1 Introduction

1.1 “We steal the future, sell it in the present, and call it GDP”

In reference [1] The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states with clarity that “[h] Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1 °C above 1850–1900 in 2011–2020” [2]. This is “already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. This has led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people (high confidence). Vulnerable communities who have historically contributed the least to current climate change are disproportionately affected (high confidence)” [2]. The legally binding Paris Agreement is meant to deal with this issue by holding “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels”, preferably “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels” [3]. Furthermore, to address climate change and other ecological, social, and economic issues on a broader scale, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2015 as a part of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [4]. Progress in fulfilling the SDGs is, however, “seriously off track” in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other critical crises [5]. A list of other barriers hindering the implementation of actions that stimulate progress towards the SDGs has been recognized. These barriers include lack of political will [6], vague goals, trade-offs, financial constraints, lack of collective actions, accountability and capacity building, lack of access to essential technology and data, and cultural issues [7, 8].

Through daily operations businesses have contributed to the lack of progress, as negative externalities associated with undesirable social and environmental impacts are typically unaccounted for by them [9,10,11]. The consequences are carried by the public who bear the burden, instead of the companies that focus on narrowly defined profit-maximization as their business objective. This has been seen as an issue, given that “[i] n many parts of the world, it is still not terribly unusual to find major national, regional or local policy [or business] agendas relating to environmental, economic, political or social sustainability which essentially make no specific reference to children and young people” [12]. This raises questions about whose interests’ businesses work for, whether it is only for the shareholders or a broader set of stakeholders. Children and young people are often seen as “passive victims” [12], but it is also unclear if and how these future successors will or will not translate sustainability issues into business actions and solutions when they take over from their predecessors. However, having a sense of hope, instead of hopelessness and helplessness, inspires engagement and pro-environmental behavior by young people [13]. Therefore, the authors of the paper assume that future generations’ interests rest on sustainable and thriving future within the planetary boundaries. Both the broad philosophical assumptions of shareholder and stakeholder paradigms, or more narrowly defined theories explaining specific phenomena within those paradigms [14, 15], are concerned with the role and responsibility of businesses. They have been used to clarify corporate governance, explain the relationship and fiduciary duties of the board of directors towards corporations, shareholders, or more widely, a broader set of stakeholders [15,16,17]. In the former case, the corporate philosophy is profitability, meeting shareholder goals of profit maximization, where the social contribution is reached by fulfilling self-interest, while the latter paradigm emphasizes responsibility by delivering value for all stakeholders and collectively serving the public and society [18]. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) or corporate sustainability (CS) paradigms are, furthermore, relevant to shareholder and stakeholder paradigms and theories [19], dealing with environmental and social management issues, both of which are addressed in this paper.

These theoretical paradigms do not seem to go far enough in their efforts to explain, or deal with, the grand societal challenges that need to be solved, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, natural resource depletion, pollution, setbacks from the global pandemic, erosion of human rights, or involuntary migration, just to name a few examples [2, 5, 8, 20]. Subsequently, this paper aims to provide a theoretical exploration, and a critical appraisal, of the paradigm shift needed [21] from shareholders and stakeholders to future successors, as their interests are of importance for business that want to prosper in the long run. In this case, the authors define future successors as those that will take over the running of businesses from the current managers, whether they are children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren of all genders, or others who belong to future generations not currently running businesses. This shift is grounded in a discussion about shareholders, stakeholders, corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability, environmental constraints, multilateral sustainability policies and pathways, and the needs and requirements of corporate future successors of inter- and intra-generations and environmental relationships [22, 23]. The main research questions are.

  1. 1.

    What are the key elements of shareholder and stakeholder theories?

  2. 2.

    What is the shareholder and stakeholder theories’ relationship with corporate social responsibility/corporate sustainability?

  3. 3.

    How, or to what extent, do these paradigms help address the grand challenges societies are faced with?

  4. 4.

    How, or to what extent, do these paradigms address intra- and intergenerational interests of relevance for business future successors?

Based on Thatcher and Fisher [24] and Makadok et al. [25], the paper makes theoretical and practical contributions in the following manner: First, it synthesizes the main aspects of the shareholder, stakeholder, CSR and CS paradigms. Second, it defines the future successor construct, not previously presented in literature. Third, it explains a typology of focus of firms in supporting future successors interests and sustainability outcomes. Fourth, it proposes a Future successors model, that can be viewed as a position-based figure with “new constructs and cause-effect relationships” [26 p. 3]. Fifth, it offers a Strategic roadmap relevant for practitioners and academic scholars to explore. Sixth, it brings forth avenues for future research.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 explains the method used for the theoretical development of the paper. Section 3 traces key aspects of shareholder, stakeholder, corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate sustainability (CS) paradigms. Section 4 provides the basis for a new paradigm on future successors and succession based on a paradigm shift [21]. The successorship concept is used here in a manner that differs from its historical usage, whereby successors are considered as those who take over when a company founder or CEO steps down [27]. The section offers a typology for sustainability outcomes for focal firms and future successors (Table 1), and a Successorship model (Fig. 1). Section 5 focuses on discussion and presents a conclusion, in which a roadmap is outlined for how to turn theoretical ideas into practice (Table 2). In addition, concluding remarks on the implications of the study and avenues for future research are articulated.

2 Methods

The theoretical development follows the taxonomy of contributions to theory, focusing on inputs in the case of research questions, levels of the theorizing process, and outputs in the forms of “explanations, predictions, prescriptions, etc.” [25], in addition to following a practical guide and exercises on developing theoretical papers [24]. The combined modes of theorizing are inductive, dynamic and informal, given the “real-world observations”, influence of external forces, and accessibility “to a broad audience” [25]. The paper, however, questions the usefulness of placing the future successors paradigm within the paradigms discussed in Sect. 3 given the worsening environmental conditions discussed in the introduction and impotence of these paradigms in addressing the challenges. In terms of the phenomenon, the study brings forth inter- and intra- organizational relationships, viewing the boundaries of firms within complex systems [25], including the planetary boundaries, Sustainable Development Goals, future generations, as well as more specifically, corporate governance, corporate strategy, and leadership aspects. The causal mechanisms are the relationships between firms and future successors, a relationship that has received limited attention in the literature, and through a proposed roadmap how these interactions can take place is explored. By proposing a paradigm shift [21, 28, 29], or an emergence of a new theory rather than a re-emergence of existing theory [30], the aim is to conceive of alternative ways in studying the role of firms in addressing grand challenges which the existing theories have not been able to address sufficiently from a future successors point of view. This requires advanced leadership and new paradigms [29] as an alternative to the slow adaptive change in the current business environment [21]. Instead, “radical change in organizations may be construed as a discontinuous shift in this socially constructed reality” [21]. The key variable observed is future successors. In doing so, the study offers the possibility for further exploration of the interests of future generations and inter- and intergenerational relationships [22, 23, 31]. In terms of the boundary conditions of the theory, the idea is to relax current boundary conditions of businesses [25], but these conditions can later on be clarified or tested through theoretical or empirical studies when the proposed theoretical construct has gained scholarly attention [30]. The study outputs are general based on a combination from current but different theories, with some specific outcomes [25] presented in the introduction and in more detail in the conclusion section, in addition to the visual conceptualizations provided in tables and figures.

3 Theoretical frameworks

This section discusses the key aspects of shareholder and stakeholder theory, corporate social responsibility, and corporate sustainability, thereby laying the foundation for exploring the alternative ideas of the importance of companies’ future successors for these to excel in both the current and future business environment.

3.1 The shareholder paradigm

The normative shareholder theory, also framed under the concepts of stockholder theory, stockholder perspective or stockholder paradigm, is rooted in traditional neoclassical theory, arguing that corporations are predominantly instruments of their owners, and should as such provide a “return on investment for these individuals or institutional shareholders “, which is the financial award for the risk capital they invest to the operation [32]. This ideology crystallizes in the ideas of Milton Friedman, where he stated that the “one and only one social responsibility of business is to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud” [14, 33]. This consequently guides and explains companies’ behavior [34] and corporate goals [35], and emphasizes wealth creation for shareholders, recognized as shareholder primacy [36]. The idea is that shareholders gain the residuals of the companies’ revenue streams and have the ultimate control over the business. Managers should therefore maximize their wealth by only carrying out activities that benefit shareholders financially [37].

