability
Just as there has been a vastincrease in interestin, and concern for,corporate
governance,so too has there been a similar growth in interest in sustainability.A
growing number of writers over the last quarter of a century have recognised tha
activities of an organisation impact upon the external environment and have sug
that such an organisation should therefore be accountable to a wider audience th
simply its shareholders.Such a suggestion probably first arose in the 1970s[1] and a
concern with a wider view of company performance is taken by some writers who
evince concern with the social performance of a business,as a member of society at
MD
46,3
434
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)

large. This concern was stated by Ackerman (1975) who argued that big business was
recognising the need to adapt to a new social climate of community accountability, but
that the orientationof businessto financial results was inhibiting social
responsiveness.McDonald and Puxty (1979)on the otherhand maintain that
companies are no longer the instruments of shareholders alone but exist within society
and so therefore have responsibilities to that society, and that there is therefore a shift
towards the greater accountability of companies to allparticipants.Implicit in this
concern with the effects of the actions of an organisation on its external environment is
the recognition that it is not just the owners of the organisation who have a concern
with the activities of that organisation.Additionally there are a wide variety of other
stakeholders who justifiably have a concern with those activities,and are affected by
those activities.Those other stakeholders have not just an interest in the activities of
the firm butalso a degree ofinfluence over the shaping ofthose activities.This
influence is so significant that it can be argued that the power and influence of these
stakeholders is such that it amounts to quasi-ownership of the organisation.Indeed
Gray et al.(1987) challenge the traditional role of accounting in reporting results and
consider that,rather than an ownership approach to accountability,a stakeholder
approach,recognising thewide stakeholdercommunity,is needed[2].Moreover
Rubenstein (1992) goes further and argues that there is a need for a new social contract
between a business and its stakeholders.
Central to this social contract is a concern for the future which has become manifest
through the term sustainability.This term sustainability has become ubiquitous both
within the discourseof globalisationand within the discourseof corporate
performance.Sustainability is ofcourse a controversialissue and there are many
definitions of what is meant by the term.At the broadest definitions sustainability is
concerned with the effectwhich action taken in the presenthas upon the options
available in the future (Crowther,2002).If resources are utilised in the present then
they are no longer available for use in the future, and this is of particular concern if the
resources are finite in quantity.Thus raw materials of an extractive nature,such as
coal, iron or oil, are finite in quantity and once used are not available for future use. At
some point in the future therefore alternatives willbe needed to fulfilthe functions
currently provided by these resources.This may be at some point in the relatively
distant future but of more immediate concern is the fact that as resources become
depleted then the costof acquiring the remaining resources tends to increase,and
hence the operational costs of organisations tend to increase[3].
Sustainability therefore implies that society must use no more of a resource than can
be regenerated. This can be defined in terms of the carrying capacity of the ecosystem
(Hawken,1993)and described with input-outputmodels ofresource consumption.
Thus the paper industry, for example, has a policy of replanting trees to replace those
harvested and thishas the effectof retaining costsin the presentratherthan
temporally externalising them.Similarly motorvehiclemanufacturerssuch as
Volkswagen have a policy of making their cars almost totally recyclable.Viewing an
organisation as part of a wider social and economic system (Hart,1997) implies that
these effects must be taken into account,not just for the measurement of costs and
value created in the present but also for the future of the business itself.
Such concerns are pertinent at a macro level of society as a whole, or at the level of
the nation state but are equally relevant at the micro level of the corporation, the aspect
Governance and
sustainability
435
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)

of sustainability with which we are concerned in this work.At this level,measures of
sustainability would considerthe rate atwhich resources are consumed by the
organisationin relationto the rate at which resourcescan be regenerated.
Unsustainable operations can be accommodated for either by developing sustain
operations or by planning for a future lacking in resources currently required.In
practiceorganisationsmostly tend to aim towardssustainability by increasing
efficiency in the way in which resources are utilised.An example would be an energy
efficiency programme.As far as corporatesustainability isconcerned then the
confusion is exacerbated by the fact that the term sustainable has been used in
management literature over the last 30 years (see for example Reed and DeFillip
1990) to merely imply continuity.Thus Zwetsloot (2003) is able to conflate corporate
social responsibility with the techniques of continuous improvement and innovat
imply that sustainability is thereby ensured.
Sustainability is a controversial topic because it means different things to diffe
people.Neverthelessthereis a growing awarenessof the need to discusswhat
sustainability means and, crucially, the extent (if at all) it can be delivered by MN
the easy mannerthey promise (United Nations Commission on Environmentand
Development (Schmidheiny, 1992).The starting point must be taken as the Brundtland
Report (WCED, 1987) because there is explicit agreement within that Report and
the definition of sustainability in there is pertinent and widely accepted.Equally,the
Brundtland Report is part of a policy landscape being discussed and developed b
United Nations, Nation States and big business through the vehicles of the WBCS
ICC (see for example,Beder,1997;Mayhew,1997;Gray and Bebbington,2001).
There is a further confusion surrounding the concept of sustainability: for the p
sustainability implies nothing more than stasis – the ability to continue in an unch
manner – but often it is taken to imply development in a sustainable manner (Ma
2000; Hart and Milstein, 2003) and the terms sustainability and sustainable deve
are for many viewed as synonymous. Ever since the Bruntland Report was produ
the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 there has been
continualdebate concerning development (Chambers,1994;Pretty,1995) and this has
added to the confusion between sustainability and sustainable development.For us we
take the definition as being concerned with stasis; at the corporate level if develo
possible without jeopardising that stasis then this is a bonus rather than a consti
part of that sustainability.
There seem therefore to be two commonly held assumptions which permeate
discourse of corporate sustainability.The first is that sustainability is synonymous
with sustainable development.The second is that a sustainable company willexist
merely by recognising environmental and social issues and incorporating them in
strategic planning.According to Marrewijk and Werre (2003)there is no specific
definition of corporate sustainability and each organisation needs to devise its ow
definition to suitits purpose and objectives,although they seem to assume that
corporate sustainability and corporate social responsibility are synonymous and b
upon voluntary activity which includes environmental and social concern,implicitly
thereby adopting the EU approach.Most analysis of sustainability (e.g.Dyllick and
Hockerts,2002;Spangenberg,2004)do notrecognise financialperformance as an
integral part of sustainability.One problem is the fact that the dominant assumption
by researchers is based upon the incompatibility of optimising, for a corporation,
MD
46,3
436
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)

