Strategic Leadership of Corporate Sustainability

Robert Strand

Received: 3 February 2013 / Accepted: 12 December 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Strategic leadership and corporate sustainabil-

ity have recently come together in conspicuously explicit

fashion through the emergence of top management team

(TMT) positions with dedicated corporate sustainability

responsibilities. These TMT positions, commonly referred

to as ‘‘Chief Sustainability Officers,’’ have found their way

into the upper echelons of many of the world’s largest

corporations alongside more traditional TMT positions

including the CEO and CFO. We explore this phenomenon

and consider the following two questions: Why are cor-

porate sustainability positions being installed to the TMT?

What effects do corporate sustainability TMT positions

have at their organizations? We consider these questions

through strategic leadership and neoinstitutional theoretical

frameworks. Through the latter, we also engage with We-

berian considerations of bureaucracy. We find that the

reasons why corporate sustainability TMT positions are

installed can be in response to a crisis at the corporation for

which its legitimacy is challenged. We also find the cor-

porate sustainability TMT position can be installed proac-

tively in an effort to realize external opportunities that may

have otherwise gone unrealized without concerted attention

and coordination afforded by a strategic level position.

Regarding effects, we determine the position can relate to

the establishment of bureaucratic structures dedicated to

corporate sustainability within the corporation through

which formalized processes and key performance indica-

tors to drive corporate sustainability performances are

established. In the face of our finding that many corporate

sustainability TMT positions are being removed despite

having only relatively recently been introduced to their

respective TMTs, we find that the successful implementa-

tion of bureaucratic machinery can help considerations to

sustainability extend beyond the tenure of a corporate

sustainability position within the TMT.

Keywords Chief Sustainability Officer � Strategic

Leadership � Corporate sustainability � Top management

team

Introduction

The study of strategic leadership focuses on the small

group of executives with overall responsibility for an

organization (Finkelstein et al. 2009). Traditionally refer-

red to as ‘‘upper echelons theory’’ (Hambrick and Mason

1984; Hambrick 2007), the central thesis of strategic

leadership is that a small group of people who occupy the

positions at the top of an organization—the top manage-

ment team (TMT)—have a significant effect on organiza-

tional outcomes. As such, the TMT has long been

considered a worthy unit of research analysis (e.g., Fin-

kelstein and Hambrick 1990; Wiersema and Bantel 1992;

Smith et al. 1994; Hambrick et al. 1996; Carpenter et al.

2004). TMT researchers have traditionally focused atten-

tion on the demographics of the individuals who occupy

the TMT positions but, more recently, have expanded focus

to consider the positions that comprise the TMT (Menz

2012; Strand 2013; Menz and Scheef forthcoming). This

new field of TMT scholarship represents a response to

Hambrick (2007: 337) who articulated ‘‘I have long

thought that there needs to be much more attention paid to

the ‘structure’ of TMTs, to complement- and improve- our

understanding of TMT composition and processes.’’

R. Strand (&)

Copenhagen Business School, Porcelænshaven 18A,

Ground Floor, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark

e-mail: rs.ikl@cbs.dk

123

J Bus Ethics

DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-2017-3

Corporate sustainability refers to the integration of eco-

nomic, environmental, and social considerations on the part

of corporations (Dyllick and Hockerts 2002; van Marrewijk

2003) and is also commonly discussed in terms of the

‘‘triple bottom line’’ (Elkington 1997) in a nod toward

framing the associated discussions in language familiar to

corporations given dominant attention in corporate ver-

nacular to the economic ‘‘bottom line’’ (i.e., profits). Thus,

at its foundation, the concept of corporate sustainability

involves corporations’ taking into consideration their

environmental and social impacts in concert with their

economic objectives. Therefore, corporate sustainability is

closely related to the concepts of corporate social respon-

sibility (CSR) (Carroll 1999; Dahlsrud 2008; European

Commission 2011), corporate citizenship (Matten and

Crane 2005), business ethics (Beauchamp et al. 2009; Crane

and Matten 2010), stakeholder engagement (Freeman 1984;

Freeman et al. 2010), and stewardship (Davis et al. 1997).

More recently, strategic leadership and corporate sus-

tainability have come together in a conspicuously explicit

fashion through the emergence of corporate sustainability

TMT positions—often referred to as ‘‘Chief Sustainability

Officers’’ (Gourji 2008; Just Good Business 2008; Rigby

and Tager 2008; McNulty and Davis 2010; Balch 2011;

Lubin and Etsy 2010; Weinreb Group 2011). The first

comprehensive formal study of the presence of corporate

sustainability TMT positions is that by Strand (2013) who

identifies 46 position titles from within the TMTs of large

Scandinavian and US corporations in which corporate

sustainability or closely related expressions including CSR

are explicitly stated. The identified suite of companies

includes a number of well-known multinational corpora-

tions that spans across industry sectors including Avon

Products, Ford Motor, H&M, J.P. Morgan & Chase, Kel-

logg’s, Mattel, Monsanto, Nokia, and United Parcel Ser-

vice (UPS). On average, the identified positions ranked

amongst the ten highest posts at their respective corpora-

tions. Given that each of the identified corporations

employs tens of thousands of employees, these corporate

sustainability positions reside within the top 0.1 % of the

corporate hierarchies. In other words, corporate sustain-

ability has explicitly achieved upper echelon status at a

number of the world’s largest corporations.

In this article, we revisit the 46 TMT positions first

identified in the original study by Strand (2013). The

original study was conducted in 2010 where we add data

collected in 2012. This adds a longitudinal dimension to

the original dataset whereby we highlight changes and

offer additional insight about these relatively new TMT

positions. As part of this, we conduct interviews with

relevant TMT members at a subset of the identified cor-

porations to additional information regarding the circum-

stances under which the positions were added to the TMT.

These interviewees include individuals who occupy (or

occupied) the TMT positions identified in the initial study,

and a CEO who made the decisions to install the TMT

position. We find that almost half of the positions identified

in the original study were removed from their respective

TMTs just two years later. We also explore reasons for

this. The TMT is notoriously described as a ‘‘black box’’

that is inherently difficult for researchers to achieve access

(Pettigrew 1992, p. 164; Carpenter and Reilly 2006, p. 15;

Arendt et al. 2005, p. 694; Hambrick 2007) where these

offerings provide a further glimpse within this black box

with respect to how TMTs engage with corporate sustain-

ability at large corporations.

Our evidence from the TMT interviews is limited by the

relatively small number of TMT respondents to whom we

achieved access, and thus, we present this as an exploratory

study through which we do not intend to make broad

generalizations. We do, however, intend to add meaningful

insights and propositions to our collective understanding of

corporate sustainability engagement within the TMT and

we suggest several avenues for further research. For

example, whereas previous research on TMT turnover links

the departure of individuals from the TMT as evidence of a

downward spiral in organizational performance (Hambrick

and D’Aveni 1992; Finkelstein et al. 2009, p. 234), we

extend this to consider the removal TMT positions. We

propose a finding that is unlike the findings from TMT

studies focusing on individuals: the removal of the corpo-

rate sustainability position from the TMT does not neces-

sarily represent failure. Rather, the removal could signal

the successful embedding of corporate sustainability con-

siderations across the organization to the point that a TMT

level corporate sustainability position is no longer consid-

ered necessary. However, such assessment of failure or

success cannot be made simply by a superficial exploratory

study so throughout our discussion we emphasize further

opportunities for more in-depth and longitudinal research

to explore this.

In keeping with the exploratory nature of this study, we

consider empirical evidence from a number of potentially

relevant theoretical perspectives and frameworks. We draw

primarily from neoinstitutional theory (DiMaggio and

Powell 1983; Meyer and Rowan 1977) that includes

legitimacy management (Suchman 1995). We also engage

with Weberian considerations of bureaucracy (Weber

1958, 1978; Du Gay 2000). As previously emphasized, our

primary focus is at all times on the TMT positions them-

selves—that is, the TMT ‘‘structure’’ (Hambrick 2007,

p. 337; Menz 2012; Mintzberg 1979). This focus on posi-

tions enables us to more directly address our two research

questions: Why are corporate sustainability positions being

installed to the TMT? What effects do corporate sustain-

ability TMT positions have on their organizations?

R. Strand

123

We structure the article as follows. The next section

describes the methods employed to collect additional and

more in-depth data on TMT positions, including a repli-

cation of the methods originally employed by Strand

(2013) coupled with additional data collection from public

sources in addition to interviews with a subset of relevant

individuals associated with the TMT positions identified in

the original study. We then discuss our findings through the

various theoretical perspectives and frameworks while

suggesting avenues for further research.

Methods

The methodology comprises three distinct steps that, in

combination, provide the necessary data. Step A begins by

replicating Strand’s (2013) original study. In Step B, we

expand the dataset of TMT positions identified by collecting

additional publicly available information from such sources

as company web sites and press releases. Finally, in Step C,

we perform a more in-depth investigation of the TMT

positions and their effects by interviewing various relevant

individuals, including those who occupy (or formerly

occupied) the corporate sustainability TMT positions.

Step A: Initial Study Replication

Position titles represented within the TMT ‘‘can serve as an

abstract’’ for the issues that the corporation deems strategically

and/or symbolically significant worthy of explicit attention at

any given time (Strand 2013, p. 722; see also Finkelstein et al.

2009, pp. 19–20; Green 1988; Strang and Baron 1990).

Therefore, TMT position titles ‘‘provide a useful resource for

researchers’’ (Strand 2013, p. 722). From a methodological

standpoint, there is widespread agreement to describe the

TMT as a ‘‘relatively small group of executives at the strategic

apex of the organization’’ with ‘‘overall responsibility for the

entire organization’’ (Finkelstein et al. 2009, p. 127; Mintzberg

1979, p. 24) but there is little to no consensus amongst

researchers regarding an operational definition for identifying

exactly which positions are considered part of the TMT

(Finkelstein et al. 2009, pp. 127–128). The methodological

steps developed by Strand (2013) were designed to serve as a

means through which to more consistently identify TMT

members and their respective position titles.

Consistent with the initial study, we use corporate web

sites as the primary TMT data source supplemented with

TMT information available through Thomson Reuters.

Corporate websites represent an increasingly common

repository for data collection (e.g., Tiessen 2004; Bryman

and Bell 2007, p. 666; Capriottia and Morenob 2007;

Tagesson et al. 2009). However, some corporate websites

list so many individuals as part of their TMTs that it

violates the spirit of the TMT as a ‘‘relatively small

group.’’ Others include individuals affiliated with a sub-

sidiary company or geographic region thereby violating the

criterion of ‘‘overall responsibility for the entire organiza-

tion.’’ Hence, for greater consistency across corporations

we apply the following scoping and additional selection

criteria described in Strand (2013).

