Interaction Between Social Business Sustainability and Consumer PurchaseDecision: Conceptual Framework

1.1. Sustainability management in social business organization‘s processes

Management is an important aspect for organisation's effort to develop sustainability. To assess and understand the existing dimensions of sustainability, it is important to categorise it. Therefore, sustainability and its assessment become an essential component of corporate performance management (Saeed, Kersten, 2017). To assess sustainability, both qualitative and quantitative studies have been conducted in the last two decades (Schaltegger et al., 2016; Martınez et al., 2017).

Business processes in organisations can be categorised according to the importance of the core process for the organisation itself, with the processes being divided into three main parts: core processes, secondary processes, which are as important as the supporting processes, and managerial processes. Nowadays, the importance of supporting processes for the company's performance success is notable (Kaziliūnas, 2004, Strazdas, Černevičiūtė, 2014, Sobotkiewicz, 2015). One of the most important supporting processes is continuous improvement, which marks an important significance and progress for the company. However, despite the different analyses of business processes, we still have a gap in both academic literature and practice (Carvalho, Rabechini, 2011, Marcelino-Sadaba et al., 2015, Singh et al., 2012, Thomson et al., 2011).

Analyzing the existing scientific literature about sustainability, it can be noticed that social businesses using circular economy principles achieve cost savings, new forms of income, long-term competitiveness, resource conservation, customer interest, and attract new customers, etc. (Stratan, D., 2017). However, the lack of clear financial benefits of sustainable implementation is still a barrier to the diffusion of sustainable development, and these benefits will not be achieved until end-users fully support the implementation of the new concept (Støre-Valen, M., Buser, M., 2018). Research on corporate sustainability shows that companies focus on society and values, but unfortunately, this is not the only principle that can be considered as a hallmark of a sustainable company. The current scientific literature on sustainability focuses on the impact of firms and industries; there is a lack of broader knowledge and newer insights involving other systems (Whiteman et al., 2013, Bansal and Gao, 2006). Sustainability has also become a component of corporate ethics in response to perceived public dissatisfaction with the long-term damage caused by the focus on short-term profits (Grant, M., 2020).

The key factors for implementing sustainability are the company's philosophy, customer needs, personal interest, organisational culture, and top management support. Importantly, disclosure of sustainability through reporting is a key aspect of companies developing sustainability. Research shows that while companies recognise the importance of sustainability, a large proportion do not pay practical attention to sustainability management (Bonini et al., 2010). Even though social business can focus on social value creation, it remains one of the most difficult part of implementing sustainability in social business organizations. Due to the need to develop sustainability, sustainable social business models are emerging in the scientific literature, as the sustainability practices of existing businesses are insufficient. It is also pointed out that the two concepts of corporate sustainability and social business are closely related, but it is still debatable whether they can coexist (Grant, M., 2020).

The main problems of sustainability implementation are the cost of the measures and the difficulty of measuring social and environmental aspects due to their qualitative nature and the lack of support from leaders (Corsi, K., Arru, B., 2020). Results show that some of the main barriers to the implementation of sustainability practices are the lack of knowledge in organisations, lack of time, and lack of commitment from managers (Elmualim et al., 2012). Researchers underline that there still exist challenges in terms of collaboration between practitioners and users (Thomsen et al., 2013; Risholt et al., 2013; Moum et al., 2017; Shah, 2007; Then, 2013). Practitioners tend to focus on technical solutions and take it for granted that consumers will accept this and behave according to regulations (Johansson, 2017).

This implies that to develop sustainability more effectively, it is also necessary to analyse public attitudes towards sustainability. As organizations are dependent on the natural environment, the actions and activities of organizations affect the same environment and provide some feedback (Starik, Rands, 1995, Starik, Kanashiro, 2013). Therefore, it is important to acknowledge the need to examine existing boundaries and recognise the dependence of organisations on societal, economic, and environmental aspects (Meadows et al., 2009, Rockstrom et al., 2009, Marcus et al., 2010, Whiteman et al., 2013, Winn, Pogutz, 2013). Research shows that while companies recognise the importance of sustainability, a large proportion of companies do not notice practical attention to sustainability management (Bonini et al., 2010). In analysing the reasons for this, it is important to mention that the perception of the fundamentals of sustainability is unclear and the duration of the return on investment is still unknown (Naude, 2011). For achieving positive change, sustainability management should be one of the key processes for improving company performance. Also, low awareness of the importance of sustainability and thinking about the return of the individual company is one of the main obstacles to sustainable development. Therefore, the sustainability improvement cycle is defined as a kind of supporting process for the company's activities, as part of the organisational development process, in which evaluation becomes one of the main aspects and outcomes.

