I have attached some of the links for research paper. Go through them 

Regards

http://www.ioew.de/uploads/tx_ukioewdb/future-IOEW_CSR-Study_Summary.pdf

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/186/art%253A10.1023%252FA%253A1023331212247.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1023%2FA%3A1023331212247&token2=exp=1479878227~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F186%2Fart%25253A10.1023%25252FA%25253A1023331212247.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1023%252FA%253A1023331212247*~hmac=5e2961eb6ec7e775b825cf5c66eba0a8a4e74c723d98b1c06aec7a9e583e1bf7

http://www.davidpublishing.com/davidpublishing/Upfile/6/7/2012/2012060785675497.pdf

http://www.alliedacademies.org/pdfs/proceedings18/aafs-pro.pdf#page=24

In 1987, the UN Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." (Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.). Later, in 1992  with the UN Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio the idea emerged that the notion of sustainability (and that one of sustainable development) had to include three dimensions: the already aknowledged economic dimension as well as the environmental dimension and the social dimension. This tripartite dimension of sustainability has since then shifted from the international governance and policy-making discourse to corporate frameworks in order to be applied to corporate business conducts. Accordingly, conducts of corporations are sustainable when they meet not only economic sustainability but also environmental and social sustainability (this is also known as the business's triple bottom line). Here Sustainability links to Corporate social responsibility (CSR). Ultimately, CSR may be seen as an element a component, or better, a pillar of the larger notion of sustainability.    

http://www.unece.org/oes/nutshell/2004-2005/focus_sustainable_development.html

http://web.unep.org/sustainability/

I note that almost all articles on Corporate Social Responsibility and associated topics have been written by academic bodies and institutions like UN committees. I wonder if there are any actually written by corporations to whom the social responsibility refers?

I have attached some of the links for research paper. Go through them 

Regards

http://www.ioew.de/uploads/tx_ukioewdb/future-IOEW_CSR-Study_Summary.pdf

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/186/art%253A10.1023%252FA%253A1023331212247.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Farticle%2F10.1023%2FA%3A1023331212247&token2=exp=1479878227~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F186%2Fart%25253A10.1023%25252FA%25253A1023331212247.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.springer.com%252Farticle%252F10.1023%252FA%253A1023331212247*~hmac=5e2961eb6ec7e775b825cf5c66eba0a8a4e74c723d98b1c06aec7a9e583e1bf7

http://www.davidpublishing.com/davidpublishing/Upfile/6/7/2012/2012060785675497.pdf

http://www.alliedacademies.org/pdfs/proceedings18/aafs-pro.pdf#page=24

CSR is about ensuring a company has a broader perspective than just the financial bottom line.  In that way, it is related to Sustainability.   But Sustainability is significantly more than that. 

Simply put, Sustainability is the ability of a community to have a non-declining quality of life in perpetuity, using the skills, population, resources, and technology that they have currently.  An investment in Human and/or Technological Development may allow a community the skills, technology, or resources to become Sustainable.

CSR doesn't try to make the community Sustainable.  From Wikipedia: "The aim is to increase long-term profits and shareholder trust through positive public relations and high ethical standards to reduce business and legal risk by taking responsibility for corporate actions."   In that way, CSR may be trying to not stop a community from becoming Sustainable.

I would argue that a business can not be 'Sustainable'.  A business does not attempt to address the quality of life of the community it serves - it is profit driven, and the vast majority of the activities people undertake to meet needs have nothing to do with economic activity.  It does not serve future generations, it serves it's shareholders today.  I am not aware of how a company would arrange to have a smaller ecological footprint than the biocapacity of the landmass it manages in perpetuity (a necessary pre-condition for Sustainability).  In short, I think calling a business 'Sustainable' is just Greenwashing.  

A company can work to serve a community in becoming Sustainable, but that isn't the same as 'being a Sustainable Business'.

@Douglas Nuttall, Ideally business are not sustainable results high carbon footprints  particularly from procurement to distribution. Therefore, organizations are moving towards sustainable organization.

For example: Usage of aurveda in India, Herbal products, organic foods and high efficiency product and services. 

Moreover, in broader way, sustainability is a subset of CSR.

Article Entrepreneurial commitment, organizational sustainability an...

Article Linkage between ‘Triple Bottom Line’ and Business performanc...

Only learning...It seems to me that there must be greater communication between interested bodies as to what constitutes 'organizational sustainability'; and that we are only at a very early stage of a process that - if it is to succeed - will imply doing away with the present form of marketing & consumption. Shareholders will not like that BUT environmental exigencies will - in the end - dictate the outcome.We are running out of time, so we better start thinking fast about alternatives to sustain our lifestyle(s). Restructuring markets, materials & means of production will be step #1; step #2 will imply number of working hours; step #3 localities...with the fundamental step or bottom line reappraising the whole of the 'Capitalist' ideology. May I suggest that this whole matter should get underway at the UN General Assembly?

 There is a strong relationship between CSR and sustainability. The Shared Value paradigm of CSR intends to leverage synergies between the firm and various stakeholders to create a mutually beneficial partnership. This makes business more sustainable. Moreover, environmental sustainability is an important consideration for many firms: this increases brand value. If a firm meets environmental norms, it is preferred by stakeholders, including shareholders. In view of the above, CSR and sustainability are intricately related. 

there is a relationship between CSR and sustainability. Both concepts look into the triple bottom line i.e people, profit and planet. However, sustainability is regard in a broader sense which does not only cater for corporation or business driven organisations. 

I have explained one aspect of the difference in a recent article (introduction section), hope you find it useful.

