The integration of sustainability and business

strategy in small and medium sized businesses

Name:
Student Number:

Submitted in part-fulfilment of the degree of MSc International

Business at Keele University, Staffordshire
Word count: 14,039

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1
I would like to pay thanks to my supervisor ?, for support throughout the past three
months and for taking my all of my questions (!). I would also like to thank ? , my
course director, for his support across the last twelve months, possibly the greatest
(and busiest) of my life so far.
Finally, I would like to pay thanks to all of those family and friends (you know who
you are). With the support of whom, I have made it to the end of my Masters.

ABSTRACT

2
This study investigates the embeddedness of sustainability into small-medium sized

business strategy, delving deeper into what extent management attitudes towards

sustainability influence this integration. At a higher level, the study investigates

whether stakeholder or shareholder theory is prevalent in this context, in comparison

to existing findings set in the context of large corporations. The research has

relevance to understanding the weighting of sustainability in comparison to other

factors in the management strategic decision-making process. The research adopts

a mixed method approach to establish a comprehensive and focused understanding

of the topic. A card sorting task and semi-structured, in-depth interviews were

conducted with six participants deriving rich quantitative and qualitative data. The

resulting analysis shows a lack of embeddedness of sustainability in business

strategy and presents a clear trade-off between profit and sustainability. Moreover,

the results show that managements articulated values and attitudes do not always

correspond with their unarticulated attitudes when applied to different factors in the

decision-making scenario. Whilst recognised limitations show a sample size of six

participants, the nature and individuality of the participants; their attitudes, and

businesses means that results should not be generalised as a matter of fact, but

rather reflect the scope of the subject.

Table of Contents

3
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 6
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Strategy................................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Sustainability............................................................................................................................ 9
2.3 Sustainability and Business................................................................................................... 11
2.4 Large corporation research vs. small- medium sized business research...............................12
2.5 Types of initiative................................................................................................................... 13
2.6 Sustainability as a competitive advantage.............................................................................14
2.7 Materiality.............................................................................................................................. 15
2.8 Threats and pressure from stakeholders...............................................................................15
2.9 Internal vs. external constraints............................................................................................. 19
2.10 Short-termism...................................................................................................................... 20
3.0 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................................... 22
3.1 Aims and Objectives.............................................................................................................. 23
3.2 Research Approach............................................................................................................... 24
3.3 Primary and Secondary Research......................................................................................... 24
3.4 Qualitative and quantitative analysis......................................................................................32
4.0 FINDINGS...................................................................................................................................... 34
4.1 Strategy, vision, mission and values......................................................................................35
4.2 Pressure from stakeholders................................................................................................... 36
4.3 ESG Reporting....................................................................................................................... 38
4.4 Profit vs. Sustainability........................................................................................................... 40
4.5 Risk or Opportunity?.............................................................................................................. 42
4.6 Doing good vs. Avoiding bad?............................................................................................... 42
4.7 Barriers to pursuing sustainability as part of the business strategy........................................44
4.8 At what level is sustainability considered?.............................................................................44
5.0 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................ 45
5.1 Strategy................................................................................................................................. 46
5.2 Sustainability.......................................................................................................................... 48
5.3 Social Value........................................................................................................................... 49
5.4 Stakeholder theory................................................................................................................. 51
5.5 Profit Potential........................................................................................................................ 52
5.6 Compliance............................................................................................................................ 53
5.7 Doing good vs. avoiding bad?................................................................................................ 54
6.0 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................... 56
7.0 APPENDICES................................................................................................................................ 59
8.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 132

List of Figures

4
Figure 1 – Qualitative data gathering.....................................................................................24
Figure 2 – Quantitative data gathering...................................................................................26
Figure 3 – Examples from the 18-card array..........................................................................27
Figure 4 – Average importance values..................................................................................30
Figure 5 – Word frequency cloud created using qualitative data coded in NVivo. Displaying
results from the doing good vs. avoiding bad scenario question...........................................37
Figure 6 – Barriers to pursuing sustainability.........................................................................38

List of Tables
Table 1 – Government defined parameters...........................................................................21
Table 2 – Most commonly selected cards..............................................................................29
Table 3 – Internal stakeholder expectation importance values per participant......................30
Table 4 – External stakeholder expectation importance value per participant.......................31
Table 5 – Compliance importance values per participant......................................................32
Table 6 – Environmental sustainability importance values per participant............................33
Table 7 – Social value importance values per participant......................................................33
Table 8 – Profit potential importance values per participant..................................................34
Table 9 – Return on Capital Invested importance values per participant..............................35

5
1.0 INTRODUCTION

The aim of the project is to assess whether sustainability is embedded within small-

medium sized business strategy. The aim will be addressed by exploring managers

understanding and views regarding sustainability. The project will pay special

attention to managers articulated and unarticulated attitudes and actions. The formal

research question(s) are:

To what extent is sustainability embedded within small-medium sized business

strategy (if at all), and what are the articulated and unarticulated indicators of

manager attitudes towards sustainability? This is an important contribution to

knowledge because it will give indication of to what extent various factors impact the

ultimate integration of sustainability into overall business strategy. In view of the fact

that businesses do not operate in isolation, and with no stakeholders, the research

will seek to identify the interplay between stakeholders, managers and businesses,

to determine at which point sustainability is integrated into strategy and operations, if

at all. This research study will focus on small-medium sized businesses where the

existing literature is deficient, contributing to and complementing the extant literature

focusing on large, predominantly US corporations.

The objectives of the research study are:

1. To gather data regarding organisations, their strategy, and their operations to

provide an understanding of their engagement with sustainability

2. To gather articulated data regarding managers attitudes toward sustainability

3. To gather unarticulated data regarding managers attitudes toward sustainability

4. To compare and contrast managers articulated and unarticulated attitudes toward

sustainability
6
Managers and executives are key decision-makers within business and evidently

their cognitive characteristics and mindsets (Tollin & Vej, 2012) are bound to

influence decisions made, but to what end? This study seeks to understand more

about small-medium sized business manager comprehension and subsequent

attitudes towards various motivating factors for decision-making. These include

sustainability, stakeholders and profit potential, amongst others.

This research is built on a positivist perspective, following a deductive approach,

seeking to explain the findings from the research by logical analysis and existing

theory. The report will follow a conventional structure, firstly introducing the topic,

aims and objectives. Followed by a comprehensive literature review to contextualise

the study, determine current understanding on the topic, and to inform elements of

the study. Chapter three details the methodology which outlines the mixed method

approach to the research proposed, using in-depth, semi structured interviews with

small-medium sized businesses. This chapter goes onto detail the data analysis

using quantitative and qualitative approaches. The findings and discussion chapters

of the report will detail the key evidence attained from the research conducted and

determine how this sits within extant literature and expectation. Finally conclusions

will draw together the aim and objectives with the findings of the research

ascertaining whether the findings follow existing theory, also giving consideration for

limitations and suggestions for further research focus.

7
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

In order to contextualise the research, a comprehensive literature review was

undertaken which gave insight into gaps in subject knowledge, and precisely shaped

the research question. Findings from the literature review subsequently informed the

factors used in the management scenario. The literature reviewed includes journal

articles, textbooks, newspapers and periodicals to develop a full picture of the

subject. The literature provides gaps in knowledge or perspective that the research

will aim to fill, in this case, the literature shows that small-medium sized business

research is deficient.

2.1 Strategy

Commonly, strategy is characterized by up to five questions that “cascade logically”

(Martin, 2010) from question one through to five. Martin (2010) suggests these five

questions move from the “broad aspirations” of the organisation, through to systems

used to operate and maintain capabilities that are key to playing in the desired field.

This is occasionally simplified to two burning questions; what and why? (Phillips,

2011) but the definition of strategy has long been contested. Main streams of thought

tend to follow Mintzberg’s (1994) rather retrospective definition which looks at

patterns of behaviour exhibited through a sequence of decisions. Whereas Drucker

presents strategy as a method to achieve goals and targeted results in an

unforeseeable environment, developing into “a firm’s theory about how to gain

competitive advantage” (Drucker, 1994). For many such as Philips (2011), this

definition is equally as elusive as the last. For Drucker, the definition of strategy is

pivotal around the unknown. Porter (1985) and Murthy (2012) concur that strategy

can be a method of creating value with the view to gaining and sustaining a

8
competitive advantage. Whilst this may link strategy to a form of value creation and

ability to attain a position in the market, it does little to instruct businesses on what to

do. Mintzberg (1978) delves deeper into strategy, its formation and flexibility to react

to changes shaped by the environment, suggesting the notion of intended, realized,

emergent and deliberate strategies.

Neugebauer et al., (2015) loosely alludes to the use of vision, mission, and values as

indicators toward the embedding of sustainability in strategy, suggesting that a

unified and articulated vision will guide manager decisions and employee thinking.

Prevalent Business and Management academics concur with findings from a

longitudinal study conducted by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in

conjunction with Boston Consulting Group (BCG); whereby many of the managers

surveyed did not know what strategy is (Sull, et al., 2018). As such, it is fair to say

that there is no official, decisive definition aside from the recognition of time

elements, direction, and purpose. The literature is vast, and what is certain is that

there are many views on what it truly means to have a strategy, and what the

ultimate meaning of the term is.

2.2 Sustainability

As with strategy, sustainability is also a concept lacking a conclusive, accepted

definition. Undoubtedly the most widely accepted definition of sustainability was

conceived in the Brundtland Report in 1987, applied in a business context this is

conducting business efficiently without having a negative impact on the environment

or society as a whole (Spiliakos, 2018). Similar but varied definitions focus on the

“maintenance of systems according to environmental, economic, and social

considerations” (Crane & Matten, 2007). Whereas Borland et al., (2016) instead refer

to sustainability as a “catch-all” expression for ongoing activities, but which still

9
recognise the desirability of persisting characteristics in the long term. Bonn and

Fisher (2011) suggest that though managers recognise the importance of making

organisations more sustainable, they do not have the understanding to do so

practically, with respondents stating, my “aim is to grow my business in a sustainable

way, but I do not have the knowledge to do it”.

Research suggests that in reality, organisational value lies with sustainability being

treated as a strategic issue as opposed to an operational issue, creating ultimately a

sustainability advantage (Hitchcock & Willard, 2015). This may be evidenced through

the introduction of sustainability focused job roles (Bonn & Fisher, 2011), Khanra et

al., (2021) cite hiring sustainable offices and positions as a key indicator of

corporates addressing their responsibilities. Extant literature goes on to suggest that

in fact, the view that sustainability goes beyond legal and regulatory compliance, into

taking a proactive stance is a characteristic of integrating sustainability related

initiatives throughout multiple or every level of the organisation (Bonn & Fisher,

2011).

Literature suggests that those sustainability focused strategies which are

systematically embedded into the businesses headline strategy are “the most

effective” (Long, 2019). Sustainability that is embedded in strategy is found to be

present in the vision, mission, and the values of the business; “an enterprise strategy

is, by its nature, built on its values, motives, and goals”. When the strategic vision of

business is sustainability focused it is found to communicate to stakeholders; internal

and external that “sustainability is an integral part” of the strategy (Bonn & Fisher,

2011).

10
2.3 Sustainability and Business

As recently as 2021 Reyes-Rodriguez and Ulhøi still concur with the notion that in

fact, SMEs do not garner the attention of those larger corporations, speculating that

this is because of the competitive implications that the larger businesses face

(Reyes-Rodriguez & Ulhøi, 2021). This could be due to the absence of shareholder

pressure on small-medium sized businesses which reverts back, to a financial focus.

This view concurs with the well-known neoclassical notion from Friedman (1970) that

“the only responsibility held by companies is to increase their earnings through

compliance with legal and ethical principles” (Friedman, 1970). Friedmans view

echoes the objective of corporations as set out by the American Law Institute (1992:

Sec.2.01); to facilitate shareholder gain through profit enhancement. Hammann et

al., (2008) conducted seminal work on the values of managers in socially responsible

business practice, the study finds that when socially responsible management

practices are implemented pertaining to customers and employees predominantly, a

direct positive impact is had on the performance of the business. The work

concludes that “values can create additional value” (Hammann, et al., 2008). This

notion that values create a potential competitive advantage is one that has long been

hypothesised but which is being discovered to be true.

Literature centred around large corporations finds stockholders or shareholders to

have high expectation of a fairly significant return on investment (ROI) (Friedman,

1970). In many instances this may be derived from a competitive advantage

attained, in these situations CEO’s and Directors are the ‘face’ of the business, and

in some instances it is found that they don’t act in the manner they wish to

personally, but rather they act as a result of the wishes, demands and views of the

11
shareholders (ibid). Similarly, Friedman (1970) notes that corporations and their

respective executives are funding social interests with “someone else’s money”,

further arguing that if stockholders wished to do this, they could do so themselves. In

the modern world, whether genuine or not, sustainability is a “buzzword” (Mitev &

Venters, 2009; Kotler, 2011) in both literature and practice, that potentially leads

organisations to fall foul of greenwashing.

2.4 Large corporation research vs. small- medium sized business research

It is recognised in literature that consideration must be given to those majority of

businesses who fall outside the boundary of ‘large’ corporations. Yet, there are few

who have explicitly recognised the potential these businesses hold largely due to a

blinkered focus on big business (Kipley & Lewis, 2009). Mindy Lubber, president of

the not-for-profit sustainability advocacy organisation, Ceres states “we have to

focus on midsize companies and smaller companies because they have equally

compelling opportunities, but they’re just not as far along” (Kiron, et al., 2017).

“Conventional CSR theory is based on the myth that large companies are the norm

and has been predominantly developed in and for large corporations” (Jenkins,

2004). This paper then goes onto suggest that small-medium sized businesses have

been presented or approached as ‘little big companies’ (Tilley, 2000). This infers that

these small- medium sized business mirror large corporations on a smaller scale.

Tilley (2000) finds this not to be true with regard to corporate social activities, small-

medium sized businesses make decisions based on a variety of differing factors,

motivators and based on assessment of their competitive environments. However,

Williams and Schaefer (2012), Tilley (2000), and Fitjar (2011) all recognise the

deficiency of literature based on small-medium sized businesses and a certain focus

on large corporations.

12
2.5 Types of initiative

Corporate sustainability is no longer a burdensome set of marginal activities labelled

as money-losing (Kiron, et al., 2017). Rather, literature has uncovered and publicised

the link between sustainable initiatives and positive financial performance (Boakye, et

al., 2020). Whilst common perception of sustainability initiatives may include

introducing sustainable materials, redesigning products for recycling after their useful

life it goes much, much further. Sustainability is often divided in environmental, social

and governance subheadings (ESG). Bob Willard coined the term ‘Sustainability

Advantage’ as that which “encourages organizations to think of sustainability as a

primary enabling strategy, not one more goal in a long list” (Hitchcock & Willard, 2015).

The premise draws focus to systemic sustainability running through the heart of

strategy, as opposed to that which is superficial and ultimately, not material to the

business. Business focus shift from these superficial initiatives toward ‘whole-

system’ approaches means paradigm, product and process shifts in order to move

away from the ‘end-of-pipe’ solutions which are commonly found on the surface of

sustainability (Lozano, 2012). Typically these initiatives are applied after the fact

(Sarkis & Cordeiro, 2001), and are reportedly inefficient as a superficial solution

associated with high costs and lack of return due to their position in the process.

Initiatives including implementing a child labour policy, research and development of

more sustainable products, investment in certifications and developing cleaner

technology (Bonn & Fisher, 2011) are suggestions from extant literature of typical yet

focused initiatives that may indicate that organisations are seeking to embed

sustainability into their strategy. However, there is still implication that these initiatives

are taken as a reactive rebuttal to stakeholder pressure.

13
2.6 Sustainability as a competitive advantage

There are indicators that suggest viewing sustainability as more than a level of

compliance, rather, as a means for developing and sustaining a competitive

advantage. ISO 14001 claim that the use of the standard is a method of

differentiation that results in a competitive advantage (ISO, 2022). ISO 14001 update

2015 aims to help businesses manage the increased risks including stakeholder

expectations. Seeking to recognise the constraints that smaller businesses face with

lack of staff or resources, yet the standards are not reserved only for the large

players in the market (ISO, 2019). Extant literature examines the difficult task of

sustaining a competitive advantage and the ways in which sustainable strategy

initiatives tend to be mimicked. This results in many cases for only a short-term

competitive advantage. As far back as 1995, literature recognised that the facilitation

of environmentally sustainable activity is the future of competitive advantage for

many industries, advocating the natural resource-based view (NRBV) of the firm

(Hart, 1995). The NRBV seeks to promote and enact a sense of wholeness as a

method of creating value and establishing a competitive advantage. Extant literature

suggests alternative views on grasping sustainability issues and initiatives, where

previously the view was predominantly a negative one; seen mostly as a nuisance

(Bonn & Fisher, 2011), threat and a drain on resources. The tide is turning and in

fact sustainability is viewed as a method of profit making (Marcus & Geffen, 1998),

value creation and source of competitive advantage (Murthy, 2012). Authority on the

subject state that there is a direct positive and negative link between sustainability

issues and the material operation of the business i.e., the more material an issue the

higher the risk.

14
2.7 Materiality

Further, the literature argues that in order for a business to have embedded

sustainability into their strategy, there must be evidence for sustainability initiatives

pertaining to operations material to the business. This being those activities which

directly impact the businesses ability to create revenue; those that are at the heart of

the business operations. In this sense, sustainability issues material to the business

are those which impact the success of the business (ESG the report, 2021). By

developing and understanding the materiality risk or opportunities businesses are

best able to comprehend their Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) footprint

and develop their relationship with stakeholders for long-term (sustainable) success

(ibid, 2021).

2.8 Threats and pressure from stakeholders

Stakeholder theory literature presents “increased societal awareness of the impact of

business on communities and nations… as reasons to revise our understanding of

business” (Freeman, et al., 2010). The prevalent literature views the importance of

stakeholders as the primary force in devising strategic direction. The literature

introduces concerns such as managements ethical and social responsibilities,

regulatory pressures, as well as new business opportunities presented by

sustainability and the resulting cost factors (Aragón-Correa & Rubio-Lopez, 2007;

Phan & Baird, 2015). Adams et al., (2011) contest that there are very few issues of

greater significance to business and managers than the stakeholders versus

shareholders dispute.

The precedent longitudinal study investigating the importance of sustainability in

strategy based in large US corporations is the MIT collaboration with BCG. This

study finds that overall, investors regard sustainability highly for value creation.

15
Similarly, Gond et al. (2012) and Ioannou & Serafeim (2019) concur that stakeholder

influence can often be coercive, and compliance driven (Paulraj, 2009). This is not

necessarily as a direct result of a ‘want’ to address sustainability, these powerful

actors are recognised as activist investors; governments, community groups and

larger organisations (Ioannou & Serafeim, 2019), these are notably the biggest

cause of pressure for CEO’s (Winston, 2022). All businesses face both the ‘carrot’

and the ‘stick’ from stakeholders, Paulraj (2009) notes that small-medium sized

businesses are not sheltered from the requirement of legislation compliance, this

may often result in encouragement to place responsible and sympathetic managers

(Pless & Maak, 2011). Gadenne et al’s (2009) empirical study about environmental

awareness cites reports of positive attitudes toward environmental issues in

particular, however the level of action implementation is found to be low in

comparison. Gond et al. (2012) state that a hazard of acting in this arena is the

propensity to fall foul of short-termism; identified by Bansal and DesJardine (2014)

as the arena where strategy and sustainability face off. Short-termistic tendencies

are intrinsically not optimal during the long run (Laverty, 1996: 826).

On the other end of the scale are those who recognise that they pursue sustainability

simply because “it is expected of us”. This may be a voluntary reaction to indirect

stakeholder pressure to address expectation across the environmental, social and

governance (ESG) domains. In early adopters this will result in a differentiation and

potentially competitive advantage (Eccles, et al., 2014; Khan, et al., 2016).

Other powerful actors within the stakeholder group include customers and

customers’ customers, as the often-last link, these stakeholders control the narrative

and apply pressure throughout the chain from their position (Tollin & Vej, 2012). This

is reflected in the widely recognised and important view that businesses are obliged

16
to consider all stakeholders not just shareholders (Caputo, et al., 2017). Due to the

importance of shareholders in large corporations this may be increasingly evident in

small-medium sized businesses. These shareholders may include employees or

external stakeholders, suppliers, customers and the community, literature finds that it

may be these external parties who encourage the business to bridge the materiality

gap (Kiron, et al., 2017). Similarly, literature shows the pressure exerted on the

business from internal and external stakeholders results in the inconsistencies in

reporting on the triple bottom line; environmental, social, and financial (Kolk &

Perego, 2008).

Of the limited literature available on small business manager motivators for ‘pro-

environmental engagement’, Williams & Schaefer (2012) find external pressures as

predicted, but most notably, they do find personal values as motivators for engaging

in broad sustainable action. The paper goes on to note how research into SME

engagement with all sustainability issues is sparse and lacking real focus and detail.

Williams & Schaefer (2012) suggest that managers of SMEs have already adapted

to, and overcome potential barriers to engagement, which may be attributable to

their smaller size.

Stakeholder theory introduces the notion of the co-creation of value, by the

customer, consumer, and other stakeholders, early theorists such as Freeman

defined the theory similarly as those who can both affect, and/ or are affected by

achievement (or not) of the businesses objectives (Freeman, 1984). Literature

further investigates and defines two views on stakeholder theory; instrumental,

described as the intersection between ethics, theory of economics, elements of

behavioural science and the base stakeholder notion (Jones, 1995). Opposingly, the

moral position on stakeholder theory considers that any entity that comes into

17
contact with the business is a stakeholder (Maharaj, 2008). The moral view on

stakeholder theory as such may include principles of widely accepted morality within

their decision-making processes (ibid), not for reasons of self-interest, but rather

because it is the ‘right thing to do’ (Jones, et al., 2007). The breadth both

conceptually and perceptually is proposed by Phillips et al., (2003) as one of the

reasons why stakeholder theory presents both “great strengths” but is also

suggested as one of the theories greatest shortcomings (Phillips, et al., 2003).

Though commonly used interchangeably, stakeholders and shareholders are

markedly different, shareholders are just one of a business’s stakeholders; with the

chief purpose of “wealth maximisation” (Ali, 2015) or shaping strategy to “enhance

shareholder value” (Adams, et al., 2011). These definitions echo the premise set out

in Friedmans 1970 essay published in the New York Times. Yet Ali (2015) suggests

that shareholders benefit long-term when the business addresses the needs of

stakeholders and society as a whole. Similarly, in a study of S&P 400 index

companies in 1989, the majority reported that they felt more accountable to the

stakeholders than the shareholders (Adams, et al., 2011).

This stakeholder influence results in changes to the business operations and

strategy, reflecting the importance of stakeholders in the strategy process in larger

corporations especially as businesses are no longer unilaterally able to dictate the

process of product or service creation (Ramaswamy & Ozcan, 2014). Strategic

‘command’ refers back to early use of the term, deriving from the Greek word

‘stratos’, definition; army. This derivation succinctly recognises and explains the

importance of stakeholders to strategy, whilst also affirming the impact on business

derived from every decision made by management (Schaltegger, et al. 2017;

Drucker, 1973 p.121).

18
2.9 Internal vs. external constraints

SMEs are susceptible to suffer managerial and financial constraints; Hammann et al.

(2009) acknowledge however, that we cannot generalise a lack of engagement

across all business structures, industries and sectors. Hammann’s 2009 study finds

that similarly with ESG reporting in small -medium sized businesses, there was a

broad range of engagement. However, Hammann et al (2009) hypothesise that this

may be attributed to projected competitive advantage, the context and marketplace

and ultimately the size of the business. To conclude, constraints differ drastically

between the well-researched large corporations and the under-researched small -

medium sized business bracket, necessitating studies that research true motivators

of embedding sustainability in business strategy.

Alternate literature cites the differences in managers values; which emerge as

particularly pivotal, personal attributes (Hiller and Hambrick, 2005; Adams, et al.,

2011), perceptions of stimulus as potential constraints; where internal and external

stimulus are construed differently, either by managers in different organisations or

even by managers within the same organisation (Starbuck & Milliken, 1988). These

attitudes and perceptions are consciously or subconsciously, the basis upon which

the “perception and diagnosis” of strategy issues are made. This is framed in

literature as the cognitive characteristics of decision makers. Kollmus and Agyeman

(2002) concur, stating that the decision makers emotional involvement, or lack of it,

influences the interpretation and consequential decision made. This level of

emotional involvement has been suggested in literature through the introduction of

the stakeholder value approach, that emphasises the importance of all stakeholders

as opposed to just shareholders; this includes, the community, suppliers, and the

environment. This view contributes to the chain of thought that recognises decision

19
making to be a process as opposed to an isolated event, linked to multiple internal

and external factors. Similarly, Arjaliès and Mundy (2013) and Kerr et al., (2015)

concur that belief systems are central to supporting the dissemination of

sustainability and values, suggesting in turn that, this can be a constraint when

sustainability is not highly regarded within the beliefs of key players.

Whereas, external constraints are largely discussed in literature, there are equal

constraints that are intrinsic in small-medium sized business environments. Fitjar

(2011) proposes that these constraints result in both higher costs and the resulting

lower payoffs from undertaking corporate responsible work. (Fitjar, 2011).

2.10 Short-termism

Literature does not suggest a strict definition of short-termism, however it is generally

accepted as a higher weight placed on near term income, than that on longer-term

potential opportunity. This in itself presents opportunity costs (Davies, et al., 2014),

in this context pertaining to sustainability initiatives. Hart (1995) defines the short-

term focus as organisations focused on generating profit in the short-term forgoing

the establishment of longer-term positions in the developing world. The very

denotation of short-termism is innately opposite to all basic definitions of

sustainability, where sustainability is inherently looking to ensure that resources or

business operations persist throughout lengths of time. Short-termism focuses on

short-term profit making, whilst forgoing the potential for long-term benefits . Laverty

(1996) defines short-termism as the pursual of action that is best case for the short

term but is remarkably “suboptimal” in the long-term, in this sense short-termism has

been characterised as “hazardous” (Bansal & DesJardine, 2014)and potentially as a

serious contributor to both function and business failure (ibid, 2014). Literature

voices that in direct opposition to the very meaning of short-termism, sustainability is

20
a challenge that requires decision makers in all industries to manger resources and

potential benefits across the long-term as opposed to consumption in the present

(Kim, et al., 2019). This is presented as a trade-off where to consume now, means to

be unable to consume later, in many instances businesses; typically those of

restricted resources cannot make this trade-off (ibid, 2019) and seek to exercise

short-termism by default for survival.

In support of short-termism and perhaps explanatory of the lack of literature

supporting SMEs sustainability is the short lifespan of small-medium businesses

(Ahmed, et al., 2014) suggesting irrelevance to consider the longer-term given the

uncertainty of survival past the 1–3-year mark.

In opposition to short-termism, Bonn and Fisher (2011) applaud a long-term

commitment to sustainability as an indicator to the public and members of the

organisation that sustainability is a key facet within the organisational strategy which

influences and impacts economic, environmental, and social considerations.