Since the process of improving performance is essential not only to achieve more efficient results but also to make more effective decisions for the benefit of society, sustainability management is becoming one of the key tools that can help to bring significant change. Figure 1 illustrates the sustainability management cycle of an organisation, which consists of four main parts: planning, implementation, assessment, and feedback. Assessment is one of the key aspects here. This means that companies should not only improve and adapt the sustainability management resources, but also dedicate time and resources to innovation and learning. This situation highlights the need to analyse sustainability not only from the company's perspective, but also from the perspective of its stakeholders.

Figure 1. Organization’s sustainability management cycle
Source: Asif, Searcy, 2014

To better illustrate the aspects of the topic under consideration, it is important to understand that the establishment of sustainability measurement indicators (as criteria) is a very important part of an organisation's efforts to continuously develop sustainability.

The process of sustainability management is complex, involving a number of execution steps that are designed with a long-term perspective (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Steps for continuous improvement of the sustainability development process
Source: Asif, Searcy, 2013

Effective management of the sustainability development process requires deep knowledge of how we can achieve positive results. We still do not have a common approach to sustainable development and its management, but there is significant interest in this area. Certain stages of the process can be linked to a company's activity, but there is still a need for common evaluation criteria. However, it is clear that sustainability is about the long-term process to achieve effective change.

1.2 Consumer purchase decision from a sustainability perspective

An important aspect of the analysis of consumer attitudes towards sustainability is that changes in public attitudes, e.g., positive attitudes towards sustainability, facilitate the development of sustainability, not only in organisations but also in society. Sustainability needs an enabling environment to evolve and move towards a more mature form of sustainability. Therefore, it is important to identify how consumers feel about sustainability and what indicators they consider to be indicative of the link between sustainability and appropriate outcomes and positive change. The research shows that sustainable businesses see themselves as operating as an organisation in community and that a company cannot be sustainable if community is not sustainable itself (Ketprapakorn, Kantabutra, 2019). Therefore, in this case, it is appropriate to analyse the inclination of consumers to assess sustainability, and the behaviour conditioned by it, to achieve an effective sustainability development.

The analysis of the scientific literature shows that there is not enough information on consumer intentions to purchase sustainable products or services. Research shows that changes in the environment are influencing consumer perceptions and that the concept of sustainability is becoming increasingly important to consumers (Bonini, Oppenheim, 2008). This indicates a favourable environment for the development of sustainability, as consumer attitudes are an important factor in the development of sustainability. Increased awareness and interest in sustainability is expected to influence consumer purchasing decisions (Paul, Modi, Patel, J., 2016, Azeiteiro et al. 2012) and the consumption of sustainable products can be one of the approaches to sustainability development that should be further explored not only in the academic literature, but also in practice (Ritter, Borchardt, Vaccaro, 2015, Mont, Plepys, 2008). Most importantly, sustainable products are produced according to sustainable development principles, a trend that is gaining popularity among consumers worldwide (Paul, Modi, Patel, 2016, Ritter et al., 2015, Lijuan, 2003). Therefore, it becomes important to analyse indicators that show the development of sustainability and to involve users to understand the main challenges and to achieve sustainability more effectively.

Consumers will buy sustainable products when their needs in terms of safety, quality, accessibility, and convenience are fulfilled. It is also important that consumers understand that buying sustainable products or services can help solve societal problems (Ottman, 1992). To advance sustainable development, it is necessary to increase knowledge about sustainability and its implications. Previous research shows that demographic characteristics (such as age and education) influence the purchasing behaviour of sustainable products. What is more, knowledge about sustainability is an important factor influencing the purchase of sustainable products (Franzen, Meyer, 2010, Sidique, Lupi, Joshi, 2010, Arslan, Yilmaz, Aksoy, 2012, Vega-Zamora, et al., 2013, Paul, Modi, Patel, 2016, Yadav, Pathak, Young, 2016). This situation shows that the only initiative of social business organisations is not enough - the involvement of society in sustainable development is also needed. The literature distinguishes the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behaviour (Fishbein, M., 1979, Ajzen, I., 1991). The main aspects of the theory are that consumer behaviour is influenced by intention, by attitudes towards a certain behaviour, by a subjective norm and by perceived behavioural control, which can also directly influence consumer behaviour. The analysis of consumer behaviour becomes very important when analysing the choice of sustainable products or companies. Nevertheless, consumer behaviour is considered to be one of the most complex areas of marketing (Hoppe, Marques Vieira, Dutra de Barcellos, 2013). It is important to understand that the intention to purchase sustainable products is related to the consumer's intention to purchase a product or service that is less harmful not only to the environment but also to society (Mohd Suki, 2016). Research shows that consumers' intention to purchase sustainable products or services is strongly influenced by positive attitudes and perceived value of sustainability (Rizwan, Ahmad, Mehboob, 2013, Vazifehdousta, 2013). Hence, knowledge about sustainability and its value plays an important role as it helps to create positive attitudes and appreciation of sustainability and create favourable conditions for sustainability to flourish.

