First, we outline the theoretical foundations that inform our understanding of the relations between organizational longevity and environmental sustainability. Drawing on established macro and micro-organizational theories, we explain why older organizations are likely to develop superior environmental sustainability practices as an adaptive response to ecological demands and resource constraints. These complementary perspectives collectively suggest that longevity and sustainability are interconnected through evolutionary processes that favor organizations capable of balancing immediate needs with long-term environmental considerations.

Population Ecology Theory (Hannan and Freeman, 1977; see Chen et al., 2023 for a recent review) describes how organizations evolve and persist by aligning themselves with their external environments: survival is determined by an organization's ability to adapt to environmental pressures. Organizations that have persisted over time have done so because they adapted successfully to previous economic, societal, and environmental challenges. Long-lived organizations, having already survived such pressures, are likely to have effective strategies, know-how, and practices that enable them to continue adapting to ecological demands (e.g., scarcities, natural disasters), contributing to their environmental sustainability. In turn, organizations with better environmental sustainability performance are better adapted to handle current and future challenges through their long-term thinking.

We also draw on Resource Dependence Theory (Hillman et al., 2009), which explains how organizations navigate resource scarcity by developing structures and practices to secure and manage critical resources effectively (see Tashman's, 2021, application to natural resource scarcity). Over time, these adaptations enable firms to withstand external pressures and thrive. Natural resources that many organizations rely on are finite or of limited quantity (e.g., water, lumber, minerals/rare earths, fossil fuels, land, biological organisms used in products). If these resources are not carefully conserved and managed, they can become scarce. This scarcity can impact organizations that rely on these resources for their operations. Without adequate resources, organizations may face challenges in maintaining their production processes, leading to potential financial difficulties. Therefore, it is important for organizations to adopt sustainable practices to ensure the long-term availability (and/or regeneration) of natural resources to support their operations. Thus, organizational longevity demands careful attention to environmental sustainability.

Dynamic Capabilities Theory further illustrates how long-lived organizations build, reconfigure, and leverage internal and external resources to proactively innovate and respond to shifting environmental demands. Perhaps the most consistent demands across place and time are ecological demands. Recent reviews highlight the role of dynamic capabilities in integrating sustainability into corporate strategy (Correggi et al., 2024) and identify 16 specific dynamic capabilities for long-term sustainability goals (de Almeida Barbosa Franco et al., 2024).

Finally, we incorporated insights from Cybernetic Trait Complexes Theory (CTCT; Stanek and Ones, 2023) to complement these perspectives by offering a framework for understanding how organizations balance stability and change to achieve long-term adaptability. While originally formulated to describe micro level relations between personality traits and cognitive abilities in individuals, CTCT's core principles—particularly the regulation of goal-directed action through dynamic feedback mechanisms—can be extended to organizational contexts. Just as individuals develop stable trait bundles and flexible strategies to navigate changing environments, organizations cultivate enduring capabilities while simultaneously adapting to evolving economic, societal, and ecological pressures. By applying CTCT at the organizational level, we draw parallels between adaptive trait complexes in individuals and clusters of adaptive organizational competencies that emerge in response to external demands. We offer this perspective as a novel lens for examining how organizations sustain themselves over time, continuously optimizing between long-term resilience and immediate adaptation to maintain environmental sustainability and overall longevity.¹

Together, these frameworks illustrate how evolutionary pressures drive the development of sustainability strategies and practices in organizations. Longevity is achieved not simply by existing the longest but by adapting successfully to an intricate mix of environmental, societal, and economic challenges. As a result, the relation between longevity and sustainability is profoundly interwoven with survival strategies and the accumulation of adaptive expertise.

This paper's theoretical foundation aligns closely with the “seven generations” principle, originating in the Haudenosaunee confederacy (see Graham, 2008), highlighting the importance of long-term thinking and sustainability for enduring success. Specifically, it aligns with our argument that longevity often results from the ability to adapt to changing environmental, social, and economic conditions. Older organizations that have endured across generations exemplify this adaptive capacity: the necessity of balancing immediate societal needs with the long-term wellbeing of future generations when approaching the natural environment.

