Search results

This paper aims to explore and analyse stakeholders’ perceptions of the development priorities and suggests more effective strategies to assist sustainable economic growth in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The authors use the World Bank data set, which collects various stakeholders’ opinions on the UAE development. First, the exploratory factor analysis has been applied to detect the main groups of development priorities. Second, the fuzzy cluster analysis has been conducted to detect the groups of stakeholders with different attitudes towards the importance of extracted groups of priorities. Third, clusters have been compared according to demographics, media usage and shared prosperity goals.

The two main groups of development priorities have been extracted by the exploratory factor analysis: economic priorities and sustainability priorities. Four clusters have been detected according to the level of motivation when it comes to the economic and sustainability priorities: Cluster 1 (High economic – High sustainability), Cluster 2 (High economic – Medium sustainability), Cluster 3 (High economic – Low sustainability) and Cluster 4 (Low economic – Low sustainability). Members of the cluster that prefer a high level of economic and sustainability priorities (Cluster 1) also prefer more diversified economic growth providing better employment opportunities and better education and training for young people in the UAE.

Limitations stem from the survey being conducted on a relatively small sample using the data collected by the World Bank; however, this data set allowed a comparison of various stakeholders. Future research should consider a broader sample approach, e.g. exploring and comparing all of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries; investigating the opinions of the expatriate managers living in the UAE that are not from GCC countries; and/or including other various groups that are lagging, such as female entrepreneurs.

Several practical implications were identified regarding education and media coverage. Since respondents prioritize the economic development factors over sustainability factors, a media campaign could be developed and executed to increase sustainability awareness. A campaign could target especially male citizens since the analysis indicates that males are more likely to affirm high economic and low sustainability priorities than females. There is no need for further diversification of media campaigns according to age since the analysis did not reveal relevant differences in age groups, implying there is no inter-generational gap between respondents.

This paper contributes to the literature by comparing the perceived importance of various development goals in the UAE, such as development priorities and shared prosperity indicators. The fuzzy cluster analysis has been used as a novel approach to detect the relevant groups of stakeholders in the UAE and their developmental priorities. The issue of media usage and demographic characteristics in this context has also been discussed.

Environmental and social sustainability are becoming key competitive priorities for companies, but the way in which they are integrated in operations strategies remains an open issue. The purpose of this paper is to determine whether established operations strategy configuration models (i.e. price-oriented, market-oriented and capability-oriented models) are modified to include environmental and social priorities and whether different operations strategy configuration models are equally successful in the short and long term.

Analyses were performed using data from the International Manufacturing Strategy Survey (2009), including companies in the assembly industry in 21 different countries. According to previous studies, cluster analysis of competitive priorities and ANOVA analysis of the business strategy and short- and long-term performance were performed.

The results show that traditional operations strategy configuration models are slightly modified. Market-oriented and capability-oriented operations strategies are complemented by environmental and social sustainability priorities. These operations strategies are adopted by companies with a differentiation and innovation business strategy. Moreover, capability-oriented companies, which are the most committed to environmental and social sustainability, perform better in both the short and long term.

This research shows to companies that traditional operations strategies focusing on specific competitive priorities (e.g. low price) are being replaced by more holistic strategies that include sustainability priorities. However, environmental and social priorities contribute to competitive advantage when complementing capability-oriented operations strategies.

This paper extends operations strategy configuration models highlighting how environmental and social sustainability priorities can be deployed together with traditional competitive operations priorities.

Companies are increasingly challenged by sustainability-related supply chain risks. Research has developed linking supply chain sustainability priorities, practices and triple bottom line performance; however, risk is rarely included in these models. The purpose of this paper is to understand the link between sustainable supply chain strategies, practices and performance, and to test the importance of risk management practices in this relationship focusing on the product category level.

The paper includes a survey of supply managers in four countries with 305 responses, with a focus on upstream supply chain strategies at the product category level.

