An interesting question but I would first ask for a robust definition of "organisational sustainability". Without this, arguments about it will just wander all over the place rather uselessly. Do you mean an organisation that carries out "sustainable" activities - which I take to mean activities that can be carried out indefinitely without harming the environment? Do you mean organisations that are financially "secure" and won't go bankrupt? Do you mean organisations that, through some clever internal configuration, are resistant to disorganising when faced with social or economic forces? The answer to your question will differ considerably depending on which one you mean. And in regard to "sustainability" reporting by large organisations, most (but thankfully not all) of it is just a public relations exercise with little basis in true sustainability and a substantial basis in the maintenance of happy shareholders.

We have been looking at Sustainability from a Ecological Footprint of our activities.

We are also looking at Sustainability impact of the companies that we fund.

At another level we are looking at sustainability from a resource (funding) challenges model, which is a more conventional tool.

All the multinational companies have annual reports dealing with corporate social responsibility and sustainabilit. For example, Caterpillar INC has made a decision years ago to ensure that it facilities across the globe are all certified and possibility rated as silver, gold, or platinum. They also addrsss waste and safety. You can dooad their sustainability annual report. This is alos true with GE and many other companies. Amir

An interesting question but I would first ask for a robust definition of "organisational sustainability". Without this, arguments about it will just wander all over the place rather uselessly. Do you mean an organisation that carries out "sustainable" activities - which I take to mean activities that can be carried out indefinitely without harming the environment? Do you mean organisations that are financially "secure" and won't go bankrupt? Do you mean organisations that, through some clever internal configuration, are resistant to disorganising when faced with social or economic forces? The answer to your question will differ considerably depending on which one you mean. And in regard to "sustainability" reporting by large organisations, most (but thankfully not all) of it is just a public relations exercise with little basis in true sustainability and a substantial basis in the maintenance of happy shareholders.

I do agree on the importance of the CSR reports that companies are developing every year, but readers should be aware of the green-washing activieties that companies are used to develop in order to gain and earn even more from the sustainability facade.

A critical analysis of these reports can be done according to the GRI standards, or/and some of the ISO, as an instance.

As it concerns the "organizational sustainability" -as specified above- it is needed to frame better the conditions and objectives in and for which the organization itself takes action and also which type of organization is considered, managed and assessed. In a general sense, I would link this topic to the development of a sustainable business model, because every organization in a certain sense has something to do with economic activities. In this, it is needed to keep in mind that sustainability concerns the economic, social and environmental contexts.

I think you have to be very careful about connecting economic sustainability with environmental sustainability because there are so many variables involved. In addition, economic matters are almost always tightly linked to financial matters, so that the test of economic sustainability is made equivalent to a test of financial sustainability, or in other words, the ability to continue making profits. It is far from clear (at least, to me) that a company that continues to make profits is necessarily a great example of a company demonstrating excellent environmental sustainability; in fact the entire defence industry is a splendid counter-example. Please please start your work by rigorously defining what you mean by sustainability in each context, and then you will find it much easier to make the connections you seek! Best wishes with your research!

Dear Prof Wahab,

When you wonder about sustainability, do you mean about all three pillars, environment, economy and society or only for one of the three? Each aspect of sustainability is measured differently. For example environmental LCA is common for the environmental part. On the other hand, CSR reports or the social LCA are common for the socioeconomic part. Usually, large companies include environmental flows/results/aspects on their CSR reports. There are efforts on combining all three aspects on one (or more) aggregated indicator, but as you understand it is difficult due to the need for weighting, prioritizing, etc. On one hand one may be able to do that for economic and environmental impacts. But, on the other hand, it is risky to do that for societal impacts.

Please search with the article - title from the screen shot

Sustainability means different things to different people and green wash is a concern. Especially for those companies who sacrificed to become more environmentally sustainable, see no particular benefit and are accused of green-washing. If there is no economic sustainability then people who could profit from an environmental resource may be tempted to do so in a unsustainable way.