The integration of economic, social and environmental dimensions is essential for corporate sustainability. Integration requires that there be no a priori priority among these dimensions. Economic priorities, however, often dominate decision-making processes in for-profit organisations. This thesis asks how do organisations integrate predominant economic dimensions, on the one hand, and social-ecological dimensions, on the other? The question is focused on the middle management level, where relatively little is known about how competing organisational aspects are integrated. The study addresses a gap in theory relating to tensions in corporate sustainability by drawing on paradox, organisational ambidexterity and organisational identity literatures. The case study explored the research question from the lived experience of purposefully sampled research participants in a century-old mining company. The study focused on the integration of economic and social-ecological (E&SE) dimensions in the cross-functional decision-making process where mining projects are developed. Findings from the inductive analysis before and after the introduction of an intentional integration process revealed five dimensions of differentiation that were further explored. The analysis culminated in a process model of E&SE integration. I argue that E&SE integration on the middle management level is characterised by tensions between competing, interrelated priorities that constrain integration. Notwithstanding organisational commitment to corporate sustainability and E&SE integration, failure to manage these tensions perpetuates unsustainable outcomes in decision-making processes. The overarching contribution to corporate sustainability literature is a process model of E&SE integration on the middle management level that addresses the tensions that constrain integration. Integration is enabled by suspending premature convergence on a single option and by bringing social-ecological dimensions to the forefront in order to explore how E&SE dimensions are interdependent, before making binding choices. The study contributes to organisational ambidexterity literature by showing how the integration of strategic priorities on the middle management level is distinct from integration on the senior management level with respect to the quality of the decision and the locus of integration. The study also contributes to an emerging scholarly conversation regarding organisational purpose by identifying how reframing purpose into an integrative metaframe can enable commitment to an integrated decision-making process.

Over the last two decades, US corporate governance has witnessed a significant increase in the incidence and influence of shareholder activism. Shareholder activism, however, has been found to be inconsistent with US corporate governance which is framed within director primacy theory. In this theory, the board is able to carry out a unique combination of managerial and monitoring roles effectively, and shareholders are only capital providers to companies. Shareholder activism is normatively found inimical to effective and efficient decision-making, i.e. the board's authority, and to the long-term interests of public companies. The increasing willingness of institutional shareholders to participate into the decision-making processes of their portfolio companies is at odds with US corporate governance. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to examine whether director primacy theory should be softened to accommodate greater shareholder activism in US corporate governance. This thesis presents an analysis of the legal rules that reflect director primacy theory. In this respect, US shareholders have traditionally had limited participatory power. The way in which the courts perceived the board's authority also stymied shareholder participation. This thesis considers not only legal and regulatory developments in the wake of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, but also the governance developments through by-law amendments which could potentially make an overall change in the balance of power between shareholders and the board. Shareholders are slowly moving to the centre of corporate governance in the US. History has shown that the board of directors often failed to prevent manager-induced corporate governance failures. This thesis argues that shareholder activism is necessary for improving the web of monitoring mechanisms and for a well-functioning director primacy model. Shareholder activism forces the board to more critical about management, which is a prerequisite for the director primacy model. Therefore, this thesis argues that shareholder activism should therefore be accommodated into US corporate governance. The proposed approach addresses accountability problems more effectively than the current director primacy model while recognising the board authority and enhances decision-making processes of public companies. In this regard, it makes several recommendations to soften the current director primacy model: establishing a level playing for private ordering, adopting the proxy access default regime, the majority voting rule, the universal proxy rules, and enhancing the disclosure requirements of shareholders. The present research also demonstrates that contemporary shareholder activism involves many complexities. It contains different types of shareholder activism, which differ by objectives, tools, and motives. It could be used for purely financial purposes or non-financial purposes or both. Furthermore, the concept of stewardship has been developed to address public interest concerns, namely short-termism in the market and pressures by activist funds through shareholder activism. In this way, this thesis develops a complete positive theory about shareholder activism rather than focussing on a specific type of activism. This complete analytical framework constitutes more reliable basis to draw normative conclusions rather than focussing on a particular type of activism.

In order to make robust decisions on how to deal with future ecosystem changes, managers need to be aware of the complexity, uncertainty, thresholds and surprises that are inherent characteristics of social-ecological systems. The subject of this paper is the use of scenarios as a tool to increase corporate responsiveness to change by improving decision making on the sustainable management of complex dynamic ecosystems. Scenarios were shown to be a useful tool to integrate in the systematic management of corporate risks and opportunities that may arise as a result of these future changes in ecosystems. Although the scenarios did not contribute to the identification of any additional risks and opportunities, they did have the capability to make the ESR into a better communication tool. The specific objectives of this paper were firstly, (i) to discuss the use of scenario analysis and how it works, secondly, (ii) demonstrate how scenarios can be integrated into the Ecosystem Service Review (ESR) methodology, and finally, (iii) present the benefits such integration would bring to decision makers. A case study was carried out at Lantmännen, to fulfill these objectives. This paper demonstrates that integrating scenarios in the ESR can make issues regarding ecosystem services and biodiversity more easily understandable and also deliver a sense of urgency for action. This proves critical when communicating strategies to other decision makers within an organization and in order to successfully manage risks and grasp opportunities arising as a result of changing ecosystems.