Next Article in Journal
Job Satisfaction, Self-Efficacy, and Motivational Teaching Strategies as Drivers of Sustainable Higher Education: A Cross-Sectional Study of University English Language Instructors in Libya
Next Article in Special Issue
Institutionalizing Sustainability Through Management Innovation: Transformative Collaborative Learning in a Community-Based Service Ecosystem
Previous Article in Journal
A Machine Learning-Based Spatial Risk Mapping for Sustainable Groundwater Management Under Fluoride Contamination: A Case Study of Mastung, Balochistan
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bootlegging Innovation as a Pathway to Sustainable Competitive Advantage: The Roles of Job Crafting, Psychological Capital, and Promotion Focus
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 18
Issue 7
10.3390/su18073329
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Social Innovations and Sustainable Development of Enterprises in Poland—The Social and Environmental Perspective of Generation Z

by
Wiesław Łukasiński
,
Piotr Romański
and
Bernard Bińczycki
*
College of Management and Quality Sciences, Cracow University of Economics, Rakowicka 27 Street, 31-510 Cracow, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2026, 18(7), 3329; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073329
Submission received: 28 January 2026 / Revised: 15 March 2026 / Accepted: 24 March 2026 / Published: 30 March 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Impact of Management Innovation on Sustainable Development)
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this article is to identify the expectations of Generation Z representatives regarding organizational changes and directions of innovation supporting sustainable development of enterprises, considering social and environmental aspects of working conditions. Methods: The study was conducted in the form of an online survey from 2024–2025. The research sample included 310 people selected using a purposive sampling method, with inclusion criteria covering membership of Generation Z (people born after 1995). In the research questionnaire, “organizational innovations” were operationalized through flexible work arrangements, process digitalization, new models of team collaboration, the development of digital competencies, and solutions supporting work–life balance. “Sustainable development” was conceptualized across three dimensions: social (well-being, inclusivity, CSR), organizational (development opportunities, employment stability), and environmental (ecological responsibility). The Mann–Whitney U test and the Kruskal–Wallis test were used to analyze intergroup differences. Results: Descriptive results (mean scores) indicate that respondents rated flexible work arrangements, opportunities for professional development, and effective team collaboration as the most crucial factors supporting sustainable organizational development. The Mann–Whitney U test showed that women rated the importance of well-being (p = 0.003), work–life balance (p = 0.001), diversity and inclusivity (p = 0.012), and corporate social responsibility (p = 0.008) significantly higher than men. Educational and professional status differentiated the assessment of employment stability (Kruskal–Wallis test, p = 0.021). Although social and environmental aspects are recognized, for the younger generation, the most crucial factors remain direct working conditions and development opportunities that foster innovation. Conclusions: The results of the study may be useful for employers (entrepreneurs and HR managers) in shaping modern HR strategies. This applies to the design of attractive working conditions in the realities of the digital economy. The research fills a gap in understanding the values that young people appreciate in terms of ensuring high-quality working conditions.

1. Introduction

Dynamic technological, economic, and social changes pose challenges for organizations in the digital economy. Particularly important are employees’ expectations regarding innovative solutions, which we can call innovations [1,2]. The concept of innovation refers to a process that includes the conception of a new idea, its evaluation, and its practical implementation. The way a new idea is implemented, the criteria for its evaluation, and the sources of financing become important [3]. It is essential that the innovations implemented have a positive impact on the sustainable development of the organization, understood as its ability to integrate environmental, social, and economic goals. This requires the competencies necessary to achieve long-term prosperity [4] and the development of the organization by generating positive values in both the short- and long-term [5].
The aim of the article is to identify the expectations of Generation Z representatives in terms of innovative solutions that enable the sustainable and balanced development of organizations. The study pays particular attention to the social and environmental aspects of sustainable development. Based on the literature review, the following research hypotheses were formulated:
H1: 
Representatives of Generation Z assign the highest importance to flexible work arrangements, opportunities for professional development, and the quality of team collaboration as factors supporting sustainable organizational development.
H2: 
There are statistically significant differences between women and men from Generation Z in their assessment of the importance of the social and environmental aspects of sustainable organizational development.
H3: 
Educational and professional status (non-working students vs. working students) differentiates the assessment of the importance of selected innovative elements supporting the long-term and sustainable development of organizations.
Previous studies in Poland have primarily focused on general concepts of future organizations, sustainable development, or the implementation of innovation [6,7,8,9]. Despite the growing number of studies addressing sustainable organizational development and the characteristics of Generation Z, the literature lacks integrative analyses combining two key dimensions: the expectations of the younger generation regarding organizational innovation, and their perception of the social and environmental aspects of sustainable development. Existing research most often concentrates on single aspects—such as work motivation, elements of Industry 4.0, or corporate social responsibility—without an in-depth analysis of their interrelationships.
This study aims to fill this gap by empirically examining how Generation Z’s expectations toward organizational innovations may influence the long-term capacity of enterprises to support sustainable development in Poland.

