Bridging Sustainability and Business Continuity: Recognizing and
Reconciling Tensions between Resilience and the Environmental,
Economic, Social Dimensions of Organisational Sustainability
Introduction
Business and society research addresses some of the most fundamental questions regarding
the potential and realised contributions of commercial activity to the betterment of global
society. In that sense, business and society scholarship focuses on the potentially distinctive
roles that business organisations play in relation to a wide variety of societal “grand
challenges” such as poverty alleviation, improved health, wellbeing and longevity, respect for
fundamental human rights, promotion of fair, non-abusive and non-discriminatory working
conditions, and reduced environmental harm. Business has increasingly been encouraged to
engage with its roles in relation to many of these issue arenas by stakeholder activism, the
retreat of the state from the provision of many public goods in some developed economies,
greater hard and soft regulation in respect of some impacts, and the emphasis of a business
case for addressing salient social and environmental issues. In spite of greater recognition
within the business community of the embeddedness of business within a wider social and
environmental context, significant progress remains to be made in relation to many of the
most pressing issues facing global society, leading to some commentators characterising
these as “wicked problems” (Frame, 2008; Waddock, 2013; Schmitt, 2010).
Among the “wicked” challenges facing companies, recent years have seen an explosion of
research concerned with sustainability at both the organisational and wider systemic levels.
Extant research on organisational, or corporate, sustainability has typically highlighted that it
is an inherently multi-dimensional concept that involves achieving a long-run balance
between economic, environmental and social issues that generate benefits to both current and
future generations (Elkington 1998; World Commission on Environment and Development
1987). In that sense, sustainable organizations have to address their performance on three
dimensions: economic performance, social equity, and ecological preservation (Gladwin et al.
1995). While recognising the multi-faceted nature of sustainability, extant research in the
business and management domains has tended to emphasise the environmental or ecological
aspects of being a sustainable organisation and has sought to illuminate the circumstances in
which organisations adopt more sustainable practices, or achieve more sustainable outcomes
(Aragón-Correa and Rubio-López, 2007). This research has only to a very limited extent
addressed possible tensions between the elements of sustainability, instead concentrating on
identifying when and where “win-win” opportunities for firms’ economic success to be allied
with reduced environmental impacts might exist (Hahn et al., 2010; Margolis and Walsh,
2003; Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002).
Alongside research on sustainability, considerable attention has been given in recent years to
better understanding the task of building and adapting organisations so that they are more
reliable and resilient in the face of unpredictable extreme events (Weick and Sutcliffe, 2001;
Papadakis, 2006; Burnard and Bhamra, 2011). Research has begun to explore how
organisations might better anticipate and mitigate the adverse effects of diverse threats such
1
as those of terrorism, severe weather events, pandemics, and natural disasters (Burnard and
Bhambra, 2011; Bhamra, Dani, and Burnard, 2011). While a small amount of strategy,
organisation, and human resource scholarship has begun to address these issues (Gittell et al.,
2006; Goll and Rasheed, 2011; Li et al., 2005), a larger body of work has emerged in
operations management where the practices, resources and capabilities, necessary to better
withstand and bounce back from extreme events have been subject to more systematic study
(Christopher and Peck, 2004; Tomlin, 2006; Ponomarov and Holcomb, 2009; Sheffi and
Rice, 2005). This body of research has tended to see extreme events through the lens of
business continuity, thus emphasising the economic and organisational impacts of extreme
events, and has argued that organisational flexibility, adaptability, innovativeness, capacity
for collaboration, and the availability of slack resources all support greater organisational
resilience (Vogus and Sutcliffe, 2007; Weick, 1988; ). While existing research has begun to
illuminate the conditions under which organisations are more resilient, and while not ignoring
entirely the wider social impacts of extreme events, it is notable that very little extant
literature on the management of extreme events at the organisational level has paid explicit
attention to the potential trade-offs between economic and other socially relevant outcomes
that arise in relation to extreme events.