financial performance and social/environmental performance. In other words financial
performance and social/environmental performance are seen as being in conflict with
each other through this dichotomisation (see Crowther, 2002). Consequently most work
in the area of corporate sustainability does not recognise the need for acknowledging
the importance of financialperformance as an essentialaspect of sustainability and
therefore fails to undertake financial analysis alongside – and integrated with – other
forms ofanalysis for this research[4].We argue thatthis is an essentialaspectof
corporate sustainability and therefore adds a further dimension to the analysis of
sustainability.Furthermore we argue that the third dimension sometimes recognised
as organisationalbehaviour need to actually comprise a much broader conceptof
corporate culture.There are therefore four aspects of sustainability which need to be
recognised and analysed,namely:
(1) societalinfluence,which we define as a measure ofthe impactthatsociety
makes upon the corporation in terms of the socialcontract and stakeholder
influence;
(2) environmentalimpact,which we define as the effectof the actions ofthe
corporation upon its geophysical environment;
(3) organisationalculture,which we defineas the relationship between the
corporation and itsinternalstakeholders,particularly employees,and all
aspects of that relationship;and
(4) finance,which we define in terms of an adequate return for the levelof risk
undertaken.
These four must be considered as the key dimensions of sustainability, all of which are
equally important.Our analysisis thereforeconsiderably broader– and more
complete – than that of others. Furthermore we consider that these four aspects can be
resolved into a two-dimensional matrix along the polarities of internal versus external
focus and shortterm versus long term focus,which together representa complete
representation of organisational performance. It is essential to recognise the realities of
the global environment (see Aras and Crowther,2007a,b) insofar as the company is
firmly embedded into a global environment which necessarily takes into account the
past and the future as well as the present.This effectively makes a stakeholder out of
everything and everybody both in the presentand in the future.Sustainability
therefore requires a distribution of effects – positive and negative – in a way which
eliminates conflict between all of these and pays attention to the future as well as the
present.Thus a short term approach is no longer acceptable for sustainability and
Figure 1 represents such an approach to sustainability and sustainable development.
The conflation of financial, social and environmental performance
One view of good corporate performance is that of stewardship and thus,just as the
management of an organisation,is concerned with the stewardship of the financial
resources ofthe organisation,so too would managementof the organisation be
concerned with the stewardship of environmental resources. The difference however is
that environmentalresourcesare mostly located externally to theorganisation.
Stewardship in this context therefore is concerned with the resources of society as well
as the resources of the organisation.As far as stewardship of external environmental
resources is concerned then the central tenet of such stewardship is that of ensuring
Governance and
sustainability
437
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)

sustainability.Sustainability is focused on the future and is concerned with ensuring
that the choices of resource utilisation in the future are not constrained by decisi
taken in the present. This necessarily implies such concepts as generating and u
renewable resources,minimising pollution and using new techniques of manufacture
and distribution. It also implies the acceptance of any costs involved in the prese
an investment for the future.
Not only does such sustainable activity however impact upon society in the fut
also impacts upon the organisation itselfin the future.Thus good environmental
performance by an organisation in the present is in reality an investment in the f
the organisation itself(Waddock and Graves,1997).This is achieved through the
ensuring of supplies and production techniques which will enable the organisatio
operate in the future in a similar way to its operations in the present and so to un
value creation activity in the future much as it does in the present. Financial man
also however is concerned with the management of the organisation’s resources
present so that management will be possible in a value creation way in the future
internalmanagementof the firm,from a financialperspective,and its external
environmental management coincide in this common concern for management f
future. Good performance in the financial dimension leads to good future perform
the environmental dimension and vice versa. Thus there is no dichotomy (Crowth
Figure 1.
Model of sustainable
development
MD
46,3
438
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)

