The 5 Stages of Corporate Sustainability

The following excerpt is taken from an upcoming guide on the current state of sustainability reporting. To stay updated, please sign up here.

Image Source: Author’s creation

Sustainability has become a corporate buzzword, but beneath the polished rhetoric lies a more complex and paradoxical reality. The journey toward genuine sustainability is not a march toward innovation but a reluctant return to ancient wisdom—wisdom that was dismissed, suppressed, or erased in the name of industrial progress.

Various models seek to map corporate sustainability, but Landrum’s Five Stages stands out as the most comprehensive, going beyond simple compliance to embrace regenerative and coevolutionary sustainability. In comparison, the Three Waves Model stops at sustaining environmental corporate structures, while Carroll’s Pyramid focuses primarily on corporate social responsibility (CSR), offering limited integration with environmental sustainability.

In 2018 research professor Nancy E. Landrum condensed the corporate path of sustainability into five distinct stages:

1. Compliance

2. Business-centered

3. Systemic

4. Regenerative

5. Coevolutionary

These stages begin once an organization acknowledges the need for sustainability. Landrum’s omission of companies that reject or fail to comply with even basic sustainability guidelines suggests that such a stance is not considered a valid starting point on the path to sustainability.

Each step marks a deeper realization of the inextricable links between commerce and the natural world, yet the final destination—one of reciprocity with nature—has long been known to societies outside the Western industrial paradigm. Before we dive into the details of each stage.

Feel free to review definitions below by clicking the plus signs +.

They are the basis both the weak to strong labels in the opening image and concepts included in the following stages.

• Weak Sustainability

  Weak sustainability assumes that natural capital—such as forests, water, and biodiversity—can be replaced by human-made capital, like technology and infrastructure.

  This perspective, an unintended offshoot of John Elkington’s 1994 “Triple Bottom Line” concept, underlies many corporate sustainability initiatives. in 1994.

  It operates on the belief that innovation can compensate for environmental degradation, often overlooking the irreplaceable value of natural ecosystems.

• Strong Sustainability

  Strong sustainability argues that natural capital is irreplaceable, emphasizing that economic activity must operate within the planet’s ecological limits. Thinkers like Thomas Malthus (1798) and Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (20th century) contributed to this view by stressing the finite nature of resources and the role of thermodynamics in economic processes.

  While the Brundtland Report (1987) helped popularize sustainability discussions, modern scholars like Jérôme Pelenc and Jérôme Ballet have further refined these distinctions.

Compliance

At the most basic level, compliance-driven sustainability (very weak sustainability) is about adhering to externally enforced regulations. Many multinational corporations engage in sustainability reporting merely to meet regulatory standards, often treating it as a box-checking exercise.

The GRI, ESRS, and IFRS S1/S2 frameworks help companies meet ESG requirements but often treat nature as a resource to manage, not a system to respect.

Image Source: ADEC ESG

Recent ESG reporting trends, including frameworks like the GRI, ESRS, and IFRS S1/S2, focus on helping corporations meet legal and reputational demands. However, these frameworks often reinforce a technocratic view of sustainability, treating nature as a resource to manage rather than a system to respect. The recent CSRD in Europe seeks to strengthen ESG standards, but critics argue that the convergence of frameworks distracts from meaningful action. Companies like Dr. Bronner’s, which dropped its B Corp certification, contend that B Lab’s standards are weak, pointing out that some multinationals are now using the B Corp seal without truly living up to its ideals.

Business-centered

At the business-centered stage (weak sustainability), firms align sustainability with profitability, treating it as an internal strategy for efficiency and competitive advantage. Walmart, for instance, has implemented energy efficiency initiatives and waste reduction strategies that save money while reducing environmental impact (Landrum & Ohsowski, 2018).

The Walmart in Worcester, MA

installed 12 micro turbines in its parking lot to produce clean, renewable energy for the store.

Image Source: Flickr

However, this approach remains fundamentally extractive, addressing symptoms rather than causes. The business case for sustainability, as dominant as it is, ultimately reinforces the very structures that created the crisis in the first place—placing corporate interests above both human and ecological well-being (O’Riordan, 1989).

Systemic

Companies at the systemic stage (intermediate sustainability) recognize that sustainability is not just about isolated corporate actions but about transforming supply chains and business ecosystems.