The environmental and social sustainability strategies lead to sustainable supply sustainable performance, through focused practices in either area, but the effect on operational and cost performance is not significant. Social supply chain strategies positively impact environmental and cost performance when mediated by risk assessment practices.

This paper shows a more nuanced view of the impact of supply chain practices on the strategy–performance link. It is one of the first papers to empirically test the role of risk practices in sustainable supply chain management and emphasize the importance of alignment across the main dimensions of sustainability to achieve positive sustainable performance outcomes, but not necessarily cost and operational performance. Unlike other studies, social sustainability priorities may positively impact environmental and social performance and is linked to cost advantage when implemented with risk assessment practices.

The authors develop a methodology to select appropriate sustainable supply chain indicators (SSCIs) to measure Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the global supply chain.

SSCIs are identified by reviewing the extant literature and topic modeling. Further, they are evaluated based on existing SDGs and ranked using the fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method. Notably, the evaluation of indicators is a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) process within a fuzzy environment. The methodology has been explained using a case study from the automobile industry.

The case study identifies appropriate SSCIs and differentiates them among peer suppliers for gaining a competitive advantage. The results reveal that top-ranked sustainability indicators include the management of natural resources, energy, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and social investment.

The study outcome will enable suppliers, specialists and decision makers to understand the criteria that improve supply chain sustainability in the automobile industry. The analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of the competitive package of indicators for gaining strategic advantage. This proactive sustainability indicator selection promotes and enhances sustainability reporting while fulfilling regulatory requirements and increasing collaboration potential with trustworthy downstream partners. This study sets the stage for further research in SSCIs’ competitive strategy in the automobile industry along with its supply chains.

This study is unique as it provides a framework for determining relevant SSCIs, which can be distinguished from peer suppliers, while also matching economic, environmental and social metrics to achieve a competitive advantage.

This paper aims to contribute to existing academic work and business practice by presenting original empirical findings and by providing insights into priority setting on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in organizations. From an academic viewpoint, it not only adds to previous work on the topic of SDG materiality (e.g. Van Tulder and Lucht, 2019) but also aims to contribute new insights into the steps that are crucial and influence the adoption of the SDGs in materiality assessments. It may also add to the literature by providing new knowledge on the strategic considerations that organizations may make and institutional dynamics that encourage organizations to implement the SDG materiality method.

By executing a national survey research in Belgium through a collaboration between academics of Antwerp Management School, Louvain School of Management (UCLouvain) and the University of Antwerp, and supported by Belgium’s Federal Institute of Sustainable Development, the authors have obtained several insights into the SDG landscape in Belgium for various types of organizations, including companies, governmental and nongovernmental organizations and educational institutions. This research builds further on a first national survey (SDG Barometer Belgium, 2018) on the adoption and implementation of the SDGs. However, an important aim of this research is to shift the emphasis to more prominent new elements, such as whether or not organizations use the SDGs in materiality assessments. While the main part of the data for this research were collected through an online questionnaire, document analyses were conducted based on the sustainability reports of BEL 20 companies, the benchmark stock market index of Euronext Brussels consisting of 20 companies traded at the Brussels Stock Exchange, and seven interviews were held to obtain additional insights.

A total of 386 organizations across sectors responded to the question “Does your organization perform a materiality analysis”, of which 210 organizations completed the question “Does your organization align the materiality analysis with the SDGs,”after an “exit route” based on a positive answer to the first question. When diving into the survey results, the authors see that no more than 12% of the 210 organizations performing a materiality analysis align their materiality analysis with the SDGs, while 14% indicate that they do not account for the SDGs at all in their materiality analyses. The results show that 41% of the organizations take into account the SDGs to a certain degree when performing their materiality analysis. Speculating on an explanation for these results, it may be the case that organizations do not yet think about coupling the SDGs to their materiality assessment, experience difficulties in practice or generally lack the knowledge for relating the SDGs to the sustainability topics that are relevant to them. This seems in line with other research (e.g. Van Tulder and Lucht, 2019), as the results of this study indicate that it seems to be difficult for organizations to relate the SDGs to the existing sustainability priorities or materiality analyses of companies.