2. Literature Review

Organizations of the future are seen as open systems, capable of interacting with their environment and responding dynamically to change [10]. Maintaining a competitive advantage requires them not only to improve existing solutions, but to implement innovations and create conditions conducive to flexibility and learning [1,2,9]. Organizations must be able to initiate change and implement innovation to meet the challenges of a turbulent environment effectively and efficiently [7,11]. In the context of contemporary conditions, the idea of sustainable development, comprising three pillars: economic, environmental, and social [6,12], is becoming particularly important. At the same time, adapting to the fourth industrial revolution is becoming a challenge for organizations. Industry 4.0 is based on advanced digital technologies such as artificial intelligence, Big Data, and the Internet of Things, which lead to the emergence of intelligent organizations capable of optimizing processes in real-time.
In this article, sustainable organizational development is analyzed from the perspective of Sustainable Human Resource Management (Sustainable HRM). This approach focuses on areas such as designing jobs that promote ergonomics and well-being, developing employee competencies (including digital skills), ensuring work–life balance, implementing diversity and inclusion policies, and applying principles of corporate social responsibility toward employees and stakeholders [13].
Within this framework, the economic pillar refers to employment stability and development opportunities; the social pillar encompasses well-being, organizational justice, and participation; while the environmental pillar relates to responsible organizational practices that minimize negative impacts on the environment [14].
Understood in this way, sustainable development is linked to working conditions and employees’ expectations regarding organizational innovation.
The digital economy requires an interdisciplinary approach to implement strategies based on environmental protection and social responsibility while leveraging innovative technologies [15]. The future of organizations will be determined by their ability to create sustainable products [16,17], implementing circular economy models [18,19], and developing the sharing economy [20,21]. Digital transformation offers significant opportunities to increase innovation, transparency, and social integration. Nevertheless, attention should be paid to existing digital inequalities and the lack of alignment of strategies with sustainable development goals. The transition to sustainable, digital business models requires a multidisciplinary approach, strengthened leadership, educational interventions, and institutional support [22].
The challenges associated with sustainable development require entire supply chains and networks to drive change and innovation. Unfortunately, most of the research on sustainable innovation to date has focused on the enterprise level, and in practice, the focus on short-term thinking and profit maximization has become dominant [23]. Chinese researchers have noted that despite scientific confirmation of a strong correlation between the use of digital platforms and sustainable innovation in companies, there is still a discrepancy between the two phenomena. The main factor causing this discrepancy is the isolated use of digital platform capabilities and organizational capabilities [24].
It is important to generate innovations that increase the chances of returning to capital. In fact, in addition to economic capital, we can distinguish social and environmental capital [25]. This requires organizations to develop the competencies necessary to implement strategies focused not only on economic stability, but also on social justice and environmental protection [26]. Modern organizations pay attention to the development of human capital and the improvement of stakeholder relations. They strive to provide the working conditions necessary to increase employee engagement and ensure solutions that enable the organization to adapt effectively to change.
Such solutions include flexible forms of work, reskilling programs, and co-creation of innovations with employees and local communities. This not only requires capital expenditure, but also the development of employee competencies, reducing resistance to change, and building an organizational culture conducive to innovation [27]. It is also important to strive for greater flexibility in the organizational structure and the effective use of management tools that determine the development of the organization’s adaptability and resilience to change. This increases the organization’s chances of meeting market challenges [28,29,30].
