Is the economic dimension inducing the other ... · et al. 2015; Fonseca and Ferro 2016; Oliveira Neto et al. 2016; Miroshnychenko et al. 2017). However, for some authors, it isstill

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsdw20

International Journal of Sustainable Development &World Ecology

ISSN: 1350-4509 (Print) 1745-2627 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsdw20

Is the economic dimension inducing the othersustainability dimensions, or is it the reverse?Perceptions from the Portuguese metal industry

J. Armindo, A. Fonseca, I. Abreu & T. Toldy

To cite this article: J. Armindo, A. Fonseca, I. Abreu & T. Toldy (2019): Is the economicdimension inducing the other sustainability dimensions, or is it the reverse? Perceptions from thePortuguese metal industry, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology,DOI: 10.1080/13504509.2019.1619106

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1619106

Published online: 20 May 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Is the economic dimension inducing the other sustainability dimensions, or isit the reverse? Perceptions from the Portuguese metal industryJ. Armindo a, A. Fonseca b, I. Abreu b and T. Toldy c

aFaculty of Science and Technology, Fernando Pessoa University, Porto, Portugal; bUFP Energy, Environment and Health Research Unit(FP-ENAS), Fernando Pessoa University, Porto, Portugal; cFaculty of Human and Social Sciences, Fernando Pessoa University, Porto,Portugal

ABSTRACTIn organizational sustainability, the economic dimension is recognized as having a veryimportant role. However, the discussion regarding whether it is exclusively the economicdimension that has the power to induce the other sustainability dimensions is far fromagreement. The purpose of the present paper is to analyze the perceptions regarding theexistence of mutual influences between the economic dimension of sustainability and theother sustainability dimensions – environmental, social and cultural – in a relevantPortuguese economic sector: the metal industry. The analysis and statistical tests performedwith the 211 collected answers led to the conclusion that the influence exerted by theeconomic dimension on the other sustainability dimensions is perceived as dominant, bothin present and future perspectives. The results also show the perception that the economicdimension is equally influenced by the environmental and social dimensions, and in a lessextent, by the cultural dimension, and that all these mutual influences are perceived toincrease in the future. The existence of organizational management systems has a positiveeffect on the perceptions regarding the existence of mutual influences between sustainabilitydimensions, but only for those companies with more than one certified management system.These results confirm that organizational management systems are connected to higherdegrees of awareness regarding sustainability issues. Given that the great majority of thesampled industries are SMEs, the results obtained in this research demonstrate that theexistence of mutual influences between sustainability dimensions is recognized even in small-sized industries.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 28 March 2019Accepted 11 May 2019

KEYWORDSOrganizational sustainability;sustainability dimensions;management systems; metalindustry; small and mediumenterprises (SMEs)

1. Introduction

The important role of organizations in the promotion ofSustainable Development is presently acknowledgedworldwide: organizations contribute to social, environ-mental, economic, and cultural balances and develop-ment. The growing interest of stakeholders regardingorganizations’ commitment to Sustainable Developmentis influencing organizational behavior. Therefore, externalpressures andgain of competitive advantage aremotivat-ingmanagers to consider sustainability issues in decision-making processes and strategic planning (Kolk and vanTulder 2010; Jerónimo Silvestre et al. 2014; Ashrafi et al.2018; Batista and de Francisco 2018; Caiado et al. 2018;Shubham et al. 2018). Managers face the challenge ofincorporating sustainability in their core business opera-tions, forcing the adaptation of business practices torespect andpromote SustainableDevelopmentprinciplesin the daily routine (Asif et al. 2013; Myllyviita et al. 2017;Ajmal et al. 2018), and some reveal difficulties in perform-ing this adaptation (Lozano 2012; Witjes et al. 2017;Borges et al. 2018; Souza and Alves 2018). The implemen-tation of organizational management systems is consid-ered a valuable tool in the enhancement of companies’

sustainability programs (Asif et al. 2013; Rebelo et al. 2016;Gianni et al. 2017; Hernandez-Vivanco et al. 2018;Poltronieri et al. 2019).

Several research studies have established a positivecorrelation between the implementation of environ-mental and social sustainability programs and compa-nies’ financial performance, in different activity sectors(Orlitzky et al. 2003; Aragón-Correa et al. 2008; Wu andShen 2013; Alves and Dumke De Medeiros 2015; Martiet al. 2015; Fonseca and Ferro 2016; Oliveira Neto et al.2016; Miroshnychenko et al. 2017). However, for someauthors, it is still not clear whether it is the environmen-tal and social sustainability practices that lead to theincreased financial performance, or whether it is thegood financial performance that implies availability offunds to invest in sustainability practices (Orlitzky et al.2003; Branco and Rodrigues 2006).

In the manager’s perspective, the adequate under-standing of the impacts of social and environmentalsustainability practices in financial performance wouldpromote the inclusion of sustainability-oriented pro-grams in companies’ strategic planning. Also, the recog-nition of positive interdependencies between the

CONTACT A. Fonseca [email protected]

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGYhttps://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1619106

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

different sustainability dimensions, and the understand-ing of the potential of their integration in the promotionof positive synergies, are of great importance toenhance the contribution of business organizations toSustainable Development (Hansmann et al. 2012;Jerónimo Silvestre et al. 2015; Ajmal et al. 2018).

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the percep-tions of an important economic sector in Portugal –the metal industry – regarding the existence ofmutual influences between the economic dimensionof sustainability and the other sustainability dimen-sions. Through survey data collected in 211Portuguese industries in the metal sector, this workaims to answer the following research questions:

● What is the perception of the Portuguese metalindustry regarding the present and future influ-ence of the economic dimension on the otherdimensions of organizational sustainability?

● What is the perception of the Portuguese metalindustry regarding the present and future influ-ence exerted by the other dimensions of organi-zational sustainability on the economicdimension?

● How are these perceptions affected by the exis-tence of organizational management systems?

The metal industry was selected for three reasons:first, due to the determinant role that this activitysector has on the Portuguese economy; second, dueto the worldwide relevance of the environmental andsocial impacts associated with the metal industry; andfinally, due to the role played by metal industries inthe value chain of other industrial sectors, actingeither as client or supplier.

