Next Article in Journal
Chemical and Leaching Behavior of Construction and Demolition Wastes and Recycled Aggregates
Previous Article in Journal
Towards Rail-Road Online Exchange Platforms in EU-Freight Transportation Markets: An Analysis of Matching Supply and Demand in Multimodal Services
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 12
Issue 24
10.3390/su122410322
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

How Does Corporate Sustainability Increase Financial Performance for Small- and Medium-Sized Fashion Companies: Roles of Organizational Values and Business Model Innovation

by
Su Jin Yang
1 and
Seyoon Jang
2,*
1
Department of Consumer Science & Living Culture Industry, Sungshin Women’s University, Seoul 01133, Korea
2
Department of Textiles, Merchandising and Fashion Design, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(24), 10322; https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410322
Submission received: 15 October 2020 / Revised: 3 December 2020 / Accepted: 4 December 2020 / Published: 10 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Management)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The objective of this study was to examine how corporate sustainability can raise the level of corporate financial performance of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the fashion industry by considering the roles of organizational values and business model innovation in forming corporate sustainability. It is meaningful to explore the role of corporate sustainability in SMEs as well as fashion companies considering the recent growth of SMEs in the fashion industry. Practitioners (N = 218) working for SMEs located in South Korea participated in an online survey. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in three organizational values of SMEs: flexibility value, rational value, and hierarchical value. While flexibility has contributed to forming business model innovation and sustainability, having a rational value has impacted business model innovation and financial performance. A hierarchical value affected only corporate sustainability. However, business model innovation did not show any significant impact on corporate sustainability or financial performance. Finally, corporate sustainability positively influenced financial performance only for SMEs that had experience practicing at least three sustainable activities. These results have implications for how SMEs manage sustainability to enhance financial performance.

1. Introduction

Sustainability has become an important issue that corporations have to pursue, not only to take social and environmental responsibility but to also successfully increase their sustainable profitability. However, previous research on sustainability has focused on consumers’ responses to certain sustainable strategic activities or products, but the focus has not been extended from practitioners’ perceptions to the overall corporate level of sustainability that can be achieved by supply chain management or business model innovation. Thus, we focus on the concept of corporate sustainability and examine how corporates build sustainable systems ranging from monitoring, reporting, to rewards, which are also related to corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate citizenship. Although several studies have explored the relationship between corporate sustainability and financial performance, there is no consistent agreement on this relationship [1] (Pedersen et al., 2018). More academic research is needed on the relationship in various industries. Thus, the purpose of the current research is to examine how corporate sustainability influences financial performance focusing on small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the fashion industry. The fashion industry has a reputation as one of the most destructive fields in terms of sustainability. The complicated supply chain also involves numerous SMEs. Given the scarce research on sustainability in SMEs in the fashion industry, there is an urgent need to examine the role of sustainability and the relationship to SMEs’ financial performance.
Corporate sustainability has generally been seen as a result of business model innovation, as evidenced by the various sustainable business model innovation theories that have taken sustainability into account, such as social business models [2] (Yunus et al., 2010), green business models [3] (Sommer, 2012), triple bottom line business models [4] (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010), community development business models [5] (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008), inclusive business models [6] (Michelini & Fiorentino, 2012), and sustainability business models [5,7] (Birkin et al., 2009; Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008). Most of these theories have argued that corporate sustainability will be profitable only when the business model includes a goal of sustainability. More specifically, they have reasoned that corporate sustainability can be successful only when it is achieved based on business model innovation as well as a flexible and open organizational culture. Thus, this study considered organizational values and business model innovation as the antecedents of corporate sustainability and how these antecedents related to financial performance.
This study explores the role of organizational values that directly relate to business model innovation and sustainability. Many studies have suggested that organizational values comprise multiple dimensions [8,9,10,11] (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Henri, 2006; Ogbonna & Harris, 2000; Tharp, 2009), and that certain dimensions are more effective for a company in pursuing innovation and sustainability [12] (Denison & Spreitzer, 1991). However, given the assumption that sustainability is a special type of business model and is related to innovation, it is unclear what organizational values play a critical role in contributing to business model innovation and corporate sustainability, and how they can lead to financial performance. Given that corporate sustainable activities seem to be influenced by the culture and society in which the industry is situated [13] (Thanetsunthorn, 2015), we examined the types of organizational values important in forming business model innovation and corporate sustainability in South Korea. We also identified the contributing organizational values for sustainability and financial performance.
Lastly, this study examined the effect of corporate sustainability as a distinct type of business innovation on financial performance by identifying the sustainable activities practiced by SMEs in the fashion industry. Despite the recent importance of corporate sustainability, relatively little is known about the relationship between the overall innovative values of an organization, corporate sustainability, and the expected results of specific levels of sustainability-related activities [14,15] (Boons & Lüdeke-Freund 2013; Louch et al., 2010). The results show that fashion companies engage in a variety of sustainable activities throughout the whole, complex supply chain. Furthermore, if a company invests in sustainable activities that can innovate the business model, the relationships of the drivers as well as the consequences, such as financial performance, are expected to be stronger. This paper contributes to related academic literature by applying the framework of organizational values, business model innovation, sustainability, and financial performance to SMEs in the fashion industry.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Sustainability in the Fashion Industry

Sustainability in the fashion industry refers to a compatible system that does not adversely affect happiness or the environment [16] (Curwen et al., 2013). However, the nature of the fashion industry, such as a complicated supply chain and the rapid response to trend changes, may hinder fashion companies in maintaining sustainability. The fashion and textile industries have an extremely complicated supply chain involving extensive international, national, and local supply chain networks [17] (Forman & Jørgensen, 2004). To make matters worse, fast fashion is infamous for pollution in the product production process, mass waste reclamation and incineration due to rapid trend changes, and labor exploitation in low-wage countries [18] (Jang, 2013). Specifically, fast fashion is sensitive to rapidly changing consumer trends that shorten the product life cycle at a relatively cheap price, which inevitably leads to more waste and more labor exploitation [19] (Giesen, 2008).
Given the visibility and accessibility of fashion, there are also several consumer psychological issues such as additive purchase behavior leading to lowered self-esteem [20] (Lee et al., 2009). Specifically, consumers often do not wear good fashion products for a long time and often buy fashion items that reflect the rapidly changing trends. Consumers may also experience lower self-esteem given the pressure to keep up with high-fashion brands and trendy designs created by fashion brand companies through various marketing avenues. Consumers’ psychological issues can enhance the pace of fashion product consumption and inevitably lead to an overwhelming amount of waste from fashion products. As a result, many large companies have attempted to address the negative effects of fashion related to sustainability.
The fashion industry has increasingly gained attention as one of the most unsustainable industries, and fashion consumers and global fashion companies, including fast fashion, have gained a bad reputation as an industry that destroys sustainability. However, if consumers actively consider sustainability in their consumption patterns [21] (Cotler, 2019), the level of sustainability of fashion brands can become a crucial factor in the success or failure of fashion companies. To eliminate the stigma, large global companies like Zara, H&M, and Nike have worked towards more sustainability to combat their reputation as “environmental destroyers” by rebuilding the supply chain and transforming their stores into environment-friendly systems [22] (Catharina, 2018). Nevertheless, few studies have examined fashion companies’ efforts to improve sustainability and connect such improvement to their financial performance. To date, several related studies have examined sustainability and financial performance [16,18,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36] (Ählström, 2010; Ahn & Ryou, 2013; Bastholm, 2011; Battaglia et al., 2014; Colucci et al., 2020; Dickson, 2000; Kim et al., 2016; Kolk & Tulder, 2002; Lee et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2018; Curwen et al., 2013; Jang, 2013; Jung & Jin, 2016; Park, 2017; Park & Ko, 2017; Youn, et al., 2017). However, most of these studies have either focused on consumers’ perceptions or evaluations [25,33,34,36] (Bastholm, 2011; Jung & Jin, 2016; Park, 2017; Youn et al., 2017), or utilized alternative indicators of financial performance such as brand equity [24] (Ahn & Ryou, 2013), CSR activities [26,27,29,31,32] (Battaglia et al., 2014; Colucci et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2016; Lee et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2018), or purchase intention [28,35] (Dickson, 2000; Park & Ko, 2017). These studies have validated the directly related results of sustainable strategic approaches such as development of green products, brands, and promotions. However, unlike previous literature, this study attempts to shed light on the overall level of corporate sustainability and financial performance rather than focusing on a certain sustainable activity. This approach is valuable since the fashion industry has a very complicated supply chain, making it difficult to overcome the lack of sustainability with one type of sustainable action. Thus, we invited actual practitioners to measure financial performance including sales, earnings, and market share over three years compared to competitors. Likewise, we applied the number of sustainable activities that the practitioners believed SMEs should work for and execute as a moderating variable of the relationship between corporate sustainability and financial performance.
In addition, while most research has dealt with famous and well-known fashion brands [16,23,30,37,38] (Ählström, 2010; Ameer & Othman, 2012; Curwen et al., 2013; Doorey, 2011; Kolk & Tulder, 2002), these relatively few brands are unlikely to reflect the reality of the fashion industry. Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are most common and are the crucial issue makers of sustainability in the fashion industry. Catharina [22] (2018) reported that sustainability of the fashion industry can only be achieved when most SMEs are engaged in more sustainable efforts. However, SMEs have yet to reach 50% sustainability, whereas some big players have reached up to 80%. Therefore, it is essential to develop research considering SMEs’ sustainability-related practices and the effects of their efforts to enhance the sustainability of the entire fashion industry. Given the scarce research and lack of consensus in the research on the success of SMEs’ sustainability, the current research focuses on SMEs in the fashion industry. In particular, we examine how SMEs’ sustainability strategy practices impact their financial performance considering both organizational values and business model innovation.

