Running head: CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 1

Primary Validation of Climate Strategy Proactivity Questionnaire Scale Measuring

Relationship between Climate Strategy Proactivity and Competitive Advantage

Student Name

Institution Affiliation
CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 2

Abstract

This project aimed at establishing the relationship between CSP-climate strategy proactivity

and CA-competitive advantage in firms. The analysis is based on collecting quantitative data

from various internal and external stakeholders of Etisalat. To effectively analyze the

relationship, the CSPQ technique was used. A sample of 100 close-ended questionnaires was

distributed to external and internal stakeholders of Etisalat. The literature review findings

indicate that CSP influences the company's competitive advantage and further explains the

relationship using the natural resource-based theory and the dynamic capability theory.

Statistical analysis indicates a positive correlation between CSP, CA, UNQC (Unique

capabilities), and UNQR (Unique resources). Regression analysis further indicates the

positive relationship between the variables and helps reject the study's null hypothesis, thus

concluding that the CSP influences a company's competitive advantage.

Table of Contents
CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 3

Abstract................................................................................................................................................2
1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................................5
2.0 Literature Review..........................................................................................................................7
2.1 Climate Strategy Proactivity and Competitive Advantage...........................................................8
2.2 Natural Resource-Based View and Dynamic Capability Theory............................................12
3.0 Methodology.................................................................................................................................16
3.1 Sampling Technique and Study Participants..............................................................................17
3.2 Research Design........................................................................................................................17
3.3 Data Collection Techniques and Analysis.................................................................................17
4.0 Data Analysis and Results...........................................................................................................18
4.1 Reliability/Discriminant Analysis..............................................................................................19
4.2 Descriptive Statistics.................................................................................................................19
4.3 Correlation Analysis..................................................................................................................21
4.4 Regression Analysis...................................................................................................................22
5.0 Discussion of Findings.................................................................................................................25
5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations.............................................................................................27
References..........................................................................................................................................29
CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 4

Primary Validation of Climate Strategy Proactivity Questionnaire Scale

Measuring Relationship between Climate Strategy Proactivity and

Competitive Advantage

1.0 Introduction
Contemporary business and competitive activities have digressed towards high

concern for the internal and external business environment. Corporates have familiarized

themselves with changing trends of management, production, and internal-external

stakeholder collaboration. One of the new business trends of competitiveness concerns

climate and the physical environment (Kant, 2021). Companies and other businesses have

shaped their operations towards taking early action plans against the destruction of the

environment, thus pointing out environmental risk identification and mitigation before

damage (Barba-Sanchez & Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2016). Businesses are adopting the triple-

bottom approach to attain competitiveness by paying attention to the three main tenets of

corporate sustainability; social, economic, and environmental (Parida & Wincent, 2019). This

approach implies that businesses/corporations intend to maximize value creation and sharing

among different levels of stakeholders and positively influence tangible and intangible

resources.

Conversely, a changing business environment at the global and domestic level has

prompted the business to effectively adapt and embrace flexibility to remain competitive and

relevant in various markets. The concept of sustainability with an explicit focus on

environmental sustainability enhances the optimal and effective use of resources, thus

boosting the competitive advantage of businesses (Lahti et al., 2018). Subsequently, Reim et

al. (2015) supported this point of view, indicating that attaining environmental goals of

sustainability positively impacts resources for a competitive advantage.

CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 5

This paper aims to describe climate strategy proactivity as an element of sustainability

and its relationship to competitive advantage in companies/businesses. Climate strategy

proactivity is a concept that stretches beyond various fields and rose from the past and

present environmental conditions and how various factors influence the environment

(Dahlmann et al., 2019). In the business world, this particular concept explains the prior

action plans businesses can take to prevent further damage to the environment and cause a

spillover effect on other essential aspects of human life (Kant, 2021).

According to Kusku (2007), firms are adopting climate strategy proactivity due to

societal and government needs to help attain national and global goals of sustainability. This

finding implies that businesses adopt this particular business practice to attain legal and

community acceptance, thus providing a research gap that this paper will fill. Consequently,

studies have indicated difficulties in quantifying climate strategy proactivity, thus providing

limited evidence on the nexus between a firm’s competitive advantage and climate strategy

proactivity (Kant, 2020). The paper aims to explain the link between climate strategy

proactivity and competitive advantage.

The paper will use the case of Etisalat, a telecommunications company in the UAE, to

verify the relationship under investigation. The study's findings will be an integral source of

information for scholars in environmental conservation, management, public policy and form

a foundation for further studies. The research objectives guiding the whole study are as

follows; To investigate the relationship between climate strategy proactivity and competitive

advantage in firms. Secondly, the paper investigates various factors that represent climate

strategy proactivity among firms. Lastly, it investigates the main stakeholders affiliated with

the climate strategy proactivity. Also, the study will aim to test the following hypothesis;

HO: Climate strategy proactivity does not affect the competitive advantage of a
CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 6

company, HA: Climate strategy proactivity affects the competitive advantage of a

company.
CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 7

2.0 Literature Review

The climate is an essential component of the general environment that has attracted

attention from various parties on degradation threats and the need to leverage opportunities

for its protection (Kant, 2021). Consequently, the subject of climate degradation and

conservation has been linked to increased business activities stemming from massive

production and consumption (BSE, n.d). Gladwin et al. (1995) indicate that the climate is

essential for human survival and business survival because it is a source of integral business

resources, and continued degradation threatens the survival of businesses. Therefore, it is

essential to actively evaluate the role of climate in business survival through competitiveness.