2. Literature review

2.1. Organizational sustainability dimensionsand their effects on business performance

Sustainability dimensions are defined considering theTriple Bottom Line introduced by Elkington (Elkington1998): economy, environment, and society. Severalauthors agree on the inclusion of culture as a fourthsustainability dimension, given its importance for thesustainability of communities, promotion and conser-vation of cultural diversity, as well as of social cohe-sion and local identity (Giddings et al. 2002; Soini andBirkeland 2014; Hribar et al. 2015; González et al. 2017;Ajmal et al. 2018).

In organizational context, the following items areconsidered in the different sustainability dimensions(Lozano 2012; Soini and Birkeland 2014; Hilsdorf et al.2017; Armindo et al. 2018): the economic dimensionincludes financial results, market presence, and inter-actions with business partners; the environmental

dimension comprises pollution prevention, rationali-zation of consumptions and reduction of emissionsand waste; the social dimension is related with laborpractices, occupational health and safety, training andeducation, inclusion and non-discrimination, and sup-port to social causes through volunteering and phi-lanthropy; the cultural dimension of sustainabilityincludes items as cultural identity and knowledge,values, habits and practices.

In what business is concerned, the economicdimension has obviously a very relevant role.Responsible businesses are expected to create publicvalue, including long-term sustainable profits (Carroll1991, 2016; Meynhardt and Gomez 2019). The promi-nence of the economic dimension over the othersustainability dimensions is recognized in severalresearch studies (Jerónimo Silvestre et al. 2014;Rajeev et al. 2017; Armindo et al. 2018). Financialperformance consistently remains a priority, while inmost cases the other sustainability dimensions aremanaged to achieve acceptable minimum perfor-mances (Jerónimo Silvestre et al. 2014).

The impact of organizational sustainability programsin the financial performance of companies has beenwidely studied (for reviews, see for example Margolisand Walsh 2003; Orlitzky et al. 2003; Branco andRodrigues 2006; López-Arceiz et al. 2018). Differentresults are reported: several authors have establishedthat proactive environmental and social behaviourresult in economic benefits (Orlitzky et al. 2003;Aragón-Correa et al. 2008; Alves and Dumke DeMedeiros 2015; Chen et al. 2015; Marti et al. 2015;Fonseca and Ferro 2016; Oliveira Neto et al. 2016;Wang et al. 2016; Miroshnychenko et al. 2017; López-Arceiz et al. 2018); on the other hand other authorsdefend that no clear relation exists between sustainabil-ity practices and financial performance (Margolis andWalsh 2003; Surroca et al. 2010; Santis et al. 2016;Charlo et al. 2017), or even that, due to the high costsassociated, in some cases sustainability practices nega-tively affect financial performances (Lee et al. 2009;Makni et al. 2009; Barnett and Salomon 2012). This lackof consensus might be due to differences in the indica-tors used to measure sustainability and financial perfor-mances, to the differentmethodologies used, and to thedifferent characteristics of the sampled companies(Chen et al. 2015; Marti et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2016;Charlo et al. 2017; Lassala et al. 2017).

Freeman’s Stakeholders Theory (Freeman 1984)and the Resource-Based View (Barney 1991) areoften used to explain the effect of sustainability pro-grams on financial performance (Orlitzky et al. 2003;Branco and Rodrigues 2006; Surroca et al. 2010;Torugsa et al. 2012; Wang et al. 2016; Hasan et al.2018). The promotion of sustainability programsenhances the creation of shared value with differentstakeholders: employees’ motivation increases, with

2 J. ARMINDO ET AL.

positive effects on productivity; employees’ turnoveris reduced, lowering costs associated with recruitmentand training; companies improve their competitiveadvantage through knowledge sharing and mutuallearning, developing new skills; stakeholder’s satisfac-tion positively affects public judgment and improvescompanies’ image, leading to reputational improve-ment. All these factors support the generation ofvalue over time, which will result in improved finan-cial performance. Sustainability programs are alsoused by companies as risk management tools, sincesociety is not willing to accept socially or environmen-tally irresponsible behavior, which can nowadays bepromptly denounced via easily accessible informationtechnologies.

In what concerns the influence of environmental sus-tainability programs on companies’ financial perfor-mance, several economic benefits are achieved throughimprovements in energy efficiency and material usage,waste reduction and competitive advantages in greenmarket products (Albertini 2014; Branco and Rodrigues2006; Alves and Dumke De Medeiros 2015; Oliveira Netoet al. 2016; Miroshnychenko et al. 2017). Aragón-Correaet al. (2008) studied 108 Spanish SMEs in the automotiverepair sector and concluded that those with the mostproactive environmental practices exhibited a signifi-cantly positive financial performance (Aragón-Correaet al. 2008). Moneva and Ortas (2010) performeda research study with 230 companies in 18 differentEuropean countries and concluded that the companieswith the higher rates of environmental performanceshowed better financial performance levels in the future(Moneva and Ortas 2010). Miroshnychenko et al. (2017)analyzed data available in ASSET4 for the time period2002–2014, for 3490 companies from 58 different coun-tries, and concluded that environmental performance hasa significant positive impact on financial performance(Miroshnychenko et al. 2017).

When analyzing the effects of sustainability pro-grams on financial performance, it is important totake into account that the benefits achieved withthese programs are often long term, contrary to theshort-term financial impacts due to increased costsand investments (Branco and Rodrigues 2006).Therefore, the effects may run in both directions:good financial results are necessary to have resourcesto invest in sustainability programs, and these sustain-ability programs are expected to improve financialperformance, forming a virtuous cycle (Surroca et al.2010). However, true legitimacy actions, related to thecompany’s core business, will be more rewarding thansymbolic and uncoordinated measures (Wang andSarkis 2017; Hasan et al. 2018). Organizational man-agement systems may be of considerable value in theprocess of adequately selecting and concretizing sus-tainability actions to enhance the creation of sharedvalue, as discussed in the following section.