2.2. Organizational Values and Corporate Sustainability

Organizational values can be defined as values, beliefs, and hidden assumptions that organizational members share [8,39,40] (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Miron et al., 2004; Naranjo-Valencia et al., 2011). Although studies have suggested various organizational values [8,9,10,11] (Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Henri, 2006; Ogbonna & Harris, 2000; Tharp, 2009), the most frequently accepted concept in the organizational value research stream [41,42,43] (Carmen et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2018; Naïma, 2017) has been the competing values framework (CVF) by Cameron and Quinn [8] (1999). CVF conceptualizes organizational values based on a framework with two dimensions between competing values such as flexibility/rational vs. stability, and control/internal focus vs. external focus. It includes six characteristics of organizations: dominant characteristics, organizational leadership, management of employees, organizational glue, strategic emphases, and criteria of success. These characteristics are categorized into four organizational values: adhocracy, clan, market, and hierarchy. Specifically, organizations with an adhocracy value are more externally oriented and emphasize flexibility, change, and creativity. They are also risk-takers and focus on entrepreneurship. Organizations with a clan value also seek excellence but focus on the internal rather than external side by pursuing teamwork, employee participation, and employee welfare. Organizations with a market value also have an external focus but tend to have a control orientation. The key value of this type of organization is productivity and competitiveness. Lastly, organizations with a hierarchy value are oriented to control and maintain an internal focus. Thus, they tend to pursue efficiency, coordination, and close adherence to rules and regulations.
Previous research [44,45,46,47,48,49,50] (Aboramadan et al., 2019; Chang & Lee, 2007; Higgins & McAllaster, 2002; Linnenluecke & Andrew, 2010; Mazur & Zaborek, 2016; Naranjo-Valencia et al., 2010; Sharifirad & Ataei, 2012) has indicated that these organizational values correlate with innovation. Adams et al. [51] (2016) also stressed that innovation creates shared values and offers social and responsible benefits that necessitate ultimate changes in the organizational mindset and goals. If an organization does not accept innovation as a basic organizational value, the company cannot transform its business model to achieve the level of corporate sustainability desired [52] (Prajogo & McDermott, 2011). In particular, when sustainability is achieved through breakthrough innovation of the dominant business model, we can assume that organizational values are based on learning, adaptation, and flexibility [53,54] (Abdelkafi & Taüscher, 2016; Medeiros et al., 2014). Therefore, we hypothesize that organizational values may influence business model innovation, corporate sustainability, and finally financial performance.

2.3. Business Model Innovation and Corporate Sustainability

The essence of a business model lies in defining the way customers pay for the values companies provide, which is then transferred into profit for the company [55] (Teece, 2010). It is well recognized that a business model must include innovation in products, customer relations, infrastructure management, and finance [56] (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2002). Business model innovation (BMI) implies innovation in products, services, and processes through which a company develops a new method to recognize, create, and provide greater value for its customers [57,58] (Preuss, 2011; Wells, 2008). While most research has viewed technological innovation as a critical part of BMI [55,59,60] (Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002; Markides, 2006; Teece, 2010), sustainability can also be an important methodology of BMI [61] (Geissdoerfer et al., 2018). A sustainable business model seems to be related to innovation by activating drivers to create new processing methods to develop innovative products, services, and processes, as well as new market opportunities [26,62] (Battaglia et al., 2014; Mendibil et al., 2007).
Two supporting theories reflect the effects of sustainability on a company’s BMI: the resource-based view (RSV) and the stakeholder theory. According to the RSV, a company’s performance is determined based on differentiated internal critical resources and competences rather than external factors such as industry prospects or attractiveness [63] (Barney, 1991). Importantly, internal resources must be heterogenous, rare, and imperfectly mobile from competitors. In this sense, Singh et al. [64] (2020) suggested that sustainability is a critical internal factor for a company to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage in its business model.
Stakeholder theory, which stresses the pursuit of profit, may be a good excuse for a company to engage in unethical strategic activities for higher profit if the activities are legally exploited [65] (Carr, 1968). However, with unlimited competition, consumers have become the most important stakeholders of a company. Consumers have also begun to focus on a sustainable Earth for themselves and the next generation, so they carefully watch a company’s sustainable endeavors. Since a company cannot survive without continuous support from its consumers and other stakeholders like investors, employees, and the government, most companies have some focus on sustainability [66,67,68,69] (Jacobs, 1997; Schaltegger et al., 2019; Starik, 1995; Warhurst, 2005). Based on this rationale, researchers have argued that companies that promise to be socially and environmentally responsible can develop strong stakeholder relationships and create important intangible resources [70] (Surroca et al., 2010). Thus, sustainability as a resource can relieve the conflict between the company and its stakeholders [71] (Hillman & Keim, 2001), build a solid reputation [70] (Surroca et al., 2010), elevate the company’s attractiveness as an employer [72] (Backhaus et al., 2002), and ultimately strengthen customer loyalty [73] (Brown & Dacin, 1997).
Several well-known examples explain the relationship between sustainability and performance in the fashion industry, including Nike and Levi-Strauss (Levis). Private watchdogs have put pressure on their inhuman exploitation of labor in underdeveloped countries for a long time. Under this pressure in the 1990s, both companies attempted to make their supply chain transparent and fair in both social and environmental practices [38] (Doorey, 2011). Furthermore, internal audits and executing systems were introduced to regulate global supply chains and require them to adhere to a code of conduct. Nike and Levis have been evaluated as cases of successful integration of sustainability in their business model [74] (Gao & Bansal, 2013). These examples also illustrate that sustainability in the fashion industry relies on the extension of BMI, which affects companies’ financial performance.
SMEs in the fashion industry still have many opportunities to improve their sustainability and decrease harmful effects on the environment through BMI [75] (Todeschini et al., 2017). To illustrate, Battaglia et al. [26] (2014) tested whether the four types of sustainability (i.e., workplace, community, marketplace, and environment) can elevate innovation, and found a positive influence of the environment type of sustainability. They also recommended adopting an environmental management system (EMS) including audits, a monitoring system, and training as environmental tools through which a company can achieve a higher level of innovation by accumulating the related know-how and empowering technical capability.