Consumers who have knowledge about sustainability and sustainable products or services with positive past experiences have a high tendency to acquire strong intentions to continue purchasing sustainable products due to the positive impact of the environment (Lin, Chang, 2012, Norazah, 2013). Feelings and positive image are the main factors that create customer attitudes and influence their inclination to purchase sustainable products/services or choose sustainable companies (Schiffman, Wisenblit, 2014, Thogersen, et al, 2015). It is also important to mention that consumers with a deeper knowledge of sustainability have more positive attitudes towards the environment and the purchase of sustainable products or services. (Rokicka, 2002, Huang, Yang, Wang, 2014). The results show that to achieve sustainable development, it is necessary to analyse not only the ability of companies to act sustainably, but also the contribution of consumers to sustainability by analysing consumers' tendency to value sustainability and their purchasing behaviour related to it.

References

Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Arslan, T.; Yilmaz, V.; Aksoy, H. (2012). Structural equation model for environmentally conscious purchasing behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research, 6(1), 323–334. Access on: https://ijer.ut.ac.ir/article_498_456e2e6b5052ddbb282b0d584e460cb4.pdf

Asif, M.; Searcy, C., 2014. Towards a standardised management system for corporate sustainable development. The TQM Journal, 26(5), 411–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-08-2012-0057

Asif, M.; Searcy, C.; Zutshi, A.; Fisscher, O. A. M., 2013. An integrated management systems approach to corporate social responsibility, Journal of Cleaner Production, 56, 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.034

Azeiteiro, U.M.; Alves, F.; Pinto de Moura, A.; Pardal, M.A.; Pita, C.; Chuenpagdee, R.; Pierce, G.J., 2012. Participatory issues in fisheries governance in Europe. Management of Environmental Quality. 23(4), 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777831211232209

Bansal, P.; Gao, J., 2006. Building the future by looking to the past: examining research published on organizations and environment. Organization & Environment, 19(4), 458–478, https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1086026606294957

Bonini, S.; Görner, S.; Jones, A., 2010. How companies manage sustainability. McKinsey Global Survey Results, New York, NY. Access on: https://www.mckinsey.com/business- functions/sustainability/our-insights/how-companies-manage-sustainability-mckinsey-global-survey-results

Bonini, S.M.; Oppenheim, J.M., 2008. Cultivating the green consumer. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 56–61. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/cultivating_the_green_consumer#

Carvalho, M.M.; Rabechini, R., 2011. Construindo competencias para gerenciar projetos. 3rd edition. Atlas Publishing House, Sao Paulo.

Corsi, K.; Arru, B., 2020. Role and implementation of sustainability management control tools: critical aspects in the Italian context. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 34(9), 29–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-02-2019-3887

Donaldson, T.; Walsh, J.P., 2015. Toward a theory of business. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 181–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2015.10.002

Dyllick, T.; Muff, K., 2016. Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organization & Environment, 29(2), 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1086026615575176

Elmualim, A.; Valle, R.; Kwawu, W., 2012. Discerning policy and drivers for sustainable facilities management practice. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 1(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2012.03.001

Fishbein, M., 1979. A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 27, 65–116.

Franzen, A.; Meyer, R., 2010. Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: a multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European Sociological Review, 26(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp018

Goni, A. F.; Chofreh G. A.; Orakani E., Z. et al., 2020. Sustainable business model: a review and framework development. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 23, 889–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01886-z

Grant, M., 2020. Sustainability. Access on: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sustainability.asp

Hoppe, A.; Marques Vieira; L., Dutra de Barcellos, M., 2013. Consumer behaviour towards organic food in porto alegre: an application of the theory of planned Behaviour. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 51(1), 069–090. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-20032013000100004

Huang, Y.C.; Yang, M. and Wang, Y.C., 2014. Effects of green brand on green purchase intention. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 32(3), 250–268. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-10-2012-0105

Jeronimo Silvestre, W.; Antunes, P.; Leal Filho, W., 2014. Hybrid bottom line: another perspective on the sustainability of organizations. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 21(5), 456–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2014.959580

Johansson, J., 2017. Bæredygtighed i danske almene boliger:-med er brugerfokus, PhD thesis (in Danish), The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, Schools of Architecture, Design and Conservation, Copenhagen.