Examples of practical activities undertaken by modern corporations are presented in Table 1.
The results of research conducted by European scientists indicate that factors such as education, GDP, and venture capital investments are decisive determinants of employment levels in high-tech sectors in Europe [36]. To achieve maximum efficiency in the implementation of innovations, all stakeholders, including decision-makers, industry leaders, academia, and civil society, should be involved, ensuring an integrated approach [37].
Korean researchers analyzed how improving energy efficiency (EE) contributes to the sustainable growth rate (SGR) of manufacturing companies. Their findings indicate that the environmental green perception (EGP) and environmental protection investments (EPI) reinforce this positive relationship, while an excessive green innovation bubble (GIB) weakens it. Combining findings from research on corporate governance and sustainable development, the key role of managerial orientation, resource allocation, and innovation quality in shaping the path from EE to sustainable growth has been emphasized [38].
In fact, the economic dimension determines financial stability and the creation of expected value for stakeholders, increasing the competitiveness of the organization. The environmental dimension requires the management of natural resources and the promotion of organizational solutions that prevent the degradation of ecosystems. The social aspect, on the other hand, encourages organizations to engage in initiatives that support local communities, ensure ergonomic working conditions for employees, and develop relationships with stakeholders [39,40]. A comprehensive approach determines the balance between the economic, social, and environmental pillars of sustainable development of an organization [41,42,43,44].
Employees and their leaders play a special role in the transformation of an organization. They are the main source of creativity and intellectual capital [17,45]. Leaders are responsible for the optimal allocation of resources, stimulating engagement, and developing the competencies of team members [46]. Today, the importance of complex critical thinking skills, self-awareness, and self-discipline is emphasized [47,48]. Increasing attention is also being paid to issues of ergonomics and employee well-being. Work design should be tailored to the individual, as it affects both their mental and physical health. Failure to do so can result in reduced productivity and quality of work [49]. Therefore, the integration of ergonomics with psychosocial activities and programs supporting employee development and safety is a key element of modern management [50,51,52].
Young employees who grew up in a digital environment and were raised in the spirit of sustainable development values have a separate set of expectations of organizations than previous generations. Research shows that flexible forms of employment, the possibility of remote work, work–life balance, and access to paths of development and self-fulfillment are particularly important to this group [17]. At the same time, there is a clear need for greater transparency, inclusiveness, and action in the areas of ethics and social responsibility. This means that organizations must be able to choose the right measures and initiatives to ensure the effectiveness of their sustainable development [53,54].
The authors of this article are particularly interested in Generation Z’s expectations regarding business innovation. This generation is currently entering the labor market and has unique needs than previous generations. It places greater emphasis on mental well-being and work–life balance, as well as on development opportunities and the ethical values of organizations [55,56]. Generation Z, raised in a digital environment, demonstrates specific expectations toward work organization. Research indicates that for this generation, flexible forms of employment, the possibility of remote and hybrid work, autonomy in task performance, and work–life balance are of key importance. Care for mental well-being, organizational transparency, and engagement in ethical and social issues are also significant factors [57,58].
The importance of this issue is evident from both management theory and business practice perspective. Understanding the expectations of Generation Z makes it possible to design organizational solutions that foster employee engagement, innovation, and loyalty, which directly translate into enterprise competitiveness. At the same time, it contributes new value to management science by expanding knowledge about contemporary preferences regarding work organization.

