Next Article in Journal
Toward a Resilient Future: The Promise of Microbial Bioeconomy
Next Article in Special Issue
Life Value Assessment Methods in Emerging Markets: Evidence from China
Previous Article in Journal
Challenges to the Practice of Good Governance in Urban Land Use Planning: The Case of Two Selected Ethiopian Towns
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Economies’ Ability to Produce Diversified and Complex Goods to Meet the Global Competition: Role of Gross Value Chain, Institutional Quality, and Human Capital
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/su15097249
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Stakeholders’ Engagement in the Company’s Management as a Driver of Green Competitiveness within Sustainable Development

by
Oleksii Lyulyov
1,2,
Olena Chygryn
1,
Tetyana Pimonenko
1,2,* and
Aleksy Kwilinski
2,3
1
Department of Marketing, Sumy State University, 40007 Sumy, Ukraine
2
Department of Management, Faculty of Applied Sciences, WSB University, 41-300 Dabrowa Gornicza, Poland
3
The London Academy of Science and Business, 120 Baker St., London W1U 6TU, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(9), 7249; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097249
Submission received: 17 March 2023 / Revised: 22 April 2023 / Accepted: 26 April 2023 / Published: 27 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Emerging Markets’ Competitive Advantages in Sustainable Management)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The world’s transition to green economic growth, considering the Agenda for Sustainable Development, provokes relevant structural changes in the world market. Consequently, it boosts the business sector’s ability to incorporate green dimensions into their development policies to intensify their green competitiveness in the market. In this case, it is necessary to identify the appropriate indicators that affect a company’s green competitiveness. Thus, stakeholders and management could intensify or decline a company’s green competitiveness depending on the efficiency of communication between them. The paper aims to analyze the role of stakeholders’ engagement in the company’s management in enhancing green competitiveness. The research data were compiled from a questionnaire of 75 respondents, who represent the Ukrainian company’s management. The study applies PLS-SEM to test the hypotheses of the investigation. The empirical results allow us to conclude that stakeholders’ engagement in the company’s management positively affects the company’s green competitiveness. The most statistically significant impact on the company’s green competitiveness is experience in communication with stakeholders and managing stakeholders’ conflicts, with loading factors of 0.802 and 0.806, respectively. The findings show that to improve green competitiveness, the company’s management should develop targeted stakeholder communications and extend knowledge and awareness of stakeholder interests and values. At the same time, management should incorporate stakeholders’ suggestions and recommendations when promoting a company’s green competitiveness.

1. Introduction

The acceptance of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [1] boosts transformation at all sectors and levels through simultaneous consideration of economic, social, and ecological effects. Consequently, governments around the world have already introduced stricter environmental regulations to attain sustainable development. It should be noted that the business sector has already started to incorporate relevant policies to strengthen its green competitiveness and advantages in the world market. In addition, companies that prioritize green growth are likely to be more competitive in the long run as they are able to meet the evolving green needs and expectations of customers, employees, and stakeholders [2,3]. At the same time, stakeholders and consumers are increasingly becoming aware of environmental issues and are actively seeking out environmentally friendly products and services. By outlining environmentally sustainable products and services, companies can tap into this growing demand and increase their market share [4,5]. Furthermore, implementing environmentally sustainable practices allows for declining green costs for companies in the long term, such as reducing energy consumption and waste generation, utility bills for resources, operating costs, and green taxes [2,6]. Scholars [3,4] confirm that companies that promote green competitiveness through close collaboration and communication with stakeholders have higher customer loyalty and better relationships with regulators and local communities. Past studies [6,7] have outlined that stakeholders play a significant role in promoting the green competitiveness of companies. Direct and mediated stakeholders’ involvement in internal corporate greening processes ensures and strengthens their motivation for close cooperation with local and national authorities and develops trusting relations with customers and intermediaries [3,8]. Stakeholders’ engagement stimulates the sharing of knowledge and best practices on resource use [9,10], waste management, and the implementation of green innovations [11] and technologies [12], which consequently promote a company’s green competitiveness [13,14]. In this case, it is important to identify the communication channels with stakeholders to deepen their engagement in the company’s management, which could boost the green competitiveness of the company.
Considering the above, the paper aims to analyze the role of stakeholders’ engagement in the company’s management in enhancing green competitiveness. The object of investigation is Ukrainian companies from the leading sectors of Ukraine’s economy (engineering, agriculture, and the food industries, which generate more than 65% of countries’ GDP) [15,16]. For Ukrainian companies, the development of green competitive advantages, the implementation of green innovations, and the formation of sustainable, transparent, and responsible communication with stakeholders are quite relevant for several reasons:
  • Environmental concerns: With growing awareness of environmental issues, businesses are expected to act responsibly and take steps toward reducing their environmental impact [17].
  • Competitive advantage: Implementing green innovations and developing green competitive advantages can give Ukrainian enterprises a competitive advantage in the global marketplace. Consumers are increasingly seeking out environmentally responsible products and services, and companies that demonstrate a commitment to sustainability are likely to be more attractive to customers, investors, and partners [9,18].
  • Regulatory compliance: Many countries have environmental regulations that businesses must comply with [19,20].
  • Reputation: Sustainable, transparent, and responsible communication can help to build a positive reputation for Ukrainian enterprises in the leading sectors of economic activity. This can lead to increased customer loyalty, improved relations with stakeholders, and an enhanced brand image [21,22].
Despite the powerful background in the analysis of the theoretical framework of green competitiveness and stakeholders’ roles [13,14,23,24,25], their results are fragmental and do not consider the impact of stakeholders’ engagement in the company’s management. As mentioned above, the paper fills the scientific gaps in promoting companies’ green competitiveness by developing approaches for the assessment of stakeholders’ engagement in the company’s management impact on companies’ green competitiveness based on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM).
This study has the following structure: the literature review investigates the development of companies’ green competitive advantages and their linking with stakeholder engagement in the company’s management to justify the research hypothesis; materials and methods describe the methodology used in the study; results—explanation of the findings of the investigation; discussion—comparison analysis of the obtained findings with similar past investigations; conclusion—explaining the core study’s results, policy recommendations considering the findings, limitations, and further direction for the investigations.