2.11 Summary

To summarise, Lubber, Williams and Schaefer (2012), Tilley (2000) and Fitjar

(2011), concur that there is a distinct absence of research into small-medium sized

business strategy and lack of investigation into the extent to which small- medium

sized business interact with sustainability. This is a stark contrast to the historical

focus on large corporation research, literature hypothesises that this is due to the

both broad and critical stakeholder reach (Reyes-Rodriguez & Ulhøi, 2021). This

broad reach is not so heavily present within the small-medium sized business

landscape. In fact, when considering large corporations, academics do not agree on

the true motive behind integration of sustainability into their strategy, the views tend

to stem from purely profit driven (Friedman, 1970), through to a moral interest in

21
ensuring provision for the future. Regardless of the true stance, there is an apparent

underlying theme; stakeholders. These entities influence whether a business

employs short-termism or whether sustainability actions are material to the business

operations. The literature suggests that the generally accepted view on sustainability

has changed, as opposed to being a task that was predominantly viewed as a

nuisance (Bonn & Fisher, 2011), it is now recognised as a profit-making activity

(Marcus & Geffen, 1998). The findings of the comprehensive literature review serve

as the basis upon which elements of the methodology are formed. This includes the

factors for the decision-making scenario, and mixed method approach to adeptly

understand the complexity of strategy and management attitude. This is discussed in

depth within the following chapter.

3.0 METHODOLOGY

Chapter 3 intends to re-introduce the aims and objectives of the research. The

chapter will then explain the approach taken to the research and detail primary and

secondary methods of research undertaken to achieve the aim. Finally, the chapter

seeks to explain the mixed method approach adopted, in order to build strong and

rich data to contribute to achieving the research objectives. The chapter closes with

a summary of limitations of the methodology. The articulated methodology ensures

focus on relevant methods and counters time-wasting.

The research question(s) are: To what extent is sustainability embedded within

small-medium sized business strategy (if at all), and what are the articulated and

unarticulated indicators of manager attitudes towards sustainability? This question

22
can be understood in both a qualitative and quantitative manner, this is reflected in

the methodology.

3.1 Aims and Objectives

The aim of this project is to assess whether sustainability is embedded within

business strategy, through exploring managers understanding and views regarding

sustainability. The project will pay special attention to managers articulated and

unarticulated attitudes and actions.

The objectives of the research study are:

1. To gather data regarding organisations, their strategy, and their operations to

provide an understanding of their engagement with sustainability

2. To gather articulated data regarding managers attitudes toward strategy and

sustainability

3. To gather unarticulated data regarding managers attitudes toward strategy and

sustainability

4. To compare and contrast managers articulated and unarticulated attitudes toward

strategy and sustainability

Literature alludes to evidence of non-articulated indictors as to how sustainability

factors into decision making, it should be evident through every business decision

made; reflecting how embedded sustainability is in strategy. If sustainability is

embedded in strategy, then it lies at the heart of all business operations, if there is a

level of embeddedness, then it applies to certain areas of the business, conversely

businesses may not embed sustainability into their strategy at all, in which case it will

not form part of the decision-making process.

23
3.2 Research Approach

The proposed research method combines existing theory with an empirical

approach. The study is loosely inspired by a longitudinal MIT study in collaboration

with BCG titled: ‘Corporate Sustainability at a Crossroad’, which gathered over

66,000 responses from CEOs of large US corporations across 8 years, assessing

and analysing the increasing importance of sustainability to businesses and Senior

Management (Kiron, et al., 2017). The study and resulting report find that ultimately,

the corporations can create a ‘workable - and - profitable’ solution embedding

sustainability into the business strategy (ibid).

The research methodology was based on positivist perspective and used a

deductive approach; where an idea or question is drawn based on existing theory; in

this case stakeholder theory. This is subsequently tested through research. This

approach is said to be most dominant in Management studies (Johnson, 2015) as

well as in the wider bracket of social sciences (Woiceshyn & Daellenbach, 2017). As

opposed to an inductive approach; whereby conclusions are drawn from the

research collected eventually contributing to the development of new theories and

hypothesis (Eisenhardt, et al., 2016; Locke, 2007). Konrad (2008) finds that

conclusions deducted solely through extant literature make very little contribution to

knowledge. These findings explain the significance of a combination of secondary

and primary research to harness a deductive approach and test whether these

theories hold true in a real-life context.

3.3 Primary and Secondary Research

A blend of both primary and secondary research is harnessed throughout the study.

The secondary research provides contextualisation and a basis upon which to form

and shape the topic, question, aims and objectives of the primary research. The

24
primary research engages with the research question and looks to address the

project aims and objectives. To contextualise the research, a vast range of literature

was reviewed in a periodic and logical manner. Beginning with devising a list of

potential search terms related to the research question and the objectives. The list of

search terms was addressed systematically to ensure inclusion of all relevant pieces

of literature, whilst being cautious not to include literature pertaining to the ‘other’

meaning of sustainability in business terms i.e. business continuity. Where evidence

was uncovered and new search terms required, these were added to the list, this

process delivered a comprehensive and in-depth assessment of the literature

currently available. Search terms included; Sustainability and Strategy, Sustainability

Strategy, Strategic Sustainability, Sustainability in Business, Sustainability

Embeddedness, Small Business Grants Sustainability, Green Sustainability Strategy,

Planned Sustainability Strategy, Emergent Sustainability Strategy, Green

Entrepreneurial Strategy, Green Innovation Strategy, Emergent Strategy, and

Emergent Sustainability. These findings were evaluated and synthesised into

succinct topics contributing to the critical review of extant literature. New,

contemporary literature is being produced and released continuously, this may not

be included within the review, this is recognised as a limitation of the methodology.

The secondary segment of the research is derived from online databases; including

Keele Library and Google Scholar. Relevant checks for validity and trustworthiness

were applied to each of the sources: including the number of citations, and the

authors credentials. Other online sources include periodicals, such as the

Conversation, Harvard Business Review and MIT Sloan Review; each with their own

credentials. Where secondary sources have been deemed lacking in validity and

25
credibility, they have been excluded from the literature review and have not informed

the study.

In terms of primary research, the interview technique was determined to be more

effective than alternative methods such as immersive observation. This technique

involves immersion into the situation through researcher participation. This technique

was deemed unsuitable for this research study because of the risk of immersion

bias, and the resulting lack of integrity of the research findings.

The sampling pool for the research project is small- medium sized businesses

accessed through the Keele University network, Local Enterprise Partnership (LEPs)

schemes, and other local businesses contacted through networking and LinkedIn.

These businesses fall within the defined parameters for small to medium-sized

business. After careful consideration, the decision was made to consider businesses

from all industries in order to get a cross-section of industries. This allows for

comparing and contrasting of industry research, which may produce some insight

into how sustainability is embedded in strategy in one industry compared to another.

Small-medium sized business parameters are based on government defined

parameters as seen in the table:

Small Medium
Less than 50 employees Less than 250 employees
Less than £10.2 million turnover Less than £36 million turnover
Less than £5.1 million balance sheet Less than £18 million balance sheet
Table 1 – Government defined parameters

An anticipated lack of authorisation ruled out interviews with employees of the small-

medium sized businesses to corroborate the statements made by the managers. The

method has been eliminated as an indicator of the degree to which sustainability is

embedded within strategy for this reason. Instead, a set of 10 local businesses will

26
be selected from the confirmed sampling pool to take part in in-depth interviews. To

triangulate the results from the in-depth interviews other evidence is collected from

the literature researched, and the primary sources themselves; through the

management scenario and information available in the public domain. These sources

of information help to determine whether sustainability is systematically embedded

within the business strategy. Or in fact, whether there are elements of sustainability

present throughout some areas of business operations. This perspective gives the

opportunity to compare the results from potentially sustainably focused business to

others, if sustainably focused businesses are available within the sample pool and

agree to take part in the research study.

This same sampling pool was relevant for the conjoint analysis; conducted via

interviews, the conjoint element of analysis aims to identify the weight decision

makers place on sustainability during strategic decision making. This weight may

corroborate or refute the articulated answers provided during the interview. In all

situations possible, the quantitative data collection element of the study was

designed to form the first of a two-part interview.

There was significant risk of nonresponse bias; a situation where participants refuse

to complete or drop out of the study before completion. This presented potential

issues of incompleteness, which were addressed by selecting another business

participant from the sampling pool. The issue of representativeness was also

present in this situation. The study is looking to sample from a variety of industries;

however, the research is limited by those businesses who agree to take part,

businesses may be sceptical to disclose this information for various reasons. There

27
is little that can be done about this; however it is recognised as a limitation of the

study.

Qualitative data gathering techniques

Sampling pool
Participants recruited
devised

Create fieldnotes,
Semi-structured in conduct an
depth interview immediate debrief
conducted following the
interview

Transcribe the
Data input into NVivo
interview

Data coded into

Analysis run in NVivo
nodes

Figure 1 – Qualitative data gathering

In-depth, semi-structured interviews were chosen as the primary method of data

gathering, as opposed to closed interview questions, in-depth semi-structured allows

participant responses to be thoroughly explored in order to maximise the impact of

data gathered. The interview consisted of 21 questions designed to determine the

information sought (see Appendix 2). The semi-structured format means that

participants responses can be probed to increase the depth and richness of the data

retrieved from the research. In-depth interviews were recorded in full; these

recordings were subsequently transcribed using the verbatim technique (see

Appendix 4 – Appendix 10). This technique ensured all relevant audio is transcribed,

with consideration given both to what is said, and how it is said. This technique

28
ensures that pauses and colloquialism are included as this adds to the full picture of

the interview, providing in itself, invaluable data. The audio recordings have been

transcribed by hand, opting against software to ensure complete accuracy of the

transcription and to allow for a comprehensive read through and increased familiarity

with the data. To contextualise the audio recording, field notes were taken by the

researcher throughout the interview as opposed to using exclusively audio

recordings. This aggregated method is thought to strengthen the reliability of the

data. Creating solid field notes that detail the circumstances and context of the

interview allowed for an immediate de-brief (Wengraf, 2001) following the interview

to consider time critical elements that may get forgotten upon later transcription.

Aside from assisting with verbatim transcription, audio recording interviews

eliminated interviewer dishonesty (Fasick, 1977), upon which a solid, rich picture

cannot be presented.

Quantitative data gathering techniques

Factors devised from the Key factors trialed on the Key factors and levels are Run orthogonal array on
literature review pilot participant input into SPSS SPSS

Participants conduct the

One factor removed and management scenario -
27 card array produced the orthogonal array re-run 18 card array produced ordering the array in
on SPSS preference for decision-
making from 1-18

Preference order input into

Run conjoint analysis
SPSS

Figure 2 – Quantitative data gathering

29
The quantitative element of the mixed methods approach: the management

scenario, was conducted through conjoint analysis using an orthogonal array

determined by SPSS. Factors and levels devised included the key motivators to

strategic decision-making, these were non-negotiable and determined as a result of

findings from the literature review. The key factors were initially tested on the pilot

participant to determine their relevance. The factors remained almost entirely the

same following the pilot study, however levels were added in order to create an

orthogonal array through SPSS. The first orthogonal array produced 27 cards, with

separate combinations of the eight factors and three levels.

Upon reflection this number of cards was too many and too confusing for the

participants when faced with 27 cards comprising of tables that looked almost

identical. Two of the factors; regulation and compliance, were found to be very

similar in interpretation, and may have resulted in confusion or joint ranking. As a

result a trial orthogonal array of seven factors with three levels was created resulting

in an 18-card array (see Appendix 3), the regulation factor was removed from the

motivating factors.

Two examples of the 18-card array can be seen below:

30
 Figure 3 – Examples from the 18-card array

Participants were asked to organise the 18-card array in one of two ways, both of

which result in numbers of cards in preference order from one to eighteen. Either

choose their six preferred cards, and rank these from one to six, followed by the

remaining cards from seven to eighteen. With their most preferred combination card

on the top of the pile, and their least preferred combination card on the bottom of the

pile. Alternatively participants were asked to arrange the full array of cards from one

to eighteen, with the most preferred on the top of the pile and the least preferred on

the bottom of the pile. The first method was trialled to combat the potential for

confusion when faced with an 18-card array with very similar tables, however

participants sought out their own strategy to ranking once presented with the cards.

Evidence suggests that both questionnaire respondents and interview participants

are prone to evidencing socially desirable responding (Vesteinsdottir, et al., 2018),

i.e. responses that may not truly reflect preferences, feelings and in this case;

decision-making processes. The scepticism is based around concerns over reliability

and quality of the data (Radas & Prelec, 2019), which is fundamental to the

31
research. This issue was mitigated by creating a non-judgemental environment and

encouraging participants to simply ‘say it as they see it’. For this study, it is not

important, if and how far, the business pursues sustainability, but rather the impact of

management opinion and understanding of sustainability on business strategy and how

this is reflected in non-articulated indicators.

3.4 Qualitative and quantitative analysis

The research study endeavours to undertake a mixed method enquiry; comprising

both qualitative and quantitative data and analysis. This approach produces

comprehensive, strong, and rich (Saunders, et al., 2019) information to contribute to

the field of knowledge. Eisenhardt et al., (2016) credits qualitative data and

subsequent analysis as the element which makes “new theoretical explanations

possible” (Eisenhardt, et al., 2016), actively enabling a contribution to the field of

knowledge.

The data gathered through in-depth, semi-structured interviews is analysed through

an interactive process via a chosen CAQDAS. Once transcribed, the interview data

was input into NVivo to code, classify, order, and sort the findings, this allowed for

thematic analysis to be undertaken including word frequency and relationships.

NVivo is most useful for this element of the research because of the capacity to hold

and analyse extensive, unstructured qualitative data. NVivo facilitates modelling and

may potentially identify causal links where they exist, between pieces of data. All

interviews were uploaded to NVivo, the nodes were decided as per the topic and

objectives of the research, all interviews were coded into pertinent nodes. Key

analysis included word frequency analysis, reading all interview transcription files,

searching for the top 100 most frequently occurring words. The scale was set to

stemmed words as opposed to an exact match, or at the other end of the scale;

32
generalisation, to ensure control over what is being reported on. Similarly, whilst

synonyms are an option, the synonyms in this context may not be appropriate, due

to the dual understanding of the word ‘sustainability’.

The data gathered through the card sorting exercise is subject to quantitative

analysis, namely; conjoint analysis using SPSS software. This analysis intends to

dive deeper into the subconscious of managements decision-making process. To

support the analysis of the data, full research of the SPSS conjoint function was

undertaken. This included a Keele Library search for ‘SPSS conjoint analysis’ which

produced 58 results, all of which were not directly relevant in this context. Secondly a

more specific search of; ‘SPSS conjoint sustainability’, which produced just one

result, though this was not relevant. Finally, a Keele Library search for ‘SPSS

conjoint strategy’, which produced 11 results, all of which were not directly relevant.

The conjoint analysis provides a utility score and importance value for each of the

motivating factors for participant decision-making. This analysis is an unarticulated

indicator of management attitude as it seeks to assign importance to various factors

in relation to others, in particular when provided with a set of pre-determined cards

whereby the ideal set of factors and levels may not be available.

Whilst the management scenario card sort activity provides a method to register the

managers decision making preferences at a deeper level the combinations of

motivating factors found on each card provides clues as to why some motivators

have scored relatively highly in comparison to articulated evidence given through

interviews. By creating an array of just 18 cards through SPSS, the participants

favoured combination card is potentially not available in the array. This creates a

trade-off scenario, whereby participants seek out their most preferred factor and

33
generally rank based on this and their next best alternative. Conducting the task from

most preferred to least preferred focuses the participant on their absolute most

important motivating factor, as opposed to identifying the absolute least important

motivating factor and ranking the cards based on this. This is recognised as a

potential limitation in the research because the results may not accurately reflect the

full range of importance to participants. However, the findings do evidence the

existence of the trade-off between factors and contributes towards understanding

manager importance value placed on motivating factors at the more subliminal level.

4.0 FINDINGS

The research finds that overall participants placed the highest importance on social

value as a motivating factor in strategic decision-making, followed by compliance,

profit potential, internal stakeholder expectation, return on capital invested (ROCI),

external stakeholder expectation and finally; environmental sustainability (see Figure

4, Appendix 11, Appendix 12 and Appendix 13).

Figure 4 – Average importance values

Although social value does not score highly throughout individual analysis of

participants responses, the scores for social value (as seen in Exhibit 9.) are varied.

34
The most commonly selected top six cards of the eighteen-card array were:

Card Appearances
7 5/6
11 5/6
8 4/6
9 4/6
16 4/6
12 3/6
Table 2 – Most commonly selected cards

Card number 7 which held high importance for profit potential, also held high

importance for internal stakeholder expectations, ROCI and environmental

sustainability. Similarly, card 9 which appeared at any top six position 4/6 times,

also held high importance for environmental sustainability and compliance. All six

cards that held profit potential in high importance appeared within the top six

preferential combination cards, whilst five; all but one, cards with low profit potential

did not appear in the top six at all. The only low importance profit potential card to

appear within a single participants top six preference cards was card number 3;

which simultaneously held compliance and social value in high importance. This card

was ranked within the top six by a participant who voiced the importance that these

two motivators played in their strategy; “sustainability and compliance those were

the two things that I felt would impact the others anyway” going on to explain that the

internal stakeholders are aware of the drive to “ support local people, local business,

local source”.

4.1 Strategy, vision, mission and values

All participants could articulate a strategy of some sort, in the case of all participants

this strategy was not ‘official’ but rather a general notion by which the business

operates. Similarly, participants could recite a vision, mission, or general values of

the business. However, these were not written into the business as such, there is

35
little evidence given by participants to suggest that these elements or indicators of

strategy are written down. Participants 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 all recognised that their

strategy may not be visible to the rest of the business; namely, to employees.

Participant 2 is the only employee of a limited company, so there is no one else to

consider the strategy. When asked about the vision, mission, and values of the

business this participant responded “: “I don’t really have those kinds of things”.

Although the participant doesn’t have an articulated strategy and accompanying

vision, mission, and values, the participant recognises that they are important

because, you may “earn more money”.

4.2 Pressure from stakeholders

When asked to name the stakeholders of the businesses, every participant

recognised the shareholders or business directors, participant 1 (pilot) stated “We

don’t have any external stakeholders; the business is 100% run by myself and

owned by myself”, similarly, participant 6 acknowledges the business stakeholders

as “my husband, and myself”. Only participant 2 recognises other members of the

community and customers as stakeholders of their business.

Internal Stakeholder Expectation

Participant Internal Stakeholder Expectation
Importance Value
1 14.379
2 14.024
3 25.000
4 15.060
5 10.135
6 10.870
Table 3 – Internal stakeholder expectation importance values per participant

In the management scenario Internal Stakeholder Expectation received a fairly

consistent importance value score across all participants. The slight outlier

presented in the findings was participant 3; with an importance value of 25.000,

36
representing this participants most important motivating factor during decision-

making in the scenario. The range in importance values for this factor is 14.865.

When considering the pressure that stakeholders may exert on the business,

participant 3 recognises customer pressure as a reason for adapting packaging

because of the risk of bad publicity; “we started to get quite a few complaints not

major but enough that we thought we need to do this, saying this is great but look at

all this plastic…so it was our customers really that pointed us in the direction that we

needed to do”. The participant again notes the external stakeholder pressure to

implement initiatives which pursue sustainability; “its customer feedback I don’t want

people putting photos saying look at this parcel”.

The same applies to the suppliers; supply chain demand, pressure to comply and be

pursuing sustainability as a dependent; “We’ve worked with some big companies

before, some of the questions they’ve asked us is asking us about sustainability,

what we do with packaging, how much of our stuffs recycled, how much of that”.

External Stakeholder Expectation

Participant External Stakeholder Expectation

Importance Value
1 7.190
2 17.073
3 7.500
4 19.880
5 15.541
6 9.239
Table 4 – External stakeholder expectation importance value per participant

Corroborating with specific data and feedback received from the interview element of

the research; external stakeholder expectation is ranked overall the sixth most

important motivating factor in managers decision-making process. The range of

participant responses is 12.380, evidencing that participants rated external

37
stakeholder expectations slightly differently, but recognised that it is not the most

important motivating factor in the decision-making process. When asked who the

stakeholders of the business are, only one participant (2) cited anyone outside of the

Directors/Owners. This participant (2) has presented an importance value of 17.073

for external stakeholder expectations: corroborating with the evidence from the

interview and, the second highest from the sampling participant pool.

Compliance
Participant Compliance Importance Value
1 22.876
2 14.024
3 15.833
4 10.843
5 20.946
6 10.870
Table 5 – Compliance importance values per participant

Generally, compliance scored mid-range in the management scenario, participant 5

noted that compliance was a key motivator in their strategic decision-making process

because overall, they would consider compliance to “give you a better profit”. This is

reflected in participant 5’s relatively high importance value: 20.946. Subsequently,

the range for this factor is 12.043, the lowest range within all motivating factor

importance values. In the interview section of the study, participant 6 noted that

compliance with mandatory AHDB reporting regulation was undertaken. However, in

the management scenario participant 6 produced a compliance importance value of

10.870, the second lowest of all participants.

4.3 ESG Reporting

None of the participants had heard of ESG reporting prior to the study, when the

researcher expanded on the acronym, participant 2 stated; “I don’t understand them,

so I guess it doesn’t apply to me”, participant 2 produced an environmental

38
sustainability importance value of 4.878. This corroborates with the articulated

section of the research; this importance value was the lowest of all participants.

Similarly, when asked whether the business reports on, if not ESG, then social value

or sustainability, only two participants cited any such reporting. Participant 1

recognises that “there are specific questions within contracts for social value”, the

participant goes on to state that they would only consider more reporting on ESG if it

was a mandatory requirement. Similarly, participants 3, 4 and 5 all loosely concurred

with this statement that they would not voluntarily undertake additional reporting on

ESG unless it was mandated by a regulatory body (participant 3 and 4) or formed

part of an accreditation (participant 5). Participant 3 cited reporting on how much

wood was used in production as a requirement for FSC accreditation, similarly the

participant is required to report on waste disposal annually to Veolia. This is reflected

in the management scenario, where participant 3 produced an importance value of

20.833, the highest of all participants. Participant 6 confirmed that they were

mandated to undertake some level of reporting on environmental, social value or

governance by the AHDB, this report includes “what is grown, how we grow it”.

Environmental Sustainability
Participant Environmental Sustainability
Importance Value
1 14.379
2 4.878
3 20.833
4 7.831
5 6.757
6 17.935
Table 6 – Environmental sustainability importance values per participant

The lowest scoring factor overall was environmental sustainability, this is both

challenged and corroborated throughout the interview element of the research,

whereby participants reported immaterial mitigating actions such as recycling, using

39
recycled products, and pursuing renewable energy sources for utilities. The range in

importance value score for this motivating factor was 14.076.

Social Value
Participant Social Value Importance Value
1 20.261
2 24.390
3 7.500
4 15.663
5 6.081
6 22.283
Table 7 – Social value importance values per participant

The findings present a range of 18.309 in the ranking of social value in the

management strategic decision-making process; the highest importance value

placed on social value was 24.390, compared to the lowest importance value of

6.081. Participant 6 produced the second highest social value importance factor in

the management scenario and cited explicitly within the interview section that they

“want to employ local people” and seek to re-hire from previous years. The three

relatively high importance values; 20.261, 24.390 and 22.283 contribute to the

allocation of social value as the highest-ranking factor when averaged across

participants.

4.4 Profit vs. Sustainability

Participants 3 and 4 stated in the interview section that profit was the primary focus

for the management scenario, asserting that, “It’s all about profit potential” and “most

of all its profit for me”, respectively. In contrast to participant 5 who noted that their

considered approach to the business focused on sustainability which may “mean

that price is not at the forefront, so there might be a hit on profit”. Participant 6 states

that they “do everything within reason, taking costs into account” to pursue

40
sustainability, noting that “historically, we were very much into reusable resources,

recycling and the home-grown product. Currently, it’s all about price”.

Profit Potential
Participant Profit Potential Importance Value
1 9.150
2 16.463
3 16.667
4 4.819
5 27.027
6 17.935
Table 8 – Profit potential importance values per participant

The heaviest weighting from all of the motivators from participants is profit potential,

at 27.027, participant 5 has ranked profit potential their absolute priority for strategic

decision-making, this is also the highest score received across the board throughout

the study. The importance value range for this factor is 22.208, this is largely down to

the importance value of participant 4: at just 4.819, this is the lowest of all values

across all factors. Data gathered from the interview element of the research

suggests that a financial focus is priority for all participants regardless of size,

industry or management characteristics. The words ‘profit, ‘cost’ and ‘money’ held a

frequency weighting of 1.04% combined across all participant interviews.

Return on Capital Invested (ROCI)

Participant ROCI Importance Value

1 11.765
2 9.146
3 6.667
4 25.904
5 13.514
6 10.870
Table 9 – Return on Capital Invested importance values per participant

Averaged across all participants, ROCI was ranked the fifth most important

motivating factor of the seven during the decision-making process. The preference

41
for ROCI was widespread amongst participants with a range of 19.237 in importance

value, specifically participant 4 rated ROCI exceptionally high: 25.904, and

participant 3 rated ROCI low: 6.667 in the decision-making process. This seeks to

explain the overall importance value of 12.977 for ROCI. Participant 3 also cited

ROCI as the lowest ranking factor overall when considering their decision-making

process as assumed CEO of Amazon.

4.5 Risk or Opportunity?

66.7% of the participants recognised pursuing sustainability as part of their strategy

to be an opportunity or consider that it doesn’t appear to be a risk, therefore by

default they would classify it as an opportunity. Participant 2 states “it’s not really a

risk so I suppose it could be an opportunity”. One participant states that they “don’t

really think it plays a big part at all, I don’t think it’s a risk or a benefit, it's not top of

my list”. Furthermore, one participant (6), stated that “environmental sustainability at

the moment for our business, is a risk”. When probed to expand on this response,

the participant cited “cost of transport, packaging and power”, particularly when

considering the context of the business and industry, the manager states that

customers will not absorb these increasing costs.

4.6 Doing good vs. Avoiding bad?

Figure 5 – Word frequency cloud created using qualitative data coded in NVivo. Displaying
results from the doing good vs. avoiding bad scenario question

42
All six participants responded that pursuing sustainability and embedding

sustainability in strategy is seen as doing good. However, 83% of participants noted

that currently they are either pursuing some element of sustainability as ‘doing good’

with an eye to avoiding bad, or neither. Upon further probing, those participants who

responded neither, cannot see how being sustainable is relevant to them in their

business or industry.

“Obviously everyone wants to do good and make a change, but I just don’t see how

you could make that change with what we do”

- Participant 2

“Doing good, because if you’re doing good aren't you avoiding bad anyway?”

- Participant 1

Participant 5 noted that doing good is an ideal, however it is not sustainable all the

time, businesses do not operate in isolation and those interactions up and down the

supply chain may mean that compromises are made. Similarly, participant 6 agreed

that pursuing sustainability to do good is a “nice thought” however, for the business,

in the current climate, “it is all about avoiding bad”.