This section entails evaluating past and present studies concerning climate strategy

proactivity and linking the concept to competitive advantage theories and resource-based

view theories. The rationale for this review approach is based on the need to holistically

discuss the tenets of climate strategy proactivity while basing on tangible and intangible

resources in a company.

2.1 Climate Strategy Proactivity and Competitive Advantage

Strategy is an action plan aimed to attain certain goals (Kant, 2021). Based on the

concept of climate, strategy entails an elaborate combination of means/action plans that

contribute to the conservation of the environment to prevent further climate degradation

(Porter, 1980). On the other hand, McKeown (2012) indicates that strategy vis-à-vis climate

and corporate responsibility entails setting and achieving goals that contribute to the optimal

use of natural resources to guarantee the future survival of all stakeholders. Proactivity refers

to a prior or pre-determined cause of action aimed at curbing the occurrence of futuristic risks

(Parker et al., 2006). Therefore, when the two concepts are merged, they translate to leverage

present opportunities to eliminate present and future threats and risks.

CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 8

Concerning competitive advantage in companies, Kant and Agrawal (2020) argue that

climate strategy proactivity is integral in influencing a company's competitive advantage by

attaining the desires and needs of various stakeholders. This argument indicates that the

aspect of internal and external sustainability encompasses climate strategy proactivity.

Companies meet the expectations of various stakeholders by adopting climate-conscious

strategies (Kant, 2021). Companies voluntarily adopt environmental conservation strategies

to ensure they attain acceptability in society by complying with local authority environmental

requirements and safeguarding societal welfare. A business that actively adopts climate

strategy proactivity is a far cry from traditional production methods, thus increase their

visibility among customers and other integral stakeholders, thus boosting their competitive

advantage (Michalisin & Stinchfield, 2010; Barba-Sanchez & Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2016).

Studies of (Ariyabandu & Hulangamuwa 2002; Hopkins, 2007; Justice, 2003) indicate that

climate strategy proactivity indirectly influences a company's competitive advantage.

Climate strategy proactivity is considered a strategic key for competitiveness among

firms through informed internal and external climate conservation decisions (Anton et al.,

2004; Garces-Ayerbe et al., 2012). The strategies and practices aimed at attaining climate

proactivity may incline towards communication strategies, planning, and management to

meet the needs and desires of stakeholders (Singh, 2015; Kant & Anjali, 2020). Meeting

stakeholder needs increases the competitiveness of a business through increased customer

loyalty. Consequently, the studies of (Chapple & Moon, 2005; Sharma & Sharma, 2011;

Fernando, 2007) argue that a firm practicing climate strategy proactivity attains competitive

advantage by having concern for stakeholders and diverting their focus on providing goods

and services and satisfying other needs such as protecting the environment that consumers

and other stakeholder inhabit. Conserving the environment ensures that businesses do not

suffer from the adversities of climate change due to unsustainable business practices; thus,
CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 9

ensuring that these businesses leverage resources and other opportunities generated from

climate conservation to attain competitive advantage (Sharma & Sharma, 2011).

The nexus between climate strategy proactivity and competitive advantage in firms is

explained by external environment analysis (Berzengi & Lindbom, 2008). External

environmental analysis adopting the PESTLE analysis discusses the environment as a

contributor of competitiveness among firms. Environment conservation under this concept

aims to create a competitive advantage for businesses by adopting new sustainable production

techniques that limit environmental degradation and climate change (Cahil, 2002; Lynch,

2006). Consequently, Porter and Van der Linden (1995) indicate that climatic conservation

among businesses influences competitive advantage by minimizing legal costs associated

with adopting destructive operational activities. Berzengi and Lindbom (2008) indicate that

adopting environmentally friendly production techniques helps reduce costs associated with

environmental pollution and management of waste products, thus creating the efficiency

needed to boost a company's competitive advantage. Given that climate strategy proactivity

results from a dynamic business environment, the concept dovetails with Porter's intuitions

on competitiveness by indicating the flexibility and timelessness of competitiveness

(Soloducho-Pelc & Sulich, 2020; Krupski et al., 2017; Barney, 1995). Therefore, climate

strategy proactivity aims to prompt businesses to adopt flexibility in operation to leverage all

opportunities for competitiveness.

Climate strategy proactivity impacts the competitiveness of a business through

innovation. Creating a suitable climate for society prompts innovation for safe technologies

(Popp, 2006; Porter, 1991). However, contradicting studies of (Schmid 2012; Murphy et al.,

2015, Gandenberger et al., 2015) indicate no direct influence on competitiveness and

innovation due to climatic conservation. These studies imply that innovation is necessary for

efficiency in production and competitive advantage regardless of climatic needs.

CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 10

Porter's Generic Strategies of competitiveness explain competitive advantage with an

explicit focus on three main competitive strategies; differentiation, cost leadership, and focus

strategy (Islami et al., 2020). These generic strategies impact the performance of a company

but can be linked to climate strategy proactivity. The cost leadership strategy entails cutting

on production and operational costs and ultimately providing favorable prices for customers

(Islami et al., 2020). Regarding climate strategy proactivity, cost leadership as a strategy for

competitiveness entails putting in place prior conservation strategies such as innovation for

green production, thus cutting on costs and inefficiency (Griffin, 2005). According to

Thompson et al. (2018), cost leadership in production due to the adoption of environmentally

efficient techniques enables a company to set lower market prices than rival firms, thus

attracting many customers. Orsato (2006) explains that environmental cost leadership entails

having prior and post strategies that mitigate present and futuristic climatic risks that would

be costly to the company if not mitigated.

Conversely, differentiation strategy explains the nexus between climate strategy

proactivity and competitive advantage through creating unique production and management

strategies that create unique end goods and services for consumers (David, 2011). This

strategy guarantees a business a competitive advantage when the business adopts unique

climate conservation action plans through prior innovation, modification of the products and

services before distributing them to the public, thus ensuring they are 100% eco-friendly

(David, 2011; Islami, 2020; Porter, 1996). This particular strategy creates a sense of the

perceived value of the goods and services among various stakeholders, thus boosting

stakeholder loyalty to the business. Loyalty is measured through massive return purchasing,

which ultimately improves the financial performance of the company. Differentiation strategy

ensures that a business has imitable intangible and tangible resources employed to invigorate

climate strategy proactivity. Islami (2020) and Isaksson & Laskin (2010) indicate that when
CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 11

rival companies cannot imitate resources, it is easier for a business to attain a higher degree

of competitiveness in the market. Orsato's (2006) studies indicate that environmental

differentiation ensures that businesses create value through a wide pool of eco-friendly

products and services.

Reinhardt (1999) explains five approaches that a business can adopt to attain

competitiveness about environmental conservation. These approaches are; environmental

differentiation, competitor management, saving on all costs, environmental risk management,

and focus strategy through redefining markets. Redefining the markets entails focusing a

company's strategies towards creating environmental conservation solutions for specific

targets of customers. Orsato (2006) affirms these findings by indicating that scholars and

managers generally accepted the five approaches to explain the nexus between the

competitive advantage and climate strategy proactivity.

Contradicting studies of Shrivastava (1995) indicate that climate strategy proactivity

is an essential contributor of remarkable business performance in the long run and does not

directly influence the competitiveness of a business in the short run. The literature analysis

aiming to explain the relationship between climate strategy proactivity and competitive

advantage takes two fronts of evaluation that contradict and support the relationship, thus

efficiently filling the research gap on the concept.

CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 12

2.2 Natural Resource-Based View and Dynamic Capability Theory

Kant and Anjali (2020) indicate that the resources-based view/theory best explains the

concept of climate strategy proactivity and business competitiveness. Explicitly, the natural

resource-based theory and the dynamic capabilities theory are suitable for analyzing the

relationship. The rationale for this point of view is that the resource-based approach and the

dynamic capabilities approach underscore the integral role of imitable tangible and intangible

resources play in providing a competitive advantage for a business (King & Lenox, 2001).

Studies have focused on the nexus between the natural resources theory and environmental

pollution prevention and ignored the aspect that links a company's competitiveness to various

environmental protection strategies through climate strategy proactivity. Therefore, an

elaborate assessment of the literature in this section provides a scholarly and strategy

foundation needed to evaluate the relationship. The dynamic capability theory champions

risk mitigation and leveraging all opportunities, thus explaining the nexus between the

competitive advantage of a company and adopting the climate strategy proactivity.

The physical environment is an integral source of tangible and intangible resources

converted into value by a business (Almada & Borges, 2017). The natural resource-based

theory indicates three essential strategic capabilities a firm can leverage for competitiveness

in a highly dynamic business environment (Hart & Dowel, 2011). These capabilities prevent

pollution, thus safeguarding the physical environment, creating product stewardship, and

adopting sustainable development (Hart & Dowel, 2011). All these three elements are an

elaborate representation of the climate strategy proactivity. The pollution prevention

capability entails taking proactive measures to eliminate environmental degradation (Hart &

Dowel, 2011). Providing product stewardship entails engaging stakeholders in making the

services and products of a company unique concerning environmental needs (Hart & Dowel,

2011). Lastly, the sustainable development tenet prompts businesses to set in motion
CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 13

proactive action plans to protect the future climatic or environmental well-being (Hart &

Dowel, 2011). Therefore, the theory is holistic and points out its relationship to the climate

strategy proactivity and the tenets of competitive strategies.