First, corporate websites often display photographs or

some other distinguishing factor to clearly designate a

subset of TMT positions as a higher rank from others

individuals listed. These distinguishing factors, if offered,

are used as the initial scoping criteria. Next, position titles

are used from which to perform a hierarchical sort from

highest to lowest ranking. The order from highest to lowest

is Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Vice Chair (VC), Chief

Financial Officer (CFO), and then other chiefs (like Chief

Operating Officer), Officer, President, Executive Vice

President (EVP), Senior Vice President (SVP), Group Vice

President (GVP), Vice President (VP), Director (but not on

the Board of Directors), and Manager. Vice chairs are

included only when that position is part of the management

team (not only the Board of Directors). Position titles

indicating responsibilities for an individual business divi-

sion, individual product line, subsidiary company, or geo-

graphic region are sorted below titles that indicate

responsibilities spanning the entire organization.

To better ensure the consistent application of scoping

across corporations and to encourage an overall mean that

is reasonably close to Certo et al. (2006) suggested mean of

about eight individuals, we then apply the following pre-

ferred order for TMT size used in Strand (2013): 8, 7, 9, 6,

10, 11, 12, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 4, 17, 18, 3, 2, 1. For example,

if a corporation lists two chiefs, two EVPs, three SVPs, and

six VPs on its company web site without any additional

distinguishers, the resultant possible TMT size combina-

tions are 2, 4, 7, or 13. Of these possibilities, 7 is the most

preferred TMT size, so chiefs, EVPs, and SVPs are also

identified as TMT members.

After using this process to identify a suite of TMT posi-

tions for each corporation, we then identify the positions

associated with corporate sustainability and related concepts

like CSR based on the associated keywords identified in

Strand (2013). This suite of keywords is sustainability, sus-

tainable, CSR, corporate responsibility (CR), social

responsibly, citizenship, ethics, stakeholder, triple bottom

line, and stewardship. In this respect, this study treats cor-

porate sustainability as an ‘‘umbrella construct’’ (Hirsch and

Levin 1999, p. 200; Gond and Crane 2010, p. 680).

We then compare these keywords against the suite of all

identified TMT position across the 46 corporations to

identify those dedicated to corporate sustainability and

closely related concepts. As in the initial study, the out-

come is a database populated with relevant TMT

Leadership of Corporate Sustainability

123

information, as well as PDF files of TMT information from

company web sites and the Thomson Reuters repository

(via the Financial Times web site).

Step B: Additional Data from Public Sources

We collect additional data on both the positions and the

individuals who occupy (or formerly occupied) these posi-

tions drawing from annual reports, company press releases,

media articles, LinkedIn profiles, and US Senate testimony.

In particular, as discussed in a later section, we document

changes occurring at the 46 corporations between the 2012

and 2010 iterations.

Step C: In-Depth Investigation of the TMT Corporate

Sustainability Positions Identified

As previously pointed out, the TMT is notoriously difficult to

access methodologically. To meet this challenge, we com-

bine theoretical sampling (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007)

with convenience sampling (Bryman and Bell 2007,

pp. 197–199) to derive a subset of the corporate sustain-

ability TMT positions to which we already have, or could

readily gain, access. We fully acknowledge that convenience

sampling can never be representative of the entire population

but feel its use here is justified given the exploratory nature of

the study, the difficulty accessing TMTs, and our goal of

shedding additional light on the TMT phenomenon while

opening avenues for further research. This combined sam-

pling resulted in a subset of three large corporations from

among the 46 included in the original study: Hennes and

Mauritz (H&M), Storebrand, and Svenska Cellulosa (SCA).

All interviews were carried out at the corporate locations and

performed in English. At both H&M and SCA, we performed

semi-structured interviews (Bryman and Bell 2007,

pp. 474–496) with the individuals who currently occupy the

corporate sustainability TMT position. Each interview lasted

aproximately one hour. We also exchanged emails before and

after the interview. At Storebrand, we performed three indi-

vidual semi-structured with the CEO who elected to install and

ultimately remove the TMT position, the individual who

occupied the TMT position for its entire duration, and the

individual who formally assumed sustainability and CSR

responsibilities after the dedicated TMT position was removed.

Each intereview lasted between one and two hours. We

remained in contact with all intervieweess to clarify discussion

points and share quotes that we intended to use in this article.

Findings

Our discussion of findings is divided based on the two

types of data: (i) the publicly available information

collected from Steps A and B and (ii) the interviews con-

ducted in Step C.

Findings from Step A and B

As of 2012, only 27 TMT positions remained out of the 46

TMT positions identified in the 2010 study. These are shown

in Table 1 broken out by keywords of corporate sustain-

ability and related expressions. As a matter of convenience,

CSR and corporate responsibility are included together as

CSR. Given that not all keywords were found within TMT

position titles just four keywords are included within this

table: sustainability, CSR, ethics, and stakeholder. The two

‘‘.5’’ positions refer to the one position of ‘‘Corporate EVP,

Corporate Social Responsibility & Sustainability’’ at the US-

based chemicals corporation Celanese. We classify this

position as half sustainability and half CSR.1

Table 1 shows that 41 % of the TMT positions origi-

nally identified in 2010 have been removed by 2012.

Table 2 reports the same data as in Table 1 expressed as

ratios to the keyword ‘‘sustainability.’’ The changes in

ratios between years do not represent statistically signifi-

cant differences given the relatively small sample sizes..

For additional information on these positions and any

changes between 2010 and 2012, we draw on the additional

data collected in Step A and Step B.

Table 1 TMT positions by keyword

Keywords 2010 2012 2012 versus 2010 (%)

Sustainability 19.5 14 72

CSR 9.5 2 21

Ethics 16 10 63

Stakeholder 1 1 100

Total 46 27 59

Table 2 Ratios of keywords

Keywords 2010 2012

Sustainability 1.00 1.00

CSR 0.49 0.29

Ethics 0.82 0.71

Stakeholder 0.05 0.07

1 As Table 4 shows, the TMT position title CSR Manager identified

in 2010 at the Swedish retailer H&M underwent a name change in

2012 when the new incumbent, Helena Helmersson, assumed the title

‘‘Sustainability Officer.’’ Accordingly, one of the 9.5 TMT positions

associated with the keyword ‘‘CSR’’ in 2010 became a TMT position

associated with the keyword ‘‘sustainability’’ in 2012, thereby

reducing the number of CSR-related TMT positions by one and

increasing the number of sustainability-related TMT positions by one

for 2012.

R. Strand

123

TMT Positions with the Keyword ‘‘Sustainability’’

As Table 3 shows, by 2012, only 13 position titles asso-

ciated with the keyword ‘‘sustainability’’ remain of the 19.5

positions identified in the original study.

At both Alpha Resources and Fortum, the individuals who

held corporate sustainability TMT positions in 2010 remained

in their respective TMTs, but by 2012, neither their titles nor

any other TMT position titles referred explicitly to corporate

sustainability. Rather, the individual at Alpha Resources,

Michael R. Peelish, held the TMT position of ‘‘EVP & Chief

Sustainability Officer’’ in 2010 but by 2012 had become the

‘‘EVP, Chief Administrative Officer.’’ Similarly, at Fortum,

Anne Brunila was ‘‘EVP, Corporate Relations & Sustainabil-

ity’’ in 2010 and but ‘‘EVP, Corporate Relations and Strategy’’

by 2012. Nevertheless, a company press release in late 2012

indicates that despite the title change, she had maintained

responsibilities for corporate sustainability, which were then

expanded to include corporate strategic responsibilities:

Anne Brunila, who joined Fortum Corporation as

Executive Vice President and member of the

Table 3 Corporate sustainability TMT positions

N Corporation Country Industry 2010 Position title 2012 Position title

1 Albemarle US Chemicals VP & Chief Sustainability Officer same as 2010

2 Alpha Natural

Resources

US Mining EVP & Chief Sustainability Officer None

3 Boliden SE Mining SVP, Human Resources & Sustainability same as 2010

4 Cliffs Natural

Resources

US Industrial

Metals &

Mining

EVP, Legal, Government Affairs and

Sustainability

EVP, Legal, Government Affairs and

Sustainability & Chief Legal Officer

5 Covanta

Holding

US Electricity SVP & Chief Sustainability Officer SVP & Chief Sustainability Officer

6 Dow Chemical US Chemicals EVP, Business Services, Chief

Sustainability Officer, Chief Information

Officer

Chief Sustainability Officer, Chief

Information Officer, Business Services and

EVP

7 Duke Energy US Gas, Water &

Multiutilities

SVP & Chief Sustainability Officer VP Sustainability & Chief Sustainability

Officer

8 Ford Motor US Automobiles &

Parts

Group VP, Sustainability, Environment &

Safety Engineering

VP, Sustainability, Environment & Safety

Engineering

9 Fortum FI Electricity EVP, Corporate Relations &

Sustainability

None

10 Kellogg’s US Food Producers SVP, Global Nutrition, Corporate Affairs

& Chief Sustainability Officer

None

11 Monsanto US Food Producers EVP, Sustainability & Corporate Affairs same as 2010

12 Neste Oil FI Oil & Gas

Producers

SVP, Sustainability & HSSE same as 2010

13 Newmont

Mining

US Mining VP & Chief Sustainability Officer EVP, Sustainability and External Affairs

14 PG&E US Electricity VP, Corporate Environmental & Federal

Affairs & Chief Sustainability Officer

None

15 ProLogis US Real Estate

Investment

Trusts

Chief Sustainability Officer None

16 SKF SE Industrial

Engineering

SVP, Human Resources & Sustainability General Counsel and SVP, Group Legal &

Sustainability

17 Smithfield

Foods

US Food Producers SVP, Corporate Affairs & Chief

Sustainability Officer

EVP, Chief Sustainability Officer

18 Svenska

Cellulosa

(SCA)

SE Personal Goods SVP, Corporate Sustainability SVP, Corporate Sustainability; acting SVP,

Corporate Communications

19 United Parcel

Service

(UPS)

US Industrial

Transportation

SVP, Supply Chain, Strategy,

Engineering, & Sustainability

None

19� Celanese US Chemicals Corporate EVP, Corporate Social

Responsibility & Sustainability

None

Leadership of Corporate Sustainability

123

Management Team in September 2009, will leave her

position on her own request. Her responsibility area

has covered Corporate Communications, Corporate

Relations and Sustainability and since 2012 also

Corporate Strategy.

This press release also affords a glimpse into the future

of TMT structures of corporate sustainability at Fortum as

clarified by its CEO Tapio Kuula:

These changes give us the possibility to rethink our

current organization structure and slightly reorganize

the Management Team’s responsibility areas as fol-

lows. Corporate Strategy will be combined with

Mergers and Acquisitions reporting to CFO Markus

Rauramo, who will also take over the responsibility

for the Sustainability function. Public Affairs and

Corporate Relations will report to the President and

CEO.

At Celanese, when Sandra Beach Lin, the ‘‘Corporate

EVP, Corporate Social Responsibility & Sustainability,’’

departed the company to assume the role of CEO at the

solar energy company Calisolar (Forbes 2012a), Celanese

elected not to backfill the corporate sustainability TMT

position.

