1. Higher Institute of Accounting and Administration of University of Aveiro, Portugal; denisegr65@gmail.com
2. Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona School of Economics (BSE), Spain; mariaana@bse.eu

*             Correspondence: denisegr65@gmail.com

Keywords: sustainability, corporate sustainability, social responsibility

1. INTRODUCTION

The crises that have linked the issues of climate change, economic recession, and rising food, fuel, and raw material prices—all of which have had a more severe effect on the most impoverished communities—have already prompted discussion and validation of the current definition of sustainable development (SD). But since 1980, civilizations all across the world have reacted differently to social and environmental challenges. The concepts of sustainable development (SD) have been better understood during the last forty years, leading to the development of more sustainable initiatives, procedures, and policies [1]. We now know how to keep an eye on and assess the effects of human activity on the environment and the lives of others. The ideas of sustainability and SD have grown in significance over time as a result of cultures’ increased awareness of their effects on environmental conditions [2]. The globe is becoming more linked and globalized today. The outcomes of resource development and management are shaped by new players and technology on a far greater scale than in the past, demonstrating the vital roles that businesses play in advancing a better quality of life. New treatments and vaccines have helped us live longer and better lives; advancements in gender equality have narrowed the social divide; and emerging technologies, like block-chain, drones, and artificial intelligence, have all benefited the environment. Given the current state of technology growth, these are instances of how certain businesses have attempted to lessen social and environmental issues and, as a result, encouraged the creation of concepts [3-7]. The volume and velocity of these evolutions vary, though, and the patterns of development that are currently in place are still strongly linked to the consumption of fossil fuels and rising energy demands. Societies are urged to reorient quantitative economic growth in the direction of a more qualitative and responsible dimension by factors such as globalization, climate change, the ageing of the population, and the effective and efficient management of available resources as well as their depletion [2]. The adoption of multidisciplinary scientific approaches is necessary for assessing the diversity of events and the complex socioeconomic and environmental challenges [8, 9]. This requires knowledge of topics from various knowledge areas, with various frameworks [10], such as the natural sciences, economy, engineering, philosophy, and mathematics. The functioning and dynamics of various organisms and ecosystems; forms of social organization and the means by which various societies construct meaning, culture, and values; methods of transforming natural resources and perpetuating our conditions of existence; the distribution of economic resources; the effects of our activities and the waste produced in the environment are a few examples of the things we must comprehend. In the realm of ethics, where risk, uncertainty, and other equally valid values coexist, we require the viewpoint of those impacted by their unalienable freedom to shape their own fate. The result of all of this action is the appearance of a number of publications on topics pertaining to corporate sustainability (CS) and sustainable development (SD) in both the internal and external environments of the organisations [10,11,12,13]. As a result, conducting a literature review as a research approach is more important than ever [11]. Essentially, in order to comprehend how the various dimensions and aspects relate to one another and, consequently, how the development proceeds, we must take into account everything that has been discovered about SD and CS as a whole [14]. As a result, SD is seen holistically because understanding it requires knowledge from other scientific fields. Between SD and CS, there is also some misunderstanding. According to some writers [10], the reason for the lack of agreement among definitions is that whereas “SD” has been on people and their well-being, “sustainability” has been based on processes and activities. Due to their inherent vagueness, the notions of SD and CS as described are so broadly applicable and accessible to different interpretations that they are rendered ineffective [15]. It is possible to argue that sustainability is a “plastic word,” one that has great conceptual power and validates social action but lacks a precise definition [14]. Although SD and sustainability may seem synonymous to those who are not well-versed in the topic, there are distinctions between the two terms when we thoroughly examine their historical context [11].  Sustainable development (SD) is a purposeful, evolutionary change that enhances or maintains a system attribute while satisfying the demands of the population. Sustainability is the capacity of a human system, natural or mixed, to withstand or adapt to an endogenous or exogenous change indefinitely [15]. According to this viewpoint, sustainability is a long-term objective. In this work, we suggest that SD stands for a location or area, and CS for an organisation or business. According to the authors, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) should not be mistaken with either SD or CS. We are aware that ESG is a technique used by organisations to regulate their social and environmental policies. ESG also helps to evaluate risk in sustainable investment decisions [16]. Perhaps as a result of CS’s association with “doing good” [17] or the variety of disciplines that has contributed to its knowledge, the scholarly community struggles to define the essence of the concept of CS [18]. It gets challenging to evaluate the body of evidence in a particular field of business research and to stay on the cutting edge of research at the same time [19]. Thus, the primary goal of this study is to further understanding of the concept of computer science while providing a framework for the development of foundational ideas.

2. CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The concept of sustainable development (SD) arose as an economic model that had a number of detrimental effects on the environment and society, including social exclusion, excessive consumerism, resource pollution, waste and the ensuing increase in waste, as well as other effects that reduced the quality of life and created an unhealthy environment [20, 21]. However, it wasn’t until 1987 [1] that the Brundtland Commission’s report [22] on the global environment and development was published that the term was used in policy circles. On numerous fronts, the advancement of moral and ethical concerns has outpaced economic, environmental, technological, cultural, ethical, and political ones. The sustainability/sustainable development paradigm, which aims to provide an alternative development model that guarantees the fundamental conditions for the well-being of current and future generations, was born out of this crisis of legitimacy [14]. It served as a means for businesses and governments to undo the detrimental effects of the growth model [23]. After the industrial revolution and the rise of the free market, the model of civilization has pushed the planet’s boundaries more and more, resulting in a systemic crisis in a variety of domains (socioeconomic, environmental, technological, cultural, ethical, and political) [1,14]. Furthermore, free-market economics produces wonderful results for the wealthy but rather terrible results for the general public [1,24]. Resolving this challenge requires a continuous evolution of moral and ethical concerns, leading to the creation of the sustainable development/sustainability paradigm [14]. The “Brundtland Report” defines sustainable development as one that satisfies current demands without jeopardising the ability of future generations to satisfy their own needs [22]. In order to preserve the sustainability of life on Earth for both the present and the future generations, this development model aimed to balance the needs of environmental preservation with the social and economic needs of humankind [22]. Like many others, the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) organisation firmly positioned intergenerational justice and future-oriented thinking as essential components of sustainability [15]. The conclusion that “what is consumed now, unless regenerated, leaves less to be consumed in the future” [25] (p. 608) was also reached as a result of this definition. On the other hand, the biophysical environment’s cycles, which all resources originate from and are not always under human control, determine the availability of those resources [22, 25]. As a result, SD is a different approach to development that seeks to guarantee the circumstances for the welfare of both the current and coming generations. But because the terms “intragenerational,” “limits,” and “needs” can imply various things to different individuals and change over time, they have sparked a number of debates [1]. It is important to remember that a lot has changed since the introduction of many of these ideas in 1987. According to the notion of sustainable development (SD), enterprises with limited or rare raw material stocks are unable to take action for SD since they have to choose between thinking about future generations and consuming now [25]. Kim et al. [25] showed that the “time question” could be relativized if one thought about raw material stock in terms of resource flows rather than a long-term perspective. The study involved eight tea producer organisations in Kenya and Tanzania that sought Fairtrade certification in an effort to break free from the shackles of short-term resources. The intertemporal trade-off could be reduced or neutralised in this way. “The past and the future become separate points in time when the present is seen as a moment” [25] (p. 608). Upon conducting a conceptual analysis of the terms “sustainability” and “SD,” we discovered a plethora of controversies. These included accounts of a dearth of a precise, succinct definition; misinterpretations and misconceptions; varying interpretations and applications as a fashion accessory; common sense; and even their potential use as a populist slogan [10]. Nevertheless, despite all of these debates, the Brundtland Report’s [22] and Rio-92’s subsequent findings made a significant contribution by indicating that environmental and social concerns should not be approached separately but rather in an interconnected and linked manner [26]. Their interdependencies, however, were contingent upon a third component—economic factors—that is, the ability to attain environmental balance and social equality. As a result, in order to properly care for the environment, social issues must also be addressed, which can only be done through economic growth [27]. But the focus of these conversations has only been on organisations’ external environments. Companies have only recently become more aware of this context, despite being mentioned for their environmental activities, thanks to John Elkington’s interpretations and Kofi Annan’s call for the signing of the Global Compact, which emphasises the significance of organisations’ involvement in addressing social and environmental issues. The aim was for businesses worldwide to synchronise their strategy and operations with ten global principles concerning labour, the environment, anti-corruption, human rights, and labour [28]. The UN’s current roadmap for a more equitable future for people and the environment is called the 2030 Agenda. Adopted in 2015, the “Agenda” consists of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that were developed in cooperation with corporations, governments, civil society organisations, and the general public. The needs of a civic society have led to the increased importance of notions like social responsibility, ethics, and SD in corporate operations. A metaphor used to emphasise the multifaceted nature of corporate performance is TBL reporting [30]. On the other hand, TBL’s applicability has been criticised due to its measurement difficulties. While some writers have questioned the process of determining the appropriate price for destroyed wetlands or endangered species, others have supported monetizing all aspect of the TBL, including, for example, social welfare or environmental damage using dollars [29-30]. A different approach would be to compute the TBL using an index. By doing this, the problem of incompatible units is resolved, and comparisons between entities are made possible—for instance, when evaluating the performance of different businesses, cities, development projects, or other benchmarks—so long as an accounting technique is widely accepted [31]. Brown et al. [32] expressed disagreement over the usefulness of TBL reporting. They believed that while triple bottom line reporting was a step in the right direction towards raising awareness of the various, conflicting, and simultaneous goals that organisations must pursue, it was an insufficient and potentially harmful representation of organisational sustainability because social issues could not be effectively addressed without taking the natural and economic systems into account [32]. Nevertheless, the TBL is still widely acknowledged as the superior method of integrating the three components of sustainability into an organisation, despite the fact that the challenge of quantifying intangible characteristics has led to significant criticism of the framework.