The real contribution of this paper essentially lies in the description of the Janssen Pharmaceuticals case. The company recognized that today’s internally focused approach to goal setting is not enough to address global challenges. Hence, looking at what is needed externally from a global perspective, taking into account sustainability thresholds and setting ambitions accordingly, is needed to bridge the gap between current performance and required performance. From the Janssen Pharmaceuticals case, the authors learned that external stakeholders are an extremely useful source of information to address the required performance by using the SDG framework. For sure, SDG materiality analyses are still in an early phase of development and knowledge on how to conduct such an analysis may be lacking. Future efforts – or the lack thereof – may indicate whether or not companies consider such analyses as sufficiently relevant. Although the uptake of the SDGs is in progress, it remains to be seen which, if any, materiality method will eventually turn out as a new dominant way of defining material issues. The findings presented in this study hopefully serve as a basis for further investigation of the topic.

Most companies rarely work on sustainable development as a whole, which includes environmental, social, governance, and economic pillars. The purpose of this paper is to explore causal relationships between pillar scores and overall score of sustainability and identify the most critical pillar to which policy makers should allot limited resources with the highest priority.

Based on Thomson Reuters ASSET4 database of global corporate sustainability, this paper examines the causal relations between pillar scores and overall score of sustainability by using the three-stage integrative methodology consisting of cluster analysis, data mining, and partial least square path modeling.

This paper finds that each pillar has unequal effects on the overall corporate sustainability and that the overall score is affected by not only the direct effects from pillar scores but also the indirect effects from the causal interrelations among pillars. Moreover, the patterns of causal directions and the most critical pillar are sensitive to industries. Social performance is the most critical pillar for the majority of industries, followed by environmental performance, and economic performance, respectively. The governance performance, however, is not the most critical pillar in any industry.

To construct a roadmap for reform priorities, policy makers should follow the top-down approach which involves hierarchical decisions. Using the three-stage methodology, the policy makers first decide on the most critical pillar score before selecting the most critical category score underneath.

Relaxing traditional assumptions of simple average overall score of corporate sustainability, the three-stage integrative framework allows for causal interrelations among pillars and different weights on individual pillars.

The use of natural resources by organizations has a significant impact on society, resulting in business firms playing a vital role in developing sustainable development. As a result, corporate sustainability has become an integral aspect of a company’s vision and policy in the modern days. Companies issue sustainability reports based on various criteria and metrics, thereby attempting to gain a competitive edge. This study aims to assess and prioritize the numerous factors that influence corporate sustainability performance.

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to prioritize the identified determinants of corporate sustainability performance based on the literature. Several experts from business and academia were engaged to build a comparison matrix for assessing the various aspects of corporate sustainability performance. As a result, various corporate sustainability determinants were determined and prioritized following an extensive literature review using the AHP.

The most critical component for companies is an economic indicator. Developing environmentally and socially responsible suggestions must be a priority for the organization’s economic performance. Economic performance is believed to be most heavily influenced by innovation and in the other category like environmental and social performance are highly influenced by environment management policies and shareholder responsibility, respectively. Researchers’ findings suggest that to promote sustainability, top executives should devote all of their attention to innovation, environment management policies and shareholder responsibility.

These studies are primarily concerned with developed countries. And, the other fundamental constraint of the AHP study is that the rating scale adopted in the analysis is conceptual. Therefore, pairwise comparisons with a variety of indicators have the potential to introduce bias into the results.

This paper proposes a methodical and operational technique for selecting the ultimate priority of sustainability indicators when it comes to exploiting competitive information on business performance. The paper also recommended sustainability rating technique might be carried out once every six months to improve the overall quality and performance of the organization.

The advantages of adopting and executing corporate sustainability are enormous, and managers must determine whether sustainability is profitable or not. This question prompts further inquiries. For example, what are the numerous critical determinants of corporate sustainability performance? Several scholars throughout the world are looking at it for this reason. As a result, it is essential to comprehend and prioritize the various determinants of corporate sustainability performance.

Technology and market pressures are encouraging localized and small-series production in customer-driven industries. The purpose of this paper is to explore and understand the supply chain-, product- and process-design factors for small-series production in EU’s textile and apparel industry, to understand configuration decisions, priorities and challenges.

An interview study was undertaken with ten companies that represent diverse small-series production models and value chain roles. Interview data was analysed to identify supply network configuration characteristics, decision priorities and challenges.

Three small-series production models emerged from the analysis, differing with respect to adoption of process postponement and customization. The findings confirm and extend past research regarding diverse decision priorities and product, process, supply chain structure/relationship configurations. Challenges identified relate to planning (priorities) and implementation (configuration). Whereas competence availability and digital technology challenges are common, several difficulties are linked to production model like tensions related to priorities and small volumes, which are not found with customization.

Future research can make comparisons with other industry and location contexts; adopt dynamic approaches to distinguish between design and reconfiguration processes; and address indicated paradoxical-tensions.

The study findings can provide guidance for companies regarding identification of priorities and management of (planning/implementation) challenges impacting small-series production in T&A.

The paper brings a configuration perspective at the supply chain level to the problem of small-series production implementation, which demands holistic and context-specific understanding.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the sustainable food procurement (SFP) of members of the British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquariums (BIAZA). It also considered the inconsistencies between their animal and human food supply chains, as well as between their procurement priorities and practices.

A quantitative, cross-sectional approach was employed, involving the use of a web-based questionnaire to gather data from 41 BIAZA members across 21 indicators of food sustainability. The results were considered within a sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) framework.

There was considerable variation amongst the issues considered by zoos during the SFP process for their animal and human food operations. For both, local expenditure, nutritional content and packaging reduction were some of the highest scoring indicators in practice and as priorities. The overall levels of SFP were found to be equal between the human and animal food supply chains. Significantly low levels of inconsistency were found between the two, practically and in terms of procurement aspirations. Within both supply chains, there was also very few significant gaps between procurement priorities and actions.

The originality of this study lies in its comparison of procurement practices and priorities for two contemporaneous but distinct food supply chains. It demonstrates that it is possible to have a high overall degree of consistency between two parallel, but contrasting, supply chains, as well as between procurement priorities and priorities. It will be of use in SSCM, particularly within values-led organisations.

Motivated to know more about the internal means through which accountability for sustainability takes shape within organisations (in what ways and by whom), this paper aims to explore how accountability for sustainability is constructed within an organisation during a process of establishing a control system for sustainability.

This paper adopts a qualitative case study approach of a decentralised industrial group, operating mainly in Scandinavia, between 2017 and 2020. Both primary and secondary data are used (e.g. document analyses, semi-structured interviews, informal conversations and site visits) to inform the findings and analysis.

The findings reveal a multi-faceted path towards accountability for sustainability that involves several concerns and priorities at organisational and individual levels, resulting in a separate sustainability control systems within each subsidiary company. Although hierarchical structures for accountability exist, socialising accountability activities are needed to (further) mobilise sustainable accounts.

Successful sustainable control systems require employees making sense of formalised accountability instruments (e.g. policies and procedures) to establish their roles and responsibilities in organisations.

This paper proposes socialisation processes as important for driving forward sustainability solutions.

This study elaborates on the internal accountability dynamic for the construction of sustainable accounts. Its novelty is built upon the interaction of hierarchical and socialising accountability forms as necessary for establishing a control system for sustainability. It furthermore illustrates the relationship between the external and internal pathways of accountability.