Validating and expanding a framework of a

triple bottom line dominant logic for business

sustainability through time and across contexts
Carlos Ferro and Carmen Padin
University of Vigo, Economics and Business Faculty, Campus Lagoas-Marcosende, Vigo, Spain
Nils Høgevold and Göran Svensson
Kristiania University College, Sentrum: Kirkegaten, Oslo, Norway, and
Juan Carlos Sosa Varela
School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Universidad de Turabo, Gurabo, Puerto Rico

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to validate or refute the previous empirical findings of a TBL dominant logic for business sustainability and to
expand the TBL dominant logic for business sustainability with additional dimensions and items. The study aims to provide bottom-up-based multi-
dimensional framework in relation to the sustainable development goals (SDG) of the UN 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
Design/methodology/approach – Key corporate informants in top Spanish companies were requested to participate in the study. A total of 89
usable questionnaires were returned, generating an initial response rate of 42.4%.
Findings – A framework for a TBL-dominant logic in the context of business sustainability has been empirically tested successfully across contexts
and through time, thus providing substantiation for universal applicability.
Research limitations/implications – This study provides a relevant and important substantiation for validity and reliability across contexts and
through time. It is important in research to establish a theoretical framework at the corporate level for business sustainability in connection with
SDGs. This study is not without its limitations, but offers opportunities for further research.
Practical implications – The framework provides practitioners with a foundation to assess their efforts at business sustainability, taking into
account a broad selection of aspects across environmental, social and economic elements that contribute to SDGs.
Originality/value – This study makes two relevant and valuable contributions to developing a framework of TBL dominant logic for business
sustainability, namely, validation and expansion. It offers also multiple opportunities for both research and practice to assess business sustainability
efforts across environmental, social and economic aspects in relation to SDGs.
Keywords Sustainability, Spain, Business, Sustainable development goals, Triple bottom line approach, UN 2030 agenda
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction communities and the physical environment. This assertion is

According to Ramus (2002) and Guest (2010), business
activities are exerting a severe influence on the world economy,
the communities that people form part of as well as the physical
environment they inhabit. The effect of these business activities
is furthermore bolstered by environmental changes, economic
challenges, social unrest and inequality between people
(Ramus, 2002; Guest, 2010).
Sustainability is seen as every company’s obligation, and it
also opens up opportunities for growth and expansion to these
companies (White, 2009). Pagell and Wu (2009) assert that
companies cannot only focus on making a profit, they also need
to consider the influence of their business activities on the
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0885-8624.htm
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
34/1 (2019) 95–116
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624]
[DOI 10.1108/JBIM-07-2017-0181]
congruent with Senge et al’s (2008) view that the financial
performance of a company is only one measure of company
success.
Society at large is becoming ever more aware of companies’
obligation to be sustainable. This has resulted in these
companies being held responsible for the influence they exert
on the environment in which they operate. Senge and Carstedt
(2001) cited in Linnenluecke and Griffiths (2010) profess that
companies that consider the physical environment in which
they operate do not only enhance their own successes but also
contribute to sustainability in what they do.
Carson (1962) already alluded to sustainability issues in the
1960s. It was only in the 2000s that the objective of
sustainability truly became a key priority of authorities in
developed countries (Guest, 2010). Despite the fact that a
Received 24 July 2017
Revised 22 March 2018
9 July 2018
10 September 2018
19 September 2018
Accepted 19 September 2018

95
 Triple bottom line dominant logic
Carlos Ferro et al.
strong focus on enhanced sustainability is considered as being
highly desirable, rigorous legislation causes conflict between
companies and their stakeholders, as achieving higher levels of
environmental success are often coupled with stronger calls for
increased social accountability and environmental protection
(Eiadat et al., 2008).
The 1992 Sustainable Development World Summit hosted
in Rio de Janeiro was ensued by an increase in the prominence
of the wider sustainability concept within a global context
(United Nations, 2012). Furthermore, Agenda 21 was
embraced at the 1992 Earth Summit. Agenda 21 encompasses a
previously unheard plan to implement sustainable development
actions in a much more comprehensive manner than ever
before. Subsequently the focus was on Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR), more specifically a vision for “sustainable
development” as an additional dimension of sustainability that
is inherent to the company at the highest possible level (Kleine
and Von Hauff, 2009). After two decades have passed, the
Summit in Johannesburg during 2012 offered the chance to
enhance the execution of Agenda 21 (United Nations, 2012).
This summit focused on integrating environmental, social and
economic objectives on a global scale (United Nations, 2012).
More recently, in September 2015, all member states of the
United Nations met in New York and formally adopted the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be met by 2030
(United Nations, 2012). Compared to the previous eight
international development goals, known as the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) to be achieved from 2000 to
2015, this agenda (for the period 2016-2030) for sustainable
development (Agenda 2030) includes seventeen global
sustainable development goals (SDGs) with 169 targets
(United Nations, 2012).
As the scientific evidence claims, these SDGs aim to lead a
more sustainable approach with regard to the world (Morton
et al., 2017; Collste et al., 2017). The SDGs are innovative tools
for the global governance of sustainability (Collste et al., 2017),
which are referred to by Kanie and Biermann (2017) as
governance through goals.
The SDGs are integrated through interdependencies among
various goals and targets (Collste et al., 2017). This implies that
SDGs for to succeed, effective implementation efforts are
required that promote an inclusive approach (Stafford-Smith
et al., 2017). Stafford-Smith et al. (2017) suggest that the
synergies, trade-offs and complexity of the interlinkages efforts
would pay the necessary attention to three areas, namely, across
sectors, across societal actors and between and among low,
medium and high-income countries (Saito et al., 2017).
The global framework of the SDGs aims to overcome challenges
such as economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental
protection. In fact, the SDGs expand the previous MDGs by
linking the social (eradicating poverty), economic (increasing the
development of poor countries), and environmental (decreasing
the human footprint on the environment) aspects of goals
(Stafford-Smith et al., 2017; Fleming et al., 2017). Therefore, the
SDGs implicitly adopt the “three-pillar-model” (Neumann et al.,
2017), attempting to: “[. . .] balance all three dimensions of
sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental
[. . .]” (United Nations, 2015).
The effective implementation of SDGs claims to include not
only the actions of the governments but also of other non-
96
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116
governmental actors (Stafford-Smith et al., 2017). In this
regard, the business sustainability (BS) literature identifies two
assumptions in relation to sustainable development, namely,
win-win and firm-level sustainability (Lsil and Hernke, 2017).
The win-win assumption focuses on the idea of economic
growth without environmental degradation (Banerjee et al.,
2003), so that environmental and social goals reinforce corporate
financial ones (Hahn et al., 2010). At present, the firm-level
sustainability assumption fosters t each discrete sustainability
effort carried out by each company contributing to global
sustainability (Savitz, 2012), considering that the companies are
the unique entities which possess the expertise and methods
capable of meeting the challenge of sustainable development
(Milne et al., 2009). Previous empirical findings from countless
studies demonstrate the successes, benefits and lessons learned
from businesses fostering other companies so that they promote
proactive efforts and practices that contribute to achieving the
SDGs (Fleming et al., 2017).
Companies regularly have to face varied objectives (Murthy,
2012). At one end, companies strive to achieve financial success
and reach strategic objectives, but on the other end, they also
have to be sustainable. It benefits companies to cultivate
capabilities, practices and resources that are sustainable, in
order to achieve a competitive edge in the marketplace (Murthy,
2012). Irrespective of the strategic imperative to be sustainable,
from both a social and environmental perspective, several
profit – orientated as well as non-profit orientated companies do
not know what business activities involve sustainability or what
the influence of sustainable business practices on their activities
and processes (Strandberg Consulting, 2009).
Linnenluecke and Griffiths (2010) argue that companies are
required to go through a process of transformational and cultural
change to be able to successfully react to social and environmental
encounters. According to Hassini et al. (2012), there is no
evidence of any study yet that has dealt with sustainable business
practices specifically involving the integration of its
environmental, social and economic dimensions. In addition, Gao
and Bansal (2013) claim furthermore that only a few researchers
have so far endeavored to expose the underlying mechanism of
integration between the three dimensions mentioned above.
This present study, according to the extant literature, has
been developed, based on both sustainable development
assumptions related to the win-win and firm-level sustainability.
At the heart of this approach, the analysis has been conducted
on the concrete paradigm of the triple bottom line (TBL).
Accordingly, the objective of this study is twofold:
 to test the validity and reliability across context and
through time of previous empirical findings on a TBL
dominant logic for BS; and
 to expand the TBL dominant logic for BS with additional
dimensions and issues.
For this particular study, BS refers to a company’s efforts to go
beyond focusing only on its own profitability, thus also
managing the market and societal impact with respect to the
environment, society and the economy. It is furthermore about
a company’s exertions to manage its impact on the planet and
its eco-systems as well as the complete business network
(Svensson and Wagner, 2012a).
 Triple bottom line dominant logic
Carlos Ferro et al.
Many studies have preceded the present one that specifically
validates and expands on Svensson et al. (2016a), making a
contribution to existing theory in order to validate and further
develop and retest the TBL dominant logic for BS. More
specifically, the TBL dominant logic for BS has been developed
from a series of previous studies from various parts of the world
(Dos Santos et al., 2013; Høgevold and Svensson, 2012;
Høgevold et al., 2014; Svensson et al., 2016a; Svensson and
Wagner, 2011, 2012b, 2015; Wagner and Svensson, 2014).
This research holds the promise of aiding companies in
becoming more responsive to the demands of company
stakeholders and customers with respect to improving life
quality and preserving the environment. Companies may also
use the BS-framework developed and validated here to uncover
possible sustainability issues that my come afore. The research
may also guide companies in implementing BS practices and
positioning themselves strategically.
2. Research relevance
The business context varies between one industry and another,
as well as between countries and continents. It is therefore
useful to retest the TBL dominant logic for BS in another
industrial sample and country, so as to verify the validity of the
framework. Svensson et al. (2016a) encourage others to verify
their findings in other business contexts, as it is important to
validate previous studies across contexts and through time, in
order to build valid and reliable theory (Hair et al., 2010).
This validation study is based on a cross-industry sample in
Southern of Europe (Spain), while the original study by
Svensson et al. (2016a) was based on a cross-industry sample in
Northern of Europe (Norway). Thus, there is a clear
geographical distance between Spain and Norway, yielding
differences that enhance the value of the study.
The Spanish national culture is significantly different from
the Norwegian one (Hofstede, 1983), such that Spain is an
appropriate business context for comparing and validating in
relation to Norway. The assumption is that the validity and
reliability of the TBL-dominant logic for BS may vary between
industrial samples and countries.
An international validation study was undertaken by Crew
(2015), which included 100 researchers who intended to verify
the validity of 270 findings communicated in leading journals in
the field of psychology. Perhaps not surprisingly, Crew’s (2015)
international validation efforts concluded that only one third of
the findings were valid. It also showed that the findings were
not the same as in the original studies. The lesson learned is
that the originally reported findings have to be retested in other
contexts to claim generality and contribute to theory building
validly and reliably across contexts and through time.
Furthermore, the Open Science Collaboration (2015, p. 7)
also calls for attention to be paid the troublesome validity and
reliability (i.e. reproducibility) of findings across contexts and
through time, contending that: “[. . .] a single study almost
never provides definitive resolution for or against an effect and
its explanation [. . .]”.
In extension, Lai (2007) and Wasti et al. (2006) mention the
need to retest theory in businesses through time and across
contexts. Svensson (2013, 2015) states that the absence of
retests to validate findings from previous studies counteract
97
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116
theory building towards non-context-specific theory, and may
even harm and or damage the credibility of business research.
Hair et al. (2011, p. 33) explain that: “[. . .] researchers
develop theory based on the accumulated body of previous
research [. . .]”. Retesting and validating of the findings of
previous studies contributes to building valid and reliable
theory, as well as rejecting the converse, non-valid and non-
reliable theory. In this study, the aim is to assess the validity and
reliability of the TBL-dominant logic for BS by Svensson et al.
(2016a).
This study therefore makes a theoretical contribution to theory
building, based on validating the findings reported in a previous
study, in relation to a business context in a different country as a
foundation for generality. The study also makes a methodological
contribution by applying the same methodology, the same
questionnaire items and multivariate analysis, to enable a
comparison and offer empirical evidence that is valid in at least
two countries.
3. A framework of triple bottom line dominant
logic for business sustainability
3.1 Reasons to validate and further develop the
framework
Companies that operate in competitive environments should
understand the TBL activities as opportunities to enhance and
strengthen their competitive advantage, in turn underpinning
their strategic position. However, this will only be possible if
adopting of the TBL strategy is infused into the whole
organization and its business network, and not only at the
corporate level (Schulz and Flanigan, 2016; Ferro et al, 2017).
Company sustainability strategies should be stakeholder-
inclusive (Biggemann et al., 2014). In fact, firms belong to
business networks in which they relate to multiple stakeholders
which make different demands, have different capacities for
influence and possess different expectations. Sustainability
strategies should be designed to respond in a different way to
the various demands from all stakeholders (Biggemann et al.,
2014) and not just to a few of them (Svensson et al., 2016b).
As Ferro et al. (2017) state, from the joint action of multiple
stakeholders, all receive benefits as a positive sum game. In the
future, sustainability initiatives will become a strategic
imperative for firms, so that they can improve both their short-
and long-term profitability. Additionally, companies should
actively communicate their sustainability efforts and successes
to improve their relationships with stakeholder (Blenkhorn and
MacKenzie, 2017).
Høgevold and Svensson (2012) among others profess that
assimilating BS into the overarching business strategy of
companies has become an undeniable reality and is evident in
the contemporary business environment. Companies engage in
sustainable business practices in various manners; either
confirming or denying a commercial viable logic for doing so.
In essence, such practices are considered as predetermined and
rewarding reactions by companies to matters related to
company operations (Salzmann et al., 2005). According to
Epstein and Widener (2010), by assimilating BS, companies
are able to gain an edge over their competitors and are able to
create strategic value. In doing so, companies are able to face
 Triple bottom line dominant logic
Carlos Ferro et al.
macro impediments and still grow and make a profit (Epstein
and Widener, 2010).
Schaltegger and Burritt (2010) are furthermore of the
opinion that multinational companies are obligated to embrace
and account on the BS activities they engage in. Companies
are, however, often unsure how to measure the extent to which
they engage in these activities and how they perform with
respect to BS. Resultantly, many researchers have and are
currently investigating different ways to gauge BS.
The tools that do exist to gauge BS are diverse and embody
BS activities to differing extents and depths (CDP, 2013;
FTSE, 2013; Mondi, 2013; RobecoSAM, 2013; Shell, 2013;
Stoxx, 2013; Siemens, 2013; Heemskerk et al., 2002; Buried
Treasure, 2001). Although the assessment of companies’ BS
activities has improved with leaps and bounds, Searcy (2012)
opines that opportunities still exist to develop an exhaustive
measure for BS from a company viewpoint. This research
therefore aims to test the validity and reliability across contexts
and through time as well as expanding a framework of a TBL
dominant logic for BS.
3.2 Reviewing sustainability in literature
As mentioned earlier, since as far back as the 1960s, academic
researchers have focused on issues related to the environment,
society and ethics. However, the past two decades have seen a
dramatic rise in the level of interest these topics have garnered
(Chabowski et al., 2011; Leonidou and Leonidou, 2011;
Seuring and Müller, 2008).
Research into sustainability has evolved over time and
become much more germane, moving away from its previously
peripheral status (Klettner et al., 2014). Research has included
the development and combination of various different theories,
such as the resource-based theory (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt,
1984), stakeholder theory (Donaldson and Preston, 1995;
Freeman, 1984; Jones, 1995; Laplume et al., 2008),
institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991; Scott, 2008)
as well as the political economy paradigm (Stem and Reve,
1980; Buchanan, 1964).
Several novel additions to the abovementioned theories also
emerged over time such as “enviropreneurial” marketing
(Menon and Menon, 1997), corporate social performance
(Wood, 1991), corporate environmentalism (Banerjee et al.,
2003) and cause-related marketing (Varadarajan and Menon,
1988). From a business perspective, it has also become evident
that more companies are embracing BS (Hashmi et al., 2015).
From an investigation into extant literature focusing on
sustainability and linked concepts, Guest (2010) examined the
commercial side of sustainability from a perspective based upon
changes in the climate. Shrivastava and Berger (2010) reviewed
the course of sustainability-related ideologies. Glavic and
Lukman (2007) focused on sustainability-related concepts and
their meanings, and Faber et al. (2005) investigated the
underpinnings of sustainability and the sustainability of
sustainability itself.
With respect to research focusing on particular fields of
specialization, Vaaland et al. (2008) examined sustainability
from a marketing perspective, Kolk and van Tulder (2010)
considered sustainability from a development, global business
and corporate social responsibility (CSR) perspective, Peloza
and Shang (2011) reviewed strategies to create value for
98
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116
stakeholders through CSR, Leonidou and Leonidou (2011)
scrutinized previous studies that focused on management and
marketing from an environmental perspective, Chabowski et al.
(2011) provided insight into research on sustainability from a
marketing perspective, and Goyal et al. (2013) examined
sustainability from a CSR and company performance
perspective.
From a supply chain management perspective, Seuring and
Müller (2008) presented an outline to manage supply chains
sustainably, Gimenez and Tachizawa (2012) focused on
appraising literature related to encompassing suppliers in the
supply chain in sustainability efforts of companies, and Ashby
et al. (2012) uncovered the connections between sustainability
and the management of supply chains.
From the studies reviewed, it is evident that only a limited
number followed a deductive style with respect to the theory-
testing approach. Most studies followed an inductive approach
focusing on reviews of literature and case studies. There also
seems to be a heavy reliance on the use of qualitative data and
few of the studies reported quantitative results. Furthermore, it
is evident that most of these studies refrain from identifying the
sampling techniques used and mostly rely on secondary data
sources (Goyal et al., 2013). In addition, it was also uncovered
by Leonidou and Leonidou (2011) that studies specifically
conducted in the fields of management and marketing tend to
be conceptual in nature. The majority of studies was not
theoretically grounded and the few that were, were based upon
the resource-based or stakeholder theories.
An analysis of studies that focused on CSR, executed by
Peloza and Shang (2011), uncovered the fact that most of the
studies were based upon quantitative data with surveys and
experiments being the most commonly used data collection
techniques used. Furthermore, it was uncovered by Kolk and
van Tulder (2010), from studies that focus on sustainability
and international business in addition to CSR, that these
studies were typically quantitative in nature, literature was fairly
limited, key concepts were not well-defined, data were limited,
and the research focused mostly on more developed regions of
the world.
In conclusion, it can be said that journals that specialize in
the field of management, where sustainability is concerned,
focus allot more on topics related to CSR than in the past
(Kudłak and Low, 2015). According to Kudłak and Low
(2015), there is more evidence that values related to social
responsibility are becoming more entrenched within
companies. This is echoed by Marcelino-Sádaba et al. (2015)
who opine that BS has become an important issue for
companies, especially given the fact that the advancement with
respect to BS has been fairly restricted, especially where the
social dimension is concerned.
Table I provides an overview of studies that were conducted
on BS in different fields of specialization.
It can be concluded from this table that previous studies lack
uniformity with respect to the manner in which the reviews of
the literature were undertaken. Different dimensions of BS are
also identified in the studies, but three dimensions, however,
namely, the environmental, the social and the economic
dimension (coined as the triple bottom line) come afore and are
universal to the studies. These dimensions are therefore used to
frame BS.
 Triple bottom line dominant logic Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Carlos Ferro et al. Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116