Berchicci & King (2007) explains the nexus between the climate strategy proactivity

concept and competitive advantage among businesses using the natural resources-based

theory. The findings indicate that the natural resource-based theory emphasizes the

relationship between environmental pollution and profits made. Consequently, the studies

explain the relationship between the stock value of a company and pollution control. The

findings indicate that companies that proactively engage in pollution control attain

remarkable profits and a higher share value and stock ranking in the stock market to

environmental sustainability appeal to the society. Also, the studies of Belkaoui (1974) aimed

at establishing the influence of the natural resources-based theory on organizations in the

firms of accounting concerning pollution and competitive advantage, established that

sustainable disclosure of pollution control efforts influences investor's assessment of the

firm's risk and profitability position as a guide to investment decision making. Blacconiere &

Patten (1994) support the studies by indicating that companies that effectively disclosed their

pollution control techniques received a positive market reaction compared to those that did

not communicate their environmental pollution mitigation strategies.

The natural based-resource theory enables a firm to attain competitive advantage from

the natural environment and prompts businesses to adopt environmental conservation

approaches (Andersen, 2021). Therefore, this approach creates a sense of a mutually

beneficial relationship between businesses and the environment. Peteraf and Barney (2003)

explain the relationship between climate strategy proactivity and competitiveness of a

business using the natural resources-based theory by indicating that a company’s capabilities

such as risk and opportunity scanning prompt the adoption of climate strategy proactivity to
CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 14

differentiate its products and services from rival firms. However, Ray et al. (2004)

contradicting studies indicate that the theory is not sufficient for explaining the relationship

between resources and differentiation strategies of a business to attain competitiveness.

Empirical studies of King and Lenox (2002) indicate that the natural resource-based

theory brings out the dynamic capabilities approach in environmental protection. The

dynamic capabilities theory indicates that firms leverage the present resources, both tangible

and intangible, to create capabilities needed to control environmental pollution effectively.

Hart and Dowel (2011) indicate that pollution prevention strategies result from a company

leveraging its capabilities. This intuition relates to climate strategy proactivity and

competitiveness on two fronts. The first front entails taking prior action against pollution and

adopting innovation to boost competitiveness. Hart and Dowel (2011) further indicate that

sustainable managerial strategies and framing environmental issues influence a firm's

capability to adopt proactive environmental strategies that influence profitability. This

intuition is supported by the arguments of King and Lenox (2002), who indicate that business

managers with dynamic capabilities can scan the business environment with the available

resources to establish suitable strategies for leveraging environmental conservation

opportunities and mitigate environmental pollution risks and threats. Therefore, this implies

that companies' capabilities are dependent on their initial resource endowment and need to

acquire new resources for competitiveness. Subsequently, Eisenhard and Martin (2000)

indicate that proactive environmental conservation strategies define the dynamic capabilities,

and these capabilities are dependent on the incumbent firm structures, strategies, and

resources available. Consequently, a firm requires specific and imitable resources and

capabilities to enable the company to attain maximum competitive advantage and successful

implementation of climate strategy proactivity.

CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 15

However, the contradicting findings of Winter (2003) indicate that a company with a

stable physical environment does not benefit from investing in maintenance and creating

capabilities to create environmental change. The explanation for these findings is that the

costs of maintenance and innovation are higher than the company's capabilities (Winter,

2003). Therefore, to attain a competitive advantage, the firm must record benefits that

outweigh the costs and capabilities,

The literature review discussed provides adequate evidence in the nexus between

climate strategy proactivity and competitiveness of a firm whole based on the natural

resources-based theory and dynamic capabilities. Therefore, the literature review enables the

study to design the following conceptual framework that explains the variables' relationship.

Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework

Competitive
Advantage
(C.A.)

Climate Unique
Strategy Company
Proactivity Resources
(CSP) (UNQR)

Unique
Company
Capabilities
(UNQC)
CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 16

3.0 Methodology

This section outlines the steps taken to collect data, analyze them, and discuss

statistical techniques involved in obtaining quantitative results needed to fulfill the research

objectives and provide suitable discussions. The section is organized into sampling technique

used and study participants, research design, and data collection and analysis techniques.

3.1 Sampling Technique and Study Participants

The study adopted the convenience sampling technique because it is less costly and

saves on time. Also, the technique is useful since the study aimed at obtaining data from

various internal and external stakeholders of Etisalat. The rationale for selecting this study

population is that the participants are more qualified in a scholarly and professional way to

participate in the survey and give non-biased responses, hence boosting the data collected.

The selected study sample is 100 external and internal stakeholders of Etisalat.

3.2 Research Design

The study will adopt a quantitative approach to provide statistical measures of

variables for suitable conclusions and fulfill the research objectives. The adopted research

design for this particular paper research is a causal research design to establish the

relationship between the selected study variable. The design is suitable for testing the

relationship between climate strategy proactivity and competitive advantage by testing the

hypothesis formulated.