Likewise, at UPS, when Bob Stoffel retired from his

position as ‘‘SVP, Supply Chain, Strategy, Engineering, &

Sustainability’’ effective January 2011 after 35 years of

service with the company, his responsibilities for corporate

sustainability were formally transferred to UPS’s COO,

leaving no TMT position title that explicitly refers to

corporate sustainability. UPS (2010) explained the reas-

signment of responsibilities in the following press release:

A member of UPS’s Management Committee since

2004, Stoffel currently serves as the senior vice

president for supply chain, strategy, engineering and

sustainability. His retirement takes effect on January

1, 2011. Stoffel’s responsibilities for supply chain,

engineering and sustainability will be assumed by

Chief Operating Officer David Abney. His responsi-

bilities in the strategy arena have been assigned to

Alan Gershenhorn, the senior vice president for

worldwide sales and marketing.

‘‘Bob Stoffel has served this company with distinc-

tion for his entire working career and we will miss his

counsel and interaction in the day-to-day manage-

ment of UPS,’’ said Chairman and CEO Scott Davis.

‘‘Bob has been a key leader in this company’s strat-

egy development and transformation from a domestic

package delivery company to a global logistics lea-

der.’’ ‘‘He also has championed efforts to lessen

UPS’s environmental impact and to create a more

sustainable future for the company, its customers and

the communities that we serve,’’ Davis continued.

‘‘UPS’s future is bright because of Bob Stoffel’s

contributions’’.

Unlike those at Celanese and UPS, however, the cor-

porate sustainability TMT position at Duke Energy, Ford

Motor, Newmont Mining, and SKF survived the transition

between individuals. At Duke Energy, in 2010 Roberta B.

Bowman held the position of ‘‘SVP & Chief Sustainability

Officer,’’ which by 2012 had become the ‘‘VP & Chief

Sustainability Officer’’ position held by Shawn D. Heath.

Although Bowman left the company, she maintains an

advisory role as Senior Advisor to the Chairman, Duke

Energy on Xylem’s (2013) Water Advisory Board, where

her bio reads as follows:

Ms. Bowman has more than 30 years of experience in

the energy industry. She served as Senior Vice

President and Chief Sustainability Officer for Duke

Energy, creating the company’s first integrated sus-

tainability plan to drive efficiency and competitive

advantage by balancing environmental, economic and

social issues.

At Ford Motor, in 2010, Susan M. Cischke was ‘‘Group

VP, Sustainability, Environment & Safety Engineering,’’

but after retiring effective February 2012 after 35 years in

the automotive industry, her corporate sustainability

responsibilities were transferred to Robert Brown, who

assumed the title ‘‘VP, Sustainability, Environment &

Safety Engineering’’ reporting directly to Ford Motor’s

CEO. The accompanying press release (Ford 2012) made

the following comments on the transition:

‘‘Sue is the very best example of someone who is

committed to being part of the solution,’’ said Alan

Mulally, Ford president and CEO. ‘‘Sue knows how

to bring people together, find common ground and

make progress on the world’s big issues, especially

environmental sustainability, energy independence

and economic development.’’

Cischke was appointed to her current role in 2008 and

she has served as the company’s top environment and

safety officer since 2001. In this role, she has been

responsible for establishing Ford’s long-range sus-

tainability strategy and environmental policy and

assuring that Ford meets or exceeds all safety and

environmental regulations worldwide. She also has

been responsible for establishing Ford’s long-term

safety strategy, promoting aggressive standardization

of product technology that delivers real world safety

benefits. Cischke led the company’s participation in

the effort to develop one national standard for fuel

R. Strand

123

economy, resulting in industry-wide commitments to

nearly double fuel efficiency by 2025. ‘‘Sue’s con-

tributions to continuous improvement in the areas of

environment and safety will pay off for years to

come,’’ Mulally said. ‘‘Our company, our customers

and our communities will benefit from her commit-

ment to contribute to a better world.’’

… In his new role, Brown, 56, will assume direct

responsibility for the company’s environment and

safety strategy, policy and performance. He will

report to Alan Mulally. ‘‘Robert has the right com-

bination of skills and experience to lead Ford forward

in this very important area for our company and our

stakeholders,’’ Mulally said. ‘‘Robert’s appointment

ensures we will be positioned to continue our lead-

ership in the areas of sustainability and safety, and

demonstrates our continued strong commitment to

working together with all our stakeholders to develop

holistic solutions that contribute to a better world.’’

At Newmont Mining, after former ‘‘VP & Chief Sus-

tainability Officer’’ David A. Baker retired, Brian Hill

became ‘‘EVP, Sustainability and External Affairs’’ as

reported in the following press release from Newmont

Mining (2011):

Brian Hill, Newmont’s Executive Vice President for

Operations since 2008, will assume responsibility for

environmental leadership and sustainability, social

responsibility and community and government relations.

‘‘Given the challenges and complexities facing our

industry in jurisdictions around the globe, we need

Brian’s proven leadership capability and deep oper-

ating and business experience to create competitive

advantage for Newmont through our industry leading

sustainability efforts,’’ said Mr. O’Brien. ‘‘Brian has

been instrumental in driving high performance and

consistent execution in our operations, as well as

building an exceptional operations team.’’

Baker now serves on the board of directors of Resolve

(2013), where his bio refers to his role and responsibilities

at Newmont Mining:

Mr. Baker served as Newmont’s first Chief Sustain-

ability Officer where he had broad responsibility for

developing and implementing Newmont’s global

strategy for sustainability during an era of increasing

stakeholder focus and expectations on corporate

transparency, substantive community engagement

and the broader issues around sustainability, value

creation and shared value.

At SKF, in 2010, Eva Hansdotter held the position

‘‘SVP, Human Resources & Sustainability’’ but by 2012

had transitioned to the TMT position ‘‘SVP, Group People

& Business Excellence.’’ The position of ‘‘General Counsel

and SVP, Group Legal and Sustainability’’ was then filled

by Carina Bergfelt, who in 2010 was already a TMT

member with the position of General Counsel.

TMT Positions with the Keyword ‘‘CSR’’

As of 2012, only 2 of the original 9.5 TMT positions

associated with the related CSR concept remained (Table 4).

As previously mentioned, Helena Helmersson’s position title

at H&M had changed from CSR Manager to Sustainability

Officer. At Storebrand, the individual in the ‘‘EVP, Corpo-

rate Responsibility’’ position, Elin Myrmel-Johansen,

assumed the position of Director, Strategy Implementation,

and her sustainability and CSR responsibilities were

Table 4 Corporate social responsibility TMT positions

N Corporation Country Industry 2010 Position title 2012 Position title

1 Avon Products Inc. US Personal Goods SVP, Human Resources & Corporate

Responsibility

None

2 Hennes & Mauritz AB SE General Retailers CSR Manager Sustainability Officer

3 ITT Corp US General Industrials VP, Corporate Responsibility None

4 J.P. Morgan Chase & Co US Banks Head, Corporate Responsibility None

5 Lundin Petroleum AB SE Oil & Gas Producers VP, Corporate Responsibility same as 2010

6 Mattel US Leisure Goods SVP, Corporate Responsibility None

7 Nokia Corp. FI Tech Hardware & Equipment EVP, Corporate Relations & Responsibility None

8 Sprint Nextel Corp. US Mobile Telecom SVP, Corporate Communications &

Corporate Social Responsibility

same as 2010

9 Storebrand ASA NO Life Insurance EVP, Corporate Responsibility None

9� Celanese USS Chemicals Corporate EVP, Corporate Social

Responsibility & Sustainability

None

Leadership of Corporate Sustainability

123

formally transferred to VP of Strategy Pal Petersen. There-

fore, Storebrand no longer has a dedicated position related to

corporate sustainability in its TMT. These transitions are

explored in more depth in the discussion of the Step C

interview data.

At Avon Products, after ‘‘SVP, Human Resources &

Corporate Responsibility’’ Lucien Alziari left the company

to become ‘‘Head of Group Human Resources’’ at the

Danish shipping giant Maersk (2012), his TMT position was

not backfilled. Likewise, when ITT Corp separated into

three independent publicly traded corporations in 2011, Ann

D. Davidson, formerly ‘‘VP, Corporate Responsibility,’’

assumed the role of ‘‘Senior Vice President, Chief Legal

Officer & Corporate Secretary’’ with ITT Exelis, and her

original position was not backfilled at any of the three newly

formed corporations.

At the US toy company Mattel, as of 2010, Geoff

Massingberd held the position of ‘‘SVP, Corporate

Responsibility’’ but in February 2011 transitioned into

‘‘Executive Vice President, International’’ leaving the TMT

position dedicated to CSR at Mattel vacant. Instead, the

responsibilities associated with his former position were

formally transferred to a newly created TMT position,

‘‘Chief Operating Officer,’’ filled by Bryan Stockton.

Table 5 Ethics TMT positions

N Corporation Country Industry 2010 Position title 2012 Position title

1 AGL Resources US Gas, Water &

Multiutilities

EVP, General Counsel & Chief

Ethics & Compliance Officer

same as 2010

2 Allergan US Pharma & Biotech EVP, Chief Administrative Officer,

Secretary & Chief Ethics Officer

None

3 AOL US Software &

Computer

Services

SVP, Chief Ethics & Compliance

Officer

None

4 Edison International US Electricity VP & Chief Ethics & Compliance

Officer

VP, Risk Management, Chief Ethics and

Compliance Officer, and General

Auditor

5 Eli Lilly US Pharma & Biotech Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer &

SVP, Enterprise Risk Management

same as 2010

6 FTI Consulting US Support Services EVP, General Counsel, and Chief

Ethics Officer

None

7 Halliburton US Oil Equip, Services

& Distn

SVP, Chief Ethics & Compliance

Officer

same as 2010

8 Lubrizol US Chemicals Corporate VP, Global Risk

Management & Chief Ethics

Officer

Corporate VP & General Counsel, Chief

Ethics Officer

9 Medtronic US Health Care

Equipment &

Services

VP, Global Chief Ethics &

Compliance Officer

None

10 Navistar

International

US Industrial

Engineering

SVP, General Counsel & Chief

Ethics Officer

same as 2010

11 News Corporation US Media SVP, Deputy General Counsel, Chief

Compliance & Ethics Officer

None

12 On Semiconductor US Tech Hardware &

Equipment

SVP, General Counsel, Chief

Compliance & Ethics Officer &

Secretary

same as 2010

13 Qwest

Communications

(now CenturyLink)

US Fixed Line

Telecom

Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer &

SVP

None

14 Scotts Miracle-Gro US Household Goods

& Home

Construction

EVP & General Counsel, Chief

Ethics Officer

EVP & General Counsel, Corporate

Secretary and Chief Ethics &

Compliance Officer

15 Teco Energy US Electricity VP, Business Strategy &

Compliance, & Chief Ethics &

Compliance Officer

same as 2010

16 Teradata US Software &

Computer

Services

Deputy General Counsel & Chief

Ethics & Compliance Officer

same as 2010

R. Strand

123

Mattel’s CEO Robert Eckert describes this transition dur-

ing Mattel’s (2011) fourth quarter 2010 earnings call:

To set the stage for 2011, last month we announced

the appointment of Bryan Stockton, Mattel’s former

President of International, to the newly created

position of Chief Operating Officer, which further

aligns Mattel’s senior leadership team with the

company’s global strategic priorities. Bryan now

oversees the design, development, manufacturing,

marketing and sales of all Mattel toys globally, such

as Barbie, Hot Wheels, American Girl and Fisher-

Price, as well as licensed entertainment properties,

and the Mattel Digital Network. He is also respon-

sible for the Operations and Corporate Responsibility

functions.