Table I Recent literature reviews

Source Subject Outcome

Ashby et al. supply chain lack of a universally accepted definition for SCM and sustainability
(2012) management a multitude of terms were used to describe identical or similar concepts/practices
social and the environmental dimension is significantly more defined and developed in the literature at all stages of
environmental the supply chain than the social dimension
dimensions of the emphasis on the importance of long-term supplier relationships is not translated into socially
sustainability responsible supply chains
significant and persistent gap between the diffusion of sustainability discourse and its practical
application
lack of impact of management research on management practice
Chabowski marketing social topics for integrated sustainability research framework in the marketing context:
et al. (2011) network theory focus - external-internal
emphasis - social-environmental
intent legal-ethical-discretionary
influence of mix of topics on marketing assets and financial performance
Faber et al. sustainable innovation change of emphasis in the sustainability discussion from an environmental to an organizational and
(2005) societal perspective
Gimenez and supply chain governance mechanisms on sustainable performance based on both assessment and collaboration have
Tachizawa a positive impact on environmental performance and CSR with relationship between assessment and
(2012) collaboration
Glavic and environmental each sustainability term has its own definition and semantic features, however, all of them form an
Lukman (2007) engineering interconnected system
sustainable systems introduce interconnections between environmental protection, economic
performance and societal welfare, guided by political will, and ethical and ecological imperatives
Goyal et al. sustainability the relation between sustainability performance and firm performance depends on cultural, economic
(2013) performance and geographical contexts
firm performance the main proxy for firm performance is financial performance instead of non-financial performance
developed countries measures.
lack of research:
on service sector
in developing countries
with use of primary collected data based on subjective and behavioral parameters
Kolk and van multinational enterprises there are relationships among international business, corporate social responsibility and sustainable
Tulder (2010) (MNE) development
Kudłak and Corporate Social majority of the special issues have been publicized in the CSR-specific journals
Low (2015) Responsibility (CSR) few dedicated volumes in the core management journals seem to signal an increased interest in CSR
Sustainability in the topics among these journals
management topics categorized into two groups:
General management contemporary corporations as agents of change in modern societies
International business to explain the infiltration of responsibility-related values through corporate organizational structures
and functions
evolution of the global governance landscape has empowered corporations and other non-
governmental entities and weakened the role of traditional public agents (governments)
Leonidou and environmental research on environmental marketing and management has moved from an early stage of identification
Leonidou marketing and and exploration to a more advanced stage characterized by greater maturity and rigor:
(2011) management growing sophistication of research designs
emphasis on formalized and causal structures
expanded scope of research
wide range of countries, industries, and products
firms of different status and size
probability sampling designs
the application of advanced statistical analysis and increased diversity and in-depth coverage of the
topics examined
Litido and sustainable economic ecodesign is becoming increasingly important
Righini (2013) development environmental management is key
Marcelino- project management sustainability has become a very important step
Sádaba et al. sustainability particularly in terms of environmental aspects
(2015) slightly less progress has been made socially
not specified the ideal characteristics for a project and its management might be considered sustainable
new conceptual framework helping project managers with sustainable projects based on four
dimensions:
products
(continued)

99
 Triple bottom line dominant logic Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Carlos Ferro et al. Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116

Table I
Source Subject Outcome
processes
organisations
managers
project products designed require:
sustainability criteria
sustainable project processes
organisations committed to sustainability
project managers trained in sustainability
Martínez- 0perations and main topics of research
Jurado and production management lean management and sustainability
Moyano- lean management lean supply chain management and sustainability
Fuentes (2014) supply chain contradictions and inconsistencies in the literature
management significant gap regarding research into social sustainability in lean supply chain management.
sustainability area of application
automotive
theoretical
multi-sectorial
metal-working
manufacturing plants
pharmaceutical
service
service
Milne and sustainable reporting concern for ecology has been sidelined
Gray (2013) TBL and GRI are insufficient conditions for organizations contributing to the sustaining of the Earth’s
ecology
Parris and sustainable development proponents of sustainable development differ in their emphasis on what is to be sustained
Kates (2003) no universal indicator sets for sustainability, backed by compelling theory, rigorous data collection and
analysis and influential in policy
Peloza and potential mediating companies gain a competitive advantage by linking CSR activities with increased customer value, or
Shang (2011) processes between CSR developing new sources of customer value
activities and financial marketers are able to influence the salience of different sources of consumer value within their category
performance CSR investment can be destructive to financial performance when it passes a certain level CSR activities
provide no self-oriented value to the consumer
Pinter et al. sustainable development adopt a framework based on sustainability concepts
(2005) emphasis on an indicator-by-indicator learning process
integrated approach
Schaltegger sustainability accounting different interpretations and intended use of sustainable accounting
and Burritt from an information pragmatic tools for sustainability accounting for a well-described set of business situations
(2010) management trade-offs (conflicts) for managers between environmental, social and economic issues associated with
perspective corporate activities
Litido and sustainable economic ecodesign is becoming increasingly important
Righini (2013) development environmental management is key
Marcelino- project management sustainability has become a very important step
Sádaba et al. sustainability particularly in terms of environmental aspects
(2015) slightly less progress has been made socially
not specified the ideal characteristics for a project and its management might be considered sustainable
new conceptual framework helping project managers with sustainable projects based on four
dimensions:
products
processes
organisations
managers
project products designed require:
sustainability criteria
sustainable project processes
organisations committed to sustainability
project managers trained in sustainability
Source: Adapted from Svensson et al. (2016a, 2016b)