between environmental performance and financial performance and the two concepts
conflate into one concern. This concern is of course the management of the future as far as
the firm is concerned[5]. The role of social and environmental accounting and reporting
and the role of financial accounting and reporting therefore can be seen to be coincidental.
Thus the work required needs be concerned notwith arguments aboutresource
distribution but rather with the development of measures which truly reflect the activities
of the organisation upon its environment.These techniques ofmeasurement,and
consequently of reporting, are a necessary precursor to the concern with the management
for the future – and hence with sustainability.
Similarly the creation of value within the firm is followed by the distribution of
value to the stakeholders of that firm,whether these stakeholders are shareholders or
others.Value however must be taken in its widest definition to include more than
economic value as it is possible that economic value can be created at the expense of
other constituent components of welfare such as spiritual or emotional welfare[6]. This
creation of value by the firm adds to welfare for society at large, although this welfare
is targeted at particular members of society rather than treating all as equals. This has
led to arguments by Tinker (1988),Herremans et al.(1992) and Gray (1992),amongst
others, concerning the distribution of value created and to whether value is created for
one set of stakeholders at the expense of others. Nevertheless if, when summed, value is
created then this adds to welfare for society at large,however distributed.Similarly
good environmentalperformance leads to increased welfare forsociety atlarge,
although this will tend to be expressed in emotional and community terms rather than
being capable of being expressed in quantitative terms.This willbe expressed in a
feeling of wellbeing, which will of course lead to increased motivation. Such increased
motivation will inevitably lead to increased productivity, some of which will benefit the
organisations,and also a desire to maintain the pleasant environment which willin
turn lead to a further enhanced environment,a further increase in welfare and the
reduction of destructive aspects of societal engagement by individuals.
Thus increased welfare leads to its own self-perpetuation. In the context of welfare
also,therefore financialperformance and environmentalperformance conflate into a
general concern with an increase in welfare.
Corporate governance
One of the main issues which has been exercising the minds of business managers,
accountants and auditors,investment manages and government officials – again all
over the world – is that of corporate governance. Often a company’s main target is to
become global– while at the same time remaining sustainable – as a means to gain
competitive power.But the most important question is concerned with what will be a
firm’s route to becoming globaland whatwill be necessary in order to getglobal
competitive power.There is more than one answer to this question and there are a
variety of routes for a company to achieve this.
Probably since the mid-1980s,corporate governance has attracted a great dealof
attention. The early impetus was provided by Anglo-American codes of good corporate
governance[7]. Stimulated by institutional investors, other countries in the developed as
well as in emerging markets, established or adapted a version of these codes for their own
companies. Supra-national authorities like the OECD and the World Bank did not remain
passive and developed their own set of standard principles and recommendations. This
Governance and
sustainability
439
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)

type of self-regulation was chosen above a set of legal standards (Van den Bergh
After the recent big corporate scandals, corporate governance has become centr
companies.It is understandable that investors’protection has become a much more
important issue for all financial markets after the tremendous, high profile firm fa
and scandals.Investors are demanding that companies implement rigorous corpora
governance principles in order to achieve better returns on their investment and
agency costs. Most of the times investors are ready to pay more for companies to
good governance standards (Beineret al.,2004).Similarly a company’s corporate
governance report is one of the main tools for investor’ decisions. Because of the
companies cannot ignore the pressure for good governance from shareholders, p
investors and other markets actors.
At the same time banking credit risk measurement regulations are requiring n
rules for a company’s creditevaluations.New internationalbank capitaladequacy
assessment methods (Basel II) necessitate that credit evaluation rules are elabor
concerned with operationalrisk which covers,inter alia, corporategovernance
principles.In this respectcorporate governance willbe one ofthe mostimportant
indicators for measuring risk. Another issue is related to firm credibility and risk.
firm needs a high rating score then itwill have to be pay attention for corporate
governance rules also.Credit rating agencies analyse corporate governance practices
along with other corporate indicators.Even though corporate governance principles
have always been important for getting good rating scores for large and publicly-
companies,they are also becoming much more importantfor investors,potential
investors,creditorsand governments.Becauseof all of thesefactors,corporate
governance receives high priority on the agenda of policymakers, financial institu
investors,companies and academics.This is one of the main indicators that the link
between corporate governance and actual performance is still open for discussioIn
the literature a number ofstudies have soughtto investigate the relation between
corporate governance mechanisms and performance (e.g. Agrawal and Knoeber,
Dalton et al.,1998;Bhagat and Black,1999;Coles et al.,2001;Gompers et al.,2001;
Patterson,2002;Heracleous,2001;Demsetz and Villalonga,2002;Bhagat and Jefferis,
2002; Becht et al., 2002; Millstein and MacAvoy, 1998) Most of the studies have s
mixed results without a clear-cut relationship.Based on these results,it seems that
corporate governance matters significantly to a company’s performance, market
and credibility,and therefore that every company has to apply corporate governanc
principles. But the most important point is that corporate governance is the only
for companies to achieve corporate goals and strategies.Therefore companies have to
improve theirstrategy and effective route to the implementation ofgovernance
principles.So companies have to investigate what their corporate governance polic
and practice needs to be.
Corporate governance principles
Since corporate governance can be highly influential for firm performance, firms
know what are the corporate governance principles and how it will improve strat
apply theseprinciples.In practicethereare four principlesof good corporate
governance,which are:
(1) transparency;
(2) accountability;
MD
46,3
440
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)