3. Materials and Methods

To achieve the objectives outlined above, it was decided that a survey would be the most appropriate research method. To understand what challenges, from the perspective of Generation Z representatives, will shape the functioning of organizations in Poland in the coming decade, a quantitative study was conducted using an online survey. Its purpose was not only to identify areas considered particularly important for organizational success, but also to determine differences in expectations between groups of respondents differentiated by gender and professional and educational status.
The research sample included 310 people selected using a purposive sampling method, with inclusion criteria covering membership of Generation Z (people born after 1995) and the status of a master’s student or graduate of a university economics program. Recruitment took place through the university’s internal communication channels. The sample selection was non-stratified, which limits the possibility of fully generalizing the results to the entire population of Polish Generation Z. The respondents represented a group of young people who are educated or active in education and work, who are particularly interested in the functioning of organizations, and have the theoretical foundations to critically evaluate them. The research project was conducted between October 2024 and March 2025 (conceptualization, pilot studies, and survey).
The sample was non-stratified, which limits the possibility of fully generalizing the results to the entire Polish Generation Z population. Respondents represented a group of young individuals who were either educated or actively engaged in education and employment. The selection of this subpopulation was purposive, based on the assumption that students and graduates of economics-related fields—due to a curriculum covering management, economics, and sustainable development—are particularly well-positioned to provide informed assessments regarding future organizational challenges. Their perspective can serve as a valuable source of insight into the expectations of future specialists and managerial staff.
There are certain methodological limitations in the study results. The analysis was based mainly on descriptive statistics and comparative tests, and no correction for multiple tests was applied. This is due to the exploratory nature of the study. Thus, the possibility of generalizing the results remains limited due to the focus on a subpopulation of Polish Generation Z respondents educated in economics. Limitations in extrapolating the results stem from the purposive sampling, the homogeneous educational profile of the participants. The study did not include Generation Z individuals without an economics education, representatives of other fields of study, those with lower levels of education, or individuals outside the academic environment. Consequently, the obtained results should be interpreted as characteristic of the educated subpopulation of the younger generation, rather than the entire generational cohort in Poland.
The demographic structure of the sample included 153 women, 153 men, and four people who did not declare their gender. In terms of professional and educational status, 109 people (35.2%) were non-working students, 194 people (62.6%) combined study with work, and seven people (2.2%) were exclusively professionally active. Due to the small size of the latter group, it was analytically combined with the category of people studying and working, which made it possible to obtain more stable results. The questionnaire consisted of two main parts. The first part concerned the identification of the greatest challenges that, according to the respondents, organizations will have to face over the next ten years. Respondents could select up to ten of the challenges listed. In the second part, participants were asked to rate the importance of each challenge on a five-point Likert scale, where one meant “of little importance” and five meant “of key importance” for the sustainable development of the organization. The list of organizational challenges was developed based on a review of the literature on sustainable organizational development, digital transformation, human resource management, and Generation Z’s work expectations. Additionally, the draft list was consulted with two management experts to verify its adequacy and completeness. Prior to the main study, a pilot test of the questionnaire was conducted with a group of ten respondents meeting the inclusion criteria. The purpose of the pilot was to assess the clarity of the questions, the transparency of the instructions, and the time required to complete the survey.

4. Results

The research identified key areas which, according to Generation Z representatives, will have a decisive impact on the sustainable development of the organization and on identifying differences in preferences between the groups surveyed. The percentage values presented in Table 1 refer to the size of a given subgroup (women, men, non-working students, working students) rather than to the entire sample. This means that, for example, 43.55% in the “W” column indicates the proportion of women who identified a given challenge among all women participating in the study. The remaining columns should be interpreted analogously. The respondents’ answers show that for Generation Z, three areas are key to the future of organizations: flexible working arrangements that support employee well-being, health, and work–life balance, and opportunities for professional development. The highest percentage of responses concerned flexible forms of work in terms of hours, methods, and work locations (84.52% of all respondents), which confirms that the younger generation expects organizations to move away from traditional, rigid employment models in favor of more individualized and employee-tailored forms, such as hybrid, project-based, or group work (Table 2).
The second key area is conditions conducive to mental health and work–life balance (68.71%). This result indicates that Generation Z treats psychosocial well-being as the foundation of professional effectiveness, which is in line with global trends in human resource management. In third place were opportunities for professional development (61.61%), suggesting that organizations wishing to attract and retain young employees must invest in training programs, mentoring, and career paths.
Gender differences revealed that women were more likely than men to emphasize the need for flexible forms of work (43.55% vs. 39.68%) and well-being and work–life balance (35.48% vs. 31.94%), and rated the importance of transparency in organizational decisions and employee support programs higher. This may suggest that women are more likely to expect organizations to provide solutions that promote balance and psychosocial security.
An analysis of differences based on educational and professional status showed that students who combined studying with work more often than non-working students emphasized the importance of flexible forms of work (55.48% vs. 29.03%) and well-being (47.42% vs. 21.29%). This indicates that professional experience strengthens the awareness of the challenges of balancing responsibilities and leads to greater appreciation of organizational activities that support development, comfort at work, and sustainable development of the organization. In the second part of the study, respondents were asked to assess the importance of individual organizational changes from the perspective of employee needs. Analysis of the average ratings (Table 3) allowed us to identify which areas were considered most important for the sustainable development of the organization while also enabling us to identify differences based on gender and professional and educational status.
The highest scores were given to areas such as flexible working arrangements that support employee well-being (4.23), professional development opportunities (4.22), and effective communication and teamwork that support sustainable organizational processes (4.22). These results confirm earlier observations from Table 1, indicating the key importance of flexibility, development, and social relations at work. Slightly lower, but still high, scores were obtained for aspects related to health and work–life balance (4.16) and training that determines the environmental friendliness of the organization’s activities (4.02).
Areas related to the acceptance of diversity and inclusiveness in the organization (3.54), ethics and social responsibility of the organization (3.73), and sustainable development initiatives (3.66) were rated slightly lower. These results suggest that although ethical, social, and environmental issues are recognized, they are less important to Generation Z than direct working conditions and opportunities for individual development. It is worth noting that despite some differences in ratings, all areas received average scores above 3.5, which means that Generation Z considers them important for the sustainable development of the organization.
An analysis of the coefficient of variation shows that the greatest consensus among respondents was found in the areas of effective communication and teamwork (19.85%) and professional development opportunities (20.58%), indicating a uniform perception of these areas as important. The highest divergence of opinions was found in the areas of acceptance of diversity and inclusiveness (28.56%) and flexible forms of work (24.68%), which may result from a greater diversity of professional experience, individual preferences, and expectations toward the organization. To answer the second and third research questions, the Mann–Whitney U test and Kruskal–Wallis test were used (Table 4).
Analysis of the results using the Mann–Whitney U test allowed us to assess whether there were significant differences in the perception of key changes in the organization between women and men. The results indicate that women rated the importance of flexible forms of work supporting employee well-being (p = 0.007) and health and work–life balance significantly higher than men (p = 0.001). This shows that women attach greater importance to flexible hours, methods, and work locations, as well as work–life balance, treating them as an essential element of job satisfaction and mental well-being.
Significant gender differences were also noted in the assessment of acceptance of diversity and inclusiveness in the organization (p < 0.001) and the ethics and social responsibility of the organization (p < 0.001). Women rated these elements as more important than men, suggesting greater sensitivity to the social and ethical aspects of the organization’s functioning. In addition, women rated higher the importance of developing employee support programs (p = 0.003), rewarding achievements that support sustainable development (p = 0.025), increasing opportunities for cooperation with other departments (p = 0.027), and flexible forms of employment that support the adaptability of the organization (p = 0.031). This shows that women expect organizations not only to care about their well-being, but also to offer flexible employment, reward innovation, and facilitate cooperation between organizational units.
In turn, the Kruskal–Wallis test did not reveal any statistically significant differences between non-working students and students combining study with work for most of the elements surveyed (p > 0.05). This means that professional experience among students does not clearly determine the perception of the importance of individual organizational elements, such as flexible forms of work, professional development, or teamwork. Although the p-values for some elements were slightly lower (e.g., development of support programs or support for innovation), they still did not reach the threshold of statistical significance, which suggests a relative uniformity of opinion regardless of educational and professional status.
A detailed analysis of the Mann–Whitney U test results showed that the differences between women and men were most pronounced in areas related to well-being, inclusiveness, and social responsibility of organizations, while smaller or insignificant differences occurred in more technical or practical areas, such as the growing importance of digital skills (p = 0.646), technological infrastructure supporting sustainable work processes (p = 0.260), and sustainable development initiatives (p = 0.257). This suggests that gender differences primarily concern psychosocial, social, and ethical aspects, rather than infrastructural or technological ones.
Based on the results obtained, it can be concluded that Generation Z perceives the organizations of the future primarily through the prism of work flexibility, development opportunities, and the quality of teamwork. Mental well-being and work–life balance remained important conditions for effectiveness and job satisfaction, while social and environmental issues, although present in the respondents’ awareness, were of less importance. Gender differences indicate that women are more sensitive to psychosocial and social aspects, while educational and professional status did not significantly determine the assessment of the importance of individual changes. These results emphasize the need to design organizational policies and development strategies that consider the priorities of Generation Z while adapting actions to differences in the perception of needs within this group.