100
 Triple bottom line dominant logic
Carlos Ferro et al.
It can also be seen from Table I that there is no a universal
emphasis with respect to the approaches and perspectives
where BS is concerned. BS involves a wide array of different
features, mostly reliant on the discipline where it is being
considered. As is evident from Table I, a universally applicable
framework that resulted from empirical testing for BS has not
been proposed yet.
Irrespective of this notion, there is evidence that empirical
work has been conducted during the past 20 years using
samples that are more reflective of the target population under
study and where more progressive statistical analysis
techniques have been employed. Literature furthermore
highlights a necessity for a framework for BS that is a reliable
and valid measure of the BS practices of companies.
It is therefore contended that researchers focusing on BS
should adjust their focus from a narrow localized to a broader
global focus with the aim of identifying components that are
universal across different societies and markets. It is
furthermore noted by Leonidou and Leonidou (2011) that
there is evidence that the extent of the research conducted on
BS are already transcending across product offering, industry
and geographic borders. Goyal et al. (2013) note furthermore
that economic and cultural settings have a direct bearing on the
link between company and BS accomplishments. Peloza and
Shang (2011) are therefore of the opinion that research related
to CSR needs to be much more purposeful involving focused
outcomes.
It is furthermore important that a long-term view of BS is
implemented to enable companies to gainfully contribute to a
range of stakeholders present in the companies’ markets as well
as society at large. Supporting this notion, Ashby et al. (2012)
uncovered that although companies focus on the significance of
strategic relationships with suppliers, these relationships often
do no evolve into relationships that can be considered as
responsible from a social perspective. It is furthermore
contended by Peloza and Shang (2011) that there should be an
intensification in the interest in the source of the value provided
by stakeholders when CSR-related activities are being engaged
in. For instance, researchers in the field of marketing typically
hone in on the consumer as primary elements of investigation
while it is contended that research should actually encompass
all players involved in the company’s business network.
Schianetz et al. (2007) for example professed that an all-
encompassing measure for sustainability is required to measure
the sustainability of a tourist destination. The authors
subsequently suggested a blend of different measures to
conduct the appropriate assessment. This blend of measures
can be quite diverse and is contingent upon aspects such
as company location, company size and the culture of the
company. To put global sustainability principles in place, a
concerted attempt to standardize these principles is needed
bearing in mind that tailoring these to specific requirements
and situations is still needed. According to Whitely (1992), the
business systems theory professes varied business systems for
particular realms. Rettab et al. (2009) furthermore argue that
research findings specific to a particular realm should first be
validated before the resultant findings can be universally
recognized.
It is therefore noted that the amount of research focusing on
BS and linked fields of inquiry has increased substantially over
101
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116
recent years. Irrespective of this fact, there is no unanimity
regarding the structuring and conceptualization of these BS
aspects. The attempt made by the researchers to suggest a
BS-framework that is empirically tested and constitute an
environmental, a social and economic dimension with
supporting items can be considered innovative. The researchers
opine furthermore that this effort significantly enhances the
body of knowledge from a theoretical as well as practical
perspective with a particular focus on measuring and
scrutinizing market-related and societal aspects.
3.3 Defining business sustainability
A BS definition that is widely accepted remains elusive since the
literature related to BS is continuously developing. Padin and
Svensson (2013) opine that researchers often overlook the fact
that BS literature is lively rather than apathetic. According to
these authors, the approach to BS should be one that is of an
uninterrupted and iterative nature necessitating a malleable
and candid approach (Padin and Svensson, 2013).
Considering different definitions of BS, Glavic and Lukman
(2007) uncovered many different definitions for BS albeit they
are all linked by the fact that they are derived from an
interrelated system. Similarly, Ashby et al. (2012) uncovered
the fact that many different words are used to coin aspects that
are much alike when it comes to BS and related concepts.
Leonidou and Leonidou (2011) therefore proposition an
approach to issues related to the environment that encompasses
different themes from which uniform descriptions can be
developed for the different concepts. The objective is therefore
to aid in the incorporation of the work of different researchers
focusing on different areas of BS in order to create uniformity
where the definition of BS and related concepts are concerned.
Several key definitions for BS have been proposed.
The World Commission on Environment and Development
(WECD) (1987) provided the following definition: “[. . .]
sustainable economic development [. . .]” and that it “[. . .]
meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs [. . .]”.
Lüdeke-Freund (2009) considers BS as “[. . .] an organisation’s
attempts to not only focus on profitability but to efficiently and
effectively manage and integrate its environmental, social and
broader economic impact [. . .]”. Smith and Sharicz (2011)
assert that Triple Bottom Line (TBL) sustainability is “[. . .] the
result of the activities of an organization, voluntary or governed
by law, that demonstrate the ability of the organization to
maintain viable its business operations (including financial
viability as appropriate) whilst not negatively impacting any
social or ecological systems [. . .]”. More recently, Svensson and
Wagner (2012a) defined BS as “[. . .] an organization’s efforts
to manage its impact on earth’s life and eco-systems and its
whole business network [. . .]” and a definition by RobecoSAM
(2013) refers to corporate sustainability as “[. . .] is a business
approach that creates long-term shareholder value by
embracing opportunities and managing risks deriving from
economic, environmental and social developments [. . .]”.
The UN 2030 Agenda, for sustainable development goals
applies the World Commission on Environment and
Development (WECD) (1987) sustainability definition as
contained in the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) that
highlights two key aspects. First, there seems to be a primary
 Triple bottom line dominant logic
Carlos Ferro et al.
focus on addressing the needs of society, perhaps more
specifically, those of the poor. Second, there is the notion that
the technological capabilities society has at its disposal and the
manner in which society is organized hamper the capacity of the
environment to meet existing and impending needs of society.
This definition seems to have wide appeal and the fact that it is
considered as fairly vague assisted in the creation of alliances
between different stakeholders (Bartelmus, 2003; Parris and
Kates, 2003).
There is a close relationship between BS and the TBL as
presented by Elkington (2004). According to Glavas and Mish
(2015) TBL emphasizes an equilibrium between three
components, namely, the state of the environment, economic
well-being and equality between members of society. Lüdeke-
Freund (2009) opines furthermore that companies have the
responsibility to look beyond their own profitability and actively
oversee its influence on the three components mentioned
above.
Based on this Svensson and Wagner (2012a) endeavored to
offer an all-encompassing BS definition to overcome the short-
sightedness associated with existing BS definitions. Their
definition, as presented earlier on in this section, concerns the
endeavors of a company to manage its influence on the
environment, more specifically on “Earth’s life and eco
systems” as well as all it stakeholders referred to as “its whole
business network.” Padin and Svensson (2013) are of the
opinion that this definition embodies all the sustainability-
related activities (environmental, society-related and economic
features) from both a societal and market-related perspective.
When considering the BS definitions presented in this
section, it is evident that BS can only be achieved when
companies engage in environmental, social and economic
activities to the best of their abilities. When a company gets
involved in these BS-related activities, BS itself is advanced in
addition to the company improving its competitive position,
market value and share (BSDGlobal, 2002).
3.4 Business sustainability phases
It is logical, as with all other organizational endeavors that
organizations do differ in the extent to which they are
sustainable and in the extent to which they concentrate their
initiatives and efforts on BS. Consequently, five phases of BS
are highlighted to describe the magnitude with which
sustainable business practices are incorporated into a
company’s purpose.
It is only realistic to assume that, as with all other activities
companies engage in, companies vary with respect to the degree
they engage in BS-related activities. Senge et al. (2008) therefor
propose five BS stages to depict the degree to which companies
engage in BS-related activities:
1 nonconformity refers to a stage where the company is not
involved in any BS-related activities;
2 conformity refers to a stage the company abides to basic
legislative standards as a result of external forces;
3 beyond conformity refers to a stage where a company
realizes the benefit of BS as far as it realizes higher return
than inputs;
4 complete integration refers to a stage where BS is
incorporated in the company’s long-term plan; and
102
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116
5 the last stage refers to a situation where the company
comes into being as a sustainable company.
Based upon the five BS stages presented above, three possible
perspectives of BS emerge. BS can be considered a topic related
to conformity as the company only engages in BS activities to
be law obeying. BS can also be seen as an expense that should
be curbed as far as possible or as a chance to maintain or
improve competitiveness in the marketplace.
Considering the notion that companies do not engage in BS-
related activities to the same degree, it is therefore suggested that
a framework for BS is developed to gauge, oversee and equate the
degree to which companies can be considered as being
sustainable (Dos Santos et al., 2013; Høgevold and Svensson,
2012; Høgevold et al., 2014; Svensson et al, 2016a, Svensson and
Wagner, 2011, 2012b and 2015; Wagner and Svensson, 2014).
Furthermore, it can be noted that the companies who were
included in the present study can be categorized as being either in
the second, third or fourth stage based upon their BS-related
activities. The companies included in previous case study
research can all be categorized as being in stage four based upon
their BS-related activities.
3.5 Measuring business sustainability
As sustainability issues become increasingly important,
companies report specific metrics on their economic,
environmental and social activities in their annual reports as an
indication of BS-related activities for knowledge of their
stakeholders. However, these reports will remain a
marginalized tool until some universal reporting systems is
achieved and allows for comparison among companies and
sectors (Schulz and Flanigan, 2016). The lack of a universal
and systematic method of measuring would be resolved if
indicators and indices of BS were firmly in place. (Ferro et al,
2017). The TBL dominant logic for BS from Svensson et al.
(2016a) a framework that spans economic, social and
environmental elements and that offers bottom-up guidance in
relation to the top-down SDGs outlined in the UN 2030
agenda for sustainable development.
During the past 10 years or so there has been a proliferation
of measures that have been suggested to gauge, oversee and
equate BS efforts of companies. The measures have become
much more commonplace in both private and public spheres,
irrespective of the fact that their ability to alter the actions of
those operating in the abovementioned spheres is fairly
constrained (Pinter et al., 2005; Milne and Gray, 2013). Parris
and Kates (2003) as well as Schaltegger and Burritt (2010)
support this notion based upon their inability to uncover BS
measures that are widely acknowledged, supported by superior
research methods and prominent in influencing opinions and
attitudes of decision makers.
What complicates matters more is the fact that the BS
measures that have been developed originate from different
disciplines and varied methodologies were used to develop
these measures. The measures furthermore represent
different ideologies and a number of these measures came
about as a result of international agreements (Litido and
Righini, 2013).
The following selection of measures for BS is highlighted:
 Triple bottom line dominant logic
Carlos Ferro et al.
 A Green city index was developed by Siemens involving
both qualitative and quantitative markers (Siemens,
2013).
 RobecoSAM in partnership with Dow Jones established
the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) to gauge
environmental, social and economic dimensions
(RobecoSAM, 2013).
 The FTSE4Good was developed to determine how
companies fare in terms of certain CSR criteria (FTSE,
2013).
 The GS SUSTAIN ESG (environmental, social and
governance) measure developed by Goldman Sachs
focuses on the degree to which energy companies are
involved in endeavors that are sustainable (Shell, 2013).
 The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) involves an
emphasis on environmental aspects including the state of
cities, the water supply, forests, CO2 emissions as well as
the supply chain.
 The JSE Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) Index
assesses sustainability efforts of South African companies
with specific reference to environmental, social and
economic aspects (Moni, 2013).
 The STOXX ESG Leaders indices focus on calculating a
rating for a company in a specific industry with the aid of a
weighting model that considers aspects such as the
company’s performance in relation to the environment,
social issues and corporate governance (Stoxx, 2013).
 The TOSCA sustainability framework presents a matrix
that associates particular business activities with certain
sustainability issues. Managing the environment within
the company operates can be closely associated with
innovation and the prevention of risk (Heemskerk et al.,
2002).
 The Sustainable Business Value Matrix functions online
and involves the assessment of a number of sustainability
measures as well as a number of more general measures of
business performance (Buried Treasure, 2001).
From the above discussion, it is clear that these corporate
measures all involve a broad selection of BS-related aspects.
Overall, it is evident that the measures are not uniform, but
many do have certain aspects in common. Three aspects
seem to be universal across all the measures, namely those
that involve environmental, societal and economic issues. In
consequence, the managerial measures previously listed offer
a company-specific and fragmented foundation, in relation
to the SDGs of the UN 2030 Agenda for sustainable
development which fails to deliver cross-industrial
applicability.
4. Methodology
4.1 Dimensions and items
The current study is based on a compilation of outcomes of a
series of previous studies. Common denominators across a
series of case studies were assessed by Svensson et al. (2016a) to
develop and test a framework of a TBL dominant logic for BS
(Dos Santos et al., 2013; Høgevold and Svensson, 2012;
Høgevold et al., 2014; Svensson et al., 2016a, 2016b; Svensson
and Wagner, 2011, 2012b, 2015; Wagner and Svensson, 2014).
In particular, the current study is based on that of Svensson et al.
103
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116
(2016a), who develop and test a framework of the TBL
dominant logic for BS. This present study is based on their
dimensions and items, all of which are displayed in TBL
Dominant Logic for BS – Economic Dimensions and Items,
Social Dimensions and Items and Environmental Dimensions
and Items.
4.1.1 TBL dominant logic for business sustainability – economic
dimensions and items, social dimensions and items, and environ-
mental dimensions and items
4.1.1.1 Economic dimensions and items. ECONOMIC
ASPECTS – Our sustainable business practices
1 Profitability:
 [. . .] are profit-oriented;
 [. . .] are about making money for all stakeholders
involved; and
 [. . .] are business driven (e.g. based upon company
objectives).
2 Cost reduction:
 [. . .] contribute to cost reduction;
 [. . .] improve cost efficiency; and
 [. . .] reduce the company’s expenses.
3 Competiveness:
 [. . .] improve the competitive position of the
company;
 [. . .] create a competitive advantage for the
company; and
 [. . .] are believed to be an important key success
factor.
4 Brand value:
 [. . .] enhance the company’s image in the market;
 [. . .] improve the corporate reputation of the
company; and
 [. . .] positively influence the company’s profile
communicated to stakeholders.
5 Spin-offs:
 [. . .] generate unexpected opportunities for the
company;
 [. . .] provide unexpected benefits for the company;
and
 [. . .] contribute positively to other aspects of the
company’s business operations.
6 Trade-offs:
 [. . .] imply that non-economic aspects impact on the
company’s decisions;
 [. . .] lead to the re-allocation of resources; and
 [. . .] require the company to make economic
tradeoffs (e.g. price and quality).
7 Finance:
 [. . .] improve operational finances;
 [. . .] generate financial benefits to the company; and
 [. . .] add to the financial performance of the
company.
4.1.1.2 Social dimensions and items. Social aspects – Our
sustainable business practices.
8 Whole business network:
 [. . .] need to be the united ambition with the
company’s whole business network;
 Triple bottom line dominant logic
Carlos Ferro et al.
 [. . .] require to be the common ambition of the
company’s whole business network; and
 [. . .] require that all direct business partners are
engaged in such practices.
9 Organizational support:
 [. . .] are superficial without support from all staff;
 [. . .] are insignificant without the corporate
leadership support; and
 [. . .] need top management guidance.
10 Corporate culture:
 [. . .] mirror corporate norms;
 [. . .] are derived from corporate policies; and
 [. . .] are based upon corporate principles.
11 Corporate reputation:
 [. . .] are essential to all in the marketplace;
 [. . .] positively affect the corporate reputation of the
company; and
 [. . .] are appreciated by all stakeholders.
12 Commitment and dedication:
 [. . .] require a lot of corporate efforts;
 [. . .] need substantial investment from the
company; and
 [. . .] are based upon corporate dedication.
13 Longevity of perspective and consistency:
 [. . .] are based upon a long-term business
perspective;
 [. . .] require consistency of corporate decisions over
time; and
 [. . .] are supported by a consistent corporate view.
14 Reporting:
 [. . .] are not hidden from public scrutiny;
 [. . .] are transparent to all those interested; and
 [. . .] are widely reported.
4.1.1.3 Environmental dimensions and items. Environmental
aspects – Our sustainable business practices.
15 Footprint and the natural environment:
 [. . .] reduce its business partners’ impact on the
natural environment;
 [. . .] take the impact of business partners on the
natural environment into account; and
 [. . .] diminish the corporate impact on the natural
environment.
16 Climate change and global warming:
 [. . .] are implemented in response to the on-going
climate change;
 [. . .] consider climate change issues when they are
implemented; and
 [. . .] consider the effects of corporate business
operations on global warming.
17 Multitude of initiatives:
 [. . .] involve a comprehensive strategic effort from
the company;
 [. . .] go beyond the company itself; and
 [. . .] consist of multiple initiatives.
18 Product/process decarbonizing:
 [. . .] show each product’s impact on the natural
environment;
 [. . .] highlight each product’s footprint on the
natural environment; and
104
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116
 [. . .] are visible to stakeholders.
19 Product/process dematerialization:
 [. . .] have led to company products becoming more
ecological-friendly;
 [. . .] address activities related to the environmental
impact of products; and
 [. . .] are considered suitable to deal with the natural
environment.
20 Efficiency programs:
 [. . .] is monitored through continuous improvement;
 [. . .] is a continuous process; and
 [. . .] is part of the company’s environmental efficiency
efforts.
Source: Adapted from Svensson et al. (2016a, 2016b)
The definition of BS that was introduced to the respondents
taking part in the study referred to a company’s efforts to go
beyond focusing only on profitability, but to also manage its
environmental, social and broader economic impact on the
marketplace and society as a whole.
The dimensions and items of the TBL dominant logic for BS
have originally been identified by revisiting previous studies in
an iterative process. Eventually, twenty common dimensions
have been identified from previous studies, all of which have
been following the Triple Bottom Line approach proposed by
Elkington (2004) and presented in TBL Dominant Logic for
BS – Economic Dimensions and Items, Social Dimensions and
Items, and Environmental Dimensions and Items with the
items developed. Furthermore, a recent study by Svensson et al.
(2016a) tested the framework of TBL dominant logic for BS.
The present study does not only aim to validate their findings
but also to extend them by making a complementary
contribution.
A five-point Likert-type scale was used for all items using
strongly agree (5) and strongly disagree (1) as the end points.
4.2 Sample and context
The international research team decided to collect data in
Spain, as the country boasts an admirable environmental
profile, with an Environmental Performance Index (EPI, 2017)
ranking of seven out of a possible 178 countries. Other
European countries are also viewed by many as forerunners in
the world with respect to sustainability issues and CSR (Strand
et al., 2015).
Keeping in mind the aim was to target large Spanish
companies, the criteria established by the Spanish Accounting
Plan (Royal Decree 1514/2007) were used to define the
population and construct the sampling frame for the study. The
criteria allowed for the inclusion of this companies who have:
 a total asset value of more than e2.85m;
 a net annual turnover above e5.7m; and
 an average number of employees that exceeds 100.
The latest update of the financial database “System Iberian
Balance Analysis” (SABI) was used for this purpose. The
database contains among others, economic and financial data
for 2 million Spanish companies.
A total of 3,818 Spanish companies across industrial sectors
met the criteria to be included in this study. However, 791
companies were eliminated because they were subsidiary
 Triple bottom line dominant logic Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Carlos Ferro et al. Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116