2.4. Impact of Business Model Innovation and Corporate Sustainability on Financial Performance

While it is generally accepted that BMI is related to financial performance [76,77,78,79,80] (Aspara et al., 2010; Hamel, 1998; Heikkilä et al., 2017; Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997; Green et al., 1995), researchers have not fully agreed on the positive effect of sustainability on financial performance [81,82,83,84] (Aupperle et al., 1985; Lopez et al., 2007; Nelling & Webb, 2006; Shabbir & Wisdom, 2020). Some researchers have argued that sustainable activities are not related to financial performance and can even cause a negative effect. In particular, compared to larger companies, SMEs with limited resources tend to perceive a higher level of risk given the costs of innovating the business model, and the expected confrontation of difficulties as they adjust to new environments [85,86,87,88] (Cooper et al., 1994; Ebben & Johnson, 2005; Gibb, 2000; Lee et al., 1999). Based on these assumptions, business model innovation, even if it is a strategic option, can worsen the financial performance of SMEs. From a short-term perspective, since sustainability usually requires extreme changes for a company and even more sacrifice for stakeholders, it necessarily requires increased cost, which mostly results in bad financial performance. Some researchers have also questioned the fundamental issue of why corporations should be obligated to take responsibility for social and environmental sustainability if it is beyond maximizing stakeholder value in this capitalistic economy [81,82,83,84] (Aupperle et al., 1985; Lopez et al., 2007; Nelling & Webb, 2006; Shabbir & Wisdom, 2020). However, from every perspective, sustainability can be seen as affecting financial performance.
Business mode innovation may be a good driver to improve financial performance if it pushes SMEs to adapt to new niche markets in efficient and flexible ways [89,90,91,92] (Bigliardi, 2013; Chen & Hambrick, 2017; Dean et al., 1998; Mcmahon, 2001). Corporate sustainability is a type of BMI that can help corporations retain a competitive advantage in the market [93,94] (McWilliam & Siegel, 2011; Saeidi et al., 2015), and can rationally lead to the better financial performance. Yu and Zhao [95] (2015) also pointed out that sustainability positively affects corporate value, since a corporate business model incorporating sustainability can lessen future risk and promote long-term value creation. Jose and Lee [96] (2007) also examined the value premium of environment-friendly or ethical products, which directly enlarged sales. Alshehhi et al. [97] (2018) analyzed 132 articles on the relationship between sustainability and financial performance and found a positive influence in 78% of the companies examined. Ameer and Othman [37] (2012) also analyzed 100 highly ranked sustainable global companies including big fashion brands such as Adidas, Nike, H&M, Inditex, and Marks & Spencer, and their actual financial performance (e.g., return on assets, profit before taxation, and cash flow from operations). They argued that the companies with a sustainable strategic orientation had a better financial performance than those that did not. Thus, we assume that BMI and corporate sustainability may influence financial performance. Furthermore, based on the research framework examining the relationships between organizational values, sustainability, and financial performance, we explored whether the hypothesized relationships including sustainability are moderated according to the level of actual participation in sustainability activities. The conceptual framework of this study was described in Figure 1.

3. Research Method

3.1. Data Collection

Since the current research pursues the actual perceptions of practitioners working in the Korean fashion industry, we recruited members of the Korea Research Institute for Fashion and Distribution Information (FaDI, www.fadi.or.kr), which is a non-profit organization that distributes fashion-related information and receives government funds. The survey was distributed to officially registered members of FaDI through email with a URL directing them to the questionnaire. A total of 252 members responded to the online survey and were given coffee coupons as a reward. However, after excluding 34 responses which had inadequate information about their jobs and companies, 218 cases remained and were utilized for statistical analysis.
As shown in Table 1, 52.8% of the participants answered that they worked for a small- and medium-sized fashion company. In addition, 31.2% were self-employed. As for the fashion sector supply chain, 54.1% worked for middle-stream players such as designing and merchandizing, and 21.1% worked for companies that mainly focused on retailing. Specifically, 64.2% of the participants worked as general staff, 43.1% were designers, and 21.2% were merchandizers. In addition, 57.8% of the companies the participants worked for had been in business for less than 15 years.

3.2. Measurements

The scale items were drawn from previous literature related to the research model measuring organizational values, business model innovation, sustainability, and financial performance (see Table 2). The items measuring the concepts were scored on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 denoting “strongly disagree” and 5 “strongly agree.” First, the framework of organizational values was taken from Prajogo and McDermott [52] (2011). In general, values reflect the principles by which the organizations operate [98] (Sullivan et al., 2002). We operationalize organizational values with the competing value frameworks by distinguishing the cultural orientations of the structure (hierarchy/flexibility) and focus (internal/external). For this scale, we asked respondents about their level of agreement with statements related to the behaviors and attitudes of members of their organization. In terms of business model innovation, we adopted the scale from Pedersen et al. [1]’s (2018) research to capture the empirical meaning of business model innovation in fashion companies. Business model innovation was operationalized as a continuous level between existing competence and new business opportunities [1] (Pedersen et al., 2018), based on Osterwalder and Pigneur’s [4] (2010) business model canvas. The model included companies’ proposition, customer segments, key resources, key activities, key partnerships, customer relationships, channels, cost structure, and revenue streams. The study also utilized an adjusted version of items for corporate sustainability from Josefina et al. [99] (2008). Based on stakeholder theory and a resource-based view, corporate sustainability is defined as all efforts of a company to satisfy the needs of its direct, indirect, and future stakeholders including shareholders, employees, clients, and worldwide communities [100] (Dyllick & Hockerts 2002). Finally, the financial performance measurement was a self-evaluation of financial performance that has been adopted by several researchers [26,76,101,102] (Aspara et al. 2010; Battaglia et al., 2014; Matsoso & Benedict, 2016; Menguc et al. 2010). A sustainability activities variable was included as a moderating variable, since relationships including corporate sustainability can be affected by sustainable activities of fashion companies.

4. Results

4.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis Finding Multiple Dimensions of Organizational Values

Since we assumed that multiple dimensions exist in organizational values, we conducted optimal scaling for organizational values using statistical package of social science (SPSS) 24.00. Regarding scales of organizational values as ordinal, nonlinear Principal Component Analysis (PCA) would be preferable to inspect those multiple dimensions. Based on Varimax rotation with Kaiser’s normalization, we found that the model with three components is the most suitable one based on the proper eigenvalue level (i.e., over 1). This is because its total variance accounted for was improved (71.04%) by more than when we assumed two components (64.275%). Also, when we assumed four components, the fourth component’s eigen of value dropped below 1 (0.839). Thus, Table 3 describes the results of nonlinear PCA of the model of three components of organizational values. Finally, all the three components showed an appropriate level of Cronbach’s alpha. We named the three components for the statements based on previous literature. The first one, “flexibility,” includes teamwork, empowerment, and open discussion. The second one, “rational,” includes efficiency, direction, and task focus. The last one, “hierarchical,” represents structure, order, and control. We named the extracted factors according to Prajogo and McDermott’s [52] (2011) suggestion from Quinn and Spreitzer’s [103] (1991) CVF model to explain organizational culture. Unlike in the current study, the results of exploratory factor analysis showed that both internal or external flexibility was a single and dominant cultural value. In contrast, control was more likely to be perceived as separate from an internal value (i.e., hierarchical) as well as the other external value (i.e., rational). Based on previous literature [52,103] (Prajogo & McDermott, 2011; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991), we defined flexibility as an organizational value emphasizing both creative and flexible values empowering learning processes pursuing innovation over quality. In addition, both rational and hierarchical values could be defined as the controlling values. The rational value stresses internal and predictable stability and the hierarchical value stresses external and performance.

