Social Sustainability Orientation and Supply Chain Performance in Mexico, Colombia and Chile: A Social-Resource-Based View (SRBV)

Abstract

The global crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us the importance of reflecting on the essential resources and capabilities that enable companies to react to disruptions. In this regard, studies have shown that social sustainability is a crucial resource for the operational performance of supply chains in emerging contexts. Although the literature has responded to the call for research on the social dimension of sustainability in emerging economies, most research has focused on emerging Asia, leaving a void in Latin America. Two socially focused frameworks are used to address the ontological challenge of defining sustainable human well-being around the firm. Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach and the theoretical extension of the Social-Resource-Based View (SRBV) are appropriate to address social sustainability under two essential aspects: (1) the firm as a generator of social performance and (2) social sustainability as a generator of firm performance. This paper aims to analyze the predictive capacity of Social Sustainability Orientation on social performance and supply chain operational performance in the context of emerging Latin America, with representative cases from Mexico, Colombia, and Chile. The methodology was empirical–statistical and based on a structured questionnaire applied to 217 purchasing managers of large multisector companies (Mx n = 64, Co n = 100, and Cl n = 53). Hypotheses were tested using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The results show the intrasample and extrasample predictive ability of Social Sustainability Orientation on social and Supply Chain Performance. It is concluded that socially sustainable culture and investment orientation is a valuable resource that provides the capability for Latin supply chain welfare and operational performance. A call is made to procurement and public policy managers to disseminate and care for the social aspects of sustainability as a resource that enhances business competitiveness and social justice in the Latin American region.

1. Introduction

The Brundtland Report [1] implicitly assumes that environmental and social care are linked to economic performance. Although subsequent international conventions have sought to be increasingly precise about what sustainable actions mean, it remains an academic and strategic challenge to delineate what these dimensions mean at the individual, organizational, and sociocultural levels [2]. The same challenge exists in the business context and the various links in the supply chain. In recent decades, academia has sought to explain the reality linking supplier business and sustainability from different conceptual frameworks and various theories: social responsibility (SR) [3,4], stakeholders [5,6], Resource-Based Theory [7], Institutional Theory [8], and Socio-Ecological and Complex Models [2,9].

Although the Our Common Future report [1] warns that sustainable triple-bottom-line performance (economic, social, and environmental) is not short-term, studies reveal that consideration of environmental and social aspects of the company brings positive performance-related effects. To understand the effects of sustainable actions on Supply Chain Performance, Resource-Based Theory (RBT) has been one of the most recurrent theories, as shown in the literature reviews of Touboulic and Walker [10], Mardani et al. [11], and Govindan et al. [12]. Based on this theory, research has leaned towards the environmental dimension of sustainability, intending to explore the relationships between financial efficiency and so-called green practices.

The work of Hart [13], based on the Resource-Based Theory (RBT), identifies the reduction in environmental impact of a company as a valuable internal resource related to the efficient use of resources and, in turn, to cost reduction. This trend paved the way for a theoretical extension called Natural-Resource-Based View (NRBV), which Barney himself recognizes as a successful extension of Resource-Based Theory (RBT) [14]. Based on the NRBV hypothesis, works have sought to demonstrate that natural resource care is a valuable internal factor that builds capability for business performance, including supply chain management performance [15,16,17,18].

On the other hand, the social dimension of sustainability has only recently received attention compared with the environmental dimension [19,20,21]. Although, in the last decade, it has gained increasing attention from scholars, the novelty of the study also shows the peculiar challenges in studying the social dimension. The ontological and anthropological challenges remain open when establishing variables that reflect what sustained human well-being means in its universal and contextual sense [22]. The variable of social sustainability still keeps the semantic challenge, since reducing it to a few contingent issues of altruism is far from defining long-term well-being [23,24]. Social sustainability has also been considered a capability due to its positive effect on business performance [25]. Therefore, the philosophical challenge is followed by the belonging of theoretical frameworks that can contribute to explaining social performance within the firm, as well as society as a factor of business performance.

A proper theoretical framework for studying the relationship between social sustainability and performance in the business context is proposed by Tate and Bals [26], who, like Hart [13], took Resource-Based Theory (RBT) as a basis and proposed the theoretical extension of the Social-Resource-Based View (SRBV). The central hypothesis of SRBV is that social aspects, in the triple-bottom-line framework, are internal resources of the firm that can be capabilities to generate performance. Empirical research initiates the hypothetical contrast from the SRBV theoretical extension argument, proposing that the social dimension of sustainability is a valuable internal capability that positively affects firm performance. For example, the empirical casework of Arena et al. [27], who explored the social dimension as a capability within the energy sector in Italy, as well as Solovida and Latan [28], who, for their part, showed a positive relationship between social performance and economic performance within the triple bottom line of manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesian stock exchange. Regarding the aspect that explores sustained social performance, Amartya Sen’s [29] capabilities approach, from Aristotelian philosophy, reconciles the problem of the antagonism between the universal and the contextual in the welfare issue and proposes a philosophical–economic framework for measuring social performance. It argues that health, education, gender equity, and fair work are essential for sustained well-being but also places value on the issue of subjective well-being [29]. This approach has been used to assess social sustainability in the context of Latin American supplier companies [30,31].

This paper, in addition to contributing to the theoretical perspectives helpful in understanding the social dimension of sustainability, also seeks to respond to the call of the literature to study social problems in the supply chain of emerging countries. Due to the social problems afflicting emerging contexts, developed countries have made social sustainability a current demand as they seek to enter the global market, asking their suppliers for evidence of attention to social aspects. An example of regulations is the ISO 26000 certification, related to social responsibility and human rights, and more specifically, to suppliers in the supply chain through ISO 20400, related to sustainable sourcing [32]. The research has paid particular attention to the study of social sustainability and its relationship with supply chain management in emerging countries (upstream and downstream), focusing on suppliers. Issues such as corruption, security, human rights vulnerability, and product quality, among others, are important issues for these regions [3,33,34].