(3) responsibility;and
(4) fairness.
All theseprinciplesare related with thefirm’s corporatesocialresponsibility.
Corporate governance principles therefore are important for a firm but the real issue is
concerned with what corporate governance actually is.
Management can be interpreted as managing a firm for the purpose of creating and
maintaining value for shareholders. Corporate governance procedures determine every
aspect of the role for management of the firm and try to keep in balance and to develop
control mechanisms in order to increase both shareholder value and the satisfaction of
other stakeholders. In other words,corporate governance is concerned with creating a
balance between the economic and social goals of a company including such aspects as
the efficient use of resources, accountability in the use of its power, and the behaviour
of the corporation in its social environment (Sethi,2002).
The definition and measurement of good corporate governance is stillsubject to
debate.However,good corporate governance willaddress such points as creating
sustainable value, achieving the firm’s goals and keeping a balance between economic
and social benefit. Also of course good governance offers some long term benefits for a
firm, such as reducing risk and attracting new investors, shareholders and more equity.
Good governance and sustainability
There has been a variety of research over time investigating the relationship between
the characteristics of a firm and its disclosure (e.g. Cowen et al., 1987; Gray et al., 2001)
and equally there is research (e.g.Burke and Longsdon,1996) showing the benefits of
CSR. It is clear that these benefits are also directly related to the sustainability of a firm
and that firm’s success.It would seem apparent therefore that there should be some
attention paid to sustainability within the corporate governance of a corporation.It
therefore becomes imperative to conductan investigation as to whatexactly is
mentioned about sustainability within such corporate governance. It is to be expected
thatgood corporate governance willfoster sustainability in generaland willdeal
specifically with allfour elementsof sustainability outlined earlier.It therefore
becomes possible to state the following hypotheses:
H1. Good corporate governance will address the issue of sustainability.
H2. Good corporate governance willaddress the societalinfluence aspectof
sustainability.
H3. Good corporate governance will address the environmental impact aspect of
sustainability.
H4. Good corporate governance will address the organisational culture aspect of
sustainability.
H5. Good corporate governance will address the finance aspect of sustainability.
There has been much work undertaken which investigates the failures of corporate
governance and the ensuing problems which arise and this could be adapted to a
consideration of our concern with the relationship between corporate governance and
sustainability.We argue howeverthat this approach – akin to Popper’s (1959)
Governance and
sustainability
441
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)

falsification theory – is not an appropriate methodology for this research,rather our
starting assumption is that effective corporate governance willbe largely unnoticed
and the relationship assumed in our hypotheses will be manifest in examples of g
practice rather than in the exceptionalinstances of poor practice.Our investigation
therefore is based on exploring corporate governance in all the FTSE100 compan
which are generally accepted to be examples ofgood practice in this respect.Our
sample therefore consists ofthe 100 largestfirms quoted on the London Stock
Exchange[8]– so, whatever their country ofdomicile,they allcomply with The
Combined Code on Corporate Governance,which came into effectin 2003[9].these
firms obviously come from a variety of industrial sectors but in this analysis it is s
rather than sector which has led to our choice of companies.
The further assumption we make in conducting this research is that the report
corporate activity through the corporate web site is more complete that that con
in the statutory reporting.In other words,everything which can be found in the
statutory reporting can also be found on the corporate web site, along with much
information.Our methodology therefore is based on investigating the information
about the various aspects of corporate governance with which we are concerned
evaluation of these corporate web sites. And our analysis is primarily qualitative
some simple descriptive statistics.
Relating sustainability with governance: the evidence
Although there is a clear link between good corporate governance and all aspect
firm’s performance, and organisation, we have not dwelt upon any particular asp
governance.Instead we have accepted the firms’own definitions of the concept and
have focused our attention on what they say about governance and its relationsh
sustainability. Our research shows that this relationship is not at all clearly under
by many firms.For example, BP provide a good illustration of the confusion betwee
sustainability and continued existence,stating in their 2006 report (BP,2007):
That is why we care aboutthe sustainability ofour activities and why,throughoutthe
company,we work to ensure that the things we do and the way we do them are genuine
sustainable.
While later in the same report (on the same page even) is stated:
BP has now sustained itself as a company for almost 100 years through periods of dram
economic,social,political,technological and commercial change.
Of the firms in the FTSE100 itis clearthata majority do notunderstand this
relationship – or do notthink thatit is important.Thus 30 per centof the firms
consider that their governance is adequate because they comply with The Comb
Code on Corporate Governance.Of course allfirms reporting on the London Stock
Exchange are required to comply with this code, and so these firms are doing no
than meeting their regulatory obligations, as the other 70 per cent also do in com
with the code.A further 24 per cent regard corporate governance as simply a part o
investor relationships and do nothing more regarding such governance exceptto
identify that it is important investors/potential investors and to flag up that they
such governance policies. In effect therefore 54 per cent of these firms merely co
governance in terms of issues mentioned within the Combined Code.
MD
46,3
442
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)

This therefore leaves only 46 per cent who recognise that there is a relationship
between governance and other aspects of corporate activity. Thus 27 per cent of firms
recognisethat thereis a clear link between governanceand corporatesocial
responsibility[10] and make efforts to link the two. Often this is no more than making a
claim that good governance is a part of their CSR policy as wellas a part of their
relationship with shareholders. And of course there are a lot of vague comments about
firms doing their best[11]to behave sustainably,without any precise indications of
what is meant by such a claim. Some firms do however go further then this and make
clear links to specific action.Thus 5 per cent recognise the relationship to financial
sustainability through an understanding of the relationship between governance and
risk. Similarly 2 per cent relate governance to community relations; 4 per cent to ethical
behaviour towards employees; 3 per cent to environmental policy and behaviour; and 1
per cent to their commitmentto sustainablegrowth.Despitetheseseemingly
dispiritingly small numbers though it is encouraging that 7 per cent of firms recognise
the relationship to all the aspects of sustainability which we have identified and clearly
spell out this relationship in their corporate activity.
An example of the most comprehensive statements is from BAT[12] which states:
We are committed to the principles of sustainable development – development that meets the
needs of the present,without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs.
Sustainable development came to the fore in the 1980s,when the United Nations examined
some of the world’s largest problems,including poverty,overpopulation,famine,drought,
deforestation and climate change.It gained important impetus when the 1992 Earth Summit
in Rio de Janeiro approved the Agenda 21 framework,which emphasised improving and
sustaining quality of life, especially for the world’s poor, without destroying the environment.
Similarly Shell[13] state:
The companies of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group have an integrated vision of sustainability
built on three pillars: economicprogress,social developmentand environmental
improvement.The Shellcommitmentto sustainable developmentis being incorporated
into strategic planning and the daily conduct of the business.
This can all be summarised in Table I.
Type of relationship recognised/action
undertaken/commitment made
Firms recognising the relationship
(%)
Comply with code only 30
Related to investor relations only 24
Related to CSR policy 27
Community relations 2
Ethics 4
Environmental policy 3
Sustainable growth 1
Risk 5
Full connection to sustainability 7 Table I.
Governance and
sustainability
443
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)