Participant 3 notes that a particular sustainable initiative was a reaction to comments

received from customers; “we did it as a response. We weren’t proactive on it, we

were reactive”. There is no evidence to suggest that sustainability is fully embedded

within strategy because the sustainable activities do not satisfy the material criteria.

The participant cites the cost associated with pursuing sustainability to do good as a

potential constraint or barrier, this research finds that the business is not able to

absorb the cost, yet customers are not willing to pay it.

43
4.7 Barriers to pursuing sustainability as part of the business strategy

Barriers to Pursuing Sustainability

Rental Property
9%
Lack of Stakeholder
Engagement 18%

Availability of
Product/ Labour
18%
Cost Associated
45%

Lack of Suitable
Suppliers
9%

Figure 6 – Barriers to pursuing sustainability

Costs associated with pursuing sustainability is the biggest barrier for the

participants interviewed. Two participants cited specifically that the cost associated

with pursuing sustainability cannot be absorbed either by the business or by the

customer. Participant 3 noted that they would wish to use solar panels for renewable

energy, however they are unable to do this due to being in a rental property. 18% of

participants stated issues with the availability of suitable, local products and labour

as a barrier to pursuing sustainability in some instances.

4.8 At what level is sustainability considered?

In three out of six cases participants said that sustainability is considered at director

level (participants 1, 4, 6) or at least the next tier down. Participant 2 stated that

sustainability is considered at director level, the participant is the only employee of

the business. However participant 3 interpreted the question differently, citing the

44
operational level as the point within the business structure whereby sustainability is

considered or actioned. Similarly, one participant noted that sustainability is

considered “at every level” of the business and hierarchy, which contributes to a

suggestion of embeddedness.

The semi-structured interview produced rich qualitative data for analysis, whilst the

management scenario card-sort activity gave a quantitative insight. The findings from

both facets of the study corroborate, and challenge existing findings as discussed in

the following chapter.

5.0 DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to determine whether sustainability is embedded

within business strategy. By exploring managers understanding of, and attitudes

toward sustainability and its strength in relation to other motivators for decision-

making. Whilst also comparing the articulated and unarticulated indicators of

embeddedness. Together with investigating whether stakeholder theory or

shareholder theory is applicable in the context of small-medium sized business. The

results indicate that whilst shareholder theory is prevalent in this situation, the

majority of participants recognised the pressure that external stakeholders placed on

them. This was found to result in elements of sustainability pursuance suggesting

indicators of stakeholder theory. This was for various reasons, including avoiding

negative impacts on their reputation. However when asked to explicitly name their

stakeholders, the majority of participants named only shareholders of the business.

These findings directly challenge the idea that Marcus and Geffen (1998) present,

suggesting that sustainability is now seen as a profit-making activity, quite the

45
opposite. Participants recognised and alluded to the trade-off between profit and

sustainability, as opposed to a direct positive link.

5.1 Strategy

Parallels can be drawn between strategy and sustainability in that CEOs and

managers alike often struggle to ‘put their finger on it’. Key players recognise the

importance of both strategy and sustainability, so in the case of larger corporations,

draft in consultants to assess and advise. Literature and research suggest that this is

not the case for small- medium sized business, often due to resource constraints.

Whilst various participants indicated during the process of the interview that they

considered sustainability; potentially as a result of social expectation, none of the

participants evidenced sustainability embedded within their strategy. As an indicator

to a devised and pre-conceived strategy: vision, mission, and values allow and

assists businesses in living out their strategy. All participants lacked a specific, pre-

determined vision, mission, and set of values. This indicates that whilst at a high

level the business strategy remains fairly consistent, at the operational levels, small-

medium sized businesses were susceptible to change and the ability to flex with this

change is key to survival. This is reminiscent of emergent strategy as proposed by

Mintzberg (1978), the realized, yet unintended flexibility and reactivity to the

environment has so far enabled business survival.

The literature review suggests various indicators upon which the level of

embeddedness of sustainability can be determined. These indicators triangulate the

findings from the interview element of the research, the first being the presence of

sustainability related positions within the organisation. Larger corporations' evidence

their commitment to sustainability through dedicated job roles (Khanra, et al., 2021)

46
such as: Head of Sustainability, Sustainability Manager, Environmental Manager, to

name a few. In contrast, the small-medium size business managers who participated

in the study did not evidence through the interview, websites or otherwise, that such

positions exist within their organisations. Though this is not to say that other small-

medium sized businesses do not have dedicated job roles.

Spend on Research and Development (R&D) is cited by McKinsey as a key indicator

of the embeddedness of sustainability within strategy and pursuance of sustainability

to create value (Bonini & Görner, 2011). This longitudinal McKinsey survey finds that

61% of those companies who committed R&D resources to identifying more

sustainable options were more effective compared to their competitors. In contrast

17% of participants from the study invested in R&D. Participant 6 cited an annual

R&D spend, mandated by the AHDB, which is committed to developing and

enhancing the products. However, the participant confirmed that they would not

continue this spend if it was voluntary. One participant cited various methods of

mitigation of environmental impact; including capital investment on machinery in this

case a cardboard shredder. Participant 3 invested in this machinery to convert used

incoming cardboard boxes into shred for outgoing packaging, both addressing the

need for waste disposal and listening to external stakeholder (customer) concerns

for plastics in the packaging.

Four of six participants noted that sustainability was considered at Director level

only. These findings are directly opposed to those presented by participants 3 and 5,

whose response of “at the operational level”, and “at every level” respectively, are

more in line with findings within larger corporations who are pursuing sustainability

materially, as opposed to embedding ‘elements’ of sustainability in the business

operations. Those two participants who responded at the operational level, are from

47
two different industries (See Appendix 14), however they have both implemented

actions to address sustainability somewhat within their overall business operations,

whether as a result of moral or instrumental stakeholder pressure.

5.2 Sustainability

Views on sustainability have changed over the past decade, even 12 months in fact.

Larger businesses are seeing potential for value creation (Murthy, 2012), through

development of a whole system approach to sustainability, as well as, more

traditionally, protecting corporate reputation (Bonini & Görner, 2011). The findings

support the notion that sustainability means different things to different managers, in

some instances the type of sustainability at the forefront of managers minds is

‘business continuity’ as opposed to what many participants referred to as

‘environmental’ sustainability. This prevalence suggests that sustainability in terms of

ESG is not a priority within these small-medium sized businesses, where there are

no reporting requirements and less mandated compliance. Those actions taken to

mitigate the impact the business has on the environment and society are deemed

‘end of pipe’, this classification implies that they have been devised and implemented

‘after the fact’ (Sarkis & Cordeiro, 2001). These actions are indicative of a level of

sustainability embeddedness as opposed to a view that sustainability is a primary

enabling strategy (Hitchcock & Willard, 2015) with the potential to create a

sustainability advantage.

Interestingly, environmental sustainability is thought to be the most widely

recognised facet of ESG, yet through participant responses to the management

scenario, it was the least weighted motivator in decision-making. Whilst for some

organisations the superficial environmental sustainability is the easiest to address

and employ; for example implementing a recycling system, other mangers noted that

48
it was simply not possible or uneconomical to pursue environmental sustainability at

this current time. These findings corroborate with literature surrounding larger

corporation, those corporations who pursue environmental sustainability because it

is material to the business strategy are more likely to place a higher importance

value on it as a motivator for decision-making. It is also considered a potential

source of competitive advantage (Murthy, 2012) which Porter (1985) proposes

increases profit potential. So, whilst the larger corporations may be morally

motivated to consider all stakeholders and implement sustainability initiatives

through their operations, there is a suggested real financial gain that is achieved. In

comparison, the same conclusion cannot be drawn for small-medium sized

businesses, of those involved in the research, no participants cited a specific and

unequivocal competitive advantage derived from pursuing environmental

sustainability. In fact one participant (6) cited that for their business, in the current

environment pursuing sustainability was a risk. This notion opposes the suggestion

of Williams and Schaefer (2012), who propose that in fact smaller business may

have been better able to overcome challenges posed by sustainability, and as a

result have embedded sustainability into their strategy.

5.3 Social Value

When placed into a management scenario where the participants assume the

position of CEO of a large corporation, they were expected to manifest their own

preferences whilst acting in this position, therefore projecting their view of important

motivators. Social value scores have a large range, which would suggest that

participants have projected how they expect they should behave and make decisions

based on their knowledge of the large corporation, this also suggests the presence

49
of socially desirable responding (Vesteinsdottir, et al., 2018). Throughout the

interview element of the research, these same participants allude to profit potential

being the of the highest importance of their own businesses. Particularly given the

current economic climate, one participant stated that they are simply trying to

‘survive’, in this instance auxiliary consideration for social value and environmental

sustainability are adjourned; in this context they are the losers in the trade-off.

This trade-off of social values is reflected in large corporation environments as

evidenced by McKinsey within their Profits with Purpose report;

(Source: Bonini & Swartz, 2014)

Not all social issues are congregating near the bottom end of the graph, however

there is a clear environmental priority for both the company and their external

stakeholders, items such as Poverty, Security and Malnutrition fall evidently in this

case towards the lower end of the graph. Interestingly however, these findings are

not reminiscent of the study conducted by MIT and BCG, whereby high importance is

placed on recognising the social element of ESG reporting in large US corporations

(Kiron, et al., 2017).

50
5.4 Stakeholder theory

Most participants note the directors as the only stakeholders of the business

supporting the ranking of internal stakeholder expectation as 4/7 by importance

value. Participant 3 recognises pressure from customers (external stakeholders),

making amendments to packaging with an eye to reducing non-recycled waste.

Overall, external stakeholder expectation ranked 6/7 of the motivating factors in the

management scenario, suggesting that participants consciously do not recognise

these stakeholders as important within their strategic decision-making process.

However, it is apparent that small-medium sized businesses may not recognise who

their stakeholders are but do acknowledge that they have experienced the impact of

pressure. As suggested by participant 5, businesses do not operate in isolation, the

entities that an organisation interacts with can affect the success of its objectives

(Freeman, 1984). This view strengthens the community argument as an

unarticulated impact on manager attitude towards sustainability. In some instances

managers may feel as though they do not make a difference because they do not

operate in isolation, but rather with many other actors who may not be pursuing

sustainability in the same way, if at all (Haugh & Talwar, 2010).

One of the key differences between the large corporations involved within the

seminal BCG and MIT study and this research is the presence of investors and

public shareholders. This structure adds an additional financial element, whilst

investors may be impressed by, and actively seek green investments for moral or

instrumental reasons, they are still seeking a “desirable return” (Rezaee, 2019).

Small-medium sized businesses are less susceptible to this layer of complexity, yet

they remain prone to pressure from stakeholders, typically pertaining to social values

or supplier requirements. This ultimately shapes business outlook and strategy.

51
Particularly in large corporations the directors and managers have incentive to

ensure and improve the financial performance of the business, which innately

contributes somewhat towards a view of short-termism under Laverty’s (1996)

definition of the ‘best case pursual in the short-term’. According to the data collected

throughout the study, short-termism is not present to the same extent as it is in large

corporations: whereby the pressure of external shareholders often overpowers other

priorities (Rezaee, 2019; Friedman, 1970). However, the premise is still apparent,

and a trade-off occurs, in one instance the research has found that survival is a key

factor for focusing on profit potential, or the financial element of decision-making, as

opposed to ESG, which is endeavoured to be optimal in the long-term. Importantly

though, small-medium businesses are not guaranteed the long term. A higher

engagement with ESG would suggest consideration for other stakeholders outside of

those with a vested financial interest, opposing the view of short-termism as it would

allude to consideration for the long-term. This is an unarticulated indicator of

management attitude to sustainability.

5.5 Profit Potential

Profit Potential was alluded to as the most important motivator for decision-making

by all participants during their management scenario, however, overall, profit

potential ranks third out of the seven motivators on importance value. Within the top

six card combinations, all six profit potential factors marked high importance

appeared at least once, reflecting the primary motivator cited by all participants.

There is debate particularly from Friedman, that a business’s primary social

responsibility is to produce a profit. Further stating that those shareholders who are

seeking to invest in ‘green’ or sustainable options would do this privately (Friedman,

1970), and noting vehemently that investors invest for a return. In this sense, the

52
evidence from the study on small-medium sized business agrees with this sentiment,

whilst other motivating factors are important to management including compliance

and social value, profit potential is the ‘aim of the game’ (Winston, 2022). In the case

of the small-medium sized businesses interviewed, the option for profit was cited as

a trade-off for sustainability, the two could not currently co-exist, these findings

challenge those of the MIT and BCG study, whereby Kiron et al., (2017) propose that

a significant “workable and profitable” solution can be attained when integrating

sustainability into business strategy. Again, this is in the case of large US

corporations, who are under pressure to evidence their commitment to ESG and all

stakeholders. This perhaps demonstrates the notion suggested by Ali (2015) that

indeed larger business shareholders will benefit in the long-term from the businesses

consideration of other stakeholders and the community.

5.6 Compliance

When assuming the position of CEO of the one of the most well-known and

influential businesses across the globe, compliance is likely to be a vast

consideration, this is reflected within the steady stream of importance values from

participants. With the lowest range of importance values, compliance can be

confirmed as one motivator that all six participants felt was important. This facilitates

its establishment as the second most motivating factor within the course of strategic

decision-making. However, less than half of the participants verbally name

compliance and consider its importance within the entire interview discussion.

Furthermore, only one participant (5) mentioned compliance as being key to their

considerations whilst undertaking the management scenario.

Compliance underpins every function of business; sustainability or otherwise,

regardless of size or structure, compliance with industry, national, and international

53
standards and regulation is non-negotiable. A sturdy system of compliance and

corporate governance is found to directly improve strategy and the resulting

decisions and actions of corporations (Rezaee, 2019). However simply abiding by

legal and regulatory requirements pertaining to sustainable issues does not

constitute sustainability embeddedness. Bonn and Fisher (2011) state that taking a

proactive stance that goes above and beyond minimal regulatory compliance may be

an indicator of the integration of sustainability through multiple levels of the

organisation. This level of proactivity was not evidenced by the participants

throughout the research process. Whilst not on the same scale, the findings

corroborate Paulraj (2009)’s view that small-medium sized businesses are not

sheltered from regulatory compliance.

Regulatory bodies, standard setters and other actors within the operational

environment are external stakeholders of the business, reinforcing the realised

impact of external stakeholders on business and strategy. It is interesting to note that

participant 5 who explicitly noted compliance as a key motivator and thus crucial to

making profit, did not recognise any external regulatory bodies as stakeholders of

their business.

5.7 Doing good vs. avoiding bad?

Literature concludes that if businesses were pursuing sustainability through the

course of doing good it will be material to the operations and evidenced throughout

the products and services offered. There will be various indicators present that

support the embeddedness of sustainability throughout the strategy and the

operations including dedicated job roles, R&D investment, commitment to social

causes and strong policy. The study suggests that whilst doing good is the ‘ideal’ for

the participants, 50% stated that they consider their potential actions as doing good,

54
33.3% state explicitly that the actions they are undertaking to pursue sustainability is

to avoid bad, and 16.7% state neither because they don’t see how the change from

bad to good could be achieved within their industry.

Extant literature proposes those businesses who have systematically embedded

sustainability within their strategy should be doing good. This research finds that

participants are being reactive to pressure from stakeholders and as such are

pursuing sustainability as a result of stakeholder pressure to avoid bad for various

reasons including safeguarding their reputation. The question “to what extent do you

agree that there is a ‘doing good’ versus ‘avoiding bad’ argument for sustainability?”,

is subject to interpretation from managers, based on their own cognitive

characteristics. These characteristics support the dissemination of values and

attitude toward sustainability which is evident as a constraint when the manager

does not regard sustainability highly, this relevant research constraint concurs with

the beliefs of Arjaliès and Mundy (2013) and Kerr et al., (2015).

All of the themes explored within the discussion and research were derived from the

literature review, in particular the investigation into whether the embeddedness of

sustainability in strategy is resultant from shareholder or stakeholder pressure. The

resulting themes centered largely around the factors in decision making contribute

substantially towards indicating the most highly valued factors in management

decision-making. The discussion notes that the findings of the research both

corroborate with and challenge various extant literature, whilst contributing to the

narrow field of study on small-medium sized businesses in particular.

55
6.0 CONCLUSION
This research study aims to address a notable deficiency of literature surrounding

sustainability and strategy based on small-medium sized businesses as identified by

Tilley (2000) and Fitjar (2011). The findings of this study challenge those of MIT and

BCG’s study on large US corporations. This research instead denies that

sustainability is highly regarded for value creation in the context of the small-medium

sized businesses. The arena in which strategy and sustainability come head-head is

harsh and unforgiving, known largely within literature as business short-termism,

there is often a renowned trade-off between profit and long-term resource

consideration. This research finds that short-termism prevails over sustainability in

the majority of small-medium sized businesses interviewed. Which directly opposes

Marcus and Geffen (1998) assertion that sustainability is no longer viewed as a

nuisance (Bonn & Fisher, 2011), but rather as a profit-making activity. In large

corporations, where stakeholders prevail, this is found to be true. Indeed the

apparent short-termism which was prevalent within one small-medium sized

business interviewed was as a result of a trade-off. Ultimately the participant

exercised short-termism by default for survival because of resource constraints.

Neither academics, nor managers can definitively agree (de Wit, 2020) on a

definition of strategy, which for the most part is indicative of how individual the

concept is to each entity. The same can be said for sustainability; whilst not a new

concept, the popularity of sustainability is only receiving widespread recognition in

recent years due to national and international media and events such as COP26.

To conclude, the study has successfully determined that sustainability is not

embedded within business strategy of the participants, though it is not to say that

other small-medium sized businesses do not embed sustainability. The project

56
sought to explore the understanding and attitudes of managers towards

sustainability, in particular when weighted against other motivating factors in

decision-making. Generally, manager attitudes were positive regarding social value

and consideration for governance yet in most cases, this was found to be a pre-

requisite for business continuity. Overall, the findings of the study corroborate with

those of Gadenne et al., (2009) whereby environmental awareness and issues are

most well-known, yet action and implementation are low in comparison. This is

evident in the results of the management scenario where environmental

sustainability was ranked the least important motivating factor in decision-making.

Although profit potential was determined as the most important articulated motivating

factor, in reality, it was ranked third out of the seven in the management scenario;

analysed using conjoint analysis. This quantitative method of analysis allowed the

study to seek unarticulated indicators to motivating factors in decision-making which

shed some light on the consideration given to sustainability in business.

The study achieved all four proposed objectives and garnered invaluable insights

into the role of management attitudes to various motivating factors in decision-

making. This both corroborates and challenges the findings in literature that

suggests management characteristics largely impact the shaping of strategy. Which

in turn influences the level of embeddedness of sustainability. Literature suggests

that in large corporations, the CEO may have less opportunity to make decisions

based on personal predilection due to the pressure from shareholders demands.

This research signals that those small-medium sized businesses studied did not

suffer from this complexity. Rather, they were subject to stakeholder expectation,

with implications for competitiveness and, ultimately, immediate survival.

57
Stakeholder theory applies to an extent in the case of the small-medium sized

business participants, whereby management recognise that some stakeholders other

than shareholders have a legitimate interest in the business. However, this is

evidently not so prevalent that profit is the loser in the trade-off to sustainability.

The research methodology was largely successful and allowed for articulated and

unarticulated data gathering, whilst the optimum set of 10 participant responses was

not fulfilled due to the ability to get participant commitment within the time constraint,

those participants attained were legitimate and contributed invaluable material to the

research. Feedback ascertained from the pilot participant on the management

scenario card sort stated that once the first six cards had been ranked, the

remainder were not so carefully thought through. Although this is not the case for all

of the subsequent participants, it may have skewed the utility score and importance

value results. Additionally, whilst the motivating factors for the quantitative research

in the project were based on evidence found in the literature review, there may be

motivating factors missing for some participants. As a result, the rankings that

participants have provided may not reflect their actions in real world business

scenarios.

Future research should focus predominantly on the quantitative research element.

The management scenario should be replicated, in depth using a more detailed

orthogonal array, on a larger sampling pool. This study would give a greater view on

the importance of motivating factors in strategic decision-making. It would further

address research objective three to gather unarticulated data regarding managers

attitudes to sustainability, giving a more accurate suggestion of the impact of

sustainability on decision making using subliminal indicators.

58
7.0 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 - Ethics document

59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
Appendix 2 - Semi-Structured in-depth interview schedule
Introduction (to be read to all Participants)

Thank you for agreeing to take part in this interview that aims to understand managers decision
making. There are no right or wrong answers so just say it as you see it! I would very much appreciate
receiving your answer to all the questions but if you are uncomfortable answering any specific
question please just say and we can skip to the next question. I will be recording the discussion so we
will have a record of the meeting, but I will NOT be ascribing anything said to any specific individual
(ie everything is pseudo-anonymised). Just before I start, can I check whether you have any questions
and confirm that you still wish to take part in the project?

START RECORDING
Part One – Management Scenario’s
I have a set of concept cards that carry information about key motivators for high level strategic
decision making. PASS THE CARDS TO THE PARTICIPANT
Imagine yourself as the CEO of Amazon; and rank the cards from number one to number eighteen,
with the card ranked number one being your ultimate preferred concept on the top of the pile, and the
card ranked number eighteen, the least preferred concept on the bottom of the pile.

Part Two – Sustainability and Your Business

I would now like to ask a few questions specifically about “sustainability” and your business

1. What does sustainability mean to you?

2. What is the articulated strategy of your business?
3. What is the vision, mission, and values of your business? (ASK THE PARTICIPANT TO
EXPAND ON THESE WHERE POSSIBLE)
4. Why are the vision, mission, and values important to your business?
5. How visible is your strategy to the rest of the business?
6. What factors; internal or external influence your strategic decision-making process?
7. How does sustainability factor into your strategy?
8. What do you consider to be a constraint to pursuing sustainability as part of your business
strategy?
9. How often do you review your strategy?
10. Who are the stakeholders of your business?
11. To what extent do these stakeholders get involved in determining the strategy of your
business?
12. To what extent does sustainability contribute to the competitive advantage of your business?
13. How enduring is the competitive advantage of your business that is based on sustainability?
14. What does ESG reporting mean to you?
15. What reporting do you undertake on ESG, sustainability or social value?
15a. If any reporting – what are the factors that encourage you to do this type of reporting?
15b. If no reporting takes place – what factors may encourage you to consider reporting on
ESG?
16. Do you consider acting sustainably as a risk or an opportunity for your business?

68
 17. What internal or external pressures do you feel to act sustainably in your business activities?
18. To what extent do you agree that there is a “doing good” versus “avoiding bad” argument for
sustainability? (ASK THE PARTICIPANTS TO EXPLAIN THEIR ANSWERS)
19. Do you personally see sustainability embedded in strategy as “doing good” or “avoiding
bad”?
20. What steps, if any, do you take to mitigate your impact on the environment from your
business activities?
21. Considering the hierarchical structure of your business, at which level is sustainability
considered?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION.

Appendix 3 - 18 Card Orthogonal Array

Card 1
Factor Level
Social Value High Importance
Internal Stakeholder High Importance
Expectation
External Stakeholder Low Importance
Expectation
Environmental Sustainability Low Importance

Return on Capital Investment Moderate Importance

Profit Potential Moderate Importance

Compliance Moderate Importance

Card 2
Factor Level
Social Value Low Importance
Internal Stakeholder Low Importance
Expectation
External Stakeholder Low Importance
Expectation

Environmental Sustainability Low Importance

Return on Capital Investment Low Importance

Profit Potential Low Importance

Compliance Low Importance

69
 Card 3
Factor Level
Social Value High Importance
Internal Stakeholder Moderate Importance
Expectation
External Stakeholder Low Importance
Expectation
Environmental Sustainability High Importance

Return on Capital Investment Low Importance

Profit Potential Low Importance

Compliance High Importance

Card 4
Factor Level
Social Value Moderate Importance
Internal Stakeholder Low Importance
Expectation
External Stakeholder Low Importance
Expectation
Environmental Sustainability Moderate Importance

Return on Capital Investment High Importance

Profit Potential Moderate Importance

Compliance High Importance

Card 5
Factor Level
Social Value High Importance
Internal Stakeholder Expectation Low Importance

External Stakeholder Expectation Moderate Importance

Environmental Sustainability Moderate Importance

Return on Capital Investment High Importance

Low Importance
Profit Potential

Compliance Moderate Importance

70
 Card 6
Factor Level
Social Value Low Importance

Internal Stakeholder Expectation High Importance

External Stakeholder Expectation Moderate Importance
Environmental Sustainability Moderate Importance
Return on Capital Investment Low Importance
Profit Potential Moderate Importance

Compliance Low Importance

Card 7
Factor Level
Social Value Moderate Importance
Internal Stakeholder Expectation High Importance

External Stakeholder Expectation Low Importance

Environmental Sustainability High Importance

Return on Capital Investment High Importance
Profit Potential High Importance

Compliance Low Importance

Card 8
Factor Level
Social Value High Importance
Internal Stakeholder Expectation Moderate Importance

External Stakeholder Expectation Moderate Importance

Environmental Sustainability Low Importance

Return on Capital Investment High Importance

Profit Potential High Importance

Compliance Low Importance

71
 Card 9
Factor Level
Social Value Low Importance
Internal Stakeholder Expectation Low Importance

External Stakeholder Expectation Moderate Importance

Environmental Sustainability High Importance

Return on Capital Investment Moderate Importance

Profit Potential High Importance

Card 10
Factor Level
Social Value Low Importance
Internal Stakeholder Expectation Moderate Importance

External Stakeholder Expectation High Importance

Environmental Sustainability Low Importance
Return on Capital Investment High Importance
Profit Potential Moderate Importance
Compliance High Importance

Card 11
Factor Level
Social Value High Importance
Internal Stakeholder Expectation High Importance
External Stakeholder Expectation High Importance
Environmental Sustainability Moderate Importance
Return on Capital Investment Low Importance
Profit Potential High Importance

Compliance High Importance

72
 Card 12
Factor Level
Social Value Moderate Importance
Internal Stakeholder Expectation Low Importance

External Stakeholder Expectation High Importance

Environmental Sustainability Low Importance

Return on Capital Investment Low Importance
Profit Potential High Importance

Compliance Moderate Importance

Card 13
Factor Level
Social Value Low Importance

Internal Stakeholder Expectation High Importance

External Stakeholder Expectation High Importance

Environmental Sustainability High Importance
Return on Capital Investment High Importance
Profit Potential Low Importance

Compliance Moderate
Importance

Card 14
Factor Level
Social Value High Importance
Internal Stakeholder Expectation Low Importance

External Stakeholder Expectation High Importance

Environmental Sustainability High Importance

Return on Capital Investment Moderate Importance
Profit Potential Moderate Importance
Compliance Low Importance

73
 Card 15
Factor Level
Social Value Moderate Importance
Internal Stakeholder Expectation Moderate Importance
External Stakeholder Expectation High Importance
Environmental Sustainability Moderate Importance
Return on Capital Investment Moderate Importance
Profit Potential Low Importance

Compliance Low Importance

Card 16
Factor Level
Social Value Low Importance
Internal Stakeholder Expectation Moderate Importance

External Stakeholder Expectation Low Importance

Environmental Sustainability Moderate Importance

Return on Capital Investment Moderate Importance
Profit Potential High Importance

Compliance Moderate Importance

Card 17
Factor Level
Social Value Moderate Importance
Internal Stakeholder Expectation Moderate Importance

External Stakeholder Expectation Moderate Importance

Environmental Sustainability High Importance
Return on Capital Investment Low Importance
Profit Potential Moderate Importance
Compliance Moderate Importance

74
 Card 18
Factor Level
Social Value Moderate Importance
Internal Stakeholder Expectation High Importance

External Stakeholder Expectation Moderate Importance

Environmental Sustainability Low Importance

Return on Capital Investment Moderate Importance
Profit Potential Low Importance

Compliance High Importance

Appendix 4 - Pilot Participant Interview Transcript

Interviewer: You can stop the recorder at any time.
Participant: Thank you
Interviewer: and play again once you’re happy
Participant: Yeah
Interviewer: Erm, once that has been transcribed you can be forgotten at any point, where I
will delete everything. You will need to email me. Okay so, let's get started; part one, what is
your businesses articulated strategy?
Pause**
Participant: So, we provide domiciliary care out in the community, and um, we cover an
extensive area, and our strategy is basically to provide good quality care to the local
community.
Interviewer: So, what is (if any specific) business vision, mission, and values?
Participant: again, touching on the good quality care because that is the essence of what we
do, we are imminently moving premises, which is part of our next five-year strategy, and erm
we are hoping that there will be a lot of growth, when we move into the local town, more of a
presence for the local community. Erm our mission and values stay the same, but in terms of
growth that is going to be one of the big areas that we are looking for, even in the current
climate.
Pause**
Participant: So, I have just had two questions from you and what I can say straight off is that
they are hard questions, whether it's this time of the day and we’ve had a busy day, but they
seem very hard, very full on to start with.

