The PEARL Model: Gaining Competitive Advantage Through Sustainable Development

This article formulates institutional virtues according to sustainable development (SD) criteria to come up with a paradigmatic set of corporate principles. It aims to answer how a corporation might obtain competitive advantage by combining “going ethical” with “going green.” On the one hand, it brings out facts that indicate a forthcoming trend inclined to force relevant actors to comply with SD requirements. On the other hand, it suggests that SD may be implemented as a strategy to gain competitive advantage by the help of the PEARL model through its five fundaments: (1) perception friendliness, (2) environment friendliness, (3) action, (4) relationship, and (5) locality. This article finally shows that although a number of companies (e.g., Bosch, BP, and GE) implement SD as a tool of differentiation, they lack a holistic model that is fully responsive to current dynamics. The PEARL may be implemented as a proactive positioning to gain competitive advantage because transformation of this model into corporate strategy does not only respond to “stakeholder” claims, but also meets the changing characteristic of “societal demands.”

[1]  J. Rowney,et al.  Sustainable Development: Epistemological Frameworks & an Ethic of Choice , 2005 .

[2]  Barry B. Hughes,et al.  Sustainable futures: policies for global development , 2005 .

[3]  Martin Lehmann,et al.  Corporate awakening – why (some) corporations embrace public–private partnerships , 2005 .

[4]  Karl Schudt.  Taming the Corporate Monster: An Aristotelian Approach to Corporate Virtue , 2000, Business Ethics Quarterly.

[5]  Raymond P. M. Chow,et al.  Relationship marketing orientation: scale development and cross-cultural validation , 2005 .

[6]  C. Sanne,et al.  The consumption of our discontent , 2005 .

[7]  Richard Welford,et al.  Editorial: Corporate environmental management, technology and sustainable development: postmodern perspectives and the need for a critical research agenda , 1998 .

[8]  M. Winter.  Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive localism , 2003 .

[9]  M. Bilgin.  On civilized plurality: mapping the clash of civilizations within the market , 2006 .

[10]  R. Harding.  Ecologically sustainable development: origins, implementation and challenges , 2006 .

[11]  Terry Marsden,et al.  Ecological entrepreneurship: sustainable development in local communities through quality food production and local branding , 2005 .

[12]  John R. Baldwin,et al.  The relationship of individualism–collectivism and self-construals to communication styles in India and the United States , 2003 .

[13]  Ralf Isenmann,et al.  Industrial ecology: shedding more light on its perspective of understanding nature as model , 2003 .

[14]  A. Martinuzzi,et al.  Corporations, Stakeholders and Sustainable Development I: A Theoretical Exploration of Business–Society Relations , 2005 .

[15]  M. Simpson,et al.  Environmental responsibility in SMEs: does it deliver competitive advantage? , 2004 .

[16]  D. George.  Preference Pollution: How Markets Create the Desires We Dislike , 2001 .

[17]  Claus-Heinrich Daub,et al.  Enabling sustainable management through a new multi‐disciplinary concept of customer satisfaction , 2005 .

[18]  F. Székely,et al.  Responsible Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility:: Metrics for Sustainable Performance , 2005 .

[19]  Cecily Raiborn,et al.  A Global Code of Business Ethics , 1997 .

[20]  R. Isenmann.  Further Efforts to Clarify Industrial Ecology's Hidden Philosophy of Nature , 2002 .

[21]  K. Wheeler,et al.  Education for a Sustainable Future: A Paradigm Of Hope For The 21St Century , 2000 .

[22]  L. Furr.  On the Relationship between Cultural Values and Preferences and Affective Health in Nepal , 2005, The International journal of social psychiatry.

[23]  P. Primeaux,et al.  Rewriting the Bases of Capitalism: Reflexive Modernity and Ecological Sustainability as the Foundations of a New Normative Framework , 2003 .