It is tempting to try to undertakesomeanalysisof sectoraldifferencesin the
approaches taken concerning governance practice,and from the evidence in the
research there certainly are some differences. But we need to be realistic and sta
as we have only looked atthe FTSE 100,our sample is too small(and probably
unrepresentative) to undertake some reliable analysis of this nature. We therefor
up this as further analysis to be undertaken in our project.So we simply turn to a
consideration of what conclusions we can draw from this research.
Conclusions
With respect to the hypotheses proposed then the sortof research which we have
undertaken has been qualitative and therefore has not been sufficient to either p
disprove these hypotheses. So it is not possible to say that good corporate gover
will address these issues. What it is possible to state though is that a firm which h
more complete understanding of both sustainability and of corporate governance
address these issues more completely.By implication a more complete understanding
of the inter-relationships will lead to better corporate governance, thereby implyi
validity of these hypotheses.
The other tentative conclusion from this research is concerned with the extent
disclosure manifest through the reporting of such things as corporate governanc
sustainability,and is more in the nature of a prognosis.Crowther (2000)traces an
archaeology ofcorporate reporting which shows that,overtime,the amountof
information provided – first to shareholders,then to potential investors (Gilmore and
Willmott,1992),then to other stakeholders – has gradually increased throughout the
last century,as firms recognised thebenefitin providing increased disclosure.
Similarly the amount of disclosure regarding CSR activity has been increasing rap
over the last decade,as firms have recognised the commercialbenefits of increased
transparency. Therefore it is reasonable to argue – as we are doing – that the am
of information regarding the relationship between governance and sustainability
also increase,not just as firms gain a clearer understanding of that relationship but
also as they understand the benefits of greater disclosure in this respect.Thus we
conclude that the validity of our hypotheses will become more apparent over tim
Notes
1. Although philosophers such as Robert Owen were expounding those views more than
century earlier.
2. The benefits of incorporating stakeholders into a model of performance measurement
accountability have however been extensively criticised.See for example Freedman and
Reed (1983),Sternberg (1997,1998) and Hutton (1997) for details of this ongoing discourse.
3. Similarly once an animal or plant species becomes extinct then the benefits of that sp
the environment can no longer be accrued. In view of the fact that many pharmaceuti
currently being developed from plant species still being discovered this may be signifi
for the future.
4. Of course the fact that many researchers do not have the skills to undertake such det
financial analysis,even if they considered it to be important,might be a significant reason
for this.
5. Financial reporting is of course premised upon the continuing of the company – the go
concern principle.
MD
46,3
444
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)

6. See for example Mishan (1967),Ormerod (1994)and Crowther etal. (1998).This can be
equated to the concept of utility from the discourse of classical liberalism.
7. An example is the Cadbury Report.
8. Data were collected from the company web sites during 2007 and therefore based upon what
was stated in the latest annual report,produced in 2006 or 2007.
9. The Codewas based upon thepreviousCadbury and Greenbury Reportsand was
subsequently revised during 2006.it deals with such issues as Board composition and
remuneration,relationship with shareholdersand investors,composition ofthe Audit
Committee etc..we have therefore notconsidered these aspects ofgovernance in our
analysis.
10.The terms used include corporate social responsibility and corporate responsibility.
11.Often thephraseused includessomething like“within reason”or “in the light of
circumstance” as a way of obviating any real commitment to any particular sort of action.
12.Availableat: www.bat.com/oneweb/sites/uk__3mnfen.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/53D459A7C
9548DC480256BF4000331DD?opendocument&DTC ¼ &SID ¼ (accessed 21 August 2007).
13.Available at: www.shell.com/home/content/mediaen/news_and_library/speeches/1998/
shellandsustain_10171340.html (accessed 21 August 2007).
References
Ackerman, R.W. (1975), The Social Challenge to Business, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Agrawal,A. and Knoeber,C.R.(1996),“Firm performance and mechanisms to controlagency
problems between managers and shareholders”,Journalof Financialand Quantitative
Analysis,Vol.31 No.3,pp.377-98.
Aras, G. and Crowther, D. (2007a), “Is the global economy sustainable?”,in Barber, S. (Ed.), The
Geopolitics of the City,Forum Press,London,pp.165-94.
Aras,G. and Crowther,D. (2007b),“Sustainable corporate socialresponsibility and the value
chain”,in Crowther,D. and Zain,M.M. (Eds),New Perspectives on Corporate Social
Responsibility,MARA University Press,Shah Alam,pp.119-40.
Becht,M.,Bolton,P. and Roell,A. (2002),“Corporate governance and control”,working paper,
ECGI,Brussels.
Beder, S. (1997), Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism, Green Books, London.
Beiner,S.,Drobetz,W.,Schmid,M.M.and Zimmerman,H. (2004),“An integrated framework of
corporate governance and firm valuation – evidence from Switzerland”, working paper No.
34/2004,European Corporate Governance Institute,Brussels.
Bhagat, S. and Black, B. (1999), “The uncertain relationship between board composition and firm
performance”,The Business Lawyer,Vol.54 No.3,pp.921-63.
Bhagat, S. and Jefferis, R.H. (2002), The Econometrics of Corporate Governance Studies, The MIT
Press,Cambridge,MA.
Boele,R., Fabig,H. and Wheeler,D. (2001),“Shell,Nigeria and theOgoni.A study in
unsustainabledevelopment:II. Corporatesocial responsibilityand ‘stakeholder
management’versus a rights-based approach to sustainable development”,Sustainable
Development,Vol.9 No.3,pp.121-35.
Burke, L. and Longsdon, J.M. (1996), “How corporate social responsibility pays off”, Long Range
Planning,Vol.29 No.4,pp.495-502.
Governance and
sustainability
445
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)