2. Literature Review

The results of the analysis allow us to outline the significant stakeholders’ impact on green competitive advantages for companies. At the time, the results showed that scholars applied a vast range of indicators for the assessment of stakeholders’ engagement in companies’ management. Thus, the pull of researchers [26,27] proves that personalization of communications with stakeholders and their awareness of green companies’ management are the crucial dimensions of green competitiveness. However, studies [28] confirm that stakeholder communication should be developed considering the experience in communications. In addition, stakeholders’ decisions, suggestions, and ideas should be incorporated into the company’s development policy. From the other point of view, stakeholders should have good knowledge of companies’ green values and policies that allow them to be active and suggest prolific decisions on promoting companies’ green competitiveness. Considering past studies [29,30], stakeholders are sensitive to conflict, which could be caused by different values and interests in companies’ growth. Thus, companies should develop and improve conflict management and eliminate it at the first stage. Eryürük Ş. et al. [23] used the AHP model and the multiple criteria decision-making method (MCDM) to evaluate the level of stakeholder integration in the construction industry. They proposed using the main criteria related to issues of construction quality, functionality, impact, and sustainable development. Sagie H. and Orenstein D. [31] implemented a multilevel approach to evaluation that considered the composition of interested parties, the opinions of stakeholders obtained in the process of interviews, and the frequency of conducting seminars and workshops as elements of raising awareness of stakeholders. The authors concluded that the evaluation catalyzed productive interactions between scientists and stakeholders. At the same time, Malaeb Z. and Hamzeh F. [24] apply the SPV approach to determine the level of stakeholder integration in public-private partnerships as platforms for communication and interaction between designers, contractors, and service providers. Ominde et al. [25], by conducting semistructured interviews, identified the key determinants of stakeholder involvement in the implementation of information and communication projects. They concluded that communication processes and stakeholder interaction are key to increasing the effectiveness of project implementation and sustainability. Cansino-Loeza B. and Ponce-Ortega J. [32] use a multiobjective optimization model to assess the level of satisfaction of all stakeholder groups regarding the implementation of resource-consuming decisions and study the priority set of stakeholder decisions in providing sustainable water consumption projects at agricultural enterprises. Additionally, Maseko L. and Root D. [33] assess the inseparable risks of stakeholder communication in green buildings. Using empirical data, conducting semistructured interviews with stakeholders, and applying an abductive approach, the authors were able to form a system of decisions for managing inseparable risks. Thus, it is relevant to improve the toolkit for assessing the impact of stakeholder integration on the level of green competitiveness of enterprises.
Considering the accepted SDGs [1], all countries have started the transformation from recourse economic development to green economic growth by decarbonizing all sectors. Scholars [34,35] prove that companies with high green competitiveness incorporate sustainable development principles into their activities, which is conducive to the country’s green development. He et al. [36] emphasize the crucial role of green competitiveness in accelerating the process of solving natural resource deficiency and environmental degradation. The results of our analysis of the theoretical landscape [37,38] of a company’s green competitiveness allow us to conclude that it is a multifaceted category and depends on a vast range of economic, financial, environmental, and organizational dimensions [39,40,41]. The representatives of Harvard Scientific School [42] in the late 1990s described green competitiveness as an integral component of production development and gaining sustainable competitive advantages. Cheng et al. [43] noticed that green competitiveness is a development approach that foresees improving social and economic performance, resource-use indicators, and environmental quality. Scholars [44,45] have confirmed that improving a company’s green competitiveness requires affordable financial and human resources with appropriate knowledge and competencies. Moreover, past studies [46] outline that stakeholders and their incorporation into making decisions significantly affect a company’s green competitiveness. In addition, communications with stakeholders could increase or decrease a company’s green competitiveness. Bhupendra and Sangle [47] indicate that stakeholder integration promotes a company’s sustainable development and allows quicker overcoming of uncertain market conditions. In addition, according to Sagie and Orenstein [31], proactive stakeholders stimulate environmental management implementation, which is one of the core dimensions of a company’s green competitiveness. Scholars [31] outline that proactive stakeholders are open to new ideas and innovations and ready for dialog with society to extend green knowledge and strengthen green awareness, which are core postulates of sustainable development. The study [48] notes that management functions (optimization, adaptation, and control) and interactions with employees and stakeholders should be based on the personalized interaction, integration, and achievements of Industry 4.0. Scholars [18] emphasize that communication should be the main priority for the interaction of stakeholders at all levels.
As mentioned above, companies that engage their stakeholders in making decisions on green development are more likely to implement sustainable practices and create value for both them and their stakeholders. However, stakeholder engagement is constantly changing due to the dynamic landscape of government and company policies aimed at promoting sustainable practices, including environmental regulations, eco-innovation, green marketing, and green supply chain management. This study incorporates stakeholder engagement variables as a latent variable in the research model to reflect the dynamic nature of these changes and assess companies’ green competitiveness [49].
Considering the above, the following research hypothesis is checked:
Hypothesis: 
stakeholders’ engagement in the company’s management has a positive effect on companies’ green competitiveness.