Although the literature has responded to the call for research on the social dimension of sustainability in emerging economies, according to a review conducted in the Web of Science (WOS) in December 2022, it was found that the majority of research is still concentrated in developed countries at just over 50%. Moreover, within the emerging context, there has been a notable predominance of Asia, with 30.3% of the research. For its part, emerging Latin America participates with only 6.1%, where 4.9% of the studies focus on the Brazilian supply chain (e.g., [20,21,35]) and 1.2% on Mexico (e.g., [36,37]) (Figure 1).

Given the above, and beyond an academic vacuum on studies in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), as well as the current reality of the postpandemic crisis generated by the SARS-Cov 2 virus, it is urgent to explore the resources and capabilities that favor LAC economies’ commercial and operational sustainability, especially now, when the expected recovery rebound is weakening faster than expected [39]. Although LAC trade growth is above the global average, such growth is neither resilient nor distributed across the region. Growth is supported only in a few Latin economies, and export growth figures are strongly influenced by price increases and not entirely by volumes [39]. Therefore, it is essential to diagnose good practices in Latin economies and leaders such as Mexico and Brazil and learn from economies that stand out in good logistics operational practices, such as Colombia and Chile. Social sustainability is therefore studied as a valuable resource in three key Latin economies in LAC. On the one hand, Mexico, due to its remarkable recovery and future business performance for 2023, was ranked as one of the two emerging economies in the LAC Region, according to the report of the International Monetary Fund [38]. Moreover, according to the latest report of the Logistics Performance Index (LPI) of the World Bank [40], Colombia and Chile stood out in logistics operational performance in LAC, where Chile ranked first in the region. Therefore, this paper aims to analyze the predictive capacity of Social Sustainability Orientation on social performance and supply chain operational performance in the context of emerging Latin America, using the representative cases of Mexico, Colombia, and Chile. The methodology was empirical–statistical and based on a structured questionnaire applied to 217 purchasing managers of large multisector companies (Mx n = 64, Co n = 100, and Cl n = 53). The hypotheses were tested using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). A factor analysis was previously performed to regroup social sustainability dimensions according to the Latin context. The structure of the paper is arranged as follows: Section 2 presents a review of the literature; Section 3 contains the theoretical development of the hypotheses; Section 4.1 contains the materials and methods; Section 5 gives the results; and Section 6 provides the discussion. Finally, the last three sections present the research’s conclusions, implications, and limits.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Social Sustainability as a Corporate Capability

For over a decade, Trebeck [41] discussed the distinction between corporate social responsibility and sustainability and, while highlighting the relationship between the two concepts, suggested a difference between the two practices. However, some research has taken Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Corporate Sustainability as synonymous (e.g., Hutchins and Sutherland [3]). This manuscript starts from a semantic and ontological distinction between these concepts. Social sustainability is not considered to be a very altruistic action on the part of the company, but rather the actions of the company that favor the sustainable remediation of the social footprint caused by contexts of injustice in people’s quality of life.

Sen [29] criticizes the reductionist bias that hides the classic measurements of social welfare and sees it as more than a distributive action and altruistic assistance. For Sen [29], sustained interest lies in the capacity/opportunity to self-generate the goods value for one’s quality of life, i.e., social empowerment. The conclusion reached by Nussbaum and Sen [42] is that four factors trigger social empowerment in a community (capacity to self-generate sustained well-being): education, health, adequate income, and gender equity. Therefore, under this assumption, corporate sustainability is the sustainable intra- and extramural capabilities generated by the company. It reflects how companies can contribute to a development that recognizes the needs of future generations by ensuring social norms and safeguarding the natural environment [43]. Or, in a positive sense, they are actions of the company that generate capacity for social welfare. For example, the company can generate remedial or promotional actions that favor the interest of the society involved with its environment.

From Brundtland’s [1] point of view, sustainable development also implies economic development for the company. Corporate social sustainability is seen as an exogenous contextual resource and a capacity that means performance for the company [26]. Of the three dimensions that comprise sustainability, the social sphere is the least studied [5,20]. One of the first influential research works that places the issue of social sustainability in business at the center is that of Hutchins and Sutherland [3], in which they delineate indicators to measure social sustainability in the U.S. The main themes were equity at work, health, safety, and philanthropy.

On the other hand, Ehrgott et al. [5], in an empirical study of 244 manufacturing companies in the U.S. and Germany, focused on identifying the motives of companies from developed countries to request social sustainability indicators from their suppliers in emerging economies. As can be seen in this work, a focused approach to socially sustainable issues is already beginning to take off, although still as a matter of corporate social responsibility (CSR); later, CSR will be seen as one of the dimensions of social sustainability. From the works of Hutchins and Sutherland [3] and Ehrgott et al. [5], guidelines are established for future research, taking a double general trend in social sustainability: the study of the supply chain and the study of emerging countries.

Of note in emerging countries is the study in India by Rajak and Vinodh [33], who modeled a more detailed set of indicators to assess social sustainability performance in manufacturing companies and proposed four corporate enablers: internal human resources, external population, stakeholders, and macrosocial performance. Moreover, in India, Mani et al. [44] identified 14 enablers and their interrelationships in the adoption of social sustainability measures in the manufacturing supply chain. On the other hand, Khan [45] breaks through another approach to corporate social sustainability and, in a conceptual exercise, presents the relationship between social sustainability and frugal innovation in business by measuring the impact on business development from social and ethical dimensions. Finally, in Korea, Jung [46] continues to focus on suppliers and assesses social sustainability in the supply chain through third-party logistics.

In emerging Romania, Costache et al. [47] tested a direct connection between social responsibility and profitability in consumer goods companies. In the work above, CSR is a synonym for social sustainability. In emerging South Africa (under community governance, gender equity, security, education, and promotion of civil and human rights), Masocha [48] found a positive association between social sustainability and financial performance in small and medium-sized enterprises. Likewise, in emerging Asia, Ketprapakorn and Kantabutra’s [49] work examined the relationships between corporate sustainability practices and sustainability performance outcomes by sampling 500 employees of a social health company in Thailand. Additionally, researchers desired to focus on developed economies; Sroufe and Gopalakrishna-Remani [50] demonstrated relationships between management, social sustainability, reputation, and financial performance in an empirical study of U.S. companies. In summary, various research shows evidence that the social dimension of sustainability is a corporate aspect that can build capacity for firm performance in emerging economy contexts.