In this paper, we suggest that the relatively narrow foci in the existing literatures on extreme
events and their management and organisational sustainability - the former dealing
principally with “getting the show back on the road”, the latter primarily with achieving
greater environmental sensitivity and reduced resource use and emissions in business - are
problematic in that they insufficiently address the potential for trade-offs to exist between
aspects of sustainability, and therefore pay too little attention to identifying and
characterising how any such trade-offs might best be managed. In light of this observation,
our focus in this paper is three-fold. First, we propose an extended conceptualisation of
organisational sustainability that augments existing perspectives on sustainability by
integrating insights from research into organisational resilience, continuity and emergency
management. Specifically, we juxtapose the concept of organisational sustainability as
currently understood in business and management research with the concepts of continuity
and resilience from the organisation and emergency management literatures and offer three
possible conceptions of the relationships between the two concepts. These conceptions pay
particular attention to temporal aspects of organisational sustainability that have been
neglected in prior research. Second, consistent with recent calls for more thorough
theorisation of the origins and character of trade-offs between aspects of organisational
sustainability, we apply our developed conception of sustainability to an analysis of seminal
research on the antecedents of organisational performance in four key domains: economic
(profits, productivity, etc), environmental (reduced emissions, waste reduction, productive
efficiency), social (fairness, justice, transparency, social health), and continuity (survival,
operational continuity, resilience). We then draw upon this research to produce a synthetic
model of underlying tensions between these facets of sustainability. Third, we build upon our
discussion of these trade-offs to propose implications for management and public policy
research and practice.
2
Organisational Sustainability and Business Continuity: Exploring Possible
Relationships between the Concepts
In this section, we offer a brief sketch of our analysis of the relationship between
organisational sustainability and organisational resilience/continuity. Research on both
underlying concepts is characterised by a range of difficulties that makes arriving at a single,
uniquely defensible, relationship between them problematic. For example, each concept is
multi-faceted and relates to a number of outcomes and underlying processes. Similarly, each
may be thought of at a number of different levels/units of analysis (individual, organisational,
group, industry, society/country, planetary), and can be interpreted both statically at a point in
time as inherently dynamic concepts referring to the inter-temporal persistence of bundles of
organisational activities, attributes, and outcomes. In light of the difficulty in arriving at a
single relationship between continuity and sustainability at the organisational level, we
develop three suggestions regarding alternative conceptions, as follows.
Suggestion 1: Continuity/Resilience as a Necessary Condition for Sustainability
While research on business continuity and organisational resilience draws upon a number of
foundational disciplines, including ecology, engineering, psychology, operations
management, organisation studies and strategic management (see Bhambra et al., 2011 for a
review), a major strand within extant research sees continuity/resilience as an attribute or
characteristic of a company or organisation – i.e. resilience is generally defined as something
that an organisation has, or doesn’t have, to some extent. For example, Horne and Orr (1988)
refer to resilience as “the fundamental quality to respond productively to significant change
that disrupts the expected pattern of event without introducing an extended period of
regressive behaviour” (Horne and Orr, 1988, 31), while McDonald (2006) argues that
“resilience conveys the properties of being able to adapt to the requirements of the
environment and being able to manage the environments variability” (McDonald, 2006, 156).
In this perspective, resilience is a sort of meta-capability that arises from a range of skills,
resources, and capabilities that enable an organisation to respond positively to significant and
sudden external threats. Resilience is important because it enables organisations to continue
to conduct “business as usual”, and thereby to continue to meet obligations to stakeholders.
Absent resilience, sudden threats have the capacity to significantly undermine organisations’
ability to perform their day-to-day functions and research has demonstrated that all aspects of
organisations’ performance can be severely reduced (even to the point of organisational
failure) (). In that sense, resilience is a necessary condition or precursor to all aspects of
organisational performance when faced with substantial threats or emergencies.
The broad idea that organisational continuity and resilience is a necessary condition for
organisational sustainability (in the triple-bottom line sense) also has resonance in the early
literatures on corporate social performance. Generally, seminal conceptions of corporate
social performance recognised the central, even foundational, importance of organisations
3
meeting their economic (hence necessarily operational) obligations on an ongoing basis.
Carroll (1999), for example, notes that in the early 1970s the Committee for Economic
Development characterised an “inner circle” to corporate social responsibility that
encompassed “the clear cut basic responsibilities for the efficient execution of the economic
function – products, jobs, and economic growth” (Carroll, 1999, 275). Similarly, Carroll’s
own (1979) conception of corporate social responsibility emphasised that “before anything
else, the business institution is the basic economic unit in our society. As such it has a
responsibility to produce goods and services that society wants and to sell them at a profit.