4.2. Measurement Model

To test the internal reliability, we utilized the Cronbach’s α which were calculated using SPSS 24.00. The Cronbach’s alphas for the scales were all above the appropriate level of 0.70, from 0.779 to 0.956. For convergent validity, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to assess the factor loadings (see Table 4). All factor loadings for the constructs were over the recommended value of 0.60. Using the factor loadings, we calculated the composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE). For CR, all values were higher than the appropriate level of 0.70, from 0.803 to 0.956. For AVE, the majority were greater than the threshold of 0.50; however, business model innovation was 0.487, which was marginally lower than the threshold. Nevertheless, the CR was greater than the AVE in every case, which satisfied the desired condition of convergent validity. Finally, we tested the discriminant validity by comparing the correlations between the constructs and the square root of AVE. Discriminant validity was achieved when a certain construct was confirmed to have a square root of AVE over all the correlations with respect to all the other constructs in the model. As shown in Table 5, the square roots of AVE were greater than the respective correlations, confirming that the measure of the constructs were robust for discriminant validity.

4.3. Structural Model

We examined various fit indexes. First, the χ2 test revealed significant results (χ2 = 1177.808, p < 0.00) on the full (saturated) model; however, the χ2/df fit index was also considered due to sensitivity of the χ2 test to a large sample size. The χ2/df fit index was 1.823 smaller than 3.00, which is the desired criteria. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) was 0.778, which is slightly below the recommended criteria of 0.80. However, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was below 0.08. In addition, the normed fit index (NFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and comparative fit index (CFI) were all greater than the minimum recommended value of 0.50. The parsimonious goodness-of-fit index (PGFI) and the parsimonious comparative fit index (PCFI) surpassed the recommended level of 0.50. Therefore, we concluded that the GFIs for the structural model were accepted and we could proceed with the estimation for parameters in the hypotheses.
Table 6 presents the results of the analyses of the hypotheses. Only five hypothesized relationships turned out to be statistically significant and positive. Flexibility seems to be a significant dimension comprising an organizational value explaining not only business model innovation (β = 0.634, p = 0.00), but also corporate sustainability (β = 0.385, p = 0.002). Hierarchy turned out to be significant and positive only for business model innovation (β = 0.238, p = 0.001). Rational also showed a positive and significant impact on both corporate sustainability (β = 0.381, p = 0.00) and financial performance (β = 0.229, p = 0.03). However, business model innovation indicates no significant influence on either corporate sustainability or financial performance. Corporate sustainability also fails to show a significant impact on financial performance.

4.4. Moderation of Sustainable Activities

Regarding sustainability activities, we asked participants to select all of the activities their companies participated in among 31 activities listed (see Table 7). The top three most frequently reported activities that may contribute to sustainability were production on demand, differentiating prices for eco-friendly or social products, and development of eco-friendly products. Over 20% of the participants indicated that their companies engaged in three sustainable activities to enhance the sustainability of their companies: product development through co-operation with partners, innovative products that cut related costs, and repair. However, few participants reported that their companies were trying to participate in new business model innovation like shared economy (4%), subscription (3.6%), or a waste exchange platform (2%). In terms of sustainable activities, 65.6% of participants indicated that their companies had participated in only one (25.2%) or two (40.4%) activities. The average number of sustainable activities was 2.72 with a standard deviation of 2.11. The maximum number was 13. To examine the moderating effect of sustainable activities, we created a moderator group based on the number of sustainable activities. Based on descriptive analytics, we designated the highest 25% of the sample (n = 47; 21.4%) as the high participation group reporting that their company had participated in at least three sustainable activities, and the other 75% as the low participation group (n = 171; 78.4%).
To examine the mediating effect on the hypotheses including corporate sustainability, we utilized PROCESS v. 3.4 proposed by Hayes [104] (2018). The PROCESS is macro for mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis for SPSS and SAS which has been widely accepted as offering an exact examination of the moderating and moderated mediating effects. Since corporate sustainability played a role as a mediator between business model innovation and financial performance, it would be beneficial to adopt the PROCESS for further analysis of the moderating effects. Thus, based on Hayes [104]’s suggestion, we utilized the Model 87 to test the moderating effects on the relationship among significant organizational values, sustainability, and financial performance. Due to the benefits of PROCESS, we could check the moderated mediating effects of participation in sustainable activities. Hayes [104] (2018) suggested that the index of moderated mediation, which indicates statistically significant differences between conditional indirect effects, is considered significant when the confidence interval (CI) between LLCI and ULCI does not include zero.
As shown in Table 8, tests for the highest order unconditional interactions were marginally significant only in the relationship between corporate sustainability and financial performance with sufficient R2 changes (F = 5.355, p = 0.022). The other two relationships from BMI were not significantly moderated by groups for sustainable activities. Specifically, for the high participation group, the impact of corporate sustainability on financial performance was statistically significant (β = 0.355, p = 0.015) and even strong, whereas the impact was not significant for most of the low participation group.
Mediation from the flexibility and rational values to financial performance through corporate sustainability turned out to be significantly moderated by group by sustainable activities, since the bootstrap CIs of indexes did not include zero (see Table 9). An indirect effect of flexibility on financial performance through corporate sustainability was significant only for the high group (effect for the high group = 0.120). The same was true for the rational value on financial performance (effect for the high group = 0.140).

5. Discussion

There is an academic and practical need to examine small- and medium-sized fashion companies’ sustainable initiatives and results, especially to determine how corporate sustainability relates to financial performance. However, few studies have examined the relationship among business model innovation, corporate sustainability, and financial performance, especially in the fashion sector. Thus, this study explored how corporate sustainability is related to business model innovation, and finally to financial performance. We also examined which organizational values are important in building innovation and corporate sustainability.
Based on factor analysis, employees of fashion SMEs perceived that three dimensions (i.e., flexibility, rational, and hierarchical) were important. Interestingly, the types of organizational values determining business model innovation, corporate sustainability, and financial performance were somewhat different. First, flexibility was the basic driver impacting business model innovation and corporate sustainability. However, business model innovation was likely influenced by the hierarchical value, whereas corporate sustainability seemed to be affected by the rational value. Given that corporate innovation including business model innovation and corporate sustainability tended to be based on both internal and external flexibility [52] (Prajogo & McDermott, 2011), the significant influence of the flexible value on the innovation and control values on performance was consistent with previous literature. Regarding the positive and significant effect of the hierarchical value on business model innovation, we examined the specific characteristics of SMEs. Innovation in SMEs tends to be driven by the founder or entrepreneur’s leadership instead of being managed by a standardized process as in major large companies. In other words, business model innovation in SMEs is likely to be nurtured and generated by the flexibility value, and more effectively carried out if the leader has tight control over the internal processes.
In contrast, corporate sustainability is likely to be related to the rational value of pursuing performance and product quality. Fashion SMEs may be more interested in developing greener products and services rather changing the business model. From the descriptive analysis in this study, most sustainable activities that the SMEs engaged in were either related to eco-friendly/social products or product development. As Lee et al. [31] (2017) pointed out in their study comparing fashion companies in South Korea to global fashion companies, while the participation rate of sustainable activities was lower, they seemed to have a narrow and limited focus on social and eco-friendly activities. From these results, fashion-related SMEs in South Korea may consider sustainability as a process of improving and developing product quality.
The other relationships related to corporate sustainability were insignificant. Unlike our expectation based on previous literature, business model innovation did not affect corporate sustainability or financial performance. Moreover, corporate sustainability was not associated with financial performance. Nevertheless, according to the moderating test of groups based on the number of sustainable activities, the path from corporate sustainability to financial performance was statistically significant only for the high group that reported that their companies had participated in three or more sustainable activities. Moreover, the indirect effects of organizational values through sustainability on financial performance was only significant for the high group. Previous literature has not reached a consensus on the role of business model innovation and corporate sustainability on financial performance. For example, when Pedersen and his colleagues [1] (2018) failed to find significant associations from business model innovation and corporate sustainability to financial performance, they emphasized that organizational values have to be aligned with planning and implementation. As such, based on our results of moderation, we suggest that only companies that actually practice sustainable activities based on relevant organizational values can realize positive financial performance.

6. Implications

We contribute to the growing stream of literature on corporate sustainability and the effects of their sustainability activities by identifying the relevant types of organizational values directing financial performance through corporate sustainability. We also explored the relationship between business model innovation and corporate sustainability. Our systemic statistically relevant analysis revealed that a rational value is essential in creating financial performance with flexibility. Unlike a hierarchical value, which involves internal control, a rational value can positively impact financial performance by itself as well as through corporate sustainability. In particular, we found that the effect of corporate sustainability on financial performance was positive only for companies that implemented sustainable activities following organizational values. Specifically, since this study was based on a survey of employees in SMEs in the fashion industry, we suggest that empirical resources for SMEs in fashion can be successful with participation in sustainable efforts and practices. This study has implications for executives and entrepreneurs of SMEs on which organizational values should be pursued to build their businesses into sustainable enterprises with a positive financial performance.
The current research has limitations, which provides opportunities for future research. This paper examined only one industry sector in only one nation: South Korea. Although South Korea is a representative nation for the fashion industry, it has fallen behind in terms of sustainability efforts when compared to Denmark, for example [25] (Bastholm, 2011). Another limitation is that the moderating effect only applies to corporate sustainability considering business model innovation. Since the study was originally developed to focus on corporate sustainability, the survey did not include questions about the companies’ business model innovation activities.
Future studies should expand the findings to other countries and sustainability activities of SMEs. First, this study can be extended to other national bases comparing Western and Eastern cultures, considering cultural factors such as Hofstede’s dimensions [105] (2011). Regarding the impact of organizational values on sustainability and business model innovation, the results can be elaborated by looking at the dynamics between organizational values and national cultural dimensions. Second, future studies can apply these findings of SMEs in the fashion industry to other industries. The involvement of business model innovation with corporate sustainability will be different for different types of industries due to the supply chain characteristics. As a result, the relationship between business model innovation and sustainability may prove to be more powerful. Lastly, we can explore other dependent variables to determine the bridge between corporate sustainability and financial performance, such as brand reputation and brand trust. While financial performance is the ultimate goal of corporates, their sustainable strategy tends to show positive results by increasing brand equity over the long term.

Author Contributions

S.J.Y. acquisitioned the fund and conceived the conceptual framework; S.J. designed and performed the survey; S.J.Y. analyzed the data; S.J.Y. and S.J. wrote the paper. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Sungshin Women’s University Research Grant of 2019.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pedersen, E.R.G.; Gwozdz, W.; Hvass, K.K. Exploring the relationship between business model innovation, corporate sustainability and organisational values within the fashion industry. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 149, 267–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Yunus, M.; Moingeon, B.; Lehmann-Ortega, L. Building Social Business Models: Lessons from the Grameen Experience. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 308–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sommer, A. Managing Green Business Model Transformations; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  4. Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y. Business Model Generation; Wiley: Hobroken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  5. Stubbs, W.; Cocklin, C. Conceptualizing a “Sustainability Business Model”. Organ. Environ. 2008, 21, 103–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Michelini, L.; Fiorentino, D. New business models for creating shared value. Soc. Responsib. J. 2012, 8, 561–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Birkin, F.; Polesie, T.; Lewis, L. A new business model for sustainable development: An exploratory study using the theory of constraints in Nordic organizations. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2009, 18, 277–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cameron, K.S.; Quinn, R.E. Diagnosing and changing organizational culture. In Reading: Addison-Wesley; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  9. Henri, J.F. Organizational culture and performance measurement systems. Account. Organ. Soc. 2006, 31, 77–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ogbonna, E.; Harris, L.C. Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: Empirical evidence from UK companies. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2000, 11, 766–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tharp, B.M. Four Organizational Culture Types. Hawort Organizational Culture White Paper. Available online: http://www.academia.edu/download/52182398/Cameron_and_Quinn1360757023.3588organizational_cult98.pdf (accessed on 2 December 2020).
  12. Denison, D.R.; Spreitzer, G.M. Organizational culture and organizational development: A competing values approach. Res. Organ. Chang. Dev. 1991, 5, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  13. Thanetsunthorn, N. The impact of national culture on corporate social responsibility: Evidence from cross-regional comparison. Asian J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 4, 35–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Boons, F.; Lüdeke-Freund, F. Business Models for Sustainable Innovation: State of the Art and Steps Towards a Research Agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 45, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Louche, C.; Idowu, S.O.; Filho, W.L. From Risk Management to Value Creation; Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  16. Curwen, L.G.; Park, J.; Sarkar, A.K. Challenges and Solutions of Sustainable Apparel Product Development: A Case Study of Eileen Fisher. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 2013, 31, 32–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Forman, M.; Jørgensen, M.S. Organising environmental supply chain management: Experience from a sector with frequent product shifts and complex product chains: The case of the Danish textile sector. Greener Manag. Int. 2004, 45, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jang, N.K. Product Development Process for Ethical Fashion Design: Fair Trade System Approach. J. Korean Soc. Costume 2013, 63, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Giesen, B. Ethical Clothing: New Awareness or Fading Fashion Trend; VDM Verlag: Saarbrücken, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lee, Y.; Kim, S.; Shin, J.; Yoon, C.; Lee, S.; Jang, S.; Jung, S.; Choi, Y. Ethics in Fashion Industry; Kyomoonsa Publishing Company: Seoul, Korea, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  21. Cotler, A. Why Sustainable Fashion Matters. Forbes Women. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellevate/2019/10/07/why-sustainable-fashion-matters/#459d634d71b8 (accessed on 31 January 2020).
  22. Catharina, M.-P. 2018 Pulse of the Fashion Industry. The Boston Consulting Group. Available online: https://www.bcg.com/en-kr/2018-pulse-of-the-fashion-industry (accessed on 31 January 2020).
  23. Ählström, J. Corporate Response to CSO Criticism: Decoupling the Corporate Responsibility Discourse from Business Practice. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2010, 17, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ahn, S.-K.; Ryou, E. CSR expectation from fashion firms and its impact on brand equity. Fash. Text. Res. J. 2013, 15, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bastholm, S.K.C. Sustainability in the Fashion Industry: Comparison between Korea and Denmark. Master’s Thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, 2011, unpublished. [Google Scholar]
  26. Battaglia, M.; Testa, F.; Bianchi, L.; Iraldo, F.; Frey, M. Corporate Social Responsibility and Competitiveness within SMEs of the Fashion Industry: Evidence from Italy and France. Sustainability 2014, 6, 872–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Colucci, M.; Tuan, A.; Visentin, M. An empirical investigation of the drivers of CSR talk and walk in the fashion industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 248, 119200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dickson, M.A. Personal Values, Beliefs, Knowledge, and Attributes Relating to Intentions to Purchase Apparel from Socially Responsible Business. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 2000, 18, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kim, C.E.; Park, S.J.; Lee, J.H. A Comparative Study on the Corporate Social Responsibility between Domestic Fashion Companies and Global Luxury Fashion Companies: Contents Analysis of Fashion Corporations’ Website. J. Korean Soc. Fash. Des. 2016, 16, 53–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kolk, A.; Tulder, R.V. The effectiveness of self-regulation: Corporate codes of conduct and child labor. Eur. Manag. J. 2002, 20, 260–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lee, M.; Ma, Y.; Lee, M. Corporate social responsibility practices of the textiles and apparel industry: Content analysis of website disclosures. J. Fash. Bus. 2017, 21, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Lee, S.H.N.; Ha-Brookshire, J.; Chow, P.-S. The moral responsibility of corporate sustainability as perceived by fashion retail employees: A USA-China cross-cultural comparison study. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 1462–1475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jung, S.; Jin, B. Sustainable Development of Slow Fashion Businesses: Customer Value Approach. Sustainability 2016, 8, 540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Park, H.S. Differences in Perception of Fashion Corporate Social Responsibility by Ethical Fashion Consumption. J. Korean Soc. Cloth. Text. 2017, 41, 1071–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Park, S.; Ko, E. The Effect of Technology·Culture Convergence and Sustainability Management Activities of Fashion Brands on Sustainability Evaluation. Fash. Text. Res. J. 2017, 19, 152–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Youn, C.; Kim, S.; Lee, Y.; Choo, H.J.; Jang, S.; Jang, J.I. Measuring retailers’ sustainable development. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 385–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ameer, R.; Othman, R. Sustainability Practices and Corporate Financial Performance: A Study Based on the Top Global Corporations. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 108, 61–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Doorey, D.J. The transparent supply chain: From resistance to implementation at Nike and Levi-Strauss. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 103, 587–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Miron, E.; Erez, M.; Naveh, E. Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? J. Organ. Behav. 2004, 25, 175–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Naranjo-Valencia, J.C.; Jiménez, J.D.; Sanz-Valle, R. Innovation or imitation? The role of organizational culture. Manag. Decis. 2011, 49, 55–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Carmen, M.F.; José, R.; Antonio, L.L. Impact of Organizational Culture Values on Organizational Agility. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Chen, Z.; Huang, S.; Liu, C.; Min, M.; Zhou, L. Fit between Organizational Culture and Innovation Strategy: Implications for Innovation Performance. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Naïma, C. The relationship between organizational culture and entrepreneurial orientation in family firms: Does generational involvement matter? J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 2017, 8, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Aboramadan, M.; Albashiti, B.; Alharazin, H.; Zaidoune, S. Organizational culture, innovation and performance: A study from a non-western context. J. Manag. Dev. 2019, 39, 437–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chang, S.-C.; Lee, M.-S. A study on relationship among leadership, organizational culture, the operation of learning organization and employees’ job satisfaction. Learn. Organ. 2007, 14, 155–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Higgins, J.M.; McAllaster, C. Want innovation? Then use cultural artifacts that support it. Organ. Dyn. 2002, 31, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Linnenluecke, M.; Griffiths, A. Corporate Sustainability and Organisational Culture. J. World Bus. 2010, 45, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mazur, J.; Zaborek, P. Organizational Culture and Open Innovation Performance in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in Poland. Int. J. Manag. Econ. 2016, 51, 104–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Naranjo-Valencia, J.C.; Sanz Valle, R.; Jiménez, J.D. Organizational culture as determinant of product innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2010, 13, 466–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Sharifirad, M.S.; Ataei, V. Organizational culture and innovation culture: Exploring the relationships between constructs. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2012, 33, 494–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Adams, R.; Jeanrenaud, S.; Bessant, J.; Denyer, D.; Overy, P. Sustainability-oriented Innovation: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2016, 18, 180–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Prajogo, D.I.; McDermott, C.M. The relationship between multidimensional organizational culture and performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2011, 31, 712–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Abdelkafi, N.; Täuscher, K. Business Models for Sustainability from a System Dynamics Perspective. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 74–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Medeiros, J.F.; Ribeiro, J.L.D.; Cortimiglia, M.N. Success factors for environmentally sustainable product innovation: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Teece, D.J. Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 172–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y. Business Models and Their Elements. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Business Models 2002, Lausanne, Switzerland, 4–5 October 2002. [Google Scholar]