Corporations are seen as legal fiction, and their responsibilities do not extend beyond this premise, and as such they “can have neither responsibilities nor ethics” [32]. Positions of management are seen as fulfilling self-interest, prioritizing their interests over shareholder interests [37]. This was for decades the “article of faith in business research and practice”, “supporting shareholder wealth maximization” [38], and fueling a focus on short-term gains [39]. In addition, managerial decisions should “increase the total long-run market value of the firm” [11, 40] based on their enlightened self-interest [32].

The claim is that business managers following the social consciousness of businesses by addressing unemployment, discrimination, or pollution are “preaching pure and unadulterated socialism “ [14], and furthermore it is stated that businesses “cannot have responsibilities”, rather it is the individuals that have responsibilities [41]. The argument of Friedman (1970) goes on to say that corporations, as artificial persons, cannot have responsibilities other than to maximize shareholders’ profits, and people are the ones having responsibilities or ethics [32]. To maximize profits is their fiduciary and ethical responsibility [32], as agents of corporate owners [42, 43]. To prioritize social causes over maximizing profit would be considered an “inappropriate use of company’s resources resulting in the unjustifiable spending of money for the general social interest” [44]. Therefore, management decisions and actions need to be justified on the basis that they will benefit the corporation and shareholders’ interests [15], and they “cannot be directed towards the public interest without the consent of the stockholders” [45,46,47].

In terms of the governance model and the order of fiduciary duty, the shareholders are the principals, board of directors, the first-order agents, and managers’ second-order agents. The interests of stakeholders, in this case, creditors, suppliers, customers and other stakeholders, come last [37]. Performance is then measured in such a way that the value created is sufficient to maintain the commitment of the shareholders [48]. Friedman (1970), additionally, stated the social responsibility claim of prestigious and influential businessmen to be nonsense, demonstrating shortsightedness to gain admiration. Sternberg [49] claims that “shareholders are sometimes unwilling or unable actively to protect their interests”, but this “does not entitle other stakeholders to commandeer corporate property”, agency and wealth. This paradigm consequently enabled neoclassical economists to view corporations as stand-alone entities, with limited boundary conditions [35], leading to shareholders not taking into account the issues of environmental constraints [50] or business-society relationships [51].

These ideas gained a foothold in disciplines such as finance [52,53,54] and strategic management [55,56,57], also obtaining positions in the curricula of business and law schools, shifting from ideas about the “reasonable profit” of businesses [38, 58]. Due to the simplicity of Friedman’s rule, seen as a one-size fits all [59], these ideas are still widely accepted [60], although also heavily criticized [43, 61] due to lasting negative effects on society [62]. Both in the United States and the United Kingdom, corporate law and public policy have been structured so that they benefit shareholders’ interests [35, 61].

The main arguments for the shareholder paradigm have been synthesized by Sundaram and Inkpen [35], who claim that the profit maximization goal will benefit stakeholders. Managers will pursue entrepreneurial risks given the right incentives, and governing will be too challenging or impossible if there are competing objectives with the profit maximization goal. Stakeholders can become shareholders, but not the other way around, and if trust or contracts are broken, stakeholders’ interests are protected through the legal system or contracts.

Given the various issues relevant to harmful practices of businesses [36], it was claimed that “bad management theories are destroying good management practices” [63], thus supporting the need for further theoretical and practically-oriented development. A recent development, where the CEOs of 200 of the largest companies in the US signed and issued a statement on the purpose of corporations, moves the discussion from “an earlier statement that defined the duty of directors as serving the interests of stockholders” and “supporting shareholder wealth maximization” [38] to the paradigm of stakeholders. In this case, “companies should deliver long-term value to all of their stakeholders – customers, employees, suppliers, the communities in which they operate, and shareholders” in order to “succeed and profit” [64]. It is also recognized by the World Economic Forum that shareholder capitalism has brought about prosperity, but also “major social, economic, and environmental downsides”, namely “inequalities of income, wealth, and opportunity; increased tensions between the haves and the have-nots; and above all, a mass degradation of the environment”. As a result, the World Economic Forum instead recommends stakeholder capitalism. In that case, the goal is to “increase the wellbeing of people and the planet”, whereby the focus is on long-term value creation and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) measures [65].

3.2 The stakeholder paradigm

The stakeholder paradigm was articulated in a seminal book entitled Stakeholder Management: A Stakeholder Approach [66]. This paradigm, theory and/or approach, was drawn from “various literature including corporate planning, systems theory, and corporate social responsibility” [67]. The stakeholder concepts can be traced back to the 1960s, such as from a memo from the Stanford Research Institution in 1963 [68], where stakeholders are defined as “those groups without support the organization would cease to exist” (narrow definition), and the work of Ansoff [69] and Freeman and Reed [15], originally including “shareowners, employees, customers, suppliers, lenders, and society” as shareholders. In its development, the stakeholder theory has gone through three main periods; incubation (1984–1991), incremental growth (1991–1998), and maturity (1999-onward) [67]. Theoretically, the maturity stage can also be viewed based on a five-stage framework of theory development [30], although the research area can also be seen as fragmented or heterogenous, hindering “operationalization of the construct” [70].

The implication of the stakeholder ideas has been explored on different levels, including “as a management theory; as a process for practitioners to use in strategic management; and as an analytical framework” [15]. Two systematic reviews of the stakeholder theory [71] reveal three aspects, these being “descriptive/empirical, instrumental, and normative” [72, 73], and five main themes: “(a) stakeholder definition and salience, (b) stakeholder actions and responses, (c) firm actions and responses, (d) firm performance, and (e) theory debates” [67]. Power, legitimacy, and urgency attributes are used to classify stakeholders. Stakeholder salience is classified as low, moderate, or high, depending on how many attributes are present. If all three are in place, stakeholder salience is high. Some stakeholders are classified as non-stakeholders, given that none of the attributes apply to them [74].

The stakeholder paradigm was aimed at addressing issues encountered in the shareholder paradigm. It was originally set forth to address issues of value creation and trade, ethical issues, and flaws in the managerial mindset described in the previous theoretical discussion [11]. The difference between the shareholder and stakeholder paradigms is seen in what makes businesses successful, whether it is maximizing profits, or servicing the needs and requirements of stakeholders based on managing stakeholders’ relationships and their interests [11]. Freeman, Harrison [11] have argued that stakeholder theory does not differ from Friedman’s view in the sense that stakeholder theory “is not about social responsibility”, it is about “businesses and capitalism”, but “interests of shareholders should not be prioritized over the interests of other stakeholders” [75]. However, scholars have reasoned that it is problematic to define stakeholders in the case of “theoretical development and empirical testing”, stating that the theory is “fundamentally misguided, incapable of providing better corporate governance, business performance or business conduct”, and that it is “intrinsically incompatible with all substantive objectives, and undermines both private property and accountability” [49]. Although scholars have clarified the stakeholder concepts [76], multi-dimensional classification of theory definition is still needed, [77], interests of different stakeholders should be prioritized [74, 78, 79], and the ethical aspects of stakeholder theory emphasized [80, 81].

The stakeholder paradigm originates from strategic management [71, 82, 83], but Freeman (1984, p. 5) claimed that the prevailing management theories were not suited for addressing “the quantity and kinds of change which are occurring in the business environment”. The examples used to back up the argument included issues such as “increasing takeovers, activism, foreign competition, new industrial relations, a worldwide resource market, government reform, supranational agencies, a rising consumer movement, increasing environmental concerns” [67]. It then expanded into organizational theory [72, 84, 85], business ethics [86, 87], social managerial issues [70, 88, 89], and sustainable development [90, 91].

The stakeholder theory challenges the “single-value objective” of businesses [40], and how it affects society [67, 92]. It claims a shift in the view of internal and external stakeholders [66], and thus the organizational environment. Consequently, company management needs to consider stakeholders as “groups and individuals that can affect, or are affected by, the accomplishment of the business enterprise” (broad definition) [66], for whom they should create value [75]. The purpose of the businesses is therefore to fulfill multiple objectives of stakeholders with different interests, and the governance structure relates to a team production model and a governance process of cooperation, coordination, and resolution of conflicts. The performance is measured based on “[fair] distribution of value created to maintain commitment of multiple stakeholders”, and all stakeholders are residual risk holders [48]. Sustainability issues are addressed by environmental policy and management literature as aspects of policymaking and decision-making [70], recognizing the boundaries of environmental constraints [50, 93] and business-society relationships [51], while trade-offs among stakeholders should be avoided [94].