Younger organizations, by their nature, have had limited time to develop a full understanding of their environmental impact or to adapt their practices in response to evolving sustainability demands. Early-stage companies often lack the experience and resources needed to effectively address environmental challenges, potentially limiting their sustainability efforts (Orlitzky et al., 2003). In contrast, older and more mature organizations have had more time to adapt and refine their strategies for managing environmental pressures, accumulating tangible and intangible (e.g., knowledge, cultural, structural) resources, and developing capabilities to support environmental sustainability. Such adaptations likely emerge from a continuous process of navigating resource constraints, economic conditions, and societal expectations through time, which may influence the evolution of sustainability contributions over time.

This process of adaptation is also manifested in the relation between economic performance and organizational longevity, where financially successful organizations have been shown to have a higher likelihood of surviving over time (Panza et al., 2018). The availability of financial resources can help companies manage external pressures and invest in sustainability initiatives as well, not just for immediate gains but as part of a long-term strategy for resilience. However, we propose that the relations between environmental sustainability and organizational longevity may extend beyond mere resource availability. We suspect that ongoing adaptation to better navigate diverse stakeholder demands and respond proactively to environmental challenges also promotes environmental sustainability performance.

A reviewer of this manuscript suggested an alternate view: “Older organizations were built on unstainable business models and have rigid structures that are difficult to change. Younger organizations on the other hand, start fresh and can incorporate environmental sustainability from the beginning.” The theoretical frameworks reviewed above imply that older organizations, by virtue of their longevity, often have greater opportunities to adapt their practices to align with environmental sustainability. While we agree that younger organizations may have an advantage in starting with more flexible structures and sustainability-oriented models, at least at this point in history, we suggest that longevity itself reflects a demonstrated capacity for adaptation. Older organizations that have survived significant environmental, societal, and economic shifts have necessarily evolved and refined their practices to align with changing external demands. Scholars have argued that the ability to learn and adapt is critical for explaining organizational longevity (Grashuis, 2018). In the context of this paper, adaptability often extends to their ability to conserve the natural environment and adopt sustainability practices. While some older organizations may face challenges due to legacy systems (e.g., rigid structures), it would be a mistake to assume that this is a universal attribute. The theoretical frameworks we utilized suggest that many long-lived organizations have demonstrated remarkable adaptability over time, leveraging institutional knowledge and accumulated experience to evolve their practices, including those related to sustainability. The idea that older organizations are inherently tied to unsustainable business models is an oversimplification of a complex historical process. Many of the unsustainable practices often associated with legacy industries—such as heavy reliance on coal, oil, and other polluting technologies—emerged and proliferated only within the last 150 years. These practices coincided with industrialization, the rise of electricity and modern transportation, and other technological advancements that significantly shaped global markets. However, the existence of unsustainable business models does not negate the fact that some older organizations have managed to adapt and thrive. While many companies fail early or mid-way through organizational lifecycles, a subset demonstrates remarkable longevity and vitality. This endurance is not due to stagnation or rigidity but rather to their capacity to evolve and adapt to external needs, including environmental sustainability-related demands. While younger organizations may have the advantage of designing sustainability practices from the outset, they often face significant resource constraints and pressures to prioritize short-term survival over long-term sustainability. This can limit their ability to implement extensive or key sustainability initiatives compared to wiser (i.e., know-how rich, strategically experienced), older organizations.

Empirical studies consistently show that while organizational mortality is common—whether due to market dynamics, mismanagement, or external shocks—organizations that survive demonstrate key adaptive capabilities. Most companies die young. For example, only about half of newly founded European companies survive more than 5 years (Napolitano et al., 2015). Even large corporations have finite lifespans; the life expectancy of Fortune 500 companies, for instance, was estimated at 40–50 years during the late 20th century. According to Kwee et al. (2011), organizational survival hinges on strategic renewal processes that align the organization with its environment. Organizations that endure for decades or centuries have done so by continuously evolving. We believe that their longevity reflects their ability to learn, innovate, and align with societal expectations, including those related to environmental sustainability. Far from being rigid, such organizations often embody the principles of dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 1997), institutional adaptation (Scott, 2005), and resource management (Hillman et al., 2009). Thus, in our theoretical framework, adaptation is the key to survival: Longevity is fundamentally tied to adaptability.