companies of other companies already contained in the 5. Empirical findings

sampling frame. A systematic sampling technique was
5.1 Sample characteristics
subsequently used where every tenth company contained in the
The corporate characteristics of the sample are summarized in
sampling frame was selected, ultimately generating a sample of
Table II that shows the nature of business of the Spanish
303 companies out of a possible 3,027 companies included in
companies in this study transcends across industries and
the sampling frame). These companies furthermore had to
sectors of the economy. Consequently, the sample represents a
engage in BS efforts and had a department or division focusing
broad spectrum of Spanish businesses.
on CSR or sustainable development. As a result, 73 companies The profile of studied companies ranges between the
were excluded from the study since they did not include a maximum value of 15,116,000,000 euros in annual revenues,
department or division focusing on CSR or sustainable and the one with the minimum value declares 2,523,000 euros.
development based upon the information from the assessment The average number of employees in the studied companies
of the companies during the last quarter of 2014. was 5,631.
Consequently, 231 companies were ultimately selected to The univariate analysis of items included in each
take part in the study. A questionnaire accompanied by a letter dimension (as shown in Table III) reveals an internal non-
of introduction, containing the contact details of the research response bias due to a few do not know answers, consistent
team, was sent to the key informants. The key informants or mean values and appropriate standard deviations for the
targeted respondents were managers responsible for CSR stakeholder items measured. The outcome of univariate
departments or in charge of sustainable development at the statistics indicates consistent high-quality responses provided
companies selected. by the key informants.
Key informants were requested to participate in the study
and an email reminder was subsequently sent or telephone calls 5.2 Factor analyses
were made to remind key informants to complete the To validate and further expand the dimensions and items of the
questionnaire if they had not done so within one month of the TBL dominant logic for BS by Svensson et al. (2016a),
initial request. This procedure was repeated two and three exploratory factor analyses (Norušis, 1993 and 1994) were
months after the initial request if the questionnaires had still not conducted in two steps:
been returned. 1 validating or falsifying the dimensions and items of a
A total of 98 questionnaires were returned, generating an framework of the TBL dominant logic for BS; and
initial response rate of 42.4 per cent. Eleven key informants 2 expanding the confirmed dimensions and items to
contacted the research team apologizing for not being able to additional ones.
collaborate with the investigation because of company policy
preventing them to do so. Nine of the returned questionnaires Note that a confirmatory factory analysis is not appropriate, as
were eliminated due to non-satisfactory responses (poorly this study explores new theoretical ground in order to develop a
completed questionnaires). Ultimately, 89 usable framework based upon a TBL dominant logic for BS. It is at a
questionnaires were returned generating a final response rate of stage where validation is required before confirmatory
38.5 per cent. The research team considered the achieved approaches are applied. The principal component method was
used to extract the underlying factors and an orthogonal
response rate satisfactory in comparison to previous studies
targeting large Spanish companies.
Two screening questions: Table II Sample characteristics – industries
Nature of business Count
Q1. How knowledgeable the respondent was about his/her
company’s sustainable business practices? Accomodation, Cafe or Restaurant 2
Agriculture, Forest or Fishing 4
Q2. How knowledgeable the respondent was about his/her Communication services 8
company’s sustainable business practices in the whole Construction 8
business network, were included in the study for the Cultural or recreational services 0
purposes of checking the competency of the respondent. Education 0
Electricity, gas or water 8
This is in line with Campbell’s (1955) recommendations that
Finance and/or insurance 6
respondents used in a study need to be competent enough to Govt admin or defence 1
answer questions relating to the subject matter under Health and community services 7
investigation. The findings indicated that 98.7 per cent Mining 2
(mean = 4.69 and standard deviation = 0.59) of respondents Manufacturing 18
had satisfactory knowledge of their company’s sustainable Personal and other services 10
business practices and that 92.0 per cent (mean = 4.01 and Property and business services 0
standard deviation = 0.98) had satisfactory knowledge of their Retail trade 2
company’s sustainable business practices in the entire business Transport and storage 3
network. Univariate and multivariate statistical techniques Wholesale trade 6
were used to analyze the data collected during the empirical Other 4
phase of the study. The results are presented in the following Total: 89
section.

105
 Triple bottom line dominant logic Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Carlos Ferro et al. Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116

Table III Univariate statistics

Dimension Item N Mean SD

Economic Items
1. Profitability a) 75 3.91 1.00
b) 74 3.81 1.20
c) 71 3.70 1.07
2. Cost reduction a) 81 4.17 0.87
b) 79 3.75 0.90
c) 80 4.13 0.90
3. Competitiveness a) 78 4.40 0.67
b) 78 4.40 0.74
c) 76 4.24 0.78
4. Brand value a) 77 4.31 0.75
b) 76 3.96 0.81
c) 78 4.55 0.60
5. Spin-offs a) 78 3.28 0.99
b) 77 3.39 0.99
c) 79 3.85 0.85
6. Trade-offs a) 78 4.41 0.61
b) 76 4.46 0.70
c) 78 4.50 0.64
a) 84 3.92 0.95
7. Finance b) 84 4.30 0.67
c) 85 4.36 0.70
Social Items
8. Whole business network a) 88 4.13 0.87
b) 86 3.51 0.98
c) 87 3.74 0.87
9. Organizational support a) 88 3.57 1.00
b) 88 3.99 0.93
c) 86 3.36 0.92
10. Corporate culture a) 89 4.27 0.88
b) 87 4.34 0.76
c) 88 4.25 0.75
11. Corporate reputation a) 87 4.62 0.51
b) 87 4.54 0.59
c) 87 4.60 0.54
12. Commitment and dedication a) 81 4.11 0.71
b) 82 3.91 0.85
c) 79 3.63 0.96
13. Longevity of perspective and consistency c) 81 3.47 0.79
a) 84 4.02 0.93
b) 81 3.05 1.01
14. Reporting a) 85 3.59 0.96
b) 85 3.39 0.93
c) 86 3.47 0.93
Environmental Items
15. Footprint and the natural environment a) 89 3.61 0.98
b) 89 4.17 0.82
c) 88 3.36 0.97
16. Climate change and global warming a) 89 3.56 0.93
b) 89 3.81 1.02
c) 88 3.69 1.07
17. Multitude of initiatives a) 88 4.08 0.90
b) 88 4.09 0.91
c) 88 4.15 1.00
(continued)