Although not always clear, mandatory sustainability reporting requirements, such as within the new European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) [95] or the voluntary Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards [96] help define what is within the boundaries of business operations and managerial responsibilities. Nevertheless, there are many ways to classify business-related stakeholders based on their interests. In a narrow sense, these are customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and shareholders, as stated in the Business Roundtable statement from 1997 [38, 75]. Common categories are, however, often broader, including employees, customers, governments, investors, creditors, suppliers, trade associations, political groups, communities [72, 97], and more recently managers [98] and the natural environment [99]. In some cases, stakeholders are categorized as primary and secondary, or internal and external. Those that have direct interests in the company, its activities, and its successes are considered primary, while the secondary stakeholders have indirect interests in such matters. Consequently, primary stakeholders are employees, customers, suppliers, financiers, and communities. Those with indirect interests may include competitors, government, media, special interest or consumer advocate groups [72, 100], authorities, regulators, NGOs, religious institutions, opinion forums, and campaign groups [101]. Similarly, stakeholders can be seen from a wide point of view, such as when they can affect or may be affected by the achievement of companies’ objectives, or in a narrow way, either as groups or individuals of critical importance for the continuing survival of companies, often emphasizing collaboration between groups of stakeholders [98]. Stakeholders have, furthermore, been classified based on relationship attributes of power, legitimacy, and urgency of claims made [74], what strategies and resources they use for fulfillment of their claims, and how successful they are [83]. In terms of power relationships, shareholders have equity and voting power, economic power is relevant to market actors, and political power is linked to various societal influencers [15].

It is emphasized that companies need to manage stakeholder expectations and reactions for their benefit through effective CSR communication [102, 103]. The idea of stakeholder management [68, 88, 104] has then transformed into stakeholder engagement [68, 105, 106] “as a natural continuum” from a multiple-value perspective including “moral, strategic, and pragmatic components” [70]. While the strategic form highlights an economic-value perspective, the moral form is multiple-value perspective, therefore including economic, social and ecological values, and the pragmatic form highlights the boundary conditions that influence the characteristics of stakeholder engagement. In this case, the role of stakeholders, and multistakeholder engagement and communication [107] becomes prominent [70]. In spite of this, stakeholder engagement has also been negatively viewed as harmful in cases where stakeholders are unengaged or have aims that are destructive or involve malintent [70]. However the concept is framed, it is clear that stakeholder management or engagement is becoming increasingly integrated into daily business operations, decision-making, relationship management, communication, innovation, and risk management [68].

In recent discussions, it has been articulated that it is not just businesses that are responsible for their actions in isolation, but stakeholders should hold businesses accountable for their actions, thereby shaping how they conduct their business [81, 108]. Subsequently, “all stakeholders have an obligation to help design the society in which they want to live and work” (Chandler, 2017, p. 93). In that sense, businesses and stakeholders can be seen either as independent or integrated actors, even to the extent that more responsibility is allocated to stakeholders than businesses [23, 108]. The extended view on responsibilities can be seen in guidelines issued by actors and international bodies, such as Nasdaq and the OECD, stating that the role of boards of directors is to have in place “corporate governance policies and practices to help fulfill their responsibilities to certain stakeholders of the Exchanges” [109, 110]. This theoretical perspective has been applied in various disciplines, such as business administration, law, public administration, environmental policy, ethics, and healthcare [80].

The stakeholder paradigm emphasizes, to a limited extent, the importance of incorporating the interests of future generations, the natural environment, and other “living and non-living entities” [86, 87, 93, 111] into business purposes and perspectives, but places the topic in relation to moral arguments and business ethics [23, 112] or on an institutional level [93]. Yet, in most cases, neither the literature nor business leaders go far enough in recognizing these interests, and thereby overlook the challenges faced in the twenty-first century [2, 5, 8], as stakeholders are often narrowly categorized or defined [98]. As an example, they can be classified as fringe stakeholders [113, 114] which can be non-collaborative or marginalized, “intentionally blocked or excluded” in the case of the current sustainability crisis [70, 114], holding limited power and legitimacy [74, 115] and potentially stigmatized, “not possessing salience attributes”, if recognized at all when searching for invisible or “silent stakeholders with unknown representation” [116], and powerless to protect their interests [115]. This is, for instance, evident in the 2019 statement from the Business Roundtable, signed by 181 CEOs of US corporations, where they aimed to move away from shareholder primacy, adherent from 1997 to 2019, to committing to all stakeholders in new Principles of Corporate Governance. Still, these stakeholders only include employees, customers, investors, communities, and suppliers [117]. The case has been made that fringe stakeholders are “those who question the re-existing system and power structure”, but when proposing proxies for studying fringe stakeholders, future generations are not recognized [114]. Consequently, it can be argued that there is a need for a new social contract or theoretical development, taking an even broader view, moving the discussion from current stakeholders to future successors as argued in Sect. 4.

Stakeholder capitalism is also a relevant concept [118], “based on freedom, rights, and the creation by consent of positive obligations” that should result in positive outcomes, rather than avoiding those that are worse. Other dimensions, mentioned in this context, are economic, ethical, legal, and political, which are used to criticize the stakeholder paradigm, stating that “it is not the responsibility of the company” to solve social issues in the United States [119]. It should, however, be noted that these dimensions expand companies’ boundaries. Furthermore, studies have shown that companies are under ever-growing demands to act on pressure from various stakeholders to “address a broader set of social responsibilities that encompass aspects such as human and labor rights, stakeholder engagement, environmental performance, and social impact” [120,121,122,123]. However, nature as a stakeholder is generally viewed narrowly from utilization or management of resources points of view [93]. However, a growing and more recent literature brings forth the “idea of nature-inclusive stakeholder engagement”, recognizing living and non-living nature [70], emphasizing strong sustainability [124]. This perspective highlights nature’s influence over business activities, and thereby suggesting the natural environment to be the “primary and primordial stakeholder of the firm” [113], as “humans, institutions and enterprises, other living beings, and ecological systems, are all stakeholders of a core focal entity—the Earth”, including future generations, “whose well-being is also at stake in the relationship” [125].

Before discussing the CSR and CS paradigms, it should be noted that stakeholder theory and CSR can be viewed as competing views, or stakeholder theory regarded as a subset of CSR. In other cases, both aspects are viewed as the same where the focus is solely on either perspective [75], or a combined discussion on stakeholders and how CSR is embedded in corporate governance [73]. In general, stakeholder theory focuses on building relationships and creating value for stakeholders, while CSR focuses on benefits for society at large [126], both of which aim at addressing flaws in the shareholder paradigm [75]. The argument is made that the perspective on business is holistic in the case of stakeholder theory, but focused in the case of CSR. Beneficiaries of business-society relationships are all stakeholders limited within the reach of business operations in the case of stakeholder theory, while it is communities and society at large in the case of CSR. Furthermore, direction of responsibility is multilateral for stakeholders (two-way), while being unilateral for CSR (one-way) [75]. Stakeholder theory and CSR are also seen as “distinct but complementary theoretical frameworks with some overlap” [75]. A particularly common focus is evident when discussing CSR/CS reporting, given how relevant such reports are for a broad range of stakeholders [106] where the reports are “used to support claims of legitimacy for organizational operations” [105]. However, one of the key issues with CSR/CS reports is that it does not seem that company actions and relevant disclosure demonstrates improved social and environmental outcomes [127] and impacts in absolute terms, and therefore they still add to the grand challenges that need to be solved.

3.3 Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate sustainability (CS)

Various concepts associated with CSR and CS are often used interchangeably in the management literature, or by businesses for practicality, without clear distinction [19, 128, 129], which are sometimes seen as different sides of the same coin [130]. There are, however, points of difference between the two constructs, as the meta-analysis of the CS and CSR shows a convergence between conceptualizations and measures of CSR and CS [19, 128]. The former concept was quite evident in CSR and corporate social performance specialized journals from the 1970s onward, while the environmental management concept started to appear in the 1980s, followed by the CS concept in sustainability and environmental management specialized journals [19]. This was the situation until the turn of the twenty-first century.

The discourse has shown increased conversion between the concepts [19]. CSR is increasingly aligned with the sustainability discussion and public understanding of businesses’ role in society, now centering around them becoming “proactive agents of social and environmental change”, where CSR “should not construct a divide between business and society as the Friedman doctrine proposes but allow a broader debate” [131]. To begin with, CSR scholars tended to be more pragmatic in terms of business concepts used to frame discussions about the value of nature for people and businesses, while CS scholars approached the discussion more from the eco-centric paradigm, highlighting the intrinsic value of nature [19]. CSR scholars, furthermore, see the role of business as a “basic economic unit”, selling goods and services at profit, while CS scholars propose a wider view on value creation, recognizing environmental, social, and economic responsibilities as complementary [19, 132]. Finally, there are ties between CSR and stakeholder theory, since stakeholders are relevant to most CSR definitions [19], while CS scholars ground their work within institutional theory [133], a research-based view [134, 135], or (employees) motivation theory [136]. However, the overlap between these concepts is becoming quite evident [19].