All other business roles are predicated on this fundamental assumption” (Carroll, 1979, 500).
These perspectives emphasise the necessity of organisations achieving acceptable levels of
performance in relation to one aspect of their sustainability – the economic aspect – as a
precursor to achievements in other dimensions. To the extent that business continuity and
operational function are themselves a precursor to organisations meeting their fundamental
economic, as well as broader, performance objectives, this suggests that one way in which
business continuity/resilience might be conceptualised in relation to sustainability is as a
necessary condition.
Suggestion 2: Continuity as an Under-Explored Dimension of Sustainability
A second suggestion in respect of the place of continuity/resilience in relation to
sustainability would see resilience/continuity as a domain of organisational performance,
broadly equivalent to, interdependent with, but distinct from the economic, ecological and
social domains. There is broad consensus in prior research and practice that organisational
sustainability is a multi-faceted concept. What is less agreed upon is how many dimensions
sustainability encompasses. Sustainability is often captured by the ‘triple bottom line’ of
economy, environment, and society (Elkington et al. 2007) or, similarly, via a sustainable
development ‘triangle’ formed by People, Planet, and Profit (the three Ps) (European
Commission 2002). This conception of sustainability, while widely used, has been subject to
numerous criticisms and extensions. Criticisms often cite the explicitly anthropocentric
orientation of the dominant sustainability paradigm, and the lack of attention given to spatial
and temporal aspects to sustainability (Seghezzo, 2009; Fresco and Kroonenberg, 1992; Held,
2001). Extensions include broadening concepts of sustainability to explicitly encompass
geographic and ecological boundaries, arguing in favour of a more prominent role for a
political dimension to sustainability, including individual happiness and satisfaction, and
integrating culture into the concept of sustainability (Seghezzo, 2009; Imran et al., 2011).
Figure one, below, depicts organisational continuity/resilience as a fourth domain of
sustainability, and describes tensions between each of the four performance domains. We
develop a fuller discussion regarding these tensions in empirical terms below.
4
Figure 1: Continuity as a Dimension of Sustainability
Suggestion 3: Continuity as part of an Unpacked Temporal Dimension of Sustainability
Prior research has noted the lack of attention paid to the implicit temporal dimension of
sustainability (Seghezzo, 2009; Costanza and Patten, 1995; Howe, 1997; Held, 2001).
Building on the seminal contribution of the Bruntland Report, to the extent that temporal
issues have been central to discussions of sustainability, the emphasis has been with intergenerational comparisons, and with “meeting the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. As Seghezzo (2009) notes, this
emphasises the relatively long-term, generational, temporal aspects of sustainability, but
doesn’t pay any attention to the temporality of sustainability over shorter term time horizons.
Nonetheless, temporal aspects of sustainability are manifestly important and merit further
enquiry and clarification. Research on business continuity, resilience, and emergency
management tend to emphasise responding to extreme and unforeseen events of a more
punctuated, episodic, nature over much shorter term time horizons. In figure two, below, we
propose a conception of sustainability that makes a primary distinction between the objects of
sustainability (those things that are sustained over time) – the economic, environmental and
5
social performances of organisations – and the temporal horizons over which performance is
sustained – intra-generationally versus inter-generationally. The virtue of this
conceptualisation, as we more fully articulate in the full version of the analysis, is that it
provides for a backdrop against which to describe and analyse tensions in two planes –
tensions within a temporal period (i.e. within a relatively short-run, or long-run period
between dimensions of sustainability) – for example, the tension in a given three- to five-year
planning cycle between maximising profits versus investing in new technologies that improve
environmental efficiency – and also to discuss tensions between temporal periods – for
example, tensions that arise from a given investment/policy/management decision between
performance in a relatively immediate period, with the scope for performance over a longer
temporal perspective. In so doing, this conception affords an improved way to identify,
conceptualise and compare static and dynamic trade-offs in organisational sustainability
which sees business continuity/resilience as a key element of managing across time horizons.
