New Perspectives on the Concept of Sustainable Development …
515
2009), with CSR as a potential source of competitive advantage (Porter and Kramer
2006).
There are many different views on what social responsibility implies (Kolk 2016).
Votaw (1973) describes it as the idea of legal responsibility for some and socially
responsible behavior in an ethical sense for others. According to Alvarado-Herrera
et al. (2017), there are at least two ideas about CSR shared at the academy. The first
is the assumption that the company has responsibilities beyond profit maximization
(Carroll 1999; Davis 1960). The second idea is linked to the first and maintains that
the company is not only responsible to its owners, but also with other stakeholders
(Frederick 1960; Jones 1980; Marrewijk 2003).
The term sustainable development, in the business sphere, is generally in line with
the one advocated by Elkington (2012), demanding the organization’s attention to
develop CSR strategies and actions that are more tangible and easier to be evaluated
and perceived by consumers (Alvarado-Herrera et al. 2017). From this perspective,
Alvarado-Herrera et al. (2017) adopts the concept of CSR as “the commitment of
a company to maximize long-term economic, social and environmental well-being
through practices, policies and commercial resources” (Du et al. 2011). This definition is defended because it allows the identification of CSR dimensions to the sustainable development model and its sustainability-centered rationality translates into
managerial and operational objectives (Kakabadse and Rozuel 2006). In summary,
The CSR is a multidimensional reflective construct whose three dimensions—
economic development, social equity and environmental protection—correspond to
the dimensions of sustainable development (Marrewijk 2003).
Prugo and Assadourian (2003) advocate the concept of sustainable development
as flexible and open to interpretations. In this context, discussing new perspectives
on sustainable development aims to enable a comparison between the definitions that
have hitherto existed, already presented and those proposed by the academics, with
a view to identifying what are its new nuances and dimensions, and what remains
unchanged and can be understood as nuclear and intangible to the conceptualization
already presented.
The exercise of creating definitions is a process of dialogical constructions,
matching, in the sphere of the literacy system, with the Knowledge Theory readings,
which became known as Paulo Freire’s Method (Feitosa 1999) and which consists
of two principles:
1. the politicity of the educational act: in synthesis, conceptualized as an axiom
according to which there is no neutral education (Feitosa 1999);
2. the dialogicity of the educational act: according to which, the educator-educatingobject tripod of knowledge is inseparable and dialogue with each other (Feitosa
1999). In this sense, according to Feitosa (1999), “Learning is an act of knowledge
of concrete reality, that is, of the real situation experienced by the student and one
that only makes sense if it results from a critical approximation of this reality”
(italics in the original) (Feitosa 1999, p. 50).
515
2009), with CSR as a potential source of competitive advantage (Porter and Kramer
2006).
There are many different views on what social responsibility implies (Kolk 2016).
Votaw (1973) describes it as the idea of legal responsibility for some and socially
responsible behavior in an ethical sense for others. According to Alvarado-Herrera
et al. (2017), there are at least two ideas about CSR shared at the academy. The first
is the assumption that the company has responsibilities beyond profit maximization
(Carroll 1999; Davis 1960). The second idea is linked to the first and maintains that
the company is not only responsible to its owners, but also with other stakeholders
(Frederick 1960; Jones 1980; Marrewijk 2003).
The term sustainable development, in the business sphere, is generally in line with
the one advocated by Elkington (2012), demanding the organization’s attention to
develop CSR strategies and actions that are more tangible and easier to be evaluated
and perceived by consumers (Alvarado-Herrera et al. 2017). From this perspective,
Alvarado-Herrera et al. (2017) adopts the concept of CSR as “the commitment of
a company to maximize long-term economic, social and environmental well-being
through practices, policies and commercial resources” (Du et al. 2011). This definition is defended because it allows the identification of CSR dimensions to the sustainable development model and its sustainability-centered rationality translates into
managerial and operational objectives (Kakabadse and Rozuel 2006). In summary,
The CSR is a multidimensional reflective construct whose three dimensions—
economic development, social equity and environmental protection—correspond to
the dimensions of sustainable development (Marrewijk 2003).
Prugo and Assadourian (2003) advocate the concept of sustainable development
as flexible and open to interpretations. In this context, discussing new perspectives
on sustainable development aims to enable a comparison between the definitions that
have hitherto existed, already presented and those proposed by the academics, with
a view to identifying what are its new nuances and dimensions, and what remains
unchanged and can be understood as nuclear and intangible to the conceptualization
already presented.
The exercise of creating definitions is a process of dialogical constructions,
matching, in the sphere of the literacy system, with the Knowledge Theory readings,
which became known as Paulo Freire’s Method (Feitosa 1999) and which consists
of two principles:
1. the politicity of the educational act: in synthesis, conceptualized as an axiom
according to which there is no neutral education (Feitosa 1999);
2. the dialogicity of the educational act: according to which, the educator-educatingobject tripod of knowledge is inseparable and dialogue with each other (Feitosa
1999). In this sense, according to Feitosa (1999), “Learning is an act of knowledge
of concrete reality, that is, of the real situation experienced by the student and one
that only makes sense if it results from a critical approximation of this reality”
(italics in the original) (Feitosa 1999, p. 50).