The historical background of the two concepts differs, while current and future developments are merging them [19]. CSR has its foundations in social issues research, associated with social contract theory, while the environmental issues and environmental management (EM) discourse laid the foundation for the CS concept [130, 137]. More recently the CS concept also includes the social aspect, blurring the boundaries between CSR and CS. This blurring of boundaries between the concepts suggests that in both cases the mutual goal of CSR and CS is to define the responsibility of corporations within the broader context of society and the natural environment [19, 138].

The modern roots era of CSR is usually traced back to the 1950s and 1960s, such as to Bowen’s “specific set of principles for corporations to fulfill their social responsibilities “ [44, 139, 140]. Many definitions of CSR exist [44, 141, 142], such as the one that defines “CSR as situations where the firm goes beyond compliance and engages in ‘actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law” [143]. Of a similar nature is the definition stating that business operations should go “beyond the narrow economic, technical, and legal requirements of the firm” [144]. However, “the first unified definition of CSR was presented in 1979 by Carroll, who placed specific responsibilities and expectations (economic, legal, ethical and discretionary) upon corporations and who understood the economic and social objectives of firms as an integral part of a business framework and not as incompatible aspects” [44, 145, 146]. Based on a systematic review of CSR definitions, five dimensions are emphasized. These are environmental, social, economic, stakeholder, and voluntary dimensions [141], centering on medium to long-term value creation [108]. Furthermore, sustainability has also emerged as a relevant dimension [142].

CSR is the focal point, where companies need simultaneously to fulfill economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities, which is reflected in their “decisions, actions, policies and practices [147]”. Other concepts and frameworks related to sustainability and the future are then complementary or competing, including “Corporate Citizenship, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Business Ethics, Creating Shared Value, Conscious Capitalism, or some other socially conscious semantics” [44, 147,148,149]. In the case of the ethical dimension, there has been a discussion about universal rights and a transition from focus on corporate citizenship, where companies are responsible local actors, to attention on global business citizenship, where companies act both on local and global levels, taking into account broad range issues and stakeholder concerns following universal global principles [150].

In a study on multinational companies’ subsidiaries in emerging markets, CSR, viewed from a strategic point of view [143], can be seen as a precondition for survival, part of business operations, involving managing relationships with stakeholders, and linked to branding, while it is to a lesser degree seen as a philanthropic/altruistic means of conducting business, particularly when sustainability is seen as integral to CSR [151]. There is an alignment between CSR, corporate governance, and responsible managerial behavior and undertaking a proactive approach to CSR [152]. CSR can, therefore, be seen as a managerial concept, determining that companies are obliged to serve society at large to gain legitimacy. It is often discussed in relation to corporate social performance [88, 153] and corporate strategy [143], although the concept has also been criticized for not being a part of core business activities of companies [149, 154].

CSR theories [155, 156] were categorized by Garriga and Melé [157], resulting in four theoretical categories: instrumental, political, integrative, and ethical. Instrumental theories assume that corporate social responsibility can be used as a means to the end of corporate wealth creation [158], which is the sole purpose [14, 40, 157, 159]. It can also be regarded as a way for gaining a competitive advantage [160]. Business-society interaction is therefore viewed primarily from an economic point of view, such as when exploring the CSR and corporate financial performance (CFP) relationship [161,162,163,164].

Political theories emphasize the social power of corporations and interplay between corporations, society, and the political arena, and how corporations exercise and assume responsibility based on their power [157, 165, 166]. The integrative social contract theory presumes the existence of a social contract between corporations and society [167, 168], establishing legitimacy based on positive contributions to society, thereby “satisfying the interests of a wider constituency of stakeholders beyond shareholder” [61]. In this regard, corporations are viewed as citizens involved in society [169,170,171].

Integrative theories include responding to and managing issues and social demands influencing business [172,173,174,175,176]. These include public responsibility laws and public policies used to emphasize social performance [177], stakeholder management, where interests of stakeholders are balanced [78, 85, 151], corporate social performance and the business case for CSR [88, 145, 178,179,180], and public policy as a guideline for legitimate managerial behavior [177].

Ethical theories claim that the corporate-society relationship is based on ethical values where such considerations take primacy over other responsibilities [157]. This is, for instance, based on the stakeholder normative theory which considers fiduciary duties towards stakeholders [66, 71, 72, 181, 182], universal rights, including human rights, labor rights, and respect for the environment [183], and sustainable development, where human development should take into account present and future generations [4, 184,185,186], and the common good of society [187,188,189].

Different approaches have been used to structure CSR. One includes a model explaining predictors of CSR influencing proactive or reactive behavior, mediators of CSR outcomes, that is relationships and values, and moderators of CSR outcomes, namely people, place, price, and profile, resulting in internal and external business outcomes [190]. Another one focuses on differentiating between implicit and explicit CSR [191], where implicit CSR describes “corporations’ role within the wider formal and informal institutions for society’s interests and concerns”, while explicit CSR defines it as “corporate activities that assume responsibility for the interests of society”.

However, in a broad sense, CSR is tied to a discussion about doing good for society [146, 158], avoiding harming the environment [79] or violating labor rights [192], although the scope has widened based on various CSR guidelines and standards companies currently follow either voluntarily or mandatorily. Furthermore, CSR is starting to influence shareholders in the sense that they are becoming more active in expressing their views towards companies’ “policies and practices on a wide range of social and environmental topics”. CSR performance is also aligned with good business governance, and board actions are being scrutinized [48].

It should be noted that CSR is not without criticism and so-called CSR 1.0 has failed in the sense that serious sustainability issues have not been addressed, because changes have been incremental and peripheral, and actions may be uneconomical. Consequently, CSR 2.0 is proposed to shift practices by relying on principles of creativity, scalability, responsiveness, glocality, meaning global localization, and circularity [193]. Furthermore, CSR has been criticized for the concept per se, as the 'corporate' element applies to large and successful companies, rather than businesses in general, including entrepreneurs and small businesses [75, 194].

The concept of sustainable development was first formally defined and promoted in the Brundtland Report of 1987, which outlined three core dimensions: the economic, the environmental, and the social [195]. The report defined sustainable development as ‘‘[d]evelopment that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs and aspirations’’ [184], thus emphasizing the need for sustainable economic growth [196]. With man at its center, the World Commission on Environment and Development( WCED) definition is anthropocentric [197], and the suggestion of tradeoffs between the three sustainability dimensions to operationalize the concept is aligned with weak sustainability. Weak sustainability assumes substitutability of natural and man-made capital, and rejects the notion of physical limits to economic growth and wealth creation [91]. The trade-offs between natural and man-made capital should, according to weak sustainability, be sufficiently compensated for the loss of natural capital with a substitute source of wealth creation [198].

This contradicts the second school of thought emphasizing strong sustainability, which implies that substitutability of natural capital is limited and that there are physical limits to economic growth [91]. Strong sustainability requires that “environmental functions and critical natural capital needed for the life of ecosystems” be maintained [199]. This then “heavily regulates resource usage, encourages a reduction in scale of the economy and population, and views nature for its intrinsic value” [124].

The sustainable development concept has been applied at the business level through CS, and defined as “meeting the needs of a firm’s direct and indirect stakeholders (such as shareholders, employees, clients, pressure groups, communities, etc.) without compromising its ability to meet the needs of future stakeholders as well” [200]. CS has been seen as a business approach that considers the triple bottom line of economic prosperity, environmental quality, and social justice [201, 202]. The claim has been made that the concept derives from previously established concepts, with sustainable development, deriving from the triple bottom line, corporate social responsibility grounded in moral philosophy, stakeholder theory resting on strategic management, and corporate accountability theory based on business law [203]. CS furthermore overlaps with corporate citizenship, environmental management, and business ethics [204]. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) has been instrumental in driving business interest in sustainable development, with a strong focus on eco-efficiency. The solution platform is business and industry, with support provided by business leaders and market instruments [196].

Sustainability as a business concept has been discussed from various points of view, including corporate strategy and management, corporate ethics, reporting [205], performances [206], external, internal and/or connecting drivers [120, 122, 207, 208], and greenwashing [209]. The interconnection of the key business-society concepts has, furthermore, been explained by Steurer, Langer [91], where the author’s vision of sustainability, explained as a societal concept, was found to be the broadest dimension. The scope then narrows to the CS dimension, explained as a corporate concept. CS then includes CSR dimensions, explained as a management approach, which entails management systems such as the ISO standards. Stakeholder relations management connects these dimensions, also entailing economic, environmental, and social dimensions [91].