2.2. Social Sustainability as a Corporate Capability

In studies on social sustainability in the emerging supply chain, Mani et al. [51] describe supply chain social sustainability as addressing social issues within the upstream and downstream supply chains. Additionally, in this sense, research started from the perspective of developed economies. It focused on analyzing company actions for the performance of supply chain social sustainability [3] and the study of the motivations that lead firms to select emerging suppliers with socially sustainable performance [5]. Some findings, also from a developed country perspective, provided evidence of strong positive links between such selection of socially sustainable emerging suppliers and supply chain management performance in countries such as the U.S. and Germany (e.g., Ehrgott et al. [5]), as well as in New Zealand (Biggemann et al. [52]).

Work on supply chains in emerging economies also focused on understanding the performance of social sustainability and the enablers that led firms to adopt these measures. Among the seminal research that sought to investigate why suppliers in developing countries are adopting socially sustainable practices is that of Huq et al. [53], conducted in Bangladesh. In their findings, they found that a motivating factor for social care is the avoidance of staff turnover and, as a barrier, ambiguity in Western codes of conduct. In addition, the practice of audits and dialogue is presented as an enabler.

In the context of emerging countries, studies in India stand out, where measurement models on social sustainability in the supply chain have been developed. Mani et al. [44] qualitatively validated, through experts, a model with five dimensions relevant to the manufacturing sector. Subsequently, Mani et al. [51] statistically validated those measures by linking them to Supply Chain Performance (upstream and downstream) in the manufacturing sector. The model offered six significant themes: equity, philanthropy, safety, health and well-being, ethics, and human rights. This team of researchers has tested them in the context of other countries, different company sizes, and their theoretical model, analyzing the relationship between sustainability and chain and Supplier Performance (e.g., Mani et al. [7] and Mardani et al. [11]).

Moreover, from the Asian approach, Badri Ahmadi et al. [54] used a fuzzy method to validate measures of a social sustainability model with 38 supply chain experts from different turns of Iranian companies. As a result, they obtained eight relevant criteria in the industrial sector. On the other hand, Nath and Agrawal [55], in their study of Indian manufacturing companies, validated a model using structural equations and categorized the degree of involvement of a supply chain with social sustainability. The first level is the level of orientation or coincidence that the company may have concerning the issue, followed by basic practices and the highest level of involvement, which are advanced.

In emerging Latin America, the study by Rodríguez et al. [56] linked social aspects with value creation in industrial cooperatives in Ecuador, Peru, Guatemala, and El Salvador. In Latin America, Reyna-Castillo et al. [31] confirmed measures of social sustainability linked to corporate commitment in Mexico and Colombia, subsequently associating it with the resilience of the supply chain of suppliers in Mexico and Chile within the context of the pandemic [36].

Brazil is a leading region in research on the social dimension of sustainability in the supply chain in Latin America. It started by searching for a theoretical framework to understand the phenomenon’s reality, such as the work of De Morais and Barbieri [57]. Their study sought to shed additional light by providing a theoretical explanation and exploring concepts of social problems and governance mechanisms. It presents a framework for the adoption and management of social sustainability in supply chains, considering three guiding theories: stakeholder theory, behavioral theory, and contingency theory. In addition, other works have taken up the issue of motivations for the adoption of social measures in the supply chain, as is the case of Morais and Silvestre [20], who, through an empirical case study in six focal companies, analyzed why and how companies implement and manage social sustainability in their supply chains. They found that the involvement of primary stakeholder groups (e.g., consumers and suppliers) generally occurs in extrinsically motivated social initiatives. In contrast, the participation of secondary stakeholders (e.g., NGOs and the community) is based on intrinsic motivation.

Kamali et al. [58], from the biofuels sector in Brazil, identified social and governance problems using a statistical, empirical study as a method. The results show highly relevant (but less reliable) problems in human health and safety, labor rights, and working conditions. Recently, in the Brazilian context, Martins et al. [59] designed a roadmap through a Delphi methodology of experts and established indicators of social sustainability in logistics practice. The construction was based on three stakeholders: employees (e.g., safety, health, gender equity, and fair wages), community (e.g., employment of locals, monitoring of operational impact, drinking water, and sanitation), customers (e.g., ethical behavior and subsidies), and society (e.g., respect for legislation and anticorruption). In turn, Morais and Barbieri [35], based on stakeholder theory and contingency theory, conducted an empirical study of multiple cases in Brazilian focal companies. They proposed an archetype for approaching social issues to clarify them from the perspective of business complexity. The essential elements of their model were (1) the proximity of social problems, (2) governance mechanisms, and (3) contingency factors.

The relationship between social sustainability and Supply Chain Performance in emerging contexts was explored. On the one hand, studies link management actions with social sustainability performance (e.g., Acevedo Tirado, et al. [37]) or the link between sustainable social performance and supply chain management performance (e.g. Mani et al. [7]). In emerging Mexico, the study by Acevedo Tirado, et al. [37] evidenced how the efficiency of public administration improves the distribution chain of a subsidized milk program, thus achieving better access and equity in the receipt of the social benefit. For their part, Mani et al. [7] in India, from the Resource-Based Theory, found evidence of the positive relationship between supplier social sustainability practices and Supply Chain Performance mediated by Supplier Performance. Croom et al. [60] and Mardani et al. [11] have found how socially sustainable orientation and practices bring advantages to supply chain operational performance in the medium and long term. Sudusinghe and Seuring [61]) showed how socially sustainable performance positively affects even economic performance in South Asia’s supply chain of the Sri Lankan garment manufacturing sector.

Social sustainability is a topic that has been linked to the business environment. Motivations, barriers, and even the performance of the social dimension in the supply chain have been explored. Lately, studies have shown social sustainability as a business capability, so the theoretical contrast of the effects of corporate social sustainability capability in the supply chain continues to be studied from the supplier approach in LATAM emerging markets.