106
 Triple bottom line dominant logic
Carlos Ferro et al.
Table III
Dimension Item
18. Product/process decarbonizing a)
b)
c)
19. Product/process dematerialization a)
b)
c)
20. Efficiency programs a)
b)
c)
approach, namely Varimax rotation, was used to rotate all
factor solutions.
5.2.1 Validation of previous empirical findings
The validating factor analysis was based on the same
dimensions and items used by Svensson et al. (2016a), except
that three of out 51 items have been rephrased and adapted to
the Spanish business setting (i.e. Corporate culture – 10b;
Corporate reputation – 11a; and Climate change and global
warming – 16b). Furthermore, four out of 48 items were
omitted in the ultimately validated factor solution
(Profitability – 1b; Spin-offs – 5a; Corporate culture – 10c; and
Climate change and global warming – 16c). For further details
see TBL Dominant Logic for BS – Economic Dimensions and
Items, Social Dimensions and Items and Environmental
Dimensions and Items.
As shown in Table V, the outcome of the validated factor
solution was satisfactory (KMO/Overall MSA: 0.634;
Bartlett’s Test: Approx. Chi-Square: 2274,158: df: 946: Sig:
0.000). Measures of sampling adequacy ranged between
0.32-0.83. Communalities ranged between 0.74 and 0.94,
with a total explained variance of 87.0 per cent. The
Cronbach’s alpha for the 16 validated factors ranged between
0.72 and 0.92.
Consequently, the factor analysis validated 16 out of 17
dimensions of the “TBL dominant logic for business
sustainability” as shown in Table V. The only dimension not
validated was “Whole Business Network” (8 – see Social
Dimensions and Items) that was excluded in the current factor
analysis as the factor loadings merged with the dimension
“Multiple Initiatives” (17 – see Environmental Dimensions and
Items). Several of the items of these two dimensions referred to
a broader perspective of BS efforts that may explain the cross-
loadings between them. The items of “multiple initiatives”
generated a better factor solution than the ones of “whole
business network”, and therefore were the items of the latter
omitted from the validated factor solution.
All 16 factors that were identified and are shown in Table IV
indicate satisfactory convergent, discriminant and nomological
validity, as well as reliability of each dimension. The
measurement metrics by Svensson et al. (2016a) and the
present study’s validation of the “TBL dominant logic for BS”
displayed in Table V provide therefore strengthened empirical
support for satisfactory validity and reliability across contexts
and through time.
107
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116
N Mean SD
83 3.27 1.04
86 3.93 0.89
83 3.22 0.96
86 3.94 0.93
88 3.86 1.00
87 3.97 0.84
88 4.22 0.72
89 4.36 0.74
88 4.40 0.70
5.2.2 Additional contribution to previous empirical findings
The expanded factor analysis was based on the same
dimensions and items used by Svensson et al. (2016a), except
that three of out 54 items were rephrased and adapted (same
items as is in the previous validating factor analysis) to the
Spanish business setting (Corporate culture – 10b; Corporate
reputation – 11a; and Climate change and global warming –
16b). Furthermore, four out of 48 items were omitted (two are
the same as in the previous validating factor analysis) in the
ultimately expanded factor solution (Profitability – 1b; Spin-
offs – 5a; Multitude of initiatives – 17a; and Efficiency
programs – 20a). For further details see TBL Dominant Logic
for BS – Economic Dimensions and Items, Social Dimensions
and Items and Environmental Dimensions and Items.
As shown in Table V, the outcome of the expanded factor
solution was satisfactory (KMO/Overall MSA: 0.607; Bartlett’s
Test: Approx. Chi-Square: 2799,422: df: 1225: Sig: 0.000).
Measures of sampling adequacy ranged between 0.26-0.80.
Communalities ranged between 0.77-0.94, with a total
explained variance of 87.5 per cent. The Cronbach’s alphas for
the 16 validated factors ranged between 0.70 and 0.96.
In consequence, the expanded factor analysis shown in
Table V confirmed 18 dimensions of the “TBL dominant logic
for BS”. It amends two additional dimensions (factors 16 and
17 to Table IV), namely, “Trade-offs” (6 – see Economic
Dimensions and Items) or “Efficiency programs” (20 – see
Environmental Dimensions and Items). Both amended
dimensions are relevant and make sense to expand the TBL
dominant logic for BS.
Subsequently, two dimensions out of 20 were not confirmed
in the present study as shown in TBL Dominant Logic for BS –
Economic Dimensions and Items, Social Dimensions and
Items, and Environmental Dimensions and Items. One was
“Whole Business Network” (8 – see Social Dimensions and
Items) that was excluded as the factor loadings merged with the
dimension “Multiple Initiatives” (17 – see Environmental
Dimensions and Items). The other was “Finance” (7 – see
Economic Dimensions and Items) that was excluded as the
factor loadings merged with the dimension “Profitability” (1 –
see Economic Dimensions and Items). Several of the items of
these two dimensions referred to a broader perspective (the
former pair of dimensions) or economic outcomes (the latter
pair of dimensions) of BS efforts that may explain the cross-
loadings between them. The items of “multiple initiatives” and
“profitability” generated a better factor solution than the ones
of “whole business network” and “finance” and therefore were
 Table IV Validated factor analysis of the TBL dominant logic for business sustainability

Factor
Dimension and item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 * **
1. Brand value (4) 0.834 0.146 0.083 0.084 0.031 0.080 0.041 0.157 0.084 0.202 0.056 0.113 0.033 0.064 0.168 0.029 0.863 0.670
0.828 0.197 0.035 0.118 0.162 0.098 0.094 0.252 0.126 0.090 0.142 0.107 0.116 0.096 0.011 0.007 0.926 0.806
0.780 0.149 0.271 0.077 0.068 0.026 0.087 0.152 0.072 0.119 0.077 0.110 0.054 0.121 0.135 0.140 0.839 0.753
2. Longevity of perspective and 0.068 0.906 0.015 0.135 0.079 0.085 0.079 0.069 0.119 0.078 0.088 0.098 0.053 0.024 0.066 0.003 0.915 0.824
consistency (13) 0.213 0.850 0.012 0.174 0.014 0.167 0.046 0.134 0.182 0.048 0.137 0.033 0.069 0.072 0.053 0.071 0.919 0.591
0.370 0.741 0.226 0.095 0.045 0.210 0.094 0.098 0.100 0.100 0.045 0.044 0.127 0.016 0.115 0.120 0.879 0.617
3. Competetiveness (3) 0.113 0.038 0.828 0.015 0.296 0.001 0.041 0.170 0.027 0.078 0.138 0.036 0.026 0.071 0.229 0.057 0.907 0.674
0.192 0.028 0.816 0.082 0.001 0.251 0.015 0.234 0.063 0.030 0.112 0.031 0.171 0.050 0.042 0.112 0.892 0.604
0.117 0.210 0.710 0.131 0.014 0.213 0.167 0.105 0.114 0.234 0.118 0.200 0.106 0.066 0.008 0.018 0.801 0.818
Carlos Ferro et al.

4. Product/process 0.134 0.059 0.141 0.891 0.133 0.022 0.104 0.031 0.010 0.024 0.048 0.023 0.113 0.120 0.016 0.115 0.909 0.708
dematerialization (19) 0.014 0.333 0.008 0.758 0.226 0.129 0.021 0.045 0.064 0.110 0.149 0.032 0.227 0.184 0.026 0.074 0.886 0.775
0.216 0.216 0.011 0.285 0.307 0.051 0.177 0.082 0.109 0.010 0.083 0.131 0.009 0.152 0.167 0.915 0.704
Triple bottom line dominant logic

0.720
5. Footprint and the natural 0.091 0.022 0.087 0.249 0.818 0.245 0.077 0.107 0.039 0.141 0.022 0.038 0.205 0.113 0.076 0.038 0.910 0.602
environment (15) 0.048 0.076 0.126 0.266 0.724 0.318 0.065 0.019 0.094 0.209 0.076 0.064 0.247 0.007 0.146 0.066 0.874 0.540
0.229 0.198 0.092 0.191 0.699 0.140 0.076 0.026 0.098 0.032 0.145 0.261 0.105 0.236 0.055 0.130 0.838 0.625
6. Multitude of initiatives (17) 0.005 0.216 0.193 0.096 0.230 0.846 0.007 0.053 0.022 0.083 0.098 0.091 0.139 0.048 0.014 0.013 0.912 0.719
0.252 0.258 0.294 0.284 0.034 0.672 0.054 0.179 0.029 0.041 0.233 0.164 0.012 0.102 0.042 0.061 0.885 0.830
0.295 0.389 0.124 0.223 0.222 0.523 0.061 0.108 0.083 0.041 0.297 0.005 0.260 0.133 0.092 0.151 0.855 0.790
7. Organizational support (9) 0.102 0.139 0.147 0.060 0.077 0.066 0.834 0.122 0.015 0.016 0.116 0.114 0.152 0.090 0.155 0.224 0.908 0.579

108
0.004 0.085 0.057 0.053 0.055 0.131 0.766 0.164 0.112 0.144 0.040 0.203 0.056 0.148 0.036 0.403 0.912 0.321
0.030 0.006 0.082 0.116 0.270 0.095 0.749 0.085 0.066 0.197 0.201 0.046 0.121 0.152 0.135 0.126 0.828 0.454
8. Reporting (14) 0.159 0.056 0.210 0.054 0.022 0.222 0.209 0.776 0.017 0.042 0.158 0.038 0.143 0.058 0.063 0.260 0.895 0.676
0.197 0.045 0.183 0.001 0.007 0.063 0.149 0.745 0.219 0.269 0.010 0.012 0.219 0.012 0.097 0.102 0.895 0.507
0.304 0.216 0.167 0.069 0.101 0.010 0.046 0.734 0.020 0.132 0.153 0.030 0.079 0.116 0.001 0.058 0.787 0.539
9. Commitment and 0.054 0.139 0.033 0.053 0.062 0.032 0.035 0.009 0.851 0.011 0.042 0.213 0.110 0.131 0.162 0.054 0.862 0.488
dedication (12) 0.136 0.151 0.007 0.057 0.054 0.109 0.040 0.200 0.794 0.272 0.017 0.068 0.011 0.075 0.114 0.171 0.859 0.543
0.137 0.197 0.179 0.240 0.252 0.199 0.172 0.146 0.588 0.058 0.087 0.168 0.087 0.166 0.195 0.296 0.848 0.445
10. Corporate reputation (11) 0.107 0.050 0.176 0.076 0.174 0.041 0.286 0.154 0.203 0.771 0.046 0.149 0.092 0.128 0.003 0.129 0.890 0.635
0.358 0.160 0.054 0.061 0.131 0.036 0.044 0.118 0.004 0.712 0.243 0.030 0.087 0.157 0.122 0.249 0.871 0.730
0.300 0.088 0.197 0.032 0.250 0.164 0.213 0.124 0.304 0.594 0.125 0.124 0.190 0.162 0.025 0.167 0.856 0.676
11. Spin-offs (5) 0.095 0.203 0.103 0.026 0.120 0.203 0.004 0.164 0.030 0.093 0.846 0.137 0.058 0.040 0.036 0.044 0.897 0.548
0.125 0.063 0.206 0.094 0.039 0.056 0.077 0.080 0.134 0.132 0.845 0.190 0.163 0.067 0.084 0.078 0.918 0.605
12. Cost reduction (2) 0.007 0.106 0.017 0.114 0.264 0.006 0.016 0.141 0.199 0.131 0.059 0.809 0.045 0.065 0.031 0.120 0.851 0.387
0.041 0.006 0.116 0.112 0.044 0.141 0.021 0.097 0.164 0.022 0.255 0.775 0.100 0.007 0.235 0.140 0.837 0.558
0.209 0.130 0.346 0.247 0.087 0.224 0.017 0.023 0.012 0.200 0.274 0.470 0.070 0.210 0.162 0.149 0.733 0.666
13. Climate change and global 0.087 0.130 0.113 0.275 0.264 0.085 0.031 0.012 0.073 0.012 0.128 0.017 0.812 0.056 0.026 0.069 0.881 0.637
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116

warming (16) 0.090 0.277 0.259 0.292 0.263 0.174 0.051 0.076 0.009 0.053 0.132 0.318 0.612 0.163 0.094 0.001 0.876 0.655
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

14. Product/process 0.163 0.112 0.157 0.140 0.094 0.000 0.139 0.018 0.043 0.013 0.000 0.170 0.002 0.850 0.034 0.037 0.867 0.398
decarbonizing (18) 0.055 0.037 0.023 0.405 0.249 0.234 0.207 0.033 0.095 0.036 0.212 0.032 0.345 0.571 0.047 0.093 0.842 0.575
0.100 0.011 0.042 0.059 0.155 0.185 0.055 0.141 0.010 0.210 0.124 0.193 0.513 0.563 0.063 0.221 0.826 0.434
(continued)
 Carlos Ferro et al.
Triple bottom line dominant logic