5. Discussion

A review of the literature and research findings indicate clear priorities for Generation Z in terms of their expectations for the organizations of the future. Both in assessing the importance of individual changes (Table 2) and in identifying the most important challenges (Table 3), respondents attached particular importance to work flexibility, professional development, and the quality of teamwork. Flexibility in working hours, methods, and locations received the highest percentages and average ratings, confirming that for Generation Z representatives, the adaptation of organizations to their needs in this area is a priority. These results are consistent with the literature, which emphasizes that modern organizations must offer flexible forms of employment and an environment conducive to work–life integration to attract and retain young employees [59].
The second key area is the development of competencies and career advancement opportunities. Respondents rated the importance of training, mentoring, and career development opportunities highly, indicating the need for continuous improvement of qualifications in the context of dynamic technological and social changes. In the context of Industry 4.0, digital, analytical, and people skills are the foundation for the effective use of modern technologies, and their development requires thoughtfully planned training and organizational support [60,61]. At the same time, adaptability and the ability to use new digital tools are key to the effective implementation of innovation in a complex and turbulent environment [62,63].
Research has also shown that mental well-being and work–life balance are important for the satisfaction and motivation of Generation Z employees, as emphasized by the literature [64]. It is important to provide psychosocial support that fosters both creativity and work efficiency, as well as to develop an organizational culture that promotes open dialogue and engages employees in the decision-making process [65,66].
Gender differences indicate that women attach greater importance than men to aspects related to well-being, inclusiveness, and social responsibility of organizations. This observation is consistent with the literature, which shows that Generation Z women demonstrate higher environmental and social awareness in the workplace [67,68]. On the other hand, educational and professional status did not significantly influence the assessment of the importance of individual changes, suggesting that the priorities of Generation Z are consistent regardless of whether the respondents were only students or combined studying with working.
Achievements in environmental protection, social responsibility, and corporate governance (ESG) have become a prerequisite for the effective implementation of sustainable development principles in business activities [69]. Research by Chinese scientists has shown that companies’ ESG performance has a positive impact on total factor productivity, helping to alleviate financial constraints and develop human capital in terms of innovation implementation capabilities. It would be useful to focus on the exchange of ESG practices that promote sustainable and balanced economic development [69].
The study also shows that young employees expect a balance between the use of modern technologies and the implementation of organizational values, including social responsibility and sustainable development [70,71]. Generation Z appreciates organizations that integrate technology with the needs of the environment and society, which translates into their commitment and loyalty [72,73]. The development of organizational competencies that determine their sustainable development promotes the improvement of feedback mechanisms, increasing resilience to change [74]. The implementation of a sustainable development strategy promotes risk reduction, minimizes crisis factors, and ensures financial stability [75]. It is important to improve relations with stakeholders, which help to shape a positive image and increase public acceptance of the organization [29,76].
Research findings show that young employees’ expectations are not limited to remuneration or financial security, but also include individualization, the opportunity to achieve their own goals, a sense of happiness, and self-fulfillment in the workplace [77,78].
The results obtained also have implications for national and regional development. Generation Z’s expectations regarding work flexibility, digital competencies, and psychosocial well-being may influence firms’ location decisions as well as the attractiveness of regions as workplaces for highly qualified professionals. Regions and cities that support the development of digital infrastructure, flexible work models, and pro-social policies may more effectively attract and retain young talent, which translates into increased innovation and economic competitiveness [79]. In this context, Generation Z’s expectations can be interpreted as a factor stimulating the organizational transformation of enterprises toward more resilient, inclusive models aligned with the principles of sustainable development.
Although some of the findings may appear intuitive, their value lies in empirical confirmation and statistical verification within the Polish context, which has so far been underrepresented in the international literature on Generation Z and sustainable organizational development. It should also be emphasized that the interpretation of the results focused on perceived organizational priorities, without formulating direct conclusions regarding the impact of ESG, for example, on productivity, as these relationships were not empirically tested in this study.