3.3 Data Collection Techniques and Analysis

The tool used to collect the data was a close-ended survey questionnaire suitable for

obtaining quantitative data. The responses were coded using a 5 – point Likert Scale for the

variable (1 – Strongly Agree, 2 – Agree, 3 – Neutral, 4 – Disagree, 5 – Strongly Disagree).

CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 17

The demographic variables were coded using numbers 1 – 9 to represent each response. The

analysis tool used for providing the results is the Excel Data Analysis Tool Pack.
CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 18

4.0 Data Analysis and Results

The data collected was analyzed and presented using the M.S. Excel Data Analysis

Tool Pack. The results of data analysis covered reliability/discriminant analysis, descriptive

analysis, correlation analysis, and regression analysis (Beta values).

4.1 Reliability/Discriminant Analysis

The role of this analysis is to establish whether the data is reliable for the

generalization of the whole study population or the variables that can be used to analyze other

studies using the data provided. The approach used was the Cronbach Alpha value which

indicates that if the alpha value (α) is greater than 0.7, the data set is reliable and can be used

to make generalized study conclusions for the whole study population. On the other hand,

when the alpha value is less than 0.7, the data set is not reliable for future and present studies

and may influence the generalization of the characteristics of the study population. The

results of the tests are presented in table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1 Reliability Test/Discriminant Test

K 5
Sum
Variance 8.705041704
Cronbach
Alpha (α) 0.8434691

The results indicated in the table show that the Cronbach Alpha value is 0.843, which

is greater than 0.7. Therefore, the data collected is reliable, and the variables can be used for

future studies and the data used to make generalized conclusions for the study population.
CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 19

4.2 Descriptive Statistics

The descriptive statistics entailed analyzing the demographic characteristics of the

participants. The main demographic characteristics entailed obtaining information on the

status of the participants, whether they are external or internal stakeholders. The results were

presented in the descriptive statistics table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2

DEMOGRAPHICS

4.676767
Mean 7
Standard Error 0.249439
Median 5
Mode 5
Standard 2.481886
Deviation 6
6.159760
Sample Variance 9
-
1.011153
Kurtosis 2
0.129914
Skewness 9
Range 8
Minimum 1
Maximum 9
Sum 463
Count 99
The descriptive statistics table above indicates that most participants were employees

of Etisalat, thus indicating that the information provided on climate strategy proactivity was

less biased as they have first-hand information on the company's operations. The mode

indicates the most frequently interviewed participants in the survey. Consequently, the mean

from the descriptive statistics is approximately 5, indicating that, on average, most

respondents who participated in the study were employees of Etisalat.

CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 20

The respondents were coded using numbers 1 – 9, as indicated in the table below.

Table 4.2.1

Customer 1

Supplier 2

Seller 3

Employer 4

Employee 5

Business Owner 6

Student of Higher Education 7

Environmental NGO Activist 8

Regulatory Authority 9

4.3 Correlation Analysis

Correlation analysis was conducted to establish the relationship between the study

variables. Based on the measurement scales for correlation, a correlation coefficient of

between 0 – 0.4 is a low correlation while a correlation coefficient of 0.5 is deemed a

moderate correlation, and a correlation coefficient above 0.5 is a strong coefficient. A

negative correlation between variables is denoted by a negative correlation coefficient and

decreases the relationship between the variables. The results of the correlation coefficient

were presented in the table below as follows:

Table 4.3 Correlation Coefficients

CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 21

  CSP CA UNQC UNQR

CSP 1
0.801420
CA 7 1
0.779460
UNQC 7 0.990670782 1
0.743234 0.93077
UNQR 4 0.90137261 1 1
The variable under study were; Climate strategy (CSP), Competitive advantage (C.A.),

Unique resource capabilities (UNQC), and Unique resources (UNQR). The correlation

coefficient between. C.A., UNQC, and UNQR were positively correlated to CSP with

correlation coefficients above 0.5. Their respective correlation coefficients to CSP were

0.8014, 0.7795, and 0.7432 respectively. Therefore, the data obtained from Etisalat external

and internal stakeholders indicates a positive relationship between the study variables

selected.

4.4 Regression Analysis

Regression analysis was conducted to explain the relationship between the variables

and evaluate the causal effect of the variables. Also, the results of regression analysis were

integral in testing the formulated study hypothesis. Regression analysis further provided

evidence of whether the model was a good fit to investigate the relationship and association

between the study variables.

Table 4.4:
SUMMARY
OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
0.822491
Multiple R 7
0.676492
R Square 6
0.666276
Adjusted R Square 6
0.269528
Standard Error 4
Observations 99
CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 22

Based on the results of the model summary above, the model is a good fit because

67.6% of variables are explained within the regression model while only 32.4% of variables

are explained outside the model. Therefore, the model can be used to explain the causal

relationship between variables.

Table 4.5: ANOVA

Significanc
  df SS MS F eF
4.81050 66.2187 3.39598E-
Regression 3 14.43150204 1 8 23
0.07264
Residual 95 6.901328921 6
Total 98 21.33283096      
The ANOVA table results were useful in deciding the hypothesis of the study.

H.O.: Climate strategy proactivity does not affect the competitive advantage of a

company.