75
Interviewer: Would you say that strategy is a difficult thing to grapple with?
Participant: Definitely, I feel like I should have had a bit more of an intro to it, maybe easier
questions to begin with
Interviewer: thank you, I will take that on board.
Participant: You’re welcome
Interviewer: So, why are these vision, mission, values important to your business?
Participant: Because I think without them where are you driving to? What is it you want to
achieve? You’ve got to have a vision, one part of my strategy that’s helping with my long-
term vision is the post of a new registered manager that will then free me up to do more of the
strategic stuff in terms of contracts and moving forward.
Interviewer: So, how visible is your strategy to the rest of the business?
Participant: Well, it's not, it's not visible at all, its wholly visible to me because I'm creating
it. Its partially visible to the next tiers down, but to the rest of the staff its not visible, because
the day-to-day running's need to be visible to the staff because that’s what they deal with, the
strategy is just for me. Pause** Yeah because as carers, they just want to know the clients,
who they're seeing, what they are going to be doing. They want to know that the business is
run well, but in terms of strategy I don’t think they want to know or need to know, as long as
I give them snippets about how well were doing; so recently we had a 9.3 from homecare and
that was sent out to them, and they appreciate that because they’ve got something tangible,
they can see it and oh yes we must be doing good. But in terms of strategy it's very difficult
to explain to them.
Interviewer: I see, do you think then that strategy is something that is quite up in the air, quite
difficult to pin down?
Participant: Yeah, I agree with that. Its up in the air for a lot of people if they haven't got the
sight to see it, I was never taught strategy, I've never had any formal training at running a
business. I think you either have it or you don’t, its intuitive, you have a feel for your own
business if you’ve created it and you know where that needs to go. So, the strategy and the
vision they're sort of in you, because you have this idea of where you need to be, untaught.
Interviewer: untaught, brilliant thank you. So, what internal or external factors would
influence your decision-making process?
Participant: Internal factors a hundred percent is the number of carers which has a bearing on
growth which links into the strategy. External factors are things such as councils, contracts,
PAUSE** we mustn't forget covid because that had a massive external factor on everything
we did, and the business had to continue but in a different shape and it bought in more urm
Pause** ingenuity, we had to think about things different, so definitely those sorts of external
factors. Urm locally, the demographics, so for us, we are in a good demographic area that fits
to what we do erm, staff, as well as numbers, but erm, not so much the quality of staff
because we train them up, but the availability of staff within the areas. I mean, even things
down to driving schools for the walkers, you know if there's not many driving schools or if
there's, if they're fully booked all the time, that will have an impact then on a carer that a

76
walker, which then can't become a driver, which then limits even in that small way the
amount of hours that we can take on.
Interviewer: Yeah
Participant: Yeah
Interviewer: Yeah, brilliant thank you. So, how does sustainability, factor into your strategy?
Participant: So that’s a really difficult one because when I think of sustainability I think of
other things, but sustainability for the business, pause** how sustainable are we? I'm going to
interpret that as how; basically how good we are. Can we pause** do we have sustainability;
will we last the course? That’s how I'm interpreting that, urm, and I think we are, if ive got to
quantify it I think that would be really difficult, but we’ve lasted for 10 years, 10 and a half
years and we’ve gone through covid, so whatever model we’re using is working.
I don’t know if that’s the answer you need there. Because if you're thinking of sustainability
in terms of green, the only think I can link that with is things to do with the PPE, because
although we’ve got stockpiles of PPE and we use it all the time, there is something around the
rubbish side of it, with them being you know, ending up in rivers and things like that. I mean
I suppose I can think about it more but that’s the first thing that comes off the top of my head,
whereas sustainability you’ve stood the test of time. I mean if you’ve looked at it in terms of
clean, the only other thing is like the printers that we use, the driving, there's probably bits
but I don’t think of it like that.
Interviewer: That’s great, that’s very helpful for this
Participant: Yeah
Interviewer: Erm, so how often do you review your strategy? Pause** If at all
Participant: urm, formally not, but in terms of me being the leader and leadership, then at the
beginning of the year because I’d gone 10 years this year I sort of made it priority that I was
going to move the business and look towards getting a manager, so there was a strategy there
pre-10 years at some point, probably 2-3 years ago I had an idea of moving the business, but
when it got to the 10 years then I thought yeah times right (yeah), I need to do something
about it now
Interview: Yeah, so that corresponds with what you said before that you know it's in you.
That’s great. So, the next question is about sort of people, mainly stakeholders who are
outside of the business. What other investors or stakeholders do you have?
Participant: So, this is how I'm going to interpret this question, we don’t have any external
stakeholders, the business is 100% run by myself and owned by myself. Urm however, there
are important parts to the business in terms of, I don’t even know if you'd call it investments,
for example the councils with the contracts, so we do well with the contracts and have held
them probably 5 or 6 years now with local councils and that forms a big part of the business
and the other one is private clients, you could say they’re private investment but they're
paying for a service so it's less of an investment, more of a paid service. We don’t have any
other involvement in anything else at all.

77
Interviewer: Perfect. So this is, you’ve done quite abit of explaining there but this next
question is to investigate a little bit further. To what extent do the stakeholders get involved
in the operational or strategic running of the business?
Participant: So if I touch on the councils again because were under contract, then they can, I
won’t say insist because insists too strong, but they can basically for an example if were on a
percentage take up on clients say for example reablement, when the first contract came out
they said 95% so we had to take 95% of the clients and if we didn’t then we used to get an
email from one of the commissioners and then it'd be a phone call and why can't you do this
and why can't you, so they used to do that then. Now the contracts been around for a long
time, were now seen as more of an involvement with the council, they come to us more for
things, opinions, thoughts they value what we do out there in the community. So, if we say
we can't take on this client, they know there's a reason for It, so it's almost developed into
more of a two-way relationship now.
Interviewer: Brilliant, thank you. Hypothetically, how far do you agree that sustainability can
be a competitive advantage in your business ?
Participant: Say that again.
Interviewer: Hypothetically, how far do you agree that sustainability can be a competitive
advantage in your business?
Participant: Sustainability pause** in my take on it, then I think it does have an advantage.
Because like I said to one of the commissioners the other day, you know there's somebody
else joining in one of the contracts, which is an unknown, they're an unknown and I told them
that, I said I've had no workings with these, they're an unknown quantity for me. And with
this particular contract there's got to be some cross provider workings and trust as well,
because it is a business after all. Urm, so sustainability gives you a good standing, I link that
will well, respected, good reputation. So, it helps but I don’t know about um, what did you
say is it integral? hypothetical? How far?
Interviewer: How far do you agree sustainability can be a competitive advantage in your
business?
Participant: erm, well it can, but only through standing, through your standing out there and
your reputation. Plus, they're more likely to put their trust in you If you’ve been going 10
years with good ratings, good governance of the contracts and that, as opposed somebody
who's just come in, been in 12 months not had a particularly brilliant time with safeguarding's
and that, so in that way, yeah
Interviewer: So, this is a follow on, given the nature of your industry, how far do you agree
that any competitive advantage that you’ve attained can be sustained?
Participant: Yes, yeah, I agree to that. Erm its right, the questions right. Because it does give
me a slight competitive edge but it's just that overall thing that, if I look at it for who we deal
with with the councils, they want somebody that they can trust, that’s there, and I think that
that’s what we do with them, so I agree to that question.
Interviewer: Okay so the next question has got a shortened word. What does ESG reporting
mean to you?

78
Participant: ESG? I mean off the top of my head I don’t know. ESG
Interviewer: That’s fine
Participant: Something European Grant, no, erm pause**
Interviewer: So, ESG stands for Environmental, Social, Governance
Participant: No, I've not heard of that
Interviewer: So do you undertake any reporting on, if not ESG, sustainability or social value?
Participant: No, I mean we do a lot of reports, but I haven't got a report on, social value, we
did do a lot with the PIR and there is specific questions within contracts for social value and
we are going to keep that document live for the next 12-months until it has to be reported on
again.
Interviewer: Okay, great. So my next question was, what are the factors that encourage you to
do this type of reporting, but you’ve covered that.
Participant: Yeah
Interviewer: So, in terms of what you do already, is there anything that would consider you
reporting more on ESG: environmental, social, governance?
Participant: only if I was made to do it, if it was erm a mandatory requirement that we had to
do it. I doubt whether the councils would make us do it because they’ve got enough on with
everything else, unless they were made to do it by the government.
Interviewer: perfect. That’s brilliant, so question number 10 – do you consider acting
sustainably, a risk or an opportunity for your business?
Participant: Now is this sustainability of what I'm thinking or sustainability in terms of social
governance.
Interviewer: In terms of environmental, social, governance.
Participant: and the question was?
Interviewer: Do you consider acting sustainably is a risk or an opportunity in your business?
Participant: erm I really don’t think it plays a big part at all, I don’t think it’s a risk or a
benefit, it's not top of my list
Interviewer: okay, so what influence internally or externally if there is any, do you feel to act
sustainably through your business activities?
Participant: None.
Interviewer: this is sort of a hypothetical question as well. To what extent do you agree that
there is a ‘doing good’ versus ‘avoiding bad’ argument for environmental, social, governance
sustainability?
Participant: an argument for doing good or doing bad
Interviewer: ‘doing good’ versus ‘avoiding bad’

79
Participant: yeah, I suppose for some companies, doing good in terms of environmental, yeah
there's probably lots of people that think like that now. I can't see, well it might link with
ours, but at the moment it's not something we do. I mean when we move premises, perhaps it
might be different there, but the basic workings would still be the same, so I don’t know, I'd
have to put more effort into thinking about that and I don’t know whether that would happen
because I've got too much to think about with the move, the manager and everything else.
Interviewer: perfect. So, this is just your perspective, do you personally see ESG
sustainability embedded in strategy, as ‘doing good’ or ‘avoiding bad’?
Participant: doing good, because if you're doing good aren't you avoiding bad anyway.
Interviewer: There is a debate
Participant: somebody might be able to take that to pieces and say no they're entirely
different. But for me, they're, my heads not really into that at the minute, if I think about
doing good then I'm obviously avoiding doing bad
Interviewer: it's quite- difficult
Participant: its linked.
Interviewer: Okay so considering your business operations, what if any, steps do you take to
mitigate your impact on the environment
Participant: So, we like to recycle as much as we can .
Interviewer: thank you. So the last question in this part is can you draw a visual of the
hierarchical structure of your business and point out at which point sustainability is
considered?
Participant: Is this my sustainability?
Interviewer: ESG
Participant: I can show you, I've got a hierarchical structure already done, because we have to
have that done, but if you're talking of ESG sustainability, it would only be me and
unfortunately my heads not in that at the minute.
Interviewer: Okay, that’s fine. So, part two, this is
Participant: tea break
Interviewer: this is a statement, so I'm going to tell you the statement, the statement question,
give you a number of things to consider, and then you give me the answer. So these are going
to be quite useful
Participant: Okay
Interviewer: Imagine you are the CEO of Amazon; how would you rank these cards based on
your motivators for high level strategic decision making? Profit,.
Participant: motivators for high level
Interviewer: okay so you’ve got the cards in front of you

80
Participant: Yeah
Interviewer: and the situation imagine you are the CEO of Amazon, how would you rank
these cards, based on your personal motivators for high level strategic decision making?
Participant: so I'm just having a look at the motivators. See that one that one and that one and
that one, what's that compliance.
Interviewer: yes
Participant: sustainability, then you’ve got the old profit. So, I mean as CEO of Amazon,
wonderful job
Interviewer: absolutely
Participant: However, they would have to have some interest in the social values, the external
stakeholder expectations, the return on capital invested as quite a big part because they're a
high-profile company and they need to be seen to be doing things correct and
environmentally friendly. So that links in with sustainability, now I've put sustainability there
because I'm thinking now about sustainability in terms of social values and environmental
thing. Whereas when you asked that question earlier, I'm thinking of, in my way.
Erm, so regulation and compliance, I mean profit needs to be here doesn’t it, somewhere
here, so I think that’s how I'd put them.
Interviewer: so, if you had to rank them 1-8
Participant: I feel like I've been skewed, because we’ve gone through so many questions of
environmental, sustainability, governance that my head is there so when I'm looking at, if
you'd had given me this at the beginning, I think my answers would have been different.
Right so, I'm going to answer this as if I'm Jeff, because I like Amazon, so I feel like they
would do things like this: I’m gonna put social values as 1, sustainability 2, external
stakeholder 3, return on capital invested 4, id like to put profit as 4 as well, then 5 for internal
stakeholder and can I both put compliance and regulation together.
Interviewer: Yeah
Participant: However, if I was, if I myself was the CEO of Amazon, I would take that profit
and put it right as number one, because I'm a business girl.
Interviewer: Okay so profit as 1
Participant: return on capital invested 2, compliance and regulation 3, sustainability, my
sustainability 4, external stakeholder 5, social values and internal stakeholder 6. that’s a lot
different isn't it.
Interviewer: yes, yeah so there is quite a few differences there. Okay that’s brilliant thank you
very much, is there anything else you'd like to say, or alternatively is there anything else
you'd consider to be a motivator in your decision-making process that wasn’t on here?
Participant: erm, yeah because I saw compliance and regulation as the same sort of thing and
like profit and return on capital invested, I'd put them the same as well. With the internal
stakeholder expectations, like staff? Yeah

81
Interviewer: Yeah
Participant: but apart from that no. Yeah
Interviewer: Okay brilliant, thank you very much
Participant: thank you
Interviewer: Thank you for taking part, erm now this recording will be transcribed, and it will
be deleted from the recorder, the transcription will stay on my OneDrive through Keele and
once I have received my degree and my classification it will then be deleted.
Participant: that’s fine
Interviewer: Thank you very much
End of interview

Appendix 5 - Pilot Participant Card Sort

Pilot Participant Card Sort no.2 (18 card array)
Interviewer: thank you for agreeing to redo the card sort activity
Participant: Yeah
Interviewer: So there's 18 cards here
Participant: Yeah
Interviewer: With factors and levels (point to cards) there's a random combination, you need
to sort them, rank them from your most preferred on the top to your least preferred on the
bottom.
Participant: Mhmm.
Interviewer: As per your decision-making process
Participant: so, you want, just to be clear, you want me to search through all of these, all of
the cards and then rank the most important one for me
Interviewer: Yes
Participant: As me
Interviewer: As you yes
Participant: Okay, if you just bear with my while I just put all these out **pauses whilst
laying card out**. This is really difficult. **Pause while reading cards** Wow, these are
tough. So ideally what I'm, what I'm looking for is the profit potential for my business, I need
that as high importance. Return on capital id like that high as well, but the environmental
sustainability moderate or low really. But then on the one which I think is ideal, it's got
82
compliance as low importance and it's not, that would be moderate. Which then my
compromise would have to be, instead of having environmental sustainability as low
importance, I'd have to agree to it being moderate importance because of having the other six,
the other five factors something i could live with. No, no, so im going to go with that one,
card sixteen. Right, card sixteen.
Interviewer: As most preferred?
Participant: Yeah. Erm, card eight, because when, when you make do with the others that
don’t quite fit, you're compromising the others. Which, and if you look, like my first thing is
I'm looking for profit potential, but if I can't make profit potential work where I want it to be,
then I'm going down on the list to see what else I wouldn’t compromise on.
Interviewer: Yeah, because this is essentially, a trade off activity, whereas in, in real life if
profit potential wasn’t an option, you wouldn’t do it, whereas you're having to do it here.
Participant: Yeah, yeah, I am. I’ll put seven next, nine. And then actually it becomes easier,
because I've struggled with those because those took the longest, to do the top one what I've
rated, and then, see like card two everything is low, I'd probably put that as like the bottom
one. And then you get confused because you're looking at the bottom ones when you still
need to go in order for that one and then your importance of what you're looking for, the
different factors then change. Have that one next, so if I stay true to the profit potential id
have to look for all those that was moderate importance next, like that one, maybe that one.
You naturally go to the other factors when you're choosing it because your most important
ones gone and it’s a compromise I don’t like, I'm not keen on it. **Pause whilst further
contemplation** Then when you get right to the bottom ones you can't choose anything.
Yeah, so for me doing the 18 cards seemed a lot, but actually the factor I was looking at was
profit potential and once id chosen all of that cards that had high importance for profit
potential, I was then just going through the process they didn’t really mean that much to me
then. So, I chose one, two, three, four, five, six, seven because they all had high importance
on profit potential and then ranked them accordingly on the different factors. So my next one
was return on capital investment.
Interviewer: Okay brilliant
Participant: Okay
Interviewer: That’s great feedback thank you very much
Participant: Thank you
Interviewer: and thank you for erm re-doing the card sort activity
Participant: Yes
Interviewer: Again, this recording will be transcribed, and it will be saved on the OneDrive
and then it will be dealt with accordingly at a later date.
Participant: Thank you.

83
End of Interview

Appendix 6 - Participant Two Interview Transcription

Interviewer: Thank you for agreeing to take part in this interview that aims to understand managers
decision making. There's no right or wrong answers, just say it as you see it. I would appreciate your
answers to all questions, but if you are uncomfortable answering any specific question, please just say
and we can skip to the next question. I’ll be recording the discussion so we will have a record of the
meeting, but I will not be ascribing anything to any specific individual. Just before I start can I check
whether you have any questions and confirm that you still wish to take part in the project?
Participant: Yes
Interviewer: brilliant, thank you. So, part one is the management scenario, so ive got a set of cards
here that carry information about the key motivators for high level strategic decision making in your
business, which is specific to your business, so don’t worry about thinking how big it should be. So,
these are the cards, there are 18. Okay, so imagine yourself as the CEO of Amazon, and sort the cards
into rank order, with the top card being your most preferred and the bottom being your least preferred.
**Pause** so we have just done the card sorting. How did you find the card sort activity?
Participant: Pause- very enjoyable but quite hard, erm **pause**. I didn’t think it applied to a
business that’s in a lot of trades, like a multi-trader, I think the values are different to a lot of other
businesses whereas were more face-to-face sort of get on with it attitude.
Interviewer: okay brilliant, so now were getting into part two which is sustainability and your
business. So, I would now like to ask a few questions specifically about sustainability and your
business. I might be typing abit just to get some notes around the interview. Okay. Answer with as
much or as little as you'd like. So, what does sustainability mean to you?
Participant: **Pause**
Interviewer: I’ll re-read the question for you, what does sustainability mean to you?
Participant: erm, obviously id like to be more greener, but unfortunately, I don’t feel its an option,
errrm as everything is so fast, each job is different, you are always going to get so much wastage
because you can't buy exact amount of, number of products because its always erm. You’ve always
got the factor of messing it up so you always need more, that takes the pressure out of the job. But you
are always left with a lot of wastage, offcuts, lots of bags of rubbish. Yeah, its quite a hard thing to be
green in
Interviewer: So, question two is, what is the articulated strategy of your business, in other words, what
is your business strategy?
Participant: erm, well to do a good job, I've always wanted to have a lot of pride in the work, if you do
a good job, you find you don’t get many comebacks from people trying to chip you on prices. If it's as
good as they have in their head, they're normally very happy to pay at the end of the job, it's your
name on every job as well so it's good to have that pride and yeah you want to get as much money out
of it, so if you can deliver more things then you're always going to earn more
Interviewer: Brilliant, so, question three is what is the vision, mission and values of your business?
Participant: erm, I don’t really have those kinds of things, but obviously I would like to grow the
business, I'd like to eventually have people working for me, instead of just working as a one-man kind
of job and just to keep doing it as long as I can.

84
Interviewer: brilliant, the next question is not 100% relevant, however, why are the vision, mission
and values important to you? So why was that specific thing important to you, expansion and?
Participant: you earn more money, and you have more people working for you, but you also have
more stress, more possibility of things going wrong. More things to do.
Interviewer: Okay, so question five is also not relevant as a single person operating under a limited
company. It was how visible is your strategy to the rest of the business, so although it might not be
visible to employees, because you don’t have any, do you feel like external people understand what
your strategy and vision is?
Participant: Yeah, I think people definitely once they meet me and see me in action working,
understand that I am very thorough, almost abit OCD with how I do things and how I want things to
be. Yeah, they just see my work for what it is
Interviewer: okay brilliant. So, question six is, what factors either internal to the company or external,
influence your strategic decision-making process?
Participant: Say that again
Interviewer: What factors internal or external to the company, influence your strategic decision-
making process?
Participant: the price of things, if somethings expensive, i might go a different product, keeping the
costs low always makes people want to do the jobs. Erm yeah
Interviewer: can I ask another question there? If it's keeping the costs low versus compromising
quality, will you opt for keeping the costs low>
Participant: yeah, it’s a, it’s also a very difficult one, I always want to use the best quality products
because its a lot easier when you're working with the things that you need and want to work with.
Erm, you know, if it was, its if you're fitting a worktop, a cheaper option wouldn’t be good quality
which would bring more problems. You know, better quality, is more sturdier materials, it's the same
old things as you pay for what you get.
Interviewer: okay brilliant, so how does sustainability factor into your strategy?
Participant: It doesn’t
Interviewer: Okay. Do you, if not into your strategy, do you ever think about it at all in the day to day
of your business?
Participant: Errrr, you can't really. There's nothing really there, you know, there's no schemes there to,
I don’t know, you can't take product back to the builders merchant you know and get your money
back once you’ve used abit of it. So, a lot of the time, things are just thrown away once you’re done
with it, otherwise you just have a massive pile of stuff what you're never going to use, obviously you
keep certain things, offcuts of timber what you can use again, so I suppose in that way there is a little
bit of recycling off products, and then your profits there as well because you're not having to buy
more things, but it’s a very slim scale of what it could be in some ways, but there's no real thing put in
place for recycling in our trades.
Interviewer: Just as an additional question again, interesting into your industry in particular. Is there
no brands that you've come across who have sustainability as one of their USPs? Unique selling
points, as one of their draws?
Participant: No, there's nothing like that really. Erm, there's literally **Pause**

85
Interviewer: Okay great that’s very helpful thank you. Question eight, so although you don’t
necessarily consider sustainability in the running of your activities, what would you consider to be a
constraint to pursuing sustainability as part of your business strategy?
Participant: A restraint?
Interviewer: Yeah, a constraint
Participant: Err, well like I said everything is just so fast, you need the materials there and then so you
go and get them, it not like you can source sustainable products, they’d more than likely be expensive
and there's not really much knowledge there of people who do stuff like that erm, and still you know
you're almost spending someone else's money, would the customer be happy with buying a more
sustainable product or would they just want the cheapest product to keep their costs low.
Interviewer: So, question nine, how often do you review your strategy?
Participant: well, I don't really, I just kind of you find out what works for you, and you keep with that.
I feel like it would be a completely different story if you changed everything to suit in with what it
should be
Interviewer: Can you expand on that? What is what it should be mean
Participant: well, everyone has this idea that you should be green and recycle and use recycled stuff,
but it just isn't that thing there. You know, if you started something like that would you just go into
doing something like that, would that be a new business altogether.
Interviewer: mm, I understand thank you. So, question ten, who are the stakeholders of your business?
Stakeholders
Participant: What's a stakeholder?
Interviewer: so, a stakeholder is someone who has any sort of interest in your business, doesn't have
to be financial.
Participant: who are the stakeholders? Me, you, consumers, the community erm yeah, anyone I
suppose who I could work for.
Interviewer: Okay, question eleven, to what extent do these stakeholders get involved in determining
the strategy of your business?
Participant: Errrr, well like I said before, the price of things, erm, each job’s abit different I suppose it
depends on what they want, what they want to do.
Interviewer: okay, so to what extent does sustainability contribute to competitive advantage of your
business?
Participant: say that again
Interviewer: to what extent does sustainability contribute to competitive advantage of your business?
Participant: it doesn’t really
Interviewer: question 13, how enduring is the competitive advantage of your business that is based on
sustainability?
Participant: What? Say that again
Interviewer: how enduring is the competitive advantage of your business that is based on
sustainability?