According to the TBL framework for organisational responsibility, environmental conservation is no longer a production-only endeavour. Rather, environmental protection is integrated into corporate management concerns pertaining to the environment and becomes an administrative responsibility [33]. Even if there has always been a conflict between expansion and environmental preservation, businesses can nevertheless benefit from ecological positions since they increase their market share, increase their ability to raise finance, and lower their risk [33]. According to the author, a company that prioritises social responsibility in addition to profit-making would be more likely to be recognised by the public in key areas related to the economic, environmental, and social dimensions. This, in turn, would boost employee identification and productivity. Because of the mitigation of environmental liabilities, the decreased danger of stopping due to unanticipated environmental mishaps, and the decreased risk of assessments, cost reduction motivated by a genuine concern for the environment is appealing to an organisation [34]. Elkington [35] himself performed a “recall” of the term “triple bottom line” in 2018 when he realised that social and environmental effects could not be assessed just in terms of gains and losses from the profit or loss method. In order to transform GDP from being only an accounting figure to a potentiator of reflections on the role of a corporation and its affects, he contended that it should also be measured in terms of the wellbeing of billions of people and the health of our planet [35]. The TBL was developed with an emphasis on disruptive innovation, asymmetric growth (unsustainable sectors actively pushing out), and the scalability of next-generation market solutions, according to the author’s final statement. Therefore, CS is strongly related to development through goal actions [36]. Pollution control concerns are only one aspect of CS [37]; society’s current state and its tendencies are also taken into account. CS assists in “radically defining new views on the meaning of social equality, environmental justice, and business ethics” [29] (p. 142) in light of the substantial likelihood of worsening socioeconomic and environmental circumstances in the years to come. This helps to reverse the current state of affairs. A deeper comprehension of the material and financial forms of capital as well as the social, human, and natural aspects will be necessary for CS [29]. Additionally, Schaltegger et al. [38] suggested sustainability-focused business models that ought to incorporate structural and cultural elements like (i) fostering a sense of community and teamwork; (ii) boosting employee confidence and loyalty; (iii) demonstrating a commitment to sustainability evaluation; and (iv) disclosing information to stakeholders. The goals and mission of an organisation should be taken into account, but it’s also important to remember how to evaluate performance, involve all relevant parties, and treat the environment. For sustainability management to alter an organisation and support SD (economy and society), it must be interdisciplinary and include social, economic, and environmental factors (TBL) [38]. Bansal and Desjardine [39] took a time-based reasoning approach to CS. According to them, CS should protect the needs of the company’s future, including those of the shareholders (or future management), just as SD is a system that should respond to present needs without compromising needs for the long run. Strategic management that ignores time will put computer science (CS) at risk of becoming obsolete due to short-termism. They believed that the key to differentiating CS from other ideas like TBL and corporate social responsibility (CSR), which they said only functioned in the short term, was time. Since CS and strategy go hand in hand, it is crucial to examine organisational problems, theories, and concepts both (i) at various analytical levels (to obtain a broad picture) and (ii) through the evaluation of performance indicators (to encourage integration and capture the value created over an extended period of time) [39]. Still, there is a shortage of managers who can effectively manage this relationship and carefully analyse how social and environmental initiatives might boost a company’s economic success [40]. Patchy progress has been made towards ensuring a sustainable future for people and the environment, and most of the Compact’s participating corporations are not contributing enough to the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [41]. With the degree of such application ranging by industry, domicile, and company size, the three classifications are sometimes seen as a catch-all designation of firms integrating sustainability within their entire corporate strategy [38]. Because they haven’t connected their corporate strategy to sustainability objectives, several companies struggle with social and environmental sustainability [42]. When firms’ sustainability initiatives are strategically disconnected, they become fragmented and ultimately unsatisfactory as they are unable to address the last three characteristics of sustainability. Companies’ environmental management, which can vary from more reactive to more proactive efforts, can help reach the environmental pillar. Reactive measures, often known as “end-of-pipe” measures, are concerned with compliance or pollution management. Proactive measures reduce pollution by applying innovative technologies or processes to reduce or eliminate waste throughout the production process. They also analyse the life cycle of a product, refocusing a company’s processes on its products to lessen the impact from “cradle to grave.” Corporate environmental policies on energy efficiency, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, risk of environmental lawsuits, and renewable energy when appropriate are examples of environmental factors [44]. The social pillar can be attained through corporate social responsibility, which calls on businesses to accept the legal, moral, financial, and discretionary demands of all parties involved—not just financial shareholders. Examples of these include stakeholder management, environmental analysis, and community and community management. Workplace happiness, community involvement, employee training, and attrition rates are all impacted by social policies [44].  Value creation is the path to achieving the economic pillar. Businesses generate value by producing goods and services. Businesses create value for consumers through their products and services, for shareholders through dividends and capital, and for workers through wages by optimising the efficiency of efficiently produced goods and services. Value is generated through lowering entry barriers, streamlining processes, and/or developing novel, consumer-desired items. A management concept known as “corporate social responsibility” allows businesses to incorporate social and environmental issues into their daily operations and dealings with stakeholders [45, 46]. “Policies and practices that business people employ to ensure that society, or stakeholders, other than business owners, are considered and protected in their strategies and operations” (p. 2) is the standard definition of corporate social responsibility (CSR) [47]. Numerous definitions of corporate social responsibility have been found and examined over time [17, 48]. A number of ideas, including corporate social performance, corporate social responsiveness, corporate citizenship, corporate governance, corporate accountability, sustainability and the triple bottom line, and corporate social entrepreneurship, are included in the broad category of corporate social responsibility (CSR), according to Parmar et al. [49]. We argue that environmental outcomes can be found in two dimensions: environmental management (industrial processes) and environmental analysis, which is why we place the TBL concept under the CS umbrella. The TBL is more comprehensive when it incorporates environmental results and environmental outcomes. With the publication of [50], Social Responsibilities of the Businessmen, the CSR concept