3. Theoretical Support for the Hypotheses

3.1. Social Sustainability Orientation and Social Sustainability Performance

From Sen’s [29] capabilities approach, long-term social performance implies essential practices related to decent work, health, and inclusion. This approach has been empirically supported by different works related to social sustainability, such as the research by Hutchins and Sutherland [3] that showed the significant weight of health care and safety. On the other hand, despite having low item score thresholds, Rajak and Vinodh [33] also show the importance of occupational health and safety as items related to the internal social sustainability of the company. Popovic et al. [25] found decent work and human rights to be significant social issues in the supply chain. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as a factor of social sustainability (philanthropy, supplier development, youth employment, and health camps) has significant value in the supply chain [5]. Inclusion and diversity issues are also essential factors in corporate social sustainability [33,62]. Recently, in Latin economies, Reyna-Castillo et al. [36] found the dimensions of Health and Safety, Labor Rights, Social Responsibility, and Inclusion relevant in the supply chain. Marshall et al. [63] highlighted the importance of the Social Sustainability Orientation variable, which can be described as the cognitive (not necessarily practical) conviction about caring for social aspects within the firm. Marshall et al. [63] proposed it as a causal enabler of socially sustainable practices and operational performance. This was empirically corroborated in the supply chain context by Croom et al. [60] and Nath et al. [55], as well as by Ramish et al. [64] from a cultural perspective. Mani et al. [7] showed that long-term commitment and investment intention are aspects linked to social sustainability. Lim et al. [65], based on a sample of 215 Chinese manufacturing companies, empirically proved, through multiple regression, the direct positive effect of a company’s social collaboration on its suppliers’ social and operational performance. In his study, and from the framework of social exchange theory, social aspects such as safety, health, and human rights were statistically relevant.

3.2. Social Sustainability Orientation and Supply Chain Performance

From Barney’s Resource-Based Theory (RBT) perspective [66], strengthening internal resources strengthens firm performance. On the other hand, from the SRBV perspective, Tate and Bals [26] demonstrated that caring for social aspects is a performance-generating business capability. Socially sustainable orientation and culture positively affect Supply Chain Performance from the perspective of developed economies [60] and in the emerging context [7,55]. Social Sustainability Orientation was also shown to have a positive indirect effect on the operational performance of emerging suppliers [7], finding that Social Sustainability Orientation brings operational benefits to the supply chain. Saunders et al. [67] demonstrated the relationship between socially sustainable aspects of suppliers and Supply Chain Performance. Logistics performance frames the efficiency of suppliers and, therefore, the supply chain [68,69]. In Brazil, Simão et al. [70] found evidence of the strategic effect of sustainable logistics and supply performance.

3.3. Logistics and Supplier Performance in the Supply Chain

There is a close relationship between supplier variables and Supply Chain Performance [7]. Likewise, as shown by the studies of Prajogo and Olhager [71] and Aharonovitz et al. [72], a long-term relationship and logistics integration of suppliers not only improves Supplier Performance but the chain itself. Ashenbaum and Maltz [73] validated their assumptions by linking logistics integration dimensions to various Supplier Performance measures. Wiederer et al. [74], based on their latest report on the Global Logistics Performance Index, present meaningful relationships between logistics performance and supplier operation in the supply chain. In China, Wang et al. [75] also found a positive relationship between logistics integration and supplier operating performance in the supply chain. Rodriguez et al. [76] found a positive relationship between efficient supplier development and socially sustainable Supply Chain Performance.

The theoretical model of this research is presented under the capabilities approach of Sen [29] and the SRBV of Tate and Bals [26] (Figure 2). Therefore, the following hypothesis on the behavior of social sustainability factors is formulated: there is a direct and positive relationship between the buyer’s commitment to social sustainability and the supplier’s labor rights capability, health capability, safety, social responsibility capability, inclusiveness, and product responsibility. The following hypothesis system emerges:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

Social sustainability orientation positively and directly affects the performance of basic social sustainability practices.

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

Social Sustainability Orientation positively and directly affects Supply Chain Performance.

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

Social Sustainability Orientation positively and directly affects Supplier Performance.

Hypothesis 4 (H4).

Regional Logistics Performance positively and directly affects Supplier Performance.

Hypothesis 5 (H5).

Supplier Performance positively and directly impacts Supply Chain Performance.

Figure 2. Graph of hypothesis relationship.

Figure 2. Graph of hypothesis relationship.

4. Materials and Methods

The research was empirical, statistical, and cross-sectional. According to Wacker [77], this methodology is helpful to demonstrate, from large samples, a specific generalization of the relationship of variables that pretend to theorize a phenomenon at the moment in time. The results of this generalization contrast and add to the explanations that other methodologies have offered, such as the a priori analytical–philosophical or mathematical ones, or to verify the relationships of models that were demonstrated with a posteriori methods of a few cases, such as in-depth studies. This study is also predictive. In addition to the robust intrasample prediction allowed by the PLS statistical methodology to measure the effect size within the participating subjects, this study offers the extrasample statistical technique (PLS $Q^2$ predict), which can explain the predictive potential of the model outside the studied subjects [78].

4.1. Participants

An electronic survey adapted to a form on docs.google.com was used to collect the data. Responses on the structured instrument were based on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very low; 7 = very high). Since it is impossible to obtain the exact number of supply chain managers, purposive sampling was used to extract the relevant information from the sample group [79]. Data were collected from a sampling frame of multisector companies in Mexico, Colombia, and Chile. Participants were contacted through the social network linkedin.com using the researchers’ credentials. The search, contact, and invitation of the respondents took place in different phases: (1) in the network’s search engine, keywords were delimited to locate people with the profile of interest in the different countries (Purchasing Manager, Supply Chain Manager, Supply Manager, Mexico, Colombia, Chile). (2) Once the area experts were located and verified, an invitation to join their contacts was sent to more than 2000 chain professionals, receiving an acceptance rate of approximately 55%. (3) To the group of managers who accepted the link to their network, approximately 1100, a personal message was sent to their account inviting them to answer the form, with 35% (379 managers) responding. (4) For the research, the sample was limited to participants from large firms, resulting in a total of n = 217 functional responses (Mx n = 64, Co n = 100, and Cl n = 53) (

Table 1. Sample characteristics (n = 217).