Bushman,R.M. and Smith,A.J. (2001),“Financialaccounting information and corporate
governance”,Journalof Accounting and Economics,Vol.32,pp.237-333.
BP (2007),BP AnnualReview 2007,available at:www.bp.com
Chambers,R. (1994),“The originsand practiceof participatory ruralappraisal”,World
Development,Vol.22 No.7,pp.953-69.
Coles,J.W., McWilliams,V.B. and Sen,N. (2001),“An examination ofthe relationship of
governance mechanisms to performance”,Journalof Management,Vol.7,pp.23-50.
Cowen,S.S.,Ferreri,L.B.and Parker,L.D.(1987),“The impact of corporate characteristics on
socialresponsibility disclosure:a typology and frequency-based analysis”,Accounting,
Organizations and Society,Vol.12 No.2,pp.111-22.
Cox,P., Brammer,S. and Millington,A. (2004),“An empiricalexamination ofinstitutional
investor preferences for corporate social performance”, Journal of Business Ethics, V
pp.27-43.
Crowther,D. (2000),“Corporate reporting,stakeholders and the internet:mapping the new
corporate landscape”,Urban Studies,Vol.37 No.10,pp.1837-48.
Crowther,D.(2002),A SocialCritique of Corporate Reporting,Ashgate,Aldershot.
Crowther, D., Davies, M. and Cooper, S. (1998), “Evaluating corporate performance: a cri
economic value added”,Journalof Applied Accounting Research,Vol.4 No.3,pp.2-34.
Dalton,D.R.,Daily,C.M.,Ellstrand,A.E. and Johnson,J.L. (1998),“Meta-analytic reviews of
board composition,leadershipstructure,and financial performance”,Strategic
Management Journal,Vol.19 No.3,pp.269-90.
Demsetz, H. and Villalonga, B. (2002), “Ownership structure and corporate performance”
of Corporate Finance,Vol.7,pp.209-33.
Durnev, A. and Kim, E.H. (2005), “To steal or not to steal: firm attributes, legal environme
valuation”,Journalof Finance,Vol.60 No.3,pp.1461-93.
Dyllick,T. and Hockerts,K. (2002),“Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability”,
Business Strategy & the Environment,Vol.11,pp.130-41.
Freedman,R.E.and Reed,D.L.(1983),“Stockholders and stakeholders:a new perspective on
corporate governance”,California Management Review,Vol.25 No.3,pp.88-106.
Gilmore,C.G.and Willmott,H. (1992),“Company law and financialreporting:a sociological
history of the UK experience”,in Bromwich,M. and Hopwood,A. (Eds),Accounting and
the Law,Prentice-Hall,Hemel Hempstead,pp.159-91.
Gompers,P.A., Ishii,J.L. and Metrick,A. (2001),“Corporate governance and equity prices”,
working paper 8449,National Bureau of Economic Research,Cambridge,MA.
Gray,R. (1992),“Accounting and environmentalism:an exploration of the challenge of gently
accountingfor accountability,transparencyand sustainability”,Accounting,
Organizations & Society,Vol.17 No.5,pp.399-425.
Gray,R., Owen,D. and Maunders,K. (1987),Corporate SocialReporting:Accounting and
Accountability,Prentice-Hall,London.
Gray, R., Javad, M., Power, D.M. and Sinclair, C.D. (2001), “Social and environmental disc
and corporate characteristics: a research note and extension”, Journal of Business, F
and Accounting,Vol.28 Nos 3/4,pp.327-56.
Gray,R.H.and Bebbington,K.J. (2001),Accounting for the Environment,Sage,London.
Hart,S.L. (1997),“Beyond greening:strategies fora sustainable world”,Harvard Business
Review,Vol.75 No.1,pp.67-76.
MD
46,3
446
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)

