Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/330219263
CITATIONS READS
48 1,226
5 authors, including:
All content following this page was uploaded by Juan C Sosa Varela on 23 April 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-07-2017-0181
Downloaded on: 17 January 2019, At: 05:24 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 118 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 8 times since 2019*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Token:Eprints:g8GeMBQfNKhBGT6wn3gB:
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to validate or refute the previous empirical findings of a TBL dominant logic for business sustainability and to
expand the TBL dominant logic for business sustainability with additional dimensions and items. The study aims to provide bottom-up-based multi-
dimensional framework in relation to the sustainable development goals (SDG) of the UN 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
Design/methodology/approach – Key corporate informants in top Spanish companies were requested to participate in the study. A total of 89
usable questionnaires were returned, generating an initial response rate of 42.4%.
Findings – A framework for a TBL-dominant logic in the context of business sustainability has been empirically tested successfully across contexts
and through time, thus providing substantiation for universal applicability.
Research limitations/implications – This study provides a relevant and important substantiation for validity and reliability across contexts and
through time. It is important in research to establish a theoretical framework at the corporate level for business sustainability in connection with
SDGs. This study is not without its limitations, but offers opportunities for further research.
Practical implications – The framework provides practitioners with a foundation to assess their efforts at business sustainability, taking into
account a broad selection of aspects across environmental, social and economic elements that contribute to SDGs.
Originality/value – This study makes two relevant and valuable contributions to developing a framework of TBL dominant logic for business
sustainability, namely, validation and expansion. It offers also multiple opportunities for both research and practice to assess business sustainability
efforts across environmental, social and economic aspects in relation to SDGs.
Keywords Sustainability, Spain, Business, Sustainable development goals, Triple bottom line approach, UN 2030 agenda
Paper type Research paper
strong focus on enhanced sustainability is considered as being governmental actors (Stafford-Smith et al., 2017). In this
highly desirable, rigorous legislation causes conflict between regard, the business sustainability (BS) literature identifies two
companies and their stakeholders, as achieving higher levels of assumptions in relation to sustainable development, namely,
environmental success are often coupled with stronger calls for win-win and firm-level sustainability (Lsil and Hernke, 2017).
increased social accountability and environmental protection The win-win assumption focuses on the idea of economic
(Eiadat et al., 2008). growth without environmental degradation (Banerjee et al.,
The 1992 Sustainable Development World Summit hosted 2003), so that environmental and social goals reinforce corporate
in Rio de Janeiro was ensued by an increase in the prominence financial ones (Hahn et al., 2010). At present, the firm-level
of the wider sustainability concept within a global context sustainability assumption fosters t each discrete sustainability
(United Nations, 2012). Furthermore, Agenda 21 was effort carried out by each company contributing to global
embraced at the 1992 Earth Summit. Agenda 21 encompasses a sustainability (Savitz, 2012), considering that the companies are
previously unheard plan to implement sustainable development the unique entities which possess the expertise and methods
actions in a much more comprehensive manner than ever capable of meeting the challenge of sustainable development
before. Subsequently the focus was on Corporate Social (Milne et al., 2009). Previous empirical findings from countless
Responsibility (CSR), more specifically a vision for “sustainable
Downloaded by Universidad del Turabo, Doctor Juan Carlos Sosa Varela At 05:24 17 January 2019 (PT)
Many studies have preceded the present one that specifically theory building towards non-context-specific theory, and may
validates and expands on Svensson et al. (2016a), making a even harm and or damage the credibility of business research.
contribution to existing theory in order to validate and further Hair et al. (2011, p. 33) explain that: “[. . .] researchers
develop and retest the TBL dominant logic for BS. More develop theory based on the accumulated body of previous
specifically, the TBL dominant logic for BS has been developed research [. . .]”. Retesting and validating of the findings of
from a series of previous studies from various parts of the world previous studies contributes to building valid and reliable
(Dos Santos et al., 2013; Høgevold and Svensson, 2012; theory, as well as rejecting the converse, non-valid and non-
Høgevold et al., 2014; Svensson et al., 2016a; Svensson and reliable theory. In this study, the aim is to assess the validity and
Wagner, 2011, 2012b, 2015; Wagner and Svensson, 2014). reliability of the TBL-dominant logic for BS by Svensson et al.
This research holds the promise of aiding companies in (2016a).
becoming more responsive to the demands of company This study therefore makes a theoretical contribution to theory
stakeholders and customers with respect to improving life building, based on validating the findings reported in a previous
quality and preserving the environment. Companies may also study, in relation to a business context in a different country as a
use the BS-framework developed and validated here to uncover foundation for generality. The study also makes a methodological
Downloaded by Universidad del Turabo, Doctor Juan Carlos Sosa Varela At 05:24 17 January 2019 (PT)
possible sustainability issues that my come afore. The research contribution by applying the same methodology, the same
may also guide companies in implementing BS practices and questionnaire items and multivariate analysis, to enable a
positioning themselves strategically. comparison and offer empirical evidence that is valid in at least
two countries.
2. Research relevance
The business context varies between one industry and another, 3. A framework of triple bottom line dominant
as well as between countries and continents. It is therefore logic for business sustainability
useful to retest the TBL dominant logic for BS in another
3.1 Reasons to validate and further develop the
industrial sample and country, so as to verify the validity of the
framework
framework. Svensson et al. (2016a) encourage others to verify
Companies that operate in competitive environments should
their findings in other business contexts, as it is important to
understand the TBL activities as opportunities to enhance and
validate previous studies across contexts and through time, in
strengthen their competitive advantage, in turn underpinning
order to build valid and reliable theory (Hair et al., 2010).
their strategic position. However, this will only be possible if
This validation study is based on a cross-industry sample in
adopting of the TBL strategy is infused into the whole
Southern of Europe (Spain), while the original study by
organization and its business network, and not only at the
Svensson et al. (2016a) was based on a cross-industry sample in
corporate level (Schulz and Flanigan, 2016; Ferro et al, 2017).
Northern of Europe (Norway). Thus, there is a clear
Company sustainability strategies should be stakeholder-
geographical distance between Spain and Norway, yielding
inclusive (Biggemann et al., 2014). In fact, firms belong to
differences that enhance the value of the study.
business networks in which they relate to multiple stakeholders
The Spanish national culture is significantly different from
which make different demands, have different capacities for
the Norwegian one (Hofstede, 1983), such that Spain is an
appropriate business context for comparing and validating in influence and possess different expectations. Sustainability
relation to Norway. The assumption is that the validity and strategies should be designed to respond in a different way to
reliability of the TBL-dominant logic for BS may vary between the various demands from all stakeholders (Biggemann et al.,
industrial samples and countries. 2014) and not just to a few of them (Svensson et al., 2016b).
An international validation study was undertaken by Crew As Ferro et al. (2017) state, from the joint action of multiple
(2015), which included 100 researchers who intended to verify stakeholders, all receive benefits as a positive sum game. In the
the validity of 270 findings communicated in leading journals in future, sustainability initiatives will become a strategic
the field of psychology. Perhaps not surprisingly, Crew’s (2015) imperative for firms, so that they can improve both their short-
international validation efforts concluded that only one third of and long-term profitability. Additionally, companies should
the findings were valid. It also showed that the findings were actively communicate their sustainability efforts and successes
not the same as in the original studies. The lesson learned is to improve their relationships with stakeholder (Blenkhorn and
that the originally reported findings have to be retested in other MacKenzie, 2017).
contexts to claim generality and contribute to theory building Høgevold and Svensson (2012) among others profess that
validly and reliably across contexts and through time. assimilating BS into the overarching business strategy of
Furthermore, the Open Science Collaboration (2015, p. 7) companies has become an undeniable reality and is evident in
also calls for attention to be paid the troublesome validity and the contemporary business environment. Companies engage in
reliability (i.e. reproducibility) of findings across contexts and sustainable business practices in various manners; either
through time, contending that: “[. . .] a single study almost confirming or denying a commercial viable logic for doing so.
never provides definitive resolution for or against an effect and In essence, such practices are considered as predetermined and
its explanation [. . .]”. rewarding reactions by companies to matters related to
In extension, Lai (2007) and Wasti et al. (2006) mention the company operations (Salzmann et al., 2005). According to
need to retest theory in businesses through time and across Epstein and Widener (2010), by assimilating BS, companies
contexts. Svensson (2013, 2015) states that the absence of are able to gain an edge over their competitors and are able to
retests to validate findings from previous studies counteract create strategic value. In doing so, companies are able to face
Triple bottom line dominant logic Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Carlos Ferro et al.
macro impediments and still grow and make a profit (Epstein stakeholders through CSR, Leonidou and Leonidou (2011)
and Widener, 2010). scrutinized previous studies that focused on management and
Schaltegger and Burritt (2010) are furthermore of the marketing from an environmental perspective, Chabowski et al.
opinion that multinational companies are obligated to embrace (2011) provided insight into research on sustainability from a
and account on the BS activities they engage in. Companies marketing perspective, and Goyal et al. (2013) examined
are, however, often unsure how to measure the extent to which sustainability from a CSR and company performance
they engage in these activities and how they perform with perspective.
respect to BS. Resultantly, many researchers have and are From a supply chain management perspective, Seuring and
currently investigating different ways to gauge BS. Müller (2008) presented an outline to manage supply chains
The tools that do exist to gauge BS are diverse and embody sustainably, Gimenez and Tachizawa (2012) focused on
BS activities to differing extents and depths (CDP, 2013; appraising literature related to encompassing suppliers in the
FTSE, 2013; Mondi, 2013; RobecoSAM, 2013; Shell, 2013; supply chain in sustainability efforts of companies, and Ashby
Stoxx, 2013; Siemens, 2013; Heemskerk et al., 2002; Buried et al. (2012) uncovered the connections between sustainability
Treasure, 2001). Although the assessment of companies’ BS and the management of supply chains.