In sum, the relation between sustainability and longevity is interdependent. Long-lived organizations often develop sustainability practices as part of their broader strategy to secure resources, build legitimacy, and navigate complex external demands. Their historical adaptability challenges the notion that they are inherently less capable of embracing sustainability. Younger organizations may have the advantage of starting fresh with sustainability built into their initial business models. However, they also face significant resource constraints, market pressures, and short-term survival challenges, which can limit their ability to implement sustainability strategies comprehensively. Older organizations, while potentially burdened by legacy systems, often possess substantial resources, institutional knowledge, and established stakeholder networks, enabling them to adapt to sustainability pressures over time.

Overall, adaptation to environmental challenges can both contribute to and reflect an organization's longevity. In this research, our primary focus is on how longevity relates to sustainability. We believe that the relation is likely reciprocal. Companies with a strong sustainability orientation may, in turn, bolster their longevity by building resilience, reputation, and stakeholder trust over time. While our data cannot directly test such causal pathways, we note this bidirectionality and state our hypotheses without implied directionality. Our main hypothesis is that longevity and environmental sustainability of organizations are non-negligibly positively related.

Hypothesis 1: Organizational longevity will be positively related to environmental sustainability performance.

Hypothesis 1 articulates the general relation we aim to test between organizational longevity and environmental sustainability performance. Hypotheses 1a and 1b are more specific extensions of Hypothesis 1. That is, Hypotheses 1a and 1b are fundamentally the same as Hypothesis 1, with the exception that they open the door for testing the same basic hypothesis in two specific, but differing ways.

Hypothesis 1a: Organizations with greater longevity will exhibit significantly higher environmental sustainability performance compared with those with shorter longevity.

Hypothesis 1b: The difference in environmental sustainability performance will be particularly large² when comparing the oldest and youngest organizations.

Hypothesis 1a specifies this relation further by positing that organizations with greater longevity will perform better on sustainability measures compared with younger organizations. Hypothesis 1b adds an additional layer of specificity by focusing on the contrast between the extremes of the distribution—comparing the oldest and youngest organizations. Thus, Hypothesis 1a suggests positive correlation, and 1b an investigation of group mean differences.

Our research focused on large organizations, defined as those included in business rankings such as the Fortune 500, Forbes Global 2000, and regional lists of leading companies,³ because they have a broader and more substantial ecological footprint than smaller enterprises due to the scale of their operations, resource use, and emissions, while also having the ability to impart wider reaching environmental benefits. In our investigation, we focused on companies from the key regions of the U.S., Europe, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), and Asia, whose practices shape the planet's ecological future. Their operations account for a significant share of global resource use and emissions. We examined these regions separately as well as jointly. Area-based conservation varies by region due to differences in policies, ecological representation, biodiversity priorities, and effectiveness (Maxwell et al., 2020). Given the role of governance, funding, and local priorities in environmental sustainability, analyzing regions separately can reveal variations by region. Additionally, the diversity in cultures, economies, and legal systems in these regions allows us to assess the replicability and generalizability of our findings.

Research Question 1: Do organizational longevity and environmental sustainability performance show a replicable positive relation across companies from the U.S., Europe, MENA, and Asia?

Acknowledging that organizational environmental sustainability is not a monolithic construct, we also examined relations for specific components of environmental sustainability performance. Unpacking the longevity-environmental sustainability performance relation by including more specific components can provide insight into the relation between the two. For example, older companies may excel in certain areas, such as resource management or environmental reporting, while younger organizations may be stronger in reducing emissions in their operations by using newer technologies or innovations. Analyzing these components separately will clarify how various aspects of environmental sustainability evolve with organizational age. Lacking strong theoretical justification for which environmental sustainability components would be more or less strongly related to longevity, we posed this as a research question.

Research Question 2: How do relations between organizational longevity and environmental sustainability performance vary across distinct environmental domains?

We used separate samples to examine relations between environmental sustainability and longevity of organizations: Sample 1 includes company data from the U.S., and Sample 2 includes data for companies in Europe, MENA, and Asia.