CS has also been viewed differently, where sustainable development is used to conceptualize CSR [157]. The difference between CSR and CS has also been accentuated in such a manner that sustainability requires companies to consider time, and consequently “intertemporal trade-offs to safeguard intergenerational equity”, as well as through a systems perspective where firms are seen as “systems nested within larger macro-systems” [137]. The same trade-off is not necessarily seen as critical in the context of CSR, where “win–win”, “shared value” and the “business case” is emphasized [149, 210]. The field of CS “is increasingly criticized for failing to effectively contribute to sustainable development and for its limited impact on managerial practice” [211]. So far, a limited number of companies have demonstrated how sustainability can drive lasting innovation, efficiency, and business value [212], let alone recognize the importance of future successors. This is despite the definition of CS as “a bundle of activities fully integrated into a firm’s overall strategy that contribute effectively to the welfare of current and future generations through protecting and enhancing the resilience of the biosphere, social equity and cohesion, and economic prosperity” [211].

Synthesizing the evolution of the CSR and CS concepts highlights the CSR focus on managers’ morality in the 1950s, society and profits in the 1990s, and society, profit, and the environment in the 2000s, which carries over to ideas about future research and suggests studies on the normative theory of the firm [213]. Relevant to CS were ideas related to limits to growth in the 1970s, environment and profits in the 1990s, and focus on society, profit, and the environment in the 2000s, which have carried over to future study ideas including those based on systems theory of business and society. From a strategic management perspective, the focus on profits in relation to society or the environment emerged in the 1990s, before both concepts started to focus on society, profit, and the environment in the 2000s [213]. It should, however, be highlighted that an exploration of the intersection and complementarity of these concepts [213] suggests a focus on weak rather than strong sustainability [91, 124, 214], where the former one “assumes the separation and even autonomy of the economy, society and environment from each other” while the latter one stating the economy depends on society, and both dependent on the environment” [19, 215].

4 A proposed future successors paradigm

4.1 “We the successors of a country and a time … “

In reference [216] As stated in the poem by Amanda Gorman, future generations are the “successors of a country and a time”, consequently the future successors. However, when the theories discussed in the article emerged, current global challenges were neither as obvious as they are today, nor had the Paris Agreement or the SDGs been established [2, 5, 8, 217], which are policy initiatives requiring rapid societal transformation [218]. In addition, the literature discussing systemic risks focused mainly on risk relevant to financial systems [219,220,221], with rather limited attention on risks relevant to ecological and social systems. This narrow focus is, however, changing. The World Economic Forum has since 2007 published annual reports on global risks. This is done by surveying “over 1,200 experts across academia, business, government, the international community and civil society” [222]. Ranking global risk over a 10-year period, the top five risk factors are (1) failure to mitigate climate change, (2) failure of climate-change adaptation, (3) natural disasters and extreme weather events, (4) biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse, and (5) large-scale involuntary migration [222]. These rankings emphasize the need to not overlook or neglect the importance of human, social, and natural capital, in addition to financial or man-made capital, when addressing global risks [223, 224]. These risks will have implications for future success, potentially leading to businesses failure. In this case, the insurance industry has been sounding the alarm bells about climate change for decades, stressing the likelihood of more frequent and severe natural disasters [225], which entail physical, transitional, and liability risks for businesses, in addition to the potential for business interruption [226]. The theories discussed in the paper, as stated by Freeman and Liedtka [227], have, however, “failed to help create the good society” needed to ensure a bright future for future successors by protecting the planetary boundaries and climate and societal conditions that are needed, although more recent literature included in Table 1 addresses some of these issues.

Table 1 Typology of focal firms’ interests and sustainability and future successors outcomes
Full size table

Drawing from the literature discussion in section, this section is organized according to the sustainability outcomes for focal firms and future successors typology presented in Table 1. The typology was constructed based on the review of shareholder, stakeholder, CSR, and CS literature paradigms discussed in Sect. 3, inspired by the structure and discussion of a Stakeholder value creation typology model focusing on focal firm and stakeholder orientations, viewed from economic and multiple value perspectives (Tapaninaho & Kujala, 2020). The examples and references included in the table are not exhaustive but are intended to highlight previous theoretical development, and the proposed development that is suggested to address the vulnerable aspects relevant to future successors.

4.2 Focal firms’ short-term financial wealth maximization interests and outcomes

Table 1 brings forth short-term economic interests [228] and gains [39], and shareholder profit maximization [14, 37], suggesting a narrow focus on fiduciary duties where manages serve as agents of corporate owners [42]. Businesses are viewed as stand-alone entities [35], neither ethical nor having responsibilities [32] and serving self-interest single-value objectives [32, 40]. This suggests power asymmetries [115] between businesses and stakeholders. In cases where addressing wider interests than the financial ones are suggested, the argument made is that “[t]here's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch” [238], although this can be challenged with a counter argument based on the externalities posed by business operations which intimates that businesses have received free lunches for a long time [32, 49], at the expense of society and the environment through exploitation of nature and people, and by externalizing related costs of running their businesses [9,10,11]. These are harmful business practices [36] and that is why they are stealing the future for today’ gains, as claimed by Hawken [1], which can be seen as illegal or unethical, or both [32]. Furthermore, what is also often left out when discussing the importance of companies for the success and prosperity of societies is that societies often bear the brunt of significant damage companies cause through bankruptcy, bailouts, and the financial support needed, such as in the case of corrupt governance, the financial and banking crisis of 2008, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The CS definition proposed by Gladwin and Kennelly [185] also captures the essence of how the interests of future successors are ignored, stating how interests and rights of future generations are marginalized [70, 113] given the environmental externalities.

Another issue recognized is the “male-dominated power structures that underpin everything from national economies, to political systems, to the corporate world and beyond”, where a suggested solution is to move away from “man-made problems” to ‘human-led solutions” [239], suggesting that a wider range of perspectives are needed in decision-making. Based on this discussion, it can be argued that building a future on an old-school economic mantra [14, 33, 41, 49], or paradigms not addressing the global challenges e.g [44, 131, 147, 240, 241], is no longer an option, although the inaction of current governments and business leaders, that are in a position and have power to act but are not pulling their weight, consequently violates the rights of children, young people, future generations, ecosystems, and other species.

4.3 Short-term wealth-maximization interests and vulnerable future successors

The short-term wealth-maximization interests are based on trade-offs between economic and sustainability goals [94, 198], where the strategic economic value perspective [70] is of importance and through stakeholder capitalism [118], companies boundaries are extended beyond a stand-alone entity point of view [35]. The companies exercise their social power in the political arena [157]. The focus is on utilization or managing natural capital and natural resources [93], sometimes resulting in mass environmental degradation [65] and lasting negative effects on society [62]. This then suggests limited progress towards fulfillment of the Paris Agreement [3] and the SDGs [4, 242]. A systematic review of the CSR and CS concepts [19], and the history and evolution of CSR [44], reveals that to date there is limited focus on future generations or the natural environment. Although stakeholders can be viewed from an intragenerational perspective (present generation) [111], there is limited reference to children or young people, who are seen as “passive victims” [12]. This may leave them with a sense of hopelessness and helplessness [13] regarding the issues discussed, potentially resulting in them becoming hostile or dangerous stakeholders [77]. It should be noted that young people are already starting to "organise into social movements that gain influence and attract resources to pressure companies, both nationally and internationally. Once this happens, fringe stakeholders may acquire an important voice and become a threat to the status quo of both corporations and government institutions” [114].

None of the literature reviewed in this study brought up the “future successor” construct as it was developed by the authors, even though some of the recent literature discussed future generational aspects from multiple perspectives. For instance, Arruda and Johannsdottir [23] brought forth the interests of human stakeholders, including infants, youth, elders, and future generations. Argyrou and Hummels [22] emphasized the importance of protecting the Whanganui River as a legal person and living entity “for its benefit and for the benefit of future generations”. Hubacek and Mauerhofer [111] discussed future generations from economic, legal, and institutional point of views, such as in relation to environmental problems, depletion of resources, and the costs this will pose on those not yet born, the importance of protecting their interests, benefits of technological advancement, and more. Phillips and Reichart [86] discussed the inclusion of the environment as a stakeholder, but also emphasized a policy statement from The Body Shop, where future generations ability to meet their needs was considered. Reed, Graves [93] referred to Starik [87] and Hubacek and Mauerhofer [111] when in relation to the wellbeing of future generations, while the [243] states that the role of global leaders is morally and pragmatically imperative, and that they need to “take bold decisions that protect, restore and sustainably manage the only planet we have and safeguard it for future generations”. Although these are theoretical and practical debates, the interests of future successors are still not brought to the forefront of the stakeholder debate, with such stakeholders relegated to the fringe or marginalized [70, 113, 114].