Table IV

Factor
Dimension and item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 * **
15. Profitability (1) 0.139 0.087 0.165 0.002 0.067 0.067 0.139 0.175 0.072 0.030 0.109 0.079 0.065 0.050 0.865 0.081 0.899 0.540
0.314 0.207 0.111 0.182 0.094 0.221 0.206 0.152 0.130 0.086 0.003 0.242 0.181 0.039 0.614 0.134 0.823 0.760
16. Corporate culture (10) 0.472 0.233 0.283 0.011 0.068 0.100 0.165 0.199 0.191 0.130 0.082 0.020 0.024 0.036 0.007 0.642 0.913 0.749

109
0.106 0.142 0.301 0.085 0.150 0.105 0.270 0.180 0.337 0.399 0.014 0.176 0.038 0.055 0.176 0.472 0.829 0.730
*** (%) 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.5
**** (%) 7.8 15.1 21.7 28.3 34.4 39.9 45.4 50.1 56.1 61.2 66.2 71.2 75.8 80.0 83.6 87.0
***** 0.92 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.86 0.87 0.75 0.83 0.72 0.84 0.88 0.73 0.84 0.76 0.74 0.78
Notes: *Communality per Item; **Measures of sampling adequacy (MSA per Item); ***Total explained variance per factor; ****Cumulative explained total variance; *****Cronbach’s alpha
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
 Table V Expanded factor analysis of the TBL dominant logic for business sustainability

Factor
Dimension and item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 * **
1. Brand value (4) 0.824 0.157 0.058 0.067 0.050 0.077 0.007 0.158 0.020 0.026 0.222 0.047 0.103 0.112 0.061 0.086 0.142 0.122 0.867 0.618
0.807 0.145 0.107 0.272 0.049 0.066 0.062 0.136 0.070 0.030 0.077 0.094 0.119 0.127 0.124 0.040 0.046 0.141 0.876 0.582
0.804 0.186 0.085 0.023 0.189 0.109 0.081 0.258 0.053 0.123 0.099 0.119 0.043 0.090 0.087 0.253 0.000 0.008 0.933 0.626
2. Longevity of 0.084 0.887 0.134 0.001 0.079 0.056 0.090 0.060 0.096 0.135 0.060 0.083 0.014 0.090 0.028 0.043 0.112 0.073 0.899 0.828
perspective and 0.214 0.839 0.176 0.016 0.022 0.083 0.044 0.117 0.147 0.166 0.039 0.140 0.130 0.020 0.065 0.101 0.092 0.039 0.916 0.572
consistency (13) 0.357 0.715 0.054 0.193 0.088 0.143 0.073 0.087 0.163 0.045 0.099 0.031 0.212 0.006 0.013 0.260 0.153 0.098 0.905 0.637
3. Product/process 0.099 0.067 0.847 0.134 0.158 0.165 0.140 0.043 0.051 0.014 0.002 0.073 0.024 0.010 0.123 0.173 0.029 0.029 0.879 0.669
dematerialization (19) 0.019 0.296 0.721 0.022 0.246 0.249 0.021 0.046 0.126 0.067 0.104 0.123 0.072 0.054 0.175 0.181 0.099 0.038 0.863 0.803
0.230 0.201 0.719 0.020 0.289 0.155 0.033 0.166 0.333 0.094 0.072 0.008 0.130 0.082 0.014 0.041 0.075 0.159 0.929 0.744
Carlos Ferro et al.

4. Competitiveness (3) 0.120 0.047 0.022 0.813 0.306 0.000 0.044 0.162 0.008 0.025 0.070 0.137 0.102 0.032 0.084 0.004 0.098 0.238 0.909 0.666
0.215 0.004 0.084 0.795 0.013 0.162 0.029 0.225 0.271 0.036 0.011 0.101 0.086 0.020 0.051 0.090 0.100 0.051 0.879 0.553
Triple bottom line dominant logic

0.082 0.214 0.097 0.703 0.009 0.145 0.122 0.112 0.156 0.075 0.270 0.107 0.124 0.162 0.059 0.204 0.053 0.012 0.808 0.782
5. Footprint and the 0.128 0.015 0.271 0.091 0.783 0.250 0.093 0.079 0.236 0.040 0.144 0.038 0.009 0.072 0.096 0.121 0.089 0.027 0.907 0.636
natural environment 0.066 0.048 0.243 0.104 0.731 0.258 0.072 0.039 0.299 0.075 0.221 0.059 0.031 0.057 0.032 0.145 0.139 0.117 0.891 0.582
(15) 0.179 0.186 0.176 0.088 0.712 0.124 0.074 0.055 0.172 0.146 0.043 0.124 0.073 0.235 0.226 0.175 0.139 0.007 0.866 0.618
6. Climate change and 0.090 0.096 0.244 0.090 0.269 0.806 0.040 0.019 0.066 0.074 0.005 0.118 0.086 0.011 0.030 0.087 0.008 0.034 0.860 0.675
global warming (16) 0.099 0.252 0.269 0.243 0.264 0.647 0.038 0.077 0.156 0.009 0.051 0.129 0.058 0.298 0.143 0.110 0.026 0.089 0.877 0.581
0.048 0.198 0.287 0.163 0.475 0.519 0.000 0.091 0.102 0.049 0.070 0.151 0.204 0.015 0.226 0.131 0.183 0.022 0.839 0.668
7. Organizational 0.013 0.050 0.061 0.090 0.036 0.041 0.794 0.158 0.061 0.094 0.097 0.037 0.360 0.197 0.146 0.080 0.088 0.013 0.900 0.315

110
support (9) 0.083 0.160 0.107 0.156 0.078 0.177 0.784 0.132 0.008 0.024 0.050 0.154 0.146 0.159 0.086 0.112 0.101 0.189 0.877 0.559
0.046 0.010 0.106 0.101 0.282 0.107 0.756 0.071 0.076 0.034 0.207 0.200 0.125 0.013 0.131 0.125 0.011 0.105 0.841 0.439
8. Reporting (14) 0.170 0.045 0.051 0.163 0.040 0.226 0.128 0.762 0.082 0.174 0.295 0.029 0.015 0.034 0.015 0.127 0.048 0.107 0.867 0.591
0.199 0.032 0.081 0.209 0.021 0.162 0.251 0.742 0.285 0.020 0.086 0.171 0.179 0.048 0.061 0.001 0.085 0.064 0.899 0.607
0.309 0.232 0.127 0.188 0.068 0.073 0.064 0.722 0.019 0.030 0.126 0.184 0.088 0.034 0.127 0.025 0.049 0.025 0.815 0.450
9. Multitude of 0.027 0.232 0.095 0.215 0.241 0.172 0.008 0.027 0.824 0.022 0.080 0.107 0.049 0.091 0.037 0.088 0.055 0.035 0.920 0.797
initiatives (17) 0.237 0.277 0.232 0.290 0.088 0.077 0.015 0.160 0.603 0.015 0.048 0.226 0.116 0.143 0.110 0.202 0.139 0.006 0.834 0.681
10. Commitment and 0.050 0.148 0.061 0.019 0.047 0.129 0.020 0.007 0.006 0.804 0.034 0.054 0.154 0.237 0.167 0.002 0.046 0.219 0.856 0.381
dedication (12) 0.125 0.125 0.096 0.042 0.033 0.025 0.039 0.219 0.147 0.765 0.257 0.008 0.234 0.097 0.068 0.152 0.155 0.172 0.912 0.535
0.121 0.214 0.245 0.185 0.204 0.035 0.155 0.134 0.236 0.641 0.074 0.071 0.213 0.091 0.175 0.127 0.185 0.217 0.898 0.435
11. Corporate 0.112 0.072 0.075 0.181 0.166 0.120 0.270 0.147 0.015 0.196 0.784 0.052 0.007 0.167 0.122 0.025 0.021 0.030 0.893 0.488
reputation (11) 0.351 0.127 0.079 0.032 0.147 0.119 0.017 0.122 0.076 0.024 0.673 0.252 0.281 0.002 0.156 0.030 0.000 0.159 0.850 0.681
0.303 0.068 0.011 0.168 0.270 0.183 0.220 0.117 0.180 0.294 0.573 0.124 0.239 0.097 0.156 0.089 0.004 0.043 0.856 0.688
12. Spin-offs (5) 0.094 0.208 0.037 0.098 0.138 0.092 0.002 0.149 0.181 0.043 0.081 0.857 0.055 0.121 0.047 0.052 0.057 0.038 0.915 0.488
0.123 0.056 0.078 0.197 0.037 0.186 0.069 0.075 0.020 0.146 0.143 0.827 0.042 0.193 0.057 0.141 0.089 0.082 0.912 0.570
13. Corporate culture 0.474 0.201 0.011 0.235 0.088 0.033 0.179 0.182 0.172 0.123 0.063 0.048 0.687 0.036 0.040 0.034 0.049 0.024 0.924 0.697
(10) 0.075 0.119 0.077 0.248 0.138 0.049 0.266 0.198 0.038 0.307 0.340 0.031 0.620 0.128 0.075 0.046 0.051 0.089 0.860 0.681
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116

0.252 0.397 0.154 0.122 0.058 0.219 0.112 0.020 0.136 0.166 0.290 0.110 0.565 0.072 0.037 0.129 0.028 0.232 0.863 0.695
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

14. Cost reduction (2) 0.024 0.079 0.085 0.004 0.227 0.026 0.021 0.110 0.009 0.179 0.127 0.090 0.077 0.857 0.073 0.129 0.032 0.054 0.903 0.257
0.031 0.014 0.099 0.102 0.034 0.099 0.012 0.109 0.157 0.170 0.012 0.245 0.155 0.739 0.023 0.228 0.018 0.261 0.849 0.439
(continued)
 Carlos Ferro et al.

Table V

Factor
Triple bottom line dominant logic

Dimension and item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 * **

0.174 0.090 0.228 0.320 0.125 0.068 0.012 0.023 0.195 0.017 0.191 0.249 0.209 0.415 0.198 0.350 0.007 0.206 0.771 0.690
15. Product/process 0.139 0.102 0.132 0.153 0.123 0.053 0.151 0.021 0.026 0.071 0.004 0.009 0.095 0.123 0.840 0.121 0.041 0.033 0.866 0.353
decarbonizing (18) 0.095 0.065 0.400 0.001 0.223 0.381 0.216 0.003 0.230 0.089 0.045 0.197 0.029 0.007 0.541 0.080 0.188 0.008 0.852 0.590
0.149 0.019 0.093 0.025 0.091 0.518 0.086 0.161 0.189 0.091 0.216 0.126 0.313 0.143 0.522 0.020 0.020 0.030 0.842 0.411
16. Efficiency programs 0.176 0.323 0.370 0.113 0.136 0.173 0.058 0.004 0.066 0.084 0.025 0.142 0.033 0.015 0.172 0.705 0.196 0.078 0.941 0.644
(1) 0.193 0.240 0.323 0.252 0.069 0.115 0.174 0.168 0.259 0.004 0.000 0.186 0.010 0.097 0.085 0.676 0.154 0.023 0.940 0.720