Figure 2: Reconciling Business Continuity and Sustainability by Unpacking the Temporal
Dimension to Sustainability
6
Surfacing Key Tensions and Trade-Offs between Dimensions of Sustainability
Having discussed several ways in which the concepts of sustainability and continuity might
be related to each other at the conceptual level, we now turn to evaluating potential tensions
between aspects of sustainability. While there has long been an appreciation of the potential
for trade-offs to exist between aspects of organisational sustainability, most research has
tended to emphasise the compatibility between elements of sustainability in order to broaden
the appeal of the concept and encourage businesses to more pro-active behaviours. More
recently, research has begun to recognise the importance of paying greater attention to tradeoffs and tensions between aspects of organisational sustainability. For example, one recent
article notes that “trade-offs and conflicts between economic, environmental and social
aspects in corporate management and performance represent the rule rather than the
exception” and that “an exclusive focus on win–win solutions will mask important potential
for positive corporate contributions to sustainable development” (Hahn et al., 2010, 218).
While research is beginning to recognise the necessity of identifying and managing such
trade-offs, the circumstances in which they are likely to arise have not as yet been the subject
of extensive or rigorous empirical enquiry.
In order to address this gap, we systematically review extant empirical research relating to
each of the four aspects of sustainability outlined in figure one, above, to first identify, and
then to examine the availability, strength, and valence of evidence in regarding relationships
between antecedent factors and aspects of organisational sustainability. While recognising
that many organisational outcomes are influenced by both higher (i.e. more aggregate,
industry, country etc), and lower (i.e. less aggregate, individual, team, group etc) units of
analysis, we restrict our attention to organisation-level influences on outcomes four analytical
simplicity.
Table 1, below, provides an overview of the outcomes of this systematic review process.
Where fewer than five empirical studies address a particular relationship empirically within
the body of extant research, we label these cells “N.E.” for “no evidence”. Where there is a
sufficiently substantial body of extant research but the available evidence is ambiguous or
highly contingent, we indicate this through the use of a question mark. Where evidence is
strongly suggestive of a positive, or negative, relationship, we signal this through the use of
“+” or “-” respectively. Having mapped out the evidence as it exists within prior research, we
then identify key empirical tensions by examining the pattern of influences within a given
row and isolating those where the available evidence suggests that a given antecedent factor
has opposing influence on different dimensions of sustainability.
While we discuss both the methods by which we identify, classify and analyse the body of
literature we review more fully in the full paper, it is worthwhile signalling some of the key
observations that arise from this analysis. To do this, we will concentrate here on providing
an overview of several of the most robustly evidenced trade-offs between aspects of
sustainability.
7
A first tension within and between aspects of sustainability arises from firms’ broad strategic
positioning. While relationships between generic strategic positioning and economic
performance are quite ambiguous, with the available evidence suggesting that each generic
positioning can be consistent with high levels of economic performance, there are clear
implications for the other aspects of sustainability of firms’ chosen strategic recipes.
Second, a number of pieces of extant research highlight a key tension between economic and
environmental aspects of sustainability. For example, Kolk’s (2012) discusses the tensions
between market share capture and the rigour with which the Dutch food retailer Sara Lee
applied standards in relation to the market for sustainable coffee. Specifically, Sara Lee
decide to pursue a ‘mainstreaming’ approach to introduce sustainable coffee in mainstream
market channels and did this by working with a label, “Utz”, in preference to the older and
better-known Fairtrade label in light of the expectation that the Fairtrade label might consign
them to a niche strategy that would be difficult to align with its main generic strategy of
targeting mainstream markets. Changes in public procurement policy by the government in
the Netherlands (one of the company’s primary markets), including a sustainable public
procurement policy that supported fair trade coffee excluded Sara Lee from large government
contracts. Similarly, research has emphasised that actions taken in firms to improve
efficiency and productivity to the detriment of the social and ecological aspects of
sustainability may, in the very long run, also ultimately undermine firms’ economic
performance. For example, the overuse of pesticides (in agriculture) or use of antibiotics (in
animal husbandry) that resulted in immediate productivity and efficiency gains also resulted,
in the longer term, in pesticide and antibiotic resistance that ultimately increased expenses
and destabilized production systems (see, e.g., Orzech and Nichter, 2008).