For instance, Patagonia’s commitment to sustainability is evident through its promotion of circular economies, advocacy for environmental policies, and active engagement in activism. Its Worn Wear program, designed to extend the lifespan of its products, generates $5 million annually in a $1.5 billion business.

“We're still taking more from the planet than it can afford to give. It's still a really big paradox.”

- Patagonia CEO Ryan Gellert.

Image Source: Matti Blume

While the company’s recent decision to transfer ownership to a charitable foundation focused on saving the planet marks a significant shift, it still faces tensions between profit and environmental responsibility. CEO Ryan Gellert has emphasized that the goal is not to forsake profit but to achieve it without compromising ethical standards.

Patagonia's renewed focus on collaboration, particularly in overcoming supply chain challenges reflect efforts to confront these challenges head-on. However, 13% of the polyester used in its products still comes from virgin petroleum, illustrating the complexities of truly aligning sustainability with profitability within an evolving, growth-driven economic framework.

Regenerative

Moving beyond systemic approaches, regenerative companies (strong sustainability) seek to actively restore ecosystems and counteract the damage caused by industrial society. Interface, a carpet manufacturer, exemplifies this with its "Climate Take Back" initiative, which focuses on creating carbon-negative products and reversing environmental harm. This stage begins to acknowledge that sustainability is not merely about minimizing harm but about healing the planet. Yet, even here, the solutions remain tethered to corporate-driven models of progress.

Interface’s 2023 Impact Report highlights a 12% reduction in global emissions, lower carbon footprints across products, & recognition as a Great Place to Work® in six countries.

Image Source: Interface

The tricky part with regenerative approaches is figuring out how to restore ecosystems without being limited by profit-driven goals. Companies like Interface are doing some amazing work, but real planetary healing goes beyond just carbon-negative products. It needs a shift toward solutions that involve local communities and tackle the bigger picture, like rethinking how we value nature outside of the market. If we stay stuck in corporate-driven models, even the most forward-thinking initiatives might not lead to the widespread, lasting change that our planet and species desperately needs.

Coevolutionary

The final stage, coevolutionary sustainability (very strong sustainability), introduces a profound irony: corporations that have spent decades extracting, polluting, and externalizing costs now seek to exist in balance with nature—an ethos that indigenous and Eastern traditions have upheld for millennia. The concept of coevolution, where businesses exist in true partnership with nature, echoes Saffuu from the Oromo of Ethiopia, a moral code that governs respect for all living things. Similarly, the principles of ecological embeddedness—described by Whiteman & Cooper (2000, 2011)—align with indigenous knowledge systems that recognize humans as part of, not separate from, nature.

Kanika Pal, Director of Kanika Pal, Director of Sustainability for South Asia at Unilever India, spoke at the "Power of the Collective" session during the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting

Image Source: Flickr

Unilever’s integration of planetary boundaries into its sustainability framework hints at a move toward this paradigm, yet no major corporation has fully embraced coevolutionary sustainability. The challenge is not merely one of corporate strategy but of fundamentally reimagining the relationship between economy, society, and nature. As Whiteman & Cooper (2011) argue, corporations often fail to recognize local ecological cues, but engaging with indigenous and place-based knowledge systems can lead to more authentic sustainability strategies.

A Crisis of Narrative: The Myth of Corporate Innovation

The modern sustainability movement is often pitched as a shiny, new frontier for businesses to conquer. But in truth, it’s more of a reckoning with the past. 'Sustainability' is a response to the damage done by industrialization and economic systems that once treated the planet like an endless resource. Today’s corporate leaders aren’t exactly pioneering—they’re trying to fix a system built on flawed assumptions. The ethics and morality surrounding this topic are a touchy subject and are often politicized, which only hinders meaningful action. Ironically, in trying to repair this broken system, corporations are reaching back toward knowledge systems that Western imperialism long sought to obliterate.

Moving Beyond the Business Case

Research shows that breaking free from the limits of the business case for sustainability requires a major cultural shift—one that acknowledges society and the economy are embedded within the natural world (Hoffman & Jennings, 2015). This change demands action from governments, civil society, and businesses themselves (Karnani, 2011) to push beyond compliance and weak sustainability. Yet the prevailing corporate-driven models tend to marginalize alternative worldviews that could offer more holistic and effective solutions. While these frameworks have helped push the conversation forward incrementally, they ultimately fail to challenge the deeper, systemic changes needed to genuinely bring us back within our planetary limitations and build our social foundation.