Characteristic	Frequency	%
Country
Mexico	64	29.05
Colmbia	100	45.10
Chile	53	24..40
Coverage
Global	88	40.60
LATAM	44	20.30
National	71	32.70
Local/regional	14	6.50
Gender
Female	166	76.5
Male	51	23.5
Experience (years)
0–5	41	18.9
06 a 10	62	28.6
11 a 20	80	36.9
More than 20	34	15.7
Sector
Commerce	36	16.6
Industry	105	48.4
Services	76	35.0

).

The criteria for classifying companies in Latin America and the Caribbean tend to have particularities by country. However, as a criterion for defining the size of a large company, this study follows the standardization proposed by the World Bank Group [80] and Aguilar-Rodríguez et al. [81], which, for international and regional comparison purposes, considered large companies to be those with more than 200 employees.

4.2. Measures

The social sustainability measures were taken from the result of the Factorial Analysis (FA) conducted in the Latin context by Reyna-Castillo et al. [30]. Under the perspective of Sen’s [29] essential aspects of social performance, they were based on measures validated in emerging Asia by Mani et al. [7]. The PA was tested on a population of purchasing managers from Mexico and Colombia. The items were statistically regrouped into 4 dimensions: External Community Development, Labor Rights and Health, Gender Inclusion and Equity, and Social Responsibility [30]. Since they provided a better explanation, social sustainability dimensions were unified into a second-order variable. From the approach of degrees of involvement with social sustainability proposed by Marshall et al. [63], the content of this construct was associated with basic social sustainability practices, which is why it is called by that name. Likewise, under the same approach of Marshall et al. [63], Carter and Jennings [62] took Buyer Investment, and Commitment measures were taken. Given the nature of the three items, based on intention rather than practice, they were dimensioned as aspects of orientation toward social sustainability. The Supplier Performance and Supply Chain Performance constructs were taken without adaptation from Carter and Jennings [62]. Finally, the four measures of the Regional Logistics Performance dimension were taken from the World Bank’s Logistics Performance Index (LPI) [40]. In summary, the design and validation process of the research instrument of this study allowed us to have a 28-item instrument contained in 4 constructs in addition to the general information questions (Appendix A). Once the survey was prepared, it was sent to a group of eight Mexican and Colombian experts: two academics for methodological input per country and two supply chain professionals per country to review the relevance of the items. The document was also analyzed to ensure that the language was as neutral as possible to avoid confusion due to the regionalisms of each country. The experts proposed minor changes and modifications to the questionnaire items, and consequently, changes and modifications were made. In the end, given the relevance of the surveys applied to the chain’s expert managers, they were retained. After editorial corrections and clarity of terms, the items were tested for validity and readability, as proposed by Heeler and Ray [82]. The experts proposed minor changes and modifications to the questionnaire items.

4.3. Statistical Tool

To test the hypotheses to support the theory, the Partial Least Squares (PLS)-based Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) technique was used as a basis, using SmartPLS 3 [83] software. According to Hair et al. ([84], p. 5), “the use of PLS-SEM is appropriate when analysis is required to test a theoretical framework from a predictive perspective or when the research goal is to better understand increasing complexity by exploring theoretical extensions of established theories (exploratory research for theory development).” Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is favorable as it evaluates the relationships between constructs and the predictive power of the research model through PLS, which has as a fundamental characteristic the power to create multiple regressions and factor analysis between manifest variables and latent variables that represent the hypotheses to be examined and tested. The process basically consisted of three stages: (1) evaluation of the measurement model including reliability and discriminant validity, (2) measurement of the structural model, and (3) evaluation of the predictive power of the structural model outside the sample. For hypothesis testing, the bootstrapping procedure recommended by Chin [85] was used with 10,000 resamples, using 217 cases each. The overall research design is shown in Figure 3.

5. Results

5.1. Reliability and Validity of the Measurement Model

Using the statistical software SmartPLS 3.2.7 [83], a confirmatory reliability analysis was performed to assess the internal consistency of the extracted factors. First, the individual reliability of the indicators was checked, where the expected threshold is an external loading $\lambda$ ≥ 0.70. All external loadings obtained were between 0.940 and 0.702. Then, the composite reliability assessment of the construct was conducted, where there should be values ≥0.70 [84]. The results show a construct consistency value ranging from 0.958 to 0.858. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) criterion is used for convergent validity, where the parameters should be ≥0.500. As can be seen, all the measures are above the required threshold. The discriminant validity of the latent variables was verified by ensuring that the constructs were empirically different from the other constructs included in the structural model. One criterion for measuring discriminant validity in the A (reflective) mode is the heterotrait–monotrait relationship ($HTMT$) of correlations, i.e., the average of the indicator correlations between constructs, as well as within the same construct [86]. The threshold value for the $HTMT$ criterion must be close to one with a cutoff ≤0.900 to conclude that discriminant validity exists [87]. As can be seen, the values are in the appropriate ranges (

Table 2. Individual Reliability, Construct Validity, and $HTMT$ Criterion.

Construct	No. Item/Ranges $\lambda$	rhoA	CR	AVE	1	2	3	4	$R^2$
1. SSO	(3) 0.916–0.965	0.941	0.960	0.890					-
2. BSSP	(4) 0.806–0.889	0.887	0.915	0.728	0.664				0.370
3. SCP	(4) 0.800–0.901	0.888	0.912	0.722	0.465	0.622			0.522
4. RLP	(4) 0.821–0.904	0.904	0.930	0.768	0.631	0.541	0.710		-
5. SP	(4) 0.878–0.899	0.915	0.937	0.789	0.396	0.522	0.518	0.556	0.304

1. Social Sustainability Orientation (SSO); 2. Basic social sustainability practices, 2nd Ord.(BSSP); 3. Supply Chain Performance (SCP); 4. Regional Logistics Performance (RLP); 5. Supplier Performance (SP).