All data in this research are based on 2018 as the reporting year for company-level variables. 2018 was a time of relative stability in terms of operations and reporting for large international companies, compared with the following years that were characterized by disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Using 2019–2020 data (often contained in 2020–2021 company reports) would have introduced substantial variability, uncertainty, and anomalies in both sustainability and financial indicators. Data from the two following years would have reflected the height of the pandemic, a period marked by widespread operational disruptions, economic instability, and unique environmental challenges during which organizations struggled to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances, making them less suitable for establishing generalizable trends. Later data (2022–2023) still present challenges as organizations and countries normalized their operations at different rates following the pandemic. This period was marked by uneven recoveries and continued volatility in sustainability and financial performance metrics, further complicating the creation of a stable and comparable dataset. Lastly, 2024 data will not become fully available until the middle of 2025. As such, the 2018 dataset provides the most recent and robust foundation for analyzing organizational longevity and environmental sustainability performance.

To examine the relations between sustainability and longevity, we computed correlations between each of the environmental sustainability measures and company longevity after log transforming the longevity scores due to previously noted skew. We report relations with and without the controls described above.

While we report correlation results for clarity and accessibility, the findings we present (where total assets and number of employees are controlled for in the relations between organizational longevity and environmental sustainability) are derived from multivariate regression analyses. These regression models allowed us to control for potential confounding variables and isolate the unique relation between longevity and environmental sustainability performance. That is, partial correlations are a direct extension of regression analyses. They quantify the strength and direction of the relation between two variables (e.g., longevity and environmental sustainability) while statistically controlling for the influence of other variables (e.g., total assets and number of employees). Thus, the partial correlations we report are the standardized results from regression models, reflecting the relation between longevity and sustainability after accounting for the controlled factors. We chose to report these partial correlations for simplicity and to focus on the strength of the core relationship, but the underlying analyses were based on multivariate regression models.

To highlight the differences in environmental sustainability performance among the oldest and youngest companies, we also computed standardized mean differences.

We hypothesized that older organizations (i.e., those with longer longevity) would have better environmental sustainability performance (Hypothesis 1 and 1a). Table 3 presents zero-order correlations for both establishment longevity and incorporation longevity, for U.S. companies (Sample 1) and for European, MENA, and Asian companies separately (Sample 2) (Research Question 1). Results combining all samples are also presented.

Across the board, findings provide strong, consistent support for the hypothesis that companies that have been around longer have better environmental sustainability scores. Among U.S. companies, establishment longevity correlated 0.30 to 0.33 (mean r = 0.31) with environmental sustainability scores provided by the three independent third-party sources. Controlling for total company assets and number of employees did not appreciably reduce the relations (mean r = 0.23 and 0.27, respectively). Relations with incorporation longevity were slightly stronger (mean r = 0.32). Controlling for total assets or number of employees negligibly reduced relations (mean correlations after controls were 0.30 and 0.27, respectively).

Among European companies, establishment longevity correlated 0.25 to 0.32 (mean r = 0.28) with environmental sustainability scores provided by the three independent third-party sources. Controlling for total company assets and number of employees moderately reduced the relations (mean r = 0.20 and 0.19, respectively). Relations with incorporation longevity were notably weaker (mean r = 0.08). Controlling for total assets or number of employees further reduced these already weak relations (mean correlations after controls were 0.00 and 0.03, respectively).

Among MENA companies, establishment longevity correlated 0.27 to 0.37 (mean r = 0.31) with environmental sustainability scores. These relations remained consistent when controlling for total company assets and number of employees (mean r = 0.30 and 0.27, respectively). Relations with incorporation longevity were stronger (mean r = 0.40). Controlling for total assets had minimal impact (mean r = 0.39), while controlling for number of employees moderately reduced the strength of the association (mean r = 0.30).

Among Asian companies, establishment longevity correlated 0.27 to 0.35 (mean r = 0.31) with environmental sustainability scores. These relations remained remarkably stable when controlling for total company assets and number of employees (mean r = 0.31 and 0.32, respectively). Relations with incorporation longevity were virtually identical (mean r = 0.31) and showed the same stability when controlling for organizational size (mean correlations after controls were 0.31 and 0.32, respectively).