3. Materials and Methods

Based on previous studies [50,51,52] that advocate the important role of stakeholder integration into the enterprise management system and their role toward green competitiveness and sustainable development [53], the present study attempts to assess the effect of the integration of stakeholders into enterprise management on companies’ green competitiveness based on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) [48,49,54,55]. The key advantage of PLS-SEM is its ability to establish relationships between observed variables and latent constructs that are not directly observable but are inferred from the observed variables. Moreover, PLS-SEM can handle a broad range of data types and account for measurement errors and other sources of bias [56]. Furthermore, this method has a unique performance with small set samples, and it is useful for understanding the relationships between variables and making predictions about future outcomes [48,49,54,55].
The process of applying PLS-SEM requires several steps. The first step is to measure the model to identify the set of measurement variables that are related to the latent variables of interest. The reflective model was utilized in this study to represent the latent variable LSI, where the observed indicators, such as targeted stakeholders’ communications (N1), knowledge and awareness of stakeholders’ interests and values (N2), experience in communication with stakeholders (N3), incorporation of stakeholders’ suggestions and recommendations in promoting a company’s green competitiveness (N4), and managing stakeholders’ conflicts (N5), are driven by the underlying construct:
N j k = μ j k L S I + ε j
where μjk—load factor and connection direction; Kjk—explicit SI variables (styles of communicative interaction of stakeholders and the enterprise); εj—standard error; j—block of relevant variables for the t-th period; and k is the number of variables.
The latent variable LSI is measured in this study by the explicit variables GCEcon to CCorp, which correspond to economic (Econ), environmental (Env), marketing (Mark), social (Soc), and corporate (Corp) components, respectively:
G C j k = μ j k L G C + ε j
where μ0j is a free variable; μjk—the input factor and communication direction; G C j k —measurement variables (economic (GCEcon), environmental (GCEnv), marketing (GCMark), social (GCSoc), and corporate components (GCCorp)) of the index of green competitiveness of enterprises; εj—standard error; j—block of relevant variables for the t-th period; k—number of variables.
The research data was compiled from the online questionnaire, which contained 31 items and allowed analysis of green competitiveness and stakeholders’ engagement with the company’s management. The questionnaire was developed by the following studies: assessment of green competitiveness [57,58,59]; stakeholder engagement [60,61,62]. In the first stage, 167 questionnaires were received. The questionnaires with many unanswered questions were excluded from the analysis. After the verification, 75 questionnaires were taken for analysis. It should be noted that in Ukraine, not a lot of companies (among industrial companies, it is less) have already accepted ESG principles and published the non-financial report that allows estimating green competitiveness and stakeholder engagement. As previously stated, the small proportion of questionnaires chosen for analysis is justified. The questionnaire was distributed online among Ukrainian companies’ management from January to August 2021. It was developed considering the Likert scale (0—disagree (seldom), 5—totally agree (frequent)). All questions were divided into groups, which reveal the relevant indicators. The values of each indicator were calculated by the arithmetic mean of all answers within each block. The list of questions and descriptive statistics of the data are shown in Table 1.
The second step involves testing the relationship among latent variables to assess the statistical significance of the empirical model:
L G C = μ 0 j + μ j k L S I j k + ε j
where μ0j is a free variable; μjk—input factor and communication direction; Kjk—explicit SI variables (styles of communicative interaction between stakeholders and the enterprise); GCEc, GCEnv, GCM, GCS, and GCC—explicit variables (economic, environmental, marketing, social, and corporate components, respectively) of the index of green competitiveness of enterprises; εj—standard error; j—block of relevant variables for the t-th period; k—number of variables; LSI is a latent variable of the stakeholders’ integration in the enterprise management system; LGC is a latent variable of the green competitiveness of enterprises.
In model (3), the latent variable LSI is exogenous and LGC is the endogenous latent variable. This step helps to understand the underlying relationships and associations between the measurement and latent variables, thus providing insights into the factors that contribute to a company’s green competitiveness. According to Chin W. [63], the load and direction of connection are determined by: μ j k > 0.6—factors that have a significant impact; μ j k   < 0.6—factors that have no significant influence. These values have the appropriate limit values for the subsequent interpretation of the calculation results and the study of the importance of the studied parameters. The validation and construct reliability of the model are based on evaluating the convergent validity, which includes the composite reliability to evaluate internal consistency, individual indicator reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE) [64]. Additionally, the Fornell-Larcker criterion and cross-loadings [65] are used to assess the discriminant validity of the model.

4. Results

The assessment of the loading values of the measurement items is presented in Table 2, which indicates that the values are significant and above 0.60. Furthermore, the variance inflation factor values of the latent variables are below 5.0, indicating the absence of collinearity issues. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values of the latent variables are all above 0.7, suggesting that the independent variable in the model is significant. Table 2 shows that all constructs were reliable, with composite reliability (CR) coefficients above 0.70 [66]. Convergent validity was assessed using the average variance extracted (AVE). An AVE value above 0.50 is required to ensure that the variance in the construct is not dominated by measurement error and that at least 50% of the measurement variance is explained [64]. The results indicated that the AVEs were above 0.50, providing evidence of convergent validity [64].
The study applies a discriminant validity test to ensure the validity and reliability of its findings [67]. As per the algorithm of the discriminant validity test, the square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE) are compared with the correlation between latent variables [67]. If the square root of the AVE of a construct is greater than the correlation between that construct and another construct, it will indicate discriminant validity. The empirical results (Table 3) demonstrate that the criteria for discriminant validity are confirmed.
The loading values (bolded) of each item in the latent variables exceeded the cross-loading values (Table 4), indicating that the measurement model satisfies the reliability and validity criteria.
The results of the assessment of the measurement variables’ impact on the latent variables of stakeholders’ engagement in the company’s management and the green competitiveness of the company are presented in Figure 1.
The empirical results confirm the study’s assumption about the positive statistically significant effect of stakeholders’ engagement on the green competitiveness of the company. Thus, latent variables (LSI), which reveal stakeholders’ engagement, promote the green competitiveness of the company. The R2 value (R2 = 0.469) indicates that 46.9% of the variance in purchasing intention can be explained by the causal relationships with the other constructs in the model; hence, this supports construct validity. The findings (Figure 1) show that all coefficients of measurement variables are higher than 0.6. Experience in communication with stakeholders and managing stakeholders’ conflicts has the highest impact on the latent variable LSI. The loads of N3 and N5 are 0.802 and 0.806, respectively. The targeted stakeholders’ communications have the lowest value of the leading factor (0.692) on the latent variable LSI. Knowledge and awareness of stakeholders’ interests and values (N2 = 0.711) and incorporating their suggestions and recommendations in promoting a company’s green competitiveness (N4 = 0.721) have approximately equal effects on the latent variable LSI. Among the dimensions of GC, the highest load is defined for the social determinant—0.838. In addition, all environmental and corporate dimensions have approximately equal impacts on green competitiveness.