2.2. Organizational management systems andsustainability

The voluntary implementation of organizational man-agement systems may be a relevant tool for sustain-ability management, since they have in common thefocus on the relationship with stakeholders, the pro-motion of innovativeness through adequate combina-tion of internal resources and capabilities, theimportance given to the identification and manage-ment of risks and opportunities, and the adequatealignment with business strategy (Tarí 2011; Gianniet al. 2017; Fonseca and Domingues 2018; Hernandez-Vivanco et al. 2018). Furthermore, organizational man-agement systems, based on standards and guidelines,may provide the necessary holistic framework for sus-tainability management through governance mechan-isms and sustainability-oriented routines (Tarí 2011;Asif et al. 2013; Gianni et al. 2017). The resultsobtained in a previous research study withPortuguese metal industries showed that companieswith certified management systems have a higherperception of the importance of sustainability issues(Armindo et al. 2018).

The most frequently implemented management sys-tems in industrial companies are ISO 9001 QualityManagement Systems (QMS), ISO 14001 EnvironmentalManagement Systems (EMS) and OHSAS 18001/ISO45001 Occupational Health and Safety ManagementSystems (OH&SMS) (Rebelo et al. 2016; Fonseca et al.2017; Wiengarten et al. 2017; Poltronieri et al. 2019).These different types of organizational managementsystems have different purposes and motivations, andconsequently may have different impacts in organiza-tional sustainability programs: QMS are customer-oriented tools, focusing the adequate managementand satisfaction of important stakeholders like custo-mers, shareholders and suppliers; EMS address theenvironmental impacts of the company, improve envir-onmental performance, and demonstrate to stake-holders the company’s commitment regardingenvironmental sustainability; OH&SMS aims to assurea safe working environment, promoting employees’health and productivity.

After the implementation of the organizational man-agement system, there is the possibility of validating itsadequacy and compliance with reference standardsthrough an external audit performed by an independentcertification body. Through this optional and voluntaryprocedure, the management system will be certified,which will publicly demonstrate its successful imple-mentation and operation (Fonseca et al. 2017).

Several research studies have linked the implementa-tion of organizational management systems withimprovements in sustainability performance: Albertini(2014) studied the environmental disclosure practicesof the 55 largest industries in France during a 6-year

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 3

period, and concluded that EMS implementation led toimprovements in environmental performance (Albertini2014); Daddi and Iraldo (2016) also found improvementswhen comparing environmental performance indicatorsof over 40 industrial companies in Italy, before and afterEMS implementation (Daddi and Iraldo 2016);Wiengarten et al. (2017) studied manufacturing firmsin Ireland and concluded that the simultaneous imple-mentation of QMS, EMS and OH&SMS led to perfor-mance improvements (Wiengarten et al. 2017). Frondelet al. (2018) conducted a research study including morethan 4000 manufacturing facilities in seven differentcountries and concluded that companies witha certified EMS had significantly higher financial perfor-mances (Frondel et al. 2018).

However, the symbolic adoption of managementsystems only with the purpose of conformance withthe standards will merely lead to superficial and short-term stakeholder satisfaction (Fonseca et al. 2017;Gianni et al. 2017; Miroshnychenko et al. 2017).Poltronieri et al. (2019) have empirically proven thatcompanies with the highest level of maturity in man-agement systems integration achieve higher sustain-ability performances (Poltronieri et al. 2019). Toachieve long-term sustainability performance goals,companies must effectively integrate sustainabilityconcerns in the company’s strategy and operations(Gianni et al. 2017; Miroshnychenko et al. 2017).

2.3. The effect of companies’ size

The implementation of sustainability programs leadsto improvements in the economic, environmental andsocial performances of companies, independently oftheir size (Aragón-Correa et al. 2008; Alves and DumkeDe Medeiros 2015; Oliveira Neto et al. 2016).Poltronieri et al. (2019), in a research study focusing96 Brazilian companies having two or more certifiedmanagement systems, concluded that size does notaffect sustainability performance for companies withhigher degrees of maturity in management systemsintegration (Poltronieri et al. 2019).

However, small and medium-sized enterprises(SMEs) still fail to see the benefits of sustainabilitypractices, and face several barriers in the implementa-tion of sustainability management tools – namely lackof resources and expertise, and lack of awareness(Johnson and Schaltegger 2016; Armindo et al.2018). In spite of being more flexible, SMEs are con-sidered to be less formal and strategic than largerorganizations, and therefore show more difficultiesin the alignment of sustainability programs with busi-ness strategies (Fonseca and Domingues 2018). Onthe other hand, large companies frequently benefitfrom economies of scale in the opportunities toaccess methodological expertise regarding sustain-ability practices, and their higher public visibility

makes them more vulnerable to stakeholder scrutiny(Charlo et al. 2017; Lassala et al. 2017; Fonseca andDomingues 2018).

Nevertheless, small firms possess strategic charac-teristics that may foster the development of proactivesustainability practices (Aragón-Correa et al. 2008;Marti et al. 2015; Witjes et al. 2017), and severalresearch studies have focused the successful integra-tion of sustainability principles into the business activ-ities of SMEs (Aragón-Correa et al. 2008; Torugsa et al.2012; Alves and Dumke De Medeiros 2015; Johnsonand Schaltegger 2016; Witjes et al. 2017; Ortiz-Avramet al. 2018). The implementation of environmentalmanagement systems is the most commonly referredsustainability management tool in SMEs (Johnson andSchaltegger 2016; Ortiz-Avram et al. 2018) and iscommonly associated with normative and mimeticpressures from peers and industry/trade associations(Shubham and Murty 2018). Witjes et al. (2017) havealso shown that the main triggers for the adoption ofsustainability practices in SMEs are pressures from thesupply chain and internal stakeholders.

3. Methodology

To answer the research questions presented in theintroduction section of this paper, survey methodol-ogy was used: a questionnaire was sent by e-mail to1137 Portuguese industries in the metal sector, withthe collaboration of two industrial associations. Thequestionnaire was divided into three sections: 1)questions regarding the main characteristics of thecompany; 2) questions regarding the perception ofthe importance of the different sustainability dimen-sions; 3) questions regarding the perception of theinfluences between the economic dimension and theother dimensions of organizational sustainability.

The results of the second part of the questionnaire,regarding the importance of sustainability dimensions,were already analyzed and published (Armindo et al.2018). The present paper focuses the questions of thethird part of the questionnaire: respondents were askedto rate their degree of agreement with 12 affirmativesentences (Table 1) regarding the present and futureinfluence of the sustainability dimensions on the eco-nomic dimension, and vice-versa, in the context of theirorganization. A five-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘1 –strongly disagree’ to ‘5 – completely agree’, was chosendue to its adequacy in agree/disagree rating scales(Revilla et al. 2014).

Between March and June 2017, a total of 211complete questionnaires were received. This corre-sponds to a 18,6% response ratio, which is consistentwith other research studies focusing specific activitysectors (e.g. Severo et al. 2015; Pantouvakis et al.2017; Annunziata et al. 2018; Hernandez-Vivancoet al. 2018).

4 J. ARMINDO ET AL.

The answers obtained were analyzed using thesoftware IBM Statistical Package for the SocialSciences (SPSS Statistics) version 25. Descriptive statis-tics, the related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank andMann–Whitney non-parametric tests were used fordata analysis.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Sample characteristics

The main characteristics of the 211 respondent com-panies are shown in Figure 1. The majority of thesampled companies are located in the North ofPortugal and in the region of Lisbon and Tagus valley,showing an adequate representation of the geo-graphic distribution of the Portuguese metal indus-tries. Companies with annual turnover higher than50 M€ represent 21% of the sampled companies,and over 75% of the respondents have less than 250employees; thus, it is considered that the sample fairly

represents this Portuguese industrial sector whichconsists mainly of small-sized companies (StatisticsPortugal 2018). The majority of the respondent com-panies export more than 50% of the total sales, con-firming the importance of this industrial sector in thePortuguese exports (Statistics Portugal 2018).

In what concerns management systems (Figure 2),almost half of the sampled companies have a certifiedQuality Management System according to ISO 9001,and 44% of these have three or more certified man-agement systems.

4.2. Descriptive statistics

Figure 3 summarizes the answers obtained for the 12questions of the third part of the survey underanalysis.

Descriptive statistics of the answers obtained in thesurvey is shown in Table 2. All the variables had valuesranging from 1 to 5, with median equal to 4. Table 2

Table 1. Questions of the third part of the survey and corresponding variables.Variable Question

EN_EC1 The environmental dimension influences the economic dimension in our organization.EN_EC2 The influence of the environmental dimension on the economic dimension will increase in the future in our organization.S_EC1 The social dimension influences the economic dimension in our organization.S_EC2 The influence of the social dimension on the economic dimension will increase in the future in our organization.C_EC1 The cultural dimension influences the economic dimension in our organization.C_EC2 The influence of the cultural dimension on the economic dimension will increase in the future in our organization.EC_EN1 The economic dimension influences the environmental dimension in our organization.EC_EN2 The influence of the economic dimension on the environmental dimension will increase in the future in our organization.EC_S1 The economic dimension influences the social dimension in our organization.EC_S2 The influence of the economic dimension on the social dimension will increase in the future in our organization.EC_C1 The economic dimension influences the cultural dimension in our organization.EC_C2 The influence of the economic dimension on the cultural dimension will increase in the future in our organization.

Figure 1. Characteristics of the 211 respondent companies.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 5

also shows the results obtained with the Shapiro–Wilktest, revealing that all the variables have non-normaldistributions with significance p = 0.000. Non-parametric tests were selected for further analysisdue to the non-normality and asymmetry of thevariables.

The consistency of the answers was tested by theSpearman rank correlation. The results show thatSpearman’s rho correlations between all the variables

are significant with p = 0.000 (one-tailed) and positive,ranging between 0.453 (between EC_EN1 and C_EC2)and 0.967 (between EC_S2 and EC_EN2). TheCronbach’s α coefficient for the 12 items is 0.966,suggesting that the items have high internalconsistency.

A Mann–Whitney test was applied to check fornon-response bias, comparing the answers obtainedin the first wave of responses with the answers

Figure 2. Certified management systems in the respondent companies.

Figure 3. Answers obtained for the 12 questions of the third part of the survey.

Table 2. Descriptive statistical results for the answers obtained in the 12 questions of the third part of the survey.Variable % of answers 4 and 5 Mean Mode Std. deviation Skewness (statistic/std. Error) a Kurtosis (statistic/std. Error) b Normality statistics c

EN_EC1 72.0 3.71 4 0.86 −1.070/0.167 1.403/0.333* 0.794EN_EC2 78.7 4.17 5 0.90 −0.961/0.167 0.542/0.333** 0.807S_EC1 72.0 3.72 4 0.85 −1.076/0.167 1.493/0.333* 0.794S_EC2 79.1 4.17 5 0.90 −0.989/0.167 0.591/0.333** 0.805C_EC1 69.2 3.66 4 0.84 −1.052/0.167 1.356/0.333* 0.794C_EC2 74.9 4.11 5 0.94 −0.840/0.167 0.085/0.333** 0.819EC_EN1 77.3 3.82 4 0.86 −1.168/0.167 1.800/0.333* 0.782EC_EN2 82.9 4.26 5 0.88 −1.1930.167 1.191/0.333* 0.775EC_S1 76.3 3.82 4 0.87 −1.113/0.167 1.692/0.333* 0.795EC_S2 80.6 4.24 5 0.90 −1.097/0.167 0.815/0.333* 0.781EC_C1 73.9 3.76 4 0.88 −1.048/0.167 1.316/0.333* 0.803EC_C2 79.1 4.19 5 0.93 −1.046/0.167 0.563/0.333** 0.793

aNegatively skewed distribution for all variables.bSample kurtosis: (*) leptokurtic distribution; (**) mesokurtic distribution.cNormality statistics obtained by Shapiro–Wilk test.

6 J. ARMINDO ET AL.

obtained after a reminder e-mail was sent. No signifi-cant differences were found (p < 0.05), suggestingthat the sample was free from non-response bias(Armstrong and Overton 1977; Halbesleben andWhitman 2013).

Table 2 shows that the percentage of respondentsgiving answers ‘4 – agree,’ and ‘5 – completely agree’was very high, for all questions, ranging from 69.2%and 82.9% for variables C_EC1 and EC_EN2, respec-tively. The results of the one sample binomial testconfirm the prevalence of answers 4 and 5 (p =0.000, one-tailed) with test statistic ranging between146 and 175.

These results show that the respondents perceivethat there are mutual influences between the economicdimension and the other dimensions of sustainability,revealing awareness regarding sustainability issues, inagreement with the conclusions of a previous studywith the same sampled companies (Armindo et al.2018).

4.3. Comparison between the perceived degreesof influence

Figure 4 shows the mean and standard deviations ofthe answers obtained regarding the perceived influ-ences, in the present and in the future, exerted by theeconomic dimension on the environmental, social andcultural dimensions, and vice-versa. Statistical testswere used to compare the results of the perceiveddegrees of influence, and the corresponding analysisis described in the following paragraphs.

For each sustainability dimension, the related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to com-pare the perceived degree of influence exerted by theeconomic dimension with the perceived degree ofinfluence exerted on the economic dimension. Theresults are shown in Table 3, and statistically confirmthat, for all sustainability dimensions, in the presentand in the future, it is perceived that the influenceexerted by the economic dimension on the othersustainability dimension is higher than the influencethat these have on the economic dimension.

The perception of the Portuguese metal industriesregarding the dominance of the economic dimensionover the other sustainability dimensions has alreadybeen reported in a previous study (Armindo et al.2018), and is in agreement with the conclusions ofstudies focusing other activity sectors (Albertini 2014;Rajeev et al. 2017).

To analyze the perception regarding which sustain-ability dimension has the highest degree of mutualinfluences with the economic dimension, the related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank test was used oncemore (Table 4). The results indicate that no statisticaldifference was found when comparing the perceiveddegrees of mutual influences existing between theenvironmental and social dimensions and the eco-nomic dimension, either in the present or in thefuture. However, cultural dimension has a statisticallysignificant lower perceived degree of mutual influ-ence with the economic dimension, in the presentand in the future, when compared to the other twosustainability dimensions under analysis.

Figure 4. Perceptions of the present and future influences between the economic dimension and the other sustainabilitydimensions (average ± standard deviation of the answers obtained).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 7

The results shown in Table 2 and Figure 4 indicatethat all the influences are perceived to be higher inthe future. This was statistically tested using oncemore the related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank test.The results obtained (Table 5) confirm that therespondents perceive that the mutual influencesbetween the economic dimension and the other sus-tainability dimensions will be higher in the future.

By prospecting a higher degree of mutual influ-ences between sustainability dimensions, the sampledPortuguese metal industries show adequate aware-ness regarding the resilience of sustainability issuesin organizational context, and the importance ofadopting long-term strategic planning focusing allsustainability dimensions (Harwood et al. 2011;Jerónimo Silvestre et al. 2014; Charlo et al. 2017;Armindo et al. 2018).

4.4. The effect of management systems

To test whether the existence of organizational man-agement systems (MS) affects the perception of theinfluences exerted by and on the economic sustain-ability dimension, the sampled industries weredivided in three different categories: companies

having no certified MS (n = 111); companies havingone certified MS (n = 47); and companies having twoor more certified MS (n = 53). The main characteristicsof the companies in these three groups are presentedin Figure 5, showing that, in the group of companieshaving more than one certified MS, the majority hasannual turnover higher than 50 M€ and employs morethan 250 people. On the other hand, the results showthat the majority of companies with no certified MShave an annual turnover below 2 M€ and less than 10employees. It can also be seen in Figure 5 that ina very significant majority of companies having oneor more certified MS, exports represent more than75% of the total sales, revealing the importance ofMS certifications for companies operating in interna-tional markets.

Figure 6 shows the comparison of the mean of theanswers obtained in the three groups of companiesregarding the influences between the different sustain-ability dimensions. These results show that the mean ofthe answers, for all variables, is higher in the group ofcompanies having two or more certified MS. Statisticalconfirmation was made through the Mann–Whitneytest, comparing the answers obtained in the three dif-ferent groups (Table 6). The results show that no statis-tically significant difference exists between the group ofcompanies with no certified MS and the group of com-panies with one certified MS. On the other hand, theresults show that the answers of the group of compa-nies with two ormore certifiedMS are statistically higherthan those of the other two groups.

The related-samples Wilcoxon signed rank test wasused in each group to compare the results of theperceived degrees of influence, and the results weresimilar to those obtained for the global sample,described above. The only difference found with sta-tistical relevance was that the group of companieswith two or more certified MS perceive that, in thefuture, the influence exerted by the economic dimen-sion on the other dimensions will not be differentfrom the influence exerted by the other dimensionson the economic dimension (p = 0.058 betweenEC_EN3 and EN-EC3; p = 0.405 between EC_S3 andS-EC3; p = 0.564 between EC_C3 and C-EC3).

Table 3. Results of the related-samples Wilcoxon signed ranktest comparing the influence exerted by the economicdimension with the influence exerted on the economicdimension.Null hypotheses: The median of differences betweenvariable 1 and variable 2 equals 0

Variable 1 Variable 2 za Sig.a

EN_EC1 EC_EN1 −4.017 0.000EN_EC3 EC_EN3 −3.112 0.002S_EC1 EC_S1 −3.773 0.000S_EC3 EC_S3 −2.587 0.010C_EC1 EC_C1 −3.884 0.000C_EC3 EC_C3 −2.882 0.004

aRelated-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank standardized test statistic and itssignificance (in bold, values lower than 0.05).

Table 4. Results of the related-samples Wilcoxon signed ranktest comparing the influences of the different sustainabilitydimensions.Null hypotheses: The median of differences betweenvariable 1 and variable 2 equals 0

Variable 1 Variable 2 za Sig.a

EN_EC1 S_EC1 −0.258 0.796EN_EC1 C_EC1 −2.524 0.012S_EC1 C_EC1 −2.683 0.007EN_EC3 S_EC3 0.0000 1.000EN_EC3 C_EC3 −2.100 0.036S_EC3 C_EC3 −2.121 0.034EC_EN1 EC_S1 −0.302 0.763EC_EN1 EC_C1 −2.392 0.017EC_S1 EC_C1 −2.676 0.007EC_EN3 EC_S3 −0.905 0.366EC_EN3 EC_C3 −2.837 0.005EC_S3 EC_C3 −2.500 0.012

aRelated-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank standardized test statistic and itssignificance (in bold, values lower than 0.05).

Table 5. Results of the related-samples Wilcoxon signed ranktest comparing the perceived present and future influences.Null hypotheses: The median of differences betweenvariable 1 and variable 2 equals 0

Variable 1 Variable 2 za Sig.a

EN_EC1 EN_EC3 −7,443 0.000S_EC1 S_EC3 −7,279 0.000C_EC1 C_EC3 −7,337 0.000EC_EN1 EC_EN3 −7,017 0.000EC_S1 EC_S3 −6,595 0.000EC_C1 EC_C3 −6,901 0.000

aRelated-samples Wilcoxon Signed Rank standardized test statistic and itssignificance (in bold, values lower than 0.05).

8 J. ARMINDO ET AL.

These results confirm that organizational manage-ment systems are connected to higher degrees ofawareness regarding sustainability issues. This can beinterpreted in two ways: organizations with higherawareness levels regarding sustainability understandthe importance of using management systems as toolsto enhance the strategic planning and operationaliza-tion of sustainability programs; or, on another possibleangle of interpretation, the existence of managementsystems helped organizations in the process of under-standing the importance of sustainability issues. It isimportant to highlight that this effect is not observed

for companies with only one certified managementsystem, which confirms that in these cases the adoptionof management systems is motivated by market pres-sures and not by long-term strategic planning regardingsustainability (Gianni et al. 2017; Miroshnychenko et al.2017; Poltronieri et al. 2019).

In order to analyze the effect of company size in theperceived mutual influences between sustainabilitydimensions, it must be taken into account that thegreat majority of the sampled SMEs are in the groupsof companies with no MS or only one MS (see Figure 5).Considering the statistically relevant lower values of

Figure 5. Characteristics of the companies with different number of certified management systems.

Figure 6. Mean of the answers obtained for the 12 questions of the third part of the survey.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 9

the answers obtained in these groups (see Figure 6 andTable 6), it is possible to conclude that, for the sampledPortuguese industries in the metal sector, smaller com-panies show lower degrees of perception than largercompanies. Nevertheless, even in these small compa-nies, the degree of awareness revealed in this surveystudy was high.

5. Conclusions

The main conclusion of the present study is that thesampled Portuguese industries in the metal sectorperceive that the influences of the economic dimen-sion are dominant compared to the influencesexerted by the other sustainability dimensions. Thisperception was obtained both in the present andfuture perspectives. Only a group of sampled compa-nies, with more than one certified MS, revealed nodifferent perception degrees regarding these influ-ences in the present and in the future, showinga higher degree of awareness of sustainability issues.

The results presented in this paper show that the 211sampled industries recognize the existence of mutualinfluences between the economic dimension and theother dimensions of organizational sustainability – envir-onmental, social and cultural – and prospect that theseinfluences will increase in the future. The results alsoshow the perception that culture is the sustainabilitydimension least affected by the economic dimension,while no perceived difference was found between thedegree of influence of the economic dimension on thesocial and environmental dimensions. Similar conclusionswere achieved regarding the perception of the degree ofinfluence that the other sustainability dimensions haveon the economic dimension: cultural dimension has thelowest perceived influence, while no significantly differ-ent results were obtained regarding the perceived influ-ence of social and environmental dimensions.

In the sample of the present study, industries havingmore than one certified management system showed

higher degrees of perception regarding mutual influ-ences between the different sustainability dimensions,confirming the positive contribution of managementsystems in the promotion of sustainability management.

Company size was also found to have a positiveeffect on the perceived degrees of influence. However,considering that the great majority of the sampledindustries were SMEs, the high perception degreesfound in the answers obtained reveal that even small-sized industries are aware of the existence of mutualinfluences between sustainability dimensions.

The main contributions of the present work are thefollowing: by adequately acknowledging the exis-tence of positive influences between sustainableenvironmental and social practices on financial per-formance, the sampled industries were found to beprepared to proactively promote sustainability prac-tices, independently of their size; organizational man-agement systems were proven to promotesustainability awareness, and therefore are a very use-ful tool to enhance the contribution of business orga-nizations to Sustainable Development.

The conclusions of this study are limited by thedimension of the sample, and reflect only the percep-tion of metal industries in Portugal. As suggestion forfuture works, this research study could be enlarged toother relevant activity sectors at the internationallevel, focusing the awareness and preparedness oforganizations regarding the challenges of sustainabil-ity, and providing information that could be used todevelop and test an empirical model.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all the respondents of theresearch survey, and also the contribution of the industrialassociations AIMMAP and ANEME in the distribution of thequestionnaire amongst its members.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by theauthors.

Funding

This research work was supported by national funds pro-vided by FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, inthe scope of FCT Project UID/Multi/04546/2016.

ORCID

J. Armindo http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3422-2069A. Fonseca http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3207-4819I. Abreu http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5274-4536T. Toldy http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2299-3504

Table 6. Results of the Mann–Whitney test comparing theanswers obtained in the three groups of companies.

No MS vs. 1 MS No MS vs. more 1 MS 1 MS vs. more 1 MS

Variable z a Sig. a z a Sig. a za Sig. a

EN_EC1 −0.538 0.591 −3.829 0.000 −2.854 0.004EN_EC2 −0.793 0.428 −3.627 0.000 −2.193 0.028S_EC1 −0.697 0.486 −4.089 0.000 −3.035 0.002S_EC2 −0.720 0.471 −4.163 0.000 −2.757 0.006C_EC1 −0.734 0.463 −3.787 0.000 −2.601 0.009C_EC2 −0.916 0.360 −3.815 0.000 −1.999 0.046EC_EN1 −1.510 0.131 −4.827 0.000 −2.822 0.005EC_EN2 −1.586 0.113 −4.319 0.000 −2.085 0.037EC_S1 −0.811 0.417 −4.719 0.000 −3.375 0.001EC_S2 −1.169 0.242 −4.417 0.000 −2.553 0.011EC_C1 −0.978 0.328 −3.942 0.000 −2.527 0.011EC_C2 −1.078 0.281 −3.765 0.000 −1.970 0.049

aMann–Whitney U standardized test statistic and its significance (in bold,values lower than 0.05).

10 J. ARMINDO ET AL.

References

Ajmal MM, Khan M, Hussain M, Helo P. 2018.Conceptualizing and incorporating social sustainabilityin the business world. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol.25:327–339.

Albertini E. 2014. A descriptive analysis of environmentaldisclosure: a longitudinal study of French companies.J Bus Ethics. 121:233–254.

Alves JLS, Dumke De Medeiros D. 2015. Eco-efficiency inmicro-enterprises and small firms: a case study in theautomotive services sector. J Clean Prod. 108:595–602.

Annunziata E, Pucci T, Frey M, Zanni L. 2018. The role oforganizational capabilities in attaining corporate sustain-ability practices and economic performance: evidencefrom Italian wine industry. J Clean Prod. 171:1300–1311.

Aragón-Correa JA, Hurtado-Torres N, Sharma S,García-Morales VJ. 2008. Environmental strategy and per-formance in small firms: a resource-based perspective.J Environ Manage. 86:88–103.

Armindo J, Fonseca A, Abreu I, Toldy T. 2018. Perceived impor-tance of sustainability dimensions in the Portuguese metalindustry. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 26:154–165.

Armstrong JS, Overton TS. 1977. Estimating nonresponsebias in mail surveys. J Mark Res. 14:396–402.

Ashrafi M, Adams M, Walker TR, Magnan G. 2018. Howcorporate social responsibility can be integrated intocorporate sustainability: a theoretical review of theirrelationships. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 25:672–682.

Asif M, Searcy C, Zutshi A, Fisscher OAM. 2013. An inte-grated management systems approach to corporatesocial responsibility. J Clean Prod. 56:7–17.

Barnett ML, Salomon RM. 2012. Does it pay to be reallygood? Addressing the shape of the relationship betweensocial and financial performance. Strateg Manag J.33:1304–1320.

Barney J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitiveadvantage. J Manag. 17:99–120.

Batista AA da S, de Francisco AC. 2018. Organizational sus-tainability practices: a study of the firms listed by thecorporate sustainability index. Sustain. 10:226.

Borges ML, Anholon R, Cooper Ordoñez RE, Quelhas OLG,Santa-Eulalia LA, Leal Filho W. 2018. Corporate SocialResponsibility (CSR) practices developed by Braziliancompanies: an exploratory study. Int J Sustain DevWorld Ecol. 25:509–517.

Branco MC, Rodrigues LL. 2006. Corporate social responsi-bility and resource-based perspectives. J Bus Ethics.69:111–132.

Caiado RGG, Quelhas OLG, Nascimento DLM, Anholon R,Leal Filho W. 2018. Measurement of sustainability perfor-mance in Brazilian organizations. Int J Sustain Dev WorldEcol. 25:312–326.

Carroll AB. 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsi-biiity : towards the moral management of organizationalstakeholders. Bus Horiz. 34:39–48.

Carroll AB. 2016. Carroll ’ s pyramid of CSR : taking anotherlook. Int J Corp Soc Responsib. 1:1–8.

Charlo MJ, Moya I, Muñoz AM. 2017. Financial performanceof socially responsible firms: the short- and long-termimpact. Sustain. 9:1–15.

Chen L, Feldmann A, Tang O. 2015. The relationshipbetween disclosures of corporate social performanceand fi nancial performance : evidences from GRI reportsin manufacturing industry. Int J Prod Econ. 170:445–447.

Daddi T, Iraldo F. 2016. The effectiveness of cluster approachto improve environmental corporate performance in an

industrial district of SMEs: a case study. Int J Sustain DevWorld Ecol. 23:163–173.

de C Hilsdorf W, de Mattos CA, de Campos Maciel LO. 2017.Principles of sustainability and practices in theheavy-duty vehicle industry: a study of multiple cases.J Clean Prod. 141:1231–1239.

Elkington J. 1998. Cannibals with forks: the triple bottomline of 21st century business. Grabiola Island: New SocietyPublishers.

Fonseca LM, Domingues JP. 2018. Exploratory research ofISO 14001:2015 transition among Portugueseorganizations. Sustain. 10:1–16.

Fonseca LM, Ferro RL. 2016. Does it pay to be social respon-sible? Portuguese SMEs feedback. Intang Cap.12:487–505.

Fonseca LMMC, Domingues JP, Machado PB, Calderón M.2017. Management system certification benefits : wheredo we stand? J Ind Eng Manag. 10:476–494.

Freeman RE. 1984. Strategic management: a stakeholderapproach. Boston: Pitman.

Frondel M, Krätschell K, Zwick L. 2018. Environmental man-agement systems: does certification pay? Econ AnalPolicy. 59:14–24.

Gianni M, Gotzamani K, Tsiotras G. 2017. Multiple perspec-tives on integrated management systems and corporatesustainability performance. J Clean Prod. 168:1297–1311.

Giddings B, Hopwood B, O’Brien G. 2002. Environment,economy and society: fitting them together into sustain-able development. Sustain Dev. 10:187–196.

González MOA, Gonçalves JS, Vasconcelos RM. 2017.Sustainable development: case study in the implementationof renewable energy in Brazil. J Clean Prod. 142:461–475.

Halbesleben JRB, WhitmanMV. 2013. Evaluating survey qualityin health services research: a decision framework for asses-sing nonresponse bias. Health Serv Res. 48:913–930.

Hansmann R, Mieg HA, Frischknecht P. 2012. Principal sus-tainability components: empirical analysis of synergiesbetween the three pillars of sustainability. Int J SustainDev World Ecol. 19:451–459.

Harwood I, Humby S, Harwood A. 2011. On the resilience ofcorporate social responsibility. Eur Manag J. 29:283–290.

Hasan I, Kobeissi N, Liu L, Wang H. 2018. Corporate socialresponsibility and firm financial performance: the mediat-ing role of productivity. J Bus Ethics. 149:671–688.

Hernandez-Vivanco A, Bernardo M, Cruz-Cázares C. 2018.Sustainable innovation through management systemsintegration. J Clean Prod. 196:1176–1187.

HribarMŠ, Bole D, Pipan P. 2015. Sustainable heritagemanage-ment: social, economic and other potentials of culture inlocal development. Procedia - Soc Behav Sci. 188:103–110.

Jerónimo Silvestre W, Antunes P, Amaro A, Leal Filho W.2015. Assessment of corporate sustainability: study ofhybrid relations using hybrid bottom line model.Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 22:302–312.

Jerónimo Silvestre W, Antunes P, Filho WL. 2014. Hybridbottom line: another perspective on the sustainability oforganizations. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 21:456–464.

Johnson MP, Schaltegger S. 2016. Two decades of sustain-ability management tools for SMEs: how far have wecome? J Small Bus Manag. 54:481–505.

Kolk A, van Tulder R. 2010. International business, corporatesocial responsibility and sustainable development. Int BusRev. 19:119–125.

Lassala C, Apetrei A, Sapena J. 2017. Sustainability matterand financial performance of companies. Sustain. 9:1498.

Lee DD, Faff RW, Langfield-Smith K. 2009. Revisiting thevexing question: does superior corporate social

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & WORLD ECOLOGY 11

performance lead to improved financial performance?Aust J Manag. 34:21–49.

López-Arceiz FJ, Bellostas AJ, Rivera P. 2018. Twenty years ofresearch on the relationship between economic andsocial performance: a meta-analysis approach. Soc IndicRes. 140:453–484.

Lozano R. 2012. Towards better embedding sustainabilityinto companies’ systems: an analysis of voluntary corpo-rate initiatives. J Clean Prod. 25:14–25.

Makni R, Francoeur C, Bellavance F. 2009. Causality betweencorporate social performance and financial performance:evidence from Canadian firms. J Bus Ethics. 89:409–422.

Margolis JD, Walsh JP. 2003. Misery loves companies:rethinking social initiatives by business. Adm Sci Q.48:268–305.

Marti CP, Rovira-Val MR, Drescher LGJ. 2015. Are firms thatcontribute to sustainable development better financially?Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag. 22:305–319.

Meynhardt T, Gomez P. 2019. Building blocks for alternativepyramids of corporate social responsibilities. Bus Soc.58:404–438.

Miroshnychenko I, Barontini R, Testa F. 2017. Green practicesand financial performance: a global outlook. J Clean Prod.147:340–351.

Moneva JM, Ortas E. 2010. Corporate environmental andfinancial performance: a multivariate approach. IndManag Data Syst. 110:193–210.

Myllyviita T, Antikainen R, Leskinen P. 2017. Sustainabilityassessment tools–their comprehensiveness and utilisa-tion in company-level sustainability assessments inFinland. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 24:236–247.

Oliveira Neto GC, Vendrametto O, Naas IA, Palmeri NL,Lucato WC. 2016. Environmental impact reduction asa result of cleaner production implementation: a casestudy in the truck industry. J Clean Prod. 129:681–692.

Orlitzky M, Schmidt FL, Rynes SL. 2003. Corporate social andfinancial performance: a meta-analysis. Organ Stud.24:403–441.

Ortiz-Avram D, Domnanovich J, Kronenberg C, Scholz M.2018. Exploring the integration of corporate socialresponsibility into the strategies of small- andmedium-sized enterprises: a systematic literature review.J Clean Prod. 201:254–271.

Pantouvakis A, Vlachos I, Zervopoulos PD. 2017. Marketorientation for sustainable performance and theinverted-U moderation of firm size: evidence from theGreek shipping industry. J Clean Prod. 165:705–720.

Poltronieri CF, Ganga GMD, Gerolamo MC. 2019. Maturity inmanagement system integration and its relationship withsustainable performance. J Clean Prod. 207:236–247.

Rajeev A, Pati RK, Padhi SS, Govindan K. 2017. Evolution ofsustainability in supply chain management: a literaturereview. J Clean Prod. 162:299–314.

Rebelo MF, Santos G, Silva R. 2016. Integration of manage-ment systems: towards a sustained success and develop-ment of organizations. J Clean Prod. 127:96–111.

Revilla MA, Saris WE, Krosnick JA. 2014. Choosing the num-ber of categories in agree – disagree scales. SociolMethods Res. 43:73–97.

Santis P, Albuquerque A, Lizarelli F. 2016. Do sustainablecompanies have a better financial performance? A studyon Brazilian public companies. J Clean Prod. 133:735–745.

Severo EA, De Guimarães JCF, Dorion ECH, Nodari CH. 2015.Cleaner production, environmental sustainability and orga-nizational performance: an empirical study in the Brazilianmetal-mechanic industry. J Clean Prod. 96:118–125.

Shubham CP, Murty LS. 2018. Organizational adoption ofsustainable manufacturing practices in India: integratinginstitutional theory and corporate environmentalresponsibility. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol. 25:23–34.

Soini K, Birkeland I. 2014. Exploring the scientific discourseon cultural sustainability. Geoforum. 51:213–223.

Souza JPE, Alves JM. 2018. Lean-integrated managementsystem: a model for sustainability improvement. J CleanProd. 172:2667–2682.

Statistics Portugal. 2018. Empresas em Portugal 2016.Lisbon. https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes&PUBLICACOESpub_boui=318228530&PUBLICACOESmodo=2.

Surroca J, Tribó JA, Waddock S. 2010. Corporate responsi-bility and financial performance: the role of intangibleresources. Strateg Manag J. 31:463–490.

Tarí JJ. 2011. Research into quality management and socialresponsibility. J Bus Ethics. 102:623–638.

Torugsa NA, O’Donohue W, Hecker R. 2012. Capabilities,proactive CSR and financial performance in SMEs: empiri-cal evidence from an Australian manufacturing industrysector. J Bus Ethics. 109:483–500.

Wang Q, Dou J, Jia S. 2016. A meta-analytic review ofcorporate social responsibility and corporate financialperformance: the moderating effect of contextualfactors. Bus Soc. 55:1083–1121.

Wang Z, Sarkis J. 2017. Corporate social responsibility gov-ernance, outcomes, and fi nancial performance. J CleanProd. 162:1607–1616.

Wiengarten F, Humphreys P, Onofrei G, Fynes B. 2017. Theadoption of multiple certification standards: perceived per-formance implications of quality, environmental and health& safety certifications. Prod Plan Control. 28:131–141.

Witjes S, Vermeulen WJV, Cramer JM. 2017. Exploring cor-porate sustainability integration into business activities.Experiences from 18 small and medium sized enterprisesin the Netherlands. J Clean Prod. 153:528–538.

Wu MW, Shen CH. 2013. Corporate social responsibility inthe banking industry: motives and financial performance.J Bank Financ. 37:3529–3547.

12 J. ARMINDO ET AL.