Hart,S.L.and Milstein,M.B. (2003),“Creating sustainable value”,Academy ofManagement
Executive,Vol.17 No.2,pp.56-67.
Hawken,P. (1993),The Ecology of Commerce,Weidenfeld & Nicholson,London.
Heracleous,L. (2001),“What is the impactof corporategovernanceon organizational
performance?”,Corporate Governance: An InternationalReview,Vol.9 No.3,pp.165-73.
Hermalin,B.E. (2005),“Trends in corporate governance”,Journalof Finance,Vol. 60 No.5,
pp.2351-84.
Herremans,I.M.,Akathaparn,P. and McInnes,M. (1992),“An investigation of corporate social
responsibility,reputation and economicperformance”,Accounting,Organizations&
Society,,Vol.18 Nos 7/8,pp.587-604.
Hutton,W. (1997),Stakeholding and its Critics,IEA Health and Welfare Unit,London.
Johnson, R.A. and Greening, D.W. (1999), “The effects of corporate governance and institutional
ownership types on corporate socialperformance”,Academy ofManagementJournal,
Vol.42 No.5,pp.564-76.
Joyner,B.E.and Payne,D. (2002),“Evolution and implementation:a study of values,business
ethics and corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 41, pp. 297-311.
Knox,S. and Maklan,S. (2004),“Corporate socialresponsibility:moving beyond investment
towards measuring outcomes”,European Management Journal,Vol.22 No.5,pp.508-16.
McDonald,D. and Puxty,A.G. (1979),“An inducement-contribution approach to corporate
financial reporting”,Accounting, Organizations & Society,Vol.4 Nos 1/2,pp.53-65.
Marsden,C. (2000),“The new corporate citizenship ofbig business:partof the solution to
sustainability”,Business & Society Review,Vol.105 No.1,pp.9-25.
Mayhew, N. (1997), “Fading to grey: the use and abuse of corporate executives’ ‘representational
power’”,in Welford,R. (Ed.),HijackingEnvironmentalism:CorporateResponseto
Sustainable Development,Earthscan,London,pp.63-95.
Michael,B. and Gross,R. (2004),“Running business like a government in the new economy:
lessons for organizational design and corporate governance”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 4
No.3,pp.32-46.
Millstein, I.M. and MacAvoy, P.W. (1998), “The active board of directors and performance of the
large publicly traded corporation”,Columbia Law Review,Vol.98 No.5,pp.1283-322.
Mishan,E.J.(1967),The Costs of Economic Growth,Pelican,Harmondsworth.
Ormerod,P. (1994),The Death of Economics,Faber and Faber,London.
Patterson,J. (2002),“The Patterson Report:corporate governance and corporate performance
research”,available at:www.thecorporatelibrary.com/study/patterson.asp
Popper,K.R.(1959),The Logic of Scientific Discovery,Hutchinson,London.
Pretty,J.N. (1995),“Participatory learning forsustainable agriculture”,World Development,
Vol.23 No.8,pp.1247-63.
Reed,R. and DeFillippi,R.J.(1990),“Causalambiguity,barriers to imitation,and sustainable
competitive advantage”,Academy of Management Review,Vol.15 No.1,pp.88-102.
Romano,R. (2004),“The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the making of quack corporate governance”,
working paper no.52/2004,European Corporate Governance Institute,Brussels.
Rubenstein, D.B. (1992), “Bridging the gap between green accounting and black ink”, Accounting
Organizations & Society,Vol.17 No.5,pp.501-8.
Schmidheiny,S.(1992),Changing Course,MIT Press,New York,NY.
Governance and
sustainability
447
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)

Sethi,S.P.(2002),“Standards for corporate conduct in the internationalarena:challenges and
opportunities for multinational corporations”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 107
pp.20-40.
Shleifer,A. and Vishny,R.W.(1997),“A survey of corporate governance”,Journalof Finance,
Vol.52 No.2,pp.737-83.
Spangenberg,J.H. (2004),“Reconciling sustainability and growth:criteria,indicators,policy”,
Sustainable Development,Vol.12,pp.76-84.
Sternberg,E. (1997),“The defectsof stakeholdertheory”,CorporateGovernance:An
InternationalReview,Vol.6 No.3,pp.151-63.
Sternberg,E. (1998),Corporate Governance: Accountability in the Marketplace,IEA, London.
Tinker,T. (1988),“Panglossian accounting theories:the scienceof apologising in style”,
Accounting, Organizations & Society,Vol.13 No.2,pp.165-89.
Van den Berghe,L. (2001),“Beyond corporate governance”,European Business Forum,Vol.5,
Spring.
van Marrewijk, M. and Werre, M. (2003), “Multiple levels of corporate sustainability”, Jour
Business Ethics,Vol.44 Nos 2/3,pp.107-19.
Waddock, S.A. and Graves, S.B. (1997), “The corporate social performance-financial perfo
link”,Strategic Management Journal,Vol.18 No.4,pp.303-19.
WCED (World Commission on Environmentand Development)(1987),Our Common Future
(The Brundtland Report),Oxford University Press,Oxford.
Zwetsloot,G.I.J.M.(2003),“From managementsystems to corporatesocialresponsibility”,
Journalof Business Ethics,Vol.44 Nos 2/3,pp.201-7.
About the authors
Gu¨ler Aras is Professor of Finance and Director of the Graduate School at the Yildiz Techni
University (Istanbul/Turkey). She is the author of six books and has contributed over 100
to academic,business and professional journals and magazines and to edited book collectio
She has also spoken extensively at conferences and seminars and has acted as a consult
wide range of government and commercial organisations. Her research is into financial e
and financialmarkets,with particular emphasis on the relationship between corporate social
responsibility and a firm’s financial performance.
David Crowther is Professor of Corporate Social Responsibility, De Montfort University,
He is the author or editor of20 books and has also contributed severalhundred articles to
academic, business and professional journals and to edited book collections. He has also
widely at conferences and seminars and acted as a consultant to a wide range of governm
professional and commercial organisations.His research is into corporate social responsibility
with a particular emphasis on the relationship between social,environmentaland financial
performance. David Crowther is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: dcrow
dmu.ac.uk
Their joint research is into factors affecting corporate sustainability.
MD
46,3
448
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:[e-mail]
Or visit our web site for further details:www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)