Next, tensions arise between the levels of discretion and devolution/autonomy present in
management and organisations’ sustainability outcomes. Traditionally, managerial discretion
has been strongly associated in literatures in finance and economics with the presence of
agency problems whereby managers are able to opportunistically pursue their own ends
(prestige, security of employment, etc) to the detriment of shareholders (Jensen and
Meckling, 1976). A considerable amount of research in the social issues domain has
demonstrated that managerial discretion is typically beneficial for firms’ social and
environmental performance and that an absence of pressure to manage for quarterly earnings
encourages investments in these domains. Similarly, research in business
continuity/resilience has emphasised the importance of managers being able to take
autonomous actions in relation to emergent threats as being a key element of rapid responses
to emergencies.
8
Table 1: Tensions between dimensions of sustainability
Dimensions of Sustainability
Economic
Environmental
Social
Resillience
Efficiency, Financial Performance,
Productivity
Waste Reduction, Environmental
Management Systems, Life Cycle
Investments; Mitigation of
Emissions
Transparency, Justice, Equality,
Fairness, non-Discrimination
Reliability, prevention, recovery,
responsiveness to extreme events
?
?
?
+
+
N.E.
-
-
+
N.E.
?
+
-
+
N.E.
+
N.E.
+
+
+
N.E.
?
N.E.
+
+
+
+
Key Tension 2
?
+
?
+
+
-
Key Tension 3
Availability of Slack Financial Resources
+
+
Operational Slack/ Over Capacity/ Redundancy
-
-
+
N.E.
+
+
Key Tension 4
Corporate Governance
?
+
+
?
+
?
Supplier Diversification
-
-
-
N.E.
+
+
Key Tension 5
Firm Size/ Organisational Visibility
?
+
+
?
R&D Expenditure/ Innovativeness / Creativity
+
+
+
+
Advertising/Brand intensity
+
+
+
N.E.
Geographic / spatial concentration
?
+
+
-
Organisation-Level Influences
Strategic factors
Broad strategic orientation - low cost
Broad strategic orientation - differentiation
Diversification
Key Tension 1
Managerial factors
Managerial Discretion/ Devolved Decision Autonomy
Agility/ Rapidity of Decision Making
Lean Management Practices
Flexibility/ Adaptability
External Environmental Scanning Function
Supportive Organisational Culture
+
+
+
Resource/capability factors
Relational factors
Family Ownership
Structural/Organisational factors
Key Tension 6
Resilience research has long emphasised the role of redundancy, in various senses for
resilience in the face of extreme events, thus bringing resilience into tension with both the
economic and ecological aspects of sustainability. Extant research has noted that one
mechanism for achieving resilience in firms comes from building redundancy of resources,
such as unused capacity and multiple sourcing (Sheffi and Rice, 2005). Sheffi (2007) and
Sheffi and Rice (2005) have emphasized creation of redundancies for building resiliency,
mostly in case of large firms, though Thun et al.(2011) have shown how small firms can also
thrive on developing redundancy-based reactive instruments for dealing with crises.
However, Dangayach and Deshmukh (2001) have shown how redundancy building can be an
essential precursor for resilience development in case of non-family firms, but not for small
family-owned ones as they are expected to have the disadvantages of inadequate
technological capabilities, lack of financial strength and infrastructure. This highlights the
trade-off in balancing the cost of redundancy and generating long-term economic benefits as
an antecedent of resilience (Linnenluecke and Griffiths, 2010).
Lastly, spatial and geographic aspects to sustainability have been neglected in prior research.
Nonetheless, trade-offs between aspects of an organisation’s performance in relation to
sustainability are significantly influenced by its spatial characteristics. Resources that are
non‐adaptive in the short run, on the other hand, such as large and geographically dispersed
9
infrastructure, are likely to increase both the exposure and sensitivity of the organization.