first appeared in the 1950s. Over the years, several scholars and practitioners have contributed to its expansion. In his work, Bowen [50] made the case that businesses created more than just commodities and services; in addition, he addressed workplace conditions and emphasised the financial sense of making investments in social responsibility to improve workers’ well-being. Bowen [50] established a precise set of guidelines for businesses to follow in order to uphold their social obligations. Bowen [50] asserts that the choices and deeds of businesspeople have an immediate effect on the standard of living of society at large because they have an effect on their customers, employees, and stakeholders. Bowen’s principles (1953) [50] addressed a variety of levels, including the individual (“the businessman”), organisational (big corporations as role models), and national (new institutions needed) levels. The principles blended social ideals and economic discipline, as well as a strong sense of democracy and pure reformism [51]. In order for social responsibility to influence corporate governance, Bowen [50] contends that it has to be recognised as a component of the larger social welfare framework [51]. Bowen [50] provided a definition of company leaders’ social responsibility, stating that they have a duty to pursue policies, make choices, or pursue courses of action that align with the goals and values of society. According to Carroll [52], Bowen [50] seems to have been ahead of his time because his novel managerial strategy improved how businesses responded to their social impact and helped define corporate social responsibility. Bowen [50] is known as the “father of corporate social responsibility” [53] since his approach was the first to be expressly focused on the doctrine of social responsibility. This further contributes to the importance of Bowen’s [50] approach. Conversations on the effects of human activity on the environment started to arise in the 1960s and 1970s. Specifically, we emphasise the Growth Limits Report, which was commissioned by the Club of Rome [20], and the book Silent Spring [54], which addressed the issue of the indiscriminate use of chemicals and pesticides (particularly dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, or DDT). The research, authored by Meadows et al. [20], projected a scenario for the next 100 years without accounting for advancements in technology or the potential for the discovery of new materials. The research stated that the limitless pursuit of economic expansion would result in the depletion of natural resources. It would be essential to stop the expansion of industrial capital and the world’s population in order to prevent resource depletion. The “zero growth thesis” was a theory that directly challenged beliefs of continuous economic expansion [27]. The study came to the following conclusion [20]: The planet’s growth limits would be reached in 100 years if patterns in global population growth, industrialization, pollution, food production, and declining natural resource use were maintained. The population and industrial output capability would both abruptly and uncontrollably fall as a result. These growth patterns may be changed, and conditions for ecological and economic stability could be established. One method to plan for the condition of global balance would be to ensure that everyone has access to the necessities of life and an equal chance to reach their full potential. The sooner people begin working towards this second goal, the more likely it is that they will succeed if everyone on the planet decides to aim for it. “The social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organisations at a given point in time,” according to Carroll [55], who presented the first comprehensive definition of corporate social responsibility in 1979 (p. 500). Carroll [53–56] asserts that society has four expectations for an organisation: discretionary (philanthropic), legal, ethical, and economic. Economic obligations Businesses have an obligation to the society that supported their establishment and continued existence. Business organisations ought to be self-sustaining as a result. They must be successful in order to encourage owners or shareholders to put money into them. When businesses offer value, they make money and help all of the company’s stakeholders in the process [47]. Legal obligations Societies set the guidelines that companies are supposed to follow in order for them to operate. These laws and regulations, which are the result of municipal, state, and federal legislators, represent society’s expectations for ethical business conduct. Businesses must: conduct themselves as law-abiding corporate citizens; perform in a way consistent with governmental and legal expectations; adhere to a variety of federal, state, and local regulations; fulfil all of their legal obligations to societal stakeholders; and offer goods and services that at least minimally comply with legal requirements [47]. Ethical obligations Businesses are expected by society to function and handle their affairs in an ethical manner. Among the ethical standards are that companies will follow the “spirit” of the law, not merely its written word, and that they will manage their operations impartially and fairly, especially in situations when the law does not specify how things should be done. Performing in a way consistent with societal mores and ethical norms, recognising and respecting new or evolving ethical/moral norms adopted by society, preventing ethical norms from being compromised in order to achieve the business goal, being good corporate citizens by acting morally or ethically, and realising that business integrity and ethical behaviour go beyond mere compliance with laws and regulations are all pertinent expectations of businesses when fulfilling these ethical responsibilities [47]. Philanthropic obligations: These obligations cover a company’s optional or voluntary actions that are driven by the company’s wish to engage in social activities that are not legally required, mandated, or typically expected of a corporation in an ethical sense. Businesses are expected by societies to behave responsibly as corporate citizens. Companies must engage in a variety of giving activities in order to meet their philanthropic obligations, including cash gifts, donations of goods and services, employee and management volunteerism, community development, and any other discretionary giving to the community or its constituent stakeholder groups. While corporate donating occasionally stems from altruism, most businesses engage in philanthropy as a useful means of exhibiting good citizenship. This is not always done for altruistic or selfless purposes, but rather to improve or augment a company’s reputation [47]. These obligations serve to distinguish the characteristics of social responsibility and are conceptually independent but empirically related [53–57]. Carroll [56] introduced the corporate social responsibility pyramid in 1991. Instead of viewing the social and economic goals as mutually exclusive trade-offs, CSR views them as essential components of the corporate framework of comprehensive social responsibility [58]. Corporate citizenship, which is an extension of a lineage of work in the management literature that conceptualises the role of business in society and is dominated most notably by the notion of corporate social responsibility [59, 60], is another concept highlighted in Carroll’s [47] CSR pyramid. Three dimensions of corporate social responsibility were defined by Wood [61] in 1991. These included the following: the “processes” of corporate social responsiveness, such as stakeholder management, environmental assessment, and issues management; the “outcomes” of corporate behaviour, such as social impacts, social programmes, and social policies; and the “principles” of corporate social responsibility, which included legitimacy (institutional level), public responsibility (organisational level), and managerial discretion (individual level). The applicability of Wood’s [61] contextualization depended on how CSR was included into business–social interactions by clearly