H.A.: Climate strategy proactivity affects the competitive advantage of a company.

The F value of the analysis was 0.000, which was less than the selected level of significance

α = 0.05. Therefore, based on the results, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that

climate strategy proactivity affects a company's competitive advantage. Therefore, for

Etisalat, the respondents regard proactive climate strategies as integral

contributors/influencers of the company's competitive advantage.

Table 4.6: Regression Analysis

Coefficient Standard
  s Error t Stat P-value
7.01536
Intercept 0.8967446 0.127825731 9 3.36E-10
CA 1.4558008 0.329236783 4.42174 2.6E-05
CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 23

4
3.06056 0.00287
UNQC 0.8838862 0.288798258 6 2
0.01097
UNQR 0.2053157 0.079135886 2.59447 4
The table above provides the beta values/coefficients of regression for the study variables.

The selected dependent variable in the study was climate strategy proactivity and

simultaneously interacted with the independent variables; Competitive advantage (C.A.),

Unique capabilities (UNQC), and Unique resources (UNQR). A unit increase in the

competitive advantage in Etisalat lead to an increase in the adoption of CSP by 1.45558 units.

Therefore, the statistics indicate that the CSP highly influences competitive advantage, and

C.A. immensely and positively influences CSP. A unit increase in UNQC by one unit leads to

an increase in CSP adoption by 0.8839 units in Etisalat. Lastly, a unit increase in UNQR in

Etisalat leads to 0.2053 units.

The general regression model equation provided from data analysis is

Y = 0.8967446 + 1.4558008CA + 0.8838862UNQC + 0.2053157UNQR

The p-values of all the independent variables in the regression analysis were less than α =

0.05, thus indicating that the variables were statistically significant in explaining the

relationship between the dependent and independent variables.

CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 24

5.0 Discussion of Findings

Correlation analysis results indicate a high positive correlation between the study

variables. Therefore, the selected study variables correlated with each other, indicating an

increase in one variable increases another variable. The correlation between CSP and C.S. is

positive, thus indicating an increase in adopting prior environmental conservation strategies

lead to an increase in the competitive strategy of Etisalat. The results are expected and

coincide with those of (Kant & Agrawal, 2006; Kant, 2021; Michalisin & Stinchfield, 2010).

Therefore, the results provide sufficient evidence to conclude that Etisalat proactively makes

action plans to attain safe and less environmentally hazardous production and operation

activities.

Consequently, the results are explained by the stakeholder-centric approach adopted

by Etisalat, which engages in sustainable environmental protection to attain societal

acceptability through high levels of internal and external stakeholder satisfaction. The study

rejects the formulated null hypothesis and concludes that climate strategy proactivity

influences a company's competitive advantage. The findings are supported by the studies of
CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 25

(Ariyabandu & Hulangamuwa, 2002; Hopkins, 2007; Justice, 2003), who indicate that the

climate strategy proactivity influences the company's competitive advantage. Therefore, for

the case of Etisalat, taking proactive climatic protection strategies influence its competitive

advantage through increasing customer preference and increased repetitive purchasing.

Consequently, the company attains a competitive advantage through perceived customer

value in its services and products.

The reliability tests conducted to provide a Cronbach alpha value of greater than 0.7,

thus indicating that the data and the variables selected for the study provide an accurate

measure of the relationship between CSP and C.A. Consequently, the results indicate that the

climate strategy proactivity questionnaire is an effective approach of obtaining quantifiable

evidence on the contributions of the physical environment towards a company's competitive

advantage. The data was obtained from both internal and external stakeholders of Etisalat,

hence contributing to a remarkable degree of accuracy through relevant target population

representation.

Regression analysis further provides evidence of the interrelationship between CSP,

CA, UNQC, and UNQR. Regression analysis indicates that an increase in C.A. leads to an

increase in CSP and vice-versa. The findings are supported by those of (Islami et al. 2020;

Griffin, 2005; Thompson et al. 2018; Orsato, 2006), who indicate that CSP and competitive

advantages are explained through the generic strategies of competitiveness cost-leadership,

differentiation, and focus. Also, regression analysis indicates that an increase in unique

capabilities (UNQC) leads to an increase in CSP and the company's competitive advantage.

The results obtained match with those of (King & Lenox, 2002; Hart and Dowel, 2011;

Eisenhard & Martin, 2000), who argue that the dynamic capabilities of the company such as

innovation, risk identification, and threat mitigation actively adopt CSP and invigorate

adoption of environmental sustainability strategies hence boosting the competitive advantage

CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 26

of a company. The data is an indicator that Etisalat can invest in environmental protection

strategies such as eco-friendly production techniques. The study indicates that an increase in

unique company resources such as financial, human resources, and management resources

influences the adoption of CSP, ultimately contributing to a company's competitiveness. The

findings of (Berchicci & King, 2007; Belkaoui, 1974; Blacconiere & Patten, 1994) explain

the relationship between CSP and the competitive advantage of a company by employing the

tenets of the resource-based theory. The resources may be tangible or intangible and can be

leveraged to convert the opportunities into value and mitigate threats. Environmental

conservation ensures a sustainable supply of integral resources and even guarantees a

business maximum competitive advantage when the resources are rare and imitable.

Consequently, other imitable resources lie in a company's management strategies inclined

towards innovation, vision, sustainable information sharing, and pedigree of the internal

stakeholders. All these resources can be imitable and be specific to one company, thus

guaranteeing the company a competitive advantage.

CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 27

5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

The theoretical and statistical evidence provided in the research paper elaborately

discuss the nexus between the competitive advantage of the company and the practice of

climate strategy proactivity. The study indicates that there exists a positive relationship

between climatic conservation and the competitiveness of a company. The nexus is explained

while adopting interlinked concepts and theories of resources-based and dynamic capabilities.

The data collected and analyzed provided a clear representation of the concept under study

with explicit analysis of Etisalat, a UAE telecommunications company. Therefore, the study

adopts a holistic approach to evaluating the contributions of the physical environment to the

competitiveness of a firm.

The paper proposes the following recommendations for future studies and strategy

formulation based on the study's findings. First, future studies should aim to add exploitation

and exploration concepts of both tangible and intangible resources as potential influencers of

CSP, CA, and their relationship to the resource-based theory and dynamic capability theory.

The future studies undertaking this research trajectory will provide suitable investigation

models on the concept of sustainability and the competitive advantage of businesses. Also,

future studies should adopt the CSPQ quantifiable technique to evaluate the relationship
CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 28

between these variables. This is because the data obtained while using this technique depicted

significant levels of reliability. Secondly, to attain a competitive advantage while leveraging

opportunities associated with environmental sustainability, the business should ensure that

the costs of leveraging these opportunities for improvement are lower than the benefits, thus

helping inhibit inefficiency. Therefore, businesses need to optimally use their available

resources to implement the CSP. Lastly, CSP is beneficial to a company and the society only

when genuinely done or involuntarily done without the intervention of internal business

factors such as the need to make huge profits or be on the right side of the law.

Environmental sustainability should be societal centric first and later on generate company

benefits.
CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 29

References

Andersen, J. (2021). A relational natural-resource-based view on product innovation: The

influence of green product innovation and green suppliers on differentiation

advantage in small manufacturing firms. Technovation, 104.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102254

Anton, W.R.Q., Deltas, G., & Khanna, M. (2004). The incentive for environmental self-

regulation and implications for environmental performance. Journal of

Environmental Economics and Management, 48(1), 632 – 654.

Ariyabandu, M.M., & Hulangamuwa, P. (2002). Corporate Social Responsibility and

Natural Disaster Reduction in Sri Lanka Corporate Social Responsibility and Natural

Disaster Reduction in Sri Lanka, DFID, London.

Barba-Sanchez, V., & Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. (2016). Environmental proactivity and

environmental and economic performance: evidence from the winery sector.

Sustainability, 8(10), 1014.

CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 30

Belkaoui, A. (1974). The impact of the disclosure of “pollution control” information on the

investors: A behavioral field experiment and a market reaction investigation. Journal

of Finance, 29, 1586 – 1587.

Berchicci, L., & King, A. (2007). Postcards from the edge: A review of the business and

environment literature. Academy of Management Perspectives, 1, 1513 – 1547.

Berzengi, R., & Lindbom, A. (2008). Competitive Advantage of Environmental

Sustainability.

Blacconiere, W.G., & Patten, D.M. (1994). Environmental disclosure, regulatory costs, and

changes in firm value. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 18, 357 – 377.

BSE. (n.d). BSE-GREENEX Index factsheet.

https://www.bseindia.com/downloads/about/abindices/file/BSE-GREENEX-

Factsheet.pdf

Cahil, M. (2002). The Environment and Social Policy. Routledge, London.

Dahlmann, F., Branicki, L., & Brammer, S. (2019). Managing Carbon Aspirations: The

Influence of Corporate Climate Change Targets on Environmental Performance. J

Bus Ethics 158, 1 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3731-z

Eisenhardt, K.M., & Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities. What are they? Strategy

Management Journal, 21, 1105 – 1121.

Fernando, M. (2007). Corporate social responsibility in the wake of the Asian tsunami.

European Management Journal, 25(1), 1 – 10.

Garces-Ayerbe, C., Rivera-Tores., & Murillo-Luna, J.L. (2012). Stakeholder pressure and

environmental proactivity. Management Decision, 50(2), 189 – 206.

CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 31

Gladwin, T.N. (1993). The meaning of greening: a plea for organizational theory, in Fischer,

J., and Schot, K. (Eds), Environmental Strategies for Industry: International

Perspectives on Research Needs and Policy Implications, Island Press., Washington,

DC, pp. 37 – 61.

Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J., & Krause, T. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable

development: implications for management theory and research. Academy of

Management Review, 20(4), 874 – 907.

Griffin, R.W. (2005). Management. (8th edn.). Indian adaption. Biztantra, New Delhi.