Overall, establishment longevity showed remarkably consistent relations with environmental sustainability across all four regions examined. U.S. companies (mean r = 0.31), MENA companies (mean r = 0.31), and Asian companies (mean r = 0.31) demonstrated identical correlation strengths, while European companies showed a slightly weaker but still comparable relation (mean r = 0.28). When controlling for organizational size, Asian companies maintained the most stable relations (mean partial r = 0.31 to 0.32), MENA companies showed minimal attenuation (mean partial r = 0.27 to 0.30), U.S. companies experienced modest reduction (mean partial r = 0.23 to 0.27), and European companies demonstrated the greatest weakening (mean partial r = 0.19 to 0.20). Despite these minor variations in how the relations responded to control variables, no major inconsistencies were observed in the establishment longevity-sustainability relations across regions, suggesting this association represents a generalizable phenomenon.

The relation between incorporation longevity and environmental sustainability varied substantially across regions. MENA companies showed the strongest correlation (mean r = 0.40), followed by U.S. companies (mean r = 0.32) and Asian companies (mean r = 0.31), while European companies exhibited an especially weak relation (mean r = 0.08). When controlling for organizational size, these regional differences persisted: MENA companies maintained robust associations (mean partial r = 0.30 to 0.39), U.S. and Asian companies showed minimal attenuation (mean partial r = 0.27 to 0.30 and 0.31 to 0.32, respectively), while European companies' already weak correlations virtually disappeared (mean partial r = 0.00 to 0.03). This pattern represents a major inconsistency in the incorporation longevity-sustainability relation across regions, with European companies as a clear outlier. However, we note this disparity may be attributable to the limited availability of incorporation data for European firms. Only about 44% of European companies had available incorporation dates, compared to about 85% of U.S. companies, 58% of MENA companies, and 66% of Asian companies. This pattern likely indicates that in European countries, a greater proportion of the largest companies are privately held. Thus, among European companies, relations with incorporation longevity could be weaker because the absence of some privately held companies from the sample (a) reduces the overall representativeness and (b) creates range restriction in longevity scores. A comparison of standard deviations of incorporation to establishment longevity among U.S. and European companies indicated range restriction ratios (u values) of 0.69 and 0.59, respectively, suggesting greater range restriction in incorporation longevity among European companies. Comparative range restriction values for MENA and Asia were 0.73 and 0.72, respectively.

Pooling Samples 1 and 2, we find that the relations for organizational longevity, both when considered from the time of establishment as well as incorporation, are sizable and robust (mean r = 0.34 and 0.26, respectively), and controlling for either organizational wealth or workforce size does not meaningfully diminish these relations.

We next examined whether environmental sustainability components related differentially to organizational longevity (Research Question 2). Results are presented in Table 4, and intercorrelations among environmental sustainability performance components and control variables are presented in Supplementary Tables S5a–d.

Eco-efficiency involves responsible resource use, eco-friendly operations, and using innovation to minimize environmental impact. Among U.S. companies, the mean relations with longevity were 0.29 for both establishment and incorporation longevity. Relations were somewhat larger for resource management and resource use for incorporation longevity (r = 0.32 for both), but not for establishment longevity, which displayed a weaker relation with resource use (r = 0.23). Relations with innovation were similarly potent for both establishment and incorporation longevity (r = 0.32 and 0.29, respectively) whereas relations were similar but somewhat weaker for operational eco-efficiency (r = 0.29 and 0.24, respectively).

Among European companies, eco-efficiency showed modest correlations with establishment longevity (mean r = 0.23) but notably weak relations with incorporation longevity (mean r = 0.05), due to the sample censoring and range restriction previously mentioned. For MENA companies, eco-efficiency demonstrated moderate correlations with establishment longevity (mean r = 0.27) and somewhat stronger relations with incorporation longevity (mean r = 0.33), with innovation showing the strongest incorporation longevity relation (r = 0.41). Asian companies exhibited consistent relations across both metrics, with eco-efficiency showing similar correlations for establishment longevity (mean r = 0.27) and incorporation longevity (mean r = 0.28), with operational eco-efficiency displaying the strongest relations (r = 0.34) for both longevity measures.