This article has been cited by:
1. Arzu Özsözgün ÇalişkanHow UN Global Compact Can Contribute Corporate Accountab
Sustainability? 17-36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. RussellArthur Smith, Jackie Lei Tin Ong. 2014.CorporateSocial Responsibilityand the
Operationalization Challenge for Global Tourism Organizations. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
1-13. [CrossRef]
3. Tamoi Janggu, Faizah Darus, Mustaffa Mohamed Zain, Yussri Sawani. 2014. Does Goo
Governance Lead to Better Sustainability Reporting? An Analysis Using Structural Equation M
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 145, 138-145. [CrossRef]
4. Shahla Seifi and, David CrowtherBusiness Ethics in Society 253-267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [P
5. Radiah Othman and, Rashid AmeerFinance and Sustainability – Resources, Capabilities, and
19-45. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
6. Suzanne Young, Vijaya Thyil. 2014. Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governan
Context in International Settings. Journal of Business Ethics 122, 1-24. [CrossRef]
7. Alice Klettner, Thomas Clarke, Martijn Boersma. 2014. The Governance of Corporate Sustain
Empirical Insights into the Development, Leadership and Implementation of Responsib
Strategy. Journal of Business Ethics 122, 145-165. [CrossRef]
8. Sarah Lauwo, Olatunde Julius Otusanya. 2014. Corporate accountability and human rights d
case study of Barrick Gold Mine in Tanzania. Accounting Forum 38, 91-108. [CrossRef]
9. Arzu Özsözgün Çalişkan. 2014. How accounting and accountants may contribute in sustaina
Responsibility Journal 10:2, 246-267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Gregorio Sanchez-Marin, J. Samuel Baixauli-Soler. 2014. CEO reputation and top manageme
compensation. Management Decision 52:3, 540-558. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Felipe Calderon, Li Choy Chong. 2014. Dilemma of sustainable lending. Journal of Sustainab
& Investment 4, 192-209. [CrossRef]
12. Alex John Hope, Robert Moehler. 2014. Balancing Projects with Society and the Environmen
Programme and Portfolio Approach. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 119, 358-367
13. Paul Shrivastava, Amr Addas. 2014. The impact of corporate governance on sustainability p
Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment 4, 21-37. [CrossRef]
14. Alseddig Almadani. 2014. Globalization and Corporate Governance. International Journal of
Management and Technology . [CrossRef]
15. Luisa D. Huaccho Huatuco, Jairo Rafael Montoya-Torres, Nicky Shaw and Anisoara Calinescu
Okongwu, Risako Morimoto, Matthieu Lauras. 2013. The maturity of supply chain sust
disclosure from a continuous improvement perspective. International Journal of Produc
Performance Management 62:8, 827-855. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Gilbert Lenssen, Mollie Painter, Aileen Ionescu-Somers and Simon Pickard, Rick Edgem
Sustainable Enterprise Excellence: towards a framework for holistic data-analytics. Corporat
The international journal of business in society 13:5, 527-540. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Wendy Stubbs, Paul Rogers. 2013. Lifting the veil on environment-social-governance rating
Social Responsibility Journal 9:4, 622-640. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)

18. Sooksan Kantabutra, Molraudee Saratun. 2013. Sustainable leadership: honeybee practices
oldest university. International Journal of Educational Management 27:4, 356-376. [Abstract
[PDF]
19. Sooksan Kantabutra, Gayle Avery. 2013. Sustainable leadership: honeybee practices at a le
industrial conglomerate. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration 5:1, 36-56. [Abstract
[PDF]
20. Güler Aras, David CrowtherSustainable Practice: The Real Triple Bottom Line 1-18. [Abstrac
Text] [PDF] [PDF]
21. Sooksan Kantabutra. 2012. Sweet success beyond the triple bottom line: Honeybee
sustainable leadership at Thailand's True Corp. Global Business and Organizational Excellenc
joe.v32.1, 22-39. [CrossRef]
22. Tamar Barkay. 2012. Employee volunteering: soul, body and CSR. Social Responsibility Jour
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Linne Marie LauesenChapter 8 Sustainability Strategies in Public Service 177-201. [Abstrac
[PDF] [PDF]
24. Güler Aras, David CrowtherChapter 1 Accounting, Sustainability and Equity 1-21. [Abstract]
[PDF] [PDF]
25. Christine Pasquire, Glenn Ballard, Jose Salvatierra‐Garrido, Christine Pasquire. 2011. Value t
lean construction. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction 16:1, 8-18.
[Full Text] [PDF]
26. Brian L. Connelly, David J. Ketchen, Stanley F. Slater. 2011. Toward a “theoretical to
sustainability research in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39, 86-10
27. David CrowtherChapter 5 The Utilitarian Fallacy 71-91. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
28. Güler Aras, David CrowtherChapter 1 Governance and the Management of Global Ma
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
29. Güler Aras, Aslı Aybars, Ozlem Kutlu. 2010. Managing corporate performance. International
Productivity and Performance Management 59:3, 229-254. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Tina Lee Odinsky-ZecChapter 9 Sustainability and the modern zoo 191-208. [Abstract] [Full
[PDF] [PDF]
31. Güler Aras, David Crowther. 2009. Making sustainable development sustainable. Managem
47:6, 975-988. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. Aylin Poroy Arsoy, David Crowther. 2008. Corporate governance in Turkey: reform and conv
Social Responsibility Journal 4:3, 407-421. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by SELCUK UNIVERSITY At 16:06 08 February 2015 (PT)