).

5.2. Validation of the Model Structure

The structural model does not present collinearity problems, as the statistics find variance inflation factor (VIF) values below 3.3 [84], with a maximum reach of 1.232. (

Table 3. Summary of results for hypothesis testing of the measurement model.

Hypotheses	Interaction	$\beta$	$f^2$	t	p	Supported
Hi1	SSO -> BSSP	0.608	0.586	15.767	0.000	Yes
Hi2	SSO -> SCP	0.301	0.228	7.897	0.000	Yes
Hi3	OSS -> SP	0.366	0.113	5.453	0.000	Yes
Hi4	RLP -> SP	0.365	0.166	7.835	0.000	Yes
Hi5	SP -> SCP	0.484	0.397	10.781	0.000	Yes

t value ≥ 3.310 (p < 0), ≥2.586 (p ≥ 0.01), >1.965 (p ≥ 0.05).

) shows the model results with the hypotheses.

Likewise, the signs of the proposed hypotheses are positive, consistent with the signs of the resulting path coefficients, the latter being within the acceptable threshold ranging from −1 to +1. The values allow the acceptance of hypotheses with a positive and significant relationship, according to the criterion proposed by Chin [85].

5.3. Evaluation of the Predictive Power of the Structural Model

The predictive power of a model refers to its ability to generate accurate predictions of new observations outside the analyzed sample (out-of-sample) [78]. Such prediction does not necessarily imply causality. In this case, the Supply Chain Performance dependent variable will be analyzed, and it will be known whether its relationships have predictive power in other samples. The initial criterion is that all measured values have a prediction $Q^2$ greater than zero, are positive, and have a skewness of less than one. Given the symmetry of the sample, the root means square error ($RMSE$) values are used. The $PLS$ routing model must be equal to the linear regression ($LM$) data to establish predictive power. If the difference between the $PLS$ and $LM$ data is negative, there is out-of-sample predictive power between the independent constructs and the latent dependent variable being analyzed.

As seen in

Table 4. Assessment of the predictive capacity of the model (out-of-sample).

SCP Dependent	PLS $Q^2$ Predict	Asymmetry	PLS-LM
SCP 1	0.425	−0.427	−0.184
SCP 2	0.274	−0.573	−0.269
SCP 3	0.293	−0.538	−0.248
SCP 4	0.336	−0.490	−0.248

, the differences between PLS-LM turned out to be negative, so it can be implied that there is an out-of-sample prediction between the constructs of Social Sustainability Orientation and Supplier Performance and the dependent variable of Supply Chain Performance.

6. Discussion

6.1. Social Sustainability Orientation and Performance of Basic Social Sustainability Practices

The approach that explores the relationship between company sustainability actions and social sustainability performance was explored. The hypothesis $Hi1$ supporting the direct relationship between buyers’ sustainability orientation and social sustainability performance in the Latin supply chain was tested. Significant statistical coefficients were obtained ($\beta$ = 0.608 ***, p = 0.000, $R^2$ = 0.370). As a starting point, the results are consistent with Amartya Sen’s [29] Capabilities Approach, which states that the social aspects that are capacity for opportunity for the self-generation of long-term welfare in the community are decent work, health, education, and gender inclusion. It shows that socially sustainable culture is an essential predictor for socially sustainable practices to occur. Our results in Latin America confirm four relevant social dimensions, which, like Rajak et al. [33] in emerging Asia in India, were found to be relevant when categorized into internal and external aspects of the firm. A similar categorization was used by Kamali et al. [58] in their study of emerging Latin America in Brazil, although they took into account the customer dimension.

These results also align with the empirical results of Marshall et al. [63] ($\beta$ = 0.428 ***, p = 0.05, $R^2$ = 0.330) and Croom et al. [60] ($\beta$ = 0.428 ***, p = 0.000, $R^2$ = 0.370), who, in the context of developed economies, found a positive and significant relationship between Social Sustainability Orientation and socially sustainable performance in the U.S. and Irish supply chains. In the specific case of buyer commitment and investment orientation, there was a direct positive relationship with supplier labor rights performance.

Research in emerging contexts, such as that of Mani et al. [7] in India and Ramish et al. [64] in Turkey, found significant moderations of orientation and culture on social sustainability performance in the supply chain in their structural equation model. In the context of emerging Asia, Nath et al. [55] also found significant relationship paths toward Social Sustainability Orientation and basic sustainability practices ($\beta$ = 0.454, p < 0.05). These results align with the study on U.S. global market companies by Hutchins and Sutherland [3], where they found an average relationship between supplier investment and labor rights. Similar to Mani et al. [7], in this work, we grouped the dimension of Socially Sustainable Practices into a multidimensional variable. This research differs in that we explored direct relationships and that the indicators were chosen from the capabilities framework and the factor analysis conducted in Latin America [30]. In summary, to the extent that large purchasing companies in Mexico, Colombia, and Chile opt for Social Sustainability Orientation in terms of commitment and investment, this contributes significantly to the socially sustainable performance of supplier companies [88].

Specifically, within the structural model, the item with the highest external load in the Social Sustainability Orientation construct was “We intend to maintain social sustainability indefinitely” (t = 39.337, p = 0.000). Within the second-order construct of Basic Social Sustainability Practices, the “Labor Rights and Health” dimension (t = 22.025, p = 0.000) stood out (e.g., “Labor Rights Vigilance and Health” and “Safety Policies”); another statistically relevant dimension was the Gender Inclusion and Equity dimension (e.g., Gender Equality and Nondiscrimination Policies and Growth to Every Employee Equally). In summary, to the extent that large purchasing companies in Mexico, Colombia, and Chile choose to be aware of and seek to incorporate social sustainability, they will contribute significantly to best practices in health, employee rights, and gender inclusion and equity in their supplier companies. Social Sustainability Orientation in large purchasing companies is a powerful enabler of basic social sustainability practices in their supplier companies in Latin America, as evidenced by Morais and Silvestre [20] in their analysis of enablers for social sustainability in Brazil.

