Corporate sustainability has gone mainstream, and many companies have taken meaningful steps to improve their own environmental performance. But while corporate political actions such as lobbying can have a greater impact on environmental quality, they are ignored in most current sustainability metrics. It is time for these metrics to be expanded to critically assess firms based on the sustainability impacts of their public policy positions. To enable such assessments, firms must become as transparent about their corporate political responsibility (CPR) as their corporate social responsibility (CSR). For their part, rating systems must demand such information from firms and include evaluations of corporate political activity in their assessments of corporate environmental responsibility.

Companies operating in multiple countries face different and often changing regimes of environmental regulation. This regulatory turbulence raises the question of what environmental strategies multinational enterprises with a portfolio of divergent regulatory regimes should develop in relation to their international business expansion strategies. Forward-looking multinationals seeking to develop an effective environmental strategy should integrate relative regulatory stringency and international market interdependence. There are four environmental strategies that match different regulatory/market configurations for multinationals from both developed and emerging markets, and which identify the factors that drive strategic changes. The article presents a "regulatory turbulence tool" that describes relevant regulatory/market configurations and prescribes contingently effective, dynamic environmental strategies.