Page 40 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition

2.3 Business sustainability 35
business that designs its existence around its contribution to solving societal and environmen-
tal issues. It is also important to mention that they fully acknowledge the importance of all the
steps made in terms of business sustainability concept evolution and practices until the pre-
sent moment, and they see true business sustainability as a final goal to reach through a path
that sees businesses at different levels of awareness and capability for change.
The two authors gave birth to the Business Sustainability Typology Framework, showing
four different business models, three of which present different degrees of sustainability (1.0,
2.0 and 3.0), moving from a business-as-usual model, that is to say, a business model totally
focused on profit maximization and shareholder value creation externalizing natural and
social costs. Business Sustainability 1.0 uses the three-dimensional concern in order to min-
imize costs and maximize benefits for shareholders; therefore, a Business Sustainability
1.0 company could indirectly create value also for other beneficiaries. However, a more
important change takes place with Business Sustainability 2.0. This business model acknowl-
edges the existence of three bottom lines and Business Sustainability 2.0 firms act in order to
pursue not only economic profit but also social and environmental value creation through
what has become popularly known as Corporate Social Responsibility. This is a way for com-
panies to manage their risks and opportunities. Both 1.0 and 2.0 typologies adopt an inside-
out perspective. This means relying on improvements and basing on what already exists
following an efficiency approach. On the contrary, Business Sustainability 3.0 embraces an
outside-in perspective, finding the sense of doing business in the business contribution to
solve societal issues through its own skills. This innovative approach brings to a step forward
also the value creation aspect. In fact, in the case the 3.0 typology, or true business sustain-
ability, the common good becomes also an indispensable value creation beneficiary. As
Roberts (2004 as cited in Fatemi and Fooladi, 2013) states, business exists to serve human
needs. Only when the shift to outside-in perspective takes place can a business be considered
truly sustainable.
The authors are self-critical about the feasibility of Business Sustainability 3.0, since this
implies profit-driven companies focusing on sustainability and the common good. Neverthe-
less, they support the model as far as sustainability is embedded as the core of the business
strategy through an outside-in approach. Moreover, they are doubtful about the ability of big
companies to reach true business sustainability, and they see the issue of ownership as the
biggest obstacle. In fact, stock-quoted corporations, having to do with the financial markets,
are far more dependent on their shareholders and on their financial performance (Muff and
Dyllick, 2014). According to the Economy for the Common Good movement, business reve-
nues should be used for investment in the company and providing owners and employees
with an income, whereas they should not pay interest to external investors, so that the com-
pany can aim at the common good without pressure for income maximization (Felber, 2012).
Nevertheless, the impossibility for big corporations to be truly sustainable has not been
demonstrated and the authors are currently searching for examples of businesses that could
match the model, as well as for strategies to engage businesses for a further shift. Lastly, the
authors acknowledge that starting a new business under the Business Sustainability 3.0
model (i.e., benefit corporations, social entrepreneurship, common good companies, etc.) is
easier than shifting from Business Sustainability 2.0 to Business Sustainability 3.0. However,
they also think that a shift of big corporations to true business sustainability is indispensable
for planetary and societal sustainability (Muff and Dyllick, 2014).