6.2. Social Sustainability Orientation and Supply Chain Performance

From the approach of how the company’s sustainable decisions impact, positively or negatively, its managerial performance, direct and positive relationships were found between social sustainability actions and the performance of the supply chain aspects (supply chain and suppliers), the hypotheses $Hi2$, which sustains the relationship between Orientation towards social sustainability and Supply Chain Performance ($\beta$ = 0.301 ***, p = 0.000, $R^2$ = 0.304), and $Hi3$ associating Orientation with Supplier Performance ($\beta$ = 0.366 ***, p = 0.000, $R^2$ = 0.512).

The results are aligned with the work of Mani et al. [7] in the context of emerging Asia, which demonstrated an indirect relationship between commitment and investment toward social sustainability with Supplier Performance and Supply Chain Performance. This work also found an indirect relationship that is consistent with the results of Croom et al. [60], who found the existence of mediation in the relationship between sustainability orientation and operational performance. It likewise aligns with the work of Nath et al. [55], in their work, also in the context of emerging Asia, where they supported the finding of Croom et al. [60], finding the indirect effect of sustainability orientation and supply chain operational performance significant. Our results differ from the research as mentioned above in that, in the Latin supply chain, the relationships were direct between orientation and performance.

The Social Sustainability Orientation construct had an impact on the Supply Chain Performance construct and Supplier Performance. Within the Supply Chain Performance construct, two items counted with higher structural external loadings. On the one hand, the item “Customer satisfaction and high service levels” (t = 85.284, p = 0.000), and on the other, “Timeliness and accuracy of delivery” (t = 80.650, p = 0.000). Concerning the Supplier Performance construct, two items had higher structural external loadings. First, the one with the highest statistical representation was “Our suppliers are reliable” (t = 78.687, p = 0.000), and second, “Our suppliers meet delivery deadlines” (t = 68.952, p = 0.000).

In summary, to the extent that large purchasing companies in Mexico, Colombia, and Chile choose to promote a culture of social sustainability as a company, they will contribute significantly to better service and efficiency practices in the supply chain links. Social Sustainability Orientation in large purchasing companies is associated with efficiency and trust in the supply chain in the Latin American representative sample.

6.3. Supply Chain Logistics and Supplier Performance

A direct positive relationship was found between Regional Logistics Performance and Supplier Performance. Hypothesis $Hi4$ supports a positive and direct relationship between Regional Logistics Performance and Supplier Performance ($\beta$ = 0.365 ***, p = 0.000, $R^2$ = 0.304), as in the work of Ashenbaum and Maltz [73], who, although indirectly related, found a positive relationship between purchasing logistics integration and Supplier Performance in the U.S. industrial sector. In the findings specific to supply chain element relationships, the second most robust direct relationship was found between Supplier Performance and Supply Chain Performance, supporting hypothesis Hi5 ($\beta$ = 0.484 ***, p = 0.000, $R^2$ = 0.522). The results are also consistent with those of Carter and Jennings [62], who have since found that supplier benefits positively impact Supply Chain Performance. It also makes sense with the findings of Rodriguez et al. [76], who found a positive relationship between efficient supplier development and socially sustainable Supply Chain Performance. Within the Regional Logistics Performance construct, two items had a higher structural external load. On the one hand, the item “Ease of organizing shipments at competitive prices” (t = 78.424, p = 0.000), and on the other, the item “Competition and quality of logistics services” (t = 69.611, p = 0.000). In summary, to the extent that logistics conditions in Mexico, Colombia, and Chile are competitive in terms of quality and prices, they will contribute significantly to best practices in terms of service and efficiency in the supply chain links.

Finally, the predictive capacity of the out-of-sample model was assessed, which, according to Shmueli et al. [78], refers to the model’s ability to generate accurate predictions of new observations outside the analyzed sample. According to the values obtained, it is implied that the results obtained about the independent constructs of Social Sustainability Orientation, Supplier Performance, and the dependent variable of Supply Chain Performance are likely to be similar in the context of other samples. Therefore, based on Barney’s [66] Resource-Based View (RBV), this paper contributes to studies predicting corporate social sustainability with firm performance.

7. Conclusions and Theoretical Contribution

The theoretical contribution of this work was to add statistical, empirical evidence to the little-explored theoretical extension of the VBSS of Tate and Bals [26]. From the perspective of the components of a theory, according to Wacker [77], the VBSS started from the theoretical components of Barney et al.’s [66] RBT and Hart’s [13] NRBV: defined variables, the domain of application, variable relationships, and predictive statements. Barney et al.’s RBT [66] stated that the firm’s competitive performance is based on the exploitation of capabilities, which result from adding value to valuable internal resources (physical assets, intangible assets, finances, social aspects of the organization, etc.). Therefore, RBT presents resources and capabilities as variables, a domain of application within a competitive business context where a predictive relationship is presumed between the variables of resources and capabilities and the firm’s competitiveness. Just as Hart [13] expanded the domain beyond the commercial context of stakeholders by adding to the context the optimizable valuable resources of the natural environment, Tate and Bals [26], with the SRBV, emphasize strategic social capabilities that maximize the creation of triple-bottom-line value (environmental, social, and economic), giving competitiveness to socially focused firms. The strategic social capabilities proposed by SRBV are twofold: (1) focus from the shareholders based on the mission (both at the beginning and over time) and (2) stakeholder management (supplier, customer, community, employees, and shareholders).

This work proposed Culture and Socially Sustainable Practices as capabilities that add value to stakeholders. SRBV strategic capability one, Mission-based Stakeholder Focus (both initially and over time), was measured in this work with the Social Sustainability Orientation variable, where it explores the long-term Commitment and Investment the buyer is willing to make to social aspects. SRBV strategic capability two on stakeholder management was represented in this work by exploring different stakeholders involved in measuring buyer commitment and buyer’s assessment of internal and external community care of their suppliers. The operational performance of the supply chain and suppliers as a condition of competitiveness defined our domain. Finally, our demonstrated predictor statement was linked to how buyers’ long-term socially sustainable mission strategic social capabilities predict social performance (community and employee well-being), as well as predict operational (chain) performance among and of stakeholders (suppliers).