86
Participant: I don’t know. Erm I don’t think that question applies to me.
Interviewer: Okay, so what does ESG reporting mean to you?
Participant: What does ESG reporting mean?
Interviewer: erm environmental, social and governance.
Participant: I don’t understand them, so I guess it doesn’t apply to me
Interviewer: Okay no problem, what reporting do you undertake on ESG, sustainability or social
value?
Participant: I don’t
Interviewer: what factors may encourage you to consider reporting on these things?
Participant: er I’m not really regulated by anyone erm so ive got nothing to report.
Interviewer: okay fine. Question 16, do you consider acting sustainably as a risk or an opportunity for
your business?
Participant: Errrr **pause** it's not really a risk so I suppose it could be an opportunity
Interviewer: Okay, seventeen, what internal or external pressure do you feel to act sustainably in your
business activities?
Participant: Errrr I think it's more your conscience, and obviously everyone going on about global
warming and all that obviously wanting to good by the planet.
Interviewer: So erm, the next question is to what extent do you agree that there is a “doing good” vs
an “avoiding bad argument for sustainability?
Participant: Erm, I think that obviously everyone wants to do good and make a change but I just don’t
see how you could make that change with what we do, like I said the whole wastage situation with all
the offcuts and materials, you know it all gets bagged up and thrown away you don’t really know
where any of that goes, there's not really a place where you can take things and people could use for
other stuff/. Erm yeah
Interviewer: so, I have just got an additional question that I have just thought of within the
conversation. So, can you think off the top of your head of a single example of something you could
change in your business that would make you more sustainable?
Participant: erm it would probably cause more issues for me, but trying to buy the exact amount of
stuff, but then if you needed more obviously its abit of a catch 22 because you'd be using more fuel
driving out to get products you know you'd want to really go out once in the morning if you have to
get everything you need and get back to the job so you're not wasting time and you know swanning
around in the day getting things/
Interview: okay anything else or? No. Okay brilliant thank you for answering that additional question.
So question 19 do you personally see sustainability embedded in strategy as doing good or avoiding
bad?
Participant: Do I see that in my strategy?
Interviewer: So, personally if you were to implement and embed sustainability in your strategy, would
you be doing that because you want to do good or avoid bad?

87
Participant: **Pause** erm, like I said you know, everyone wants to do better. You know everyone
thinks you know it'd be nice to make a change. But I just don’t think it would work, I don’t see how,
how it would benefit from any change
Interviewer: Okay, so question 21 were almost at the end now. Apologies for the tape, this is question
20. What steps if any, do you take to mitigate your impact on the environment from the business
activities?
Participant: I don’t
Interviewer: Okay, okay so final question, not hugely relevant to you because you are the only person.
But I will just read it out to you and you can just say, your answer. Can you sketch a visual of the
hierarchical structure of the business and point out at which level sustainability is considered. So you
are a single person
Participant: yeah, me
Interviewer: Yeah. Okay brilliant, okay is there anything else you'd like to add?
Participant: No, I think we covered everything.
Interviewer: Okay brilliant, thank you for your time and cooperation.
Participant: Thank you
Interviewer: This interview will now be transcribed, and it will be held on the Keele OneDrive which
is subject to all Keele security protection and then once I have my degree it will be dealt with.
Participant: Cheers.
End of Interview

Appendix 7 - Participant Three Interview Transcript

Interviewer: Thank you for agreeing to take part in this interview that aims to understand
manager decision making, there’s no right or wrong answers just say it as you see it. I’d very
much appreciate to receiving answers to all questions but if you’re uncomfortable answering
any specific question please just say and we can skip to the next question. I will be recording
so that we will have a record of the meeting, but I will not be ascribing anything said to any
specific individual. Before I start can I check whether you have any questions and confirm
that you still wish to take part?
Participant: yes that’s fine
Interviewer: thank you.. okay so part one is management scenario. I have a set of concept
cards that carry information about key motivators for high level strategic decision making.
So, imagine yourself as the CEO of Amazon
Participant: yes, oooo yes
Interviewer: and choose your preferred six cards from the 18 available, then once you’ve
chosen six we’ll be ranking them
Participant: yeah okay then.

88
Interviewer: so I’ll give you some time because there is quite a few cards
Participant: oh god I should have bought my glasses, I’ll be alright, I’ll be alright. Okay so
this what I think makes a good company.
Interviewer: yeah so these would be your factors or sort of decision elements, and this is sort
of how important it is to you. In this pack of 18 there might not be your ideal mix because it
is randomly generated
Participant: Mhmm
Interviewer: so, you just have to pick the six that are most important and then we’ll rank them
Participant: right so it’s if I was Amazon, not (business name)
Interviewer: not (company name) but still you making the decision
**pause whilst the participant reads the cards**
Participant: what do you mean by social value?
Interviewer: So
Participant: what would you class as that
Interviewer: so social value is things such as erm equal pay equal opportunities, considering
things if it was in other countries such as poverty you know
Participant: got you
Interviewer: sort of people related kind of things
Participant: got it. Right so erm
**pause whilst participant continues card sort **
Participant: right, let’s get rid of this, so that, that, that, oh man I’m showing my colours now
(laughing). I don’t know how people looked at these, but I’m looking at two main things, and
you’re going to ask me what they are aren’t you? Right okay then. Right. I’ve worked out
there's a strategy, I just pick out things that I’m not happy about and just find them all and get
rid of them. Erm I’m not happy with that one. Ah that’s putting me in a dilemma, okay so
moderate, moderate, moderate. I’m not so bothered about that, but I need these high, so that
goes. Profit potentials got to be high in every single one, but I need my money back, see
that’s quite, that’s not going to fit the biscuit. What if I said can I not make one up, but I’m
guessing, ahhh ay ay. Right okay then let’s get these down, so return on capital invested,
okay, I’m going to keep my capital in there, so that’s going to be okay. Right, I’m not
bothered about getting my capital investment out at this time okay, but my profit is what I
want to see, it’s all about profit. Ahhhh who gives a **** about stakeholders, internal I’m
guessing these are the employees with their share stay scheme, these are the people that I
have to answer to though. Mhmm, that’s not going to cut the biscuit with my things, right so
I’ve got to have, ooo compliance oops. Oh god this makes me seem horrible. That’s still
important, I need to get my money out, I need to get my money back, these guys are going to
sack me if I don’t give them what they want, so that takes that down. Right okay, so what
have we got left.

89
Interviewer: you still need one more card there
Participant: how many do I need
Interviewer: you need six, six
Participant: so, two, four, right okay. I was getting it down to one
Interviewer: no six!
Participant: listening skills
Interviewer: so now rank,
Participant: wait a minute, wait a minute
Interviewer: oh okay
Participant: right, I’m going to swap that one for that one because I’m going to make a
scenario that I’m not wanting my capital back for now.
Interviewer: okay
Participant: okay, that’s a risky thing, oh that’s return on capital. Ah you see that ones, I don’t
like that one, why did I keep that one for, right moderate, low, high, that is I’m alright with
that one. Moderate, high, low, high, moderate there all a little bit of a muchness.
Stakeholders, that one, not quite right, okay I’ve struggled a bit there.
Interviewer: okay, okay yeah. So, now we’ve got these six cards, can you rank these top six
cards, with number one being your ultimate preferred through to six
Participant: right got it, okay then
Interviewer: at the bottom of the pile
**pause whilst participant completes this section of the management scenario activity **
Participant: right, it’s a good job there not a time limit on this isn’t it
Interviewer: taken your time it’s fine
Participant: how long have you got?
Interviewer: as long as you need
Participant: High, high high high high that’s what I want to see. No that’s, okay alright then.
Interviewer: thank you very much. I’ll obviously be writing these down, so I’ll put these in
the back, so I know these are the ones.
Participant: so, the top one to me, is the
Interviewer: number one
Participant: the ideal
Interviewer: yeah, yes. So, that is perfect, thank you very much for doing that, you did say,
I’m just going to write this down, you did say that there is a perfect one that isn’t included

90
Participant: yeah
Interviewer: what would that be
Participant: okay so
Interviewer: do you want to see the (hand back cards)
Participant: okay so what I would have realistically is that I would be getting high importance
return on my investment, we’d have great potential, profit potential, this would make the
stakeholder expectation for both erm, let’s be a bit more not great but moderate, that’s going
to make it a nice moderate, so this is all going to fall in. I’m also a believer as well that
you’ve got to pay your staff well and you’ve got to look after them to keep them and that is
moderate importance. Oh you know what it’s probably moderate to high to do that
Interviewer: okay
Participant: for me personally, terribly, I will do environmental, and I will do compliance, but
if it’s cutting into my profit too much
Interviewer: okay
Participant: it’s an ideal scenario but I’ve also got to pay the bills and got to keep the
company profitable so I’m going to do what I can
Interviewer: yeah
Participant: but erm you know, I know for instance certain bubble wrap which is really good
biodegradable costs an absolute fortune and who's going to pay for that, not the customer, it’ll
be the profits.
Interviewer: yeah
Participant: so that’s, that’s how I was looking at things for me it’s all about profit potential,
if it’s a business I’m building I’m not Looking to get my investment back, but there’s no
point in doing a business if you’re not making any profit, so that’s what the, they were the
kind of things I was looking at, but I’ve also got to answer to my stakeholders as well
Interviewer: yes
Participant: okay does that make sense
Interviewer: that does thank you
Participant: it’s very hard, honestly, I’m a limited company and there’s only two stakeholders
so kind of, if it doesn’t work it’s my fault kind of thing so
Interviewer: brilliant, thank you very much that was very helpful. So, part two sustainability
and your business, this is just a few questions specifically about sustainability and your
particular business, so don’t worry about anything else just think about it in your scenario
Participant: hopefully this will be easier now
Interviewer: that is definitely the hardest part. **Pause** Okay so, what does sustainability
mean to you?

91
Participant: Right okay then. So, for me, sustainability at my works is to re-use as much as
possible that I can at work. That is one of things, that is one of the main things that we are
looking at. So, this could be, I mean potentially it could be the source of our energy, okay.
Erm for us, for the building, unfortunately that is out of our hands, as we rent okay, so from
that point of sustainability we are just normal electricity and that but where we can have an
impact on our business is where we use packaging because we use lots and lots of packaging.
Er okay, so we use cardboard okay, so we use nicely sourced cardboard, does that make
sense, oh what's it called, ethically sourced cardboard okay
Interviewer: Yes
Participant: okay the cardboard that we have back, that comes back to us, or we have
deliveries in is all shredded and used as repacking. So we use that, and with regards to bubble
wrap and plastic that’s the kind of things that we use, we use biodegradable, I'll be honest
with you, we don’t use the quickest biodegradable because it costs an absolute fortune, but
we use as much as we can so we use abit of normal bubble wrap and this other like air
pockets things which is biodegradable in about 2 million years' time, no no no its one of
them, but that is what we try to do from the point of view of the products that we use. I can't
vouch for this, but this is what the foundry will do because its cost effective, cast iron is one
of the most recycled metals you can, so if somethings cast and its done, you just put it back in
the pot you melt it down and you reuse it so that’s what happened, so we also have scrapped
cast iron on site ourselves and this goes off to be recycled. So cast iron itself is recycled
recycled in a way, people don’t realise that, but you know what it's easier to melt it down
than get it out of the ground from the ore and our other bit that we can play a part in is
regards to our packaging. With regard to the greenest things there is, I could say that we use a
boat because its greener, but I don’t think it is its just cheaper. It's cheaper to get things on a
ship rather than flying things so. Yes, do you want to give me anything that I could have
missed on that or?
Interviewer: No that’s brilliant that's very
Participant: m just trying to think about what we do in the office from a green point of view,
God no think about the number of papers we waste, print stuff off then just shred it. No thars
the main two things.
Interviewer: That’s great thank you. So, moving into the more strategy related section, what
is the more strategy focused section, what is the articulated strategy of your business?
Participant: Oh my gosh, articulated, okay erm, honestly just to make money.
Interviewer: That’s fine
Participant: Just to make money, that sounds terrible doesn’t it, but that’s all businesses do
Interviewer: that is what a business is
Participant: That’s what they're there for to make money, er yeah. I mean I could, er do you
want me to elaborate on that. Okay so my job is to make profit and try to increase that year
on year and that is my role in the business. Do you want to know the strategy we found to do
that or? Okay so erm
Interviewer: If you're happy to share it
92
Participant: yeah yeah, oh my god you don’t know any of my competitors. I'm just trying to
think how to best describe it. When it first started at the company, they were fannying around
at stuff because I don’t know if you’ve been on our website but there's lots of itty-bitty things
and they’d be polishing them up and drilling things and doing this I said forget that,
absolutely forget that. Order stuff in, somebody orders it and you put it in a box and that’s the
strategy. So, I've got rid of all these things you'd get at reclamation yard and that forget it,
you get it, you put it in a box, put it in another box and you send it out. So, my strategy is buy
in products where we can make the most profit that we can with the least amount of work, so
literally Amazon would be the ideal thing for me doing books, because all you do is you take
a book off and you put it in a bag and you send it out, that is the best thing in the world to do,
it's not like clothes where you need loads of sizes and that you just buy that, yeah and so my
strategy is so I’ll erm, is to make the most profit I can and that is by selling online goods that
are not labour intensive okay erm and sell them for the highest that I can, making the most
profit that I can out of them, yeah, I mean that’s it really. That sounds terrible, what's your
strategy, to make loads of money.
Interviewer: No no that sounds great, so the next is sort of abit of an elaboration on the
previous bit. So, what is... what is the vision, mission and values of the business if you have
specific ones?
Participant: oo yes, well do you know what we don’t even have a mission statement, we don’t
have, well just say that first bit again?
Interviewer: What is the vision, mission and values of the business?
Participant: Okay then, so our vision is to be a one stop online retailer for quality cast iron
goods, okay so we. I don’t know if you want to put this in the strategy part, I've just thought
of this, but we, one of our strategies is not to be pissing around with things, you know when
you got to B&Q and get a pair of door handles for £2, what's the profit on there? Forget that I
want to be selling a pair of door handles for £120 because the reality is there is the same
amount of work, packing and storage space as there is with £120 pair handles that I don’t
have to buy in until somebody orders right then there is with these ones that are £2.50 so the
strategy is to buy quality goods, so the mark up is good if you like. So our vision is to be a
one stop shop for quality cast iron hardware and as an aside from that and I don’t know if this
goes into this bit or the strategy bit but is that we are after erm is it strategy, the customers
demographic of the customers were looking for is people who are middle class so if there is a
downturn in the economy, these are the people that will always have money, so whatever
happens with the economy, I've been through one recession with (company name) didn’t
effect it at all, because our demographic of customer is unaffected. So our strategy is to pick
out quality items and to be going for that kind of market and the website, the company that I
always always look to for inspiration is John Lewis, I want to be the John Lewis of (company
name) that’s, but yeah so our mission is to supply high quality iron hard ware to discerning
customers, I mean we can't say discerning because then we sound snobby you know and er
you know our values is a small family led company, I mean that’s part of it really, you know
we have a small team, at one time we had a father and son working for us they hated each
other you don’t need to know that. Me and John were obviously a married couple, you know
then we had the father and son working here it's all very, very close kind of thing, it's a small
tight team in that kind of way.

93
Interviewer: Yeah, brilliant, that’s great thank you. So, drawing from these, why are the
vision, mission and values important for your business?
Participant: Okay, why are they? So, the values are more I would say regarding the team,
keeping the team happy. Retention of staff is, personally for me, is one of the things that I've
found the hardest part of the job, I'm very lucky that I don't have the turnover of staff but
when I do you know if somebody's left you know it's always like probably the worst part of
the year because if somebody's left you know its oh, I've got to recruit that. So, keeping
values, I'd say our working (company name) team that’s really really important and that will
lead to retention of staff. Just remind me of the first part of that erm question
Interviewer: Why are the vision, mission and values important.
Participant: Okay so values keep the retention of the team
Interviewer: Yeah
Participant: The mission statement or the strategy going forward is that you’ve, with a
website we’ve all been on them where somebody’s selling a radio-controlled car and then a
toilet brush you know those random ones, what they're doing is they're buying a pallet from
China and its full of **** and sticking it on there. It's really important that we keep a certain
product portfolio because one of the biggest costings for our website is google presence, how
do you have a google presence when you’ve got the most random range of products, you’ve
got to be specific and you’ve got to narrow it down, what is our portfolio, what it represents
and just stick to that case iron hardware and you stick to the quality goods and this will fit in
with the, when we say marketing our marketing is Google essentially. Because otherwise
you're going to be paying for stuff and that’s why it's really really important that we keep
within that otherwise were going to miss customers. So, if tomorrow, our website is high
ranking for stuff we sell, so if I put on their tomorrow, I've got a pallet full of Ugg boots, I
ain’t ever going to sell them because (Company name) ain’t ever going to come up for Ugg
boots and if someone's looking for door knocker, they're going to be like Ugg boot that’s
random, anyway where's my door knocker's kind of thing. So that’s why we need to be
specific, and we need to stay within those lines otherwise we’ll just be buying stuff that
nobody's ever going to sell on the find, that nobody's ever going to find on the web. But also
who, I just think it looks cheap you know when you go to a website and, and the other thing
that I find, you know when you go on Next … but you look and you're looking for a black
dress and you put in black dress and it comes up with 2000 matches you ain’t ever going to
go through there and I don’t trust half of my filters … so it's trying to keep it clear and
concise and get rid of that junk does that make sense. I don’t know whether I've answered
that very well for you.
Interviewer: you have, about clarity which I think
Participant: Really, I was going to say it was the least clear answer. But yeah, it's just from
our, and anyone you talk to one a website, people are not going to find you, you’ve got to be
really clear on your products because then you’ll get found kind of thing. Does that make
sense with the Ugg boots? I would have hundreds of them for years, I might have sold 60
airers a day but not one set of Ugg boots.

94
Interviewer: Yes, that makes sense. … Okay so question 5 how visible is your strategy to the
rest of your business?
Participant: Okay so the people that work for me. Oh god, okay so at (company name)
including the directors there's eight people that work there and these are all of differing
ability and skills sets, depending. So, we have people working in the office and we have
people working in the warehouse and packing and erm like I say there's differing levels of
aptitude, skill sets and business acumen. So, what I talked about what strategy is will be got
by most of the employees, so I would say that half of them get it but half but sometimes
business is hard for people to understand. So, for instance, if something is wrong with an
item, okay, I could have just somebody be saying right forget it we’ll just have it as a second
within a second could make a decision, could also have someone spend half an hour on it
right trying to fix it and I'm going that’s a fiver and you’ve spent, does that make sense. So,
the whole point of our strategy being high quality goods where we can half a large mark up
where we can have hassle free, get it off the shelf, put it in a box and do that I would say is
not completely translated or erm across to the rest of the team. I do try to pick up er one of
the things that I'm looking at is er and I can't remember what it's called one of my friends
works for a company and they call it, it’s a Japanese thing and it’s the most efficient way so if
you're packing something everything is within there
Interviewer: Lean?
Participant: Lean yes, I've tried to have a look at lean things and one of the things is trying to
prevent people spending an hour doing something where its forget it just chuck it away and
that’s where we sometimes struggle with the guys that they can't see, and it's terrible because
they think they're doing a favour because they're going look look I've mended this and it's just
ah holy **** you’ve just spent two hours and its cost me so much and the thing only cost £10
anyway does that make sense. So, when we're doing the values, the guys get absolutely
volume of orders, so we look at how well were doing by the volume of orders, that’s how
they do it, they count the orders. Obviously, I gauge it by the cost of the orders what are the
order values so as a good gauge you can see from that, so they do get that bit, brilliant we’ve
got loads of orders over the weekend we’ve got this we’ve got that, absolutely they get that.
One of the things that they struggle with sometimes is the lean aspect of work, how do we
make things more efficient and erm just trying to get people out of habits where that’s what
they’ve always done and that’s how it's done and that’s one of the hard things, getting people
to change. In fact, it’s the girls that are much more switched on and it’s the guys that are not,
there's abit of a split within the company, maybe it's because the girls work within the office
and they see how things go and the boy's kind of don’t see what’s going on from an orders
point of view, or that we need to turn things over quickly. I would say yeah, I try to educate
and the number of times im just going try to spend ten minutes on that and if it's not working
just get rid of it, but it doesn’t quite work, it's very frustrating, very frustrating, but yeah, I
would say one of the things I could change is to have a lean aspect so that people could
understand the value of time. That time costs as well and is this going to give us money, no
its not actually.
Interviewer: Yeah, because you mentioned earlier that erm, sort of similarly to lean is just in
time so you have a very, in an ideal situation a very small storage section and you order in as

95
you need it and you said for example with the expensive handles, you might not order until
they’ve been ordered because it's just sat in store
Interviewer: Yeah, got you well there is a little bit of a mix on that, so those expensive
handles are made to order so that’s brilliant yeah so, I don’t need to invest in them until that.
So say this is our warehouse here (gives a visual demonstration) we’ve got two erm, we’ve
got like erm two corridor bits here and then all of this is racking and because of the aspect of
our business, one of the other strategies that we have that you would do down is that very
often with cast iron websites especially, you might have seen this with other ones, is that they
sell things a little bit cheaper so they’re undercutting me but they don’t have it in stock okay,
because they’re not investing the money. One of the other strategies we have so those handles
that are made to order but otherwise we try to hold stock because that gives us an advantage
over our competitors and fortunately were in the position where we’ve got the money to do it
and we’ve got the storage so do you know what we might just have one or two handles in
stock of each item but that's all people need to see to be like oh they're five are cheaper but
they're on a four-week lead time so (company name) have got it in stock, I'll buy it off them
so to have things in stock, because our philosophy is (another strategy) if you aint got it, you
can't sell it and it's as simple as that. So erm, from our, this might just put things into
perspective little bit, so we’ve got half of this racking here is were buying in from suppliers
we buy, we buy stuff in so we’ve got it showing in stock on the website to give us more
advantage because you know, when people phone up and say to me, can you price match with
this website it’s a tenner cheaper than you and I'll always say to them but it's not in stock, I'm
not doing that because you know because they're not doing it, I've got it in stock and then all
down here, and this is where we have to do our investment, a lot of our cast iron comes from
India, because a lot of the foundries in the UK have stopped casting now, they won't cast
certain things, they pick and choose what they're going to do and the money is ridiculous so a
lot of ours now is outsourced to India, they’ve got all our patterns over there, we put an order
in, I own those patterns and I just say I want 300 off of that and dur dur dur dur and we get
deliveries come from India, so we will have a lot of stock in there because of the way the
orderings going because we’ve got to order it in and it comes in and it's got to last use 6
months until the next delivery
Interviewer: and on a ship
Participant: Yes, because air lift is double, air lift is panic buying and ordering on a ship is
being organisation. But just for your sustainability for your business just to let you know,
normally a container, I had a container, a 40ft container over a 40 ft container, so a 40ft
container and a little bit of a container used to cost me £4000 two years ago, three years ago,
it now costs me £20,000. Yep so, I have no idea how Poundland are still doing stuff for a £1
because their shipping costs will have gone up as much as mine and I've got no idea what it's
going to be fuel, there was a shortage of containers you know the containers you see on the
back of there. At one point I had stuff ready ro go but they couldn’t get a container to put it
in, they’d all disappeared, they were just being used, there was loads of factors
Interviewer: They were stuck in the Suez Canal
Participant: On that bloody ship yes, I had a shipment coming in as that was stuck and I was
thinking oh my god, but it got moved out of the way. It's absolutely extortionate before you
even talk about the cost of iron going up or labour or stuff like that so yeah

96
Interviewer: Wow
Participant: But yeah that’s the other thing we have, we have a thing where we say have it in
stock because we will be, we won't be selling it cheap, we will be selling it at the RRP that
our supplier gives up, I don’t care if somebody's selling it £3 cheaper, but the chances are
they won't have it in stock, so who are you going to buy it from, you'll buy it from us.
Interviewer: Exactly
Participant: Absolutely, yes
Interviewer: Okay so what factors either internal or external influence your strategic decision-
making process?
Participant: now okay then, externally wow externally, will be things like looking for new
product ranges, so very often I will have three or four emails a day of suppliers contacting
me, so its erm you know. What factors are internal and external, what was the question
again, so I don’t go off on a tangent?
Interviewer: what factors internal or external influence your strategic decision-making
process?
Participant: Right, okay then so, that’s erm one of the main things is always looking for new
products, okay so that will be by people approach, mainly by people approaching me, going
to trade fairs and things like that er see what's going on and my first point of call would be
how good is the stuff and then my other thing is I have a look on the website because if
somebody's selling it on Amazon and they're buying it in for tenner and they're making £2.50
on it then forget it I've got to look at the price point that other people are selling it. Very
often, with quality goods the suppliers are massively struct on prices so you know like your
play station four you can go wherever you want and its going to be the same price isn't it if
Sony are saying, apparently, it's illegal to say it but then you can choose who you want to
supply. But then that’s brilliant because I put it on at the RRP its now a level playing field
and its now down, and this is where we have an edge, that we have got very good marketing
techniques and we’ve got a really really nice website and we’ve got some strategies on there
that we have some brilliant images. So, when you go onto an internet website you need to
have it looking like it’s a proper company, the quality of the website needs to be good, and
the quality of the photos needs to be good and then people will trust you and think they're
buying from someone good. So that’s the that’s the external strategy so it's always thinking
about what you know, other things that happen externally… so external things, for instance
one of the things that’s, price rises, there's nothing we can do about that but what we do is we
don’t absorb them, we pass them straight on. Because you know, there's a massive thing we
have at our work, busy fools, one of my friends told me about this and were not going to be
busy fools so that means you know what that means, okay so if somethings gone up by a
tenner, then it's gone up by a tenner and people have got to suck it up kind of things. One of
the problems were having at the moment is couriers, that has just gone crazy absolutely
crazy, but what we’ve found is that when we’ve just put it up people are not blinking an eye.
Unbelievably, so we’ve had some post boxes that have gone up from, I would say a year ago
they were on £290, they're on £340 now probably gone up within the last 8 months, still
selling because once you’ve bought your post box you don’t go buying another and think oh
my god that’s gone up again, people are fresh to it and they keep coming back so we do tend

97
to say you know, its reassuringly expensive, you know the Stella Artois, that’s another of our
strategies as well kind of thing. So externally, to be honest with you price wise we just put it
on that’s not going to change, but were looking at new products, internally, erm you know we
just keep an eye on sales figures what's selling what's not, internally, from a sales point of
view, if it's one of our products and it's something that’s selling off the shelves we’ve
designed when I talked about the patterns, so we had a post box that was like a rectangular
one that went through the wall, brilliant seller, so we made one that was like a tall arched one
that’s really selling, so we made a tall pointy one so they're the kind of things that we look at,
what is selling well, can we, is it something that were making a lot of money on, yes we are
because it’s a £350 item, lets design new ranges in that. And then the converse is true as well,
let's see what's not moving, i know all our products we’ll never buy in again, so what we're
looking at is what is selling well and then can we redesign that and have something similar
and that’s all we base it on, what's selling, get something similar in and do that and what's not
selling so that’s all the internal part if you like
Interviewer: Yeah brilliant, that’s great thank you
Participant: erm another internal part is we try, we tried to do as much work as we could from
a website optimisation, so this is like the marketing, but we had to outsource that in the end
so that’s gone from an internal to an external, yeah
Interviewer: Okay brilliant so, how does sustainability factor into your strategy?
Participant: Okay so it's fairly low well it used to be very well okay because it was all about
profit. So when I started 10 years ago it was all about having a so sustainability I'm talking
about packaging, that’s what I'm talking about, so I need to have something that’s rigid and
strong so I can send something out that’s fairly heavy, so some of our boxes are 10kilos
20kios so I've got to have a quality cardboard ive got to have quality inner packaging to
make sure that it arrives unbroken and I'm going to buy that as cheap as I can but still keep
the quality, that was what the that we the factor. Because I need to make sur ethe item gets to
the customer intact, because otherwise that’s not going to be cost effective for each box. Then
we started to get feedback from customers so erm cast iron is strong but part of being cast
iron is its brittle you've got it you know its strong but if you drop it on the floor, it just cracks
kind of thing. So, we started to get quite a few complaints not major but enough that we
thought we need to do this, saying this is great but look at all this plastic in this box so
because we had to package it to make sure you know it gets bounced around, so it was our
customers really that pointed us in the direction that we needed to do. And erm, so we looked
at biodegradable air pockets, so air pockets are those you know when you buy it and it's like a
little pillow. So, our bubble wrap isn't brilliant but, we buy we’ve got an air speed machine
which makes the air pockets, it's all flat and you put it in, and it blows it up and it comes out
in little pockets. So, then we changed to that so if anyone said, then we did a big thing on our
website that says our packaging is biodegradable and also because we were spending so much
money on cardboard, we used to have two big bins at work, one for general waste and one for
cardboard. So we were paying for that to be taken away to be recycled, so Veolia or whoever
it is would take that they would be doing the sustainability part for us, so we just thought why
don’t we use that cardboard, bought a cardboard shredder, got rid of the lift that costs me £12
a lift and okay one of the guys has the **** job of having to do it but all the stuff that comes
in from India so we’ve got a 40ft container full of cardboard boxes those boxes and anything

