SUST 5063 Module 1 Sustainability Theories and CSR Models Comparison Example

Profit Only, Pyramid, Triple Bottom Line or Shared Value? Comparing Sustainability Models for a Denver Coffee Company

Student Name

American College of Education

SUST5063: Developing Sustainable Business Strategies

Module 1 Assignment

Instructor Name

September 4, 2028

Introduction

Front Range Roasters is a composite company; its details combine several real businesses and have been altered. It roasts coffee at a plant in north Denver and sells it through 14 cafés across the metro area, to grocery stores and online. Its payroll covers roughly 260 people, and annual sales are near $31 million. Its owners want a sustainable business strategy, but they disagree about what sustainability should mean for a company of their size. This paper compares five theories and models of corporate responsibility and sustainability, applies each to the company and chooses the framework that will guide the rest of the course.

The Shareholder View

Friedman (1970) argued that the one social responsibility of business is to use its resources to increase profits so long as the firm plays fair, which the essay defined as competing openly and honestly. On that account, spending company money on social causes amounts to managers taxing owners, customers or employees without their consent. For Front Range, this view would accept energy savings or better wages only when they raise profits, and would leave social goals to the owners as private citizens. Its strength is clarity about accountability. Its weakness is that it treats effects on the community and environment as someone else's business.

The CSR Pyramid

Carroll (1991) arranged corporate responsibilities in four layers: economic, being profitable; legal, obeying the law; ethical, doing what is right and fair beyond the law; and philanthropic, contributing to the community. Each layer rests on the one below, and a company is expected to meet all four at once rather than choose among them. Applied to Front Range, the pyramid would start with a profitable business and full compliance with wage, food safety and air permit rules, then ask about fair dealing with coffee farmers and employees, and only then about donations. Its strength is its order of priorities; its weakness is near silence on the natural environment.

The Triple Bottom Line

Elkington (1994) urged companies to pursue strategies that benefit the business, its customers and the environment together, and the later idea of a triple bottom line, also from Elkington, asked them to keep three sets of accounts, for people and the planet as well as for profit. For Front Range, the model would mean measuring and reporting three sets of results each year: profit, effects on people such as employees and farmers and environmental effects such as energy, waste and packaging. Its strength is that it puts all three on the scorecard. Its weakness, which Elkington later acknowledged, is that companies often report the three without changing how they trade one against another.

Three Cases for Sustainability

Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) argued that a sustainable company must satisfy three cases, not only the business case. The business case concerns eco-efficiency and socio-efficiency, doing more with fewer resources and less harm per unit of output. The natural case concerns eco-effectiveness, keeping total environmental effects within what natural systems can bear. The societal case concerns socio-effectiveness and fairness. Their warning was that efficiency gains can be outrun by growth: a roaster that uses less gas per pound but doubles its output still burns more gas. For a growing company like Front Range, that warning is directly relevant.

Shared Value

Porter and Kramer (2011) proposed that companies look for social problems they can address profitably, by rethinking products and markets, redesigning the value chain or strengthening the local suppliers and institutions they depend on. For Front Range, shared value might mean paying farmers more for higher-quality coffee that commands a premium, cutting roaster energy use to save money and emissions or training baristas in skills that raise both service and wages. Its strength is that it links social goals to the core business. Its weakness is that it can steer attention away from problems that do not pay.

Comparing the Models

The five models differ on three questions. Whose interests count? The shareholder view counts owners; the others widen the circle. What is the goal? Friedman seeks profit, Carroll balanced responsibilities, Elkington and Dyllick and Hockerts performance in three dimensions and Porter and Kramer profitable social solutions. How are tradeoffs handled? The pyramid ranks responsibilities, shared value seeks situations without tradeoffs and Dyllick and Hockerts insist that some environmental and social limits must hold even when they do not pay. Seeing the differences this way makes it easier to choose deliberately.

What Each Model Would Lead the Owners to Do

Under the shareholder view, Front Range would replace its oldest roaster only when energy savings repay the cost. Under the pyramid, it would first confirm compliance, then review pay and purchasing practices for fairness and then consider giving. Under the triple bottom line, it would set up a three-part scorecard. Under the three cases, it would set limits on total emissions and waste, not only intensity targets, and ask whether farmers and workers receive a fair share. Under shared value, it would look for investments, such as farmer partnerships, that pay back in quality and loyalty.

Fit With the Company

The company's situation narrows the choice. It buys coffee from smallholder farmers whose incomes depend on prices it can influence through direct relationships. Its cafés depend on baristas earning close to Denver's minimum wage, which rose to $19.29 an hour in 2026, or $16.27 for tipped food and beverage workers (City and County of Denver, 2025). Its roastery burns natural gas, and its cafés generate cups, milk cartons and coffee grounds. And it is growing, with plans for four more cafés. Each feature points to models that address supply chains, workers and growth, not only profit.

Choosing a Framework

No single model fits on its own. This paper recommends a combined framework for the course. Carroll's pyramid sets the foundation: profitability and legal compliance come first, since a failed company helps no one. Dyllick and Hockerts's three cases set the goals: the company should pursue efficiency, keep absolute environmental effects in check as it grows and treat farmers and workers fairly. Shared value guides the search for actions, putting first those that serve the business and society together. Elkington's triple bottom line supplies the scorecard on which progress is reported.

Limits of the Chosen Framework

The combined framework has limits. It asks more of a 260-person company than any single model, and the owners will need to accept some actions that do not pay back quickly, such as absolute limits on emissions. Shared value's emphasis on profitable solutions may tempt managers to neglect fairness goals that cost money. And the framework itself does not say which issues matter most; that question, the subject of a materiality assessment, comes in the third module. Naming these limits now will make later choices more honest.

Conclusion

The shareholder view, the CSR pyramid, the triple bottom line, the three cases for sustainability and shared value offer different answers about whose interests count, what the goal is and how tradeoffs are handled. Applied to Front Range Roasters, each would lead to different actions, from replacing a roaster only when it pays to setting absolute limits as the company grows. The course will use a combined framework: the pyramid as foundation, the three cases as goals, shared value as a guide to action and the triple bottom line as the scorecard. The next paper assesses the company's current practices against it.

References

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G

City and County of Denver. (2025). Denver local minimum wage adjusts to $19.29 per hour for 2026. https://denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Offices/Agencies-Departments-Offices-Directory/Department-of-Finance/News/2025/Denver-Local-Minimum-Wage-Adjusts-to-19.29-per-Hour-for-2026

Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130-141. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.323

Elkington, J. (1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90-100. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165746

Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). A Friedman doctrine: The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 32-33, 122-126.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.