5. Discussion

The study’s assumption regarding the positive and statistically significant impact of stakeholder engagement on the company’s green competitiveness is confirmed by the empirical results. Considering the findings, the latent variable LSI, which reflects stakeholder engagement, promotes the company’s green competitiveness. The LSI improvement of one point provokes a growth in GG of 0.632. Such conclusions are consistent with past studies [68,69]. In addition, experience in communication with stakeholders is the most significant indicator that is conducive to stakeholder engagement. Past studies [3,70] also outline the necessity of encouraging communication with stakeholders, which contributes to companies’ competitiveness and image. Effective communication with stakeholders and managing conflicts can help develop stronger relationships with them, which was also confirmed by the results of this and past studies [18,26]. It can lead to increased stakeholder trust and support for the company’s sustainability initiatives, which can positively impact the company’s green competitiveness. Continuous communication with stakeholders allows the development of more effective sustainability strategies, which can positively impact a company’s green competitiveness [71,72]. It should be noted that Kong R. et al. [25] outline the necessity to communicate with both stakeholders’ groups (internal and external) for promoting a company’s green competitiveness. External stakeholders (customers, investors, local communities, etc.) could influence a company’s green reputation, green brand image, and environmental performance. Effective communication with these stakeholders allows it to ensure trust, build relationships, and demonstrate its commitment to sustainability. Consequently, it provokes increased sales, loyalty, and positive word-of-mouth, which can ultimately enhance the company’s green competitiveness. Internal stakeholders (employees, management, shareholders, etc.) are directly involved in a company’s day-to-day operations, which is the basis for green competitiveness. Effective communication with these stakeholders promotes a culture of sustainability within the organization, encourages employee engagement, and improves supply chain sustainability. This can lead to increased efficiency, reduced costs, and improved environmental performance, which can in turn enhance the company’s green competitiveness.
At the same time, personalized, individual, and targeted communication with stakeholders allows companies to better understand the needs, preferences, and expectations of their stakeholders, which in turn helps them tailor their green initiatives and messages accordingly [10,18,26]. Furthermore, the results of this study also confirm the assumption of a positive impact of targeted communications on green competitiveness. Moreover, by developing a personalized approach to communication, companies can establish trust, build relationships, and engage stakeholders in a meaningful way. Personalized communication allows companies to identify areas where they could improve their sustainability practices by receiving feedback from their stakeholders. This can lead to more effective and targeted sustainability initiatives that address the specific concerns and needs of their stakeholders [10,18,26].
However, scholars [33,73] confirm that stakeholders’ incorporation into the company’s management could restrict the acceptance of relevant policies over time due to increasing the communication chain. At the same time, by engaging with stakeholders, companies can identify potential issues before they become major problems and collaborate with stakeholders to develop solutions that are mutually beneficial [74]. Sebhatu et al. [75] prove that multistakeholder dialog provides sustainable, targeted values and advantages for companies. Similar to the study [76], the empirical results of this study also confirm the positive statistically significant impact of knowledge and awareness on stakeholders’ green interests and values on companies’ capabilities to develop green competitiveness.
In addition, stakeholders’ decisions, suggestions, and ideas should be incorporated into the company’s development policy. From the other point of view, stakeholders should have good knowledge of companies’ green values and policies that allow them to be active and suggest prolific decisions on promoting companies’ green competitiveness.
The specific challenges and opportunities of green competitiveness in emerging markets are different from those in developed markets due to the unique economic, social, and environmental context of these markets. A lot of companies in emerging markets face limited access to finance, making it difficult to invest in green technologies and practices. This can be a major barrier to achieving green competitiveness, as many green initiatives require significant capital investments. At the same time, many emerging markets are focusing on building green infrastructure and investing in green technologies to improve their environmental sustainability. They also prioritize local solutions that address local challenges. In this case, the core role in emerging markets is played by the following groups of stakeholders: local communities, regulators, and suppliers. However, for the developed market, the following groups of stakeholders have a crucial role: investors, customers, NGOs, and advocacy groups.