98
else get shredded and that is then also used to our packaging. So, you know those stringy bits
of cardboard, we did that. So to be honest with you the cardboard is cost effective for us,
because were reusing it, okay the shredder was something like £2,500 but you know what we
needed to do it and the lift is going to be £12, 4 12’s, 24, £50, £50, £500 do you know what
it's costing me £600 a year for that lift its going to pay for that in 3 years kind of thing. So the
cardboard is cost effective, the air speed is a little bit more expensive it's not the most
expensive but we needed to be able to say to our customers, because again, these are the
discerning customers, who might vote for the Green Party type of thing they might say look
at all this and we say it's absolutely fine, and we had a little thing that goes in that says just to
let you know this packaging is done that to do that so that’s, it was more customer led, that
this s is the problem, the last thing you need to do is when somebody has something from
Amazon and it's this big and they take a picture of the box and it's this big kind of thing, so
yes that’s where our sustainability came from.
Interviewer: that’s brilliant, So, question 8 what do you consider to be a constraint to
pursuing sustainability as part of your business strategy?
Participant: Okay so ideally what I would like to do is have solar panels, that’s what I would
like to do because we use a lot of energy at work, because we use the office being run, you
know so we’ve just got computers idling away all day and everything, down there they've got
the machines that they use down there. Ideally you know if we had solar panels that would be
brilliant, but you know because were in rental it's not something that we'd be able to do.
Ideally with packaging as well to be the quickest biodegradable options that are available but
there's a cost associated with that and at the moment it's not a cost that I can absorb and it's
not a cost that I can pass on to the customer, it's just too much.
Interviewer: That’s great, that’s great. So how often do you review your strategy?
Participant: okay I would say really ongoing, all the time, all the time. We don’t sit down and
think what are we going to do. I would put an order in with India every 2 months because I
have a few different suppliers, so reviews are done then, I can see all the sales figures I can
see what's selling what's not what are going to discontinue, what are we having problems
with you know these are a load of crap, were having to work on them. These will always be
ongoing, they will be highlighted, I get feedback from the guys this is rubbish, I get feedback
from customers, don’t like this, people sending stuff back so there's my product range, is
being done day to day, its tends to be feedback from customers, on what were gonna, it's
going to be sales figures I know what's not moving, what's causing us problems, what are
people sending back because its faulty it's just not lasting. We need to get rid of the things,
the other thing is I would say as well is daily I would get emails from people, ill look at them
see what are they selling, India are they making our stuff is it cheaper, I picked up a new
supplier two years ago who sent samples pictures of our stuff that only us have, because they
all use the same foundries so my guy with my patterns has gone there to his foundry and he
comes back to me with a different price and I'm thinking flipping heck I'm having it from him
kind of thing. So, to be honest with you it's done every day it's an evolving thing and because
you're getting feedback and the main thing Is it’s the feedback from customers what are they
complaining about and what are the sales figures show that people are buying. For instance,
years ago they were flipping awful, oh my god you’ll just cringe, people loved them, and I
don’t know if you'll know what I'm talking about, but people loved these pretend bicycles and

99
you put flowers in the baskets can you remember. So, we’d order loads of them in because
they couldn’t get enough of them, they went out of fashion and you just stop ordering them
does that make sense, oh my god the **** people buy but I don’t care if it's **** if people
want to buy it. God I sound horrible don’t I, to be honest with you that strategy is evolving, I
do the sales figures on a weekly basis I can see what’s going on where’s the problems, oh
guys we need to be careful what's going on here, and fortunately there’s always been a
reason for it, and we’ve always had a steady increase over The last 10 years so there's never
been any disaster meetings, what's going on why is it going so badly. We’ve been really
really really, touch wood, we’ve been really really lucky, so it makes strategy just this is
working carry on doing the why are we going to change because its working year after year
we’ve never been in the, touch wood we’ve never been in the we need to have a different
strategy to things.
Interviewer: That’s great
Participant: You sure?
Interviewer: Yes, that’s brilliant! Obviously, I'm just making a couple of notes but obviously
I've got all the good stuff on there
Participant: No no no not at all
Interviewer: Okay question 10 so who are the stakeholders of your business?
Participant: so, it’s a limited company with two directors, and that’s just myself and John.
Interviewer: Do you see that you have any other stakeholders?
Participant; So, what would you mean by that?
Interviewer: So, I'd include sort of anyone who comes into contact with the business for any
reason doesn’t have to be financial?
Participant: got you so you mean employees?
Interviewer: Could be employees
Participant: so like I said we’ve got eight of use there including myself and John, so me and
John are the two directors and then the other six are the employees, so who else would I
count in that, would you count my accountant? I’ve got an accountant and a bookkeeper in
the same company, so they do all of that side we also use a marketing team this is for erm
website optimisation so to make people find your website we use that, and we also used to
use a team, an affiliate company, an affiliate company is again that gets traffic to your
website by offering voucher codes and things like that and they, they will use. So, there's
quite a famous one called. I've never knew about it because I don’t know anyone who's
worked for them but if you work for the NHS, you get a blue light discount.
Interviewer: Yeah, yeah I've heard of that
Participant: Yeah, they’ll liaise with blue light and be like yeah you should get (company
name) on there because they're also picky about who they have on there. They would also be
what I would call the main people. The landlord wouldn’t count on that

100
Interviewer: Okay
Participant that would probably be it actually
Interviewer: Okay, so to what extent do any of these stakeholders get involved in determining
strategy of the business?
Participant: Okay, accountant, none, the web optimisation people yes, and the affiliate people
did as well, and that would be they would be involved in the marketing strategy and the
ultimate on the marketing strategy is to increase traffic and ultimately purchase sales on your
website. So, our web, we deal with google directly, so when I say that company that we work
with will rightly or wrongly directly on Google directly just so when you put something in
Google you get ranked as high as you can organically and that okay.
Interviewer: yeah, okay that’s great, so to what extent does sustainability contribute to the
competitive advantage of your business, if at all?
Participant: a little bit, and it's going back to the erm packaging. Because I have seen that,
people have said I bought from you and it comes back to these John Lewis type customers, I
mean I’ve just bought a dress... from Shein and how the hell do they get it over here and who
knows what's making it yea, I've not really worried about that kind of thing, but we do have
customers who have said I've bought from you because we do have blurb on the website that
talk about the packaging and the recycledness, oh my god, I've forgotten about a massive
sustainability type... erm from a sustainability, our main product we push as being
environmentally friendly, is the clothes airers.
Interviewer: of course
Participant: I was thinking about it as the sustainability of running the business, that is not
deliberate that is just that’s when we sat down and go what are the marketing on this, right its
green, and not only is it green its now energy bills, because people are not quite so bothered
about green, they're more bothered about their energy bills. So, our marketing will feature
around what's prominent, but our main one by just by that is the way, we didn’t design it
because it was green, but now that green slant, is green energy saving, so yeah clothes airer,
so no more what do you call them.
Interviewer: Tumble dryer
Participant: Tumble dryers
Interviewer: That’s brilliant
Participant: oh god I'm ridiculous, aren't I... what's your main product (name) it’s a green
thing, but it's because I was thinking more about what did we do and what have we done
about trying to become a greener, greener company.
Interviewer: Yeah, and anything that you think of, because it's from your perspective, that’s
the important part, so it doesn’t matter what it is. So how enduring is your competitive
advantage that is based on sustainability?
Participant: ***pause*** thought of something else, okay erm and I don’t think this made a
difference but going back the sustainability of our products, we use wood and its FSC

101
accredited which means that its sourced from you know where they take a tree down and they
take one off, truth is we’ve stopped being FSC accredited because it's such a rip off the wood
is still the same wood we have but you have to pay £800 a year to have that little thing on and
somebody comes and does it and we don’t both and its never affected sales. So that’s just one
for you, so the wood we have is just comes from you know you knock a tree down and it I
can't remember what it's called but it can all be tracked back to where it came from in
Norway and because they come from Norway and Scandinavia, so how, the question you just
asked me, going forward how is sustainability going to give me a competitive edge?
Interviewer: How enduring is the competitive advantage of your business that is based on
sustainability?
Participant: that’s a real tough one, it’s a real tough one because if you'd have asked me six
months ago, I would have said yes, it's going to become more green you have to say things
are more biodegradable, this is going to be absolutely standard, but people aren't worried
about that anymore they’re more worried about paying their energy bills. And and this sir the
problem that I think the way that moneys so tight for people that I think that will help, I think
the sustainability of the clothes airer that’s going to be brilliant because I think that’s an easy
way to save on energy bills so that’s going to help us in this environment that were in,
whether and I think going forward that is still going to still keep because it ticks the energy
box that is very topical at the moment and hopefully, fingers crossed that that all calms down
and you know green is going to be the issue because that’s ongoing and that not going to
change because that's still going in the wrong direction that’s going to be it. I think that
personally, we are going to have to up our game on the packaging and I think we will have to
become more erm erm as a business more sustainable so that would be using more and more
greener options with our packaging I can't see where else we would fit that in, but I do think
that will have to come, we’ve worked with some big companies before some of the questions
they’ve asked us is asking us about sustainability, what we do with packaging, how much of
our stuffs recycled, how much of that. Reality is, who looks at those figures because I've been
very honest on some of them, and said you know or I've just filled in, who wants you know
you're buying like £200 of stuff from me a year and you want me to fill this in I've just done
that, nobody's ever come back to challenge me on any of it because all I'm thinking of is I
need to fill this form in in ten minutes and send it off you know kind of thing I just need it
done because this isn't making me money I need to be doing stuff that is. But I do think that
erm, we will have to up our game, because it goes back to the kind of customers we are, are
going to be the ones that will be worrying about the erm, this whole movement of global
warming that just is just seems unstoppable at this present time. So, I think that will become a
big marketing tool in the future, definitely.
Interviewer: Yeah brilliant, so it might not mean anything to you, but what does ESG
reporting mean to you?
Participant: It doesn’t mean anything to me, I'm just trying to work out what the acronym
would be. I'm just going to say Energy Saving Greenness
Interviewer: Almost
Participant: easy summer, I can't think of a funny g word erm, environmental saving I don’t
know. Surely, it's going to be some of them, isn't it?

102
Interviewer: Close, environmental
Participant: Yeah, I got that then, the S that could be anything, environmental saving global
sustainability
Interviewer: Social
Participant: oo okay I never would have got that in a million years.
Interviewer: Governance
Participant: okay environmental social governance. Okay I think that will come in, the way
I've had experience of governance before on this is when you're working with big companies.
So, if we want to be working doing projects for big companies that’s going to be, they're
going to be coming back to us on that. At the moment, we’re just online, we’re just selling
out there however we have projects that we do that are not part of our website, working with
big companies and erm you know the requests are they want to go out to the foundry where
the things are being made where they want to see you know not so much the greenness but
the living conditions and erm the working conditions what people are working in and that’s
going to be dictated by the companies that we work for. So I've been out to our foundries, and
I've seen them and it all looks very good, and they all have their safety wear and everything
how real or mocked up that is do you know what I mean, because i have heard of things like
you know we buy it all for them, but they don’t want to wear them because it’s too hot you
know you’ve got that kind of things. You know for us if we have projects with big companies
then these are the questions that they will be asking us and we will need to show proof on it
so, yeah
Interviewer: Yeah, absolutely, yeah so. Abit of a follow on from that, what reporting if any
do you undertake not necessarily on ESG but sustainability or social value, if any?
Participant: Okay, so we used to have to report how much wood we used when we were FSC
accredited, because they would come in and do an annual report on us, so we had to show
how much wood we used and how much we sold and how wasted. Essentially, we had to, oh
what's it called, if I've got £100, I've got to show you what pounds have been spent, I've got
to account
Interviewer: Yes
Participant: I've got to account okay, so all the wood that I bought I had to account for where
it went
Interviewer: Yes
Participant: Kind of thing, so we used to do that. I’m not quite sure how that works for
sustainability I think that still a kind of money-making thing by the FSC. Every year I have to
let our Veolia, is that what you call them, the waste people. They will ask me what my
recycling is how much waste I've got, how much this. So, they give me a form, general waste
they pick up, they pick up 100%. Then they’ll say cardboard waste, that’s recycled 100% via
cardboard shredder, even though I'm their customer, they whether its feedback for them, to
make sure they're not up stuff again that could be recycled err, just remind me of the question
again, who do I have to account for every year.

103
Interviewer: So, what reporting do you undertake on either ESG, sustainability or social
value?
Participant: okay then so social value, I'd just say it's that, just from an environmental, and
then ad hoc ones will be companies so I had lush contact me they wanted to know certain
things, can't remember there was any social, but they wanted to know environmental, just
what the packaging is what's this and what's that so we work for big companies that are
sourcing from us that’s what they need to know from their suppliers, but that's on an ad hoc
basis kind of thing.
Interviewer: Yeah yeah, so, okay so, what factors may encourage you to consider reporting
on ESG?
Participant: oh, my goodness that’s a really, I'm so shallow, for instance if there was a thing
where you had a really, for instance we have Feefo on our website, people look at reviews,
before they buy something they want to see reviews on there, that is going to get me more
sales, so we signed up to a good one and we have review system. If there was a system where
people went on and could review the environmentally friendliness of a website and that
would give us a competitive edge, then I'd be signing up to that straight away yeah. But until
then, erm the only other review would be like if I could reduce my waste cost. Like how we
turned the cardboard from being rubbish and paying someone to take it away to it then being
able to use it as packaging, if we could do it to save like money and time then, but I don’t
think we can, I don’t think there's anything, so for instance if there was something that we
could just put plastic bags into and turn into, you know there's some developments that turned
out that the stuff that were putting in our general waste we could then reuse then I would, but
I think more it would be that if there was a review system of environmentally friendliness of
a website, of a company we would be signing up to that to give us an edge.
Interviewer: That is a really good idea
Participant: Don’t encourage that because that’s going to cost me money. When I say I'm
signing up to it it's not through choice
Interviewer: What internal or external pressures do you feel to act sustainably in your
business?
Participant: Its external, its customer feedback, like we talked about before, making sure
people are not receiving a box that's full of plastic with something in and not realising that
maybe we didn’t have a box big enough and you know the next one up was too big and then
we have to use more packaging to get it safe, but it is, its customer feedback I don’t want
people putting photos saying look at this parcel yeah.
Interviewer: Yes, like they do do with Amazon
Participant: Yes, absolutely I don’t want bad reviews
Interviewer: Brilliant so this is a abit of a sticking point to what extent
Participant: ooo why is it a sticking point can I ask?
Interviewer: Because it's on a continuum

104
Participant: okay alright
Interviewer: and people are we’ll find out
Participant: as long as I'm not having to sign up for something I'll be alright
Interviewer: to what extent do you agree that there is a doing good versus avoiding bad
argument for sustainability?
Participant: there's got to be, it’s the right thing to say is doing good, because if you're
avoiding bad, you're already in the ****, that’s the way I see it okay. So, if everyone did
good then it would be the perfect world and that is the way to go and that is the way it will
have to go. Erm, the problem is, and this is what people don’t realise is that very often there
is a cost associated with that and people don’t want to absorb that cost and that’s what we
need to get around. So whether it's that I'm having to pass on a cost because my packaging
has gone up double for the year, or people stop buying stuff from Primark do you know what
I mean, but people are not willing to do it so yes I absolutely agree that it's all about doing
good and hopefully our customers are the do goods, but I also get that do you know what
there comes a cost associated and people. Okay here’s a question for you, you know when
you see people I'm trying to think of an example, okay so poachers in Africa you know when
they're going out killing things and its terrible its terrible, so you say to them so why are you
doing that – because my children's starving and I need to feed them so I'm not telling them
that its right but it's on the and that’s the thing, so we need to get it so that the green options
are more cost effective and cheaper so we can bring them down, so everyone wins I mean so
the poacher is that you give him a job and you get him doing something else, so there are
answers but do you know what I mean that’s the thing.
Interviewer: making it more standard practice but it's not because it is so expensive
Participant: Yeah, yeah absolutely, absolutely
Interviewer: so, following on, do you personally see embedding sustainability in a strategy as
doing good or avoiding bad?
Participant: at the moment, I am doing it to avoid bad
Interviewer: Yeah, that’s fine
Participant: That’s terrible isn't it
Interviewer; No
Participant: because if I was doing good, I wouldn’t have waited until I had people moaning
or giving feedback to say you know we didn’t do we didn’t do it out of our own thing, we did
it as a response. We weren’t proactive on it we were reactive, but we did react to people's
comments, and we are trying to do good, and every time we look into buying the best stuff
and whatever and that its just stupidly expensive, absolutely incredibly expensive and that’s
the problem really.
Interviewer: Yeah yeah that is the key thing really
Participant: its costs and er,

105
Interviewer: it's still a business
Participant: you know well actually you’ve got £5 worth of packaging in there and 'like so it's
not my fault and I get that I absolutely get that
Interviewer: So, you’ve touched on this earlier on, but if we can just put it in here as well,
what steps do you take to mitigate your impact on the environment, from the business
activities?
Participant: okay then, so erm, so okay we recycle cardboard, and we reuse that for the
packaging, we use 50% of the plastic we use is biodegradable, wherever we can we will ship
things out in one consignment to avoid, I mean that’s a costing for us as well, I'm not doing it
out of the good of my, but yeah we will try and ship things out in one box and erm you know
not split up deliveries to try and keep that going. Erm what else? I'm trying to think is there
anything we do in the office that’s considered green, because we can't reuse any of the
shredded paper because even though its shredded ad we can't reuse it because it's got
customer details on … Sell fire pits that add to the carbon dioxide content, somebody once
said to me they’ll be banned soon, don’t be ridiculous people have open fires at home, of
course you can use a firepit in your garden, ridiculous. Gosh that’s terrible, so the cast iron
again that we use the foundry will recycle it, cast iron is one of the least wasteful metals,
things get recycled, that’s at the foundry itself if there’s any problems with the if there's any
fault in the castings that will just get melted down and reused again, when it gets to us if we
then spot that there's any problems in that a guy comes and picks it up an reuses all that cast
iron.
Interviewer: Yeah
Participant: As far as I'm concerned that's being recycled kind of things, I think that’s
probably, that’s probably it. What kind of things have other people said to you?
Interviewer: Not that much, that was quite a lot
Participant: Oh, really have I just rambled on?
Interviewer: No that’s good
Participant: ***questions about how to make the office more sustainable*** let me know
because I'm always open to stuff.
Interviewer: Do you keep hard copies of everything?
Participant: When you say everything, no
Interviewer: so, would you have...
Participant: oh, we don’t print stuff out oh, we do, and we don’t
Interviewer: not if you necessarily need it, would you rather store it digitally.
Participant: absolutely, absolutely, I have to print out invoices because I send them off to the
accountant so yeah they get printed off and all go in abox, but with regard to the data base is
the data base does that make sense, and as daft as it sounds is that we have to print out the
orders every day, the guys have a look, we were printing out **** loads of paper, and I just

106
thought this is just costing us a fortune because it's not the paper it’s the bloody those things
in the printer, there's three of them and they're like £350 each
Interviewer: oh, the toner yes
Participant: It's just crazy and so we looked at trying to do that, oh you can put that on, maybe
you want to add that, is that erm we refined the way we print out the daily orders to ensure
that wastepaper and er there's a problem with getting rid of the printer ink isnt there
Interviewer: the toner, you can do like a shaky thing but then you have to put it in, I think
they get sent, well you're not supposed to throw them away.
Participant: yeah yeah so to try and avoid the problem with the disposal of the toner s and the
printers we have, it was it was trying to save bloody money because it was getting ridiculous,
we have modified the way that we do our daily worksheets to ensure that to reduce the
amount of paper and printer bits that we used. But that’s more because I was thinking that
this is costing me a flipping fortune right, and I was just seeing all the paper that was coming
up to be shred and I was thinking we’ve got to do something about this.
Interviewer: What do you do with it once it is shred?
Participant: we don’t have anyone, what's it called that water thing. No, it's shred its proper,
proper shred, it goes in the bin
Interviewer: Cross
Participant: yes
Interviewer: okay, brilliant final question
Participant: sorry I thought we’d finished
Interviewer: no no final question, so considering the hierarchical structure of your business,
at which level is sustainability addressed?
Participant: at the moment its addressed at the lower tier because the people that do the
packaging and the shredding and things are all like my manual workers in the warehouse so
it's there where it's going on okay. Yeah, it's mainly the lower part because it’s the packaging
element of the business. And that includes also how much you can get in a box, trying to
reduce the number of boxes and that, so yeah, it's all done lower.
Interviewer: okay that is brilliant, that’s really good. So, thank you for your time and
cooperation is there anything else you'd like to say?
Participant: No no, not at all, I was just going to say if you get any hints for me that you can
pass them on that you find out in your research, you can pass them on anonymously and I can
see if I can fit them into what we do at (company name)
Interviewer: That would be brilliant, thank you very much
End of Interview

107
Appendix 8 - Participant four interview transcript
Interviewer: Thank you for agreeing to take part in this interview that aims to understand managers
decision making. There are no right, or wrong answers so just say it as you see it! I would very much
appreciate receiving your answer to all the questions but if you are uncomfortable answering any
specific question please just say and we can skip to the next one. I will be recording the discussion so
we will have a record of the meeting, but I will NOT be ascribing anything said to any specific
individual (ie everything is pseudo-anonymised). Just before I start, can I check whether you have any
questions and confirm that you still wish to take part in the project?
Participant: No questions and I wish to take part
Interviewer: Brilliant, so I have a set of concept cards that carry information about key motivators for
high level strategic decision-making. Imagine yourself as the CEO of Amazon and chose your
preferred six cards to start with from the 18 available and rank them 1 to 6, eventually you will be
ranking every single one, 1 to 18. So, this is you, so you’d be making decisions as yourself but as the
CEO of Amazon.
Participant: okay. These are all the same though
Interviewer: Slightly different, so they’ve got all the same factors, but this will be different in each
one
Participant: Ahhh okay
Interviewer: Different combination on each one
Participant: I mean this might take a while, I'm very visual
**Pause whilst the participant conducts the card sort**
Participant: Okay that’s my six
Interviewer: So, can you explain abit about what your thought process was about ordering the first six
Participant: erm, my main one was the profit, erm capital investment then go to the social values, and
then sustainability.
Interviewer: Okay brilliant, so is that your number one
Participant: Yes
Interviewer: and then that’s your number six
Participant: Yes
Interviewer: So, if we put them like this, upside down. Can you do the rest?
** Pause whilst the participant continues the card sort**
Interviewer: thank you, do you have any feedback on what your strategy was for the last twelve?
Participant: just going down from the profits the socials, the sustainability and going down in order.
Interviewer: To low importance?
Participant: Yes
Interviewer: Okay, thank you very much for doing that. So part two is about sustainability and your
business. So, I'd just like to ask a few questions specifically about sustainability your interpretation

108
and your business in particular. So don’t think about anything else, just answer as you. So, question
one, what does sustainability mean to you?
Participant: making the planet a better place and keeping my son happy.
Interviewer: Okay so I will make a couple of notes but most of it will be on here. Erm right okay so
question two. What is the articulated strategy of your business? So, do you have a written down
strategy or?
Participant: business strategy? No, I'm a professional winger, because my business is a variable isn't
it, it's not a static set plan is it.
Interviewer: No
Participant: so, because I'm dealing with dogs it’s a variable, there's no schedules, there's no given, it
is what it is.
Interviewer: Yeah, that’s great. So, what is, if you have them, the vision, mission and values of your
business?
Participant: I would like to long term, run a vets. I would like to promote healthiness in animals, and I
would like to become mor environmentally friendly with that.
**Interview paused for participant phone call**
Interviewer: Okay, so why are the vision, mission and values important to your business?
Participant: erm, I think because the more that you do a better job with animals, you're promoting
other people to be like that as well, there's a lot of people that aren't like that and its abit like learnt
behaviours, so they see what you do, and they want to be like that. Erm, most of all its profit for me.
Interviewer: Okay brilliant, so how visible is your strategy, or vision, mission, values to the rest of the
business so other people who might work with or for you?
Participant: it's not, it's just all sort of sat in my head right now.
Interviewer: Do you, this is an extra question, sorry. Erm, do you find that that has a positive or
negative impact specifically or not?
Participant: No, I don’t think it has an effect. my business partner and my partner (name) just sort of
goes with the flow and the girls that work with me generally are quite happy when I do new things so.
Interviewer: okay brilliant. So, what factors internally or externally will influence your strategic
decision-making process?
Participant: that would be my second job
Interviewer: Erm, in terms of, can you expand?
Participant: IN terms of I have a prior commitment with my second job that if I wasn’t doing that
second job, I would have put a lot more into my business.
Interviewer: Yes
Participant: Because you have to then, you have to make it work.
Interviewer: So, you’ve got a time constraint?
Participant: Yeah