Downloaded by Universidad del Turabo, Doctor Juan Carlos Sosa Varela At 05:24 17 January 2019 (PT)
activities has improved with leaps and bounds, Searcy (2012) From the studies reviewed, it is evident that only a limited
opines that opportunities still exist to develop an exhaustive number followed a deductive style with respect to the theory-
measure for BS from a company viewpoint. This research testing approach. Most studies followed an inductive approach
therefore aims to test the validity and reliability across contexts focusing on reviews of literature and case studies. There also
and through time as well as expanding a framework of a TBL seems to be a heavy reliance on the use of qualitative data and
dominant logic for BS. few of the studies reported quantitative results. Furthermore, it
is evident that most of these studies refrain from identifying the
3.2 Reviewing sustainability in literature sampling techniques used and mostly rely on secondary data
As mentioned earlier, since as far back as the 1960s, academic sources (Goyal et al., 2013). In addition, it was also uncovered
researchers have focused on issues related to the environment, by Leonidou and Leonidou (2011) that studies specifically
society and ethics. However, the past two decades have seen a conducted in the fields of management and marketing tend to
dramatic rise in the level of interest these topics have garnered be conceptual in nature. The majority of studies was not
(Chabowski et al., 2011; Leonidou and Leonidou, 2011; theoretically grounded and the few that were, were based upon
Seuring and Müller, 2008). the resource-based or stakeholder theories.
Research into sustainability has evolved over time and An analysis of studies that focused on CSR, executed by
become much more germane, moving away from its previously Peloza and Shang (2011), uncovered the fact that most of the
peripheral status (Klettner et al., 2014). Research has included studies were based upon quantitative data with surveys and
the development and combination of various different theories, experiments being the most commonly used data collection
such as the resource-based theory (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, techniques used. Furthermore, it was uncovered by Kolk and
1984), stakeholder theory (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; van Tulder (2010), from studies that focus on sustainability
Freeman, 1984; Jones, 1995; Laplume et al., 2008), and international business in addition to CSR, that these
institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991; Scott, 2008) studies were typically quantitative in nature, literature was fairly
as well as the political economy paradigm (Stem and Reve, limited, key concepts were not well-defined, data were limited,
1980; Buchanan, 1964). and the research focused mostly on more developed regions of
Several novel additions to the abovementioned theories also the world.
emerged over time such as “enviropreneurial” marketing In conclusion, it can be said that journals that specialize in
(Menon and Menon, 1997), corporate social performance the field of management, where sustainability is concerned,
(Wood, 1991), corporate environmentalism (Banerjee et al., focus allot more on topics related to CSR than in the past
2003) and cause-related marketing (Varadarajan and Menon, (Kudłak and Low, 2015). According to Kudłak and Low
1988). From a business perspective, it has also become evident (2015), there is more evidence that values related to social
that more companies are embracing BS (Hashmi et al., 2015). responsibility are becoming more entrenched within
From an investigation into extant literature focusing on companies. This is echoed by Marcelino-Sádaba et al. (2015)
sustainability and linked concepts, Guest (2010) examined the who opine that BS has become an important issue for
commercial side of sustainability from a perspective based upon companies, especially given the fact that the advancement with
changes in the climate. Shrivastava and Berger (2010) reviewed respect to BS has been fairly restricted, especially where the
the course of sustainability-related ideologies. Glavic and social dimension is concerned.
Lukman (2007) focused on sustainability-related concepts and Table I provides an overview of studies that were conducted
their meanings, and Faber et al. (2005) investigated the on BS in different fields of specialization.
underpinnings of sustainability and the sustainability of It can be concluded from this table that previous studies lack
sustainability itself. uniformity with respect to the manner in which the reviews of
With respect to research focusing on particular fields of the literature were undertaken. Different dimensions of BS are
specialization, Vaaland et al. (2008) examined sustainability also identified in the studies, but three dimensions, however,
from a marketing perspective, Kolk and van Tulder (2010) namely, the environmental, the social and the economic
considered sustainability from a development, global business dimension (coined as the triple bottom line) come afore and are
and corporate social responsibility (CSR) perspective, Peloza universal to the studies. These dimensions are therefore used to
and Shang (2011) reviewed strategies to create value for frame BS.
Triple bottom line dominant logic Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Carlos Ferro et al.
Table I
Source Subject Outcome
processes
organisations
managers
project products designed require:
sustainability criteria
sustainable project processes
organisations committed to sustainability
project managers trained in sustainability
Martínez- 0perations and main topics of research
Jurado and production management lean management and sustainability
Moyano- lean management lean supply chain management and sustainability
Fuentes (2014) supply chain contradictions and inconsistencies in the literature
management significant gap regarding research into social sustainability in lean supply chain management.
Downloaded by Universidad del Turabo, Doctor Juan Carlos Sosa Varela At 05:24 17 January 2019 (PT)
It can also be seen from Table I that there is no a universal recent years. Irrespective of this fact, there is no unanimity
emphasis with respect to the approaches and perspectives regarding the structuring and conceptualization of these BS
where BS is concerned. BS involves a wide array of different aspects. The attempt made by the researchers to suggest a
features, mostly reliant on the discipline where it is being BS-framework that is empirically tested and constitute an
considered. As is evident from Table I, a universally applicable environmental, a social and economic dimension with
framework that resulted from empirical testing for BS has not supporting items can be considered innovative. The researchers
been proposed yet. opine furthermore that this effort significantly enhances the
Irrespective of this notion, there is evidence that empirical body of knowledge from a theoretical as well as practical
work has been conducted during the past 20 years using perspective with a particular focus on measuring and
samples that are more reflective of the target population under scrutinizing market-related and societal aspects.
study and where more progressive statistical analysis
techniques have been employed. Literature furthermore 3.3 Defining business sustainability
highlights a necessity for a framework for BS that is a reliable A BS definition that is widely accepted remains elusive since the
and valid measure of the BS practices of companies. literature related to BS is continuously developing. Padin and
Downloaded by Universidad del Turabo, Doctor Juan Carlos Sosa Varela At 05:24 17 January 2019 (PT)
It is therefore contended that researchers focusing on BS Svensson (2013) opine that researchers often overlook the fact
should adjust their focus from a narrow localized to a broader that BS literature is lively rather than apathetic. According to
global focus with the aim of identifying components that are these authors, the approach to BS should be one that is of an
universal across different societies and markets. It is uninterrupted and iterative nature necessitating a malleable
furthermore noted by Leonidou and Leonidou (2011) that and candid approach (Padin and Svensson, 2013).
there is evidence that the extent of the research conducted on Considering different definitions of BS, Glavic and Lukman
BS are already transcending across product offering, industry (2007) uncovered many different definitions for BS albeit they
and geographic borders. Goyal et al. (2013) note furthermore are all linked by the fact that they are derived from an
that economic and cultural settings have a direct bearing on the interrelated system. Similarly, Ashby et al. (2012) uncovered
link between company and BS accomplishments. Peloza and the fact that many different words are used to coin aspects that
Shang (2011) are therefore of the opinion that research related are much alike when it comes to BS and related concepts.
to CSR needs to be much more purposeful involving focused Leonidou and Leonidou (2011) therefore proposition an
outcomes. approach to issues related to the environment that encompasses
It is furthermore important that a long-term view of BS is different themes from which uniform descriptions can be
implemented to enable companies to gainfully contribute to a developed for the different concepts. The objective is therefore
range of stakeholders present in the companies’ markets as well to aid in the incorporation of the work of different researchers
as society at large. Supporting this notion, Ashby et al. (2012) focusing on different areas of BS in order to create uniformity
uncovered that although companies focus on the significance of where the definition of BS and related concepts are concerned.
strategic relationships with suppliers, these relationships often Several key definitions for BS have been proposed.
do no evolve into relationships that can be considered as The World Commission on Environment and Development
responsible from a social perspective. It is furthermore (WECD) (1987) provided the following definition: “[. . .]
contended by Peloza and Shang (2011) that there should be an sustainable economic development [. . .]” and that it “[. . .]
intensification in the interest in the source of the value provided meets the needs of the present without compromising the
by stakeholders when CSR-related activities are being engaged ability of future generations to meet their own needs [. . .]”.
in. For instance, researchers in the field of marketing typically Lüdeke-Freund (2009) considers BS as “[. . .] an organisation’s
hone in on the consumer as primary elements of investigation attempts to not only focus on profitability but to efficiently and
while it is contended that research should actually encompass effectively manage and integrate its environmental, social and
all players involved in the company’s business network. broader economic impact [. . .]”. Smith and Sharicz (2011)
Schianetz et al. (2007) for example professed that an all- assert that Triple Bottom Line (TBL) sustainability is “[. . .] the
encompassing measure for sustainability is required to measure result of the activities of an organization, voluntary or governed
the sustainability of a tourist destination. The authors by law, that demonstrate the ability of the organization to
subsequently suggested a blend of different measures to maintain viable its business operations (including financial
conduct the appropriate assessment. This blend of measures viability as appropriate) whilst not negatively impacting any
can be quite diverse and is contingent upon aspects such social or ecological systems [. . .]”. More recently, Svensson and
as company location, company size and the culture of the Wagner (2012a) defined BS as “[. . .] an organization’s efforts
company. To put global sustainability principles in place, a to manage its impact on earth’s life and eco-systems and its
concerted attempt to standardize these principles is needed whole business network [. . .]” and a definition by RobecoSAM
bearing in mind that tailoring these to specific requirements (2013) refers to corporate sustainability as “[. . .] is a business
and situations is still needed. According to Whitely (1992), the approach that creates long-term shareholder value by
business systems theory professes varied business systems for embracing opportunities and managing risks deriving from
particular realms. Rettab et al. (2009) furthermore argue that economic, environmental and social developments [. . .]”.
research findings specific to a particular realm should first be The UN 2030 Agenda, for sustainable development goals
validated before the resultant findings can be universally applies the World Commission on Environment and
recognized. Development (WECD) (1987) sustainability definition as
It is therefore noted that the amount of research focusing on contained in the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) that
BS and linked fields of inquiry has increased substantially over highlights two key aspects. First, there seems to be a primary
Triple bottom line dominant logic Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Carlos Ferro et al.
focus on addressing the needs of society, perhaps more 5 the last stage refers to a situation where the company
specifically, those of the poor. Second, there is the notion that comes into being as a sustainable company.
the technological capabilities society has at its disposal and the
Based upon the five BS stages presented above, three possible
manner in which society is organized hamper the capacity of the
perspectives of BS emerge. BS can be considered a topic related
environment to meet existing and impending needs of society.
to conformity as the company only engages in BS activities to
This definition seems to have wide appeal and the fact that it is
be law obeying. BS can also be seen as an expense that should
considered as fairly vague assisted in the creation of alliances
be curbed as far as possible or as a chance to maintain or
between different stakeholders (Bartelmus, 2003; Parris and
improve competitiveness in the marketplace.
Kates, 2003).
Considering the notion that companies do not engage in BS-
There is a close relationship between BS and the TBL as
related activities to the same degree, it is therefore suggested that
presented by Elkington (2004). According to Glavas and Mish
a framework for BS is developed to gauge, oversee and equate the
(2015) TBL emphasizes an equilibrium between three
degree to which companies can be considered as being
components, namely, the state of the environment, economic
sustainable (Dos Santos et al., 2013; Høgevold and Svensson,
well-being and equality between members of society. Lüdeke-
2012; Høgevold et al., 2014; Svensson et al, 2016a, Svensson and
Downloaded by Universidad del Turabo, Doctor Juan Carlos Sosa Varela At 05:24 17 January 2019 (PT)
A Green city index was developed by Siemens involving (2016a), who develop and test a framework of the TBL
both qualitative and quantitative markers (Siemens, dominant logic for BS. This present study is based on their
2013). dimensions and items, all of which are displayed in TBL
RobecoSAM in partnership with Dow Jones established Dominant Logic for BS – Economic Dimensions and Items,
the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) to gauge Social Dimensions and Items and Environmental Dimensions
environmental, social and economic dimensions and Items.
(RobecoSAM, 2013).
The FTSE4Good was developed to determine how 4.1.1 TBL dominant logic for business sustainability – economic
companies fare in terms of certain CSR criteria (FTSE, dimensions and items, social dimensions and items, and environ-
2013). mental dimensions and items
The GS SUSTAIN ESG (environmental, social and
4.1.1.1 Economic dimensions and items. ECONOMIC
governance) measure developed by Goldman Sachs
ASPECTS – Our sustainable business practices
focuses on the degree to which energy companies are
1 Profitability:
involved in endeavors that are sustainable (Shell, 2013). [. . .] are profit-oriented;
Downloaded by Universidad del Turabo, Doctor Juan Carlos Sosa Varela At 05:24 17 January 2019 (PT)
The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) involves an [. . .] are about making money for all stakeholders
emphasis on environmental aspects including the state of
involved; and
cities, the water supply, forests, CO2 emissions as well as [. . .] are business driven (e.g. based upon company
the supply chain.
objectives).
The JSE Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) Index
assesses sustainability efforts of South African companies 2 Cost reduction:
with specific reference to environmental, social and [. . .] contribute to cost reduction;
economic aspects (Moni, 2013). [. . .] improve cost efficiency; and
The STOXX ESG Leaders indices focus on calculating a [. . .] reduce the company’s expenses.
rating for a company in a specific industry with the aid of a 3 Competiveness:
weighting model that considers aspects such as the [. . .] improve the competitive position of the
company’s performance in relation to the environment, company;
social issues and corporate governance (Stoxx, 2013). [. . .] create a competitive advantage for the
The TOSCA sustainability framework presents a matrix company; and
that associates particular business activities with certain [. . .] are believed to be an important key success
sustainability issues. Managing the environment within factor.
the company operates can be closely associated with 4 Brand value:
innovation and the prevention of risk (Heemskerk et al., [. . .] enhance the company’s image in the market;
2002). [. . .] improve the corporate reputation of the
The Sustainable Business Value Matrix functions online company; and
and involves the assessment of a number of sustainability [. . .] positively influence the company’s profile
measures as well as a number of more general measures of communicated to stakeholders.
business performance (Buried Treasure, 2001). 5 Spin-offs:
From the above discussion, it is clear that these corporate
[. . .] generate unexpected opportunities for the
measures all involve a broad selection of BS-related aspects. company;
Overall, it is evident that the measures are not uniform, but [. . .] provide unexpected benefits for the company;
many do have certain aspects in common. Three aspects and
seem to be universal across all the measures, namely those [. . .] contribute positively to other aspects of the
that involve environmental, societal and economic issues. In company’s business operations.
consequence, the managerial measures previously listed offer 6 Trade-offs:
a company-specific and fragmented foundation, in relation [. . .] imply that non-economic aspects impact on the
to the SDGs of the UN 2030 Agenda for sustainable company’s decisions;
development which fails to deliver cross-industrial [. . .] lead to the re-allocation of resources; and
applicability. [. . .] require the company to make economic
tradeoffs (e.g. price and quality).
4. Methodology 7 Finance:
[. . .] improve operational finances;
4.1 Dimensions and items [. . .] generate financial benefits to the company; and
The current study is based on a compilation of outcomes of a [. . .] add to the financial performance of the
series of previous studies. Common denominators across a company.
series of case studies were assessed by Svensson et al. (2016a) to
develop and test a framework of a TBL dominant logic for BS 4.1.1.2 Social dimensions and items. Social aspects – Our
(Dos Santos et al., 2013; Høgevold and Svensson, 2012; sustainable business practices.
Høgevold et al., 2014; Svensson et al., 2016a, 2016b; Svensson 8 Whole business network:
and Wagner, 2011, 2012b, 2015; Wagner and Svensson, 2014). [. . .] need to be the united ambition with the
In particular, the current study is based on that of Svensson et al. company’s whole business network;
Triple bottom line dominant logic Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Carlos Ferro et al.
[. . .] are essential to all in the marketplace; Source: Adapted from Svensson et al. (2016a, 2016b)
[. . .] positively affect the corporate reputation of the The definition of BS that was introduced to the respondents
company; and taking part in the study referred to a company’s efforts to go
[. . .] are appreciated by all stakeholders. beyond focusing only on profitability, but to also manage its
12 Commitment and dedication: environmental, social and broader economic impact on the
[. . .] require a lot of corporate efforts; marketplace and society as a whole.
[. . .] need substantial investment from the The dimensions and items of the TBL dominant logic for BS
company; and have originally been identified by revisiting previous studies in
[. . .] are based upon corporate dedication. an iterative process. Eventually, twenty common dimensions
13 Longevity of perspective and consistency: have been identified from previous studies, all of which have
[. . .] are based upon a long-term business been following the Triple Bottom Line approach proposed by
perspective; Elkington (2004) and presented in TBL Dominant Logic for
[. . .] require consistency of corporate decisions over BS – Economic Dimensions and Items, Social Dimensions and
time; and Items, and Environmental Dimensions and Items with the
[. . .] are supported by a consistent corporate view. items developed. Furthermore, a recent study by Svensson et al.
14 Reporting: (2016a) tested the framework of TBL dominant logic for BS.
[. . .] are not hidden from public scrutiny; The present study does not only aim to validate their findings
[. . .] are transparent to all those interested; and but also to extend them by making a complementary
[. . .] are widely reported. contribution.
A five-point Likert-type scale was used for all items using
4.1.1.3 Environmental dimensions and items. Environmental
strongly agree (5) and strongly disagree (1) as the end points.
aspects – Our sustainable business practices.
15 Footprint and the natural environment:
4.2 Sample and context
[. . .] reduce its business partners’ impact on the
The international research team decided to collect data in
natural environment;
Spain, as the country boasts an admirable environmental
[. . .] take the impact of business partners on the
profile, with an Environmental Performance Index (EPI, 2017)
natural environment into account; and
ranking of seven out of a possible 178 countries. Other
[. . .] diminish the corporate impact on the natural
European countries are also viewed by many as forerunners in
environment.
the world with respect to sustainability issues and CSR (Strand
16 Climate change and global warming:
et al., 2015).
[. . .] are implemented in response to the on-going
Keeping in mind the aim was to target large Spanish
climate change;
companies, the criteria established by the Spanish Accounting
[. . .] consider climate change issues when they are
Plan (Royal Decree 1514/2007) were used to define the
implemented; and
population and construct the sampling frame for the study. The
[. . .] consider the effects of corporate business
criteria allowed for the inclusion of this companies who have:
operations on global warming. a total asset value of more than e2.85m;
17 Multitude of initiatives: a net annual turnover above e5.7m; and
[. . .] involve a comprehensive strategic effort from an average number of employees that exceeds 100.
the company;
[. . .] go beyond the company itself; and The latest update of the financial database “System Iberian
[. . .] consist of multiple initiatives. Balance Analysis” (SABI) was used for this purpose. The
18 Product/process decarbonizing: database contains among others, economic and financial data
[. . .] show each product’s impact on the natural for 2 million Spanish companies.
environment; A total of 3,818 Spanish companies across industrial sectors
[. . .] highlight each product’s footprint on the met the criteria to be included in this study. However, 791
natural environment; and companies were eliminated because they were subsidiary
Triple bottom line dominant logic Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Carlos Ferro et al.
of introduction, containing the contact details of the research response bias due to a few do not know answers, consistent
team, was sent to the key informants. The key informants or mean values and appropriate standard deviations for the
targeted respondents were managers responsible for CSR stakeholder items measured. The outcome of univariate
departments or in charge of sustainable development at the statistics indicates consistent high-quality responses provided
companies selected. by the key informants.
Key informants were requested to participate in the study
and an email reminder was subsequently sent or telephone calls 5.2 Factor analyses
were made to remind key informants to complete the To validate and further expand the dimensions and items of the
questionnaire if they had not done so within one month of the TBL dominant logic for BS by Svensson et al. (2016a),
initial request. This procedure was repeated two and three exploratory factor analyses (Norušis, 1993 and 1994) were
months after the initial request if the questionnaires had still not conducted in two steps:
been returned. 1 validating or falsifying the dimensions and items of a
A total of 98 questionnaires were returned, generating an framework of the TBL dominant logic for BS; and
initial response rate of 42.4 per cent. Eleven key informants 2 expanding the confirmed dimensions and items to
contacted the research team apologizing for not being able to additional ones.
collaborate with the investigation because of company policy
preventing them to do so. Nine of the returned questionnaires Note that a confirmatory factory analysis is not appropriate, as
were eliminated due to non-satisfactory responses (poorly this study explores new theoretical ground in order to develop a
completed questionnaires). Ultimately, 89 usable framework based upon a TBL dominant logic for BS. It is at a
questionnaires were returned generating a final response rate of stage where validation is required before confirmatory
38.5 per cent. The research team considered the achieved approaches are applied. The principal component method was
used to extract the underlying factors and an orthogonal
response rate satisfactory in comparison to previous studies
targeting large Spanish companies.
Two screening questions: Table II Sample characteristics – industries
Nature of business Count
Q1. How knowledgeable the respondent was about his/her
company’s sustainable business practices? Accomodation, Cafe or Restaurant 2
Agriculture, Forest or Fishing 4
Q2. How knowledgeable the respondent was about his/her Communication services 8
company’s sustainable business practices in the whole Construction 8
business network, were included in the study for the Cultural or recreational services 0
purposes of checking the competency of the respondent. Education 0
Electricity, gas or water 8
This is in line with Campbell’s (1955) recommendations that
Finance and/or insurance 6
respondents used in a study need to be competent enough to Govt admin or defence 1
answer questions relating to the subject matter under Health and community services 7
investigation. The findings indicated that 98.7 per cent Mining 2
(mean = 4.69 and standard deviation = 0.59) of respondents Manufacturing 18
had satisfactory knowledge of their company’s sustainable Personal and other services 10
business practices and that 92.0 per cent (mean = 4.01 and Property and business services 0
standard deviation = 0.98) had satisfactory knowledge of their Retail trade 2
company’s sustainable business practices in the entire business Transport and storage 3
network. Univariate and multivariate statistical techniques Wholesale trade 6
were used to analyze the data collected during the empirical Other 4
phase of the study. The results are presented in the following Total: 89
section.
Triple bottom line dominant logic Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Carlos Ferro et al.
b) 76 3.96 0.81
c) 78 4.55 0.60
5. Spin-offs a) 78 3.28 0.99
b) 77 3.39 0.99
c) 79 3.85 0.85
6. Trade-offs a) 78 4.41 0.61
b) 76 4.46 0.70
c) 78 4.50 0.64
a) 84 3.92 0.95
7. Finance b) 84 4.30 0.67
c) 85 4.36 0.70
Social Items
8. Whole business network a) 88 4.13 0.87
b) 86 3.51 0.98
c) 87 3.74 0.87
9. Organizational support a) 88 3.57 1.00
b) 88 3.99 0.93
c) 86 3.36 0.92
10. Corporate culture a) 89 4.27 0.88
b) 87 4.34 0.76
c) 88 4.25 0.75
11. Corporate reputation a) 87 4.62 0.51
b) 87 4.54 0.59
c) 87 4.60 0.54
12. Commitment and dedication a) 81 4.11 0.71
b) 82 3.91 0.85
c) 79 3.63 0.96
13. Longevity of perspective and consistency c) 81 3.47 0.79
a) 84 4.02 0.93
b) 81 3.05 1.01
14. Reporting a) 85 3.59 0.96
b) 85 3.39 0.93
c) 86 3.47 0.93
Environmental Items
15. Footprint and the natural environment a) 89 3.61 0.98
b) 89 4.17 0.82
c) 88 3.36 0.97
16. Climate change and global warming a) 89 3.56 0.93
b) 89 3.81 1.02
c) 88 3.69 1.07
17. Multitude of initiatives a) 88 4.08 0.90
b) 88 4.09 0.91
c) 88 4.15 1.00
(continued)
Triple bottom line dominant logic Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Carlos Ferro et al.
Table III
approach, namely Varimax rotation, was used to rotate all 5.2.2 Additional contribution to previous empirical findings
Downloaded by Universidad del Turabo, Doctor Juan Carlos Sosa Varela At 05:24 17 January 2019 (PT)
factor solutions. The expanded factor analysis was based on the same
dimensions and items used by Svensson et al. (2016a), except
5.2.1 Validation of previous empirical findings that three of out 54 items were rephrased and adapted (same
The validating factor analysis was based on the same items as is in the previous validating factor analysis) to the
dimensions and items used by Svensson et al. (2016a), except Spanish business setting (Corporate culture – 10b; Corporate
that three of out 51 items have been rephrased and adapted to reputation – 11a; and Climate change and global warming –
the Spanish business setting (i.e. Corporate culture – 10b; 16b). Furthermore, four out of 48 items were omitted (two are
Corporate reputation – 11a; and Climate change and global the same as in the previous validating factor analysis) in the
warming – 16b). Furthermore, four out of 48 items were ultimately expanded factor solution (Profitability – 1b; Spin-
omitted in the ultimately validated factor solution offs – 5a; Multitude of initiatives – 17a; and Efficiency
(Profitability – 1b; Spin-offs – 5a; Corporate culture – 10c; and programs – 20a). For further details see TBL Dominant Logic
Climate change and global warming – 16c). For further details for BS – Economic Dimensions and Items, Social Dimensions
see TBL Dominant Logic for BS – Economic Dimensions and and Items and Environmental Dimensions and Items.
Items, Social Dimensions and Items and Environmental As shown in Table V, the outcome of the expanded factor
Dimensions and Items. solution was satisfactory (KMO/Overall MSA: 0.607; Bartlett’s
As shown in Table V, the outcome of the validated factor Test: Approx. Chi-Square: 2799,422: df: 1225: Sig: 0.000).
solution was satisfactory (KMO/Overall MSA: 0.634; Measures of sampling adequacy ranged between 0.26-0.80.
Bartlett’s Test: Approx. Chi-Square: 2274,158: df: 946: Sig: Communalities ranged between 0.77-0.94, with a total
0.000). Measures of sampling adequacy ranged between explained variance of 87.5 per cent. The Cronbach’s alphas for
0.32-0.83. Communalities ranged between 0.74 and 0.94, the 16 validated factors ranged between 0.70 and 0.96.
with a total explained variance of 87.0 per cent. The In consequence, the expanded factor analysis shown in
Cronbach’s alpha for the 16 validated factors ranged between Table V confirmed 18 dimensions of the “TBL dominant logic
for BS”. It amends two additional dimensions (factors 16 and
0.72 and 0.92.
17 to Table IV), namely, “Trade-offs” (6 – see Economic
Consequently, the factor analysis validated 16 out of 17
Dimensions and Items) or “Efficiency programs” (20 – see
dimensions of the “TBL dominant logic for business
Environmental Dimensions and Items). Both amended
sustainability” as shown in Table V. The only dimension not
dimensions are relevant and make sense to expand the TBL
validated was “Whole Business Network” (8 – see Social
dominant logic for BS.
Dimensions and Items) that was excluded in the current factor
Subsequently, two dimensions out of 20 were not confirmed
analysis as the factor loadings merged with the dimension
in the present study as shown in TBL Dominant Logic for BS –
“Multiple Initiatives” (17 – see Environmental Dimensions and Economic Dimensions and Items, Social Dimensions and
Items). Several of the items of these two dimensions referred to Items, and Environmental Dimensions and Items. One was
a broader perspective of BS efforts that may explain the cross- “Whole Business Network” (8 – see Social Dimensions and
loadings between them. The items of “multiple initiatives” Items) that was excluded as the factor loadings merged with the
generated a better factor solution than the ones of “whole dimension “Multiple Initiatives” (17 – see Environmental
business network”, and therefore were the items of the latter Dimensions and Items). The other was “Finance” (7 – see
omitted from the validated factor solution. Economic Dimensions and Items) that was excluded as the
All 16 factors that were identified and are shown in Table IV factor loadings merged with the dimension “Profitability” (1 –
indicate satisfactory convergent, discriminant and nomological see Economic Dimensions and Items). Several of the items of
validity, as well as reliability of each dimension. The these two dimensions referred to a broader perspective (the
measurement metrics by Svensson et al. (2016a) and the former pair of dimensions) or economic outcomes (the latter
present study’s validation of the “TBL dominant logic for BS” pair of dimensions) of BS efforts that may explain the cross-
displayed in Table V provide therefore strengthened empirical loadings between them. The items of “multiple initiatives” and
support for satisfactory validity and reliability across contexts “profitability” generated a better factor solution than the ones
and through time. of “whole business network” and “finance” and therefore were
Downloaded by Universidad del Turabo, Doctor Juan Carlos Sosa Varela At 05:24 17 January 2019 (PT)
Table IV Validated factor analysis of the TBL dominant logic for business sustainability
Factor
Dimension and item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 * **
1. Brand value (4) 0.834 0.146 0.083 0.084 0.031 0.080 0.041 0.157 0.084 0.202 0.056 0.113 0.033 0.064 0.168 0.029 0.863 0.670
0.828 0.197 0.035 0.118 0.162 0.098 0.094 0.252 0.126 0.090 0.142 0.107 0.116 0.096 0.011 0.007 0.926 0.806
0.780 0.149 0.271 0.077 0.068 0.026 0.087 0.152 0.072 0.119 0.077 0.110 0.054 0.121 0.135 0.140 0.839 0.753
2. Longevity of perspective and 0.068 0.906 0.015 0.135 0.079 0.085 0.079 0.069 0.119 0.078 0.088 0.098 0.053 0.024 0.066 0.003 0.915 0.824
consistency (13) 0.213 0.850 0.012 0.174 0.014 0.167 0.046 0.134 0.182 0.048 0.137 0.033 0.069 0.072 0.053 0.071 0.919 0.591
0.370 0.741 0.226 0.095 0.045 0.210 0.094 0.098 0.100 0.100 0.045 0.044 0.127 0.016 0.115 0.120 0.879 0.617
3. Competetiveness (3) 0.113 0.038 0.828 0.015 0.296 0.001 0.041 0.170 0.027 0.078 0.138 0.036 0.026 0.071 0.229 0.057 0.907 0.674
0.192 0.028 0.816 0.082 0.001 0.251 0.015 0.234 0.063 0.030 0.112 0.031 0.171 0.050 0.042 0.112 0.892 0.604
0.117 0.210 0.710 0.131 0.014 0.213 0.167 0.105 0.114 0.234 0.118 0.200 0.106 0.066 0.008 0.018 0.801 0.818
Carlos Ferro et al.
4. Product/process 0.134 0.059 0.141 0.891 0.133 0.022 0.104 0.031 0.010 0.024 0.048 0.023 0.113 0.120 0.016 0.115 0.909 0.708
dematerialization (19) 0.014 0.333 0.008 0.758 0.226 0.129 0.021 0.045 0.064 0.110 0.149 0.032 0.227 0.184 0.026 0.074 0.886 0.775
0.216 0.216 0.011 0.285 0.307 0.051 0.177 0.082 0.109 0.010 0.083 0.131 0.009 0.152 0.167 0.915 0.704
Triple bottom line dominant logic
0.720
5. Footprint and the natural 0.091 0.022 0.087 0.249 0.818 0.245 0.077 0.107 0.039 0.141 0.022 0.038 0.205 0.113 0.076 0.038 0.910 0.602
environment (15) 0.048 0.076 0.126 0.266 0.724 0.318 0.065 0.019 0.094 0.209 0.076 0.064 0.247 0.007 0.146 0.066 0.874 0.540
0.229 0.198 0.092 0.191 0.699 0.140 0.076 0.026 0.098 0.032 0.145 0.261 0.105 0.236 0.055 0.130 0.838 0.625
6. Multitude of initiatives (17) 0.005 0.216 0.193 0.096 0.230 0.846 0.007 0.053 0.022 0.083 0.098 0.091 0.139 0.048 0.014 0.013 0.912 0.719
0.252 0.258 0.294 0.284 0.034 0.672 0.054 0.179 0.029 0.041 0.233 0.164 0.012 0.102 0.042 0.061 0.885 0.830
0.295 0.389 0.124 0.223 0.222 0.523 0.061 0.108 0.083 0.041 0.297 0.005 0.260 0.133 0.092 0.151 0.855 0.790
7. Organizational support (9) 0.102 0.139 0.147 0.060 0.077 0.066 0.834 0.122 0.015 0.016 0.116 0.114 0.152 0.090 0.155 0.224 0.908 0.579
0.004 0.085 0.057 0.053 0.055 0.131 0.766 0.164 0.112 0.144 0.040 0.203 0.056 0.148 0.036 0.403 0.912 0.321
0.030 0.006 0.082 0.116 0.270 0.095 0.749 0.085 0.066 0.197 0.201 0.046 0.121 0.152 0.135 0.126 0.828 0.454
8. Reporting (14) 0.159 0.056 0.210 0.054 0.022 0.222 0.209 0.776 0.017 0.042 0.158 0.038 0.143 0.058 0.063 0.260 0.895 0.676
0.197 0.045 0.183 0.001 0.007 0.063 0.149 0.745 0.219 0.269 0.010 0.012 0.219 0.012 0.097 0.102 0.895 0.507
0.304 0.216 0.167 0.069 0.101 0.010 0.046 0.734 0.020 0.132 0.153 0.030 0.079 0.116 0.001 0.058 0.787 0.539
9. Commitment and 0.054 0.139 0.033 0.053 0.062 0.032 0.035 0.009 0.851 0.011 0.042 0.213 0.110 0.131 0.162 0.054 0.862 0.488
dedication (12) 0.136 0.151 0.007 0.057 0.054 0.109 0.040 0.200 0.794 0.272 0.017 0.068 0.011 0.075 0.114 0.171 0.859 0.543
0.137 0.197 0.179 0.240 0.252 0.199 0.172 0.146 0.588 0.058 0.087 0.168 0.087 0.166 0.195 0.296 0.848 0.445
10. Corporate reputation (11) 0.107 0.050 0.176 0.076 0.174 0.041 0.286 0.154 0.203 0.771 0.046 0.149 0.092 0.128 0.003 0.129 0.890 0.635
0.358 0.160 0.054 0.061 0.131 0.036 0.044 0.118 0.004 0.712 0.243 0.030 0.087 0.157 0.122 0.249 0.871 0.730
0.300 0.088 0.197 0.032 0.250 0.164 0.213 0.124 0.304 0.594 0.125 0.124 0.190 0.162 0.025 0.167 0.856 0.676
11. Spin-offs (5) 0.095 0.203 0.103 0.026 0.120 0.203 0.004 0.164 0.030 0.093 0.846 0.137 0.058 0.040 0.036 0.044 0.897 0.548
0.125 0.063 0.206 0.094 0.039 0.056 0.077 0.080 0.134 0.132 0.845 0.190 0.163 0.067 0.084 0.078 0.918 0.605
12. Cost reduction (2) 0.007 0.106 0.017 0.114 0.264 0.006 0.016 0.141 0.199 0.131 0.059 0.809 0.045 0.065 0.031 0.120 0.851 0.387
0.041 0.006 0.116 0.112 0.044 0.141 0.021 0.097 0.164 0.022 0.255 0.775 0.100 0.007 0.235 0.140 0.837 0.558
0.209 0.130 0.346 0.247 0.087 0.224 0.017 0.023 0.012 0.200 0.274 0.470 0.070 0.210 0.162 0.149 0.733 0.666
13. Climate change and global 0.087 0.130 0.113 0.275 0.264 0.085 0.031 0.012 0.073 0.012 0.128 0.017 0.812 0.056 0.026 0.069 0.881 0.637
warming (16) 0.090 0.277 0.259 0.292 0.263 0.174 0.051 0.076 0.009 0.053 0.132 0.318 0.612 0.163 0.094 0.001 0.876 0.655
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
14. Product/process 0.163 0.112 0.157 0.140 0.094 0.000 0.139 0.018 0.043 0.013 0.000 0.170 0.002 0.850 0.034 0.037 0.867 0.398
decarbonizing (18) 0.055 0.037 0.023 0.405 0.249 0.234 0.207 0.033 0.095 0.036 0.212 0.032 0.345 0.571 0.047 0.093 0.842 0.575
0.100 0.011 0.042 0.059 0.155 0.185 0.055 0.141 0.010 0.210 0.124 0.193 0.513 0.563 0.063 0.221 0.826 0.434
(continued)
Downloaded by Universidad del Turabo, Doctor Juan Carlos Sosa Varela At 05:24 17 January 2019 (PT)
Table IV
Factor
Dimension and item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 * **
15. Profitability (1) 0.139 0.087 0.165 0.002 0.067 0.067 0.139 0.175 0.072 0.030 0.109 0.079 0.065 0.050 0.865 0.081 0.899 0.540
0.314 0.207 0.111 0.182 0.094 0.221 0.206 0.152 0.130 0.086 0.003 0.242 0.181 0.039 0.614 0.134 0.823 0.760
16. Corporate culture (10) 0.472 0.233 0.283 0.011 0.068 0.100 0.165 0.199 0.191 0.130 0.082 0.020 0.024 0.036 0.007 0.642 0.913 0.749
0.106 0.142 0.301 0.085 0.150 0.105 0.270 0.180 0.337 0.399 0.014 0.176 0.038 0.055 0.176 0.472 0.829 0.730
*** (%) 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.5
**** (%) 7.8 15.1 21.7 28.3 34.4 39.9 45.4 50.1 56.1 61.2 66.2 71.2 75.8 80.0 83.6 87.0
***** 0.92 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.86 0.87 0.75 0.83 0.72 0.84 0.88 0.73 0.84 0.76 0.74 0.78
Notes: *Communality per Item; **Measures of sampling adequacy (MSA per Item); ***Total explained variance per factor; ****Cumulative explained total variance; *****Cronbach’s alpha
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Downloaded by Universidad del Turabo, Doctor Juan Carlos Sosa Varela At 05:24 17 January 2019 (PT)
Table V Expanded factor analysis of the TBL dominant logic for business sustainability
Factor
Dimension and item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 * **
1. Brand value (4) 0.824 0.157 0.058 0.067 0.050 0.077 0.007 0.158 0.020 0.026 0.222 0.047 0.103 0.112 0.061 0.086 0.142 0.122 0.867 0.618
0.807 0.145 0.107 0.272 0.049 0.066 0.062 0.136 0.070 0.030 0.077 0.094 0.119 0.127 0.124 0.040 0.046 0.141 0.876 0.582
0.804 0.186 0.085 0.023 0.189 0.109 0.081 0.258 0.053 0.123 0.099 0.119 0.043 0.090 0.087 0.253 0.000 0.008 0.933 0.626
2. Longevity of 0.084 0.887 0.134 0.001 0.079 0.056 0.090 0.060 0.096 0.135 0.060 0.083 0.014 0.090 0.028 0.043 0.112 0.073 0.899 0.828
perspective and 0.214 0.839 0.176 0.016 0.022 0.083 0.044 0.117 0.147 0.166 0.039 0.140 0.130 0.020 0.065 0.101 0.092 0.039 0.916 0.572
consistency (13) 0.357 0.715 0.054 0.193 0.088 0.143 0.073 0.087 0.163 0.045 0.099 0.031 0.212 0.006 0.013 0.260 0.153 0.098 0.905 0.637
3. Product/process 0.099 0.067 0.847 0.134 0.158 0.165 0.140 0.043 0.051 0.014 0.002 0.073 0.024 0.010 0.123 0.173 0.029 0.029 0.879 0.669
dematerialization (19) 0.019 0.296 0.721 0.022 0.246 0.249 0.021 0.046 0.126 0.067 0.104 0.123 0.072 0.054 0.175 0.181 0.099 0.038 0.863 0.803
0.230 0.201 0.719 0.020 0.289 0.155 0.033 0.166 0.333 0.094 0.072 0.008 0.130 0.082 0.014 0.041 0.075 0.159 0.929 0.744
Carlos Ferro et al.
4. Competitiveness (3) 0.120 0.047 0.022 0.813 0.306 0.000 0.044 0.162 0.008 0.025 0.070 0.137 0.102 0.032 0.084 0.004 0.098 0.238 0.909 0.666
0.215 0.004 0.084 0.795 0.013 0.162 0.029 0.225 0.271 0.036 0.011 0.101 0.086 0.020 0.051 0.090 0.100 0.051 0.879 0.553
Triple bottom line dominant logic
0.082 0.214 0.097 0.703 0.009 0.145 0.122 0.112 0.156 0.075 0.270 0.107 0.124 0.162 0.059 0.204 0.053 0.012 0.808 0.782
5. Footprint and the 0.128 0.015 0.271 0.091 0.783 0.250 0.093 0.079 0.236 0.040 0.144 0.038 0.009 0.072 0.096 0.121 0.089 0.027 0.907 0.636
natural environment 0.066 0.048 0.243 0.104 0.731 0.258 0.072 0.039 0.299 0.075 0.221 0.059 0.031 0.057 0.032 0.145 0.139 0.117 0.891 0.582
(15) 0.179 0.186 0.176 0.088 0.712 0.124 0.074 0.055 0.172 0.146 0.043 0.124 0.073 0.235 0.226 0.175 0.139 0.007 0.866 0.618
6. Climate change and 0.090 0.096 0.244 0.090 0.269 0.806 0.040 0.019 0.066 0.074 0.005 0.118 0.086 0.011 0.030 0.087 0.008 0.034 0.860 0.675
global warming (16) 0.099 0.252 0.269 0.243 0.264 0.647 0.038 0.077 0.156 0.009 0.051 0.129 0.058 0.298 0.143 0.110 0.026 0.089 0.877 0.581
0.048 0.198 0.287 0.163 0.475 0.519 0.000 0.091 0.102 0.049 0.070 0.151 0.204 0.015 0.226 0.131 0.183 0.022 0.839 0.668
7. Organizational 0.013 0.050 0.061 0.090 0.036 0.041 0.794 0.158 0.061 0.094 0.097 0.037 0.360 0.197 0.146 0.080 0.088 0.013 0.900 0.315
support (9) 0.083 0.160 0.107 0.156 0.078 0.177 0.784 0.132 0.008 0.024 0.050 0.154 0.146 0.159 0.086 0.112 0.101 0.189 0.877 0.559
0.046 0.010 0.106 0.101 0.282 0.107 0.756 0.071 0.076 0.034 0.207 0.200 0.125 0.013 0.131 0.125 0.011 0.105 0.841 0.439
8. Reporting (14) 0.170 0.045 0.051 0.163 0.040 0.226 0.128 0.762 0.082 0.174 0.295 0.029 0.015 0.034 0.015 0.127 0.048 0.107 0.867 0.591
0.199 0.032 0.081 0.209 0.021 0.162 0.251 0.742 0.285 0.020 0.086 0.171 0.179 0.048 0.061 0.001 0.085 0.064 0.899 0.607
0.309 0.232 0.127 0.188 0.068 0.073 0.064 0.722 0.019 0.030 0.126 0.184 0.088 0.034 0.127 0.025 0.049 0.025 0.815 0.450
9. Multitude of 0.027 0.232 0.095 0.215 0.241 0.172 0.008 0.027 0.824 0.022 0.080 0.107 0.049 0.091 0.037 0.088 0.055 0.035 0.920 0.797
initiatives (17) 0.237 0.277 0.232 0.290 0.088 0.077 0.015 0.160 0.603 0.015 0.048 0.226 0.116 0.143 0.110 0.202 0.139 0.006 0.834 0.681
10. Commitment and 0.050 0.148 0.061 0.019 0.047 0.129 0.020 0.007 0.006 0.804 0.034 0.054 0.154 0.237 0.167 0.002 0.046 0.219 0.856 0.381
dedication (12) 0.125 0.125 0.096 0.042 0.033 0.025 0.039 0.219 0.147 0.765 0.257 0.008 0.234 0.097 0.068 0.152 0.155 0.172 0.912 0.535
0.121 0.214 0.245 0.185 0.204 0.035 0.155 0.134 0.236 0.641 0.074 0.071 0.213 0.091 0.175 0.127 0.185 0.217 0.898 0.435
11. Corporate 0.112 0.072 0.075 0.181 0.166 0.120 0.270 0.147 0.015 0.196 0.784 0.052 0.007 0.167 0.122 0.025 0.021 0.030 0.893 0.488
reputation (11) 0.351 0.127 0.079 0.032 0.147 0.119 0.017 0.122 0.076 0.024 0.673 0.252 0.281 0.002 0.156 0.030 0.000 0.159 0.850 0.681
0.303 0.068 0.011 0.168 0.270 0.183 0.220 0.117 0.180 0.294 0.573 0.124 0.239 0.097 0.156 0.089 0.004 0.043 0.856 0.688
12. Spin-offs (5) 0.094 0.208 0.037 0.098 0.138 0.092 0.002 0.149 0.181 0.043 0.081 0.857 0.055 0.121 0.047 0.052 0.057 0.038 0.915 0.488
0.123 0.056 0.078 0.197 0.037 0.186 0.069 0.075 0.020 0.146 0.143 0.827 0.042 0.193 0.057 0.141 0.089 0.082 0.912 0.570
13. Corporate culture 0.474 0.201 0.011 0.235 0.088 0.033 0.179 0.182 0.172 0.123 0.063 0.048 0.687 0.036 0.040 0.034 0.049 0.024 0.924 0.697
(10) 0.075 0.119 0.077 0.248 0.138 0.049 0.266 0.198 0.038 0.307 0.340 0.031 0.620 0.128 0.075 0.046 0.051 0.089 0.860 0.681
0.252 0.397 0.154 0.122 0.058 0.219 0.112 0.020 0.136 0.166 0.290 0.110 0.565 0.072 0.037 0.129 0.028 0.232 0.863 0.695
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
14. Cost reduction (2) 0.024 0.079 0.085 0.004 0.227 0.026 0.021 0.110 0.009 0.179 0.127 0.090 0.077 0.857 0.073 0.129 0.032 0.054 0.903 0.257
0.031 0.014 0.099 0.102 0.034 0.099 0.012 0.109 0.157 0.170 0.012 0.245 0.155 0.739 0.023 0.228 0.018 0.261 0.849 0.439
(continued)
Downloaded by Universidad del Turabo, Doctor Juan Carlos Sosa Varela At 05:24 17 January 2019 (PT)
Table V
Factor
Triple bottom line dominant logic
these weaker items eventually omitted from the expanded business operations, making them less interesting to other
factor solution. companies and industries.
All eighteen factors that were identified (shown in Table V) The framework retested and validated in the present study
indicate satisfactory convergent, discriminant and nomological offers practitioners a foundation to assess their efforts of BS
validity, as well as reliability of each dimension. The taking into account a broad selection of aspects across
measurement metrics of the present study’s expansion of the environmental, social and economic elements in connection
“TBL dominant logic for BS” displayed in Table V provide with BS. It is also based on cross-sectional samples of industries
therefore expanded empirical support for satisfactory validity providing support for a broader applicability to managers and
and reliability across contexts and through time. their companies’ BS efforts.
The present study does not provide explanatory findings
6. Research implications between elements of environmental, social and economic
elements of TBL, but lay a foundation to assess BS efforts that
This study generates a series of research implications relevant
can be compared to others that use the same TBL dominant
and valuable to other researchers in the field of BS. In fact, it
logic for BS (Svensson et al, 2018).
provides opportunities for further research efforts to develop
Downloaded by Universidad del Turabo, Doctor Juan Carlos Sosa Varela At 05:24 17 January 2019 (PT)
1 it succeeds satisfactorily to validate the dimensions and in B2B markets: the why, when and how”, Journal of Business
items of a TBL dominant logic for BS. A total of 16 out of & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 1172-1181.
17 dimensions were validated based on the same items BSDGlobal (2002), “Business and sustainable development”,
(except three) in a different country and its business available at: www.iisd.org/business/ (accessed 25 February
industries; and 2018).
2 it expands the framework with two additional dimensions Buchanan, J.A. (1964), “What should economists do?”,
and its items that have not been and successfully tested in Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 213-222.
previous studies. 18 out of originally 20 dimensions were Buried Treasure (2001), “Uncovering the business case for
confirmed. corporate sustainability”, available at: www.sustainability.
com/library/buried-treasure#.UgHhk9I6fAx (accessed 25
The framework of a TBL dominant logic retested in this study
February 2018).
provides a relevant and important substantiation for validity
Campbell, D.T. (1955), “The informant in quantitative
and reliability across contexts and trough time. It is important
in research efforts to establish any theoretical framework for research”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 60 No. 4,
BS. It offers also multiple opportunities for both research and pp. 339-342.
Downloaded by Universidad del Turabo, Doctor Juan Carlos Sosa Varela At 05:24 17 January 2019 (PT)
practice to assess BS efforts across environmental, social and Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) (2013), “Reports & data”,
economic aspects. available at: www.cdproject.net/en-US/ Results/Pages/reports.
Frameworks that consider all three aspects of TBL is rare in aspx (accessed 25 February 2018).
previous studies (Svensson et al, 2016a). It is therefore Carson, R. (1962), Silent Spring, Boston, Houghton Mifflin.
important that economic, social and environmental aspects are Chabowski, B.R., Mena, J.A. and Gonzalez-Padron, T.L.
taken into simultaneous consideration in research in (2011), “The structure of sustainability research in marketing,
connection to BS efforts. The exclusion of either of them will 1958-2008: a basis for future research opportunities”, Journal
provide insufficient contribution to a framework. of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 55-70.
The framework of a TBL dominant logic contributes to a Collste, D., Pedercini, M. and Cornell, S.E. (2017), “Policy
bottom-up approach for supporting the top-down SDGs coherence to achieve the SDGs: using integrated simulation
outlined in the UN 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. models to assess effective policies”, Sustainability Science,
This approach entails a multi-dimensional framework across Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 921-931.
economic, social and environmental elements in connection Crew, B.E.C. (2015), “Scientists tried to replicate 100
with BS. psychology experiments and 64% failed”, Science Alert,
This study is not without its limitations, but they offer available at: www.sciencealert.com/scientists-tried-to-replicate-
opportunities for further research. Although this study has 100-psychology-experiments-and-64-failed#.WZ8YbMTdpz0.
satisfactorily validated and expanded across Spanish industries link (accessed 28 August 2017).
an empirically tested TBL dominant logic for BS in Norway, DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (Eds) (1991),
the dimensions and items used need to be further tested in “Introduction”, The New Institutionalism in Organizational
other countries (and preferably continents) to validate or falsify Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 1-38.
the current empirical findings. The current validation provides Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. (1995), “The stakeholder theory
a foundation to a framework for BS, which is valuable, but of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications”,
additional dimensions may be relevant in other countries’ Academy Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65-91.
business industries. Dos Santos, M.A.O., Svensson, G. and Padin, C. (2013),
“Indicators of sustainable business practices: woolworths in
South Africa”, Supply Chain Management: An International
References Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 104-108.