Extreme weather events can also impact on linkage infrastructure, such as bridges, roads,
pipelines or transmission networks, with potentially substantial immediate losses and
disruptions to associated industry sectors (Lemmen et al., 2007; Wilbanks et al., 2007). Thus,
organizations and sectors which are likely to be subject to greater exposure and sensitivity to
extreme weather events are those with long‐term investments in large‐scale, geographically
embedded and dispersed infrastructure (Schneider et al., 2001). The distribution of resources,
such as the protection of personnel, a decentralized workforce, the physical dispersion of
assets and back‐up facilities for data, can make organizations less sensitive to the localized
impact of an external discontinuity (Allenby & Fink, 2005; Allenby & Roitz, 2005)
The geographic dimension to trade-offs in achieving organisational sustainability are
exemplified by the experience of a number of industries as a result of the recent earthquake
and tsunami in Japan disrupted both domestic and global supply chains. Japan provides 60%
of the world’s silicon, an important raw material for semiconductor chips. Japan is also the
world’s largest supplier of dynamic random access memory and flash memory–—a form of
memory that can retain data without a power supply. Flash memory plays an important role in
supplying standard logic controllers, liquid crystal display (LCD), and LCD parts and
materials. These catastrophic disruptions have had serious impacts on firm performance. For
example, global automakers–—such as Ford, Chrysler, Volkswagen, BMW, Toyota, and
GM–—depend on Japanese suppliers and had to place a hold on some paint colours after the
earthquake and tsunami (Schmitt, 2011). Renesas–—a major automotive computer chip
maker located in Japan–—was badly damaged, representing a major blow to the automotive
industry around the world. More specifically, a typical car contains about 100 different
microcontrollers, which function as the car’s brain, and 40% of the world’s supply comes
from Renesas (Pollack & Lohr, 2011). Additionally, the only production sites of Xirallic
pigments (i.e., specialty paints used to give greater colour intensity to automobiles’
appearance) were badly damaged. Such supply chain disruptions resulted in critical
component part shortages and thus subsequent operational shutdowns in GM, Ford, and
Chrysler plants in the United States (Bunkley, 2011). Cases like these illustrate that the
spatial organisation of the organisation plays a significant role in shaping the resilience,
economic, social and environmental sustainability of organisations and that varying forms of
organisation – choices about what activities firms locate where – play an important role in
shaping, and generating potential trade-offs between, sustainability viewed in broad terms.
10
References
Allenby, B., & Fink, J. (2005). Toward inherently secure and resilient societies. Science,
309(5737), 1034-1036.
Allenby, B., & Roitz, J. (2005). Building the resilient firm: The new challenge to EHS
organizations. Environmental Quality Management, 15(2), 27-36.
Aragón-Correa JA, Rubio-López EA. 2007. Proactive corporate environmental strategies:
myths and misunderstandings. Long Range Planning 40(3): 357–381.
Bhamra, R., Dani, S., & Burnard, K. (2011). Resilience: the concept, a literature review and
future directions. International Journal of Production Research, 49(18), 5375-5393.
Bunkley, N. (2011, May 12). Piecing together a supply chain. New York Times. Retrieved
October 2, 2011, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/business/global/13auto.html
Burnard, K., & Bhamra, R. (2011). Organisational resilience: development of a conceptual
framework for organisational responses. International Journal of Production Research,
49(18), 5581-5599.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance.
Academy of management review, 4(4), 497-505.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional construct.
Business & society, 38(3), 268-295.
Christopher, M., & Peck, H. (2004). Building the resilient supply chain. International Journal
of Logistics Management, The, 15(2), 1-14.
Costanza, R., & Patten, B. C. (1995). Defining and predicting sustainability. Ecological
Economics, 15(3), 193-196.
Dangayach, G. S., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2001). Manufacturing strategy: literature review and
some issues. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(7), 884-932.
Dyllick T, Hockerts K. 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business
Strategy and the Environment 11(2): 130–141.
Elkington, J., 1998. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century. New
Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC.
Frame, B. (2008). “Wicked”, “messy”, and “clumsy”: long-term frameworks for
sustainability. Environ. Planning C, 26, 1113-1128.
Fresco, L.O. and Kroonenberg, S.B., 1992. Time and spatial scales in ecological
sustainability. Land Use Policy, 9 (3), 155–168.
11
Gittell, J. H., Cameron, K., Lim, S., & Rivas, V. (2006). Relationships, layoffs, and
organizational resilience airline industry responses to September 11. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 42(3), 300-329.
Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable
development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of management
Review, 20(4), 874-907.