highlighting the results and productivity of businesses [53]. Since a corporation collaborates with its stakeholders to create value for all parties involved in the organisation, the stakeholder and CSR concepts are inextricably linked [62] (stakeholder engagement). The work of Rhenman and Stymne [63] and Ansoff [64] in 1965 is when the stakeholder notion first emerged. The term “stakeholder” was first used to refer to people or organisations that were both dependent on a business for the achievement of their own goals and on the business itself (primarily owners, employees, suppliers, creditors, and customers) [65]. This idea states that the stakeholder and the corporation must have reciprocal claims. In this version, the government and hostile parties that relied on the company but on whom the company was independent might be excluded by the shareholder group. In 1984, Freeman gave the idea another go [66], hoping to confirm that executives could indeed make better judgements in a world where demands were coming from a variety of sources. Stakeholder theory has become immensely popular since Freeman’s publications because disciplines like corporate social performance, business ethics, business and society, and strategic management have realised how beneficial it is to connect their existing theories and concepts to stakeholder ideas [67]. Carroll first developed an interest in the idea of stakeholders in 1989, and he began utilising it in his later works [68]. Donaldson and Preston [69] established three uses of the stakeholder concept to illustrate how the stakeholder theory differs from other firm theories: normative (used to interpret the function of the corporation, like identifying moral or philosophical guidelines for its operation and management); descriptive/empirical (used to describe and explain specific corporate characteristics and behaviours); and instrumental (used in conjunction with descriptive to determine the connections—or lack thereof—between stakeholder management and the accomplishment of traditional corporate objectives). In contrast to Donaldson and Preston [69], Jones and Wicks [70] offered a fresh perspective on organisational theory. Rather than focusing on stark distinctions between categories, they explained deep relationships between the applications of the stakeholder approach. Subsequently, Freeman added another use—metaphorical—to support the notion that stakeholders were viewed as a metaphor; that is, different theories rely on the notion of more than one, “pure” apparatus of partners in the firm [67, 71]. The term “stakeholder” was first used in 1997 to refer to any individual or group that had an impact on, or was impacted by, an organization’s operations, activities, and procedures [67]. A business might be viewed as a collection of relationships between parties with an interest in the operations that comprised the firm from the standpoint of a stakeholder [72–74]. Accordingly, groups of interest to commercial organisations that are relevant could be classified as external (consumers, competitors, government, social activist groups, media, the environment, and the community) and internal (workers, owners, and managers) [67, 74]. Other classifications of stakeholders include primary versus secondary, active versus passive, economic versus social, and core versus strategic versus environmental [67]. In order to address the three interconnected business problems of understanding how value is created and traded, connecting ethics and capitalism, and assisting managers in thinking about management in a way that addresses the first two issues (managerial mindset, i.e., how to (1) better create value and how to (2) explicitly connect business and ethics) [49], Freeman and other authors shaped this vocabulary during the 1980s and 1990s. Stewardship theory is based on leadership theories, sociology, and psychology, according to Davis et al. [75]. They thought it was possible to align the main agents with a close relationship or psychological contract, with agents acting with a community-focused mindset and guiding dependable moral behaviour towards a company and its shareholders. Humans are inherently driven to work for other people or organisations in order to fulfil the obligations and duties that have been placed in their hands. They explained how the business manages people’s rights to citizenship [59, 60]. According to Mazur-Wierzbicka [7], advancements in information and technology have shaped how the CSR idea has evolved. Four important moments have been identified in this evolution: CSR 1.0, CSR 1.5, CSR 2.0, and CSR 3.0 [76]. It is important to note that every organisation and nation has unique CSR transformation features. From a temporal and spatial perspective, it is a multifaceted and intricate process [7]. The four pivotal points are as follows: CSR 1.0 marked the beginning of CSR and continued till the 2000s. Organisations during this time were only focused on results. Hygiene precautions (i.e., preventing labour dangers, proper remuneration, and overtime compensation) were therefore not given much thought. CSR was restricted to altruistic endeavours, including donations to promote poverty alleviation and education in society, etc. Because CSR was perceived as a type of marketing, or outdoor advertising, it was either directly copied by others or outsourced to consultants, but it did not align with their own business culture. Bayón and Gárcia-Ramos [6] claim that it can be identified by its ostentatious speech, misuse of barbarism (linguistic borrowings), and implausible promises (such lessening carbon footprints or aiding faraway cities). During CSR 1.5, firms viewed CSR as a strategically oriented concept with the goal of enhancing the company’s public image through various CSR efforts. The promotion of CSR 2.0 began in the 2000s as a result of pressure from international conferences and organisations. At this point, CSR extended beyond hygienic practices, and the promotion of motivational practices raised some concerns. At this stage, CSR influenced treatment homogeneity (e.g., equality plans, ethical codes, and recycling programs), and was supported by international quality certifications (such as ISO 26000 standards. Corporate culture gained importance. CSR 3.0 was when CSR was easily measurable and verifiable as it was based on measures that affected the social and natural environment. CSR shifted from being externally focused as an attempt to improve the business brand or meet diligent and transparent regulatory compliance to internal behavior thought by and for employees. It was the result of the creative destruction of the 2008 crisis, as the improvement and survival of companies was due to their orientation towards employees and their involvement in new corporate cultures, based on missions, visions, and values with which they identified.  Wang et al. [77] argued that social performance, technological feasibility, and institutional compliance played essential roles in improving sustainability performance. In this way, the authors expanded the concept to corporate sustainability performance (CSP) which included technological feasibility and institutional compliance. According to certain writers, organisations that use CS can gain a competitive edge [79-83]. The value creation that takes place when a company adjusts to its external environment in order to maximise the organization’s competitive edge in its particular industry is what unites these assessments [84]. In order to create sustainable value, organisations must take into account how exposed they are to social and environmental events in the present as well as the future [82]. For example, the emergence of new intangible expenses resulting from environmental performance has an impact on profitability. In order to effectively prevent pollution, a large number of employees must be involved and have strong skills in quality control and continuous development. Accordingly, 21st century business strategists should consider developing a sustainable enterprise as an additional component of the contemporary business environment and incorporate it into their planning process (Hart and Milstein, 82). They claimed that