6. Conclusions

Developing companies’ green competitive advantages requires coherent cooperation and communication between all groups of stakeholders. Applying structural modeling tools and the PLS-SEM technique, the findings prove that stakeholders’ engagement in the company’s management has a statistically significant positive effect on their green competitiveness, with a loading factor value of 0.632. Among all indicators that explained stakeholders’ engagement in the company’s management, the experience in communication with stakeholders (0.802) and managing their conflicts (0.806) had the most significant effect on the results indicator. The impact of other dimensions is approximately equal. It should be noted that the social dimension plays a core role in promoting the green competitiveness of the company. The environment, corporate, and marketing dimensions positively affect a company’s green competitiveness with approximately similar loading factors. The improvement of a company’s green competitiveness by extending stakeholders’ engagement provides positioning in world markets in the framework of attracting green investments and intellectual capital [3,9,77]. At the same time, stakeholders’ engagement allows the company to increase transparency and trust, which are core requirements of sustainable development [74,75]. It could consequently boost the company’s market capitalization and open new windows for listing on global green stock exchanges.
Thus, considering the study’s results, the following suggestions could be developed to promote a company’s green competitiveness within stakeholder engagement:
  • Engage with stakeholders to understand their green concerns and expectations within digital (online surveys, feedback systems, etc.) or traditional communication channels (official meetings, focus groups, etc.). In addition, management should consider stakeholders’ feedback on companies’ green initiatives to ensure that they are aligned with stakeholder expectations [13,31,75].
  • Strengthen partnerships with suppliers and consumers to increase green awareness and consciousness. It consequently allows for responsible production and consumption, which reduces the company’s negative effect on the environment [14,46].
  • Publishing sustainability reports as obligatory requirements on the official company’s website and promoting them among all stakeholders within social media [26,74].
  • Companies should improve their conflict management processes to address any disagreements that may arise with stakeholders. This process should be transparent and inclusive and seek to find mutually beneficial solutions [73,77].
  • Companies should invest in green technologies and innovations to reduce their environmental impact. This can include investing in renewable energy, reducing waste, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions [5,21,22].
It should be noted that the obtained results could be the basis for empirical justification of stakeholders’ green attitudes and advocacy impact on achieving green competitiveness by the companies. There are several limitations to this research that should be acknowledged.
First, the study heavily relied on the survey method, which has certain weaknesses, such as limited items in the questionnaire, the potential for human bias in completing the questionnaire, and the ability of respondents to provide the required information accurately. To overcome these limitations, future studies are recommended to consider using secondary data.
Second, this study only focused on companies in Ukraine, with a relatively small sample size due to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing war. As a result, data collection relied heavily on online questionnaires, making it difficult to meet with owners/managers of enterprises in person.
Third, not all owners/managers of companies in Ukraine have the same level of expertise in stakeholder engagement and achieving green competitiveness, which may have impacted the accuracy of the data collected. Therefore, the researchers were unable to conduct in-depth interviews to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the real situation faced by companies in Ukraine.
Past studies [2,10,35,37] underlined that green values and awareness impact stakeholder engagement. Furthermore, green values and awareness are shaped by a complex interplay of exogenous and endogenous factors (greenwashing, green awareness, green loyalty, green marketing, etc.), which can influence their perspectives, actions, and attitudes towards a company’s green competitiveness. Thus, it should be considered in future investigations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.L., O.C., T.P., and A.K.; methodology, O.L., O.C., T.P., and A.K.; software, O.L., O.C., T.P., and A.K.; validation, O.L., O.C., T.P., and A.K.; formal analysis, O.L., O.C., T.P., and A.K.; investigation, O.L., O.C., T.P., and A.K.; resources, O.L., O.C., T.P., and A.K.; data curation, O.L., O.C., T.P., and A.K.; writing—original draft preparation, O.L., O.C., T.P., and A.K.; writing—review and editing, O.L., O.C., T.P., and A.K.; visualization, O.L., O.C., T.P., and A.K.; supervision, O.L., O.C., T.P., and A.K.; project administration, O.L., O.C., T.P., and A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine (grant numbers: 0122U000788 and 0123U101920).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to the anonymous referees for their helpful comments and constructive suggestions. The authors are very grateful to the European Education and Culture Executive Agency which support the project “Jean Monnet Module 620232-EPP-1-2020-1-UA-EPPJMO-MODULE «EU Carbon-free economy: best practices for Ukraine»”. This paper contains the results which are received within this project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. UN Agenda 2030. Available online: https://www.coe.int/en/web/programmes/un-2030-agenda (accessed on 10 December 2022).
  2. Hu, G.; Strielkowski, W.; Li, H.; Zenchenko, S.; Xu, J. Can green credit policy under the concept of green economy curb corporate financialization to promote sustainable development? Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhanibek, A.; Abazov, R.; Khazbulatov, A. Digital Transformation of a Country’s Image: The Case of the Astana International Finance Centre in Kazakhstan. Virtual Econ. 2022, 5, 71–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Habib, A.M. Does the efficiency of working capital management and environmental, social, and governance performance affect a firm’s value? Evidence from the United States. Financ. Mark. Inst. Risks 2022, 6, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Al-Qassab, H.; Paucar-Caceres, A.; Wright, G.; Pagano, R. Sustainability and green project management skills: An exploratory study in the construction industry in Dubai. In Social Responsibility and Sustainability; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 223–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Samusevych, Y.; Vysochyna, A.; Vasylieva, T.; Lyeonov, S.; Pokhylko, S. Environmental, energy and economic security: Assessment and interaction. In E3S Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2021; Volume 234, p. 00012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shvindina, H.; Veckalne, R.; Balahurovska, I.; Khrin, N. Development Features and Directions of Modern Management: In the Case of Ukrainian Health Care Institutions. Health Econ. Manag. Rev. 2022, 3, 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kolosok, S.; Bilan, Y.; Vasylieva, T.; Wojciechowski, A.; Morawski, M. A scoping review of renewable energy, sustainability and the environment. Energies 2021, 14, 4490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vidic, F. Knowledge asset as competitive resource. SocioEcon. Chall. 2022, 6, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Afum, E.; Agyabeng-Mensah, Y.; Baah, C.; Acquah, I.S.K.; Osei, M.B. Empirical evidence of SMEs’ ecopreneurship posture, green competitiveness and community-based performance: The neglected missing linkages of green practices. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Borowiecki, R.; Makieła, Z.J.A.N. Determinants of entrepreneurship and innovation development in local areas of economic activity: A case study analysis. Forum Sci. Oeconomia 2019, 7, 7–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zabolotniaia, M.; Cheng, Z.; Dacko-Pikiewicz, Z. Influence of leadership style on employees’ innovative activity. [Wpływ stylów przewodzenia na aktywność innowacyjną pracowników]. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2019, 20, 478–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lewin, L.D.; Warren, D.E. Calls to action: The dangers of negative CSR information and stakeholder punishments. Corp. Reput. Rev. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Swiatkiewicz, O. Subsidiarity in Management & Business Activity: The Two Sides of the Phenomenon. Bus. Ethics Leadersh. 2022, 6, 77–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Savchenko, V.; Grivko, S. Mechanism of formation and activity of innovation cluster structure of engineering complex. Polissya Sci. Bull. 2017, 2, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bazhal, M.; Koutchma, T. Ukraine as a food and grain hub: Impact of science and technology development on food security in the world. Front. Food. Sci. Technol. 2022, 2, 1040396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Utomo, C.; Astarini, S.D.; Mertha, D.M.S.W.; Rahmawati, Y.; Aqsha; Nurcahyo, C.B.; Nahdiyah, M. Decision Factors of Stakeholder Integration in Connected Construction for Circular Economics. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yang, C.; Han, D.; Zhang, M.; Wang, L.; Jia, P.; Jiang, X.; Huang, X. Visible light communication-channel-adaptive digital preequalization scheme based on a deep learning model. Opt. Eng. 2023, 62, 018101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Arefieva, O.; Polous, O.; Arefiev, S.; Tytykalo, V.; Kwilinski, A. Managing sustainable development by human capital reproduction in the system of company‘s organizational behavior. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hazem, F.; Sharif, F. Empowering human resources to achieve the strategic goals of business companies. SocioEcon. Chall. 2022, 6, 62–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Trzeciak, M.; Kopec, T.P.; Kwilinski, A. Constructs of project programme management supporting open innovation at the strategic level of the organization. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lahouirich, M.W.; El Amri, A.; Oulfarsi, S.; Sahib Eddine, A.; El Bayed Sakalli, H.; Boutti, R. From financial performance to sustainable development: A great evolution and an endless debate. Financ. Mark. Inst. Risks 2022, 6, 68–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Eryürük, Ş.; Kürüm Varolgüneş, F.; Varolgüneş, S. Assessment of stakeholder satisfaction as additive to improve building design quality: AHP-based approach. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2022, 37, 505–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Malaeb, Z.; Hamzeh, F.R. IPD-inspired framework for measuring stakeholder integration in public-private partnerships. Constr. Innov. 2022, 22, 160–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ominde, D.; Ochieng, E.G.; Omwenga, V.O. An assessment tool for stakeholder integration excellence and project delivery optimization. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2022. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Denner, N.; Schneider, H. People want to see people? personalization on facebook as a tool for corporate communications. Corp. Commun. 2023, 28, 30–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Buhalis, D.; O’Connor, P.; Leung, R. Smart hospitality: From smart cities and smart tourism toward agile business ecosystems in networked destinations. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2023, 35, 369–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kong, R.; Zhang, C.C.; Sun, R.; Chhabra, V.; Nadimpalli, T.; Konstan, J.A. Multiobjective personalization in multistakeholder organizational bulk E-mail. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2022, 6, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hermann, E. Artificial intelligence and mass personalization of communication content—An ethical and literacy perspective. New Media Soc. 2022, 24, 1258–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kravchenko, O.; Kaminska, B.; Boiko, V. Motivation as a Determinant of the Personnel Management System in Medical Institutions. Health Econ. Manag. Rev. 2022, 3, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sagie, H.; Orenstein, D.E. Benefits of stakeholder integration in an ecosystem services assessment of mount carmel biosphere reserve, Israel. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 53, 101404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cansino-Loeza, B.; Ponce-Ortega, J.M. Sustainable assessment of water-energy-food nexus at regional level through a multistakeholder optimization approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 290, 125194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Maseko, L.; Root, D. Collaborative risk management within the design phase of green buildings. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ARCOM Conference, ARCOM 2021, Glasgow, UK, 6–7 September 2021; pp. 381–390. [Google Scholar]
  34. Yin, S.; Zhang, N.; Li, B. Enhancing the competitiveness of multiagent cooperation for green manufacturing in China: An empirical study of the measure of green technology innovation capabilities and their influencing factors. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2020, 23, 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhang, H.; Geng, Z.; Yin, R.; Zhang, W. Regional differences and convergence tendency of green development competitiveness in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 254, 119922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. He, Y.; Tang, C.; Zhang, D.; Liao, N. Assessing the effects of the influencing factors on industrial green competitiveness fusing fuzzy C-means, rough set and fuzzy artificial neural network methods. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 147, 109921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, N.; Zhang, J.; Wang, W. Impact of environmental innovation strategy on green competitiveness: Evidence from China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Acquah, I.S.K.; Baah, C.; Agyabeng-Mensah, Y.; Afum, E. Sustainable supply chain learning and employee green creativity: Implications for disruption management and green competitiveness. In Increasing Supply Chain Performance in Digital Society; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 243–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nowak, A.; Kasztelan, A. Economic competitiveness vs. green competitiveness of agriculture in the european union countries. Oeconomia Copernic. 2022, 13, 379–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, T.; Zho, J.-Y.; Hussain, R.Y.; Wang, M.; Ren, K. Research on the cultivation of green competitiveness among chinese heavily polluting enterprises under country/district environmental regulations. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Peng, Y.; Chen, Y.; Hou, Y.; Li, S. China’s logistics green competitiveness promotion path: A fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 91268–91284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Esty, D.C.; Porter, M.E. Industrial ecology and competitiveness: Strategic implications for the firm. J. Ind. Ecol. 1998, 2, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cheng, X.; Long, R.; Chen, H.; Li, Q. Coupling coordination degree and spatial dynamic evolution of a regional green competitiveness system—A case study from China. Ecol. Indic. 