The ‘‘SVP, Corporate Responsibility’’ position identified in

2010 had actually been created three years earlier in

September 2007 in response to Mattel’s highly publicized

product recalls of over 20 million toys because of safety

concerns and associated child deaths (Garrahan 2007). As a

result of these grave issues, Mattel’s CEO Robert Eckert

was called to testify before a US Senate Committee on

Appropriations (2007), at which time he announced the

creation of a corporate responsibility organization headed

by Massingberd and reporting directly to Eckert. His

testimony at the hearings included the following statement:

Like many of you, I am a parent. I, like you, care

deeply about the safety of children. And I, like you,

am deeply disturbed and disappointed by recent

events. As to lead paint on our products, our systems

were circumvented, and our standards were violated.

We were let down, and so we let you down. On

behalf of MatteI and its nearly 30,000 employees, I

apologize sincerely. I can’t change the past, but I can

change the way we do things. And I already have. We

are doing everything we can to prevent this from

happening again….

… As I said at the outset of my testimony, these

recent recalls have been a personal disappointment to

me and, I am sure, to all of the thousands of men,

women and parents who have always taken great

pride in working at Mattel. As an industry leader,

with some of the world’s best known and most trusted

brands, we frequently help set new standards for the

industry. We are by no means perfect. But we have

tackled difficult issues before and demonstrated an

ability to make change for the better, not only within

our own company but for the broader industry. In this

regard, we’ve created a new Corporate Responsibility

organization reporting directly to me. The new

organization adds an even greater level of account-

ability for adherence to the company’s safety and

compliance protocols.

At Nokia (2008), the ‘‘EVP, Corporate Relations and

Responsibility’’ position identified in 2010, which was

assumed by former Finnish Prime Minister Esko Aho when

he first joined Nokia in November 2008, is no longer part

of the TMT. After holding the position for 3 years, Aho

departed Nokia in May 2012 to assume a Senior Fellow-

ship at the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and

Government at Harvard’s Kennedy School (Nokia 2012).

As of 2012, no TMT position title exists at Nokia that

includes any of the keywords in this study.

At J.P. Morgan Chase & Company, in January 2011,

when William Daley left his 3-year post as ‘‘Head, Cor-

porate Responsibility’’ to serve as Chief of Staff to US

President Barack Obama in January 2011 (New York

Times 2011), the company awarded the position to Peter L.

Scher, one of 50 individuals listed on the company web site

as Executive Committee members. Unlike Daley, however,

Scher was not distinguished on the site as one of its select

group of 14 highest ranked executives, which includes

CEO James Dimon. As already explained in the method-

ology for Step A, a number as large as 50 violates the

concept of TMT as a relatively small group, the rationale

for applying a scoping method based on distinguishers

from the company web sites. This J.P. Morgan example,

therefore, represents the one instance in the replicated

study in which a position title was present on the corporate

website but excluded from identification in this study for

methodological reasons of scoping.

TMT Positions with the Keyword ‘‘Ethics’’

Of the 16 positions identified in 2010 as associated with the

keyword ‘‘ethics,’’ only ten remained by 2012 (Table 5).

One special case is that of FTI Consulting, where the

position of ‘‘EVP, General Counsel, and Chief Ethics

Officer’’ held in 2010 by Eric Miller had by 2012 been

renamed to EVP, General Counsel, and Chief Risk Officer.

As this includes no keywords relevant to the research,

Table 6 Stakeholder TMT positions

N Corporation Country Industry 2010 Position title 2012 Position title

1 Novozymes DK Pharma & Biotech EVP, Stakeholder Relations EVP, Chief of Staffs of Stakeholder Relations

Leadership of Corporate Sustainability

123

Miller’s post, although part of the TMT, was excluded

from this follow-up study.

TMT Position with the Keyword ‘‘Stakeholder’’

Finally, as shown in Table 6 the only TMT position iden-

tified in 2010 with the keyword ‘‘stakeholder’’ remained

intact, the ‘‘EVP and Chief of Staffs of Stakeholder Rela-

tions’’ at Novozymes held by Thomas Nagy.

Findings from Step C

We asked Storebrand CEO Idar Kreutzer, who was at the

helm of Storebrand during the installation of the position

‘‘EVP, Corporate Responsibility’’ in 2008, his rationale for

installing this position to the TMT. He stated:

We have worked intensively with the socially

responsibility investment (SRI) part of corporate

social responsibility since 1995. We are one of the

larger SRI investors in Europe. All our assets and the

management are managed according to very strict

criteria. In addition, I have been a member of the

World Business Council for Sustainability, a council

member since 2000. I have engaged in several of their

processes, and I have been fortunate to lead some of

them. And that has given me the necessary under-

standing to put our SRI activities in context. And my

reading of all the situation is that the global chal-

lenges we are facing—population, energy, climate,

resource, depletion, biodiversity, water—the global

challenges we are facing will fundamentally change

the framework for doing business and represent huge

risks, but also significant opportunities for business.

My intention for appointing a senior executive and

placing that position on the Executive Committee was

to lift the agenda from being a part of what we are

doing to bring it into the strategic complex of our core

business activities. That was the reason. So we have

gradually developed an understanding for the strategic

impact of what you’re talking about. Therefore,

instead of having this as something we did on the

investment side that did not affect the strategy of the

business, we wanted to lift it up to be a part of the, part

of the, so to say, the DNA of the strategic thinking of

the company. So that was the purpose. And Elin

Myrmel-Johansen held that position for three years

and did a fantastic job in both lifting the internal

awareness, bringing the global challenges and the CSR

agenda to a strategic level in the company, and also

engaging with our line managers to make them inter-

nally operational. That was the purpose.

According to Storebrand CEO Kreutzer, he modeled the

TMT level position after Norwegian municipalities of the

1970s and 1980s that put in place a separate Office for

Environmental Affairs to drive environmental initiatives

during this period. This also led Kreutzer to discuss his

rationale for later removing the position in 2011:

As a consequence of the discussion about environ-

mentally friendly municipalities, in the 1970’s and

1980’s all of the Norwegian municipalities put in place

an office for Environmental Affairs. So they had a

separate office and this office took care of the envi-

ronment. And now today we know that environmental

affairs have to do with transportation and building

policies—the core activities of municipalities.

So that was the picture I had in my head. We need to

have this for a limited timeframe, to lift the aware-

ness and then lift it into the core of the strategy. But I

did not know that it took 3 years. It could have been

five or two or seven.

We asked Kreutzer, who was also at the helm of

Storebrand during the removal of the TMT position, to

expand upon whether at the initial time of installation in

2008 whether he had then already planned to remove the

position by 2011. He offered:

My idea was to use [the installation of this TMT

position] as a stepping stone to getting [sustainability

and CSR] on to the strategic level. But I did not know

enough to really have an idea of how long that would

take us. But after three years, Elin and myself, we

agreed that we had reached a point where we were

prepared to take the next step. But that could vary

from business to business. And if we did not have the

history we had with SRIs 10, 15 years or so, focusing

on SRI investments and the gradual process we have

been through, we would probably have needed more

than three years of this position—perhaps five, per-

haps, seven years.

Along this vein, we asked SCA’s Kersti Strandqvist,

whose corporate sustainability role remains part of the

TMT, to predict whether SCA will always have such a

dedicated TMT position. Her reply echoed that of Store-

brand’s CEO:

In a way, I would almost hope that this position would

be redundant in five to seven years or something like

that because then it would be really part of the whole

company’s the way of working in such a way that, for

example, when we have quarterly reviews and speak

about our company with the analysts and so on, that we

would naturally report on our [key performance indi-

cators], also for sustainability. Then I’d say my

R. Strand

123

position is redundant because then it’s happening

anyway… But I think we’ve got a ways to go.

Strandqvist also stated that in her opinion, the reason

that a corporate sustainability TMT position remains nec-

essary as work remains to articulate the relationship

between corporate sustainability and economic value:

I’d say the main difficulty for us wouldn’t be internal.

It would be external because the world around us is

not really there yet. Some big customers are. Some

analysts and investors are, but not everybody. We still

require a lot of translation work. I was meeting up

with some [Wall Street] analysts the other week, and

it’s really interesting because they said, ‘‘This [sus-

tainability work SCA does] is great stuff. I do see that

it should probably contribute to the value of the

company and should impact the share price long term

but you need to help me put that into my Excel sheets

and my models.’’ That’s why I say it’s going to take

some time before this [removal of the corporate

sustainability TMT position] happens.

We also asked H&M’s Helena Helmersson to predict

whether H&M and others across the industry are likely to have

TMT positions dedicated to corporate sustainability and CSR

in the future. Helmersson also expressed a desire to embed

attention to CSR and corporate sustainability within the

business in such a way as to make the position unnecessary.

She emphasized ‘‘the responsibility never ends’’ where part of

her role is to continually find new areas in which H&M is

expected by its stakeholders to assume responsibility in areas

that they previously did not. She offered:

I think that more companies will install a position just

under the CEO [dedicated to CSR and sustainability].

However, the trend is really to incorporate CSR into

the business. We will always have some projects that

the CSR organization will have to drive- like the

Better Cotton Initiative because it’s huge. We want to

change how all of the cotton is produced in the world.

So there are specific projects that our team will drive.

But ideally, the CSR and sustainability responsibili-

ties could be embedded within the functional areas…However, here I’m not sure [if this is possible]

because I also see sustainability becoming more and

more complex. It’s like the responsibility never ends.

So I would see that [a dedicated position] will be

needed just because there’s always certain steps to take

before a specific functional area can drive it. It’s good

that it goes through a CSR department who knows the

trends, who knows what’s coming, and who knows

which new things to jump on and to continue with.

Relatedly, when we asked SCA’s Strandqvist what

advice she would offer to another company considering the

installation of a TMT position dedicated to corporate sus-

tainability, she gave the following reply:

I think they really need to be serious about what they

want to do. If it’s just to be able to communicate

sustainability and talk about the stuff that is hap-

pening in the organization, I think it might be a better

place within the communications team, which I

believe is quite common and has been quite common

so far. If they really want to [make] a change—

change the strategy into something that is really

building on sustainability rather than just adding that

touch—then I think that would help give them the

focus.

What I do, for example, in our executive team is I put

it on the agenda. Just by my being there having the

discussions, my asking the questions, and my [putt-

ing] the sustainability issues, strategies, and targets

on the executive committee agenda just chang[es] the

mindset of the whole company. It changes the focus.

We then asked SCA’s Strandqvist whether she would

advise a company that had never worked with sustain-

ability to install a dedicated position as part of its TMT:

That’s a very difficult question because I think that

would depend on the commitment from the CEO and

the top management team because it could work. If

you have a CEO who is really deeply determined that

‘‘Yes, we will make a change.’’ Just putting some-

body in the top management team would help trigger

that because then you could have people working on

the issues throughout the organization.

If the CEO is not committed, I think it’s going to be

an extremely difficult position. It could work from

zero but it’s easier, I think, if it’s really embedded in

the organization, because then you have the cham-

pions all over the company who could help you drive

it. If you set a target to reduce your environmental

impact, whether that’s water or carbon dioxide or

something like that, it’s not done within the staff

function in a headquarters.

It is actually done with the action plans happening in the

mills, in the factories. We set the targets. We follow up

on the key performance indicators (KPIs). We make sure

it happens and create the big picture for the company.

H&M’s Helmersson also described the benefits of

increasingly embedding attention to CSR and sustainability

across the organization:

Leadership of Corporate Sustainability

123

Since 2008, we have been in the process of incor-

porating our sustainability strategy in all functions,

which means that I am actually driving a support

department to support all the other functions. And

this sounds lovely, and it is... So the ownership is

there, and they have their goals. And they are driving

this, I would say, very much by themselves.

And then we have other functions which are not as

mature when it comes to sustainability where we

have to be clearer about what areas they can con-

tribute to. The interest is there but we need to make

sure that they know what to do and that they are

measured because that’s really a way to get clear

goals and to get the follow-up that we need and to get

people running. And so I would say that is extremely

different for different functions; how far they have

come and how much we need to support. And I

would guess that even though production and the

supply chain is more mature, this is still where we put

a lot of time—it’s a huge part since we are in very

challenging countries when it comes to human rights

and also the environmental issues. So we are still

providing very active support when it comes to sup-

ply chains—but also more and more in other func-

tions like marketing, design, interior and

construction. Logistics is one example of a depart-

ment that has been working with sustainability for a

very long time.

We also need to support our buying and design

department with improving their purchasing prac-

tices. For example, late product decisions might lead

to production peaks in our suppliers’ factories with

overtime as a consequence. Improving such a com-

plex issue is a journey because buyers are used to

being measured on how their collections are selling

without considering consequences for their purchas-

ing practices. That is what they are followed up on

every week... So it’s definitely there for all the

functions but it’s very different how much support we

need to give.

Noting the variety of position titles used by the com-

panies in our sample, we also asked questions about the

choice of titles for the position. According to Storebrand

CEO Kreutzer, he chose the title ‘‘EVP, Corporate

Responsibility’’ for internal communication but if he was

installing the position today he would elect to use a dif-

ferent title:

It had to communicate internally. In Norwegian, we

have something called samfunnsansvar, which is best

translated as ‘corporate responsibility’. So it

communicated well internally. It also communicated

well externally, and I guess that it was very much

where we were in the development. But in the general

public today, I would not call it corporate

responsibility.

I do not like the expression corporate responsibility

very much because in my opinion it sends the signal

of ‘do gooders’. By that I mean it under-communi-

cates the opportunity part of it, the strategic part of it,

the fundamental importance this has to the business.

So to me, corporate responsibility now limits the

perspective too much compared to what I’d like to

communicate … something significantly broader than

only corporate responsibility.

When we followed up with Kreutzer to ask what he

would title the position were he to launch it today, he

replied ‘‘I don’t know. I haven’t found a good name.’’

There are indicators, however, that Storebrand (2012) is in

fact shifting toward the language of sustainability, evi-

denced by a section of its 2011 annual report being con-

spicuously titled ‘‘From CSR to sustainability’’:

For 15 years, Storebrand has used CSR as a concept

for the work being carried out within the environ-

ment, social issues and social commitment. To ensure

long-term development as a company calls for more

than just assuming responsibility. It calls for a sus-

tainable strategy. The concept of sustainability

defines the core of long-term success: ‘‘sustainable

development should maintain this generation’s needs

without compromising the ability of future genera-

tions to meet their own needs’’. This is a guiding star

for the Group’s strategic planning and daily opera-

tions, and is followed up, among other things, by

asset management’s analysis of enterprises in the

investment process. Sustainability is also one of the

Group’s new promises to its customers.

A shift from CSR toward sustainability language is also

observed H&M, where Helmersson’s former title of CSR

Manager from 2010 has been amended to Sustainability

Officer as of 2012. We conducted our interview with her in

2011 before this change had been made, and at that time,

we asked Helmersson whether CSR was the most appro-

priate expression within her position title. She replied:

No. This has just been on the agenda in a team

meeting.. Corporate social responsibility talks more

about social, not environmental. So, I think that my

position title will be changed.

We then asked her whether the company was consid-

ering any potential alternatives to the CSR expression:

R. Strand

123

It’s more sustainability in that sense. Many compa-

nies have changed that already. And sustainability is

much broader and it goes in line with us working hard

with integrating environmental and social responsi-

bility in the business. We are convinced that social

and environmental responsibility will lead to long

term profits. So I would say sustainability.

Discussion

We structure this section around our two major research

questions: Why are corporate sustainability positions being

installed in TMTs? What effects do corporate sustainability

TMT positions have on their organizations? Before

engaging directly with these questions it is relevant to first

note that based upon the evidence presented within this

article, the Chief Sustainability Officer position does not

appear to be on its way to becoming a permanent fixture

within the TMTs at all large corporations. Of the 46 TMT

positions identified in 2010 as being associated with cor-

porate sustainability, only 27 remain as of 2012. This is a

removal of 41 % in just two years. Thus, the path of the

Chief Sustainability Officer appears to be unlike that of the

CFO position, for example, which was first introduced into

TMTs in the early 1960s and has since become a perma-

nent fixture within the TMTs of virtually all large corpo-

rations (Zorn 2004). We will revisit this as we consider our

research questions.

Why are Corporate Sustainability Positions Being

Installed in TMTs?

Based on the evidence presented, we can identify a number

of co-mingled reasons that serve as contributing factors for

the installation of TMT corporate sustainability positions.

Context is important where we consider whether the cor-

porate sustainability positions were installed reactively to

the TMT (in response to a crisis, for example) or proactively

(Suchman 1995). Consideration regarding reactive or pro-

active installation of the TMT position also relates to the

concept of managerial discretion—that is to say the leeway

or latitude of action available to TMT members that com-

prise a particular context (Hambrick and Finkelstein 1987;

Haleblian and Finikelstein 1993; Finkelstein et al. 2009,

pp. 26–37). Given the CEO is the individual ultimately

responsible for deciding whether or not to add a position to

the TMT, we focus attention on managerial discretion of the

CEO here.

We consider reactive or proactive installations by drawing

from Suchman’s (1995) landmark contribution Managing

Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. In it,

Suchman (1995, p. 597) states that ‘‘legitimacy repair

generally represents a reactive response to an unforeseen

crisis of meaning.’’ Mattel’s response serves as a clear

example of efforts to re-legitimize itself in the aftermath of a

crisis. Given that children and the concept of safe play are

central to the identity of Mattel as a toy company, the trag-

edies of 2007 in which children died as result of playing with

Mattel’s toys presented a crisis of meaning at Mattel. The

testimony by Mattel’s CEO to the US Senate Committee on

Appropriations in which the CEO emphasizes a restructured

TMT and organization is evidence of an attempt at legiti-

macy repair. In Suchman’s words (1995, pp. 598–599):

[B]eyond offering denials, excuses, justifications, and

explanations, organizations also may facilitate re-

legitimation through strategic restructuring (Pfeffer

1981).

Mattel’s strategic restructuring involved the installation

of a new member of the TMT by the title ‘‘SVP, Corporate

Responsibility’’ that was charged with responsibilities for

heading up a corporate responsibility organization. Mattel’s

CEO emphasized the direct reporting of this position to the

CEO as demonstration of the significance of the restructur-

ing as impacting the highest level of the organization.

With consideration to the concept of managerial dis-

cretion, Mattel’s CEO had limited managerial discretion in

making this decision given the presence of strong envi-

ronmental factors in the form of powerful external forces

(e.g., US Senate, parents as consumers) demanding explicit

and significant action by Mattel to address the crisis. Thus,

Mattel’s CEO was to a large degree ‘‘forced’’ by these

powerful external forces into conspicuously demonstrating

that significant action had been taken. Although Mattel’s

CEO was necessarily required to install a TMT position per

se, given the severity of the crisis and the need for re-

legitimization of the organization, the managerial discre-

tion was limited that made a restructure of this significant

nature that involved the TMT much more likely.

Storebrand, on the other hand, exemplifies a proactive

case of installing a TMT position. In this proactive case,

one can surmise that the internal organizational factors and

the CEO’s managerial characteristics play the most sig-

nificant role regarding why the TMT position is installed

given powerful external forces are not a pressing factor

(Hambrick and Finkelstein 1987). Thus, task for Store-

brand’s CEO to install a new TMT position involved

convincing of relevant stakeholders, like the Board of

Directors (West and Schwenk 1996), which such a TMT

position was needed. To do this, Storebrand’s CEO pointed

to the internal organizational factor that Storebrand had

recently undergone a major acquisition where the TMT

level CSR position could serve to help bind the organiza-

tions together. Storebrand’s CEO also emphasized the

opportunities for creating the TMT position to recognize

Leadership of Corporate Sustainability

123

opportunities as result of having such an externally focused

position as part of the TMT. Here the CEO’s managerial

characteristics are demonstrated. Drawing from Pless

et al.’s (2012) typography of individuals in top-level

leadership positions, one could surmise that a CEO who

demonstrates attention toward a broader constituent group

of stakeholders may be more likely to install a TMT

position dedicated to corporate sustainability or CSR as

these concepts are inherently concerned with a more

expansive suite of stakeholders.

Additionally, and related to the second question

regarding the effects of this TMT position, there appears to

be an associated installation of bureaucratic machinery

within the corporations to support the corporate sustain-

ability and CSR efforts. Bureaucracy involves the estab-

lishment of formalized organizational structures with

defined hierarchy, processes, and quantified elements like

KPIs intended to efficiently drive performances about a

stated objective (Meyer and Rowan 1977; Watson 2006,

2010; Weber 1978). Mattel’s CEO described the organi-

zational structure that accompanied the TMT position,

Storebrand’s CEO referred to governmental bureaucracy

with the Office for Environmental Affairs as inspiration for

installation of the position and associated structures, and

the individuals associated with the TMT positions at H&M

and SCA both stressed the processes and KPIs put in place

across their respective corporations to drive efforts. Fur-

thermore, the degree to which the implementation of this

bureaucratic machinery in the corporation is successful,

effects lasting beyond the tenure of a position in the TMT

can be expected. This is relevant to consider given the

finding that many of these positions have since been

removed from the TMTs with transfer of responsibilities to

other members of the TMT—but where presumably the

underlying bureaucratic structure remains in place at the

time of transfer. This raises relevant questions for further

research regarding the effects of a transfer in responsibil-

ities where corporate sustainability no longer has an

explicit ‘‘seat at the table’’ of the TMT. Such consider-

ations regarding the effects of the corporate sustainability

TMT position and the associated bureaucracies lead to our

second question.