Climate strategy involves an organization's systematic approach to managing energy use, reducing emissions, and implementing policies that address climate risks, aiming to support the shift toward a low-carbon economy. Among U.S. companies, the Energy and Climate score from CSRHub had the highest correlation with both types of longevity (r = 0.30 for both), while Emissions had the weakest relationships (r = 0.16 for establishment, 0.24 for incorporation). Some regional differences emerged when examining climate strategy components. European companies showed moderate correlations with establishment longevity (mean r = 0.23), with similar patterns for MENA (mean r = 0.25) and Asian companies (mean r = 0.27). Notably, Climate Strategy scores correlated slightly more strongly with longevity in Asian companies (r = 0.33) than in U.S. firms (r = 0.28), while Emissions showed distinctly stronger relations in both MENA (r = 0.28) and Asian companies (r = 0.27) compared with U.S. companies (r = 0.16). For incorporation longevity, the pattern varied dramatically across regions: European relations were weak (mean r = 0.08)⁵, MENA companies showed robust correlations (mean r = 0.32) with notably strong Emissions relations (r = 0.38), and Asian companies had moderate associations (mean r = 0.27).

Environmental reporting involves transparently disclosing an organization's environmental policy, performance, and sustainability efforts, as well as highlighting its commitment to accountability in environmental sustainability and communicating its environmental impact. Relations with longevity were positive and sizable for U.S. companies (mean r = 0.30 for establishment and incorporation longevity). MENA companies demonstrated somewhat stronger relations (mean r = 0.34 for establishment and 0.41 for incorporation longevity) than Asian companies (mean r = 0.32 and 0.30). European companies showed comparable establishment longevity correlations (mean r = 0.29) but significantly weaker incorporation longevity relations (mean r = 0.08), reflecting the previously discussed sample censoring limitations.

Pooling data from Samples 1 and 2, the findings underscore that more mature organizations tend to exhibit better resource use, resource management, and innovation for sustainability. They are strong in embedding eco-efficiency into their operations. They have better energy, emission, and climate strategies as well. They also have superior environmental policy and reporting. Relations with these variables were reliably in the 0.25 to 0.35 range despite our reliance on three different third-party ratings of organizational environmental sustainability performance.

There are pervasive positive relations between environmental sustainability performance and longevity of organizations. To obtain a richer understanding of how the longest surviving organizations perform in the environmental sustainability area, we contrasted their performance with the youngest organizations. Hypothesis 1b stated that “the difference in environmental sustainability performance will be particularly large when comparing the oldest and youngest organizations.” In our samples, we identified 90 companies which were established before 1850. We then identified relatively younger companies which had been established after 2005 (N = 82). We contrasted environmental sustainability scores of these two groups of companies using standardized mean differences (Cohen's d). The results are presented in Table 5. Overall, the oldest companies scored one standard deviation or more higher in terms of their environmental sustainability performance (mean across indicators = 1.13). There were slight variations in the magnitudes of the differences, with the largest average difference found for Environmental Reporting (mean d = 1.19). Interestingly, the difference between oldest and youngest companies for the innovation facet of Eco-Efficiency also favored older companies (d = 0.65).⁶

Our research hypothesized a positive relation between organizational longevity and environmental sustainability performance, with specific expectations that this effect would be particularly pronounced when comparing oldest and youngest organizations. The data strongly supported these hypotheses, confirming that older organizations demonstrate superior environmental sustainability performance across global contexts. Our findings showed that the longevity-sustainability relation is remarkably consistent across diverse regions while revealing variations in specific sustainability facets.

Our study highlights a positive association between organizational longevity and environmental sustainability performance, and we recognize the likely bidirectional nature of this relation, as discussed in the introduction section. Older organizations may have had more opportunities to adapt and hone their strategies, know-how, and practices to support ecosystem preservation and environmental sustainability. We also suggest that strong environmental sustainability performance can contribute to long-term organizational survival.