Article Achieving sustainability through Schumpeterian social entrep...

Garriga and Melé (Journal of Business Ethics, 2004) consider sustainable development as a normative basis for CSR.

Together with some colleagues, we tried to understand how owner-leader of SME in different European countries perceive the concept of Business Ethics, CSR and sustainability. You can find some interpretation in the article:

- Fassin, Y., Werner A., Van Rossem, A., Signori S., Garriga, E., Von Weltzier Hoivik, H., Schlierer, H.J.(2015), CSR and Related Terms in SME Owner–Managers’ Mental Models in Six European Countries: National Context Matters”, Journal of Business Ethics, May 2015, Volume 128, Issue 2, pp 433–456 (with ISSN: 0167-4544, doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2098-7. 

Best wishes with your studies

In my paper on sustainability I argue that one of the conditions a process needs to be sustainable is the supply of adequate renewable energy to convert all (or at the very least, most)  of the waste product back to product useful for other processes. The financial driver of most companies is to 'generate profit' i.e. create money out of nothing which then has a value because of the operation  of the company. This has nothing whatsoever to do with sustainability. A company could be extremely sustainable and make a loss, another could make a profit, and so on. As far as being attractive to investors is concerned, I don't believe any institutional investor cares a whit about the long term operation of its investments as long as they perform over the short term. I am with Douglas on this one. Unfortunately!

I think there is a problem with definitions.  If two people are using effectively the same facts to draw opposite conclusions, I'm going to question what definitions they are using.  For those people who believe that CSR is intimately connected to Sustainability, what definitions of each are you using?  And then what conclusions can be drawn from those definitions?

I believe that Sustainability is the ability of a community to maintain a non-declining quality of life in perpetuity using the resources, skills, technology, and population they have today.  Business Dictionary defines CSR as "A company’s sense of responsibility towards the community and environment (both ecological and social) in which it operates. Companies express this citizenship (1) through their waste and pollution reduction processes, (2) by contributing educational and social programs and (3) by earning adequate returns on the employed resources."  Using those two definitions, then CSR can be a means to supplement the sustainability of a community, but there is no clear indication that it must do so. 

For example, in any perspective that include 'perpetuity', there must be no progressive decline in ecological services, ecological capital, or ecological interest.  So for CSR to support Sustainability, those waste and pollution reduction targets being met must already be low enough to not be producing a progressive decline.  Then they can be improved. 

CSR is a broader and integrated concept than sustainability. Generally, sustainability is associated with postulates of the Millennium Development Goals. On the other hand, it is worth noting that while CSR is approached by some authors, such as the discipline of adapting the role of organizations in society, sustainability is generally associated with the company's economic stability. For more information http://www.bdigital.unal.edu.co/50805/

Both of the terms sustainability and CSR enshrine lofty ideals. However if they are to be included in discussions which purport to have a substantial scientific content, I think the terms should have a substantial scientific basis. Firstly - is this true - are they science or art? If science, then each should have a definition phrased in terms of other scientifically accepted terms and axioms, each should have a metric by which it can be quantified, and each should have a method by which it can be measured and a numerical value placed on the metric.

I think that makes the point: - neither are science. Neither have rigorous scientific definitions, neither have a metric and neither have a method by which the metric can be quantified. They are arts, and any relationship between them will have the same characteristics as say the relationship between music and sculpture.

Professor Maine, your argument reminds me of the famously wrong notion that bacteria don't cause infections. It took from 1676 to 1905 to prove germ theory correct all the while the study of bacteria was summarily lampooned as unrigorous, unscientific and fanciful. The terminology and rigor of any science practiced today took a long time to develop. The same is true of Sustainability. You discuss that in your own conference paper from 2007. Terminology is being developed and the scientific method (making observations, developing questions, formulating hypothesis, gathering data, testing predictions and developing general theories) is being applied. Just because you might not have personally observed that work happening doesn't mean it is not being done.

Respectfully,

-Steve

Sustainability has often been taken by academics as something to observe (and thus use indicators and indices), rather than to design for and with (and thus use units of measure), but that doesn't mean that there are no units of measure, or method to analyse.  My paper addresses the units, relationships, and method explicitly. 

To achieve Sustainability, a community must have (at a minimum) an ecological footprint that is smaller than the biocapacity of the landmass it manages, and be able to meet the needs of it's population in less than 24 hours per day, in perpetuity.  All of that is able to be mapped to units, objective measures, and repeatable methods.

If you want the abbreviated version, the units of Sustainable Technological Development are resource consumption (in units of Global Hectares, for example) on one axis and the human time to meet needs (perhaps in minutes/ca/day) on another.  An additional dimension is required when exploring Human Development.

Conference Paper Towards Engineering for Sustainability

Yes, there is a relation between sustainability and CSR.

Sustainability or Sustainable Development (SD) was first defined in the report ‘Our Common Future’ of the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987, also known as the Brundtland Report. SD is defined in this report as the ability to fulfill the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to fulfill their needs. During the years, a multitude of other definitions of SD emerged.

As a concept, CSR already existed before the many definitions of Sustainability emerged. Due to unethical behavior in corporate world, and many scandals resulting from that in the 1960s, firms were increasingly called upon to take up their responsibility towards society, the environment, etc.

In the 1990s, CSR has been increasingly framed within the context of sustainability. As a result, it has been interpreted as the business answer to SD, or the translation of SD within the context of business and corporate world. Both sustainability and CSR have also been framed in the concept of the Triple Bottom Line, or the three P’s (People, Planet, Profit).