109
Interviewer: Yes, okay so, how does sustainability factor into your strategy? If at all
Participant: Its hard erm, because like the sustainability for me is the product that we buy, it's the food
that we buy, it's all variables because of where were going, where we shop now and everything, the
values, the prices are going up, so it's trying to find somebody else that’s keeping that level of quality
but reflecting it in the price.
Interviewer: Okay, so, what do you consider to be a constraint to pursuing sustainability as part of
your business strategy?
Participant: I think its just the money side of it, its finding somewhere that balances that quality over
the finances.
Interviewer: Yes, definitely, as its not standardised it's still an expensive option?
Participant: Yeah, because for example a bag of Harringtons food is like sixty something pounds,
that’s not sustainable for a business to buy that quantity at that sixty something pounds, whereas the
ones that we do buy are like ten to fifteen pounds which are sustainable but then it reduces in the
quality.
Interviewer: Yeah, absolutely and like you said, your business is variable you don’t have, its not like
you have a set order for products.
Participant: no no there's no set
Interviewer: you don’t know what you're going to do so you need to. Okay so
Participant: Its potentially like a three-month plan; I'd probably say it goes in about three months
Interviewer: As to what you can plan to do?
Participant: Yeah, yeah so by the time we know their seasons, expected pregnancies, puppies that’s a
plan so you’ve got your 8 weeks, 9 weeks gestation, 8 weeks puppies that gives you that kind of time
to book
Interviewer: Yeah, and then in the meantime, you need to?
Participant: get products in
Interviewer: Yeah brilliant, so, that might, this next question might link to that but how often do you
review your strategy?
Participant: you can review it more because obviously we’ve got the standard, we’ve got all the dogs
that need looking after anyway, that’s your basics, then my variable is the puppies, it meant to be
every six months, but they are animals so if they don’t happen every six months then that’s up to
them, you can't change gods' way. But you can plan for those six months but it's not a given
Interviewer: Yeah.
Participant: like I hate puppies at Christmas, hate it
Interviewer: are they not popular then though?
Participant: Yeah, they are but I don’t think you should sell a puppy for Christmas
Interviewer: It's not, there's a saying isn't there; it's for life not just for Christmas.
Participant: Yeah, don’t buy it for Christmas
Interviewer: okay yeah brilliant erm

110
Participant: yeah, it’ll be coming back to you in the January when they're bored of it
Interviewer: and then you have another thing to look after, more expense?
Participant: Mm
Interviewer: Okay, so who are the stakeholders of your business?
Participant: Myself and (Name), well erm yeah
Interviewer: So when you’re doing the operations of the business, going through the motions of
everything that’s happening, who else do you come into contact with throughout?
Participant: no one, no one it's just down to me, I make all the decisions, everything.
Interviewer: that answers the next question, so the next question was to what extent do these
stakeholders get involved in determining the strategy of your business, but you have just answered
that one. Okay, so, the next question, to what extent does sustainability contribute to a competitive
advantage of your business?
Participant: Oo it doesn’t. I don’t think it does because
Interviewer: that’s fine
Participant: Erm, if they were, for example, the dog food, if they were competitive on sustainability,
they wouldn’t be charging the prices that they are charging.
Interviewer: Yeah, yeah
Participant: so, I really try to be eco-friendly and bought paper bags for the puppy packs as well, but
the bottoms fall out, so they can't carry to much weight, but I was being eco. We buy all hydrated
food for the treats, so it's not processed. It's difficult because I can't like just use like a bar of soap, I
can't just use those kind of products that are sustainable. It's not that kind of
Interviewer: Thinking about the other kinds of things you have to do to keep, the animals in a certain
condition, there's stuff that you have to use is there?
Participant: yes the puppy pads are not eco, the products are not
Interviewer: So, do you find, this is an extra question, do you find then like with the examples from
Harrington, that there is either very few sustainable or eco options or that they’re just far too
expensive?
Participant: they are far too expensive. For example, I ordered Tails, so Tails are meant to be like a
sustainable company, they do the deliveries, they do the processing, their food is meant to be of the
higher quality, so it was 75% off the first order, so I had two orders come in for that for (names)
which was like £27, the next month it jumped to £120 which isn't sustainable it's not. The 27 you can
do but the 120 is not, I can't justify that
Interviewer: No, especially not when you have so many others
Participant: Yeah, if it was just the two then that’s fair enough but it wasn’t sustainable
Interviewer: Yeah. Okay brilliant, so this is sort of a link on from the previous question and we have
sort of discussed the answer but how enduring is a competitive advantage of your business that would
be based on sustainability? Do you think that makes a difference in the market or not?
Participant: I mean to my market no, because it's all about propaganda really, how much of a good
thing you do with those dogs and how well they're looked after, and I think the quality of the puppies

111
doesn't reflect sustainability because people want you to spend the best on your dogs, they want you
to put the best things in, they want you to do everything possible for that puppy which may not be
sustainable
Interviewer: Yeah
Participant: Soo
Interviewer: Yeah, thars good, actually because people are actually after the highest quality product
whatever that may be
Participant: and it may not be sustainable
Interviewer: And in some industries it might be, but in others potentially not
Participant: it's not in ours
Interviewer: Sometimes it's just not really relevant and you can't, there's very little you can do. So,
this is an acronym it might not mean anything to you, but what does ESG reporting mean to you?
Participant: I have no idea.
Interviewer: So ESG means, environmental, sustain, no its does, environmental, social, governance.
So, do you do any reporting on ESG, or sustainability, or social value?
Participant: No
Interviewer: so a follow on from that, what factors might encourage you to consider reporting on these
things?
Participant: when I have to, so if it becomes part of the licensing or part of a regulation that I need to,
then I will
Interviewer: Extra questions here, erm can you expand on why you would only do it for that reason, is
it because; its extra work or?
Participant: Its extra work, erm it's an extra form to fill in for me. Its, for me it’d be abit pointless,
because I struggle to be sustainable
Interviewer: so, is it almost as If you don’t have anything to report? So
Participant: Yeah, what would I report, that I bought paper bags instead of plastic and that I bought, I
don’t know, I, it's difficult for my bracket
Interviewer: Yeah, that’s fine, okay so, for your business, in your industry, do you consider acting
sustainably as a risk or an opportunity?
Participant: it would be an opportunity, definitely an opportunity, but it's how id factor it in.
Interviewer: Can you see any reason why people in your industry might think it’s a risk? Or not
Participant: no, I wouldn’t look at it like a risk, it'd just be what would you, so for example the
product, what would be the alternative, and actually would that risk the puppies or the dogs, would
that have an effect on then
Interviewer: Yes, because you're working with quite a
Participant: Vulnerable
Interviewer: Yes, individual product as it is.

112
Participant: Yeah
Interviewer: That’s brilliant. Okay so what internal or external pressure do you feel to act sustainably
in your business operation?
Participant: I think externally it's just more that you should be doing it anyway, you should be that
sustainable company you should be the best of the best, but it's really difficult in mine.
Interviewer: So just drawing on that, as an extra question, where do you think you get this sort of
feeling or expectation from, the media or?
Participant: No, I just think you should be doing your bit shouldn't you, you should be putting your 5p
in and helping out. Like for example, puppy pads, puppy pads are horrific for like to environment
because they’ve got the plastic bags on then, what's the alternative, what do you use that’s safe but
sustainable? What is that product?
Interviewer: And that’s where the health and welfare comes
Participant: safe has to be more important than sustainability
Interviewer: until there's a time when maybe they could be the same?
Participant: Yes
Interviewer: Okay so, this has been a question, but to what extent do you agree that there is a ‘doing
good’ versus ‘avoiding bad’ argument for sustainability?
Participant: mmmm, I don’t know, I just think you should always be doing good, you should always
be that company that presence.
Interviewer: So, you have sort of answered this one, do you personally see sustainability embedded in
strategy as ‘doing good’ or ‘avoiding bad’?
Participant: doing good, always doing good
Interviewer: Doing good. Okay so, almost at the last question now. What steps if any do you take to
mitigate your impact on the environment from the business activities?
Participant: erm, I hire a bin company that incinerates rather than landfills. Is that a thing?
Interviewer: do you find, extra question, do you find it’s difficult to find these kinds of solutions to
mitigate the impact that you have?
Participant: Yeah because what is the other option, what?
Interviewer: So, another question
Participant: What is the, and has it got a higher financial implication?
Interviewer: so, so do you, are you aware of anywhere locally or that people have mentioned in the
industry that provide these sort or solutions?
Participant: No, no
Interviewer: Okay, so the final questions, erm thinking of the hierarchical structure of your business at
which level is sustainability considered?
Participant: errrr, probably like halfway up the chain. I do like the whole eco and sustainability, but I
wouldn’t risk my animals over that I know that’s not a nice thing to say but.

113
Interviewer: Okay brilliant, so do you have any comments, or any questions for me or anything else
you want to say?
Participant: I don’t know I think you've made me think about needing to be more sustainable but it's
how to do that. A massive thing for us is the tea bag shavings because they just degrade, but we
haven’t got a company that will just pick them up and put them in a massive bio-container so. Its the
price again.
Interviewer: Okay brilliant, just before I finish can you confirm how many employees there are?
Participant: erm 5, including myself and (name)
Interviewer: okay brilliant, thank you very much, thank you for your cooperation, I’ll pause this now,
this will be transcribed it’ll be kept on the Keele OneDrive until I receive my degree and then it’ll be
destroyed accordingly
Participant: Yeah
Interviewer: Thank you
End of Interview

Appendix 9 - Participant five interview transcript

So, thank you for agreeing to take part in this interview, that aims to understand managers decision
making, there’s no right or wrong answers, just say it as you see it. I would very much appreciate
receiving answers to all the questions, but if you’re uncomfortable answering any specific question,
please just say and we can skip to the next one. I will be recording the discussion so we will have a
record of the meeting, but I will not be ascribing anything said to any specific individual. SO just
before I start can I check whether you have any questions and confirm that you still wish to take part
in the project.
Participant: Yes. I wish to take part
Interviewer: Brilliant
Participant: and I have no questions
Interviewer: Thank you, okay part one: management scenario, I have a set of concept cards that carry
information about key motivators for high level strategic decision making.
Participant: okay
Interviewer: imagine yourself as the CEO of Amazon, choose your preferred 6 cards from the 18
cards available and you’ll have to rank them 1-6, with the eye then to ranking the rest of them after
that
Participant: okay, so 1 –6 being my most preferred
Interviewer: most preferred yeah with number one
Participant: at number one
Interviewer: and six being 6th preferred
Participant: least preferred

114
Interview: and then the rest of them, so you will go 1 to 18 eventually. So this is you, but if you were
the CEO okay
Participant: Yeah, yeah
Interviewer: So all the factors in the cards are the same,
Participant: same all the way through
Interviewer: It’s the levels that are different
Participant: yeah, yeah, yeah
Interviewer: Its quite... a lot
**Pause whilst the participant reads through the cards and undertakes the card sorting activity**
Participant: Crikey
Interviewer: Do you have any thoughts initially?
Participant: Erm, erm no but it's trying to. I mean like for example, card two is low importance on
everything and I can't see as that will ever be my choice.
Interviewer: Yeah
Participant: and I guess there's a high importance for everything somewhere
Interviewer: Potentially, although these is not a combination of every single one, so there is, yeah so
your ideal one may not be there either
Participant: right, so can I lay them out? Because I think that’s going to be my my best way to look at
these because I’ll never remember else what I've looked at will I
Interviewer: No
Participant: I could be here all night looking at these. I'm going to go that as my first
Interviewer: Okay
Participant: I've got four haven’t I. Think that’s my six
Interviewer: Okay so now you’ve done your six, are you able to do 7-18
Participant: okay yes I'm sure I could.
Interviewer: brilliant, thank you very much. Do you have any comments or anything about what kind
of strategy you used to do that at all?
Participant: Erm I was drawn to erm sustainability, and I was drawn to, erm, probably, sorry I’m
forgetting the things, yes I was drawn to sustainability and compliance those were the two things that
I felt would impact the others anyway. Compliance to me, will give you a better profit so that’s where
I was probably thinking. But err, it is a lot of things to consider. But yeah, no good I enjoyed that
Interviewer: Great, so, part two is sustainability and your business, so were no longer Amazon
Participant: talking environmental sustainability yeah
Interviewer: I'd just like to ask a few questions about sustainability and your business. So, number
one, what does sustainability mean to you?

115
Participant: erm, to me, in my business, it means to me, the least impact on the environment that I am
able to use a process without change too much. So, I like to consider all aspects of the sustainability
before I make that decision, so if I was looking at a new product, or I was looking at a new process, I
would be thinking of it in a long-term way so I'd like to think that I would be considering all elements
of sustainability and not making quick rash decisions.
Interviewer: brilliant, okay so what is the articulated strategy of your business?
Participant: erm, growth versus profitability versus social impact.
Interviewer: okay so, if you have them, what is the vision, mission, and values of your business?
Participant: okay, yeah, erm the vision is to provide a service that uses local workforce local supply
chains and the least environmental impact, the least carbon footprint, wherever possible
Interviewer: okay brilliant, so why are the vision, mission, and values important to your business?
Participant: I believe that by considering local businesses to support my business that I am giving
back to the community, I don’t want to source products just on price, I don’t want to source staff just
on the lowest wage I can pay, I want to source products and staff by thinking I can give back to my
local community.
Interviewer: Brilliant, okay so, how visible is your strategy to the res of the business?
Participant: er completely transparent
Interviewer: So this is just an extra question, so do you think that say you know any of your
employees would be able to not necessarily, word for word repeat that, but they would be able tell
anyone that
Participant: yes, they would yes absolutely, they would it is a well-known fact that we support local
people, local business, local source
Interviewer: Brilliant, do you find that taking that sort of stance has any negative repercussions?
Participant: erm it possibly might mean that price is not at the forefront, so there might be a hit on
profit because of it and it might affect the amount of training that we have to give, because we could
probably get more trained staff by going into city employment, but we would then have to do a lot of
travelling which is a massive carbon footprint. So, we prefer to employ so the person has the least
places to travel and it does mean that we have to train more.
Interviewer: Brilliant, okay, erm so what factors either internal or external influence your strategic
decision-making process?
Participant: can you repeat that?
Interviewer: what factors, either internal or external influence your strategic decision-making process?
Participant: erm availability of staff, my business is staff driven, its labour driven, so that has a
massive impact because ive got to make positions more attractive to achieve what I want to achieve so
you know erm that can be difficult. Sourcing products is also at times difficult because of my strategic
plan, because I can't always get local produced products particularly if customers have asked for
something quite specific, and its not produced locally where I want it to be, I might have to spend
quite a lot of time on finding an alternative, so ive got to develop an alternative if I want to keep my
strategy. Otherwise, I have to source outside of my strategy.
Interviewer: great, thank you. Okay erm you’ve covered this quite a bit already, but question seven is
how does sustainability, no sorry, how does sustainability factor into your strategy?

116
Participant: erm, I don’t know how to answer that one, how does it factor into my strategy. I suppose
by keeping referring to our mission and our strategy, we don’t lose sight of it, it’s that important that
we don’t lose sight of it, so if we go off at a tangent because time can sometimes be against you it’s
always to go back to where we want to be, to where we want to go, what we want to achieve, so its
important to keep revisiting
Interviewer: Yes, brilliant. That’s great, okay so what do you consider to be a constraint to pursuing
sustainability as part of your business strategy?
Participant: Erm availability that’s it, that a constraint, availability of product or labour is our biggest
constraint in fact
Interviewer: so how often do you review your strategy?
Participant: annually
Interviewer: this is an extra question, how much tends to change annually, when you review?
Participant: erm, the strategy and the mission doesn’t change however we might add points to it that
we feel for a year, we need to try something else. So, there will be some development and it might be
that that then adds to our missions and strategies the following year if we think it's worked or it might
be that we don’t think it's worked, so we drop it, so there isn't a massive change to the header, but
there's these you know small appendix if you like for a year and then we, if we think that’s worked we
will adopt them into our strategy. But everything goes on trial for a year
Interviewer: trial yes, that’s brilliant. Erm okay, so who are the stakeholders of your business
Participant: erm there are three of us that erm have shares in the business, and we all work in the
business
Interviewer: erm and to what extent do these (shareholders) stakeholders get involved in determining
the strategy of the business?
Participant: 100% the three of us make all decisions jointly, ideas come from one or other or it might
even come from other areas of the team, but actually decision making is the three of us and we have to
agree.
Interviewer: okay brilliant, so to what extent does sustainability contribute to a competitive advantage
of your business?
Participant: erm, local knowledge, because the work that were in is about geographical, we have to
travel to all our points of work, so by employing locally er people know the dynamic of the client,
because the area in which they're working might be you know poor, it might be crime, it might be an
area that they need to be careful of but because we only employ local, they know that so they can
adapt or adopt the correct sort of attitude. Familiarity I suppose that’s the word isnt it, being familiar
with your environment.
Interviewer: erm so, sort of an extension to that, how enduring is this competitive advantage that’s
based on sustainability?
Participant: erm finding the right people to do the right things can be an endurance, because
depending on where our erm work volume is concentrated on a certain period might depend on
whether I've got staff available so whilst that’s our strategy to put people into areas that they're aware
and they know and they can relate to, if all our jobs are in that area that day and that might be sort of
easy to do I suppose. But if we’ve got staff going all over the shop then that might be difficult, so that
can be an endurance to do planning and scheduling.

117
Interviewer: great thank you, so what does ESG reporting mean to you?
Participant: nothing
Interviewer: nothing, so ESG is environmental, social and governance, so further from that what
reporting do you undertake, if not on ESG, then on sustainability or maybe social value, if any?
Participant: reporting? How do we work that into our business?
Interviewer: are you having to report on anything, or do you voluntarily report on anything
Participant: no, no we don’t.
Interviewer: erm so if not, what factor or pressure for example may encourage you to consider
reporting on ESG, or sustainability, or social value?
Participant: I guess if there was an accreditation that was required to provide the service we provide
and an accreditation was part of that provision, then that would force me into reporting on it.
Interviewer: so, would you consider reporting voluntarily
Participant: if, if I could see a benefit, if I knew how that reporting was going to be used
Interviewer: yeah. Okay brilliant, so do you consider acting sustainably as a risk or an opportunity for
your business?
Participant: an opportunity
Interviewer: you answered that very quickly. Are you able to expand on why?
Participant: erm because part of the business that we provide, our sort of service, hones in on
sustainability really. You know we like to reduce costs, and environmental items, and we sell that as
part of the service really. You know we ask the right questions of perspective clients, so they know
that’s important to us, you know so the customers see that as a positive of us.
Interviewer: yeah, brilliant that’s great, so what internal or external pressure do you feel to act
sustainably in your business activities.
Participants: erm, er customers, who don’t have any care or vision, if we want from them certain
reports, certain, er we want to know certain things about their site, they can be very dismissive, so er
at times it can be difficult to get across what we need to know or what we want to know because er
some people don’t see it as important. Making the changes to your customers is a hard as anything
isn't it.
Interviewer: Yes, brilliant okay. Erm, so to what extent do you agree that there is a ‘doing good’
versus ‘avoiding bad’ argument for sustainability?
Participant: I think er you know doing good yeah is high on the list, however you can’t do good all the
while, because you know were not a single, we’re not out there on our own, we have to work in a
community with lots of people so there are times that we do have to think well it's not a bad thing, its
not the best thing we would do, but it's not a bad thing so we will make the best of a bad job.
Interviewer: brilliant, brilliant. So you, you’ve almost answered the next one, do you personally see
sustainability embedded in a strategy as ‘doing good’ or ‘avoiding bad’?
Participant: well, yeah doing good and avoiding bad as well, yeah, we see it both ways all the time
Interviewer: do you find that erm you have to make compromises with potentially suppliers may
because they don’t align necessarily with what you're doing.

118
Participant: erm yeah yeah yeah there can be but erm because were labour driven, the supply for us is
probably only 10-15% of our business you know supply, so we don’t have a big, er lot a big purchase
department really because its labour driven. But yes, I yes, to answer your question yes some
suppliers don’t meet what we would ask them to meet with products and services at times
Interviewer: okay brilliant thank you, so what steps if any, do you take to mitigate your impact on the
environment from the business activities?
Participant: erm, travel for us is a big expense, because we don’t do anything on site, on our site, we
have to travel to every single job we do, so we ensure that no vehicle goes with one person in it, we
always use up every seat in the vehicle, erm we use reusable items wherever we can, we try to have as
little disposable items as possible, so we reuse receptacles of sorts, or clothes, we wash, disinfect,
whatever. Never throw away, our disposal is a big part of our business, that we don’t do, we don’t just
throw away, if were using paper products we make sure they're recycled, erm yeah, I can't think of
anything else.
Interviewer: that’s great, do you, as an extra question, do you ever use the clients you know things?
Participant: yes, yes, we do.
Interviewer: yes, okay erm so considering the hierarchical structure of the business, at which level is
sustainability considered and sort of action put in place?
Participant: at every level.
Interviewer: Does it look different at each level?
Participant: yeah, yeah i would say that some initial levels might be that were, were minimising the
bad bits until we can work on where we want to be. So, we may, at some levels of the business we
might be working with bad things or things that we don’t feel are sustainable that don’t work for us,
but then we’ll work towards you know through the period of the contract or through the period of the
job.
Interviewer: that’s brilliant. So, you just mentioned then, sorry extra question, that you might work
towards improving in a contract is this a regular thing or is it one off?
Participant: its regular, yeah, we adopt that regularly we give customers advice on the tasks that were
expecting to do, we tell them straight away what we think has got to happen, not saying they take it on
board, of course they don’t always want to take it on board, however, and there may be a cost to it so
it’s not always received very well, but nevertheless we, we do you know tell them what we’re
thinking but then it’s sort of up to them if they take it on board. Which does mean then that were
working in an environment that isn’t ideal for us, but we’d always, we’re constantly be working
towards what we’re suggesting.
Interviewer: Brilliant, right okay, that is actually all of my questions. So, thank you for your time and
cooperation, do you have any questions or comments for me
Participant: no, no no
Interviewer: No, so I'll pause the recording now and I'll be transcribing it, it’ll be saved to the Keele
OneDrive, once I've received my degree it’ll be sort of disposed of as per the uni guidelines. Thank
you
End of Interview

119
Appendix 10 - Participant six interview transcript
Interviewer: Thank you for agreeing to take part in this interview that aims to understand managers
decision making, there's no right or wrong answers so just say it as you see it. Id very much appreciate
receiving your answers to all the questions but if you're uncomfortable answering any specific
question, please just say and we can skip to the next one. I will be recording the discussion so we will
have a record of the meeting, but I will not be ascribing anything said to anyone specifically. Just
before I start, can I check whether you have any questions and confirm you still wish to take part in
the project?
Participant: no and yes, I do
Interviewer: Brilliant, thank you. So, part one, management scenarios, I have a set of concept cards
that carry information about key motivators for high level strategic decision making. Imagine yourself
as CEO of Amazon, please rank these cards from number one to eighteen with number one being your
most preferred on the top and number eighteen being least preferred on the bottom of the pile. So, if
you want to take a look. All the factors are the same, but the levels change. That’s where they're
different.
** pause whilst the participant reads through the cards and gets familiar with the concepts.
Participant: The most important one to me on the top?
Interviewer: Yes, please
**participant completing the card sort activity**
Participant: This isn't easy is it. There you go
Interviewer: Thank you very much. That’s brilliant, so ill put them in here and then do my analysis on
them afterwards.
Participant: Its made me think that has
Interviewer: Has it
Participant: Yes
Interviewer: a couple of people have said that. Okay, so part two, I'd now like to ask a few questions
specifically about sustainability and your business
Participant: Yes
Interviewer: Okay so, what does sustainability mean to you?
Participant: two prongs I think for us, sustainability erm the products that we grow, erm we want to
grow them in a sustainable fashion, erm sustainability is also about how we are sustainably trying to
run a business moving forward really.
Interviewer: Okay so what is the articulated strategy of your business?
Participant: survival currently, I think is absolutely number one and that has changed over the last
three or four years.
Interviewer: So just to go on from that, in the, I'm presuming over the pandemic and covid that’s
changed how?
Participant: Yeah, that’s changed 100% for us, pre covid erm we are a growing nursey we grow a
seasonal product particularly, a summer product, we are a seasonal business. We make 95% of our

120
money between March and beginning of July, our business is very weather dependent, if its good
weather we make more money than if we have a bad weather summer. Erm pre covid our business
was 95% wholesale, we used to grow and supply for major garden centres the likes of Charlies stores
of which there is 11 in the UK, Hollybush, one of the biggest garden centres in the midlands, erm two
or three large garden centres in Cheshire and all of their summer product was grown here. Turnover
probably for the summer period about £750,000, erm we start growing in January, the summer stock,
the main batch of summer stock is ready to go out at the beginning of March, erm we had probably
£500,000 of summer stock on the floor in the glasshouses ready to leave for all the retail garden
centres, beginning of March pre covid and all the garden centres closed, so we’d got half a million
pounds worth of stock on the floor with a four weel shelf life. Erm were a small business, that is
absolutely not sustainable for us in any form, so being sales and marketing background, nobody else
was open, everybody wanted plants we’d got plants, in the space of 4 weeks, I turned our business
round from a business that had been doing wholesale for 20 years, to a business that now does 95%
retail in a four-week period.
Interviewer: Amazing, yes see I never knew you did wholesale
Participant: we did wholesale for 20 years, that’s all we did. Pretty much
Interviewer: Okay, so what is the vision, mission, and values of your business?
Participant: in the current economic climate, the vision of our business is to stay trading, we are
clawing our way back from covid which is a five-year plan. Erm, we still did have to get rid of a lot of
stock in covid that we didn’t sell. Er what was the other question?
Interviewer: what is the vision, mission and values
Participant: err, the mission is to continue changing the business over to retail, were getting older
working smarter not hard, more profit per unit. Erm, and the values of our business really, I mean in
essence we are a small family business, we want to employ local people, we are a seasonal business,
and we like to employ seasonal, the same seasonal staff. And its, I suppose a bit of a family
environment really.
Interviewer: Yeah absolutely, erm so why are the vision, mission, and values important to your
business?
Participant: without all three of those combined, we don’t have a business. You know without moving
forward, evolving with the economic climate, we’d have been bankrupt, like so many of our
competitors did go through Covid. And the main problem for businesses like ours is decent staff.
Interviewer: Mmm, so how visible would you say, is your strategy to the rest of the business?
Participant: to the staff of my business?
Interviewer: Yeah
Participant: And, I would say not very visible, and I would say not very visible, because the majority
of my staff at the moment are quite young and they don’t understand what it takes to run your own
business, they don’t understand how important it is that when you throw that one item away or you
just put it in the skip, although it only costs pence, it can be reused.
Interviewer: Yeah, so that’s bringing it back to the staff again, isn’t it?
Participant: Yeah, my staff are young, which is good, we need young staff in this environment,
because its hard work, they need to be fit and healthy, there's no sitting down jobs, but they don’t
realise the importance of you need to work, these are the hours you work you know we need to save

121
every penny we can. Its, they're in a throwaway era, they don’t understand that while they're there
with their ear pods in, doing their job on the nursery, which grates on me, every time they look at their
phone to change onto the next song, they're wasting twenty or thirty seconds, when I've got ten staff in
that’s hours during the day that they’re not productive. And unfortunately, at their age, they think that
they’re just being picked on. But they’ll grow out of that/
Interviewer: So, what factors internal or external, influence your decision-making process, strategic
decision-making process?
Participant: external factors, at the moment, are definitely the cost of utilities, the business that were
in, although we run a borehole, we also have a water metre and during our peak period we can get
through two thousand pounds a month in water. So water prices have gone up by 60% erm our
summer crop which we start growing in January, erm which doesn’t come for sale until March, and
we’ve still got young stock on the nursery until May, needs to be heated above 10 degrees, so four
acres of glass houses have to be heated by oil, so on an ordinary year, if it’s a cold week, I can burn
£8,000 worth of fuel at last year's prices, I'm not sure how sustainable that is moving forwards,
because the current at next year's prices will be £20,000 per week and I can't offset those costs onto a
product that costs maybe £2 or £3. Was there a second part to that question?
Interviewer: No, I'm just gobsmacked. Wow, okay yeah. So, how does, if at all, sustainability factor
into your strategy?
Participant: at the moment, we do what we’ve got to do to keep going, some things have gone out of
the window. We’ve been down, our business is very environmentally friendly, erm pre covid all of the
plastic and things we used like that, the plastic packaging had to be recycling, erm which cost us an
extra 50% more and things like that, so we were very focused on having visibly recyclable items,
especially recyclable packaging, now we are more focused on survival, because still for our industry,
recycling is very expensive, recycling packaging is very expensive, there is certain things regarding
plants that a lot of people don’t understand, plant passporting, disease control. All of these things we
even have to pay a levy that goes into research and development, even though the research and
development team in the UK was off for covid for 12 months, they still charged us £5,000 for
research and development and these costs have got to be built in. But at this current time in our
business, we can’t afford to be so focused on being visibly recyclable, we need to be focused on
saving every penny and keeping going, however we possibly can.
Interviewer: Yeah, absolutely. So, you, you’ve just answered quite a lot of this, but, what do you
consider to be a constraint to pursuing sustainability as part of your business?
Participant: it's all about costs, and staff to be honest, getting good staff in a rural location is difficult.
I think getting staff in any location for any company is hard at the moment, but people perceive our
industry not to be what it really is, people think it’s a nice job. People see me working in the shop and
think oh I'd love to work in the shop, but they don’t see me at 4o’clock in the morning when we start
work, and we take a lot of staff on that only last the day or two days because it's too hard work for
them. So staff is a big consideration for us moving forward as well.
Interviewer: okay great, so, how often do you review your strategy?
Participant: currently, on a daily basis. It's not because we want to, it's because we have to.
Interviewer: So, before covid, how often would you have reviewed it?
Participant: I would say probably annually. But covid did us a favour because, we’d got, with things
like that, we’d got a little bit complacent.
Interviewer: Mmm, Okay, so who are the stakeholders of your business?