In practice, for older organizations, longevity is a strategic asset. They can harness their accumulated experience, institutional knowledge, and resource networks to lead sustainability initiatives. Even though we document a positive association between longevity and sustainability, this does not mean that all older organizations fully draw on this strategic asset. By highlighting and further capitalizing on their long-term resilience and commitment to sustainability, older/mature organizations can strengthen their reputations and gain competitive advantages in markets increasingly driven by ESG considerations. Our recommendation to older organizations is to better utilize their strategic asset and maintain their adaptability by integrating dynamic capabilities that continue to align with sustainability demands.

Younger organizations can draw valuable lessons from the practices of long-lived companies that have successfully adapted. By embedding sustainability into their core strategies early on, younger firms can position themselves for both immediate relevance and long-term survival. This includes the realization (learned from observing older organizations) that investment into sustainability yields a long-term return (in terms of economic success and longevity). For them, a key take away is that early investments in sustainability can not only fulfill some common regulatory and contemporary societal expectations but also build a foundation for longevity.

Policymakers can use these findings to develop targeted interventions that encourage sustainability across organizational lifecycles. For instance, incentives for younger firms to incorporate sustainability from the outset should be considered. Older firms should be supported to capture and make accessible their best sustainability system contributors. Along these lines, policy frameworks can support both the agility of younger organizations and the transformational capacity of older firms for environmental sustainability.

For stakeholders, a practical implication from the present findings is that environmental sustainability can be viewed as a signal of longevity. Investors, consumers, and other stakeholders may wish to interpret strong sustainability performance as one indicator of organizational adaptability and long-term viability. This creates an incentive for organizations to prioritize sustainability, not just as a moral imperative but as a strategic advantage. Investing in environmental sustainability is a signal of commitment to long-term goals, which align with stakeholder preferences and drives organizational success.

Ultimately, these findings close the loop between longevity and sustainability: sustainability and longevity are part of a reinforcing cycle. Longevity provides the experience and resources to adapt and implement sustainability practices, while sustainability initiatives enhance resilience, stakeholder support, and legitimacy, contributing to longevity. This dual perspective highlights that sustainability is both a byproduct of enduring success and a driver of future survival.

The consistent positive relation between organizational age and environmental sustainability across different regions and domains suggests that fundamental organizational processes are at work. These findings align with research on organizational learning, adaptation, and capability development over time. As organizations age, they develop internal structures, processes, and cultural elements that enable more effective environmental performance. This evolutionary advantage helps explain why longevity correlates with superior sustainability outcomes regardless of geographical context. The longevity-environmental sustainability relation is inherently linked to the role of HR practices and employee behaviors. Specifically, we highlight that older organizations, due to their extended operational timelines, have the advantage of embedding environmental priorities into their HR systems, leading to sustained environmental performance.

Organizations with long operational histories are likely to have human resources and HR practices that support their environmental sustainability performance over time. While explicitly “Green HRM” practices are a recent development, in their meta-analysis of 46 samples, Paillé (2024) found that the integration of HR practices that were aligned with environmental values correlated strongly with environmental sustainability performance (r_c = 0.75). Older organizations have the advantage of time to incorporate environmentally supportive policies into their HR practices, which can gradually enhance their environmental sustainability performance.

The role of employee green behavior (EGB) in promoting organizational environmental sustainability is also supported by data (Ones and Dilchert, 2012, 2013; Ones et al., 2018). Katz et al. (2022), in a meta-analysis of 23 samples, found a positive correlation (r_c = 0.40) between Green HRM practices and EGB. HR practices encouraging environmentally conscious employee behaviors can aggregate into meaningful environmental sustainability at the organizational level. Although these findings focus on individual behaviors, they imply that over years of consistent practice, employee actions can accumulate to elevate environmental performance and yield organizational environmental sustainability benefits (see also Norton et al., 2015).