2019, 104, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Muisyo, P.; Su, Q.; Ho, T.H.; Julius, M.M.; Usmani, M.S. Implications of green HRM on the firm’s green competitive advantage: The mediating role of enablers of green culture. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2022, 33, 308–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Safarov, Q.; Sadiqova, S.; Urazayeva, M. Methodological Approach to Identification of Innovative Determinants of Human Capital Management. Mark. Manag. Innov. 2022, 2, 255–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mao, Q. Evaluation method and promotion countermeasures of green competitiveness for industrial enterprises under the background of environmental protection. Int. J. Environ. Technol. Manag. 2021, 24, 364–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bhupendra, K.V.; Sangle, S. Structural process model of absorptive capacity for stakeholder’s integration in decision-making: Dynamic capability perspective. Soc. Bus. Rev. 2022, 17, 421–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Correia, D.M.; Teixeira, L.; Marques, J.L. Smart supply chain management: The 5W1H open and collaborative framework. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 8th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications, ICIEA 2021, Chengdu, China, 23–26 April 2021; pp. 401–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Saleem, F.; Zhang-Zhang, Y.; Malik, M.I.; Allui, A. Revisiting Stakeholder Theory and Environmentalism: Evidence from an Emerging Economy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chygryn, O.; Bilan, Y.; Kwilinski, A. Stakeholders of green competitiveness: Innovative approaches for creating communicative system. Mark. Manag. Innov. 2020, 3, 358–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chygryn, O.; Miskiewicz, R. New Trends and Patterns in Green Competitiveness: A Bibliometric Analysis of Evolution. Virtual Econ. 2022, 5, 24–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Yang, C.; Kwilinski, A.; Chygryn, O.; Lyulyov, O.; Pimonenko, T. The green competitiveness of enterprises: Justifying the quality criteria of digital marketing communication channels. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Luo, Y.; Li, X.; Qi, X.; Zhao, D. The impact of emission trading schemes on firm competitiveness: Evidence of the mediating effects of firm behaviors from the Guangdong ETS. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 290, 112633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Von Geyr, M.; Joos, K. Pathways between dominance and goodwill: Changing the perspective for successful stakeholder integration. In Eurasian Business and Economics Perspectives: Proceedings of the 37th Eurasia Business and Economics Society Conference; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 24, pp. 107–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mohd Ghazali, Z.; Wan Yaacob, W.F.; Wan Omar, W.M. LGCM and PLS-SEM in Panel Survey Data: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis. Data 2023, 8, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Padilla-Lozano, C.P.; Collazzo, P. Corporate social responsibility, green innovation and competitiveness–causality in manufacturing. Compet. Rev. Int. Bus. J. 2022, 32, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Agyabeng-Mensah, Y.; Tang, L. The relationship among green human capital, green logistics practices, green competitiveness, social performance and financial performance. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2021, 32, 1377–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Teixeira, P.; Coelho, A.; Fontoura, P.; Sá, J.C.; Silva, F.J.; Santos, G.; Ferreira, L.P. Combining lean and green practices to achieve a superior performance: The contribution for a sustainable development and competitiveness—An empirical study on the Portuguese context. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022, 29, 887–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ray, K.N.; Miller, E. Strengthening stakeholder-engaged research and research on stakeholder engagement. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 2017, 6, 375–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Hristov, I.; Appolloni, A. Stakeholders’ engagement in the business strategy as a key driver to increase companies’ performance: Evidence from managerial and stakeholders’ practices. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 1488–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Shaukat, M.B.; Latif, K.F.; Sajjad, A.; Eweje, G. Revisiting the relationship between sustainable project management and project success: The moderating role of stakeholder engagement and team building. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 30, 58–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chin, W.W. How to write up and report PLS analyses. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 655–690. [Google Scholar]
  64. Hair, J.F.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares (PLS) Structural Equation Modeling; SAGE Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  65. Leguina, A. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 2015, 38, 220–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bell, S.M.; Chalmers, R.P.; Flora, D.B. The Impact of Measurement Model Misspecification on Coefficient Omega Estimates of Composite Reliability. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Purwanto, A.; Sudargini, Y. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis for social and management research: A literature review. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. Res. 2021, 2, 114–123. [Google Scholar]
  68. Gimeno-Arias, F.; Santos-Jaén, J.M.; Palacios-Manzano, M.; Garza-Sánchez, H.H. Using PLS-SEM to Analyze the Effect of CSR on Corporate Performance: The Mediating Role of Human Resources Management and Customer Satisfaction. An Empirical Study in the Spanish Food and Beverage Manufacturing Sector. Mathematics 2021, 9, 2973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Tunji-Olayeni, P.; Kajimo-Shakantu, K.; Ayodele, T.O. Factors influencing the intention to adopt green construction: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Maris, M. Management of Competitiveness in the EU Member States: The Main Strengths and Weaknesses. Mark. Manag. Innov. 2022, 2, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Tovmasyan, G. The Impact of Skills, Personality and Psychology on Management and Decision Making: Empirical Study Among Managers and Employees. Bus. Ethics Leadersh. 2022, 6, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ramadania, R.; Ratnawati, R.; Juniwati, J.; Afifah, N.; Heriyadi, H.; Darma, D.C. Impulse buying and hedonic behavior: A mediation effect of positive emotions. Virtual Econ. 2022, 5, 43–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Dzwigol, H. Research methodology in management science: Triangulation. Virtual Econ. 2022, 5, 78–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Adomako, S.; Tran, M.D. Stakeholder management, CSR commitment, corporate social performance: The moderating role of uncertainty in CSR regulation. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022, 29, 1414–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sebhatu, S.P.; Enquist, B. Values and Multistakeholder Dialog for Business Transformation in Light of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. J. Bus. Ethics 2022, 180, 1059–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Albertini, E. What are the environmental capabilities, as components of the sustainable intellectual capital, that matter to the CEOs of european companies? J. Intellect. Cap. 2021, 22, 918–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K.; Gatnar, S. Key competences of research and development project managers in high technology sector. Forum Sci. Oeconomia 2022, 10, 107–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 07249 g001 550
Figure 1. Structural equation model for the assessment of stakeholders’ engagement impact on companies’ green competitiveness.