  57. Preuss, L. Innovative CSR: A framework for anchoring corporate social responsibility in the innovation literature. J. Corp. Citizensh. 2011, 42, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Wells, P. Creating sustainable business models: The case of the automotive industry. IIMB Manag. Rev. 2008, 16, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
  59. Chesbrough, H.; Rosenbloom, R. The Role of the Business Model in Capturing Value from Innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s Technology Spin-Off Companies. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2002, 11, 529–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Markides, C. Disruptive Innovation: In Need of Better Theory. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2006, 23, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Geissdoerfer, M.; Vladimirova, D.; Evans, S. Sustainable business model innovation: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 401–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mendibil, K.; Hernandez, J.; Espinach, X.; Garriga, E.; Macgregor, S. How can CSR practices lead to successful innovation in SMEs? In Proceedings of the European Operations Management Association 2007, Ankara, Turkey, 17–20 June 2007. [Google Scholar]
  63. Barney, J. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Singh, S.K.; Giudice, M.D.; Chierici, R.; Graziano, D. Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 150, 119762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Carr, A.Z. Is Business Bluffing Ethical? Harvard Business Review. Available online: https://hbr.org/1968/01/is-buisness-bluffing-ethical (accessed on 31 January 2020).
  66. Jacobs, M. The environment as stakeholder. Bus. Strategy Rev. 1997, 8, 25–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Schaltegger, S.; Hörisch, J.; Freeman, R. Business Cases for Sustainability—A Stakeholder Theory Perspective. Organ. Environ. 2019, 32, 191–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Starik, M. Should trees have managerial standing? Toward stakeholder status for non-human nature. J. Bus. Ethics 1995, 14, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Warhurst, A. Future roles of business in society: The expanding boundaries of corporate responsibility and a compelling case for partnership. Futures 2005, 37, 151–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Surroca, J.; Tribó, J.A.; Waddock, S. Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strateg. Manag. J. 2010, 31, 463–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hillman, A.J.; Keim, G.D. Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management, and Social Issues: What’s the Bottom Line? Strateg. Manag. J. 2001, 22, 125–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Backhaus, K.B.; Stone, B.A.; Heiner, K. Exploring the relationship between corporate social performance and employer attractiveness. Bus. Soc. 2002, 41, 292–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Brown, T.; Dacin, P. The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses. J. Mark. 1997, 61, 68–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Gao, J.; Bansal, P. Instrumental and Integrative Logics in Business Sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 112, 241–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Todeschini, B.V.; Cortimiglia, M.N.; Callegaro-De-Menezes, D.; Ghezzi, A. Innovative and sustainable business models in the fashion industry: Entrepreneurial drivers, opportunities, and challenges. Bus. Horiz. 2017, 60, 759–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Aspara, J.; Hietanen, J.; Tikkanen, H. Business model innovation versus replication: Financial performance implications of strategic emphases. J. Strateg. Mark. 2010, 18, 39–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hamel, G. Strategy innovation and the quest for value. Sloan Manag. Rev. 1998, 39, 7–14. [Google Scholar]
  78. Heikkilä, M.; Bouwman, H.; Heikkilä, J. From strategic goals to business model innovation paths: An exploratory study. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2017, 25, 107–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Gatignon, H.; Xuereb, J.-M. Strategic Orientation of the Firm and New Product Performance. J. Mark. Res. 1997, 34, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Green, D.H.; Barclay, D.W.; Ryans, A.B. Entry strategy and long-term performance: Conceptualization and empirical examination. J. Mark. 1995, 59, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Aupperle, K.E.; Carroll, A.B.; Hatfield, J.D. An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Acad. Manag. J. 1985, 28, 445–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Lopez, V.M.; Garcia, A.; Rodriguez, L. Sustainable development and corporate performance: A study based on the Dow Jones sustainability index. J. Bus. Ethics 2007, 75, 285–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Nelling, E.; Webb, E. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: The “virtuous circle” revisited. Rev. Quant. Financ. Account. 2009, 32, 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Shabbir, M.S.; Wisdom, O. The relationship between corporate social responsibility, environmental investments and financial performance: Evidence from manufacturing companies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Cooper, A.C.; Gimeno-Gascon, F.J.; Woo, C.Y. Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 1994, 9, 371–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ebben, J.J.; Johnson, A.C. Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms. Strateg. Manag. J. 2005, 26, 1249–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Gibb, A. Corporate Restructuring and Entrepreneurship: What Can Large Organizations Learn from Small? Enterp. Innov. Manag. Stud. 2000, 1, 19–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Lee, K.S.; Lim, G.H.; Tan, S.J. Dealing with Resource Disadvantage: Generic Strategies for SMEs. Small Bus. Econ. 1999, 12, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bigliardi, B. The effect of innovation on financial performance: A research study involving SMEs. Innovation 2013, 15, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Chen, M.-J.; Hambrick, D.C. Speed, Stealth, and Selective Attack: How Small Firms Differ From Large Firms in Competitive Behavior. Acad. Manag. 2017, 38, 453–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Dean, T.J.; Brown, R.L.; Bamford, C.E. Differences in large and small firm responses to environmental context: Strategic implications from a comparative analysis of business formations. Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19, 709–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Mcmahon, R.G.P. Growth and Performance of Manufacturing SMEs: The Influence of Financial Management Characteristics. Int. Small Bus. J. 2001, 19, 10–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. McWilliams, A.; Siegel, D.S. Creating and capturing value: Strategic corporate social responsibility, resource-based theory, and sustainable competitive advantage. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1480–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Saeidi, S.P.; Sofian, S.; Saeidi, P.; Saeidi, S.P.; Saaeidi, S.A. How does corporate social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 341–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Yu, M.; Zhao, R. Sustainability and firm valuation: An international investigation. Int. J. Account. Inform. Manag. 2015, 23, 289–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Jose, A.; Lee, S.-M. Environmental Reporting of Global Corporations: A Content Analysis Based on Website Disclosures. J. Bus. Ethics 2007, 72, 307–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Alshehhi, A.; Nobanee, H.; Khare, N. The Impact of Sustainability Practices on Corporate Financial Performance: Literature Trends and Future Research Potential. Sustainability 2018, 10, 494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Sullivan, W.; Sullivan, R.; Buffton, B. Aligning individual and organisational values to support change. J. Chang. Manag. 2001, 2, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Josefina, L.M.-L.; Concepción, G.-A.; Pilar, R.-T. Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders’ pressure approach. Strateg. Manag. J. 2008, 29, 1225–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Dyllick, T.; Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2002, 11, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Matsoso, M.L.; Benedict, O.H. Financial Performance Measures of Small Medium Enterprises in the 21st Century. J. Econ. 2016, 7, 144–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Menguc, B.; Auh, S.; Ozanne, L. The interactive effect of internal and external factors on a proactive environmental strategy and its influence on a firm’s performance. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 94, 279–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Quinn, R.E.; Spreitzer, G.M. The psychometrics of the competing values culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life. In Research in Organizational Change and Development; Woodman, R.W., Pasmore, W.A., Eds.; JAI Press: Greenwich, CT, USA, 1991; pp. 142–155. [Google Scholar]