businesses could generate sustainable value through the following practical measures [82]: reducing the use of raw materials and industrial pollution; increasing transparency and civil society accountability; utilising new technologies that lessen human impact on the environment; and facilitating and establishing a system of equitable income distribution. A multifaceted strategic paradigm with two axes—vertical (today and future) and horizontal (internal and external)—is needed to create value. The horizontal axis addresses the requirement for expansion, protection, and internal organisational potentials in addition to external viewpoints and information. The vertical axis addresses the need for businesses to simultaneously maintain existing operations and develop technology for future markets. The writers emphasised the wide market that is present at the base of the economic pyramid when discussing the base of the pyramid (BOP) idea. Four billion people there wanted to enter the market economy for the first time [81], but the major obstacle was that they had the funds or the knowledge necessary to purchase the goods, which left them with just basic requirements and desires [80]. This was a sizable market that needed to be expanded, but regrettably, the consumers suffered from high costs for goods and services combined with impoverished conditions [85]. The term “poverty penalty,” also known as “penalization of poverty,” describes the comparatively higher prices that those who are impoverished in a given market pay when compared to those who are not. Increased costs show this penalty in the form of subpar product quality and performance, limited market accessibility, and innovative infrastructure related to health, transportation, and education [86]. The BOP is the best place to develop the technology required to address the environmental and social issues brought on by economic growth. For the private sector, the BOP should be viewed as a chance to increase market share and as a source of innovation in technology, business models, organisation and governance, services, and goods [80,81]. Through innovation, businesses may create growth, satisfy social and environmental stakeholders, and enable a “great leap” to the bottom of the economic pyramid [81]. Many more individuals can now start taking care of themselves in ways that were previously limited to the wealthy or those with access to competent middlemen because to disruptive advances. Disruptive inventions enable the emergence of new entrepreneurs in this way. These entrepreneurs have the power to change the market, generate new revenue streams, and jobs. Disruptive innovations also have the power to cut costs and upend societal norms [87]. Collaboration between the private sector, government, NGO, and BOP consumers is necessary for the BOP to become an essential component of the private sector’s job and main business [79]. In conclusion, Prahalad [80] argued that BOP consumers might boost engagement in the global economy, increase dignity and self-esteem, and alleviate poverty. Prahalad proposed twelve principles for innovation that were necessary to function within the BOP. Therefore, Prahalad [80] was in favour of the notion that open, honest competition in the private sector would lessen corruption and help rising nations make the shift to a market-based economy. For disruptive technology, developing nations present an optimal opportunity for at least two reasons. First, compared to business models developed in high-income countries, those developed in low-income areas have greater market penetration, meaning they may be used more economically in more locations. Disruptive innovators not only have more flexible business models but also compete against no consumption, i.e., they provide a good or service to people who would otherwise be completely ignored or underserved by current offerings and who are content with a more basic, more affordable version of what is offered in high-end markets [81]. If businesses reinterpreted their goal of creating “shared value,” that is, producing economic value in a way that also provides benefit for society while solving their issues, they could grow their enterprises and win over societies [42,83]. Three unique approaches exist for promoting “shared value”: redefining productivity in the value chain, assessing and developing new product and market looks, and establishing industry support clusters at business sites [83]. We interpret these expressions as umbrella constructs and do not aim for clarity in definitions, which leads to the abundance of definitions that are out there [88]. However, several writers have taken a critical stance towards CSR [89, 90]. Businesses only have two obligations, according to Levitt [89]: to pursue money gain and to act with face-to-face civility, such as honesty and good faith. In both theory and practice, maximising long-term profits is the sole goal of business [89]. Businesspeople shouldn’t be concerned with social issues, according to Friedman [90], since the free market system should be allowed to operate unhindered to find solutions. Companies have a social obligation to make money in accordance with the law. Businesses that are profitable, create jobs, and provide goods and services that benefit society. In order to satisfy stakeholder expectations, addressing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues has become essential to corporate strategy [91]. This is how the incorporation of ESG considerations into organisational operations and strategies has been used to understand the sustainability debate [92]. Thus, it is crucial to go over some corporate governance basics in light of this conversation. The notion of governance is highly diverse and lacks consensus. Governance, according to Shleifer and Vishny [93], is the process by which funders, or investors, ensure that their money will be returned. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [94] defined it as the collection of matters pertaining to the internal mechanisms used by businesses to be governed and overseen [95, 96]. The rights and obligations of various stakeholders, including the board of directors, should be outlined in the governance framework. Discussions in the corporate world cover broad topics like human rights, bribery and corruption, business ethics throughout entire value chains, and climate change [37]. Board independence, commitment, pay practices, takeover defences, and the effectiveness of internal audit and control systems are examples of governance elements [44]. In a report published by the United Nations (UN) on [30], the former UN Secretary-General called on financial institutions to collaborate in order to “develop guidelines and recommendations on how to better integrate environmental, social, and corporate governance issues into asset management, securities brokerage services, and associated research functions” (p. 5). This is where the term “ESG” first appeared. The issue, according to then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan, was figuring out assessment tools to evaluate businesses’ performance. ESG, on the other hand, is associated with socially and responsibly-minded investing (SRI). The ideas of philanthropy and corporate social responsibility (CSR) form the foundation of the concept of SRI. Since the 19th century, societal limitations and considerations have been factored into investment decisions, particularly in the case of religious organisations [97]. Historical occurrences like the Vietnam War and social concerns like women’s rights, the environment, and civil rights gave rise to SRIs; politically engaged people began to consider these topics more and more when making investment decisions. A few decades later, SRI efforts focused on investments in countries that were involved in the arms trade (such as Sudan) and apartheid-era South Africa. This resulted, for instance, in the establishment of Ethical Investment Research Services Ltd. (EIRIS) in London, which was established to offer independent research to churches, charities, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) so they could make responsible and informed investment decisions [98].