122
Participant: (name) my husband, and myself
Interviewer: Erm, and to what extent do each of these stakeholders get involved in determining the
strategy?
Participant: it's hard to say really in different ways. With the figures, finance, costings and overhead
its 100% me, with (name) is a grower, he’s got no interest in sales or marketing or finance, he will
decide year on year what crops have been successful, which ones haven't, and he’s got 100% say on
the strategy of what we grow and how much we grow of each product.
Interviewer: Yeah. Okay, so to what extent does sustainability contribute to a competitive advantage
of the business?
Participant: to what extent, I would say every extent and I would say when you compare our growing
methods in the UK to those of the Dutch, who are our main competitors who import everything, they
have, we are a small independent business, erm we provide a quality product that you won't beat, the
Dutch can turn out a product of lower quality- but very acceptable quality and ship it over for a
fraction of the price that we can. Because their systems are all automated, every single product that we
sell is touched by human hands at least 30 times, the Dutch product is not touched at all by anybody
until its picked up by a customer in the UK.
Interviewer: Yeah
Participant: and that is 100% down to government investment in the industry over there. The
government spends more money in Holland, on plants, bulbs, flowers which is their main export
business, than it does on their health service.
Interviewer: Really? Wow.
Participant: Yeah.
Interviewer: Wow
Participant: and in the current economic climate, this shop local, we want it home grown, out the
window, absolutely nobody cares and to be honest why should they. You don’t have the financial
choice now to pay for shop local, you don’t.
Interviewer: No, okay brilliant thank you. So how enduring do you think is a competitive advantage
that is based on sustainability?
Participant: Explain that to me
Interviewer: So, do you think that, if you or a competitor had competitive advantage because of
sustainability do you think it would last or do you think it would sort of fizzle out?
Participant: Yeah.
Interviewer: You know need more momentum
Participant: No, it's a continual thing that needs to be worked on, even if it doesn’t, even if its
sustainable from a business point of view, you need to be continually drawing that to your customers
attention to gain that competitive advantage.
Interviewer: brilliant, erm so what does ESG reporting mean to you?
Participant: what’s ESG reporting?
Interviewer: So ESG is environmental, social and governance. Erm so, what reporting do you
undertake, if any, on ESG, sustainability or social value?

123
Participant: so, our industry’s part of the AHDB, which is the agriculture and horticulture
development board, and which is very similar to DEFRA, but the plant side of DEFRA, so every year
they charge us a levy for research and development that they do on our half, our behalf and we have to
fill in pages and pages and pages of reporting on what we grow, how we grow it erm, literally every
single single plant that we grow on the nursery in a batch of above twenty has its own passport and all
of these things are recorded, reported there’s scanning now that we have to do, It’s all very labour and
cost intensive to be honest.
Interviewer: Is it like barcodes?
Participant: Yeah, similar, literally like a passport, like you’ve got a passport, every time you move in
and out of the country, your passport is scanned somewhere to show where you are. Everything I
grow here, either leaves this site or goes into my retail shop gets scanned from point to point and gets
recorded, so if you bought one of my plants and you were in Scotland for example, you bought one
traveled home to Scotland and there was a disease outbreak in Scotland, they can report from the
packaging where that’s grown and where its been, all round the country, just like you're tracking your
DPD parcel or your, its exactly the same, but we have to do that and I have to provide staff to do it.
Interviewer: Yeah, and pay for it?
Participant: Yeah
Interviewer: Okay so we, so there's two sort of extra sections to this, so if yes what are the factors that
encourage you to do this type of reporting, I presume its mandatory
Participant: Its mandatory, completely, 100% I wouldn’t do it if I didn’t have to.
Interviewer: So similarly, if you were going to undertake some other sort of reporting like your own
reporting on anything else to do with sustainability, what kind of factors would encourage you do
that?
Participant: we do do our own type of reporting on a season-by-season basis and its very much based
on consumer trends and different things that are going on within a year, our business changes from
year to year, depending on exactly what's going on in the UK during that year, so example, this year it
was the Queens jubilee, everybody wanted their gardens doing before the jubilee we knew we were
going to need to grow a lot more red, white and blue.
Interviewer: Yeah
Participant: Erm, on a year where there's a world cup, we always sell more because the men want to
sit in the garden drink beer and watch the football, the trade-off is, the men bring the women to the
garden centre they get to buy what they want and make the gardens lovely. So, it really depends
exactly whats on year on year and the weather is very, you know.
Interviewer: Yeah, yeah. Okay so question sixteen, do you consider acting sustainably as a risk or an
opportunity for your business?
Participant: environmental sustainability at the moment for your business is a risk
Interviewer: Are you able to expand on why?
Participant: It's all down to costs, yeah, absolutely 100% down to cost of transport, packaging, power,
utilities', even staff, everything.
Interviewer: Yeah

124
Participant: I burn 8000 litres down the yard in February, March and April, we sometimes even get
frost in May, it's a lot of money
Interviewer: It is a lot of money
Participant: and I have to invest in my products erm we get a lot of plug plants, which start coming in,
I mean we grow a lot from seed, but we do get a lot of plug plants as well, erm that another grower
grows for us, I need to start ordering those next week and to pay for them. They won't start coming in
until February, but obviously they sow seed and do cuttings for those so they have to prep, can I
afford to order £70,000 worth of product and risk that I then have to pay £20,000 a week to heat it just
ot keep it alive, it’s a bit risk, for a small business
Interviewer: and consumers aren't necessarily going to pay any more?
Participant: A, are they going to be able to afford plants for their garden next year and B, with the
costs as I can see at the moment, our products need to be at least double the price, at least.
Interviewer: Yeah
Participant: you know, there’d be uproar. But the Dutch they’d be able to bring in their products, they
don’t burn fuel to heat their greenhouses, it’s all eco underground thermal stuff, so they don’t have
those costs, they’ll still be able to bring their product in at a tenth of the price probably. And although
it’s not as good, although it’s not locally grown, which one are you going to buy, because I'll tell you
now which one I’d buy, it’s not a bad product. But it’s not a locally grown, field to fork product
either.
Interviewer: Yeah, yeah, okay so, what internal or external pressure do you feel to act sustainably in
the business activities?
Participant: Internal pressure I don’t feel any pressure internally, the only pressure internally is
pressure that we put on ourselves. Externally, historically, we were very much into reusable resources,
recycling and the home-grown product currently, its all about price.
Interviewer: Yeah, okay so to what extent do you agree that there is a ‘doing good’ versus ‘avoiding
bad’ argument for sustainability?
Participant: doing goods a nice thought, erm for us at the moment, it all about avoiding bad, it's not
about avoiding bad sustainability so much, it's about avoiding bad consequences when we can't pay
the bills
Interviewer: Yeah, yeah
Participant: Things have changed a lot in our industry and its not during covid because covid was
brilliant for us, absolutely brilliant for us. But it's all about the economy, all about it. You know
people say, oh we didn’t recover from covid, we lived through covid okay we were pretty smart how
we did it and we worked hard, but, you know gardens are going to be a luxury, an absolute luxury, I
just can't see. I mean what are you going to do, feed your kids and put the heating on for grandma or
go and buy two hanging baskets to make the outside of your house look pretty? Its I mean, we thought
our industry was a dying industry because gardening predominantly, for a retail garden centre is for
older people, and when I say older people I mean people over 50, they live in the ex-council houses
that they’ve purchased, the ones with the big gardens, they live in the big properties, the nice
properties, erm even the older people who live in the rented council type properties, things like that,
all love their gardens. The younger people are buying new builds with no garden's apartments, flats,
so we saw our business absolutely dying out with an older generation, but covid came along and all of
a sudden, it brought us along a whole new generation of gardeners, it was amazing. But those are the
people now, that are bringing up young families, that are not going to have the money, were not going

125
to keep it going. We started off on a real good roll and all of a sudden, I think we’re going to drop off
a cliff
Interviewer: Yeah, because they're the people who can't afford to have any
Participant: You know, they’ve stretched themselves buying, the government did an about turn, let's
get all these first-time buyers into new homes, we’ll help you out, these young couples have now got
young kids, and during covid okay everybody was out of work, I've never seen people spend so much
money as they did during covid. Oh, were on furlough, they weren't spending money on petrol or
eating out, people were literally throwing money at us during covid, and we knew that would come to
an end, and it has, it absolutely has.
Interviewer: Yeah
Participant: oh well our summer baskets. Have died, were not going to bother with our autumn ones,
it's too much money. You only have to look at the telly and things like Netflix went through the roof,
people are cancelling Netflix and Sky subscriptions hand over fist at the moment
Interviewer: Yeah, and they put the price of Netflix up as well
Participant: That’s another story
Interviewer: Erm so question 19 you have pretty much answered this, but do you personally see
sustainability embedded in a strategy as doing good or avoiding bad?
Participant: Avoiding bad for us. And I'm sorry to say that really
Interviewer: So, what steps, if any, do you take to mitigate your impact on the environment, through
the business activities?
Participant: Everything, everything we did everything we could. Now, we do everything, within
reason, taking costs into account, we use, were chemical free, we erm we use as many recycled
products as we possibly can, were moving towards a peat free growing mediums and things like that.
We collect all our own water, we’ve got our own borehole, we make sure all our run off runs into the
ground water, as much as we can really.
Interviewer: Brilliant, thank you. So, considering the hierarchy of the business, at what level is
sustainability considered and actioned?
Participant: only at director level
Interviewer: okay brilliant, so that is all my questions, thank you for your time and cooperation, do
you have any comments or questions for me before we finish?
Participant: Would you like to buy a retail nursery?
Interviewer: I'm not sure I can afford it! I'm going to pause now, so I'll paise this now, then ill
transcribe it, it’ll be kept on the Keele OneDrive and then when I graduate it’ll be handled with my
account and deleted appropriately.
Participant: Yeah
Interviewer: Thank you
End of Interview

126
Appendix 11 – Average Importance Value of Decision-Making Factors Chart

Average Importance Value of Decision-Making Factors

Compliance

Profit Potential

ROCI

Environmental Sustainability

External Stakeholder Expectation

Internal Stakeholder Expectation

Social Value

0.000 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000 18.000

Appendix 12 - Importance Values per Participant:

(Participant one)

127
(Participant two)

(Participant three)

(Participant four)

128
(Participant five)

(Participant six)

129
Appendix 13 - Overall Utility Scores

Utilities
Utility Estimate Std. Error
Social Value Low Importance -1.352 .208
Moderate Importance 2.065 .208
High Importance -.713 .208
Internal Stakeholder Low Importance -1.269 .208
Expectation Moderate Importance .537 .208
High Importance .731 .208
External Stakeholder Low Importance .148 .208
Expectation Moderate Importance .426 .208
High Importance -.574 .208
Environmental Sustainability Low Importance 1.009 .208
Moderate Importance -.824 .208
High Importance -.185 .208
ROCI Low Importance .009 .208
Moderate Importance .287 .208
High Importance -.296 .208
Profit Potential Low Importance .481 .208
Moderate Importance -.796 .208
High Importance .315 .208
Compliance Low Importance .481 .208
Moderate Importance -.546 .208
High Importance .065 .208
(Constant) 9.491 .147

130
Appendix 14 - Participant profiles

Participant 1 (pilot)
Company size (employees) 60
Industry Domiciliary Care
Years in operation 10 years
Scale of the operation Regional

Participant 2
Company size (employees) 1
Industry Property & Maintenance
Years in operation 5 years
Scale of the operation Regional

Participant 3
Company size (employees) 8
Industry Retail
Years in operation 20
Scale of the operation International

Participant 4
Company size (employees) 4
Industry Animal Breeding
Years in operation 4
Scale of the operation International

Participant 5
Company size (employees) 50
Industry Cleaning (domestic, commercial and industrial)
Years in operation 19
Scale of the operation National

Participant 6
Company size (employees) 10 (seasonal)
Industry Horticulture
Years in operation 18 years
Scale of the operation National

131
8.0 REFERENCES
Adams, R. B., Licht, A. N. & Sagiv, L., 2011. Shareholders and stakeholders: How do
directors decide?. Strategic Management Journal, 32(12), pp. 1331-1355.
Ahmed, A., Bwisa, H., Otieno, R. & Karanja, K., 2014. Strategic Decision Making: Process,
Models and Theories. Business Management and Strategy, 5(1).
Ali, T., 2015. Beyond shareholders versus stakeholders: Towards a Rawlsian concept of the
firm. Research in International Business and Finance, Volume 34, pp. 126-141.
Aragón-Correa, J. & Rubio-Lopez, E. A., 2007. Proactive corporate environmental strategies:
myths and misunderstandings. Long Range Planning, 40(3), pp. 357-381.
Arjaliès, D. L. & Mundy, J., 2013. The use of management control systems to manage CSR
strategy: A levers of control perspective. Management Accounting Research, 24(4), pp. 284-
300.
Bansal, P. & DesJardine, M. R., 2014. Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic
Organization, 12(1), pp. 70-78.
Boakye, D. J. et al., 2020. Sustianable environmental practices and financial performance:
Evidence from listed small and medium-sized enterprise in the United Kingdom. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), pp. 2583-2602.
Bonini, S. & Görner, S., 2011. The business of sustainability, s.l.: McKinsey .
Bonn, I. & Fisher, J., 2011. Sustainability: the missing ingredient in strategy. Journal of
Business Strategy, 32(1).
Borland, H., Ambrosini, V., Lindgreen, A. & Vanhamme, J., 2016. Building Theory at the
Intersection of Ecological Sustainability and Strategic Management. Journal of Business
Ethics, Volume 135, pp. 293-307.
Caputo, F., Veltri, S. & Venturelli, A., 2017. Sustainability Strategy and Management Control
Systems in Family Firms. Evidence from a Case Study. Sustainability, 9(6), p. 977.
Crane, A. & Matten, D., 2007. Business Ethics. 2nd edition ed. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Davies, R., Haldane, A. G., Nielsen, M. & Pezzini, S., 2014. Measuring the costs of short-
termism. Journal of Financial Stability, Volume 12, pp. 16-25.
De Vaus, D., 2014. Surveys in social research. 6th edition ed. s.l.:Routledge.
de Wit, B., 2020. Strategy an International Perspective. 7th ed. s.l.:Cengage Learning.
Drucker, P. F., 1973. Management: tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York: Harper &
Row .
Drucker, P. F., 1994. The theory of business. Harvard Business Review, pp. 95-106.
Eccles, R. G., Ionnou, I. & Serafeim, G., 2014. The impact of corporate sustainability on
organizational processes and performance. Management science , 60(11), pp. 2835-2857.
Eisenhardt, K., Graebner, M. & Sonenshein, S., 2016. From the editors: grand challeneges
and inductives methods: rigor without rigot mortis. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4),
pp. 1113-1123.

132
ESG the report, 2021. What is Materiality in ESG?. [Online]
Available at: https://www.esgthereport.com/what-is-materiality-in-esg/
[Accessed 28 July 2022].
Fasick, F., 1977. Some Uses of Untranscribed Tape Recordings in Survey Research. The
Public Opinion Quarterly, 41(4), pp. 549-552.
Fitjar, R. D., 2011. Little big firms? Corporate social responsibility in small businesses that do
not compete against big ones. Business Ethics, 20(1), pp. 30-44.
Freeman, R. E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E. et al., 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. s.l.:Cambridge
University Press.
Friedman, M., 1970. The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits. The
New York Times Magazine, 13 September.
Gadenne, D. L., Kennedy, J. & McKeiver, C., 2009. An empirical study of environmental
awareness and practices in SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), pp. 45-63.
Hammann, E.-M., Habisch, A. & Pechlaner, H., 2008. Values that create value: socially
responsible business practices in SMEs - empirical evidence from German companies.
Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(1), pp. 37-51.
Harriman, D., 2010. The Logical Leap; Induction in Physics. New York: Penguin.
Hart, S. L., 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of management
review, 20(4), pp. 986-1014.
Haugh, H. M. & Talwar, A., 2010. How Do Corporations Embed Sustainability Across the
Organization?. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(3), pp. 384-396.
Hiller, N. J. & Hambrick, D. C., 2005. Conceptualizing Executive Hubris: The Role of
(Hyper-) Core Self-Evaluations in Strategic Decision-Making. Strategic Management
Journal, Volume 26, pp. 297-319.
Hitchcock, D. & Willard, M., 2015. The Business Guide to Sustainability: Practical Strategies
and Tools for Organizations. 3rd edition ed. New York: Routledge.
Ioannou, I. & Serafeim, G., 2019. Corporate Sustainability: A Strategy?. Harvard Business
School Accounting & Management Unit Working Paper, 19(065).
ISO, 2019. New Standard Helps SMEs Get Ahead with ISO 14001. [Online]
Available at: https://www.iso.org/news/ref2393.html
[Accessed 29 July 2022].
ISO, 2022. ISO 14000 Family: Environmental Management. [Online]
Available at: https://www.iso.org/iso-14001-environmental-management.html
[Accessed 29 July 2022].
Jenkins, H., 2004. A Critique of Conventional CSR Theory: An SME Perspective. Journal of
General Management, 29(4), pp. 37-57.
Johnson, P., 2015. Evaluating qualitative research: past, present and future. Qualititative
Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 10(4), pp. 320-324.

133
Jones, T. M., 1995. Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics.
The Academy of Management Review, 20(2), pp. 404-437.
Jones, T. M., Felps, W. & Bigley, G. A., 2007. Ethical theory and stakeholder-related
decision: The role of stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), pp. 137-
155.
Kerr, J., Rouse, P. & de Villiers, C., 2015. Sustainability reporting integrated into
management control systems. Pacific Accounting Review.
Khan, M., Serafeim, G. & Yoon, A., 2016. Corporate sustainability: First evidence on
materiality. The accounting review, 91(6), pp. 1697-1724.
Khanra, S. et al., 2021. A resource-based view of green innovation as a strategic firm
resource: Present status and future directions. Business Strategy and the Environment,
31(4), pp. 1395-1413.
Kim, A., Bansal, P. & Haugh, H., 2019. No Time Like the Present: How a Present Time
Perspective Can Foster Sustainable Development. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2),
pp. 607-634.
Kipley, D. & Lewis, A., 2009. The Scalability of H. Igor Ansoff's Strategic Management
Principles for Small and Medium Sized Firms. Journal of Global Business Issues, 3(1), pp.
77-93.
Kiron, D. et al., 2017. Corporate Sustainability at a Crossroad: Progress Toward Our
Common Future in Uncertain Times. [Online]
Available at: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/corporate-sustainability-at-a-crossroads/
[Accessed 25 June 2022].
Kiron, D. et al., 2017. Corporate Sustainability at a Crossroads: Progress Toward Our
Common Future in Uncertain Times, s.l.: MIT Sloan Management Review .
Kolk, A. & Perego, P., 2008. Determinants of the adoption of sustainability assurance
statements: An international investigation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(3),
pp. 182-198.
Kollmus, A. & Agyeman, J., 2002. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and
what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour?. Environmental Education Research,
8(3), pp. 239-260.
Konrad, A., 2008. Knowledge creation and the journal editor's role. In: Opening the Black
Box of Editorship. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 3-15.
Kotler, P., 2011. Reinventing marketing to manage the environmental imperative. Journal of
Marketing, 75(4), pp. 132-135.
Laverty, K. J., 1996. Economic "Short-Termism": The Debate, The Unresolved Issues, and
The Implications for Management Practice and Research. Academy of Management
Review, 21(3).
Locke, E., 2007. The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management, 33(6), pp.
867-890.
Long, T. B., 2019. Sustainable Business Strategy. In: Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainble
Development Goals: Decent Work and Economic Growth. UK: Springer.

134
Lozano, R., 2012. Towards better embedding sustainability into companies' systems: an
analysis of voluntary corporate intiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 25, pp. 14-
26.
Maharaj, R., 2008. Critiquing and contrasting "moral" stakeholder theory and "strategic"
stakeholder: implications for the board of directors. Corporate Governance , 8(2), pp. 115-
127.
Marcus, A. & Geffen, D., 1998. The dialetics of competency acquisition: Pollution prevention
in electric generation. Strategy Management Journal, 19(12), pp. 1145-1168.
Martin, R. L., 2010. Five Questions to Build a Strategy. [Online]
Available at: https://hbr.org/2010/05/the-five-questions-of-strategy
[Accessed 29 August 2022].
Mintzberg, H., 1978. Patterns in Strategy Formulation. Management Science, 24(9), pp. 934-
948.
Mitev, N. & Venters, W., 2009. Reflexive evaluation of an academic-industry research
collaboration: can mode 2 management research be acheived?. Journal of Management
Studies, 46(5), pp. 733-754.
Murthy, V. P., 2012. Integrating Corporate Sustainability and Strategy for Business
Performance. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management, and Sustainable
Development, 8(1), pp. 5-17.
Neugebauer, F., Figge, F. & Hahn, T., 2015. Planned or Emergent Strategy Making?
Exploring the Formation of Corporate Sustainability Strategies. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 25(5), pp. 323-336.
Paulraj, A., 2009. Environmental motivations: a classification scheme and its impact on
environmental strategies and practices. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(7), pp.
453-468.
Phan, T. & Baird, K., 2015. The comprehensiveness of environmental management
systems: The influence of institutional pressures and the impact on environmental
performance. Journal of environmental management, Volume 160, pp. 45-56.
Phillips, L., 2011. What is strategy?. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(5),
pp. 926-929.
Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E. & Wicks, A. C., 2003. What stakeholdee theory is not. Business
Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), pp. 479-502.
Pless, N. M. & Maak, T., 2011. Responsible leadership: Pathways to the future. Journal of
Business Ethics, Volume 98, pp. 3-13.
Porter, M., 1985. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance.
New York: The Free Press.
Radas, S. & Prelec, D., 2019. Whose data can we trust: How meta-predictions can be used
to uncover credible respondents in survey data. PLoS ONE, 14(12).
Ramaswamy, V. & Ozcan, K., 2014. The co-creation paradigm. s.l.:Stanford University
Press.

135
Reyes-Rodriguez, J. F. & Ulhøi, J. P., 2021. Justifying environmental sustainability in small-
and medium-sized enterprises: An analysis of complementary assets in the printing industry.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1), pp. 59-75.
Rezaee, Z., 2019. Business sustainability, corporate governance, and organizational ethics.
s.l.:John Wiley & Sons.
Sarkis, J. & Cordeiro, J. J., 2001. An empirical evaluation of environmental efficiencies and
firm performance: Pollution prevention versus end-of-pipe practice. European Journal of
Operational Research, 135(1), pp. 102-113.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A., 2019. Research Methods for Business Students. 8th
edition ed. Harlow: Pearson.
Schaltegger, S., Burritt, R. & Peterson, H., 2017. An Introduction to Corporate
Environmental Management: Striving for Sustainability. s.l.:Routledge.
Spiliakos, A., 2018. What does "sustainability" mean in business?. [Online]
Available at: https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/what-is-sustainability-in-business#:~:text=In
%20business%2C%20sustainability%20refers%20to%20doing%20business%20without,the
%20environment%20The%20effect%20business%20has%20on%20society
[Accessed 30 June 2022].
Starbuck, W. & Milliken, F. J., 1988. Executives' perceptual filters: what they notice and how
they make sense. In: The Executive Effect: Concepts and Methods for Studying Top
Managers. Greenwich: JAI Press , pp. 35-65.
Sull, D., Sull, C. & Yolder, J., 2018. No One Knows Your Strategy - Not Even Your Top
Leaders. [Online]
Available at: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/no-one-knows-your-strategy-not-even-your-
top-leaders/
[Accessed 16 August 2022].
The American Law Institute , 1992. Principles of Corporate Governance 2.01 (Proposed
Final Draft). s.l.:s.n.
Tilley, F., 2000. Small firm environmental ethics: how deep do they go?. Business Ethics: A
European Review, 9(1), pp. 31-41.
Tollin, K. & Vej, J., 2012. Sustainability in business: understanding meanings, triggers and
enablers. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 20(7), pp. 625-641.
Vesteinsdottir, V. et al., 2018. Questions on honest reporting. Behavior Research Methods,
Volume 51, pp. 811-825.
Wengraf, T., 2001. Qualititative research interviewing: biographic narrative and semi-
structured methods. London: SAGE.
Williams, S. & Schaefer, A., 2012. Small and medium-sized enterprises and sustainability:
managers' values and engagement with environmental and climate change issues. Business
Strategy and the Environment, Volume 22, pp. 173-186.
Winston, A., 2022. What's Lost When We Talk 'ESG' and Not 'Sustainability'. [Online]
Available at: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/whats-lost-when-we-talk-esg-and-not-
sustainability/
[Accessed 22nd June 2022].

136
Woiceshyn, J. & Daellenbach, U., 2017. Evaluating inductive vs deductive research in
management studies: Implications for authors, editors, and reviewers. Qualititative research
in organizations and management: An International Journal, pp. 183-195.

137