Ashby, A., Leat, M. and Hudson-Smith, M. (2012), “Making Eiadat, Y., Kelly, A., Roche, F. and Eyadat, H. (2008), “Green
connections: a review of supply chain management and and competitive? An empirical test of the mediating role of
sustainability literature”, Supply Chain Management: An environmental innovation strategy”, Journal of World
International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 497-516. Business, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 313-345.
Banerjee, S.B., Iyer, E.S. and Kashyap, R.K. (2003), “Corporate Elkington, J. (2004), “Enter the triple bottom line”, available at:
environmentalism: antecedents and influence of industry www.johnelkington.com/TBL-elkington-chapter.pdf (accessed
type”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 106-122. 25 February 2018).
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive EPI (2017), “Environmental performance index and pilot
advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120. trend environmental performance index”, Yale Center for
Bartelmus, P. (2003), “Dematerialization and Capital Environmental Law and Policy, Yale University, available at:
maintenance: two sides of the sustainability coin”, Ecological http://epi.yale.edu (accessed 20 November 2017).
Economics, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 61-81. Epstein, M.J. and Widener, S.K. (2010), “Identification and
Biggemann, S., ; Williams, M. and Kro, G. (2014), “Building use of sustainable performance measures in decision-
in sustainability, social responsibility and value Co- making”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 40 No. 1,
creation”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 29 pp. 43-73.
No. 4, pp. 304-312. Faber, N., Jorna, R. and van Engelen, J. (2005), “The
Blenkhorn, D.L. and MacKenzie, H.F.(H.). (2017), sustainability of sustainability – a study into the conceptual
“Categorizing corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives foundations of the notion of sustainability”, Journal of
Triple bottom line dominant logic Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Carlos Ferro et al.
Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, Vol. 7 Høgevold, N.M. and Svensson, G. (2012), “A business
No. 1, pp. 1-33. sustainability model: a european case study”, Journal of
Ferro, C., Padin, C., Svensson, G., Sosa Varela, J.C., Wagner, Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 141-151.
B. and Høgevold, N.M. (2017), “Validating a framework of Høgevold, N., Svensson, G., Wagner, B., Petzer, D.J.,
stakeholders in connection to business sustainability efforts Klopper, H.B., Sosa Varela, J.C., Padin, C. and Ferro, C.
in supply chains”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, (2014), “Sustainable business models corporate reasons,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 124-137. economic effects, social boundaries, environmental actions
Fleming, A., Wise, R.M., Hansen, H. and Sams, L. (2017), and organizational challenges in sustainable business
“The sustainable development goals: a case study”, Marine practices”, Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 9 No. 3,
Policy, Vol. 86, pp. 94-103. pp. 357-380.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Jones, T.M. (1995), “Instrumental stakeholder theory: a
Approach, Pitman Press, Boston. synthesis of ethics and economics”, Academy Manager
FTSE (2013), “FTSE4Good index”, available at: www.ftse. Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 404-437.
com/Indices/FTSE4Good_Index_Series/index.jsp9 (accessed Kanie N. and Biermann F. (Eds) (2017), Governing through
Downloaded by Universidad del Turabo, Doctor Juan Carlos Sosa Varela At 05:24 17 January 2019 (PT)
actions! The ideological role of sustainable development Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A. and Steger, U. (2005),
reporting”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, “The business case for corporate sustainability: literature
Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 1211-1257. review and research options”, European Management Journal,
Mondi (2013), “Investor relations”, available at: www. Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 27-36.
mondigroup.com/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-1156 (accessed Savitz, A. (2012), The Triple Bottom Line: How Today's Best-Run
25 February 2018). Companies Are Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental
Morton, S., Pencheon, D. and Squires, N. (2017), Success – and How You Can Too, Wiley, San Francisco.
“Sustainable development goals (SDGs), and their Schaltegger, S. and Burritt, L.R. (2010), “Sustainable
implementation. A national global framework for health, accounting for companies: catchphrase or decision support
development and equity needs a systems approach at every for leaders?” Journal of World Business, Vol. 45 No. 4,
level”, British Medical Bulletin, Vol. 124 No. 1, pp. 81-90. pp. 375-384.
Murthy, V.P. (2012), “Integrating corporate sustainability and Schianetz, K., Kavanagh, K. and Lockington, D. (2007),
strategy for business performance”, World Journal of “Concepts and tools for comprehensive sustainability
Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, assessments for tourism destinations: a comparative review”,
Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 5-17. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 369-389.
Neumann, B., Ott, K. and Kenchington, R. (2017), “Strong Schulz, S.A. and Flanigan, R.L. (2016), “Developing
sustainability in coastal areas: a conceptual interpretation of competitive advantage using the triple bottom line: a
SDG”, Sustainability Science, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 1019-1035. conceptual framework”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Open Science Collaboration (2015), “Estimating the Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 449-458.
reproducibility of psychological science”, Science, Vol. 349 Scott, W.R. (2008), Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and
No. 6251, pp. aac4716-1 - aac4716-8. Interests, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Padin, C. and Svensson, G. (2013), “A multi-layer matrix Searcy, C. (2012), “Corporate sustainability performance
model of sustainable tourism: process, measurement areas, measurement systems: a review and research agenda”,
gap and reconnection analysis”, European Business Review, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 107 No. 3, pp. 239-253.
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 206-216. Senge, P. and Carstedt, G. (2001), “Innovating our way to the
Pagell, M. and Wu, Z. (2009), “Building a more complete theory next industrial revolution”, MIT Sloan Management Review,
of sustainable supply chain management using case studies of Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 24-38.
10 exemplars”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45 Senge, P., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J. and Schley, S.
No. 2, pp. 37-56. (2008), The Necessary Revolution: how Individuals and
Parris, T.N. and Kates, R.W. (2003), “Characterizing and Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable
measuring sustainable development”, Annual Review of World, Random House Digital.
Environment and Resources, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 559-586. Seuring, B.M. and Müller, M. (2008), “From a literature
Peloza, J. and Shang, J. (2011), “How can corporate social review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply
responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16
systematic review”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing No. 15.
Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 117-135. Shrivastava, P. and Berger, S. (2010), “Sustainability principles: a
Pinter, L., Hardi, P. and Bartelmus, P. (2005), Sustainable review and directions”, Organization Management Journal,
Development Indicators. Proposals for the Way Forward, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 246-261.
International Institute for Sustainable Development, Siemens (2013), available at: www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/
available at: www.iisd.org/publications/pub.aspx?pno=769 events/2012/corporate/2012-06-rio20/GCI-Report-e.pdf
(accessed 25 February 2018). (accessed 25 February 2018).
Ramus, A.C. (2002), “Encouraging innovative environmental Smith, P.A.C. and Sharicz, C. (2011), “The shift needed for
actions: what companies and managers must do”, Journal of sustainability”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 18 No. 1,
World Business, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 151-164. pp. 73-86.
Rettab, B., Brik, A.B. and Mellahi, K. (2009), “A study of Stafford-Smith, M., Griggs, D., Gaffney, O., Ullah, F., Reyers,
management perceptions of the impact of corporate social B., Kanie, N., Stigson, B., Shrivastava, P., Leach, M. and
Triple bottom line dominant logic Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Carlos Ferro et al.
O’Connell, D. (2017), “Integration: the key to implementing United Nations (2012), “World summit on sustainable
the sustainable development goals”, Sustainability Science, development”, available at: www.un.org/en/development/
Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 911-919. devagenda/sustainable.shtml (accessed 25 February 2018).
Stem, L.W. and Reve, T. (1980), “Distribution channels as Vaaland, T., Heide, M. and Grønhaug, K. (2008), “Corporate
political economies: a framework for comparative analysis”, social responsibility: investigating theory and research in the
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 52-64. marketing context”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42
STOXX (2013), “Stoxx indices”, available at: www.stoxx.com/ Nos 9/10, pp. 927-953.
indices/types/sustainability.html (accessed 25 February Varadarajan, R.P. and Menon, A. (1988), “Cause-related
2018). marketing: a co-alignment of marketing strategy and corporate
Strand, R., Freeman, R.E. and Hockerts, K. (2015), “Corporate philanthropy”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 58-74.
social responsibility and sustainability in scandinavia: an Wagner, B. and Svensson, G. (2014), “A framework to navigate
overview”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 127 No. 1, pp. 1-15. sustainability in business networks: the transformative
Strandberg Consulting (2009), “The business case for business sustainability (TBS) model”, European Business
sustainability”, available at: http://corostrandberg.com/wp- Review, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 340-367.
Downloaded by Universidad del Turabo, Doctor Juan Carlos Sosa Varela At 05:24 17 January 2019 (PT)
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com