Organizations with established histories, even before “Green HRM” was a formal concept, have benefited from embedding adaptive and sustainability-oriented values through traditional HR practices. For older firms, these longstanding HR frameworks can now incorporate explicit Green HRM practices, helping them respond effectively to changing environmental pressures (Paillé et al., 2023). Chaudhary (2020) further supports the role of Green HRM in fostering employee green behaviors, demonstrating its impact on both task-related and voluntary environmental performance. Findings suggest that organizational identification mediates this relation, reinforcing the importance of embedding sustainability dimensions into HR systems. By evolving their HR practices over decades, organizations improve individual employee behaviors and reach environmental sustainability goals. Longstanding cultures of environmental responsibility lead to better environmental sustainability performance (Amel et al., 2017). Employee behaviors, HR practices, and co-created eco-responsible cultures all likely play important roles in explaining why older organizations excel in environmental sustainability.

Social scientists have long tried to provide a rational explanation for why organizations should engage in activities which make contributions to environmental sustainability. Efforts to encourage greater environmental responsibility have ranged from highlighting potential financial returns to emphasizing prosocial and altruistic motivations. This research provides an entirely different rationale: survival of the greenest.

Organizational longevity and environmental sustainability relations have not been previously studied. By presenting empirical investigations of this relation and for different environmental sustainability facets across multiple regions, this research fills an important gap and substantiates an evolutionary lens on environmental sustainability of organizations.

As espoused by Population Ecology Theory (see Salimath and Jones, 2011), the external environment shapes organizational survival. Specifically, selection processes favor organizations that best fit their environmental conditions—selection and retention processes enhancing adaptability determine which organizations persist. These adaptations are based on organizations' abilities to effectively use their financial and human capital given their environment. Specifically, their ability to acquire and manage critical resources, adjusting their structures and practices in response to resource scarcity and power dynamics, is crucial for their ability to survive and thrive (see Resource Dependence Theory, cf. Hillman et al., 2009). Organizations also learn over time to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external resources in response to changing natural, institutional, and social environments (see Dynamic Capabilities Theory, cf. Bleady et al., 2018). Therefore, organizational evolution is also influenced by the need to conform to social expectations, norms, and regulations. In this regard, organizations evolve by adopting practices and structures that are perceived as legitimate (see Institutional Theory, cf. Scott, 2005). All these evolutionary pressures collectively result in variation among organizations and ultimately drive their survival.

Organizational longevity and environmental sustainability performance are also shaped by this continuous process. Survival is not a pure matter of chance; it favors organizations that effectively adjust to changing conditions. Long-lived companies excel at securing and managing resources, refining strategies, and adjusting structures to meet challenges such as resource scarcity, economic fluctuations, and societal demands. By continuously evolving, they develop the capacity to leverage their financial and human capital for sustainability. Adaptation goes beyond immediate response; it involves building dynamic capabilities, including knowledge and skills that enable organizations to reconfigure resources and innovate proactively. Evolutionary pressures such as adapting to external selection forces, managing critical resources, learning to innovate, and conforming to social norms, interact to shape the relationship between organizational longevity and environmental sustainability. Long-lived organizations are not simply those that have survived the longest; they are those that have continually adapted to a complex mix of environmental, economic, and societal pressures, leading to better environmental sustainability performance. For companies that have endured through the centuries, sustainability practices likely emerged from accumulated experience and higher internal environmental sustainability priorities, rather than direct societal or legal pressure. That is, these organizations' long histories of navigating complex challenges have ingrained adaptability and resourcefulness into their strategies and operations, enabling them to enhance their environmental performance over time. These companies are likely to have developed strategies, know-how, and practices that align with long-term environmental and societal needs, as these practices contribute to resilience and adaptability. This perspective draws from evolutionary principles, emphasizing that survival depends on effectively adapting to environmental conditions, including the natural environment. Firms that have endured over decades or centuries may have prioritized strategies that balance profitability with environmental stewardship, ensuring their actions support broader ecological concerns.

In the final analysis, re-visiting Stanek and Ones' Cybernetic Trait Complexes Theory (CTCT; 2023) as described in the introduction and applied to organizations, adaptive organizations that endure over time do so by continually balancing two goals: stability and change. This ongoing dual goal management leads to the formation of complex clusters of organizational capabilities and characteristics that confer adaptability. When survival is the goal, serving the wellbeing of all stakeholders (including investors, employees, customers, suppliers, communities, societies, the natural environment, and future generations) is beneficial. It is not the largest or most resource-rich organizations that endure, but those whose practices best respond to this sustainability demand.