Table 3. Multiple levels of corporate sustainability

Level	Orient-ation	Definition	Motivation behind sustainability	Criteria for decision making
Red	Pre-CS*	At this level there is basically no ambition for CS. However, some steps labeled as CS might be initiated if forced from outside (e.g., through legislation or a buyers‘ strike).	The awareness that CS could increase personal power (e.g., through reputation improvement).	The impact of the decision on personal power.
Blue	Compliance-driven CS	CS at this level consists of providing welfare to society, within the limits of regulations from the rightful authorities. Firms might respond to charity and stewardship onsiderations.	A sense of moral duty (e.g., regarding charity or stewardship): CS is perceived as a duty or correct behaviour.	The decision should be taken by the correct authority according to the proper procedures and in line with the basic purpose.
Orange	Profit-driven CS	CS at this level consists of the integration of social, ethical and ecological aspects into business operations and decision making, provided it contributes to the financial bottom line.	CS is promoted when it is thought to contribute to personal success and the financial bottom line.	Financial criterium: Shortest “pay out Period”, highest expected profit, return on investment or shareholder value.
Green	Caring CS	CS consists of balancing economic, social and ecological concerns, which are all important in themselves. CS initiatives go beyond legal compliance and beyond profit considerations.	Personal values and beliefs of top-manage-ment and all participants that social and environmental care are important.	People, planet, and maybe profit. Taken after consensus or at least with consent of all relevant stakeholders.
Yellow	Sinergistic CS	Search well-balanced and functional solutions to create economic, social and environmental value from synergies with all relevant stakeholders.	Sustainability is important per se as it is the inevitable direction of progress	Balanced, functional decision, taking into account all available expertise and considerations with long term view perspective.
Turquoise	Holistic CS	CS is fully integrated and embedded in every aspect of the organization, aimed at contributing to the quality and continuation of life of every being and entity, now and in the future.	Conviction that sustainability on a worldwide scale is the only alternative, since all beings and phenomena are mutually interdependent. Each person or organization has a universal responsibility towards all other beings.	In line with and in favour of holistic interests for survival of life on the planet.

 

Source: van Marrewijk and Werre (2003).

* CS= Corporate sustainability.

As an alternative to the classification suggested by Turner et al. (1994), we find the one developed by Dobson (1996), who conducted an analysis of the bibliography related to environmental sustainability and sustainable development, reaching a typology with regard to the issues outlined explicitly and implicitly therein. Table 1 shows the different conceptions of SD according to this author. Table 2 displays four conceptions of SD characterised by different outlooks to the four basic questions to which a sustainability theory must respond: What must be sustained? Why? What are the objects of interest? and What is the degree of substitutability between human and natural capital? Many points of controversy have arisen in the detailed study on the SD concept (Hunter, 1997). They have been interwoven in a widespread debate on how to obtain equity in accessing natural resources while creating human wellbeing, and in the distribution of costs and social, economic and environmental benefits, which are derived from the use of resources (Fox, 1994).

Equity aims to satisfy current basic human needs - intra-generational equity - and future ones - inter-generational equity -, which involves preventing development that maintains, creates or extends spatial or time differences in human wellbeing (Hunter, 1997). The main elements considered in the interpretation of SD are set out below: the role of economic growth in promoting human wellbeing, the impact and importance of human population growth, the effective existence of environmental limits on growth, the substitutability of natural resources (capital) and capital created by man through economic growth and technological innovation, the different interpretation of criticality of several components of base natural resources and, consequently, their power of substitution, the capacity of technologies, including management methods, such as environmental impact assessments and environmental audits, to uncouple economic growth from its undesired secondary effects, the meaning of the value attributed to the natural world and the rights of non-human species and, lastly, the degree to which a perspective of the system (ecosystem) should be adopted and the importance of maintaining the functional integrity of ecosystems.

An attempt to concretely relate Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and SD was undertaken by van Marrewijk (2003). He based it on the proposal by Panapanaan et al. (2003) to break down the aspects of sustainability into responsibility issues that directly concern companies, thus developing a corporate sustainability (CS) model, in which he differentiated five levels of ambition. His model established that there are no characteristics of CS or CSR, but instead that each level has its own characteristics stemming from their intrinsic motivation (to this author, the terms CSR and CS are practically synonymous, although he sees a subtle distinction, which is their association with the principles of agency and communion, respectively). According to the authors, no generic model therefore exists for implementing corporate sustainability. Each of them must select their own ambition and focus on their own sustainability issues, aligning them with their targets and corporate strategy, as a type of response to the circumstances in which each company operates (van Marrewijk and Werre, 2003).

The levels of van Marrewijk‘s model (2003), its characteristics and criteria for decision

taking are depicted in Table 3:

Sustainability Dimensions

 

As we already set out, the conception of SD has evolved beyond natural capital, taking other aspects of human development into account. The concept has included economic, social and environmental considerations of sustainability, the idea of all society‘s sectors participating in taking decisions and differentiating the responsibilities of poor and rich countries (Meadowcroft, 2000). Three issues tend to be distinguished in SD (Linnanen and Panapanaan, 2002; Wempe and Kaptein, 2002; Ayuso and Fullana, 2002; van Marrewijk, 2003; van Marrewijk and Werre, 2003; Panwar et al., 2006):

· Environmental sustainability, which must ensure that development is compatible with the maintenance of essential ecological processes, biological diversity and natural resources

· Social and cultural sustainability, which must ensure that sustainable development increases the individuals‘ control over their lives, is compatible with people‘s values and culture and maintains and strengthens communities‘ identities

· Economic sustainability, which must ensure that development is economically efficient, benefits all agents in the affected region and the resources are managed so that they are conserved for future generations

 

The factors involved in CSR can be identified from the conceptual model provided by the SD model (Linnanen and Panapanaan, 2002; Wempe and Kaptein, 2002; van Marrewijk, 2003; van Marrewijk and Werre, 2003; Panwar et al., 2006). Figure 1 summarises the different conceptions of CSR, according to the approaches in the sustainable development model. All of them are founded on the ― triple bottom line ‖, which was broken down by Panwar et al. (2006) into its respective dimensions.