Delving deeper into the discussion, it can be said that that even though corporations proactively include environmental aspects in their business strategies [244,245,246], and the stakeholder view is quite commonly integrated into CSR and CS concepts and definitions [19], corporate actions do not reach far enough to protect the interests of future successors. The claim has been made that although the interest of scholars and managers in CS has increased since the millennium, “the field is increasingly criticized for failing to effectively contribute to sustainable development and for its limited impact on managerial practice” [211], thus leaving future successors vulnerable. This situation is by no means satisfactory in the light of the challenges ahead, and will neither safeguard the interests of young people (intragenerational equity), nor be fair towards the interests of future generations (intergenerational equity) [111, 247, 248] given power asymmetries [115] “cultural classes, and/or stakeholder perception gaps” [70]. The same logic as used by Freeman (1984, p. 5) can therefore be used today, stating that current theories are not suitable for addressing “the quantity and kinds of change which are occurring in the business environment”. Although relevant to social innovation, social entrepreneurship, and social enterprise [249], and sometimes seen as a part of CSR [250], there is a great difference in the scale and scope of solutions that businesses need to deliver.

It is stated that “more effective ways to meet global challenges, such as climate change, major diseases, natural disasters and governance of social and economic systems, are still to be explored” [28]. UNICEF has pointed out that the climate crisis threatens the rights of children and young people, and that this is based on scientific evidence. According to a Children’s Climate Risk Index published by UNICEF, “1 billion children are at ‘extremely high risk’ of the impacts of climate change “, equating to almost half of all the children in the world [251]. Due to impacts from river and coastal flooding, cyclones, water scarcity, vector-borne diseases, and/or air, soil, and water pollution, these children are exposed to conflict, fragility and lack of governance, poverty and lack of social protection, lack of education, and/or lack of health and nutrition. These children are not able to live in safe environments, or go to school, but endure “famine, conflict and deadly diseases due to climate and environmental shocks “ [251]. Nevertheless, there are some indications that actors are acknowledging the importance of a “generational transition” because of a “generational divide”, giving young people a voice when discussing the future of humanity as future leaders [252].

Around the globe, nature has “been significantly altered by multiple human drivers, with the great majority of indicators of ecosystems and biodiversity showing rapid decline” [253]. This means a transformation of humans’ relationship with nature is needed to ensure the well-being of present and future generations, and the survival of other species [254]. Inactions are manifested in a rise in climate litigation cases worldwide [255,256,257,258], as well as in protests, social media activism, and community and civic engagement [258]. The climate litigation cases fall under six main categories: (1) climate rights; (2) domestic enforcement; (3) keeping fossil fuels in the ground; (4) corporate liability and responsibility; 5) failure to adapt and the impacts of adaptation; and (6) climate disclosures and greenwashing [258], although other categories are also used [255]. Those leading the development are “children and youth, women’s groups, local communities, and Indigenous Peoples”, thereby “driving climate change governance reform in more and more countries around the world”. Among the aspects emphasized are “corporate liability and responsibility for climate harms” [259]. Categories (3), (4) and (6), should be of major concern for businesses, due to potential implications for their current and future competitiveness [154, 260,261,262]. What is also underlined is that a number of cases now assert the “fundamental rights of nature, as opposed to persons” [258, 263], “where legislation is grappling with a new normative order in relation to the legal status of nature” [263]. Additionally, cases are brought to trial to ensure sovereign jurisdiction for young people and future generations [258].

There is, furthermore, a growing pressure to protected nature from mass degradation by ecocide legislation, which typically encompasses environmental harms and crimes, for example, those related to water and air pollution, deforestation, and spoiling of the land, and negative impacts to animals and other non-human species [264]. Ecocide law could become the fifth category of crimes listed under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the others being the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression [265]. Discussion on criminalizing ecocide is also taking place at parliamentary or government levels [266]. This development is of critical importance, given that companies such as Exxon Mobile knew ever since the 1970s that fossil fuel production could result in global warming with “dramatic environmental effects” [267]. The knowledge of other interest forces, including trade association(s), the coal industry, and electric utilities was of a similar nature from around the 1950s to the 1970s [267]. It is, therefore, not without sound reason, and with evidence of clear violations of the rights of nature, that governments have begun to grant legal and/or constitutional rights of environmental personhood to elements of nature [268]. Examples include the case of Whanganui River in in New Zealand [6, 22, 269] and rights of nature in the constitution of Ecuador [268]. The essence of the arguments for granting such rights is that corporations are granted personhood [270], although unable to talk, so the same should apply to natural phenomena, including forests or rivers. The counterargument is that unlike businesses, such phenomena cannot be held responsible. Instead, someone needs to act on behalf of nature. In other cases, the rights of natural elements are equated with the rights of humans. For example, the Bangladeshi Supreme Court has already granted “all of its rivers the same legal status as humans”, as a means to “to protect the world's largest delta from further degradation from pollution, illegal dredging and human intrusion” [271].

4.4 Focal firms’ long-term sustainability value maximization interests and outcomes

Among the aspects relevant to focal firms’ long-term sustainability value maximization interests and outcomes are the ideas of multinational enterprises as global citizens fulfilling their duties to societies and individual across and within cultural and national borders [150]. The focus is on multi-stakeholders [229] creating multiple values [19, 70, 228] ethically [11, 157] over medium- and long-term periods [65, 108]. In many cases the emphasis is on the business case for sustainability [149, 210] and fiduciary duties that account for environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues [17, 19], suggesting a business-society integration [164]. It is stated that “[t]here is no future for business-as-usual”, as “the materiality of nature loss” has and will increasingly have an impact on businesses and their supply chains [243]. Addressing these issues is estimated to result in annual savings and/or opportunities to increase business revenues through a “nature-positive scenario compared to what could be achieved in a business-as-usual scenario” [243]. According to this typology, the aim is to serve the needs and requirements of stakeholders [11] and ensure fair distribution of value [48], resulting in business legitimacy based on positive contributions [61]. The focus is on stakeholder salience [67, 74] and prioritization of their interests [78, 79, 82], while managing the interests [104] rather than engaging with stakeholders [68, 105]. Slow progress towards fulfillment of the Paris Agreement and the SDGs [4] suggests a focus on weak sustainability [91], although boundaries presented by environmental constraints are recognized [93]. To some extent, social managerial issues are addressed [19, 70], generating some social benefits [126] and leaving stakeholders with a sense of hope [13].

In this context, various actors place great emphasis on the importance of young people when it comes to delivering a sustainable future. The World Economic Forum, for instance, states that “[y]oung people hold the key to creating a better future”, and that they “are the most affected by the crises facing our world” [272]. Others, such as the chief executives of major U.S. corporations that are members of the Business Roundtable, have proposed that the core principle of corporate governance should be “stakeholderism” rather than “shareholder primacy”, where businesses should lead “for the benefit of all stakeholders – customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders”. The idea is that this better “reflects the way corporations can and should operate today” [117]. The European Commission’s Sustainable Corporate Governance initiatives have similar aims, although they have more of a regulatory nature by improving “the EU regulatory framework on company law and corporate governance”. The purpose is to strengthen the long-term value creation with sustainability benefits, which aligns interests with “the interests of companies, their shareholders, managers, stakeholders and society”, considering human and social rights and environmental aspects including climate change [273]. Furthermore, based on a survey among Responsible Investment (PRI) signatories, it is stated that considering ESG issues in investment processes is a critical component of current fiduciary duties, and investors failing to “incorporate ESG issues are failing their fiduciary duties”, and consequently “are increasingly likely to be subject to legal challenge [17]”.

4.5 Long-term sustainability interests and thriving future successors

It is claimed that a good theory is based on engaging with global crises, rather than addressing literature gaps [274]. Furthermore, a transition towards inter- and transdisciplinary science is relevant to the science of sustainability [31]. Feeding into the discussion about incomplete theories not addressing the current crises, recent theoretical discussion on corporate social irresponsibility brings forth notions about taking into account the degree of harm made, intentionality, who is at risk [275, 276], and ideas about unsustainable business models and what they entail [277].