Goll, I., & Rasheed, A. A. (2011). The effects of 9/11/2001 on business strategy variability in
the US air carrier industry. Management Decision, 49(6), 948-961.
Hahn T, Figge F, Pinkse J, Preuss L. 2010. Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: You can’t
have your cake and eat it. Business Strategy and the Environment 19: 217–229.
Held, M. (2001). Sustainable development from a temporal perspective. Time & Society,
10(2-3), 351-366.
Horne, J.F. and Orr, J.E., 1998. Assessing behaviors that create resilient organizations.
Employment Relations Today, 24, 29–40.
Imran, S., Alam, K., & Beaumont, N. (2011). Reinterpreting the definition of sustainable
development for a more ecocentric reorientation. Sustainable Development.
Kolk A. 2012. Towards a sustainable coffee market? Paradoxes faced by a multinational
company. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.
Lemmen DS, Warren F, Bush E, Lacroix J (eds). 2007. From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada
in a Changing Climate. Government of Canada: Ottawa.
Li, S., Tallman, S. B., & Ferreira, M. P. (2005). Developing the eclectic paradigm as a model
of global strategy: An application to the impact of the Sep. 11 terrorist attacks on MNE
performance levels. Journal of International Management, 11(4), 479-496.
Linnenluecke, M., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Beyond adaptation: resilience for business in light
of climate change and weather extremes. Business & Society, 49(3), 477-511.
Margolis J, Walsh J. 2003. Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives by business.
Administrative Science Quarterly 48: 268–305.
McDonald, N., 2006. Organisational resilience and industrial risk. In: E. Hollnagel, D.D.
Woods and N. Leveson, eds. Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Hampshire:
Ashgate, 155–179.
Orzech, K. M., & Nichter, M. (2008). From resilience to resistance: Political ecological
lessons from antibiotic and pesticide resistance. Annual Review of Anthropology, 37, 267282.
Papadakis, I.S., 2006. Financial performance of supply chains after disruptions: an event
study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 11 (1), 25–33.
12
Pollack, A., & Lohr, S. (2011). A Japanese plant struggles to produce a critical auto part.
New York Times.
Ponomarov, S.Y. and Holcomb, M.C. (2009), “Understanding the concept of supply chain
resilience”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 124-143.
Schmitt, B. (2011, May 10). Japanese parts paralysis: The shiny paint is leaving the building.
Retrieved October 2, 2011, from http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/05/japanese-partsparalysis-the-shiny-paint-is-leaving-thebuilding/
Schmitt, R. (2010). Dealing with wicked issues: Open strategizing and the Camisea case.
Journal of business ethics, 96(1), 11-19.
Seghezzo, L. (2009). The five dimensions of sustainability. Environmental Politics, 18(4),
539-556.
Sheffi, Y. (2007). Building a resilient organization. BRIDGE-WASHINGTON-NATIONAL
ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING-, 37(1), 30.
Sheffi, Y. and Rice, J.B. (2005), “A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 41-48.
Thun, J.-H., & Hoenig, D. (2011). An empirical analysis of supply chain risk management in
the German automotive industry. International Journal of Production Economics, 131(1),
242—249.
Tomlin, B. (2006). On the value of mitigation and contingency strategies for managing
supply chain disruption risks. Management Science, 52(5), 639-657.
Vogus, T. J., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Organizational resilience: towards a theory and
research agenda. In Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2007. ISIC. IEEE International
Conference on (pp. 3418-3422). IEEE.
Waddock, S. (2013). The Wicked Problems of Global Sustainability Need Wicked (Good)
Leaders and Wicked (Good) Collaborative Solutions. Journal of Management for Global
Sustainability, 1(1), 91-111.
Wilbanks TJ, Romero Lankao P, Bao M, Berkhout F, Cairncross S, Ceron J‐P, Kapshe M,
Muir‐Wood R, Zapata‐Marti R. 2007. Industry settlement and society. In Climate Change
2007: Impacts Adaptation and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Parry ML, Canziani
OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds).
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; 357–390.
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford
University Press, Oxford and New York.
13
Weick, K. E. (1988). Enacted Sensemaking in Crisis Situations. Journal of management
studies, 25(4), 305-317.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected (pp. 10-11). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14