The Role of Social Initiatives in Shaping Sustainable Business Outcomes—Insights from Organizations Operating in Poland

Abstract

This article addresses the contemporary and highly relevant research area of business sustainability, which attracts the attention of both scholars and management practitioners. Although the social dimension of sustainability is gaining increasing importance, there remains a research gap regarding the extent to which social initiatives contribute to sustainable outcomes. This study specifically focuses on the social dimension of business sustainability. The primary objective of the study is to examine the relationship between activities within the social dimension and sustainable outcomes. Moreover the study extends earlier research by contributing new empirical evidence from the Polish context, thereby enriching the existing body of knowledge. The study encompasses 303 organizations operating in Poland and utilizes a questionnaire-based survey. The collected data were employed to construct a regression model. The results indicate statistically significant relationships between social outcomes and key variables, namely, societal values and employee-related outcomes. The results indicate that social value creation and value chain integration are the strongest predictors of sustainable outcomes The variables were measured using subjective indicators. In addition, the research was conducted only in companies operating in Poland, and the results may be typical of businesses operating in this country. Therefore, the research should be extended to other countries, and it would be particularly interesting to compare with companies operating in countries where sustainability-related indicators are highly rated. It would also be very interesting to expand the data gained through questionnaires through interviews and case studies, linking social-focused business activities to the benefits that businesses can achieve in the area of sustainable outcomes as a result.

1. Introduction

Contemporary organizations operate within a dynamic environment characterized by frequent changes across multiple levels [1]. The role of organizations in promoting well-being requires a systematic approach to identifying and implementing strategies that foster it. Organizational actions impact not only immediate stakeholders but also broader societal systems. Consequently, understanding these relationships is essential for advancing sustainable organizational objectives. Of particular interest is how social initiatives translate into diverse aspects of societal life. This involves examining how such initiatives can enhance employee well-being while simultaneously mitigating potential adverse effects on other stakeholders. Identifying the most critical areas in this matter is pivotal. This discussion aims not only to focus on the significance of sustainable development but also to highlight that social domain activities can be a strategic investment yielding benefits for the organization itself (e.g., financial and reputational, serving as a clear signal to potential partners, investors, or customers) as well as its stakeholders. The article addresses identified research gaps. Previous studies on the Triple-Layered Business Model Canvas (TLBMC) have primarily focused on the integration of the economic and environmental layers. Analyses concerning the role of the social layer remain limited. A review of the literature reveals predominantly conceptual approaches and individual case studies, with a notable lack of research based on large-scale empirical samples [2,3]. A second gap concerns the geographical context of existing studies, and there is a lack of research examining the application of the TLBMC and the assessment of social outcomes of organizations in Poland. The available findings have tended to concentrate on the classical TBL approach and CSR theories rather than on the practical implementation of the integrated model. Therefore, the study presented in this article demonstrates how the activities within one of the TLBMC layers, the social dimension, affect organizational outcomes. The aim of this article is to empirically examine the relationships between social activities undertaken by organizations and the level of sustainable results they achieve. Eight directions of social action were analyzed based on the TLBMC model and their impact on social, environmental, and economic performance indicators. This article is an extension of considerations of actions in the social dimensions of sustainable development and their relationship with the sustainable outcomes of business activity. The initial studies [4] focused on the social layer. In the present work, attention is directed toward all three dimensions of sustainable outcomes. Their importance is emphasized in numerous publications, although the reference point is often the Triple-Layered Business Model Canvas (TLBMC) developed by Joyce and Paquin [5]. This model is an extension of the classical Business Model Canvas (BMC). The primary aim of this article is to empirically investigate the relationship between social activities of organizations and their sustainable outcomes across economic, environmental, and social dimensions. In doing so, the study extends the application of the Triple-Layered Business Model Canvas (TLBMC) by focusing on the underexplored social layer. To achieve this aim, the study addresses the following research questions:

RQ1:

Which types of social activities undertaken by organizations are most strongly associated with sustainable outcomes?

RQ2:

To what extent do the eight identified social constructs (SOC1–SOC8) contribute to explaining variance in sustainable outcomes?

RQ3:

Are particular areas of social engagement (e.g., creating value for society, embedding social aspects in the value chain) more effective predictors of sustainable outcomes than others?

RQ4:

How can the TLBMC model be used as a practical tool to reveal the social awareness of employees?

The presented research will contribute to addressing the gaps by presenting research results and providing empirical evidence for the social dimension of TLBMC, which has been insufficiently studied so far. Moreover, the presented research takes into account the geographical context by focusing on enterprises operating in Poland. Thus, the article enriches the knowledge of how social actions affect sustainable outcomes and expands the theoretical and practical applications of the TLBMC framework. The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 introduces the three dimensions of sustainable development based on the Triple-Layered Business Model Canvas (TLBMC); Section 3 discusses activities in the social area and their hypothesized impact on sustainable results; Section 4 presents the research methodology, including survey design, sample, and measures; Section 5 provides the main findings and conclusions regarding the significance of social activities for sustainable outcomes; and Section 6 outlines research limitations and future research directions.

2. Theoretical Framework: The Three Dimensions of Sustainability in the TLBMC

This section introduces the core terminology and concepts related to the three dimensions of sustainable outcomes. The three layers serve as a key starting point for understanding the authors’ findings.

2.1. The Economic Layer Based on the Original BMC

This part focuses on the value of the economic layer. Based on the original BMC, it explains how an organization creates, delivers, and captures economic value. It includes the nine classical building blocks: customer segments, value proposition, channels, customer relationships, revenue streams, key resources, key activities, key partners, and cost structure. These blocks focus on delivering and capturing economic value.

Table 1. The building blocks of the economic layer.

Block	Description
Customer Segments	Defines the groups of customers the company serves and creates value for.
Value Proposition	Describes how the company solves a problem or satisfies a customer need.
Channels	Explains how the company communicates with and delivers value to customers.
Customer Relationships	Defines the types of relationships established with customer segments.
Revenue Streams	Identifies how the company earns revenue from its customer segments.
Key Resources	Lists the essential assets required to make the business model work.
Key Activities	Describes the critical actions needed to deliver value and maintain operations.
Key Partners	Identifies external parties that support the business model’s effectiveness.
Cost Structure	Outlines the major costs required to operate the business.