Kaziliūnas, A., 2004. Procesinis požiūris vadyboje ir viešajame administravime. Viešoji politika ir administravimas, 8, 37–47. Access on: https://vpa.ktu.lt/index.php/PPA/article/view/27201/14196

Ketprapakorn, N.; Kantabutra, S., 2019. Sustainable social enterprise model: relationships and consequences. Sustainability, 11(14), 3772. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143772

Lijuan, L., 2003. Enhancing sustainable development through developing green food: China’s option. In Sub-Regional Workshop; Dfid Ii Project, Ed.; United Nations in Bangkok: BKK, Thailand.

Lin, Y.C. and Chang, C.C.A., 2012. Double standard: the role of environmental consciousness in green product usage. Journal of Marketing, 76, 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1509%2Fjm.11.0264

Marcelino-Sadaba, S., Gonzalez-Jaen, L.F., Perez-Ezcurdia, A., 2015. Using project management as a way to sustainability. From a comprehensive review to a framework definition. Journal of Cleaner Production, 99, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.020

Marcus, J.; Kurucz, E.C.; Colbert, B.A., 2010. Conceptions of the businesses society nature interface: implications for management scholarship. Business and Society, 49(3), 402–438. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0007650310368827

Martinez, V., Neely, A., Velu, C., Leinster-Evans, S., Bisessar, D., 2017. Exploring the journey to services. International Journal of Production Economics. 192, 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.12.030

Meadows, D.; Rockstrom, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, A.; Chapin, F.S.; Lambin, E.F.; Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a

Mohd Suki, N., 2016. Green product purchase intention: impact of green brands, attitude, and knowledge. British Food Journal, 118(12), 2893–2910. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-06-2016-0295

Mont, O. Plepys, A., 2008. Sustainable consumption progress: should we be proud or alarmed? Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(4), 531–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.01.009.

Moum, A. Hauge, Å.L. and Thomsen, J., 2017. Four Norwegian zero emission pilot buildings – building process and user evaluation. Access on: https://sintefbok.no/book/index/1128/four_norwegian_zero_emission_pilot_buildings_building_process_and_user_evaluation

Naude, M., 2011. Sustainable development in companies: theoretical dream or implementable reality? Corporate Ownership & Control, 8(43), 352–364. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv8i4c3art4

Nicoletti Junior, A., Celia de Oliveira, M., Luis Helleno, A., 2018. Sustainability evaluation model for manufacturing systems based on the correlation between triple bottom line dimensions and balanced scorecard perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 190, 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.136

Nigri, G.; Del Baldo, M. (2018). Sustainability reporting and performance measurement systems: how do small and medium sized benefit corporations manage integration? Sustainability, 10(12), 4499. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124499

Norazah, M.S., 2013. Green products purchases: structural relationships of consumers perception of eco-label, eco-brand and environmental advertisement. Journal of Sustainability Science and Management, 8(1), 1–10.

Ottman, J., 1992. Sometimes Consumers Will Pay More to Go Green. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 16, 12-120.

Paul, J.; Modi, A.; Patel, J., 2016. Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 29, 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.11.006

Risholt, B., Time, B. and Hestnes, A.G., 2013. Sustainability assessment of nearly zero energy renovation of dwellings based on energy, economy and home quality indicators. Energy and Buildings. 60, 217–224. Access on: http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_4/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.12.017

Ritter, A.M.; Borchardt, M.; Vaccaro, G.L.; Pereira, G.M.; Almeida, F., 2015. Motivations for promoting the consumption of green products in an emerging country: Exploring attitudes of brazilian consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106(1), 507–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.066

Rizwan, M.; Ahmad, S.U.; Mehboob, N. 2013. Enhancing the green purchase intention based on green marketing: an empirical study from Pakistan. Asian Journal of Empirical Research, 3(2), 208–219. https://ideas.repec.org/a/asi/ajoerj/2013p208-219.html

Rockström, J.; Steffen, W. L.; Noone, K. et al., 2009. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 32. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/

Rokicka, E., 2002. Attitudes toward natural environment: a study of local community dwellers. International Journal of Sociology, 32(3), 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/15579336.2002.11770256

Saeed, M.A.; Kersten, W., 2017. Supply chain sustainability performance indicators: A content analysis based on published standards and guidelines. Logistics Research, 10(12), 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.23773/2017_12

Schaltegger, S.; Ludeke-Freund, F.; Hansen, E.G., 2012. Business cases for sustainability: the role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development. 6(2), 95–119. Access on: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2010510

Schiffman, L.G. and Wisenblit, J., 2014. Consumer Behaviour, 11th ed., Pearson Education Inc.