Figure 1. Structural equation model for the assessment of stakeholders’ engagement impact on companies’ green competitiveness.
Sustainability 15 07249 g001
Table
Table 1. Survey descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Survey descriptive statistics.
SymbolsQueryMeanMinMaxIM
GCEkonTo what extent has your company experienced cost savings from implementing environmentally friendly practices?3.7153.8
To what extent does your company invest in research and development of environmentally sustainable products or services?3.825
To what extent has your company implemented resource-saving measures in its operations?3.925
GCEnvTo what extent does your company measure and monitor its environmental impact (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, water usage, and waste generation)? 3.4153.2
To what extent does your company have environmental sustainability goals and targets in place? 3.225
To what extent does your company use sustainable materials and/or source materials from suppliers who prioritize environmental sustainability? 3.015
To what extent does your company consider the environmental impact of its business decisions and factor this into its overall decision-making process? 3.015
GCSocTo what extent does your company prioritize social responsibility, including environmental impact, in its business practices?4.2153.9
How important is it for your company to have a positive reputation for environmental responsibility among its customers and other stakeholders?3.925
To what extent has your company developed partnerships with local communities to promote environmentally sustainable practices?4.015
To what extent does your company support environmental causes and initiatives beyond its own operations, such as through donations or volunteer work?3.515
GCCorpTo what extent does your company set specific and measurable environmental sustainability goals and regularly report on progress towards meeting them? 3.2153.4
To what extent does your company have an environmental management system (ISO 14001 or similar) in place to manage environmental risks and opportunities? 3.825
To what extent does your company consider the full life cycle impacts of its products and services, from raw material sourcing to end-of-life disposal or recycling? 3.225
GCMarkTo what extent does your company use social media and other digital platforms to communicate its environmental sustainability initiatives and engage with customers on sustainability-related topics? 3.6353.6
To what extent does your company provide environmental information on product packaging, such as recycling instructions or carbon footprint information? 3.835
To what extent has your company experienced benefits, such as increased customer loyalty or employee satisfaction, from its environmental initiatives?3.325
N1How have your company’s environmental initiatives affected its relationships with employees, customers, and other stakeholders?3.0153.2
To what extent does your company involve suppliers in its environmental initiatives, such as promoting sustainable sourcing practices?3.015
How does your enterprise collaborate with targeted stakeholders to co-create environmental communication strategies and campaigns?3.615
N2How does your enterprise measure and evaluate the effectiveness of its efforts to understand and respond to stakeholder interests and values?3.2253.3
To what extent do stakeholders view your enterprise as responsive to their environmental concerns and values?3.615
How does your enterprise collaborate with stakeholders to develop and implement environmental initiatives that align with their interests and values?3.025
N3How frequently does your enterprise engage in dialogue with stakeholders about green competitiveness issues?4.0253.5
To what extent does your company work with suppliers and partners who share its commitment to environmental sustainability and use this as a selling point in its marketing efforts?3.225
To what extent do stakeholders view your enterprise as a leader in environmental responsibility and sustainability?3.215
N4To what extent does your company engage with stakeholders and customers to gather feedback on its environmental sustainability initiatives and incorporate this feedback into its marketing efforts?3.4153.4
How does your company typically incorporate stakeholders’ suggestions and recommendations related to green competitiveness issues?3.415
How effective do you think your company’s approach to incorporating stakeholders’ suggestions and recommendations related to green competitiveness issues is?3.415
N5How effective do you think your company’s approach to managing stakeholder conflicts related to green competitiveness issues is?4.0153.8
To what extent does your company have formal processes in place for identifying and addressing stakeholder conflicts related to green competitiveness issues?3.615
Note: GCEkon—Economic determinant of green competitiveness; GCEnv—Environment determinant of green competitiveness; GCSoc—Social determinant of green competitiveness; GCCorp—Corporate determinant of green competitiveness; GCMark—Marketing determinant of green competitiveness; N1—targeted stakeholders’ communications; N2—knowledge and awareness of stakeholders’ interests and values; N3—experience in communication with stakeholders; N4—incorporation of stakeholders’ suggestions and recommendations in promoting a company’s green competitiveness; N5—managing stakeholders’ conflicts.
Table
Table 2. Reliability and convergent validity.
Table 2. Reliability and convergent validity.
IndicatorDescriptionFactor LoadingVIFCronbach’s αCRAVE
Cutt-Off Level>0.6<5.0>0.7>0.7>0.5
Green competitiveness0.8140.8710.574
GCEkonEconomic determinant of green competitiveness0.754 *1.675–
GCEnvEnvironment determinant of green competitiveness0.722 *1.545–
GCSocSocial determinant of green competitiveness0.838 *2.257–
GCCorpCorporate determinant of green competitiveness0.726 *1.502–
GCMarkMarketing determinant of green competitiveness0.744 *1.753–
Stakeholder engagement in the company’s management 0.8070.8630.560
N1Targeted stakeholders’ communications0.692 *1.420–
N2Knowledge and awareness of stakeholders’ interests and values0.711 *1.581–
N3Experience in communication with stakeholders0.802 *1.871–
N4Incorporating stakeholders’ suggestions and recommendations in promoting the company’s green competitiveness0.721 *1.562–
N5Managing stakeholders’ conflicts0.806 *1.516–
Note: *—statistical significance at 1%; CR—composite reliability; AVE—average variance extracted.
Table
Table 3. The output of the discriminant validity test: Fornell-Larcker criterion.
Table 3. The output of the discriminant validity test: Fornell-Larcker criterion.
Latent VariablesGCLSI
GC0.758–
LSI0.6320.748
Table
Table 4. Cross loadings.
Table 4. Cross loadings.
VariablesGCEkonGCEnvGCSocGCCorpGCMarkN1N2N3N4N5
GC0.7540.7220.8380.7260.7440.3990.3390.4820.3700.656
LSI0.4670.4780.4400.5290.4610.6920.7110.8020.7210.806
Note: bold means that loading values satisfy the reliability and validity criteria.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lyulyov, O.; Chygryn, O.; Pimonenko, T.; Kwilinski, A. Stakeholders’ Engagement in the Company’s Management as a Driver of Green Competitiveness within Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7249. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097249

AMA Style

Lyulyov O, Chygryn O, Pimonenko T, Kwilinski A. Stakeholders’ Engagement in the Company’s Management as a Driver of Green Competitiveness within Sustainable Development. Sustainability. 2023; 15(9):7249. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097249

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lyulyov, Oleksii, Olena Chygryn, Tetyana Pimonenko, and Aleksy Kwilinski. 2023. "Stakeholders’ Engagement in the Company’s Management as a Driver of Green Competitiveness within Sustainable Development" Sustainability 15, no. 9: 7249. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097249

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop