*2.2. Tools for CSR Implementation and Delivery*

In response to the complexity and challenges of CSR, businesses may look towards guiding frameworks and tools that can help them in moving forward or finding standard ways of reporting [32]. Baumgartner [32] argues that there is less within the academic literature on how firms manage CSR in comparison with other topics of interest, including links between CSR and firm performance, drivers, barriers, and the business case.

Several frameworks, tools, and instruments are discussed or proposed in the literature including ISO 26000, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), and the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) [33], and the more recent B Corp Certification scheme which considers CSR activities and accomplishments [34,35].

Although these CSR-related tools are usually considered as separate frameworks, Zinecnko et al. [33] found most of them to be generally complimentary with each other. However, there are criticisms of each in, for example, how useful they are to firms trying to develop a practical approach. For example, ISO 26000 is argued to take an explicitly moral perspective [36] with additional criticisms in areas such as corporate governance, perhaps due to its rootedness in a quality management approach [37]. The motivations for committing to a standard may not always be clear but there is evidence that its main usefulness is the ability of stakeholders to accept the standards the company is working towards. With this comes credibility and recognition for the efforts made by the business. There are several papers discussing the usefulness of ISO 26000 as a framework for addressing CSR including the work of Zinecko [33] and Moratis [36,37].

ISO 26000 has a familiarity in its approach to companies who already have certification to other CSR-related ISO standards, such as quality or environment. However, unlike ISO 9000 [38] or ISO 14001 [39] and related standards, ISO 26000 is not externally certificated and, reflecting the voluntary nature of CSR, is a guidance standard only. Commitment to ISO within a business is both time-consuming and costly and the lack of external accreditation must be a likely reason for its lack of uptake. However, ISO 26000 has advantages in being able to offer a standardized and widely accepted business definition of CSR within a standardized approach with which firms are familiar. In this, ISO 26000 provides both a definition and a tool [36]. In addition to promoting CSR as a 'corporate derivative' of sustainable development [33] (p. 499), the mission of ISO 26000 is to help contribute towards sustainable development.

### *2.3. Sustainable Development, Business, and the SDGs*

Sustainable development is a notion that emerged from the work of the World Commission on Environment and Development (1983–1987) and the publication of *Our Common Future* [40,41], popularly known as the Brundtland Report. Although the report was mainly directed at governments through their various agencies and ministries, it also targeted private enterprises of all sizes, recognizing that they had the potential to make significant contributions to Brundtland's global agenda for change towards sustainable development. Brundtland advocated sustainable development as a new approach to economic growth that would not exceed the planet's future environmental or social capacities by considering the interrelationships between people, resources, environment, and development.

Attention to the role of business in sustainable development first gained prominence at and following the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development—the Earth Summit. The Business and Industry sector was one of nine major groups officially recognized in Agenda 21, the UN's non- binding action plan for sustainable development post-Rio [41]. Over the following decade, both practitioners and academics began to publish extensively on practices and theories of business and sustainable development [42–45]. The World Business Council on Sustainable Development was established in 1995 as a CEO-led organization of international member companies. Corporate environmental reporting also gained momentum during this period, particularly in Europe and North America. A 1999 study by KPMG [46] found that 24% of 1100 companies surveyed had published an environmental or Health, Safety, and Environmental (HSE) report in contrast with 1993 when only 13% had done so [47]. Although some companies such as the Co-operative Bank (2002), L'Oréal (2005), and Peugeot Citroen (2008) published sustainable development reports in the 2000s, many others used the language of corporate responsibility (e.g., BAE Systems, 2007; Coca Cola, 2005; O2, 2006), corporate citizenship (ExxonMobil, 2009), and sustainability (British American Tobacco, 2009; Shell, 2009) to describe their public reports to stakeholders. At the same time, in academic circles, there appeared to be a greater emphasis in research and publications on CSR, corporate responsibility, and sustainability in business and a less explicit focus on business and sustainable development per se [16,48–53].

The revival of sustainable development In business, academic, and practitioner contexts both conceptually and practically came in 2015 with the launch at the United Nations 'Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development' and the associated 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that aim to achieve a safer, more sustainable world by 2030. The SDGs include action on climate change, responsible consumption and production, industry innovation and infrastructure, and decent work and economic growth–key strategic and practical challenges facing business and society [54,55].

The SDGs succeeded the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)—a 2000–2015 blueprint agreed to by all the world's countries and major international development institutions. Whereas the MDGs were closely associated with governmental aid programs and civil society organizations with less explicit business relevance, the SDGs 'offer a crystal ball for business ... investments and new business opportunities and they represent a new toolbox for innovation and market development.' [56] (p. 22).

From a more strategic global business perspective, the SDGs and 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development constitute an international partnership agreement between all members of the United Nations. The SDGs are globally and locally relevant, urgent, and legitimate, and they also offer businesses a formal inter-governmental, inclusive sustainability framework underpinned by SDG17 'Partnerships for the Goals'. The implementation of SDG17 includes the development of business-community partnerships and other forms of cross-sector collaboration where diverse forms of multi-stakeholder engagement and contributions are needed and valued [57–59].

Novozymes' Claus Stig Pedersen, Head of Corporate Sustainability and Public Affairs, describes the SDGs as a 'great gift to business', in that they 'represent a long-term political framework for business to contribute to sustainable development' and one which is 'in better sync with societal needs and long-term priorities' in comparison with MDGs. Pedersen also believes that private sector engagement with the SDGs 'could help secure the long-term license to operate' and consequently, business success [56] (p. 22).

For example, sustainability guru John Elkington [60] reports that delivering the SDGs in four sectors: energy and materials, food and agriculture, cities, and health and wellbeing 'could generate market opportunities of over \$12 trillion a year by 2030—and that's considered a conservative estimate' [60] (p. 30).

While Elkington [60] acknowledges that the SDGs are 'an impressive and comprehensive wish list in terms of what needs to be done-', he goes on to say that 'without a very different level of business involvement, the results are likely to be disappointing' [60] (p. 148). There are echoes here of Elkington's earlier recall [61] of his own triple bottom line sustainability framework which he argues has failed to transform business practice. In a related vein, a 2020 study by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and the UN Development Programme in China [62] found encouraging signs of high levels of business awareness (89%) and communication (69%) about the SDGs, but almost half of the Chinese companies surveyed had 'no clear idea about how to evaluate the SDGs' [62] (p. 9).

Notwithstanding such implementation challenges, one of the suppositions underpinning the SDGs is that a focus on economic growth and technology can help to end global poverty and business considers the role of government to be about creating 'enabling environments' for the private sector to deliver [63] (p. 374). The goals were designed with business engagement at the center and involved significant input from businesses from the start—not least in looking for alternative finance for sustainable development after public development budgets suffered from the 2007-8 global financial crises [3]. The fundamental assumption of the SDGs is that sustainable development will not happen without the private sector [2] and this, in turn, creates tangible business opportunities. The discussion in this paper focuses on how the SDGs affect the way in which business potentially frames and delivers CSR and within that, how the individual and collective values and sensemaking of those responsible for implementation are key; an area where there appears to be limited academic literature to date.
