IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/bstrat/v34y2025i3p2863-2881.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Legitimacy–Commitment Paradox in Corporate Sustainability Strategy Formulation

Author

Listed:
  • Rikke Rønholt Albertsen

Abstract

Researchers have long problematised the gap between corporations' formulated sustainability strategies and their actual contributions to sustainability. This study draws on 24 months of real‐time observations in a multinational company to explore the origins of this gap in the formulation phase of corporate sustainability (CS) strategy. The findings show that contradictory logics and processes related to (a) gaining external legitimacy and (b) mobilising internal commitment impose paradoxical demands on the formulation process. Strategy makers tackled these tensions through rhetorical ambiguity and temporal separation. However, while these paradox management strategies facilitated coping with conflicting demands and avoiding deadlocks in the formulation process, they also created a commitment vacuum that undermined implementation. This study highlights the role of the formulation phase as an overlooked origin of implementation failure. The findings nuance our understanding of defensive and proactive paradox responses and call for further examination of the unintended outcomes of paradox responses.

Suggested Citation

  • Rikke Rønholt Albertsen, 2025. "The Legitimacy–Commitment Paradox in Corporate Sustainability Strategy Formulation," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 2863-2881, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:34:y:2025:i:3:p:2863-2881
    DOI: 10.1002/bse.4131
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.4131
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/bse.4131?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:34:y:2025:i:3:p:2863-2881. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0836 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.