111
17. Trade-offs (6) 0.054 0.198 0.002 0.022 0.150 0.014 0.081 0.058 0.026 0.144 0.010 0.047 0.075 0.040 0.113 0.184 0.819 0.231 0.878 0.626
0.039 0.116 0.218 0.266 0.072 0.022 0.112 0.039 0.116 0.123 0.020 0.103 0.118 0.023 0.171 0.021 0.685 0.345 0.825 0.463
0.042 0.367 0.311 0.180 0.004 0.321 0.072 0.235 0.363 0.031 0.073 0.189 0.021 0.042 0.054 0.120 0.416 0.129 0.812 0.684
18. Profitability (1) 0.169 0.101 0.026 0.189 0.065 0.037 0.122 0.151 0.063 0.106 0.052 0.111 0.118 0.074 0.029 0.023 0.088 0.819 0.848 0.383
0.359 0.232 0.238 0.155 0.063 0.209 0.234 0.196 0.249 0.126 0.070 0.029 0.066 0.232 0.004 0.054 0.108 0.546 0.859 0.643
*** (%) 7.0 6.9 6.3 6.0 5.9 5.3 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.2 4.2 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.5
**** (%) 7.0 13.8 20.1 26.1 32.0 37.3 42.2 47.0 51.6 56.1 60.6 65.0 69.1 73.3 77.0 80.6 84.1 87.5
***** 0.92 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.86 0.88 0.75 0.83 0.86 0.72 0.84 0.88 0.84 0.73 0.76 0.96 0.70 0.74
Notes: *Communality per item; **Measures of sampling adequacy (MSA per Item); ***Total explained variance per factor; ****Cumulative explained total variance; *****Cronbach’s alpha
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
 Triple bottom line dominant logic
Carlos Ferro et al.
these weaker items eventually omitted from the expanded
factor solution.
All eighteen factors that were identified (shown in Table V)
indicate satisfactory convergent, discriminant and nomological
validity, as well as reliability of each dimension. The
measurement metrics of the present study’s expansion of the
“TBL dominant logic for BS” displayed in Table V provide
therefore expanded empirical support for satisfactory validity
and reliability across contexts and through time.
6. Research implications
This study generates a series of research implications relevant
and valuable to other researchers in the field of BS. In fact, it
provides opportunities for further research efforts to develop
the framework in connection to BS.
An important research implication is the successful
substantiation of the TBL dominant logic for BS by Svensson
et al. (2016a) that, based on the current empirical findings,
indicate validity and reliability across contexts and through
time, which is essential in research to build sound and solid
theory. Empirical findings that are only presented ones without
follow-up validations cannot deliver sufficient validity and
reliability making a contribution to theory. They only provide
insights that need to be validated before being of interest to the
creation of a framework.
Another important research implication is that this study has
not only validated the findings by Svensson et al. (2016a) but
also contributes to an extension of the framework in terms of
two additional dimensions. Nevertheless, these dimensions
make a complementary contribution, but require validation in
future studies to become part of the framework of a TBL
dominant logic for BS.
In consequence, the present study makes two relevant and
valuable contributions to the development of a framework of
TBL dominant logic for BS, namely, validation and expansion.
It also contributes to validating a multi-dimensional framework
of economic, social and environmental elements of the SDGs at
the corporate level. Each dimension provides guidance through
a business lens, so as to monitor and assess the progress of
corporate sustainable development.
7. Managerial implications
A number of managerial implications may be distilled from the
empirical findings of the present study. There are rare attempts to
develop frameworks for BS that have been empirically tested and
retested successfully across contexts providing substantiation for
universal applicability.
Contemporary frameworks used in practice, as previously shown
in Table I, address a broad spectrum of aspects, whose logic is often
unexplained and have not been tested statistically for significance.
They are commonly based on managerial development within
specific companies or by consultancy companies based upon
subjective and implicit reasoning and origin.
Having said this, they may still be valid and reliable, but until
their statistical significance across companies is proven valid
and reliable, their contribution needs to be considered as
merely anecdotal. In any case, the usage of existing managerial
frameworks is often limited to a specific company and its
112
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116
business operations, making them less interesting to other
companies and industries.
The framework retested and validated in the present study
offers practitioners a foundation to assess their efforts of BS
taking into account a broad selection of aspects across
environmental, social and economic elements in connection
with BS. It is also based on cross-sectional samples of industries
providing support for a broader applicability to managers and
their companies’ BS efforts.
The present study does not provide explanatory findings
between elements of environmental, social and economic
elements of TBL, but lay a foundation to assess BS efforts that
can be compared to others that use the same TBL dominant
logic for BS (Svensson et al, 2018).
As the SDGs implicitly adopt the sustainable development
“three-pillar-model” (Neumann et al., 2017), namely, economic,
social and environmental, managers should then regard the SDGs
as an “[. . .] integrated and systems approach to sustainability [. . .]”
(Fleming et al, 2017, p. 95). Thus, for a company’s investment in
time and resources to contribute to sustainability, chief executive
officers must, on the one hand, reflect on fundamental values
(ethics) and their influence on the culture, norms and identity of
the company and, in turn, on the vision (direction) needed to
achieve the SDGs. Furthermore, managers must understand the
interdependencies within the socio-economic-environmental
system so as to achieve sustainability (Fleming et al, 2017).
In order for managers to incorporate sustainability into their
businesses, they should respond proactively, and not reactively,
and combine the interests of all its internal and external
stakeholders (Ferro et al., 2017), thus achieving an early
advantage in the market. These efforts should include
economic, ecological and social aspects in an integrated
manner. The initiatives and efforts at BS should focus on value-
creation, for all its stakeholders (Biggemann et al., 2014).
In fact, BS strategies enable businesses to gain competitive
advantage which in turn enhances competitive strategies. The
implementation of actions in the environmental, social and
economics spheres contribute to cost reduction and product
differentiation.
A company which minimizes environmental problems
contributes to social welfare and generates benefits. In
environmental terms, these actions enable, on the one hand,
avoiding unnecessary expenses associated with repairing
environmental damage or fines for pollution, as well as
improving the green image of the company. In the social
sphere, they contribute to enhancing their reputation, social
acceptance and effective talent recruitment. Finally,
economically, they improve the financial results, which, in turn,
facilitates access to financing and expansion processes.
Regarding the corporate strategy of the company, the growth of
the company must be oriented towards the development of
sustainable business practices. Investment in research should be
aimed at obtaining eco-products manufactured in environmentally
friendly production processes.
8. Conclusions and suggestions for the future
This study makes two valuable and relevant contributions to
the theory generation of a framework:
 Triple bottom line dominant logic
Carlos Ferro et al.
1 it succeeds satisfactorily to validate the dimensions and
items of a TBL dominant logic for BS. A total of 16 out of
17 dimensions were validated based on the same items
(except three) in a different country and its business
industries; and
2 it expands the framework with two additional dimensions
and its items that have not been and successfully tested in
previous studies. 18 out of originally 20 dimensions were
confirmed.
The framework of a TBL dominant logic retested in this study
provides a relevant and important substantiation for validity
and reliability across contexts and trough time. It is important
in research efforts to establish any theoretical framework for
BS. It offers also multiple opportunities for both research and
practice to assess BS efforts across environmental, social and
economic aspects.
Frameworks that consider all three aspects of TBL is rare in
previous studies (Svensson et al, 2016a). It is therefore
important that economic, social and environmental aspects are
taken into simultaneous consideration in research in
connection to BS efforts. The exclusion of either of them will
provide insufficient contribution to a framework.
The framework of a TBL dominant logic contributes to a
bottom-up approach for supporting the top-down SDGs
outlined in the UN 2030 Agenda for sustainable development.
This approach entails a multi-dimensional framework across
economic, social and environmental elements in connection
with BS.
This study is not without its limitations, but they offer
opportunities for further research. Although this study has
satisfactorily validated and expanded across Spanish industries
an empirically tested TBL dominant logic for BS in Norway,
the dimensions and items used need to be further tested in
other countries (and preferably continents) to validate or falsify
the current empirical findings. The current validation provides
a foundation to a framework for BS, which is valuable, but
additional dimensions may be relevant in other countries’
business industries.
References
Ashby, A., Leat, M. and Hudson-Smith, M. (2012), “Making
connections: a review of supply chain management and
sustainability literature”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 497-516.
Banerjee, S.B., Iyer, E.S. and Kashyap, R.K. (2003), “Corporate
environmentalism: antecedents and influence of industry
type”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 106-122.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive
advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Bartelmus, P. (2003), “Dematerialization and Capital
maintenance: two sides of the sustainability coin”, Ecological
Economics, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 61-81.
Biggemann, S., ; Williams, M. and Kro, G. (2014), “Building
in sustainability, social responsibility and value Co-
creation”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 304-312.
Blenkhorn, D.L. and MacKenzie, H.F.(H.). (2017),
“Categorizing corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives
113
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116
in B2B markets: the why, when and how”, Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 1172-1181.
BSDGlobal (2002), “Business and sustainable development”,
available at: www.iisd.org/business/ (accessed 25 February
2018).
Buchanan, J.A. (1964), “What should economists do?”,
Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 213-222.
Buried Treasure (2001), “Uncovering the business case for
corporate sustainability”, available at: www.sustainability.
com/library/buried-treasure#.UgHhk9I6fAx (accessed 25
February 2018).
Campbell, D.T. (1955), “The informant in quantitative
research”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 60 No. 4,
pp. 339-342.
Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) (2013), “Reports & data”,
available at: www.cdproject.net/en-US/ Results/Pages/reports.
aspx (accessed 25 February 2018).
Carson, R. (1962), Silent Spring, Boston, Houghton Mifflin.
Chabowski, B.R., Mena, J.A. and Gonzalez-Padron, T.L.
(2011), “The structure of sustainability research in marketing,
1958-2008: a basis for future research opportunities”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 55-70.
Collste, D., Pedercini, M. and Cornell, S.E. (2017), “Policy
coherence to achieve the SDGs: using integrated simulation
models to assess effective policies”, Sustainability Science,
Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 921-931.
Crew, B.E.C. (2015), “Scientists tried to replicate 100
psychology experiments and 64% failed”, Science Alert,
available at: www.sciencealert.com/scientists-tried-to-replicate-
100-psychology-experiments-and-64-failed#.WZ8YbMTdpz0.
link (accessed 28 August 2017).
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (Eds) (1991),
“Introduction”, The New Institutionalism in Organizational
Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 1-38.
Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. (1995), “The stakeholder theory
of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications”,
Academy Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65-91.
Dos Santos, M.A.O., Svensson, G. and Padin, C. (2013),
“Indicators of sustainable business practices: woolworths in
South Africa”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 104-108.
Eiadat, Y., Kelly, A., Roche, F. and Eyadat, H. (2008), “Green
and competitive? An empirical test of the mediating role of
environmental innovation strategy”, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 313-345.
Elkington, J. (2004), “Enter the triple bottom line”, available at:
www.johnelkington.com/TBL-elkington-chapter.pdf (accessed
25 February 2018).
EPI (2017), “Environmental performance index and pilot
trend environmental performance index”, Yale Center for
Environmental Law and Policy, Yale University, available at:
http://epi.yale.edu (accessed 20 November 2017).
Epstein, M.J. and Widener, S.K. (2010), “Identification and
use of sustainable performance measures in decision-
making”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 40 No. 1,
pp. 43-73.
Faber, N., Jorna, R. and van Engelen, J. (2005), “The
sustainability of sustainability – a study into the conceptual
foundations of the notion of sustainability”, Journal of
 Triple bottom line dominant logic
Carlos Ferro et al.
Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 1-33.
Ferro, C., Padin, C., Svensson, G., Sosa Varela, J.C., Wagner,
B. and Høgevold, N.M. (2017), “Validating a framework of
stakeholders in connection to business sustainability efforts
in supply chains”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 124-137.
Fleming, A., Wise, R.M., Hansen, H. and Sams, L. (2017),
“The sustainable development goals: a case study”, Marine
Policy, Vol. 86, pp. 94-103.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder
Approach, Pitman Press, Boston.
FTSE (2013), “FTSE4Good index”, available at: www.ftse.
com/Indices/FTSE4Good_Index_Series/index.jsp9 (accessed
25 February 2018).
Gao, J. and Bansal, P. (2013), “Instrumental and integrative
logics in business sustainability”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 112 No. 2, pp. 241-255.
Gimenez, C. and Tachizawa, E.M. (2012), “Extending
sustainability to suppliers: a systematic literature review”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17
No. 5, pp. 531-543.
Glavas, A. and Mish, J. (2015), “Resources and capabilities of
triple bottom line firms: going over old or breaking new
ground?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 623-642.
Glavic, P. and Lukman, R. (2007), “Review of sustainability
terms and their definitions”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 15 No. 18, pp. 1875-1885.
Goyal, P., Rahman, Z. and Kazmi, A.A. (2013), “Corporate
sustainability performance and firm performance research”,
Management Decision, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 361-379.
Guest, R. (2010), “The economics of sustainability in the
context of climate change: an overview”, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 326-335.
Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinkse, J. and Preuss, L. (2010), “Trade-
Offs in corporate sustainability: you can’t have your cake and
eat it”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 217-229.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010),
Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective, Pearson
Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hair, J.F., Wolfinbarger, C.M., Money, A.H., Samouel, P. and
Page, M.J. (2011), Essentials of Business Research Methods, M.
E. Sharpe, New York, NY.
Hashmi, M.A., Damanhouri, A. and Rana, D. (2015),
“Evaluation of sustainability practices in the United States
and large corporations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 127
No. 3, pp. 673-681.
Hassini, E., Surti, C. and Searcy, C. (2012), “A literature
review and a case study of sustainable supply chains with a
focus on metrics”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 69-82.
Heemskerk, B., Pistorio, P. and Scicluna, M. (2002), Sustainable