Shah, S., 2007. Sustainable practice for the facilities manager. Oxford: Blackwell Publication. Access on: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9780470759677.fmatter

Sidique, S.F.; Lupi, F.; Joshi, S.V., 2010. The effects of behavior and attitudes on drop-off recycling activities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54(3), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.07.012

Singh, R.K.; Murty, H.R.; Gupta, S.K.; Dikshit, A.K., 2012. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 15(1), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.01.007

Sobotkiewicz, D., 2015. Processes in multiple economic entities. Management, 16(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1515/manment-2015-0002

Starik, M.; Kanashiro, P., 2013. Toward a theory of sustainability management: uncovering and integrating the nearly obvious. Organization & Environment, 26(1), 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1086026612474958

Starik, M.; Rands, G.P., 1995. Weaving an integrated web: multilevel and multisystem perspectives of ecologically sustainable organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 908–935. https://doi.org/10.2307/258960

Store-Valen, M.; Buser, M., 2018. Implementing sustainable facility management. Challenges and barriers encountered by Scandinavian FM practitioners. Facilities, 37(9/10), 550–570. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-01-2018-0013

Stratan, D., 2017. Success factors of sustainable social enterprises through circular economy perspective. Visegrad Journal on Bioeconomy and Sustainable Development, 6(1), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/vjbsd-2017-0003

Strazdas, R.; Černevičiūtė, J., 2014. Verslo procesų identifikavimas kūrybinių industrijų įmonių veiklos tobulinimo kontekste. International Business: Innovations, Psychology, Economics, 5(1), 14–26. Access on: http://kuryba.lt/en/failai/zurnalai/2014_1.pdf#page=14

Then, D.S.-S., 2013. Issues of breadth and depth in facilities management - reflections of 30 years of educational development, in Then, D. (Ed.), Proceedings of Facilities Management and Maintenance, 74–86. Access on: http://docplayer.net/47795437-Facilities-management-and-maintenance.html

Thogersen, J.; Dutra de Barcellos, M.; Gattermann Perin, M. and Zhou, Y., 2015. Consumer buying motives and attitudes towards organic food in two emerging markets. International Marketing Review, 32(3/4), 389–412. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-06-2013-0123

Thomsen, J.; Berker, T.; Hauge, A.L.; Denizou, K.; Wago, S. and Jerko, S., 2013. The interaction between building and users in passive and zero-energy housing and offices: the role of interfaces, knowledge and user commitment. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 2(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1108/20466091311325845

Thomson, C.S.; El-Haram, M.A.; Emmanuel, R., 2011. Mapping sustainability assessment with the project life cycle. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.2011.164.2.143

Upward, A.; Jones, P., 2016. An ontology for strongly sustainable business models: defining an enterprise framework compatible with natural and social science. Organization & Environment, 29, 97–123. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1086026615592933

Vazifehdousta, H. (2013). Purchasing green to become greener: factors influence consumers’ green purchasing behavior. Management Science Letters, 3, 2489–2500. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2013.08.013

Vega-Zamora, M.; Parras-Rosa, M.; Murgado-Armenteros, E.M.; Torres-Ruiz, F.J., 2013. A powerful word: the influence of the term ‘organic’ on perceptions and beliefs concerning food. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 16(4), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.159660

Waddock, S., 2020. Achieving sustainability requires systemic business transformation. Global Sustainability, 3, e12. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.9

Whiteman, G.; Walker, B.; Perego, P., 2013. Planetary boundaries: ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 307–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01073.x

Winn, M.I.; Pogutz, S., 2013. Business, ecosystems, and biodiversity: new horizons for management research. Organization and Environment, 26(2), 203–229. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F108602661349017

Yadav, R.; Pathak, G.S., 2016. Young consumers’ intention towards buying green products in a developing nation: Extending the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 732–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.120

Dr. Aurelija Ulbinaitė: Associate Professor at Vilnius University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Business Department. Scientific interests: business models, company performance evaluation, and consumer behaviour. Address of institution: Saulėtekio av. 9, II building, LT-10222, Vilnius.

Neringa Raštutytė: MSc student in Business Process Management at Vilnius University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Business Department. Scientific interests: social business, sustainability, and consumer behaviour. Address of institution: Saulėtekio av. 9, II building, LT-10222, Vilnius.