Source: ref. [6].

presents a detailed description of each element.

2.2. Environmental Life Cycle Layer

This part highlights the value of the environmental layer. It focuses on the ecological impact of the business and its environmental value creation model. It also includes nine components: materials, energy sources, emissions, functional value, product–service systems, durability, closed-loop systems, transport and logistics, and infrastructure.

Table 2. The building blocks of the environmental layer.

Block	Description
Materials	Type and quantity of raw materials used in production.
Energy Sources	Types and use of energy in direct and indirect operations.
Emissions	Emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.
Functional Value	Evaluation of the sustainability performance during product use.
Product–Service Systems	Strategies to reduce environmental impact by changing usage models.
Durability	Product lifespan, reuse, repair, refurbishment, and recycling potential.
Closed-Loop Systems	Actions supporting material cycle closure.
Transport and Logistics	Environmental impact of logistics and distribution.
Infrastructure	Environmental impact of buildings, machinery, and equipment.

Source: ref. [5].

provides a description of each block.

2.3. The Social Layer

This part focuses on the third dimension. Social sustainability refers to the ability of a system, a country or an organization, to maintain human well-being. It includes nine blocks: stakeholder segments, social value proposition, social engagement channels, social relationships, social value streams, social resources, social activities, social partners, and social costs/investments.

Table 3. The building blocks of the social layer.

Block	Description
Stakeholder Segments	Focus on stakeholders such as employees, local communities, NGOs, public institutions, and marginalized groups.
Social Value Proposition	Enhancing community well-being, promoting equity, supporting education and health, and creating decent jobs.
Social Engagement Channels	Community consultations, participatory platforms, CSR reports, and NGO dialogues.
Social Relationships	Nature of relationships with stakeholder groups—from employee relations to cooperation with community actors.
Social Value Streams	Tangible and intangible value generated by the organization for society.
Social Resources	Tangible and intangible assets enabling social actions—e.g., human capital, trust, local knowledge, reputation.
Social Activities	Key actions aimed at generating social value.
Social Partners	Institutions and organizations that collaborate on social objectives.
Social Costs/Investments	Costs incurred for social stakeholders—e.g., training, inclusion campaigns, compensations, and ethical actions.

Source: ref. [5].

presents the core blocks of the social layer.

2.4. Comparison and Integration of the Three Dimensions of Sustainability

The issue of integrating all three layers introduced in the TLBMC has been explored in various ways. The TLBMC model has found applications across industries such as automotive [7], agribusiness [8], coffee production [9], heavy industry [10], electronics [11], and also coffee shops [12]. In the automotive sector, the integration of economic, environmental, and social values is highlighted as critical to achieving sustainability in emerging technologies. Some authors challenge the traditional bottom-up construction of business models and argue for reversing the logic—beginning not with the economic layer but with environmental and social objectives [7].

The TLBMC has also been used to guide strategic development planning [9], where the economic layer serves as a platform to embed environmental and social elements into strategic processes. Mili & Loukil [8] apply the model to the fruit and vegetable sector, showing how activities in one area (e.g., environmental) can influence others (e.g., financial performance or stakeholder relationships). Their case illustrates that sustainable practices can coexist with economic success. A study in the coffee sector [9] emphasizes the importance of environmental strategies such as waste management, responsible sourcing, and sustainable agriculture. Here, the environmental layer is not treated as an add-on but as a core part of the business model. The environmental-first approach is also central in Gómez & Naro [7], who argue that reversing the starting point of analysis may result in fundamentally different business models. Rasyd [12] points to the synergy between these three layers as evidence of the TLBMC model’s potential to support holistic value creation, even for small enterprises with limited resources. For the authors, social engagement is defined through employee development programs, community events, and supply chain transparency.

Paquin, Busch & Tilleman [10] propose an alternative framework of dual value creation, demonstrating that businesses do not have to choose between environmental and economic performance. They advocate for new valuation and management models capable of capturing social and ecological value alongside financial returns. Their analysis highlights the role of industrial symbiosis (IS)—where waste, energy, water, or other outputs from one company become resources for another within a local collaboration network.

Table 4. Comparison of the three dimensions of sustainable development.

Block	Economic Layer (ECO)	Environmental Layer (ENV)	Social Layer (SOC)	Authors
Customer Segments	Customer groups to whom value is delivered	Entities impacting the environment across the life cycle	Communities, vulnerable groups, social stakeholders	Joyce & Paquin [5]
Value Proposition	Product or service that addresses a customer need	Environmental impact, sustainable functional benefits	Ethical value, social justice, human dignity	Joyce & Paquin [5] Mili & Loukil [8] Gómez & Naro [7]
Channels	Distribution and communication with the customer	Environmental footprint of logistics and distribution channels	Service accessibility for social groups, digital exclusion	Pollard et al. [11] Pane et al. [9]
Customer Relationships	Type of relationship—personal, automated, loyalty-based	Environmental education, informed consumer choices	Involving customers in the social mission, trust	Joyce & Paquin [5] Salwin et al. [13]
Revenue Streams	Revenue sources (sales, subscriptions, services)	Revenues from sustainable products/services, environmental charges	Crowdfunding, value for local communities	Paquin et al. [10] Pane et al. [9]
Key Resources	Infrastructure, people, IP, logistics	Low-footprint, renewable, and recyclable resources	Social capital, human resources from vulnerable groups	Amoussohoui et al. [14]
Key Activities	Production, marketing, customer service	Eco-design, life cycle assessment (LCA), resource efficiency	Social partnerships, educational and inclusive activities	Pollard et al. [11] Joyce & Paquin [5]
Key Partners	Suppliers, distributors, strategic allies	Environmentally certified partners, industrial symbiosis (IS), circular economy (CE)	NGOs, social entities, local organizations	Paquin et al. [10] Mili & Loukil [8]
Cost Structure	Fixed, variable, and unit costs	Environmental costs, investments in clean technologies	Costs of training, social integration, occupational safety	Joyce & Paquin [5] Gómez & Naro [7] Amoussohoui et al. [14]

Source: Own elaboration.

compares the three layers of TLBMC, showing their functional focus and associated literature.

The TLBMC, as applied in various industry settings, enables a coherent interpretation of how economic, environmental, and social layers interact. Integrated business models are not only feasible but can also be financially viable, scalable, and environmentally responsible. Balance across these layers forms the foundation for a future-oriented, sustainable economy.

3. Activities in the Social Area and Sustainable Results

Before presenting the empirical methodology, it is important to outline the eight areas of social activities considered in this study. The research hypotheses were formulated based on these factors.

3.1. Final Users

As Bell et al. [15] claims, companies that prioritize health and safety tend to achieve stronger overall performance, highlighting the positive relationship between safe working environments, employee welfare, and productivity (which is also pointed out by Nagyova et al. [16]. Moreover, the effective use and management of natural resources to simultaneously meet human needs and support business growth constitute a cornerstone of sustainable business strategy [17], often driven by external pressures and stakeholder engagement [18]. Fair and healthy market competition fosters economic development by generating added value and new jobs while also enhancing corporate reputation, strengthening stakeholder trust, and contributing to improved financial outcomes [19,20]. Compliance with intellectual property rights promotes innovation and supports ethical, responsible business practices that are integral to long-term social and economic sustainability [21,22]. Finally, corporate social initiatives in education, particularly the promotion of knowledge about sustainable practices, play a vital role in advancing social welfare, securing livelihoods, and raising consumer awareness in support of a sustainable economy [23,24]. Based on the above considerations, the following hypothesis H1 was formulated:

Hypothesis 1.

Activities aimed at improving human health and safety, ensuring access to resources, promoting fair competition, respecting intellectual property rights, and educating communities (SOC1) positively influence a company’s sustainable outcomes (OUT) across financial, environmental, and social dimensions.

3.2. Values for Society

Enterprises that actively collaborate with stakeholders and engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives typically achieve better corporate social performance (CSP) and overall sustainable development outcomes as their practices align with stakeholder expectations while simultaneously strengthening organizational reputation and legitimacy [25,26,27,28]. The implementation of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) strategies fosters stakeholder engagement and leads to improved financial and economic results [29,30,31]. CSR initiatives focused on social welfare, such as health, education, economic equality, and the reduction in unemployment, enhance corporate reputation and stakeholder trust, while addressing critical social challenges and increasing long-term profitability and social cohesion [32,33,34,35]. Proactive sustainable development strategies, including anti-discrimination measures, further enhance employee competences, foster an inclusive organizational culture, and support broader social development [36]. Based on the above considerations, the following hypothesis H2 was formulated:

Hypothesis 2.

Supporting socially active attitudes, stakeholder cooperation, unemployment reduction, anti-discrimination measures, diversity promotion, and societal well-being initiatives (SOC2) positively influence the sustainable performance outcomes (OUT) of a company.

3.3. Scope of External Relations

Sustainable CRM practices aimed at building long-term customer relationships enhance engagement, trust, and loyalty, forming the foundation of competitive advantage and improved financial performance [37,38,39,40,41]. CSR initiatives that strengthen customer bonds and foster social capital contribute to corporate reputation, shape consumers’ civic attitudes, and support the achievement of long-term social outcomes [39,42,43]. At the same time, social norms play a significant role in shaping customer engagement and brand relationships, thereby promoting the maintenance of sustainable behaviors [43]. Enhancing the quality of pro-environmental activities increases customer satisfaction and profitability, while initiatives such as green finance and a sustainable marketing mix foster customer loyalty and environmental objectives [44,45]. Moreover, accounting for cultural dimensions, such as individualism versus collectivism and power distance, is essential for the effectiveness of CSR activities, the development of lasting customer relationships, and the attainment of sustainable outcomes across diverse markets, underscoring the importance of cultural diversity in sustainable development strategies [46,47]. Based on the above considerations, the following hypothesis H3 was formulated:

Hypothesis 3.

Fostering long-term customer relationships, building social capital, promoting environmental awareness, and respecting cultural diversity (SOC3) positively influence sustainable outcomes (OUT) in financial, social, and environmental metrics.

3.4. Culture and Social Relations

CSR initiatives strengthen corporate reputation, which translates into improved sustainable development outcomes, competitive advantage, and long-term effects [48,49,50]. Supporting sustainable consumption further enhances competitive positioning, long-term performance, and the reinforcement of reputation and credibility [51,52]. Trust, a positive brand image, and high-quality customer service foster satisfaction and loyalty, which constitute the foundation of lasting competitive advantage and brand value, thereby supporting long-term sustainable growth [49,50,53,54]. Customer satisfaction serves as a mediating link between CSR and loyalty, underscoring the importance of customer care in maintaining sustainable outcomes [54]. Moreover, the emphasis on ethics and transparency in CSR represents a hidden but essential element in building trust and reputation [49,51,53]. The implementation of CSR commitments, encompassing both social and environmental responsibilities, directly influences organizational efficiency and the preservation of competitive advantage, highlighting the strategic significance of CSR for sustainable development [50,51,52,53,55]. Based on these considerations, the following hypothesis H4 was formulated:

Hypothesis 4.

Building corporate reputation, fostering trust and a positive brand image, enhancing customer loyalty, and promoting sustainable consumption through CSR initiatives (SOC4) positively influence sustainable outcomes (OUT) across financial, social, and environmental dimensions.

3.5. Employees

Research indicates that ethical leadership and a supportive ethical climate improve employees’ mental well-being, reduce burnout, and enhance overall welfare, which in turn leads to greater engagement, productivity, satisfaction, and lower turnover [56,57,58]. Furthermore, investing in employee development and continuous improvement constitutes a key element of a psychologically healthy workplace, increasing satisfaction, job security, motivation, and engagement while also supporting the sustainable functioning of organizations [59,60,61]. Empowering employees through participation in decision-making further strengthens their sense of agency and motivation, positively affecting organizational outcomes and workplace safety [59,61]. A strong occupational health and safety (OHS) culture, grounded in ethical principles and effective risk management, reduces accidents and absenteeism while enhancing employee well-being, thereby forming the foundation of sustainable organizational results [62]. Effective diversity management contributes to psychosocial safety, stronger workplace relations, and integration, although DEI initiatives require careful implementation to balance short-term costs with long-term benefits, given their potentially complex effects [63,64]. Maintaining work–life balance, supported by organizational justice and dedicated workplace programs, plays a critical role in building a healthy work environment, translating into greater employee satisfaction, productivity, and organizational efficiency [59,60,64]. Moreover, employee empowerment through participation in decision-making fosters agency, motivation, engagement, and workplace safety, thereby contributing to sustainable organizational development [59,61]. Based on these considerations, the following hypothesis H5 was formulated:

Hypothesis 5.

The implementation of ethical conduct, employee development, occupational health and safety, diversity management, work–life balance, and employee participation (SOC5) positively influences sustainable organizational outcomes (OUT) by enhancing employee well-being, engagement, and organizational performance.

3.6. Key Activities—Value Chain

The effective integration of marketing, logistics, and production activities plays a crucial role in synchronizing demand and supply, supporting the achievement of organizational goals such as high service quality and customer satisfaction while also contributing to sustainable performance through optimal resource utilization and waste reduction [65,66]. Collaboration between logistics and production significantly affects distribution efficiency and overall organizational effectiveness, with strong working relationships and functional integration leading to improved outcomes [66,67]. Logistics, including raw material procurement, transportation, and warehousing, constitutes an essential component of sustainable development by enabling efficient resource management and enhancing overall organizational performance [67]. Post-sales activities, such as reverse logistics and recycling, support the circular economy by reducing the environmental impact of production and generating sustainable outcomes [68,69,70]. The implementation of green supply chain management practices, including green logistics and environmentally responsible human resource management, further improves resource efficiency and reduces environmental impact [71,72,73]. Moreover, the use of feedback from post-sales activities in production and design processes fosters the development of innovative and sustainable solutions, strengthens technological capacity, and creates a loop of continuous improvement that is crucial for maintaining long-term performance [74]. Based on these considerations, the following hypothesis H6 was formulated:

Hypothesis 6.

The integration and alignment of pre-production, production, logistics, marketing, and post-sales activities (SOC6) positively influences sustainable organizational outcomes (OUT).

3.7. Local Community

Corporate responsibility encompasses complex activities directed toward local communities, including the sustainable management of resources, the protection of cultural heritage, and the development of infrastructure and social services. The effective implementation of CSR requires collaboration, strategic planning, and adherence to ethical principles, enabling the achievement of lasting sustainable development outcomes [75,76,77,78,79,80,81]. A key element of CSR is the active engagement of local communities, which allows firms to better understand and address their needs, thereby fostering long-term sustainable results [76,82,83]. Enterprises should also manage natural resources responsibly, avoiding overexploitation and environmental degradation, while implementing environmentally friendly solutions in line with legal regulations [77]. Intangible resources, such as cultural heritage, represent another important CSR dimension; financial and material support for their preservation can not only strengthen corporate reputation but also deliver long-term benefits to local communities [78]. Adequate infrastructure can generate economic benefits, through tourism and job creation, constituting an essential component of sustainable development [84]. Moreover, companies, particularly in the resource sector, can improve quality of life by investing in infrastructure and initiatives that support economic growth, sustainable resource management, poverty reduction, and the mitigation of social inequalities [79,85]. Common CSR practices also extend to health, education, and social care. For example, enterprises may support local schools, medical facilities, and community centers, thereby strengthening stakeholder relations and stimulating economic development [75,76,77]. In addition, CSR initiatives play a vital role in promoting sustainable innovation and inclusive development, which help reduce social inequalities and reinforce community resilience [76,80]. Based on these considerations, the following hypothesis H7 was formulated:

Hypothesis 7.

The sustainable management of local resources, infrastructure support, cultural heritage preservation, and the integration of local and migrant workers (SOC7) positively influence sustainable organizational outcomes (OUT) by enhancing community engagement, fostering cultural and economic development, and promoting environmental sustainability.

3.8. Social Impact

Sustainable development initiatives in activities in the social area, especially those focused on employee well-being, improve the operational performance of the supply chain, as evidenced by better On-Time-In-Full (OTIF) indicators, while supporting the implementation of sustainable development goals [86]. Active involvement of local communities stakeholders in CSR activities promotes the creation of synergies that drive significant changes [87]. Integrating social aspects into supply chain management allows for more effective risk mitigation, strengthening relationships with employees and customers and achieving better social and economic results [88]. Companies implementing comprehensive strategies in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a high level of stakeholder engagement, also achieve better financial results, which indicates the economic benefits of extensive CSR activities [89]. Sustainable social development practices, including ensuring safe and fair working conditions, promoting diversity and inclusion, and supporting local communities, contribute to social well-being and strengthen the long-term sustainability of the organization [33]. Based on these considerations, the following hypothesis H8 was formulated:

Hypothesis 8.

Comprehensive social responsibility initiatives addressing employees, local communities, supply chain participants, consumers, society, and children (SOC8) positively influence sustainable organizational outcomes (OUT).

For clarity, all research hypotheses are summarized below:

• H1: Activities aimed at improving human health and safety, ensuring access to resources, promoting fair competition, respecting intellectual property rights, and educating communities (SOC1) positively influence sustainable outcomes (OUT).
• H2: Supporting socially active attitudes, stakeholder cooperation, unemployment reduction, anti-discrimination measures, diversity promotion, and societal well-being initiatives (SOC2) positively influence sustainable outcomes (OUT).
• H3: Fostering long-term customer relationships, building social capital, promoting environmental awareness, and respecting cultural diversity (SOC3) positively influence sustainable outcomes (OUT).
• H4: Building corporate reputation, fostering trust and a positive brand image, enhancing customer loyalty, and promoting sustainable consumption (SOC4) positively influence sustainable outcomes (OUT).
• H5: The implementation of ethical conduct, employee development, occupational health and safety, diversity management, work–life balance, and employee participation (SOC5) positively influences sustainable outcomes (OUT).
• H6: The integration and alignment of pre-production, production, logistics, marketing, and post-sales activities (SOC6) positively influence sustainable outcomes (OUT).
• H7: The sustainable management of local resources, infrastructure support, cultural heritage preservation, and the integration of local and migrant workers (SOC7) positively influence sustainable outcomes (OUT).
• H8: Comprehensive social responsibility initiatives addressing employees, local communities, supply chain participants, consumers, society, and children (SOC8) positively influence sustainable outcomes (OUT).

4. Methodology

This article reports a subset of a larger study that assessed performance across three domains: economic, environmental, and social. In the social domain, we examined indicators such as employee satisfaction, occupational health and safety, customer satisfaction, and contributions to healthy, livable communities. In total, we distinguished nine social constructs (see Figure 1). Each scale demonstrated high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s $\alpha \ge$ 0.80; the number of items composing each construct is shown in the figure’s upper-right corner. The primary aim of the paper is to investigate the relationship between activities in social dimension and sustainable outcomes.

The broader study, an excerpt of which is presented in this article, examined outcomes across three dimensions: economic, environmental, and social. Measurement of social outcomes included, among others, employee satisfaction, workplace health and safety, customer satisfaction, and participation in the development of healthy and sustainable communities. Furthermore, within the social domain, nine key variables were identified (Figure 1). The reliability of all variables, measured using Cronbach’s $\alpha$ coefficient, exceeded 0.8, indicating a high degree of internal consistency of the measurement scales (the number of items comprising each variable is shown in the upper-right corner of the respective variable).

To test the hypotheses, a survey was administered using a developed questionnaire, drawing on the framework of Paquin and Joyce [5]. During the development stage, the content validity of the questionnaire items was assessed through the competent judges method. Senior organizational employees, serving as expert judges, independently evaluated the relevance of the proposed items.

The study was conducted using a questionnaire that was intended to be appropriate for any organization regardless of size, activity profile, or affiliation to a branch of the economy. Employees with a broad view of the organizations surveyed (each respondent represented a different organization) were asked to complete the survey. The sample was obtained through non-purposive selection. Data collection was carried out via a professional online survey platform.

The research was carried out at the end of 2022. One questionnaire was sent to a person with a broad view of the whole organization (i.e., CEO, management team, quality specialist, etc.) in each of the surveyed organizations. The general population consisted of companies operating in Poland, and 303 correctly completed surveys were obtained. Although the sample size does not allow for full statistical representativeness of the entire population of firms, the findings nevertheless provide a valuable source of empirical evidence and may constitute a foundation for subsequent, more extensive research based on larger samples. The respondent profiles are presented in

Table 5. Size of the surveyed companies.

Enterprise Size (Number of Employees)
Micro (Less Than 10)	Small Enterprises (10–49)	Medium (50–249)	Large (Over 250)
133	83	60	27

Source: Own elaboration.

.

In examining how social and environmental activities [5] contribute to sustainable outcomes [90], we identified a set of key variables that capture these relationships (see

Table 6. Key variables and their reliability.

Variable	Description (Variables Were Assessed on 5-Point Likert Scale)	Reliability
Final users SOC1	Includes (among others) activities to improve human health and safety, ensure access to resources, promote fair competition, respect intellectual property rights, nurture quality, educate communities, and reduce negative impacts.	0.907 (25 items)
Values for society SOC2	Includes (among others) activities like supporting/creating socially active attitudes, initiating cooperation between stakeholders, reducing unemployment, preventing discrimination in the workplace, caring for diversity, and caring for the betterment of society.	0.948 (22 items)
Scope of external relations SOC3	Includes (among others) activities like emphasizing the establishment of long-term customer relationships, building social capital through collaboration, integration, fostering environmental awareness, and aspiring to approach customers with respect regardless of their culture and country of origin, while actively promoting cultural diversity both in customer relations and within the internal structure.	0.828 (17 items)
Culture and social relations SOC4	Includes (among others) values like the trust in the enterprise and its recognition, along with the company’s reputation and commitment to resolving customer issues, presenting comprehensive and up-to-date information about its offerings, and providing fair solutions for handling customer complaints, grievances, and concerns, which are all integral aspects. Moreover, the safeguarding of customers’ personal data and privacy, an environmentally conscious orientation, access to reliable information about the company’s offerings and activities, protection of data after product usage, and the creation of shared values and social capital contribute to reinforcing democracy and fostering a culture of sharing. The company adheres to the concept of corporate social responsibility, supports sustainable consumption, and nurtures individualism among its customers.	0.952 (23 items)
Employees SOC5	Includes (among others) activities that are important to employees: promoting ethical conduct; emphasizing employee development through training, professional growth, and career advancement; adherence to occupational health and safety standards; fair treatment of employees; mutual trust; providing a work–life balance by respecting working hours, offering flexible schedules, and diverse employment arrangements; participation in decision-making; and inclusion and diversity management.	0.924 (15 items)
Key Activities— Value Chain SOC6	The pre-production activities, including research and development, product design, procurement of raw materials, components, energy, and equipment, fall under the purview of internal logistics, encompassing the receipt of transportation from suppliers, warehousing, and the distribution of raw materials, materials, and components to factories, assembly lines, warehouses, and shops. The transformation of raw materials into finished goods into products, packaging, and machine maintenance constitute the manufacturing process, while external logistics encompasses preparing offers, order receipt and dispatch, and delivery planning. Marketing and sales encompass pricing, and service involves maintaining the efficient operation of products post-sale and delivery.	0.939 (21 items)
Local community SOC7	The focus on local material resources involves sustainable resource sharing, protection, and enhancement of their quantity and quality. Additionally, attention is given to local infrastructure such as roads and schools, as well as the care of intangible local resources by promoting social services like education and healthcare. Improvement of access to knowledge and technology through sharing these resources with the local community; integration of migrating workers; communication, education, and legal assistance; and preservation of the cultural heritage of the local community by safeguarding cultural objects, social, and religious practices and promoting traditional crafts and products are also integral aspects. Furthermore, there is an emphasis on environmental risk management; stakeholder inclusion in strategies impacting the local environment, health, or well-being of the local community; and engagement, including financial support, in social initiatives. The commitment extends to the care of local employment, encompassing suppliers and workers.	0.913 (17 items)
Social impact SOC8	The staff (e.g., through improving human health, enhancing safety, and flexible working hours), the local community (e.g., through access to material resources, preservation of cultural heritage, involvement of local community participants excluding consumers (e.g., through promoting fair competition, corporate social responsibility, and respecting intellectual property rights), consumers (e.g., through ensuring return policies, ensuring quality, personal data, and transparency), society at large (e.g., through sustainable development, influencing economic development, and developing and transferring technology), and children (e.g., through education for local communities and reducing the impact on children’s health) are all part of the company’s comprehensive social responsibility initiatives.	0.956 (15 items)
Sustainable outcomes OUT	Compared to competitors, the company’s performance in the following areas can be assessed in terms of relative advantage or disadvantage (in three sustainability dimensions): revenues; productivity (low costs); quality (solidity, reliability, and diligence), return on investment (ROI); profitability of the enterprise; number of new products and/or services successfully implemented; investments made in regions with high unemployment (poverty); availability of products or services for people with the lowest incomes; emissions; wastewater; waste; use of hazardous, toxic, harmful materials; total resource consumption (materials, energy, and water); environmental impact of products or services sold; impact on biodiversity; employee satisfaction; employee turnover; occupational health and safety; and customer satisfaction. Key factors considered include the company’s contribution to the development of healthy and sustainable communities, as well as the compliance of its suppliers with social and environmental criteria.	0.945 (20 items)

Source: Own elaboration.

). To ensure that the findings are solid, the reliability of the measurement scales was tested; all variables achieved Cronbach’s $\alpha$ values greater than 0.82, indicating a consistently high level of internal validity across the measures.

To test the hypotheses concerning the relationship between activities in the social dimension and sustainable outcomes, statistical analyses were performed. As an initial step, correlation analysis was conducted using Pearson’s coefficient, with all correlations found to be significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed), as presented in

Table 7. Values of Pearson’s coefficient.

OUT		SOC1	SOC2	SOC3	SOC4	SOC5	SOC16	SOC7	SOC8
	Pearson Corr.	0.469 **	0.505 **	0.444 **	0.422 **	0.367 **	0.504 **	0.256 **	0.510 **
	Sign. bilateral	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
	N	303	303	303	303	303	303	303	303

** Correlation significant at the level of 0.01 (bilateral). Source: Own elaboration.

.

All relationships are positive and significant. Higher scores on all SOC subscales co-occur with a higher OUT score. According to the interpretation according to Cohen’s rules (∼0.10 low, ∼0.30 moderate, and ∼0.50 high), a strong correlation is observed in the case of SOC8, SOC2, and SOC6 variables. Moderate correlation occurs between OUT and SOC1, SOC3, SOC4, and SOC5. A low correlation is observed between OUT and SOC7.

Since the analysis of pairwise correlations revealed strong associations, it was decided to perform stepwise regressions, and the model was obtained: F(8,294) = 14.981, p < 0.001, $R^2$≈ 0.290, $R^2$_adj ≈ 0.270. Significant positive predictors were SOC2 ($\beta$ = 0.188, p = 0.005) and SOC6 ($\beta$ = 0.174, p = 0.012); others were non-significant (p > 0.05), with SOC8 at the boundary ($\beta$ = 0.122, p = 0.068).

This model seem to fit the data well and the regression equations can be written as follows:

$$Y=b_0+b_1\times X_1+b_2\times X_2+b_3\times X_3+b_4\times X_4+b_5\times X_5+b_6\times X_6+b_7\times X_7+b_8\times X_8$$

where Y (Sustainable outcomes), $X_1$ (final users) + $X_2$ (values for society) + $X_3$ (scope of external relations) + $X_4$ (culture and social relations) + $X_5$ (employees) + $X_6$ (key activities – value chain) + $X_7$ (local community) + $X_8$ (social impact).

$$\mathrm{Sustainable}\mathrm{Outcomes}\left(\mathrm{OUT}\right)=1.649+0.104\times \mathrm{SOC}2+0.120\times \mathrm{SOC}6$$

where $X_2$ (values for society), $X_6$ (key activities – value chain).

Regression analysis (

Table 8. Regression model.

		Coefficients a
		Non-Standardized Coefficients		Standardized
Model		$\mathit{\beta }$	Standard Error	Coefficients $\mathit{\beta }$	t	Significance
1	(Constant)	1.649	0.148		11.120	<0.001
	SOC1	0.060	0.039	0.105	1.544	0.124
	SOC2	0.104	0.037	0.188	2.814	0.005
	SOC3	0.040	0.055	0.050	0.716	0.474
	SOC4	0.035	0.051	0.051	0.694	0.488
	SOC5	0.044	0.031	0.087	1.447	0.149
	SOC6	0.120	0.047	0.174	2.540	0.012
	SOC7	0.015	0.025	0.033	0.618	0.537
	SOC8	0.060	0.033	0.122	1.829	0.068

^a Dependent variable: OUT (sustainable outcomes). Source: Own elaboration.

) showed that two variables are important for sustainable results, values for society (SOC2) and key activities – value chain (SOC6), and social impact (SOC8) is on the verge of significance. The other variables did not enter the model.

In order to summarize the results of the conducted statistical analyses (correlations and regression models), all eight hypotheses (H1–H8) were verified.

Table 9. Verification of hypotheses H1–H8.

Hypothesis	Description (SOC Variable)	Result	Verification
H1 (SOC1)	Final users (health and safety, access to resources, fair competition, and education)	Moderate correlation (r = 0.469), not significant in regression	Not supported
H2 (SOC2)	Values for society (CSR, DEI, stakeholder cooperation, and anti-discrimination)	Strong correlation (r = 0.505), significant predictor ($\beta$ = 0.188, p = 0.005)	Supported
H3 (SOC3)	Scope of external relations (long-term customer relationships, cultural diversity, and green marketing)	Moderate correlation (r = 0.444), not significant in regression	Not supported
H4 (SOC4)	Culture and social relations (reputation, trust, and sustainable consumption)	Moderate correlation (r = 0.422), not significant in regression	Not supported
H5 (SOC5)	Employees (ethics, development, OHS, work–life balance, and participation)	Moderate correlation (r = 0.367), not significant in regression	Not supported
H6 (SOC6)	Key activities–value chain (production, logistics, marketing, and after-sales)	Strong correlation (r = 0.504), significant predictor ($\beta$ = 0.174, p = 0.012)	Supported
H7 (SOC7)	Local community (resources, infrastructure, cultural heritage, and integration)	Low correlation (r = 0.256), not significant in regression	Not supported
H8 (SOC8)	Social impact (comprehensive CSR, supply chain, consumers, society, and children)	Strong correlation (r = 0.510), borderline predictor ($\beta$ = 0.122, p = 0.068)	Partially supported (on significance threshold)

Source: Own elaboration.

presents their description, the obtained results, and the final assessment regarding their confirmation.

The obtained results confirm previous studies indicating the key role of stakeholder engagement (e.g., [91,92]). At the same time, unlike articles emphasizing the importance of employee-related outcomes (e.g., [53]), our regression results show that such initiatives did not have a significant impact on sustainable outcomes. However, the observed differences may be specific to the Polish context. The results show that two hypotheses (H2 and H6) were fully supported, while H8 received partial support as it was on the threshold of statistical significance. The remaining hypotheses (H1, H3, H4, H5, and H7) were not confirmed in the regression model, although their positive correlations with sustainable outcomes suggest that they may play a complementary or context-dependent role. This highlights the particular importance of creating value for society (H2) and embedding social aspects in key value chain activities (H6) as primary drivers of sustainable organizational outcomes. The study reveals the particular importance of SOC2 and SOC6, which has not been explicitly highlighted in the existing literature. These are primarily collections of practices, case studies of SMEs [2] and analyses of CSR from economic, ethical, and methodological perspectives [3] as well as descriptions of the classical Triple Bottom Line concept [93,94].

It should be noted that six of the eight hypotheses were not supported by regression analysis, despite positive correlations with balanced organizational performance. This means that despite being theoretically established in the Polish context, they may not directly translate into a measurable improvement in results. The first of the unconfirmed hypotheses (H1) is related to health and safety, fair competition, and intellectual property. These initiatives can often be seen as compliance-oriented responsibilities rather than as factors that affect the sustainable performance of an organization. Carroll (1999) notes, however, that these actions are rather basic expectations rather than a source of competitive advantage [91]. The benefits of taking action may appear in the long term, as indicated by Bocken et al. (2014) [95] as a result of risk reduction [95]. In the short term, they may remain invisible as a kind of standard practice [96].

Another unconfirmed hypothesis (H3) concerned building long-term relationships with customers, social capital, and cultural diversity. Perhaps this relationship is only indirect. Freeman (2010) pointed out in stakeholder theory that trust and legitimacy developing slowly may not be visible in immediate performance indicators [92]. Moreover, building social capital and cultural awareness affect innovation without being a direct predictor. Stubbs and Cocklin (2008) emphasize that the effects may become more visible in countries where consumers have a high awareness of sustainable development [97]. In Poland this awareness is still developing.

Hypothesis H4, on the other hand, concerns the company’s reputation, brand image, and sustainable consumption. Joyce and Paquin [5] emphasize that embedding social value and reputation in a business model is a gradual process. Perhaps this is why the effect of these factors on sustainable outcomes has not been demonstrated, and perhaps it takes time to observe this effect. Stubbs and Cocklin (2008) are of a similar opinion, believing that linking reputation to measurable outcomes is a complex process and may require additional organizational skills [97]. However Schaltegger et al. (2016) argue that these factors do not act as direct determinants of outcomes but rather as mechanisms for mitigating crises [96].

The next hypothesis (H5) concerned employee-related initiatives such as development, diversity management, and work–life balance. The literature emphasizes their importance for sustainable development [53]). However, our findings suggest that while these practices may yield benefits, such as innovation and engagement, their effects are predominantly long-term and may not necessarily translate into immediate improvements in sustainability performance. Implementing changes in the social domain requires cultural transformation, which, by nature, is time-intensive [95].

The factors outlined in hypothesis H7 are inherently long-term and context-dependent, including community support, infrastructure development, and the protection of cultural heritage. As Schaltegger et al. (2016) argue, such initiatives may require systemic collaboration among firms, governmental agencies, and local communities [96]. This cooperation may not yet be sufficiently developed, which could explain the absence of observable effects on sustainability performance. Bocken (2014) and Carroll (1999) share a similar view, noting that such initiatives tend to generate outcomes that are difficult to measure, such as legitimacy or social cohesion, yet remain highly desirable [91,95].

In the case of H8, which encompassed social responsibility initiatives directed toward multiple stakeholder groups, including employees, local communities, supply chain partners, consumers, society at large, and children, the regression analysis likewise did not reveal a significant impact on sustainability performance (remaining at the threshold of statistical significance). Possible explanations are the broad scope and heterogeneity of the initiatives assessed, which makes it challenging to capture them within a single construct. Bocken et al. (2014) indicate that heterogeneity can cause positive and negative effects to balance each other [95]. As Carroll (1999) points out, activities related to the social layer of sustainable development are sometimes implemented selectively or symbolically [91]. Observable results require a long time horizon.