6. Conclusions

The authors identified the challenges and expectations of Generation Z toward organizations declaring sustainable development in Poland. They obtained answers to research questions concerning the importance of work flexibility and professional development support for young employees. An analysis of the results presented in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 shows that respondents indicated flexibility in working hours, methods, and locations as the most crucial factor influencing work efficiency and satisfaction. Firstly, this confirms the researchers’ assumptions that flexible forms of employment are key to attracting and retaining Generation Z employees. Secondly, the high rating of the importance of professional development opportunities and access to training indicates the significant impact of competence development on the motivation and commitment of young employees [60,61].
The results of the study allow us to draw further conclusions. Generation Z attaches significant importance to mental well-being, work–life balance, inclusiveness, and the ethics and social responsibility of organizations. In the sample studied, women showed greater awareness of sustainable development and ecology, which is consistent with earlier observations [67,68]. In addition, young employees expect a work environment that values transparency, communication, and recognition of individual achievements. This is in line with the findings of researchers who emphasize the role of leadership based on creativity, adaptability, and the ability to manage change in a knowledge-based economy [80,81]. At the same time, due to the purposive nature of the sample, these conclusions should be interpreted as referring to the educated subpopulation of Generation Z rather than to the entire generational cohort in Poland.
The research conducted and presented in this study offers important practical implications. Flexible employment options, extensive professional development opportunities, and initiatives supporting employee well-being and inclusiveness are particularly important to Generation Z respondents. Therefore, entrepreneurs should consider these aspects when developing management strategies in their organizations. Such an approach can increase the chances of attracting and retaining Generation Z employees, which in turn fosters increased competitiveness and innovation in enterprises. The results also indicate that incorporating values related to sustainable development and social responsibility can be an essential element of employer branding [72,73].
The limitations of the study stem primarily from the specific nature of the sample. The respondents were second-cycle economics students or graduates of economics programs. This means that the results cannot be generalized to the entire Generation Z population in Poland. The sample selection was non-stratified and purposive, and the participation of people who were exclusively professionally active was minimal, which may limit the representativeness of the results in the context of the total population. The main limitations of the study include the single-sector nature of the sample, the focus on individuals with an economics background, and the use of analytical methods based primarily on group comparisons.
In the future, it would be worthwhile to conduct qualitative research, such as in-depth interviews or focus groups, which would allow for a more accurate capture of the social, cultural, and psychological context of Generation Z’s career decisions. It would also be interesting to compare the preferences of this group in different sectors of the economy or between different countries, which could provide data for cross-cultural and strategic analyses in the context of the global labor market.
Nevertheless, the results of the study provide practical guidance for managers, HR specialists, and employment policymakers. Based on this, companies can improve their HR strategies, including the design of incentive systems, as well as economics study programs. Work flexibility, support for competence development, care for employee well-being, and consideration of social and environmental values should become key elements of the organizational strategies of those organizations that want to effectively integrate and engage Generation Z.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.Ł. and P.R.; methodology, W.Ł. and P.R.; software, P.R.; validation, W.Ł.; formal analysis, W.Ł. and B.B.; investigation, P.R. and W.Ł.; resources, P.R. and B.B.; data curation, B.B. and P.R.; writing—original draft preparation, P.R. and W.Ł.; writing—review and editing, B.B. and P.R.; visualization, P.R.; supervision, B.B. and W.Ł.; project administration, B.B. and P.R.; funding acquisition, B.B. and W.Ł. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This publication was funded from the subsidy granted to the Cracow University of Economics.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical approval was waived due to guidelines from the ethics committee at Poland’s leading university (University of Warsaw): research using anonymous data concerning human subjects that were collected for other purposes and anonymized before the researcher gained access to it, provided that the organization of these data does not allow it to be linked to specific individuals, is not subject to ethical review.

