Managing Corporate Sustainability with a Paradoxical Lens: Lessons from Strategic Agility

Abstract

Corporate sustainability introduces multiple tensions or paradoxes into organisations which defy traditional approaches such as trading-off contrasting options. We examine an alternative approach: to manage corporate sustainability with a paradoxical lens where contradictory elements are managed concurrently. Drawing on paradox theory, we focus on two specific pathways: to the organisation-wide acceptance of paradox and to paradoxical resolution. Introducing the concept of strategic agility, we argue that strategically agile organisations are better placed to navigate these paradox pathways. Strategic agility comprises three organisational meta-capabilities: strategic sensitivity, collective commitment, and resource fluidity. We propose that strategically agile organisations draw on strategic sensitivity and collective commitment to achieve organisation-wide acceptance of paradox, and collective commitment and resource fluidity to achieve paradoxical resolution. For each of these meta-capabilities, we identify three organisational practices and processes specifically related to corporate sustainability that organisations can leverage in pursuit of strategic agility. We offer a conceptual framework depicting the strategic agility metacapabilities, and associated practices and processes, which organisations draw on to successfully manage corporate sustainability with a paradoxical lens.

A Paradox Perspective on Corporate Sustainability: Descriptive, Instrumental, and Normative Aspects

“…Theorizing the organizational capabilities that contribute to these pathways, they introduce the concept of strategic agility (Doz and Kosonen 2010) to paradox theory and argue that strategically agile organizations are better placed to navigate these pathways. Ivory and Brooks (2017) link the three organizational meta-capabilities of strategic sensitivity, collective commitment, and resource fluidity (Doz and Kosonen 2010) to the two pathways. They argue that strategic sensitivity and collective commitment contribute to the acceptance of paradox, and collective commitment and resource fluidity to the resolution of paradox.…”

“…They improve our understanding of how decision makers in various contexts deal with tensions and paradoxes around corporate sustainability (Carollo and Guerci 2017;Sharma and Jaiswal 2017;Kannothra et al 2017) and offer insights into the mechanisms behind the consequences of addressing such tensions in defensive (Iivonen 2017) or proactive ways (Stadtler 2017;Ivory and Brooks 2017). In an effort to embed these six articles in the research field and to contribute to a common understanding of a paradox perspective on corporate sustainability, we offer a definition of the concept as well as a framework to delineate its descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects.…”

Paradoxical tensions and corporate sustainability: A focus on circular economy business cases

“…According to Ivory and Brooks (2017), the managing of paradoxical tensions in corporate sustainability are through the two pathways of paradoxical resolution and acceptance of paradox. The authors found that companies with "strategic agility" (i.e., strategic sensitivity, collective commitment, and resource fluidity) have an advantage in the managing of the two paradoxical pathways.…”

Drilling their Own Graves: How the European Oil and Gas Supermajors Avoid Sustainability Tensions Through Mythmaking

“…The paradox is left open; Pandora's box remains shut (Beech et al 2004). With corporate sustainability, acceptance strategies may be effective on an individual level (Ivory and Brooks 2017). However, on an organizational level, acceptance strategies are arguably less effective given that organizations could face, inter alia, legitimacy threats from stakeholders with contending views.…”