4. CONCLUSION

SD is a single idea, since 1987, a lot of international political, social, and environmental events have occurred, impacting corporate decisions. Nonetheless, because of the variety of research from various industries, the academic community is still unsure about the concepts of “sustainability” (S), “corporate sustainability” (CS), and “corporate social responsibility” (CSR). Businesses have also shown this uncertainty by using the term “sustainability” only in reference to environmental challenges. Recently, there has been a greater discussion on corporate sustainability indicators, dispelling myths about environmental, social, and governance (ESG) norms while illuminating them. Because of the lack of clarity in definitions and constructs, managers may encounter difficulties in establishing sustainability goals for their organisations. Consequently, literature reviews have become even more crucial as a research methodology. Consequently, the purpose of this effort is to address the following question: How can we broaden the general knowledge of business sustainability by incorporating multiple perspectives? For this study, we conducted a focused bibliographic review, reviewing the works that most influenced the development of the notions. By combining a plethora of relevant material into a single document, this paper advances academic research, improves understanding of the subject, helps managers and entrepreneurs improve computer science practices in their businesses, and provides insightful analysis of the field of computer science.

REFERENCES

1. Elliott, J. An Introduction to Sustainable Development; Routledge: London, UK, 2012.
2. Meseguer-Sánchez, V.; Gálvez-Sánchez, F.J.; López-Martínez, G.; Molina-Moreno, V. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability. A bibliometric analysis of their interrelations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1636.
3. Mintzberg, H. Please Welcome CSR 2.0. In Rethinking Strategic Management. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance; Wunder, T., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019.
4. Visser, W. The Age of Responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the New DNA of Business; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011.
5. Mahmood, A.; Naveed, R.T.; Ahmad, N.; Scholz, M.; Khalique, M.; Adnan, M. Unleashing the Barriers to CSR Implementation in the SME Sector of a Developing Economy: A Thematic Analysis Approach. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12710.
6. Bayón, A.S.; Gárcia-Ramos, M.Á. Caso de RSC 3.0 para ganar-ganar en la auténtica economía de bienestar personal: Divisas digitales como herramienta para mejorar la renta del personal, el respeto ambiental y el bienestar general. REVESCO Rev. Estud. Coop. 2021, 138, 1–11.
7. Mazur-Wierzbicka, E. E-communication and CSR-a new look at organizations’ relations with stakeholders in the time of digitalization. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2021, 192, 4619–4628.
8. Calleros, A.I. Sustainability frameworks: Their influence on the operational capacity of sustainability. Rev. Int. Sostenibilidad Tecnol. Hum. 2021, 7, 9–26.
9. Ming-Lang, T.; Tran, T.P.T.; Ha, H.M.; Bui, T.-D.; Lim, M.K. Sustainable industrial and operation engineering trends and challenges Toward Industry 4.0: A data driven analysis. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 2021, 38, 581–598.
10. Sartori, S.; Latronico, F.; Campos, L. Sustentabilidade e desenvolvimento sustentável: Uma taxonomia no campo da literatura. Ambiente Soc. 2014, 17, 1–22.
11. Diesendorf, M. Sustainability and sustainable development. In Sustainability: The Corporate Challenge of the 21st Century; Dunphy, D., Benveniste, J., Griffiths, A., Sutton, P., Eds.; Allen & Unwin: Sydney, Australia, 2000; Volume 2, pp. 19–37.
12. Lozano, R. A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2015, 22, 32–44.
13. Engert, S.; Rauter, R.; Baumgartner, R.J. Exploring the integration of corporate sustainability into strategic management: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2833–2850.
14. Folqué, M.; Escrig-Olmedo, E.; Santamaría, T.C. Sustainable development and financial system: Integrating ESG risks through sustainable investment strategies in a climate change context. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 29, 876–890.
15. Mohammad Musah Ibrahim & Munawar Rahman (2023). Brand Wrath and “The Negative Side of the Brand”: An Overview and Potential Research Focus. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(09):533-543.
16. Brenda Giray, Vargas Coutino-Gonzalez & Nicolas Reyes-Castillo (2023). A Systematic Literature Review on Risk Management in Small and Medium Scale Industries. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(09):544-549.
17. Sadia Asif, Shifa Mishta Shifat & Pritam Agnihotri (2023). Interconnection of Artificial Intelligence and Sustainability: A Study of Green Human Resource Management. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(09):550-555.
18. Salah Mahdi & Muhammad Ibrahim Juber (2023). The Connection among Audit Quality and Modifications in Iraq. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(09):556-563.
19. Maryam Sabah Salah Mahdi & Ali Jalil Mahadi (2023). Evaluation and Future Directions of Organization’ Human Resources Management Performance. Dinkum Journal of Economics and Managerial Innovations, 2(09):564-570.
20. Wood, D.J. Measuring Corporate Social Performance: A Review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2020, 12, 50–84.
21. Meuer, J.; Koelbel, J.; Hoffmann, V. Mapping Definitions of Corporate Sustainability. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2018, 2018, 15032.
22. Snyder, H. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 104, 333–339.
23. Sachs, J.D. Sustainable Development Economics; United Nations University: Jingumae, Tokyo, 2014; Available online: https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/sustainable-development-economics (accessed on 20 December 2021).
24. Kim, A.; Bansal, P.; Haugh, H. No Time Like the Present: How a Present Time Perspective Can Foster Sustainable Development. Acad. Manag. J. 2019, 62, 607–634.