To properly illustrate the model and its dimensions, the definitions of each of them proposed by the World Tourism Organisation (WTO, 2005) are presented below. The economic dimension is based on ensuring viable long-term economic activity, which provides correctly-distributed socioeconomic benefits for all agents. The social dimension refers to respecting the sociocultural authenticity of the host communities, conserving their architectural and living cultural assets and their traditional values, and contributing to intercultural understanding and tolerance. Lastly, the environmental dimension refers to optimally using environmental resources, which are a core element in tourist development, protecting essential ecological processes and helping conserve natural resources and biological diversity.

In previous models, the authors reinforced the conception of CSR as a multidimensional construct, placing equal emphasis on economic, social and environmental issues. As mentioned, this focus is closely connected to another concept: “ The Triple Bottom Line” (Elkingtong, 1998) (Figure 2), through which the standard prosperity line (utility) should be parallel to the lines of the planet (environment) and people (society). This perspective emphasises the need to adopt ideas of corporate ethics and the importance of stakeholders, above and beyond that of the owners, investors and shareholders (Schmidheiny et al., 1997). Fundamental aspects of SD, such as respect for the individual and society, along with environmental conservation, frequently refer to this triple prosperity line, which encompasses social and environment returns, as well as economic ones. In this regard, the company‘s actions toward sustainable development can be separated into the different spheres depicted in Figure 2.

Source: Panwar et al. (2006).

Source: Linnanen and Panapanaan (2002).

Source: Wempe and Kaptein (2002).

Figure 1. CSR conceptions based on the sustainable development focus.

Source: Elkingtong (1998).

Figure 2. The Triple Bottom Line.

 

According to Olabe (2002) (Figure 3), sustainability-oriented companies conceive of their long-term actions as interrelated spheres of influence and scopes of action. In the smallest sphere (Sphere 4), companies have decision-taking power and their control over it is total. The next sphere (Sphere 3) contains all companies with which an intense business relationship is maintained. In the next sphere (Sphere 2), companies project their influence and participate in the local community in which they do business. And, in the last sphere (Sphere 1), companies interact with society at large. In this sphere, the values are expressed through which society formulates its aspirations toward a better quality of life and they are transferred to the other spheres mentioned.

From another perspective, but still employing the spheres identified in Figure 3, the European Commission Green Paper (2001), distinguishes two dimensions of CSR: the internal dimension, equivalent to the company sphere, and the external dimension, made up of the rest of the spheres. In the internal dimension, socially responsible practices primarily affect the employees in matters referring, on the one hand, to managing human resources, health and safety in the workplace and, on the other, the internal dimension also includes the management of the natural resources used in production.

However, and as mentioned, corporate social responsibility from the perspective of sustainable development extends from companies‘ perimeters outward to the environment and society, including a wide range of agents and partners (commercial partners, suppliers, consumers, public authorities, non-governmental organisations...). As anticipated, this perspective emphasises stakeholders‘ importance, above and beyond that of owners, investors and shareholders (Schmidheiny et al., 1997). Many authors support these focuses, particularly in the tourist scenario on which this work is centred. Henderson (2007, pp. 231) states that owing to the typical characteristics of tourism, an extra dimension should be added to CSR and sustainability: “ society is part of the product and companies have responsibilities with the societies and environments where they develop their activities. For this reason, it is probable that tourist service consumers are more sensitive to the adoption of CSR executed by companies in this activity sector. Even more so, if we recall that this trend has been supported by consumers‘ tastes, the environment movement, public organisations and demands for better management of tourism.”

As mentioned, the principles of SD have much in common with those of CSR and the terms are sometimes used indistinctly (Henderson, 2007). A company that seeks sustainable tourism is, by definition, socially responsible, while CSR contributes the fundamental principles of sustainability. According to Tourism Concern, an independent British organisation that fights tourist exploitation and favours its more ethical development, tourism‘s capacity to negatively impact the destination economies, their societies, cultures and environments have exposed the sector industries to heavy criticism, but we mustn‘t forget that this sector can supply extremely necessary infrastructures, revenues and jobs that stimulate the destination economies and raise their standard of living. This could strengthen the protection of the most mistreated resources and help finance their preservation (Henderson, 2007). Therefore, it would seem like tourist companies have serious and clear obligations to issues related to the places where they do business, so that many of them have to adhere to sustainable tourism types whose purpose is to safeguard cultural and natural heritage (Diamantis, 1999). In this respect, the UN Environment Programme (2005) highlights 12 targets to be integrated into the sustainable tourism agenda, providing general action lines for sector companies. These targets are economic viability, local prosperity, quality employment, social equality, the compliance of visitors, local control, the community‘s wellbeing, cultural wealth, physical integrity, biological diversity, resource efficiency and environmental purity.

 

 

 

Source: Green paper EU Commission (2001) and Olabe (2002).

Figure 3. Spheres of action of a socially responsible company.