In summary, the assumed theoretical mechanisms may not have fully captured the complexity of the phenomena under investigation. Moreover, the results may suggest the presence of moderating or mediating variables that were not included in the current model. The model was limited by the scope of the blocks—the components of the Business Model Canvas. The unsupported hypotheses may indicate phenomena that are difficult to capture through questionnaire-based research. These may be more effectively explored through qualitative studies, which allow for a deeper investigation and a more detailed examination of the specific issue.

5. Conclusions

The conducted analysis allows for the formulation of several important conclusions regarding the relationship between an organization’s social activities and its outcomes in the area of sustainable development. Firstly, the statistical results revealed that among the eight analyzed social variables (SOC1–SOC8), two exhibit the highest predictive significance for positive organizational outcomes: SOC2 (values for society) and SOC6 (key activities – value chain). This indicates that organizations which engage in coherent actions aimed at creating value for society, as well as those that embed social values at the core of their operational activities, tend to achieve better results in terms of employee satisfaction, workplace safety, customer satisfaction, and participation in building local communities. Similarly, prior studies emphasize that integrating social values into core business operations fosters stakeholder trust and long-term organizational commitment [5,91,92,98].

Social initiatives directed toward both employees and stakeholders, as well as their collaboration, influence organizational sustainability outcomes in multiple ways. Activities aimed at enhancing employee satisfaction, such as equality and inclusion policies, foster engagement and loyalty, thereby reducing staff turnover, increasing productivity, and lowering recruitment and onboarding costs. Expanding access to products and services through initiatives targeted at local communities (e.g., creating jobs in high-unemployment regions) not only improves availability for low-income groups but also strengthens inclusivity and social responsibility indicators. Such actions stimulate investment in poverty-affected regions, contributing to local development and enhancing organizational value in the eyes of stakeholders. Collaboration with business partners, local governments, and communities further supports supply chain cohesion, while improving supplier compliance with social and environmental standards. Moreover, these efforts foster civic engagement and philanthropy that strengthen community well-being [91] and build stakeholder trust, which can serve as a source of long-term competitive advantage [92].

Operational practices in research and development, product design, raw material and energy sourcing, internal logistics, production processes, external logistics, marketing, sales, and after-sales services also affect sustainable organizational outcomes in various ways. The optimization of pre-production processes and improvements in internal logistics reduce unit costs, leading to higher productivity and favorable ROI indicators. Ensuring high design diligence, production quality control, equipment maintenance, and efficient packaging procedures enhances product quality (durability, reliability, precision), which increases customer satisfaction while reducing costs associated with complaints and repairs. At the same time, investments in R&D enable the introduction of new products and services, improving competitiveness, opening new market segments, and ultimately enhancing profitability and revenue. Simultaneously, the rational use of materials and energy, the selection of low-carbon raw materials, reductions in emissions during transportation and production, and waste minimization improve environmental performance indicators and, after the investment stage, lower resource use costs and environmental impacts. Actions related to monitoring raw materials and component sourcing, along with requiring suppliers to comply with social and environmental standards, strengthen supply chain compliance and reduce reputational risks. Finally, transparent marketing, timely deliveries, and effective after-sales service improve customer satisfaction and loyalty, which in turn foster revenue stability and a positive corporate image.

Secondly, when considering the research findings more broadly, specifically the correlation analysis, it becomes evident that strong and positive interdependencies exist between all analyzed social variables and the sustainable outcomes (OUT). Although not all variables were included in the final predictive model, their relevance should not be underestimated. They may serve supporting or conditional roles in specific industry or cultural contexts.

Thirdly, the paper presents examples of the application of the TLBMC that confirm its practical usefulness. Consequently, the authors’ findings, complemented by the model, demonstrate that the social layer can be an integral part of a business model that not only generates profit but also delivers tangible benefits to people. Social activities are not only an element of the organization’s ethical responsibility but also a real strategic resource that translates into measurable results. Thus, the TLBMC model, which extends the classic approach to the business model to include the environmental and social dimensions, is empirically justified and can be treated as a framework tool for planning and evaluating organizational efficiency in the conditions of transformation towards a sustainable economy.

Fourthly, the findings suggest a need to shift the emphasis from corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a supportive narrative toward an approach in which social value is an integral component of the business model (also suggested in [95]).

Fifthly, it is important to stress that the obtained results are not limited to interpreting organizational reality in Poland. While the study was conducted among firms operating in a single country, the methodology and conceptual assumptions are universal. This opens the path for replicating the study in international contexts and conducting cross-country comparisons involving economies at varying levels of maturity in sustainable management systems.

Lastly, the study’s findings outline clear directions for practitioners. They may serve as valuable guidance for managers seeking to design more effective social initiatives. Such design requires not only empathy and an understanding of social issues but also a strategic approach grounded in best practices in project management, communication, and stakeholder engagement.

In conclusion, the social dimension of the business model should not be perceived as an add-on as it constitutes the foundation of long-term organizational resilience and adaptability.

6. Research Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study has several limitations that should be considered in the interpretation and implications of its results. The authors acknowledge that the sustainable outcomes indicator may be biased. The solution to this problem may be in-depth interviews (IDIs), available directly through a conversation between the researcher and the subject. An added value for the present study could be the implementation of specially designed employee workshops focused on the TLBMC model, conducted under real business conditions. These workshops would be grounded in the statistical findings obtained thus far, which indicate that social outcomes reflect value creation both for society and for employees. Practical examples, presented in the form of case studies, would illustrate how employees understand the model and how this understanding translates into their work outcomes, environmental awareness, and sustainability-related competencies. Consequently, it would be necessary to introduce appropriate indicators for evaluating the results of their work. Similarly, increasing the research sample size and extending the study to include companies operating in other countries (i.e., replication of the research) would allow for greater generalization of the findings as the reported results may be specific to organizations operating in Poland.