In summary, the long-term commitment to care for the socially sustainable aspects of health, safety, labor rights, equity, inclusion, social responsibility, and community support add value to a company’s social resources by making them a capability that determines competitive performance in the supply chain. Unlike the work of Tate and Bals [26] and other works that have empirically contrasted SRBV (e.g., Arena et al. [27] in the energy sector in Italy and Solovida et al. [28] in the emerging context of Indonesia), our work starts from strategic social capabilities. However, it focuses on dimensions of the social aspect of sustainability. Al igual que estos dos trabajos empíricos, nuestro trabajo difiere del de Tate y Bals [26] en que las proposiciones e hipótesis se contrastaron en un ámbito de competitividad de organizaciones con ánimo de lucro. Labor rights, health, inclusion, and gender equity, as well as Social Responsibility and Community Support, have been studied as capabilities for social and operational performance in the chain in different emerging regions of Asia, such as India (Mani et al. [7,44], and Nath et al. [55]), China (e.g., Lim et al. [65]), and Indonesia (e.g., Solovida et al. [28]). Such aspects also have relevant results in emerging Africa in South Africa (e.g., Masocha [48]), as well as in emerging Latin America in Brazil [35,58]. Africa and Brazil differ from this work and others in that these regions have placed particular emphasis on governance as an essential social aspect.

This contrast helped to meet the need for literature on socially sustainable supply chain management studies in the emerging Latin American context, as in the case of Mexico, Colombia, and Chile. The empirical analysis examined the direct positive relationships between constructs related to the social dimension of sustainability (orientation and core practices) and three constructs about Supply Chain Performance (Chain Performance, Regional Logistics Performance, and Supplier Performance). From the perspective of a capabilities-based approach, social issues that create welfare opportunities were found to be relevant in the Latin American context. Furthermore, from a resource-based social sustainability perspective, the empirical results indicate that corporate social sustainability capability is a performance-generating resource in supply chain management in the emerging economies of the Latin American market.

Socially sustainable performance is not independent of internal supply chain management performance. Internal resources can become the ability of companies to generate performance and competitive advantage. Even more so now, developed countries see emerging economies as attractive for purchasing raw materials and manufacturing. However, indicators of attention to social sustainability issues have become a requirement that they ask of their potential suppliers. Purchasing managers and suppliers in global emerging markets are being asked to invest in and commit to capacity building on health and safety, labor rights, inclusion, and gender equity. Therefore, engagement supports social performance, and, in turn, this engagement impacts Supply Chain Performance. The results show the tangible benefits of adopting social sustainability at the supplier level and can guide practitioners’ decision making in emerging economies. By incorporating sustainability at your strategy level and increasing efforts through investment, engagement, and partnerships to improve supplier social sustainability, you will benefit your own Operational and Supply Chain Performance. Just as a culture toward social sustainability proved to be an essential capability in the supply chain, logistical conditions are critical as an efficiency capability in Supplier Performance; these, in turn, are in the sustained operation of the chain in the context of the sample, as well as in its extrasample predictive power.

8. Managerial and Public Policy Implications

Research on corporate social sustainability has managerial implications for companies but is also a call for public policy management. In the global trend, developed countries are conditioning companies in emerging economies to demonstrate social sustainability factors in their practices to be sourcing candidates. Thus, emerging countries wishing to be suppliers of global firms will have to comply with this condition. Social sustainability is, therefore, a regulatory requirement for emerging countries, but it is also considered a guarantee of efficiency. Thus, strategic business management and government policymakers in emerging countries have the mission to make it known that there is a global requirement for corporate social sustainability and to be aware of the indicators involved in this dimension.

Another essential aspect is that the care of social sustainability guarantees maintenance and improvement of the conditions for the social welfare of the worker, the community, the stakeholders, and the macrosocial performance in the emerging sectors. It is essential to highlight Social Sustainability Guidance’s role in public and private policies. Imposed basic social practices, without stakeholder conviction, are empty and meaningless. A socially sustainable culture drives the long-term permanence of human capital, community well-being, and operational efficiency. The evidence also gives us the certainty that the private and public sectors can have good regional logistics conditions of competitive prices and efficiency of logistics processes in its stock of resources and capabilities. In times of turbulence, they would be a factor that strengthens early recovery due to their importance in the suppliers’ operability. It is essential to disseminate and highlight these capabilities as endogenous elements of business competitiveness. Corporate and public governments must be aware of and learn about social sustainability at all levels of the strategic management of their companies and regions.

9. Limitations and Future Scope of the Research

This article has limitations that, in turn, become an opportunity for future lines of research. One limitation is the sample size concerning the infinite universe of supply chain managers in the three Latin American countries, as well as the fact that, although the common factor is their large company characteristic, the sample is multisector. Therefore, this research is cautious in generalizing its results and needs to distinguish the moderation that might exist between the different sectors (industry, service, and commerce). Another limitation is the need for more data related to financial performance due to the emerging context and the sensitivity of the data, so it was impossible to categorize large companies by their financial data, and only the number of employees was taken into account. It is also important to point out the limitation of the social aspects selected for the Latin American context since, although their essential relevance is argued, other contextual aspects of Latin America can be omitted. A further limit is the transversality of the data, which, although they show a reliable picture of the situation, it has been argued that organizational capabilities have a dynamic process, and this dynamism has information that escapes this type of research [14].

Consequently, from the limits mentioned above, it is proposed as future lines of research to continue exploring in the light of different methodologies the potential of social sustainability as a capacity for operational and financial performance in emerging Latin countries, especially Mexico and Brazil. Likewise, another future line of research is to explore other social capabilities within the domain of fair, ethical, and triple-bottom-line business competitiveness in Latin America. Methodologically, it is also proposed to explore advanced multivariate PLS techniques that distinguish specific effects in the prediction of relationships, such as the moderation that VBRS variables have on competitiveness or within a multigroup analysis that distinguishes the prediction between different business sectors.