Supporting ideas about thriving and a prosperous future, successors are required to ensure we live within the planetary boundaries [230], taking into account ideas from the doughnut [231] and well-being economy perspectives [232] to support the social fabric of societies. This requires a strong sustainability [91, 124, 199] emphasis, where nature has its own rights that are borrowed and should be passed intact between generations, as we are the stakeholders of the Earth [125]. In this case, nature is depicted as the primary and primordial stakeholder [113]. Instead of stakeholder management, stakeholder engagement should be emphasized [68, 105], including nature-inclusive stakeholder engagement [70]. To avoid short, medium and even long-term thinking, the Indigenous Peoples’ Seventh Generation Principle [233] should be welcomed, requiring advanced leaders [29] to make responsible decisions about natural resources, including energy and water, ensuring sustainable outcomes seven generations into the future, meaning around a 150 years’ time horizon [233, 278]. This puts prioritization of interests of future successors of intra- and intergenerational (present and future generation) interests within planetary boundaries on a whole new path. Furthermore, this requires businesses to focus on their own core businesses [236], instead of minor philanthropic tasks labeled as sustainability actions. Through partnership and proxies [114], a shift in power structure can enable change, so the future successors are no longer marginalized [70, 114]. In addition, it is required that future successors hold businesses accountable for their actions [108], not sitting idle by while decisions influencing their future are decided. Furthermore, instead of relying on hope [13], regenerative pathways and actions [237] must be taken.

When critizising stakeholder theory, Key [279] argued that “conceptualizations of stakeholder theory [did] not meet the requirements of scientific theory”, as when presenting a theory, map or model, the observable phenomena must be simplified and clarity and understanding provided, without ignoring the risk of trade-offs due to oversimplification of phenomena. Such trade-offs are evident in current theoretical frameworks, as they have failed to help companies address the externalities [276] they have caused, imposing costs to society and the environment at large. Consequently, it is proposed that businesses need to increase positive externalities, while reducing the negative ones [276]. Although suggesting an alternative way to establish a more rigorous theory [279], some aspects relevant to businesses and their success were not recognized, such as the complexity of the future successors’ aspect. This includes inter- and intragenerational aspects, and the current and expected state of the environment, including climate change implications and planetary boundaries [280,281,282].

The current overexploitation of natural resources is not a private issue specific to this generation, but a matter of common interest for other generations as well, and thus future successors of businesses. To answer this call, society goes in many cases beyond academic theoretical development, and the question can be raised about whether it is possible to be a successful business without considering the interests of future successors. In general terms, the concept of successors is commonly defined in a very narrow way in the business literature, but the idea here is to broaden the discussion about the concept way beyond those successors that replace companies’ CEOs or other in executive roles [283], company founders and family members [284, 285] when they step down. Instead, successful future-oriented companies are the one that align business operations with future successors, those who will take over the running of businesses from the current managers, whether they are children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren of all genders, or others who belong to future generations. This idea considers intra- (own lifetime) and intergenerational (across generations) equity and perspectives, considering both rights and responsibilities of current and future generations regarding the use and protection of the natural environment and other species. The Earth and its resources have been “passed to us by our ancestors for our benefit, but also to be passed on to our descendants for their use” [248]. Beyond that, future-oriented companies recognize the importance of planetary health and operate within the limits of planetary boundaries. Instead of working against the boundary constraints, scholars should help identify “the conditions under which a corporation's efforts benefit society” [163] or future successors and the health and wellbeing of the planet in a sustainable manner. To support this argument, evidence is starting to emerge. Advanced [29] and forward-thinking business leaders recognize and take responsibility for externalities by following regenerative pathways [237]. These issues, and their solutions, are evident in reports from international organizations, including the World Economic Forum, which argues for a business and economic case for action [243], and in statements of business leaders, including the CEO of Unilever, Alan Jope, highlighting the interconnectedness between the global economy, the health of the planet and nature’s ability to assimilate with human production, consumption, and waste [243].

Given the shortcomings of shareholder, stakeholder, CSR, and CS paradigms in addressing the grand challenges that need to be solved, Sect. 4 proposed a shift in focus toward the interests of future successors, as depicted in Fig. 1. Although future successors of businesses entail a human-centric approach (the yellow circles), and it is yet to be seen if they will embrace long-term value maximization, rather than short-term economic maximization when they take over, the idea is nevertheless that their interests are interwoven with planetary boundaries and health, including of the natural environment and non-human species (the green circle), and sustainable development is pursued through a multilateral policy and a roadmap (the blue circle), and that there are interlinkages between common interests across all the dimensions, as seen in the Future successors model, or the Successorship model, in Fig. 1. The yellow circles suggest an enlargement of interests from a narrow business focus where, in the model, there is an inside-out and outside-in view of interests of future successors. The model combines boundaries and stakeholders/actors and their interests and adds the new dimension of future successors.

Fig. 1
figure 1

© of the authors)

The future successors model (

Full size image

5 Discussion and conclusion

The aim of the paper was to provide a theoretical exploration, and a critical appraisal, of the need for a paradigm shift [21] from shareholders and stakeholders to future successors. The exploration was grounded in a discussion about corporate social responsibility, corporate sustainability, and the relevance of environmental constraints and needs and requirements of future successors, who are deemed as important for businesses that want to prosper in the long run. Section 3 of the paper offered answers to research questions 1 and 2 by providing an overview of the key elements of shareholder and stakeholder theories, reflecting on how they relate to corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability. Section 4 focused on research questions 3 and 4, exploring to what extent these theoretical paradigms have addressed the grand challenges societies are faced with today, demonstrating a lack of intra- and intergenerational relevance by introducing the construct of future successors.

Businesses should fit into reality and be tested constantly [286], but the gap between the shareholder paradigm and the reality outside narrowly defined boundaries of businesses seems to be ever widening, and thus it is not recognized that human survival, and consequently business survival, ties directly to their relationship with nature [287]. The “[h]istory has taught us that the leaders who succeed are the ones who meet the needs of the future by moving forward” [288], and that companies can improve their performance and profitability, safeguard the business from longstanding instability, address inequalities and construct more resilient supply chains, by shifting financial investments towards the SDGs. This requires advanced [29] and “forward thinkers, doers, builders, changers, movers, leaders” [288]. One such leader is Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia, who states that the “Earth is now our only shareholder”, voicing that the company is “in business to save our home planet”, with the wealth of the company used to “to protect the source of all wealth”. To carry out this mission, all of the voting stocks of the company were transferred to the “Patagonia Purpose Trust, created to protect the company’s values”, and all non-voting stocks to “the Holdfast Collective, a nonprofit dedicated to fighting the environmental crisis and defending nature” [289]. This suggests a very clear purpose over profit, and a deep passion for running the business for the greater good [290]. In alignment with this view is the Indigenous worldview [233, 278], emphasizing human survival and social justice, in which “Indigenous peoples have stewarded land with an eye on future generations” where seven generations are accounted for, “land, people and animals” are listened to, and wholeness is recognized as being more valuable than individual parts [234, 235]. As stated by Elkington [291], “we now stand on the threshold of a new era in the relationships between business and its many stakeholders”, not only “potential new recruits”, but more importantly new phases of relationships with near-term and future successors. This is, therefore, about mindsets, where the focus is on strategic and win–win situations, rather than approaching the grand challenges from a win-lose point of view [292]. This requires a “paradigm shift in thoughts and action” [21, 124], as best practice approaches [293] imply a stagnation as the problems at hand have not been satisfactorily dealt with yet.

Former successful businesses and managers may find themselves stagnating when their design and business actions, respectively, do not fit reality, if they refuse to accept it, or fail to respond sufficiently to a changed environment [286], leading to once flourishing business environments and societies becoming destroyed, such as in the case of abrupt climate disasters [294]. The same may apply when there is a clash between social values and norms of behavior that are no longer acceptable [295], resulting in companies losing their social license to operate [296, 297] as they are no longer running legitimate businesses, and consequently lose credibility and trust [298]. Therefore, it is seen as a part of companies’ fiduciary duties [17] to ask stakeholders, including representatives of future successors, what issues are important to them [299]. It is not sufficient to track forthcoming regulatory changes [300], as planning for them is still a reactive approach to the situation. It is a utopia to think that business-as-usual is realistic or feasible given the overshooting of several of Earth´s planetary boundaries [282], the climate crisis and consequent human migration [2], impacting current stakeholders and future successors.