25. Savitz, A. The Triple Bottom Line: How Today’s Best-Run Companies Are Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental Success-and How You Can Too; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013.
26. Curi, D.P. Gestão Ambiental; Pearson: São Paulo, Brazil, 2011.
27. UN Global Compact 20th-Anniversary Progress Report: Uniting Business in the Decade of Action; UN Global Compact, DNV GL: Oslo, Norway, 2020.
28. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; John Wiley & Sons: London, UK, 1999.
29. Pava, M.L. A Response to Getting to the Bottom of Triple Bottom Line. Bus. Ethics Quart. 2007, 17, 105–110.
30. Slaper, T.F.; Hall, T.J. The triple bottom line: What is it and how does it work. Indiana Bus. Rev. 2011, 86, 4–8.
31. Brown, D.; Dillard, J.F.; Marshall, S. Triple bottom line: A business metaphor for a social construct. In Understanding the Social Dimension of Sustainability; Center of Professional Integrity and Accountability, School of Business Administration, Portland State University: Portland, OR, USA, 2006.
32. Young, C.E. Sustentabilidade e competitividade: O papel das empresas. Rev. Econ. Mackenzie 2007, 5, 87–101.
33. Barbieri, J.C. Gestão Ambiental Empresarial; Saraiva Educação: São Paulo, Brazil, 2017; Volume 4.
34. Elkington, J. 25 years ago I coined the phrase “triple bottom line.” Here’s why it’s time to rethink it. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2018, 25, 2–5.
35. Munck, L.; Souza, R.B. O ecletismo do paradigma da sustentabilidade: Construção e análise a partir dos estudos organizacionais. Cienc. Adm. 2011, 13, 202–242.
36. Hart, S.L.; Milstein, M.B. Global sustainability and the creative destruction of industries. MIT Sloan Management Rev. 1999, 41, 23–33.
37. Schaltegger, S.; Hansen, E.G.; Lüdeke-Freund, F. Business models for sustainability: Origins, present research, and future avenues. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 3–10.
38. Bansal, P.; DesJardine, M.R. Business sustainability: It is about time. Strat. Organ. 2014, 12, 70–78.
39. Schaltegger, S.; Wagner, M. Managing the Business Case for Sustainability: The Integration of Social, Environmental and Economic Performance; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017.
40. Leadership for the Decade of Action: A United Nations Global Compact-Russell Reynolds Associates Study on the Characteristics of Sustainable Business Leaders; United Nation-Russell Reynolds Associates, Global Compact, Russell Reynolds Associates: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
41. Blowfield, M. Corporate social responsibility-the failing discipline and why it matters for international relations. Int. Relat. 2005, 19, 173–191.
42. Livro Verde- Promover Um Quadro Europeu Para a Responsabilidade Social das Empresas; União Europeia: Brussels, Belgium, 2001; Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52001DC0366&qid=1594032570512&from=PT (accessed on 20 December 2021).
43. Carroll, A.B. Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: Taking another look. Int. J. Corp. Soc. Responsib. 2016, 1, 2–8.
44. Dahlsrud, A. How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2006, 15, 1–13.
45. Parmar, B.L.; Freeman, R.E.; Harrison, J.S.; Wicks, A.C.; Purnell, L.; De Colle, S. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2010, 4, 403–445.
46. Bowen, H.R. Social Responsibilities and the Businessman; Harper: New York, NY, USA, 1953.
47. Acquier, A.; Gond, J.-P.; Pasquero, J. Rediscovering Howard R. Bowen’s Legacy: The Unachieved Agenda and Continuing Relevance of Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Bus. Soc. 2011, 5, 607–646.
48. Carson, R. Silent Spring; Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston, MA, USA, 1962. [Google Scholar]
49. Carroll, A.B. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1979, 4, 497–505.
50. Carroll, A.B. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Bus. Horiz. 1991, 34, 39–48.
51. Carroll, A.B.; Shabana, K.M. The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2010, 12, 85–105.
52. Wood, D.J. Corporate social performance revisited. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1991, 16, 691–718.
53. Davis, J.H.; Schoorman, F.D.; Donaldson, L. Toward a stewardship theory of management. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1997, 22, 20–47.
54. Visser, W. The Rise and Fall of CSR: Shapeshifting from CSR 1.0 to CSR 2.0; CSR International Paper Series; CSR International: London, UK, 2010; Volume 2, pp. 1–7.
55. Wang, C.; Chen, Y.C.; Sulistiawan, J.; Bui, T.D.; Tseng, M.L. Hybrid approach to corporate sustainability performance in Indonesia’s cement industry. Sustain. J. 2021, 13, 14039.
56. Carroll, A.B. Corporate social responsibility: The centerpiece of competing and complementary frameworks. Organ. Dyn. 2015, 42, 87–96.
57. Prahalad, C.K. The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, Revised and Updated 5th Anniversary Edition: Eradicating Poverty through Profits; Pearson Education Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
58. Hart, S.L.; Christensen, C.M. The great leap: Driving innovation from the base of the pyramid. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2002, 44, 51.
59. Tidd, J.; Bessant, J. Strategic Innovation Management; John Wiley & Sons: London, UK, 2014.
60. Strand, R.; Freeman, R.E.; Hockerts, K. Corporate social responsibility and sustainability in Scandinavia: An Overview. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 127, 1–15.
61. Levitt, T. The dangers of social-responsibility. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1958, 36, 41–50.
62. Friedman, M. Capitalism and Freedom; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1962.
63. Lokuwaduge, C.S.D.S.; Heenetigala, K. Integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure for a sustainable development: An Australian study. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 438–450.