Honoring Ancient Wisdom in a Time of Crisis

As we confront unprecedented environmental challenges, the real question isn't whether corporations can innovate their way out of this crisis—it’s whether they can rediscover and honor the wisdom that has long been known. True sustainability cannot be achieved through technocratic fixes or profit-driven initiatives alone. It requires a paradigm shift that acknowledges humanity's deep connection to the natural world. By reexamining the narratives of progress and power that dominate sustainability discourse, we may find the path forward—not in innovation for the sake of growth, but in respect for the ancient wisdom that has always understood our place within the ecosystem.

Sources:

1. 25 Years Ago I Coined the Phrase “Triple Bottom Line.” Here’s Why It’s Time to Rethink It. https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-ago-i-coined-the-phrase-triple-bottom-line-heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it. Accessed 17 Feb. 2025.

2. Adams, Carol A. “The Ethical, Social and Environmental Reporting‐performance Portrayal Gap.” Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 17, no. 5, Dec. 2004, pp. 731–57. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1108/0951357041056779 1.

3. Carroll, Archie B. “The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders.” Business Horizons, vol. 34, no. 4, July 1991, pp. 39–48. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G .

4. Cleveland, Cutler J., and Matthias Ruth. “When, Where, and by How Much Do Biophysical Limits Constrain the Economic Process? A Survey of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen’s Contribution to Ecological Economics.” Ecological Economics, vol. 22, no. 3, Sept. 1997, pp. 203–23. York Research Database, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(97)00079-7 .

5. Dr. Bronner’s Is Dropping Its B Corp Certification - Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/91276662/dr-bronners-is-dropping-its-b-corp-certification . Accessed 18 Feb. 2025.

6. “Ecological Sensemaking.” ResearchGate, Oct. 2024. www.researchgate.net, https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.0843.

7. Hoffman, Andrew J., and P. Devereaux Jennings. “Institutional-Political Scenarios for Anthropocene Society.” Business & Society, vol. 60, no. 1, Jan. 2021, pp. 57–94. SAGE Journals, https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650318816468.

8. Karnani, Aneel. “‘Doing Well by Doing Good’: The Grand Illusion.” California Management Review, vol. 53, no. 2, Feb. 2011, pp. 69–86. SAGE Journals, https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.53.2.69.

9. Kassier, Liesel. “Interconnected or Disconnected? A Review of Sustainability, Resilience, and Sustainable Business Model Constructs in the Academic Business Literature.” Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Jan. 2024. Springer Link, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01712-z.

10. Landrum, Nancy E. “Stages of Corporate Sustainability: Integrating the Strong Sustainability Worldview.” Organization & Environment, vol. 31, no. 4, Dec. 2018, pp. 287–313. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026617717456.

11. Landrum, Nancy E., and Brian Ohsowski. “Identifying Worldviews on Corporate Sustainability: A Content Analysis of Corporate Sustainability Reports.” Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 27, no. 1, Jan. 2018, pp. 128–51. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1989.

12. Malthus, T. R. (Thomas Robert). An Essay on the Principle of Population, as It Affects the Future Improvement of Society. With Remarks on the Speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet and Other Writers. London, J. Johnson, 1798. Internet Archive, http://archive.org/details/essayonprincipl00malt.

13. Nations, United. “Sustainability.” United Nations, United Nations, https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/sustainability. Accessed 18 Feb. 2025.

14. O’Riordan, Timothy. “Contemporary Environmentalism.” Horizons in Human Geography, edited by Derek Gregory and Rex Walford, Macmillan Education UK, 1989, pp. 395–414. Springer Link, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19839-9_20.

15. “(PDF) Beyond O’Riordan: Balancing Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism.” ResearchGate, Oct. 2024. www.researchgate.net, https://doi.org/10.1080/10382040008667628.

16. Pelenc, Jérôme, et al. Weak Sustainability versus Strong Sustainability.

17. Researching Corporate Social Responsibility Communication: Themes, Opportunities and Challenges - Crane - 2016 - Journal of Management Studies - Wiley Online Library. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joms.12196. Accessed 18 Feb. 2025.

18. “Used Patagonia® Clothing & Gear | Worn Wear.” Patagonia Worn Wear®, https://wornwear.patagonia.com/. Accessed 18 Feb. 2025.

19. Whiteman, Gail, and William H. Cooper. “Ecological Embeddedness.” The Academy of Management Journal, vol. 43, no. 6, 2000, pp. 1265–82. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1556349.