What does sustainability mean inside organisations? Is it a concretely defined set of environmental and social practices? Or is it a flexible term that shifts its meaning depending on who is using it and why? Profs. Beatriz Lima Zanoni and Samir Adamoglu de Oliveira from guest institution Universidad Federal do Paraná argue that sustainability is not a fixed or universally defined concept but a socially constructed phenomenon with evolving meaning.

Sustainability: A rational myth by CoBS Editor Mallika Rahane.

Related research: Reflections on sustainability’s meaning in organizations, Beatriz Lima Zanoni, Samir Adamoglu de Oliveira, RAE Journal, https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020230203 With kind acknowledgements to FGV EAESP.

Sustainability as a Moving Target

At a first glance, sustainability seems relatively simple and straightforward: International institutions, global summits and public policies present sustainability as a balanced way of integrating environmental and social responsibility in economic performance. This appears coherent. Rational. Neat. However, researchers Zanoni and Adamoglu de Oliveira argue that this coherence is brittle.

As sustainability trickles down from macro lens to everyday organisational routines and tasks, different actors model it through their own interests, resources and constraints. What appeared as a shared idea becomes fragmented over time.

The researchers’ key argument here is that sustainability is polysemic – it carries multiple meanings.

Instead of asking if organisations are sustainable, the authors encourage us to question “What do organisations even mean when they say they are sustainable?”

The Rational Myth: Language matters

Drawing on semiotics – the study of signs – the authors focus on language as the key mechanism through which sustainability acquires meaning inside organisations. According to the semiotic triangle used in the paper, every concept is constructed through the interaction of three elements:

•     The signifier (the word itself),
•     The signified (the meaning attached to the word), and
•     The referent (the concrete practices or actions the term refers to).

In the case of sustainability, the signifier is the term “sustainability”, the signified is the concept associated with environmental and social responsibility, and the referent corresponds to the actual organisational practices that claim to embody that concept.

In an ideal situation, these three align. An organisation conveys a clear definition of sustainability, communicates it consistently, and implements practices that underline that definition. Profs. Zanoni and Adamoglu de Oliveira call this denotational institutionalisation. Here, sustainability is a stable function. A measured definition. A consistent approach.

This alignment, however, is hardly permanent and rarely prevailing.

As sustainability circulates through different contexts, it gets constantly reinterpreted. Some actors translate the ideas available by developing new understandings and meanings for the term. The process of constructing the concept of sustainability is neither static nor finite but rather heterogeneous.  Organisations remodel the term to local realities and strategic needs. The word remains, but the meaning begins to stretch.

This is what Zanoni and Adamoglu de Oliveira describe as connotational institutionalisation — a second layer of meaning underneath where sustainability no longer refers back to its original definition. In this regard, sustainability can be of “mythical-rational” nature: widely accepted, rarely questioned, but not fully anchored in consistent practice.

Sustainability as Institutional Pressure

Sustainability has become an institutional expectation. Organisations operate in an environment where regulators, consumers, investors and international bodies view sustainability as a legitimate concern. Institutional theory – the theory of norms, routines and social rules – explains these pressures through three main pillars: regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive.

The regulative pillar refers to formal rules and laws imposed by governments and regulatory institutions that require organisations to adopt sustainable practices. The normative pillar involves social expectations, values and professional standards that encourage organisations to behave responsibly toward society and the environment. Finally, the cultural-cognitive pillar relates to shared beliefs and taken-for-granted assumptions that frame sustainability as something organisations are expected to pursue.

So, these pressures shape the environment in which organisations operate and push them to address sustainability in ways that preserve their legitimacy, with the result that some genuinely integrate sustainability into their operations. Others engage in isomorphic adaptation by imitating leading firms in their industry to gain legitimacy. Some comply symbolically. And in certain cases, organisations reshape the meaning of sustainability in ways that allow them to appear aligned without fundamentally changing their core activities.

The researchers link these variances in responses to institutional theory: Organisations seek legitimacy. Sustainability becomes one of the norms they must navigate and organisations do not passively comply with institutional expectations; they actively negotiate and reinterpret them. The underlying point here is that legitimacy does not require full consensus. It requires sufficient validation from relevant audiences. That leaves room for ambiguity.

When Doing, Saying, and Meaning Drift Apart

Another compelling idea in the paper is the possible distinction that the authors make between doing, saying, and meaning.

An organisation may say it values sustainability, develop reports and metrics around it, and construct narratives that emphasize commitment.

Yet the actual practices may evolve more slowly, or in different directions. This concept is called as decoupling, a well-known idea in institutional theory – the separation between what organisations say and what they do. Essentially, organisations formally adopt sustainability policies while their operational practices evolve more slowly. As a result, the language of sustainability becomes institutionalized even when the underlying transformation remains partial. Over time, this gap can become normalized. Sustainability remains visible and celebrated, but its semantic content subtly shifts.

This is where the idea of sustainability as a “rational myth” becomes powerful. It is rational because it is backed by standards, certifications, and global frameworks. But it is mythical because its meaning is continuously reconstructed in ways that are not fully stable or universally shared.

Rational Myth – and Practical Reality

This research encourages organisations to look beyond simply using the language of sustainability and reflect on what it actually means in their specific context. For managers, the challenge lies in keeping what is communicated in line with what is actually being done. It may be more effective to spend time clarifying how sustainability is understood within the organisation and how that understanding translates into everyday decisions and actions.

Over time, this can help organisations move away from symbolic gestures and towards a more grounded and consistent approach to sustainability.

Useful links:

• Link up with Beatriz Lima Zanoni and Samir Adamoglu de Oliveira on LinkedIn
• Read a related article: Corporate Sustainability is Fifty Shades of Far-From-Pale-Green
• Read and download the FGV EAESP RAE Research Journal
• Discover FGV EAESP School of Management, Brazil
• Apply for an MBA at FGV EAESP.

Learn more about the Council on Business & Society

The Council on Business & Society (CoBS), visionary in its conception and purpose, was created in 2011, and is dedicated to promoting responsible leadership and tackling issues at the crossroads of business, society, and planet including the dimensions of sustainability, diversity, social impact, social enterprise, employee wellbeing, ethical finance, ethical leadership and the place responsible business has to play in contributing to the common good.  

• Follow the CoBS on LinkedIn
• Download magazines and learning content from the CoBS website downloads page.

Member schools of the Council on Business & Society.

• ESSEC Business School, France, Singapore, Morocco
• FGV-EAESP, Brazil
• School of Management Fudan University, China
• IE Business School, Spain
• Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, India
• Keio Business School, Japan
• Monash Business School, Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia
• Olin Business School, USA
• Smith School of Business, Queen’s University, Canada
• Stellenbosch Business School, South Africa
• Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
• Warwick Business School, United Kingdom.