Hart, L.S., & Dowell, G. (2011). A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm: Fifteen Years

After. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1464 – 1479. DOI:

10.1177/0149206310390219.

Hopkins, M. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and international development: is

business the solution? Multicultural Review, 18. doi: 10.1080/09614520802387353.

Isaksson, D., & Laskin, J. (2010). Environmental Strategy and Competitiveness. An

Examination of the Swedish Construction Industry.

Islami, X., Mustafa, N., & Topuzovska, L.M. (2020). Linking Porter’s generic strategies to

firm performance. Futur Bus J, 6, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-020-0009-1

Justice, D.W. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: challenges and opportunities for trade

unionists. Labor Education, 130, 1 – 13.

Kant, N., & Agrawal, N. (2020). Developing a measure of climate strategy proactivity

displayed to attain competitive advantage. Competitiveness Review: An International

Business Journal. DOI: 10.1108/CR-06-2020-0079.

CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 32

Kant, N., & Anjali, K. (2020). Climate Strategy Proactivity (CSP): a stakeholder-centric

concept, in Filho, W.I., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., Salvia, A.L., and Wall, T. (Eds).

Partnership for the Goals, Encyclopedia of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals

(Living Reference), Springer Nature, Switzerland AG, pp. 1 – 16.

Kant, N. (2020). Relationship between Climate Strategy Proactivity and Competitive

Advantage: A Study on Indian Companies, (Doctoral Dissertation), School of

Management Studies, IGNOU, New Delhi.

Kant, N. (2021). Primary validation of climate strategy proactivity questionnaire scale

measuring relationship of climate strategy proactivity with competitive advantage.

Management of Environment, 32(2), 396 – 419.

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1477.7835.htm

King, A., & Lenox, M. (2001). Lean and Green? An empirical examination of the

relationship between lean production and environmental performance. Production

and Operations Management, 10(3), 244 – 256.

Lahti, T., Wincent, J., & Parida, V. (2018). A definition and theoretical review of the circular

economy, value creation, and sustainable business models: Where are we now and

where should research move in future? Sustainability, 10(8), 2799.

Lynch, R. (2006). Corporate Strategy. (4th edn.). Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, UK.

Krupski, R., Piorkowska, K., Sus, A. (2017). Organizational endogenous development. The

micro-foundations, opportunities and real options perspective. Argum. Oeconomica,

1, 63 – 97.

McKeown, M. (2021). The Strategy Book. (2nd edn.). Pearson, Edinburgh Gate, Harlow.
CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 33

Michalisin, M.D., & Stinchfield, B.T. (2010). Climate change strategies and firm

performance: an empirical investigation of the Natural Resource-Based View of the

Firm. Journal of Business Strategies, 27(2), 123 – 149.

Orsato, R. (2006). Competitive environmental strategies: when does it pay to be green?

California Management Review, 48(2), 127 – 143.

Parida, V., & Wincent, J. (2019). Why and how to compete through sustainability: a review

and outline of trends influencing firm and network-level transformation. Int Entrep

Manag J, 15, 1 – 19. Https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00558-9

Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive

behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9(3), 636 – 652.

Peteraf, M.A., & Barney, J.B. (2003). Unraveling the resources-based tangle. Manag. Decis.

Econ., 24(4), 309 – 323.

Popp, D. (2006). International innovation and diffusion of air pollution control technologies:

The effects of NOX and SO2 regulation in the U.S., Japan, and Germany. Journal of

Environmental Economics and Management, 51, 46 – 71.

Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. Free Press, New York.

Porter, M. (1991). America’s Green Strategy. Scientific American, 264(4), 168.

Porter, M. (1996). What is strategy? Harv Bus Rev, 74, 61 – 78.

Ray, G., Barney, J.B., & Muhanna, W.A. (2004). Capabilities, business processes, and

competitive advantage: choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the

resource-based view. Strat. Manag. J., 25(1), 23 – 37.

CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 34

Reinhardt, F. (1999). Bringing the environment down to earth. Harvard Business Review,

77(4), 149 – 158.

Sharma, P., & Sharma, S. (2011). Drivers of proactive environmental strategy. Business

Ethics Quarterly, 21(2), 309 – 334.

Singh, N. (2015). Environmental Determinants and their Impact in Various Indian

Industries: A Study of Environmental Performance under EMS Framework, (Doctoral

Dissertation), Department of Natural Resources Management, TERI University.

Shrivastava, P. (1995). Industrial/environmental crises and corporate social responsibility.

Socio-Economics, 24(1), 211 – 227.

Soloducho-Pelc, L., & Sulich, A. (2020). Between Sustainable and Temporary Competitive

Advantages in the Unstable Business Environment. Sustainability, 12, 8832. Doi:

10.3390/su12218832.

Thompson, A.A., Strickland, A.J., Gamble, J.E., & Gao, Z. (2018). Crafting and Executing

strategy: the quest for competitive advantage – concepts and cases. (21st edn.).

McGraw-Hill Education, New York.

CLIMATE STRATEGY PROACTIVITY 35