What makes sound business sense today is to ensure the future of successors of inter- and intragenerations. Advanced [29] and future thinking business leaders [301] are already coming along and through disruptive innovation [302, 303] and/or game-changing breakthrough ideas [304], interrupt business-as-usual, thereby changing relevant bargain power and forces of stakeholders [305]. This redefines which companies will excel. Also, instead of emphasizing competing forces [305], stakeholders are increasingly merging forces when it comes to jointness of their interests relevant to climate change and the future of humanity. It is a part of company resiliencies to address these changes strategically [294]. Addressing complicated societal and environmental problems at hand requires the establishment of networks [85, 306], alliances and partnerships within and across industry, sectors [229, 307], supply and value chains, joint ventures [306], collaborative communities [308], academic disciplines, etc., so sustainability-related innovation can be established and scaled up through various sources and platforms [306] to contribute to or trigger systemic change [229].

Those excelling will be companies that place the interests of future successors and sustainability at their core [236], and integrate these interests into their business strategies, regenerative [237] decision-making processes, and actions [309], which become reflected in their outcomes and impacts. Business leaders today need to have multidimensional capacities and competencies [310, 311], being able to think through complex problems, and induce outcomes. This is what 100 mayors of European cities are realizing, now placing climate change as their top priority (55%) over and above issues such as mobility (23%), economic recovery (20%), addressing inequalities (18%), and housing (15%) [312]. This suggests a future-oriented view, relevant for current and future generational successors. To be successful, the future must be put first [216]. The issue is that intra- and intergenerational equality does not currently reach far enough, as when it is brought up it is usually done so from an ethical [198] rather than from a business point of view. However, when “resources are depleted and species extinct, the options available to future generations are narrowed” [198], and the same applies to businesses and their long-term prosperity.

Whether acknowledged by neoclassical scholars or not, the concepts of stakeholders, responsibility, and sustainability are now emphasized in business mission statements and strategies, as well as governmental policies, however, they are often framed vaguely [313]. Various local and global social movements, including the Climate Action Network, a “global network of more than 1,900 civil society organizations in over 130 countries driving collective and sustainable action to fight the climate crisis and to achieve social and racial justice”, can be seen as a manifestation of the changes that are taking place, where pressure is put on governments and businesses to act against climate change [314]. The same applies to youth activist movements, such as Fridays for Future, an organized youth-led movement established in 2018 after Greta Thunberg’s protests against climate inactions by going on school strikes [315]. She and other activists are challenging world leaders and are willing to face trial and jail sentences in efforts to bring about change for the benefit of the current generation and those yet to come [316]. These are future companies’ stakeholders, regulators, employees, customers, etc., already resisting and rejecting business-as-usual models which only generate incremental changes [124], and require business innovation [317] and new and sustainable business models to address the issues [318,319,320,321,322]. Consequently, there will be companies winning or losing depending on whether they strategically embrace the reality of a changed business environment or not, recognizing the risk and opportunity exposure by taking both “inside out” and “outside in” views [323] and adjust their business models accordingly to the interests and needs of future successors, see Fig. 1.

The so-called 5P’s model of strategy implementation as a core competency [324] offers a pragmatic way to implement strategy but entails elements of (1) purpose, (2) principles, (3) processes, (4) people, and (5) performance, each with relevant subcategories. However, today it does not go far enough to support the ideas the paper proposes. Therefore, a Strategic roadmap of 12Ps for future successors to thrive and prosper within planetary boundaries is offered by the authors. It draws ideas from the 5C framework, paying attention to the focus of the core business [236], key competencies for sustainability [310, 311, 325], and advanced leadership ideas [29]. This forms the basis for a roadmap for future-oriented businesses leaders that embraces the idea of incorporating the needs and requirements of future successors into business ideas and actions for their own long-term prosperity and success within the constraints of planetary boundaries, as shown in Table 2. The elements of the model can be subdivided into boundaries (1–2), business aspects (3–6), bold and advanced leaders (7–9), and basic outcomes (10–12).

Table 2 Strategic roadmap of 12Ps for future successors to thrive and prosper within planetary boundaries (own illustration,
Full size table

Freeman (1984, p. 5) claimed that the prevailing management theories were not suited for addressing “the quantity and kinds of change which are occurring in the business environment”. This very much holds today, although the external environment influencing business success is way more challenging than when this claim was made. Despite the emphasis on stakeholders, CSR, or CS, there remains rapid degradation of socio-economic and ecological systems that matter for future successors and their quality of life, and thus the long-term success of businesses given the fundamental changes that will occur in the business environment and the ever-increasing risks businesses face. If there has ever been a sense of urgency to act, it is now. Even though business leaders grapple with an ever-complicated world and confusing objectives [35], it does not justify going against interests that at the end of the day matter to all of us, including future successors. There will be leaders and laggards, both among business leaders and policymakers. By welcoming the ideas of focusing on the needs and requirements of future successors, companies are investing in their own future, not just for the short-term, but for the long-term. Currently, companies are burdening future successors with decisions today that go against their interests, thus severely reducing future successors´ ability to live a decent life, and 'borrowing their wealth' at no or limited cost by operating broken business models (Pedersen & Andersen, 2023) instead of forging positive relationships with future successors.

6 Conclusion

Businesses operating in today’s environment, which is changing dramatically, cannot operate through application of theories developed decades ago, as the world they were designed for has changed. Consequently, theoretical development must take place. This paper has explored the potential of a paradigm shift from ideas about shareholders and stakeholders to future successors in order to address the issue of how companies can be successful without taking into account the interests of future successors. Kanter [29] states that “[n]ew ideas are often not entirely new; they often come from recombining old ideas”. This is done by “changing the angle on the kaleidoscope” to see new possibility emerge”. This is what we have tried to do by discussing the need for a paradigm shift, instead of treating future successors as something on the outskirts of stakeholder theory, if recognized at all.

The study offers substantive theoretical and practical contributions to the literature in the following manner. First, it synthesizes the shareholder, stakeholder, CSR, and CS research streams. Second, it provides and defines the future successor construct, a concept that has not been emphasized in the literature before. Third, it explains in Table 1 a typology of firm interests, together with sustainability and future successor outcomes. Fourth, it proposes a unique and original theoretical framework called a Future successors model, which can be viewed as a position-based figure including boundaries and stakeholders/actors, including the new dimension of future successors. Fifth, it offers a Strategic roadmap of 12Ps, grouped in four categories, which academic scholars can utilize to explore the topic further, and practitioners can apply to operationalize the transformational ideas the paper emphasizes. Sixth, it brings forth avenues for future research.

In the case of limitations, the paper does not subdivide future successors into specific groups, such as the ones that care about the environment, or the potential differences in interests between near-term and far-term future successors, both of which could be explored in future studies and theory testing. The study also neither fully covers the previous literature on shareholders, stakeholders, CSR, and CS, nor is it based on empirical data. However, these limitations provide opportunities for further research on the nascent future successors’ topic. For instance, the key variable to be observed is future successors. In doing so, the study offers possibility for further exploration of the interests of future generations and inter- and intragenerational relationships, instead of assuming that future successors generally care about the negative consequences of the businesses they take over, and this offers an avenue for longitudinal study. In terms of the boundary conditions of the future successors’ paradigm, these conditions can be clarified and tested through theoretical and empirical studies. The use of case studies and/or more concrete examples could enhance and clarify the theoretical development of the future successors construct. Such studies can emphasize examples of how the interests of future successors have successfully been integrated by businesses to illustrate the theoretical advancements made by the paper. The same applies to barriers along the way. In addition, it would be of importance to clarify future business competitiveness, success, and long-term value creation, while they tackle current grand environmental challenges. Such studies must be quantitative, depicting where we are moving in the right direction on all the parameters that are important for the prosperity of future successors within the boundaries of the planet which we are entrusted with.

Through theoretical discussion and conceptual and practical implications, the paper illustrates a problem- and solution-based perspective. We argue that the typology (Table 1), the conceptual model (Fig. 1) and the roadmap (Table 2) help provide theoretical and practical understanding of changes that need to take place for future successors to thrive. The stakeholder, CSR, and CS paradigms have paved the way for the future successors’ notion. Above all, we have argued for the importance of stepping outside the castle [29], embracing new scholarly and practical partnerships for transformative change. The paper concludes that it will become more and more difficult to run businesses without recognizing and operating according to the changing environment, inevitably blurring the boundaries between the earth's planetary boundaries, business interests and the interests of future successors, society, and other species. This requires courage, a quality that until today is uncommon, with notable exceptions seen in the words and actions of extraordinary visionary leaders of all ages, both from within and outside the business sector, who have been willing to act for the greater good.