Development Reporting. Striking the Balance, WBCSD, Geneva,
available at: www.tosca-life.info/sustainability/business-case/
impact_on_business_values/ (accessed 25 February 2018).
Hofstede, G. (1983), “National cultures in four dimensions”,
International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 13
No. 1-2, pp. 46-74.
114
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116
Høgevold, N.M. and Svensson, G. (2012), “A business
sustainability model: a european case study”, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 141-151.
Høgevold, N., Svensson, G., Wagner, B., Petzer, D.J.,
Klopper, H.B., Sosa Varela, J.C., Padin, C. and Ferro, C.
(2014), “Sustainable business models corporate reasons,
economic effects, social boundaries, environmental actions
and organizational challenges in sustainable business
practices”, Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 357-380.
Jones, T.M. (1995), “Instrumental stakeholder theory: a
synthesis of ethics and economics”, Academy Manager
Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 404-437.
Kanie N. and Biermann F. (Eds) (2017), Governing through
Goals: sustainable Development Goals as Governance
Innovation, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Kleine, A. and Von Hauff, M. (2009), “Sustainability-driven
implementation of corporate social responsibility: application
of the integrative sustainability triangle”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 85 No. S3, pp. 517-533.
Klettner, A., Clarket, T. and Boersma, M. (2014), “The
governance of corporate sustainability: empirical insights
into the development, leadership and implementation of
responsible business strategy”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 122 No. 1, pp. 145-165.
Kolk, A. and van Tulder, R. (2010), “International business,
corporate social responsibility and sustainable development”,
International Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 119-125.
Kudłak, R. and Low, K.Y.L. (2015), “Special issues dedicated to
CSR and corporate sustainability: a review and commentary”,
Long Range Planning, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 215-227.
Lai, C.S. (2007), “The effects of influence strategies on dealer
satisfaction and performance in taiwan’s motor industry”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 518-527.
Laplume, A.O., Sonpar, K. and Litz, R.A. (2008),
“Stakeholder theory: reviewing a theory that moves Us”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 1152-1189.
Litido, M. and Righini, G. (2013), Tools and Methods For the
Green Economy, available at: www.plastice.org/fileadmin/
files/Green_economy_EN.pdf (accessed 25 February 2018).
Leonidou, C.N. and Leonidou, L.C. (2011), “Research into
environmental marketing/management: a bibliographic
analysis”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 Nos 1/2,
pp. 68-103.
Linnenluecke, K.M. and Griffiths, A. (2010), “Corporate
sustainability and organizational culture”, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 357-366.
Lsil, O. and Hernke, M.T. (2017), “The triple bottom line: a
critical review from a transdisciplinary perspective”, Business
Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 1235-1251.
Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2009), Business Model Concepts in
Corporate Sustainability Contexts from Rhetoric to a Generic
Template for “Business Models for Sustainability, available at:
www2.leuphana.de/umanagement/csm/content/nama/
downloads/download_publikationen/FlorianLuedeke_
Freund_Business_Model_Concepts_in_Corporate_Sustainabilty_
Context.pdf (accessed 25 February 2018).
Marcelino-Sádaba, S., González-Jaen, L.F. and Pérez-
Ezcurdia, A. (2015), “Using project management as a way to
 Triple bottom line dominant logic
Carlos Ferro et al.
sustainability. From a comprehensive review to a framework
definition”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 99, pp. 1-16.
Martínez-Jurado, P.J. and Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2014), “Lean
management, supply chain management and sustainability: a
literature review”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 85,
pp. 134-150.
Menon, A. and Menon, A. (1997), “Enviropreneurial marketing
strategy: the emergence of corporate environmentalism as
market strategy”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 51-67.
Milne, M.J. and Gray, R. (2013), “W(h)ither ecology? The
triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and
corporate sustainability reporting”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 118 No. 1, pp. 13-29.
Milne, M.J., Tregidga, H. and Walton, S. (2009), “Words not
actions! The ideological role of sustainable development
reporting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal,
Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 1211-1257.
Mondi (2013), “Investor relations”, available at: www.
mondigroup.com/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1156 (accessed
25 February 2018).
Morton, S., Pencheon, D. and Squires, N. (2017),
“Sustainable development goals (SDGs), and their
implementation. A national global framework for health,
development and equity needs a systems approach at every
level”, British Medical Bulletin, Vol. 124 No. 1, pp. 81-90.
Murthy, V.P. (2012), “Integrating corporate sustainability and
strategy for business performance”, World Journal of
Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development,
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 5-17.
Neumann, B., Ott, K. and Kenchington, R. (2017), “Strong
sustainability in coastal areas: a conceptual interpretation of
SDG”, Sustainability Science, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 1019-1035.
Open Science Collaboration (2015), “Estimating the
reproducibility of psychological science”, Science, Vol. 349
No. 6251, pp. aac4716-1 - aac4716-8.
Padin, C. and Svensson, G. (2013), “A multi-layer matrix
model of sustainable tourism: process, measurement areas,
gap and reconnection analysis”, European Business Review,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 206-216.
Pagell, M. and Wu, Z. (2009), “Building a more complete theory
of sustainable supply chain management using case studies of
10 exemplars”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45
No. 2, pp. 37-56.
Parris, T.N. and Kates, R.W. (2003), “Characterizing and
measuring sustainable development”, Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 559-586.
Peloza, J. and Shang, J. (2011), “How can corporate social
responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A
systematic review”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 117-135.
Pinter, L., Hardi, P. and Bartelmus, P. (2005), Sustainable
Development Indicators. Proposals for the Way Forward,
International Institute for Sustainable Development,
available at: www.iisd.org/publications/pub.aspx?pno=769
(accessed 25 February 2018).
Ramus, A.C. (2002), “Encouraging innovative environmental
actions: what companies and managers must do”, Journal of
World Business, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 151-164.
Rettab, B., Brik, A.B. and Mellahi, K. (2009), “A study of
management perceptions of the impact of corporate social
115
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116
responsibility on organizational performance in emerging
economies: the case of dubai”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 371-390.
RobecoSAM (2013), Corporate Sustainability, available at:
www.sustainability-indices.com/sustainability-assessment/
corporate-sustainability.jsp (accessed 25 February 2018).
Royal Decree (1514/2007), Royal Decree of November 16th,
General Accounting Plan. BOE Supplement No. 278 of
November 20th, 2007
Saito, O., Managi, S., Kanie, N., Kauffman, J. and Takeuchi, K.
(2017), “Sustainability science and implementing the
sustainable development goals”, sustainability science and
implementing the sustainable development goals”, Sustainability
Science, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 907-910.
Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A. and Steger, U. (2005),
“The business case for corporate sustainability: literature
review and research options”, European Management Journal,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 27-36.
Savitz, A. (2012), The Triple Bottom Line: How Today's Best-Run
Companies Are Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental
Success – and How You Can Too, Wiley, San Francisco.
Schaltegger, S. and Burritt, L.R. (2010), “Sustainable
accounting for companies: catchphrase or decision support
for leaders?” Journal of World Business, Vol. 45 No. 4,
pp. 375-384.
Schianetz, K., Kavanagh, K. and Lockington, D. (2007),
“Concepts and tools for comprehensive sustainability
assessments for tourism destinations: a comparative review”,
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 369-389.
Schulz, S.A. and Flanigan, R.L. (2016), “Developing
competitive advantage using the triple bottom line: a
conceptual framework”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 449-458.
Scott, W.R. (2008), Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and
Interests, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Searcy, C. (2012), “Corporate sustainability performance
measurement systems: a review and research agenda”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 239-253.
Senge, P. and Carstedt, G. (2001), “Innovating our way to the
next industrial revolution”, MIT Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 24-38.
Senge, P., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J. and Schley, S.
(2008), The Necessary Revolution: how Individuals and
Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable
World, Random House Digital.
Seuring, B.M. and Müller, M. (2008), “From a literature
review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply
chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16
No. 15.
Shrivastava, P. and Berger, S. (2010), “Sustainability principles: a
review and directions”, Organization Management Journal,
Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 246-261.
Siemens (2013), available at: www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/
events/2012/corporate/2012-06-rio20/GCI-Report-e.pdf
(accessed 25 February 2018).
Smith, P.A.C. and Sharicz, C. (2011), “The shift needed for
sustainability”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 73-86.
Stafford-Smith, M., Griggs, D., Gaffney, O., Ullah, F., Reyers,
B., Kanie, N., Stigson, B., Shrivastava, P., Leach, M. and
 Triple bottom line dominant logic
Carlos Ferro et al.
O’Connell, D. (2017), “Integration: the key to implementing
the sustainable development goals”, Sustainability Science,
Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 911-919.
Stem, L.W. and Reve, T. (1980), “Distribution channels as
political economies: a framework for comparative analysis”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 52-64.
STOXX (2013), “Stoxx indices”, available at: www.stoxx.com/
indices/types/sustainability.html (accessed 25 February
2018).
Strand, R., Freeman, R.E. and Hockerts, K. (2015), “Corporate
social responsibility and sustainability in scandinavia: an
overview”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 127 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Strandberg Consulting (2009), “The business case for
sustainability”, available at: http://corostrandberg.com/wp-
content/uploads/files/Business_Case_for_Sustainability_21.pdf
(accessed 25 February 2018).
Svensson, G. (2013), “Processes of substantiations and
contributions through theory building towards theory in
business research”, European Business Review, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 466-480.
Svensson, G. (2015), “Contemporary process to test the theory
of a research model through covariance-based structural
equation modeling in business research”, European Business
Review, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 447-458.
Svensson, G. and Wagner, B. (2011), “A process directed
towards sustainable business operations and a model for
improving the GWP-Footprint (CO2e) on earth”, Management
of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 22
No. 4, pp. 451-462.
Svensson, G. and Wagner, B. (2012a), “Business sustainability
and e-footprints on earth’s life and ecosystems – generic
models”, European Business Review, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 543-552.
Svensson, G. and Wagner, B. (2012b), “Implementation of a
sustainable business cycle: the case of a swedish dairy
producer”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 93-97.
Svensson, G. and Wagner, B. (2015), “Implementing and
managing economic, social and environmental efforts of
business sustainability: propositions for measurement and
structural models”, Management of Environmental Quality:
An International Journal, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 195-213.
Svensson, G., Ferro, C., Høgevold, N., Padin, C., Sosa-Varela,
J. and Sarstedt, M. (2018), “Framing the triple bottom line
approach: direct and mediation effects between economic,
social and environmental elements”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 197 No. 1, pp. 972-991.
Svensson, G., Høgevold, N.M., Ferro, C.P., Klopper, H.B.,
Sosa Varela, J.C., Padin, C. and Wagner, B. (2016a), “A
triple bottom line dominant logic for business sustainability:
framework and empirical finding”, Journal of Business-to-
Business Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 153-188.
Svensson, G., Høgevold, N.M., Petzer, D., Padin, C., Ferro, C.,
Klopper, H.B., Sosa Varela, J.C. and Wagner, B. (2016b),
“Framing stakeholder considerations and business sustainability
efforts: a construct, its dimensions and items”, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 287-300.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
116
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 95–116
United Nations (2012), “World summit on sustainable
development”, available at: www.un.org/en/development/
devagenda/sustainable.shtml (accessed 25 February 2018).
Vaaland, T., Heide, M. and Grønhaug, K. (2008), “Corporate
social responsibility: investigating theory and research in the
marketing context”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42
Nos 9/10, pp. 927-953.
Varadarajan, R.P. and Menon, A. (1988), “Cause-related
marketing: a co-alignment of marketing strategy and corporate
philanthropy”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 58-74.
Wagner, B. and Svensson, G. (2014), “A framework to navigate
sustainability in business networks: the transformative
business sustainability (TBS) model”, European Business
Review, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 340-367.
Wasti, S.N., Kozan, M.K. and Kuman, A. (2006), “Buyer–
supplier relationships in the turkish automotive industry”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 26 No. 9, pp. 947-970.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the firm”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 171-180.
White, P. (2009), “Building a sustainability strategy into the
business”, Corporate Governance: The International Journal of
Business in Society, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 386-394.
Whitely, R. (1992), Business System in East Asia: Firms,
Markets, and Societies, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Wood, D.J. (1991), “Corporate social performance revisited”, The
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 691-718.
World Commission on Environment and Development
(WECD) (1987), Our Common Future, New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, available at: www.un-documents.
net/our-common-future.pdf (accessed 25 February 2018).
Further reading
CIA (2017), “The world fact book”, available at: www.cia.gov
(accessed 25 February 2018).
Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B. and Gibson, C.B. (2006), “A
quarter century of culture’s consequences: a review of
empirical research incorporating hofstede's cultural values
framework”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 37
No. 3, pp. 285-320.
Norušis, M.J. and SPSS Inc (1993), SPSS for Windows Advanced
Statistics Release 6.0, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Norušis, M.J. and SPSS Inc (1994), SPSS for Windows Advanced
Statistics Release 6.1, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
O’Grady, S. and Lane, H.W. (1996), “The psychic distance
paradox”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 309-333.
RobecoSAM (2018), “Sweden re-takes the lead – country
sustainability ranking update may”, available at: www.
robecosam.com/images/Country_Ranking_Update_May_
2017.pdf (accessed 25 February 2018).
Corresponding author
Carlos Ferro can be contacted at: cferro@uvigo.es