  104. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation and Conditional Process. Analysis Second Edition: A Regression-Based Approach; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  105. Hofstede, G. Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 2001, 2, 2307-0919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 12 10322 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Sustainability 12 10322 g001
Table
Table 1. Descriptive analysis of survey participants’ companies.
Table 1. Descriptive analysis of survey participants’ companies.
CharactersDetailsFrequencyPercent (%)
Company categoryDesign & merchandizing11854.1
Manufacturing (sewing)3013.8
Retailing4621.1
Strategy consulting2411
Company sizePrivate business6831.2
Small–mid sized11552.8
Major company177.8
Non-profit188.3
Company historyUnder 5 years5625.7
6–15years7032.1
16–25 years3415.6
Over 25 years5424.8
Unanswered41.8
Job positionGeneral staff14064.2
Manager4420.2
Executives3315.1
Researcher10.5
Job taskDesign9443.1
Merchandizing4621.1
Marketing2812.8
Research & development146.4
Distribution115.0
Education94.1
Manufacturing73.2
Buying62.8
Promotion31.4
Table
Table 2. Survey questions.
Table 2. Survey questions.
VariableItemDetails5-Likert Scale
Business model innovationBMI_1Focus on developing radically new products and/or services.1 = Strongly disagree, 3 = Neutral, 5 = Strongly agree
BMI_2Focus on identifying and serving entirely new markets and customer segments.
BMI_3Focus on developing and/or acquiring new resources and competences (technology, people, IT systems).
BMI_4Focus on developing new core processes and activities (design, logistics, marketing).
BMI_5Focus on establishing relationships with new strategic business partners (suppliers, distributors, end users).
BMI_6Focus on developing new tools for building customer relationships (personal service, memberships, bonus systems).
BMI_7Focus on selling products and/or services through new channels (own stores, partner stores, online).
BMI_8Focus on making major changes in the combination of costs incurred when operating the company.
BMI_9Develops new ways of generating revenue (products, services, leasing, sponsorships).
Organizational valueOV_1Participation and open discussion1 = Strongly disagree, 3 = Neutral, 5 = Strongly agree
OV_2Empowers employees to act
OV_3Assesses employee concerns and ideas
OV_4Human relations, teamwork, and cohesion
OV_5Flexibility and decentralization
OV_6Expansion, growth, and development
OV_7Innovation and change
OV_8Creative problem-solving processes
OV_9Control and centralization
OV_10Routinization, formalization, and structure
OV_11Stability, continuity, and order
OV_12Predictable performance outcomes
OV_13Task focus, accomplishment, and goal achievement
OV_14Direction, objective setting, and goal clarity
OV_15Efficiency, productivity, and profitability
OV_16Outcome excellence and quality
Corporate sustainabilityCS_1Has clearly defined social and environmental objectives.1 = Totally disagree, 5 = Totally agree
CS_2Allocates substantial resources to social and environmental improvements.
CS_3Regularly measures and reports social and environmental performance.
CS_4Always tries to substitute polluting materials/products with less polluting ones.
CS_5Managers and employees receive training and education on social and environmental responsibility.
CS_6Management always considers social and environmental impacts when making important business decisions.
CS_7Recognizes and rewards managers/employees who contribute to social and environmental improvements.
CS_8Is open, honest, and transparent in its internal and external communication of social and environmental impacts.
CS_9Works hard to ensure high social and environmental standards in the supply chain.
CS_10Actively promotes social and environmental-friendly customer/consumer behavior.
Financial performanceFP_1Development in sales1 = Much worse, 5 = much better
FP_2Development in earnings
FP_3Development in market share
Table
Table 3. Exploratory factor analysis of the organizational value.
Table 3. Exploratory factor analysis of the organizational value.
ComponentCronbach’s αVariance Accounted for
Var.FlexibilityRationalHierarchyTotal (Eigenvalue)% of Variance
OV_10.8000.188−0.1920.9075.29233.074
OV_20.8140.287−0.140
OV_30.7970.344−0.159
OV_40.8090.181−0.067
OV_50.7850.298−0.184
OV_60.7990.14−0.077
OV_70.7130.197−0.159
OV_80.7120.417−0.215
OV_9−0.28000.8100.8663.72023.250
OV_10−0.2230.1090.889
OV_110.0770.2350.793
OV_120.0490.7530.2520.7152.35514.716
OV_130.1620.7860.112
OV_140.3270.7410.019
OV_150.1930.8680.036
OV_160.3500.7580.062
Total 11.36671.040
Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization.
Table
Table 4. Results for internal reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity.
Table 4. Results for internal reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity.
ConstructVariableFactor LoadingCronbach αAVECR
FlexibilityOV_10.7850.9350.6310.932
OV_20.821
OV_30.885
OV_40.8
OV_50.859
OV_60.716
OV_70.669
OV_80.8
HierarchyOV_90.7620.7790.5860.803
OV_100.924
OV_110.568
RationalOV_120.5480.8580.5290.847
OV_130.709
OV_140.776
OV_150.805
OV_160.769
Business model innovationBMI_10.6760.8980.4870.895
BMI_20.741
BMI_30.696
BMI_40.715
BMI_50.695
BMI_60.721
BMI_70.681
BMI_80.686
BMI_90.669
Corporate sustainabilityCS_10.840.9560.6870.956
CS_20.876
CS_30.854
CS_40.83
CS_50.816
CS_60.88
CS_70.775
CS_80.771
CS_90.808
CS_100.832
Financial performanceFP_10.8650.9070.7820.915
FP_20.909
FP_30.878
Table
Table 5. Correlations and square roots of AVE.
Table 5. Correlations and square roots of AVE.
FLEXHIDCBMICSFP
Flexibility (FLEX)0.795
Hierarchy (HI)−0.324 **0.765
Rational (DC)0.511 **0.180 **0.727
Business model innovation (BMI)0.517 **0.0120.366 **0.698
Corporate sustainability (CS)0.487 **−0.1010.464 **0.245 **0.829
Financial performance (FP)0.300 **0.0690.350 **0.300 **0.249 **0.884
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Bold numbers on the diagonal are square roots of AVE.
Table
Table 6. Hypotheses and model path coefficients.
Table 6. Hypotheses and model path coefficients.
Hypothesesβ aSE bCV cp
H1_aFlexibility→Business model innovation0.6340.1155.520.00
H1_bHierarchy→0.2380.0753.1950.001
H1_cRational→−0.0030.109−0.0290.976
H2_aFlexibility→Corporate sustainability0.3850.1263.0430.002
H2_bHierarchy→0.0240.0780.3090.758
H2_cRational→0.3810.1153.3190.00
H3Business model innovation→−0.0780.087−0.8960.37
H4_aFlexibility→Financial
performance		0.040.1140.350.727
H4_bHierarchy→0.0430.0690.620.535
H4_cRational→0.2290.1052.1720.03
H5Business model innovation→0.1410.0791.7930.073
H6Corporate sustainability→ 0.0710.0671.0580.29
χ2 = 1177.808, χ2/df = 1.823 (df = 646), RMSEA = 0.062, TLI = 0.903, CFI = 0.911, PGFI = 0.678, PNFI = 0.757; a Estimates. b Standard error of the regression weight. c Critical ratio value for regression weight.
Table
Table 7. Frequency analysis of sustainability activities.
Table 7. Frequency analysis of sustainability activities.
Sustainability ActivitiesResponsesPercent of Cases (%)
nPercent (%)
Production on demand609.10%23.80%
Differentiating prices for eco-friendly/social products or services578.70%22.60%
Development of eco-friendly/social products517.80%20.20%
Product development through co-operation with partners507.60%19.80%
Innovative product reducing related cost436.60%17.10%
Repair385.80%15.10%
Maximize material productivity or energy efficiency324.90%12.70%
Industrial symbiosis324.90%12.70%
Recycling raw materials/replacing them with natural processes314.70%12.30%
Free service for eco-friendly/social products or customer behavior264.00%10.30%
Recycle243.70%9.50%
Experience-oriented customer service233.50%9.10%
Crowd funding203.00%7.90%
Product recycling182.70%7.10%
Internal sourcing182.70%7.10%
Commercial use of social missions (e.g., donations)152.30%6.00%
Shortening the supply chain152.30%6.00%
Co-operative possession121.80%4.80%
Reproduction/used goods sales101.50%4.00%
Development of digital supply chain platform101.50%4.00%
Social business model101.50%4.00%
Subscription service model91.40%3.60%
Social enterprise model (no stake)91.40%3.60%
Connected/shared economy81.20%3.20%
Product development with a hybrid model71.10%2.80%
Used goods improvement71.10%2.80%
Participate in a waste exchange platform such as garbage online50.80%2.00%
Buy one, donate one50.80%2.00%
Eco-friendly supply chain management50.80%2.00%
Microfinance40.60%1.60%
Micro level distribution and retail20.30%0.80%
Total656100.00%260.30%
Table
Table 8. Moderating effect of group by sustainable activities (dependent var.: Financial performance).
Table 8. Moderating effect of group by sustainable activities (dependent var.: Financial performance).
InteractionR2 chngFdf1, df2p
Corporate sustainability × Groups by sustainable activities0.0215.355(1, 210)0.022
Groups by sustainable activitiesEffectsetp
Low (n = 47)−0.0020.069−0.0270.978
High (n = 171)0.3550.1442.4640.015
Table
Table 9. Index of moderated mediation.
Table 9. Index of moderated mediation.
Indirect EffectFlexibility → Corporate sustainability → Financial performance
IndexBootSEBootLLCIBootULCI
Groups0.1210.0800.0070.321
EffectBootSEBootLLCIBootULCI
Low group−0.0010.030−0.0530.069
High group0.1200.0790.0150.318
Indirect EffectRational → Corporate sustainability → Financial performance
IndexBootSEBootLLCIBootULCI
Groups0.1400.0900.0110.357
EffectBootSEBootLLCIBootULCI
Low group−0.0010.032−0.0610.068
High group0.1400.0860.0200.347
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yang, S.J.; Jang, S. How Does Corporate Sustainability Increase Financial Performance for Small- and Medium-Sized Fashion Companies: Roles of Organizational Values and Business Model Innovation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10322. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410322

AMA Style

Yang SJ, Jang S. How Does Corporate Sustainability Increase Financial Performance for Small- and Medium-Sized Fashion Companies: Roles of Organizational Values and Business Model Innovation. Sustainability. 2020; 12(24):10322. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410322

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yang, Su Jin, and Seyoon Jang. 2020. "How Does Corporate Sustainability Increase Financial Performance for Small- and Medium-Sized Fashion Companies: Roles of Organizational Values and Business Model Innovation" Sustainability 12, no. 24: 10322. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410322

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