What Effects do Corporate Sustainability TMT

Positions have on the Organization?

The original study by Strand (2013) adds fuel to this

question with its finding that corporations with a TMT

position dedicated to corporate sustainability are three

times more likely to be selected for the Dow Jones Sus-

tainability Index (DJSI) than corporations no such TMT

position. While Strand (2013) emphasizes that the relation

is correlational (not causational) and that sustainability

performance measurements like the DJSI are not without

their critics (e.g., Chatterji et al. 2009), these findings draw

further attention this question regarding the potential

effects of corporate sustainability TMT positions at their

organizations. We consider this question from a number of

perspectives here.

Traditional TMT studies have focused on the effects of

the demographics of individuals who comprise the TMT

and their effects on organizational performances, with a

particular focus on the effects of heterogeneity of demo-

graphics among members (Wiersema and Bantel 1992;

Hambrick et al. 1996; Carpenter 2002). Future studies of

this traditional TMT scholarship nature may consider the

demographics of the individuals in the corporate sustain-

ability TMT positions and the effects their introduction to

the TMT. For example, Strand (2013, p. 728n.4) notes that

‘‘a conspicuously high proportion of females’’ holds the

CSR and corporate sustainability positions in the TMT in

comparison to the relatively low proportion of females

holding TMT positions in general. Past studies have linked

the concepts of CSR and sustainability to so-called ‘‘fem-

inine’’ qualities (e.g. Park et al. 2007; Casimir and Dutilh

2003; Strand 2011, p. 92), and studies have also linked

heterogeneity introduced by having women in the tradi-

tionally male-dominated TMTs as impacting firm-level

performances (Krishnan and Park 2005; Smith et al. 2006).

With this in consideration, future studies may consider the

effects of women in the TMT on the sustainability per-

formances of corporations. In addition to gender, future

studies may consider the apparent demographic heteroge-

neity of backgrounds introduced to the TMT with this

position given that a wide assortment of non-traditional

backgrounds including environmental sciences (e.g., UPS

and Ford Motor Company) and politics (e.g., Nokia and

J.P. Morgan & Chase) represented by the individuals

occupying this position.

But beyond this more traditional TMT scholarship

focusing on demographic heterogeneity of individuals, this

may be re-applied in a shift toward considering ‘‘TMT

structure’’ by the heterogeneity of the positions represented

within it. The corporate sustainability position is a non-

traditional role within the TMT that introduces a degree of

heterogeneity of positions. Through this, the sustainability

agenda is introduced to the TMT alongside of the agenda

represented by more traditional TMT positions, such as the

CFO. Carpenter (2002) points to distinct information, more

skills, and potentially productive conflict in TMT decision-

making processes as benefits of TMT heterogeneity.

Likewise, SCA’s corporate sustainability TMT officer

Kersti Strandquist stated her belief that simply asking

questions that otherwise would not have been asked by the

traditional members of the TMT and having a different

perspective representing the sustainability agenda

R. Strand

123

participating in the strategy-setting process as part of her

TMT position has placed corporate sustainability on the

SCA agenda which in turn can help to drive sustainability

performances. Further scholarship may fruitfully move

beyond a traditional focus on the demographics of indi-

viduals within the TMT to explore what happens when the

heterogeneous mix of strategic priorities includes the sus-

tainability agenda.

Many scholars point to the heightened degree of sym-

bolism that TMT members represent simply for ‘‘being at

the top of the organizational hierarchy’’ and the effect this

can have on organizational performances. At the TMT

level, ‘‘all executives actions carry added meaning…conveying surplus messages to observers … [who are]

trying to detect the executive’s intentions, values, predis-

positions, and where he or she is headed’’ (Finkelstein et al.

2009, p. 19; see also, Pfeffer 1981; Green 1988). As a

result, installing a corporate sustainability position in the

TMT is likely to send a strong signal to the company that

sustainability is of importance to the organization that can,

in turn, lead to organizational effects as individuals across

the organization perceive that corporate sustainability is a

priority and preference their actions accordingly, and sus-

tainability performances follow.

Such symbolism is relevant when considering the inher-

ently cross-functional nature of sustainability and the need to

draw upon individuals and resources from across the orga-

nization that do not likely report to the individual in the

corporate sustainability position. Thus, having a corporate

sustainability position at the level of the TMT may make it

more likely people will engage and prioritize their activities

with respect to the priorities expressed by the individual in

the corporate sustainability TMT position—and more likely

for the eventual adoption and prioritization of the sustain-

ability agenda within the agenda of their functional units

through ongoing engagement and encouragement of the

individual in the corporate sustainability TMT position.

H&M serves as example of this where Helmersson describes

that since 2008, the company has been on a path to incor-

porate the sustainability strategy within functions firm wide

where managers across H&M are increasingly taking own-

ership of the corporate sustainability agenda, establishing

their own goals, and are driving the sustainability agenda

‘‘very much by themselves.’’

H&M’s Helmersson also describes the formal structures

that have arisen under her TMT position including the

establishment of bureaucratizing elements (Meyer and

Rowan 1977; Weber 1978) such as formalized structures

and processes, quantifiable goals, and KPIs to drive perfor-

mance. Such bureaucratization is echoed by Storebrand

CEO Kruetzer’s using the Norwegian governmental Office

for Environmental Affairs as inspiration for establishing a

TMT position specifically for sustainability and CSR.

According to Adler and Borys (1996), both the formalization

and specialization of workflow, together with a hierarchy in

which a chief officer heads a corporate sustainability

bureaucracy within an organizational bureaucracy are core

features of bureaucracy overall.

Although the term ‘‘bureaucracy’’ itself is too often seen

as inherently negative, here we consider both the concept

and its process in a value-neutral manner consistent with

Weber’s analytical application (du Gay 2000). In this sense,

the establishment of a corporate sustainability bureaucracy

within the larger corporate bureaucracy is a means through

which to establish processes and KPIs that can outlast the

tenure of any individual or position. Thus, to the degree that

processes and KPIs were established at H&M and Store-

brand during the tenures of associated TMT positions at the

top of the corporate sustainability bureaucratic hierarchy,

corporate sustainability performance will likely continue to

be driven. This durability is particularly relevant given that

in the two years since the original study, many of the TMT

positions have been removed. Therefore, to the extent that

the individuals occupying the TMT positions during this

time are successful in establishing the bureaucratic

machinery of processes and KPIs linked to organizational

sustainability-related objectives, longer term sustainability

performance may be anticipated. As such, the removal of the

corporate sustainability TMT position is not necessarily a

sign of a discontinuation of sustainability activities at the

corporation.

In his original study, Strand (2013) points to Novo

Nordisk as an example of this where raising corporate

sustainability to the TMT level was used as a means to

heighten organizational interest and build supporting

organizational bureaucratic structures whereby the head

corporate sustainability position can then be later moved to

a lower level in the organization. In the early 2000s Lise

Kingo ascended to the TMT at Novo Nordisk in a position

charged with formal corporate sustainability tasks; by

2012, however, as reflected by her broadened and all-

inclusive title of ‘‘EVP, Chief of Staffs’’, she had also

absorbed a number of other organizational responsibilities.

Today, explicit attention to corporate sustainability resides

at a level one step lower than the TMT with Susanne

Stormer’s position of ‘‘VP, Corporate Sustainability’’ who

is charged with coordinating Novo Nordisk’s sustainability

efforts. The merits of this approach are suggested by For-

bes’ (2012b) citing Novo Nordisk as ‘‘the most sustainable

company on the planet’’ given its top position in the Global

100 sustainability performance rating.

We deem Novo Nordisk as a success story but this claim

can be made only after further investigation that goes

beyond an exploration of whether or not a dedicated TMT

position exists. When formal responsibility for corporate

sustainability has been transferred from a dedicated TMT

Leadership of Corporate Sustainability

123

position to more general positions like COO and CFO, or to

a lower level in the organization, assessing the outcomes of

such a transfer requires more in-depth and longitudinal

investigation on a company by company basis (see also

Gephart 1978). In the case of Mattel, for example, we

might ask what effects Mattel’s dedicated TMT position

has had on the company now that the formal responsibility

for CSR has transitioned to the COO? Without further

exploration into whether organizational processes and KPIs

that remain in place at Mattel, it is difficult to judge.

These questions re-invite consideration of why the posi-

tion was installed in the first place. This can be fruitfully

addressed by considering Weaver et al.’s (1999) initial

drivers of corporate ethics program establishment. Drawing

from neoinstitutional theory, Weaver et al. explore these

corporations’ expectations for socially responsible processes

and outcomes and determine whether their responses are

‘‘organizationally integrated’’ or ‘‘decoupled.’’ Focusing on

the establishment of formal corporate ethics programs, they

find to support for the theoretical position that external

pressures for social performance are likely to encourage

easily decoupled processes, whereas commitment (or lack

thereof) by corporate TMTs tends to encourage decoupled

responses or integrated processes.

It is apparent that in some cases the Chief Sustainability

Officer position was installed temporarily with the specific

intent of raising sustainability considerations and related

issues on the corporation’s strategic agenda, meaning that

the removal of the TMT position may well be an indicator

of its success. In the case of the Norwegian life insurance

corporation Storebrand, for instance, the TMT position of

EVP, Corporate Responsibility, held for the 3 years of its

existence by Elin Myrmel-Johansen, was put into place in

January 2008 and removed in February 2011. Upon

removal of the position, the formal CSR and corporate

sustainability responsibilities at Storebrand officially

transferred to Pal Petersen, the VP of Strategy (a position

not included in the TMT on Storebrand’s corporate web

site), while Myrmel-Johansen assumed the position of

Director, Strategy Implementation (also not listed among

Storebrand’s TMT). Yet previous research on TMT turn-

over has consistently interpreted individual departures as

evidence of a downward spiral in the overall organization

(Hambrick and D’Aveni 1992; Finkelstein et al. 2009,

p. 234). Our findings, in contrast, suggest that the removal

of a TMT position is not necessarily evidence of organi-

zational failure.

It may be argued by some that the installation of a TMT

position for legitimacy purposes is akin to ‘‘window

dressing.‘‘ That said, its establishment may also serve as an

entry point for dialog and discussions, one that encourages

reflection about the corporation’s impacts on and role in

society. Thus a little window dressing is not necessarily a

bad thing as it can lead to the change it purports to rep-

resent (Lunheim 2005; Christensen et al. 2013). Hence, in

his now classic text, On Bullshit, Frankfurt (2005)

emphasizes that provided a complete decoupling of rheto-

ric from considerations to reality does not occur, action can

follow. From this perspective, the installation of a corpo-

rate sustainability TMT position may be a signal of orga-

nizational aspirations that may subsequently lead to more

sustainable practices.

All of this said, contextual factors clearly matter

regarding the effects of the removal of a corporate sus-

tainability TMT position can be removed. H&M serves as

example where removing the corporate sustainability TMT

position would, arguably, lead to a potential deterioration

of corporate sustainability performances given the ever-

expanding expectations for responsibilities that H&M

experiences that demand trend-spotters and coordination

across that large corporation. This expansion of responsi-

bilities and dynamism of issues faced by H&M is arguably

different than with Storebrand, for example. Hence while

the corporate sustainability TMT position is being removed

from TMTs, one may anticipate that for a selection of

corporations facing expanding expectations of responsi-

bilities, like H&M, the position is more likely to stay at the

level of the TMT.

Additional Considerations

While not the focus of this study, the apparent shift in the

language of these TMT positions from CSR toward sus-

tainability is noteworthy and represents the potential realm

of promising future studies in its own right. We find that

among TMT positions, the ratio of titles that explicitly

include the phrases ‘‘CSR’’ or ‘‘corporate responsibility’’ to

those explicitly including the word ‘‘sustainability’’ drop-

ped from 0.49 in 2010 to 0.29 in 2012 (see Table 2). In

other words, in 2010, for every one TMT position explic-

itly referencing ‘‘CSR,’’ there were about two positions

explicitly referencing ‘‘sustainability.’’ By 2012, for every

one TMT position explicitly referencing ‘‘CSR,’’ there

were about three positions explicitly referencing ‘‘sustain-

ability.’’ The sample that generated these statistics is quite

small (N = 46 in 2010; N = 29 in 2012) where this shift

illustrated in Table 2 does not by itself represent a statis-

tically significant difference. Nevertheless, the evidence of

a language shift from ‘‘CSR’’ toward ‘‘sustainability,’’

expressed in Strand’s (2013, p. 728) conclusion that ‘‘there

is some suggestion that the ratio of ‘sustainability lan-

guage’ to ‘CSR language’ is increasing,’’ is supported in

this follow-up study by data from the interviews with

H&M and Storebrand officers.

This language shift may be fruitfully interpreted through

a management fashion lens (Abrahamson 1996;

R. Strand

123

Abrahamson and Fairchild 1999). The theory of manage-

ment fashion proposes that managers face continued pres-

sures to move from normative toward rational language.

Storebrand’s Kreutzer, for instance, pointed to the limita-

tions of the corporate responsibility and CSR language and

its associations with ‘‘doing good,’’ possibly indicating that

focusing on a company’s ethical imperative to assume

responsibility overshadows its business opportunities.

Throughout the interview, Kreutzer seemed to endorse the

notion of what has been termed ‘‘strategic ethics’’ (Good-

paster 1991:2 Quinn and Jones 1995) whereby ethical

considerations for such elements as responsibilities and

duties can be effecient means through which to further

company interests. This may serve as indicator of a desire

to move from normative toward rational language.

Relatedly, this language shift from CSR toward sus-

tainability may be considered through the Weberian con-

cepts of substantive and formal rationality (Weber 1958,

1978; Brubaker 1991). Substantive rationality has to do

with beliefs and values whereas formal rationality has to do

with efficiency. As Strand (2013) notes, the language

associated with the CSR keyword tends to appeal to sub-

stantive rationality whereas the language associated with

sustainability tends to appeal to formal rationality. ‘‘With

respect to CSR, an area for further exploration to consider

[are the] potential tensions that may arise as formally

rational tools are increasingly adopted by corporations

intended to more efficiently drive CSR efforts but may also

unintentionally raise the potential for charges of substan-

tive irrationality’’ (Strand 2013, p. 728; see also Guthey

2012; Guthey & Morsing 2013).

This consideration of language may point to a limitation

of this study given that in our analysis, we focus on the

keywords ‘‘sustainability’’ and ‘‘CSR,’’ at times lumping

together and at times treating as distinct. Both these terms,

as well as their associated expressions, have been contested

on the grounds that they hold different meanings for dif-

ferent people (Moon et al. 2005; Gond and Crane 2010).

Hence, by focusing solely on keywords represented within

position titles, we are in effect treating these expressions

superficially. These terms are contestable, suggesting that

future research might benefit from more in-depth explora-

tion of what they mean to those who hear and use

them. The ambiguity associated with these expressions

may also be utilized in a strategic manner (Eisenberg 1984;

Guthey and Morsing 2013). This may be particularly the

case with the expression sustainability given that, for

example, this expression may be well-received by a CFO

who may consider sustainability in terms of economic

sustainability. Hence a Chief Sustainability Officer may

choose to strategically use the expression sustainability

rather than expressions associated with CSR when engag-

ing with more traditional members of the TMT, like the

CFO.

A further limitation of this study is that given we have

followed the methodology presented by Strand (2013) to

identify TMTs, we do not identify whether the 46 TMT

positions are direct-reporting to CEOs. Such reporting

structures are not available upon the cursory review

afforded by this methodology. Identifying reporting struc-

tures requires more in-depth analysis. (In the subset of

companies explored, all of these positions are direct reports

to the CEO.) Future research may consider the effects of

driving sustainability initiatives at various levels of the

corporation—from direct reporting to the CEO down to

levels below the CEO in the corporate hierarchy.

Conclusions

In this article, we focused our attention on the strategic

leadership of corporate sustainability by exploring the

recent introduction by several of the world’s largest cor-

porations of dedicated corporate sustainability positions

into their top management teams (TMTs)—often referred

to as ‘‘Chief Sustainability Officers.’’ We present evidence

of these positions having been installed both reactively (in

response to a crisis, for example) and proactively and

where these positions appear to be in a very dynamic state

as a number of these TMT positions have recently been

installed but even more recently removed.

Traditional TMT scholarship has linked the departure of

individuals from the TMT as serving as evidence of a

downward spiral in the overall organization. However, we

find that the removal of the corporate sustainability focused

TMT position may not necessarily be a signal of failure.

Rather, this may serve as the successful incorporation of

attention to sustainability in the form of a bureaucratic

structure including processes and KPIs to drive the sus-

tainability agenda. Thus, removal can have multiple

meanings where an in-depth analysis is needed on a case by

case basis to make such judgments.

This represents both the greatest limitation and arguably

the most significant finding of this study. Regarding limi-

tations, despite presenting evidence that many corporate

sustainability TMT positions are now being removed

despite only recently having been introduced to their

respective TMTs, we cannot offer generalizations regard-

ing whether or not this is indication of success or failure

and the overall effects on sustainability performances of

these companies. However, this serves as an important

finding as one may otherwise inappropriately assume that

just because a TMT position dedicated to corporate

2 Goodpaster (1991) employs the expression ‘‘strategic ethics’’ but

does not endorse it.

Leadership of Corporate Sustainability

123

sustainability is removed from the TMT, the installation of

the position was a failure and the organization is no longer

concerned with the sustainability agenda. We contend that

such judgment cannot be made through a cursory review of

positions represented within the TMT but rather requires

attention on a case by case basis.

Hence, while we generally agree that TMT position

titles are useful indicators of the issues that the corporation

deems strategically and/or symbolically significant as

proposed within Strand (2013), we find that it is equally

important to bear in mind that the removal of the corporate

sustainability position from the TMT does not, in and of

itself, indicate that sustainability is any less important at an

organization. This presents an opportunity for further

research to consider how the elevating of a TMT position

dedicated to corporate sustainability for a specified dura-

tion may be utilized as a means through which to establish

bureaucratic structures with formalized processes and KPIs

to drive sustainability performances. This may also entail

exploration regarding what kinds of corporate sustainabil-

ity bureaucratic structures are most effective. For example,

Novo Nordisk is highlighted within this article as pre-

senting the potential for a best-practice case study. So how

exactly does Novo Nordisk structure its corporate sus-

tainability efforts and what effects can be observed at

Novo Nordisk as result? Additionally, the longer term

effects of having once installed a corporate sustainability

position to the TMT and then having removed it may be

considered. For example, even if the TMT position is

deemed a success upon its removal, might attention to

sustainability erode over time? If so, could this merit a

periodic re-establishment of the TMT position to reinvig-

orate company-wide sustainability efforts? These longer

term considerations regarding the effects of having instal-

led a TMT position with dedicated responsibilities for a

specified period of time present an area of opportunity for

further research and can help to illuminate our under-

standing of the effects of TMT structures on organizational

performances.

References

Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Manage-

ment Review, 21(1), 254–285.

Abrahamson, E., & Fairchild, G. (1999). Management fashion:

Lifecycles, triggers, and collective learning processes. Adminis-

trative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 708–740.

Adler, P. S., & Borys, B. (1996). Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling

and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 61–90.

Arendt, L., Priem, R., & Ndofor, H. (2005). A CEO-adviser model of

strategic decision making. Journal of Management, 31(5),

680–699.

Balch, O. (2011). Chief sustainability officers: CSOs in the C-suite.

The Ethical Corporation. April.

Baron, J., & Beilby, W. (1986). The proliferation of job titles in

organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 561–586.

Beauchamp, T. L., Bowie, N. E., & Arnold, D. G. (2009). Ethical

theory and business (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Prentice Hall.

Brubaker, R. (1991). The limits of rationality: An essay on the social

and moral thought of Max Weber. New York: Routledge.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business research methods. Oxford

University Press.

Capriottia, P., & Morenob, A. (2007). Corporate citizenship and

public relations: The importance and interactivity of social

responsibility issues on corporate web sites. Public Relations

Review, 33(1), 84–91.

Carpenter, M. A. (2002). The implications of strategy and social

context for the relationship between top management team

heterogeneity and firm performance. Strategic Management

Journal, 23(3), 275–284.

Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2004).

Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and

consequences of top management team composition. Journal of

Management, 30(6), 749–778.

Carpenter, M., & Reilly, G. (2006). Construct and construct

measurement in upper echelons research. In D. Ketchen, D.

Bergh, & D. Bergh (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and

management (Vol. 3). New York: Elsevier.

Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a

definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295.

Casimir, G., & Dutilh, C. (2003). Sustainability: A gender studies

perspective. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27,

316–325.

Certo, S. T., Lester, R. H., Dalton, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (2006). Top

management teams, strategy, and financial performance: A meta-

analytic examination. Journal of Management Studies, 43,

813–839.

Chatterji, A., Levine, D., & Toffel, M. (2009). How well do social

ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility. Journal

of Economics and Management Strategy, 18(1), 125–169.

Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as

aspirational talk. Organization, 20(3), 372–393.

Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2010). Business ethics: Managing corporate

citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization (3rd

ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined:

An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility

and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1–13.

Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a

stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management

Review, 22(1), 20–47.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited:

Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organiza-

tional fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

Du Gay, P. (2000). In praise of bureaucracy: Weber-organization-

ethics. London: Sage.

Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for

corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment,

11(2), 130–141.

Eisenberg, E. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational

communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227–242.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from

cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management

Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks. The triple bottom line of

21st century business. Oxford: Capstone Publishing.

R. Strand

123

European Commission. (2011). A renewed EU strategy 2011–2014

for corporate social responsibility. Brussels: European

Commission.

Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top-management-team

tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of

managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly,

484–503.

Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D., & Cannella, A. (2009). Strategic

leadership: theory and research on executives, top management

teams, and boards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Forbes. (2012). Profiles: Sandra lin. Retrieved February 1, 2012, from

http://www.forbes.com/profile/sandra-lin/.

Forbes. (2012). Ranking the world’s most sustainable companies. 24

January. Retrieved June 1, 2012, from http://www.forbes.com/

sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/01/24/ranking-the-worlds-most-sustain

able-companies.

Ford. (2012). Press release: ford environment and safety chief sue

cischke to retire after 35-year career; Robert Brown named her

successor. Retrieved October 1, 2012, from http://media.ford.

com/article_display.cfm?article_id=35731.

Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University

Press.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder

approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.

Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Parmar, B., & de Colle, S.

(2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Garrahan, M. (2007). Design not China blamed for toy recalls.

Financial Times.

Gephart, R. P, Jr. (1978). Status degradation and organizational

succession: An ethnomethodological approach. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 23, 553–581.

Gond, J., & Crane, A. (2010). Corporate social performance

disoriented: Saving the lost paradigm? Business and Society,

49(4), 677–703.

Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business ethics and stakeholder analysis.

Business Ethics Quarterly, 1, 53–73.

Gourji, L. (2008). Adding sustainability to the C-Suite. Corporate

Board Member Magazine. Retrieved November 1, 2012, from

www.boardmember.com/MagazineArticle_Details.aspx?id=417.

Green, S. (1988). Strategy, organizational culture and symbolism.

Long Range Planning, 21(4), 121–129.

Guthey, E. (2012). Fashions, trends, and the production of leader-

ship. Presented at The Administrative Science Association of

Canada, St. Johns, Newfoundland.

Guthey, E., & Morsing, M. (2013). CSR and the mediated

emergence of strategic ambiguity. Journal of Business Eth-

ics. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-2005-7.

Haleblian, J., & Finikelstein, S. (1993). Top management team size,

CEO dominance, and firm performance: the moderating roles of

environmental turbulence and discretion. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 36(4), 844–863.

Hambrick, D. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of

Management Review, 32(2), 334–343.

Hambrick, D. C., Cho, T. S., & Chen, M. J. (1996). The influence of

top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive

moves. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 659–684.

Hambrick, D. C., & D’Aveni, R. A. (1992). Top team deterioration as

part of the downward spiral of large corporate bankruptcies.

Management Science, 38(10), 1445–1466.

Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. (1987). Managerial discretion: a

bridge between polar views of organizational outcomes.

Research in organizational behavior.

Hambrick, D., & Mason, P. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization

as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management

Review, 9, 193–206.

Hirsch, P. M., & Levin, D. Z. (1999). Umbrella advocates versus

validity police: A life-cycle model. Organization Science, 10(2),

199–212.

Just Good Business. (2008). A special report on corporate social

responsibility. The Economist. 19 January.

Krishnan, H. A., & Park, D. (2005). A few good women: On top

management teams. Journal of Business Research, 58(12),

1712–1720.

Lubin, D. A., & Esty, D. C. (2010). The sustainability imperative.

Harvard Business Review, 88(5), 42–50.

Lunheim, R. (2005). Confessions of a corporate window dresser (pp.

6–7). Summer: Leading Perspectives.

Mærsk. (2012). Press release 7 August 2012: Changes in the HR

organisation at A. P. Moller—Maersk. Retrieved October 1, 2012,

from www.maerskpress.com/Latest-Press-Releases/changes-in-

the-hr-organisation-at-a.p.-moller-maersk/s/0e168cd3-0b59-4ec3-

b843-59313adbecb2.

Marrewijk, M. V. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and

corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion.

Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 95–105.

Mattel. (2011). Mattel Inc. Q4 2010 Earnings Call. 2 February 2011.

Transcripts provided by Factset-callstreet.

Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an

extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management

Review, 30(1), 166–179.

McNulty, E. & Davis, R. (2010). Should the C-suite have a ‘‘green’’

suite? Harvard Business School. December.

Menz, M. (2012). Functional top management team members: A

review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management,

38(1), 45–80.

Menz, M., & Scheef, C. (forthcoming). Chief strategy officers:

Contingency analysis of their presence in top management

teams. Strategic Management Journal. doi 10.1002/smj.2104.

Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations.

American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Moon, J., Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2005). Can corporations be

citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business

participation in society. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15, 427–451.

Newmont Mining. (2011). Press release: Newmont appoints gary

goldberg as executive vice president and chief operating officer;

brian hill appointed executive vice president of sustainability and

external affairs. Retrieved October 1, 2012, from http://www.

newmont.com/our-investors/press-releases/2011/10102011.

New York Times. (2011). Business background defines chief of staff.

6 January. Retrieved June 1, 2012, from http://www.nytimes.

com/2011/01/07/us/politics/07daley.html?_r=0.

Nokia. (2008). Press release 15 August 2008. Esko Aho to join Nokia on

November 1, 2008: Veli Sundback to retire at the end of May,

2009. Retrieved June 1, 2012, from http://presse.nokia.fr/2008/08/

15/esko-aho-to-join-nokia-on-november-1-2008-veli-sundback-

to-retire-at-the-end-of-may-2009.

Nokia. (2012). Press release 30 May 2012. Retrieved June 1, 2012,

from http://press.nokia.com/2012/05/30/esko-aho-to-join-har

vard-university-as-senior-fellow.

Park, H., Russell, C., & Lee, J. (2007). National culture and

environmental sustainability: A cross-national analysis. Journal

of Economics and Finance, 31(1), 104–121.

Pettigrew, A. (1992). On studying managerial elites. Strategic

Management Journal. Special Issue: Fundamental Themes in

Strategy Process Research, 13(Winter), 163–182.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Management as symbolic action: The creation and

maintenance of organizational paradigms. Research in Organi-

zational Behavior, 3(1), 1–52.

Leadership of Corporate Sustainability

123

Pless, N. M., Maak, T., & Waldman, D. A. (2012). Different

approaches toward doing the right thing: Mapping the respon-

sibility orientations of leaders. Academy of Management Per-

spectives, 26(4), 51–65.

Quinn, D. P., & Jones, T. M. (1995). An agent morality view of

business policy. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 22–42.

Resolve. (2013). Board of directors biography: David A. Baker.

Retrieved April 1, 2013, from http://www.resolv.org/blog/

boardofdirectors/dave-baker.

Rigby, D., & Tager, S. (2008). Learning the advantages of sustainable

growth. Strategy and Leadership, 36(4), 24–28.

Senate Committee on Appropriations. (2007). Testimony of Robert A.

Eckert. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mattel, Inc.

Submitted to the Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcom-

mittee on Financial Services and General Government. Wash-

ington, DC 12 September 2007. Retrieved June 1, 2012, from

www.appropriations.senate.gov.

Smith, K. G., Smith, K. A., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P, Jr., O’Bannon, D.

P., & Scully, J. A. (1994). Top management team demography

and process: The role of social integration and communication.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412–438.

Smith, N., Smith, V., & Verner, M. (2006). Do women in top

management affect firm performance? A panel study of 2,500

Danish firms. International Journal of Productivity and Perfor-

mance Management, 55(7), 569–593.

Storebrand. (2012). Storebrand 2011 annual report. Retrieved October

15, 2012, from http://www.storebrand.no/site/stb.nsf/2011Annual

Index.html.

Strand, R. (2011). Exploring the role of leadership in corporate social

responsibility: A review. Journal of Leadership, Accountability,

and Ethics, 8(4), 84–96.

Strand, R. (2013). The chief officer of corporate social responsibility:

A study of its presence in top management teams. Journal of

Business Ethics, 112(4), 721–734.

Strang, D., & Baron, J. N. (1990). Categorical imperatives: the

structure of job titles in California state agencies. American

Sociological Review, 55, 479–495.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institu-

tional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3),

571–610.

Tagesson, T., Blank, V., Broberg, P., & Collin, S. (2009). What

explains the extent and content of social and environmental

disclosures on corporate web sites: A study of social and

environmental reporting in Swedish listed corporations. Corpo-

rate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,

16(6), 352–364.

Tiessen, J. H. (2004). Multinational multilingualism on the internet:

The use of Japanese on corporate web sites. Canadian Journal of

Administrative Sciences, 21(2), 180–189.

United Parcel Service (UPS). (2010). Press release 20 December 2012.

Bob Stoffel retiring after 35 years of service. Retrieved June 1,

2012, from http://www.pressroom.ups.com/Press?Releases/

Archive/2010/Q4/Bob?Stoffel?Retiring?After?35?Years?

of?Service.

Watson, T. J. (2006). Organising and managing work: Organisa-

tional, managerial and strategic behaviour in theory and

practice (2nd ed.). London: Financial Times: Prentice Hall,

Pearson Education.

Watson, T. J. (2010). Critical social science, pragmatism and the

realities of HRM. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 21(6), 915–931.

Weaver, G. R., Trevino, L. K., & Cochran, P. L. (1999). Integrated

and decoupled corporate social performance: Management

commitments, external pressures, and corporate ethics practices.

Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 539–552.

Weber, M. (1958). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (T.

Parsons, Trans.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Weber, M. (1978). Bureaucracy. In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.),

Economy and society (Vol. 2). Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press.

Weinreb Group. (2011). CSO back story: How chief sustainability

officers reached the C-suite. September 2011. Retrieved Decem-

ber 15, 2012, from http://weinrebgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/

2011/09/CSO-Back-Story-by-Weinreb-Group.pdf.

West, C. T., & Schwenk, C. R. (1996). Top management team

strategic consensus, demographic homogeneity and firm perfor-

mance: A report of resounding nonfindings. Strategic Manage-

ment Journal, 17(7), 571–576.

Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. (1992). Top management team

demography and corporate strategic change. Academy of Man-

agement Journal, 35(1), 91–121.

Xylem. (2013). Water advisory board biography: Roberta Bowman.

Retrieved April 1, 2013, from http://www.xyleminc.com/en-us/

about-us/water-advisory-board/Pages/Roberta-B.-Bowman.aspx.

Zorn, D. (2004). Here a chief, there a chief: The rise of the CFO in the

American firm. American Sociological Review, 69(3), 345–364.

R. Strand

123