Informed Consent Statement

All participants were aware that the survey was voluntary and anonymous and did not allow for the identification of their identities.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Serafin, K. Zarządzanie Zmianą w Organizacji; Difin: Warszawa, Poland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  2. Baruk, A.I. Employee Satisfaction and Loyalty as Factors in Organizational Success; Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: Warszawa, Poland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  3. Carayannis, E.G.; Samara, E.T.; Bakouros, Y.L. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Theory, Policy and Practice; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  4. Murray, A.; Skene, K.; Haynes, K. The circular economy: An interdisciplinary exploration of the concept and application in a global context. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 140, 369–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Weber, M.M. The relationship between resilience and sustainability in the organizational context—A systematic review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Lozano, R. Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1838–1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Grudzewski, W.M.; Hejduk, I.K.; Sankowska, A.; Wańtuchowicz, M. Sustainability in Business, or the Enterprise of the Future. Changes in Paradigms and Management Concepts; Poltext: Warsaw, Poland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  8. Wieczorek, P. The Fourth Industrial Revolution—A vision of a new generation of industry. State Soc. 2018, 3, 89–91. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bińczycki, B.; Łukasiński, W.; Dorocki, S. Determinants of motivation to work in terms of Industry 4.0—The Gen Z perspective. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Jones, J.W. High Speed Management; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  11. Brzeziński, M. About the organizations of the future once again. In Kwartalnik Nauk o Przedsiębiorstwie; SGH: Warsaw, Poland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  12. Broman, G.; Robèrt, K.-H.; Collins, T.J.; Basile, G.; Baumgartner, R.J.; Larsson, T.; Huisingh, D. Science in support of systematic leadership toward sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Ehnert, I. Sustainable Human Resource Management: A Conceptual and Exploratory Analysis from a Paradox Perspective; Physica-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 79–121. [Google Scholar]
  14. Garavan, T.; McGuire, D. Human Resource Development and Society: Human Resource Development’s Role in Embedding Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainability, and Ethics in Organizations. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 2010, 12, 487–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Valencia, S.C.; Simon, D.; Croese, S.; Nordqvist, J.; Oloko, M.; Sharma, T.; Buck, N.T.; Versace, I. Adapting the Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda to the city level. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2019, 11, 4–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Streimikiene, D. Use of nudges for promotion of sustainable energy consumption in households. Contemp. Econ. 2023, 17, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Nowakowska, M. Human Resource Management in an Innovative Enterprise. In Innovative Management in Economics and Business; Akademia Humanistyczno-Ekonomiczna w Łodzi: Łódź, Poland, 2023; Volume 36. [Google Scholar]
  18. Tran-Thi-Thanh, T.; Nguyen-Thi-Phuong, A. Exploring the mechanisms underlying firms’ intent to adopt circular business models. Contemp. Econ. 2023, 17, 389–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Streimikis, J.; Ślusarczyk, B.; Siksnelyte-Butkiene, J.; Mura, L. Development of circular economy in the Visegrad Group of countries. Contemp. Econ. 2024, 18, 365–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Mont, O.; Palgan, Y.V.; Bradley, K.; Zvolska, L. A decade of the sharing economy: Concepts, users, business and governance perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 269, 122215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Khodayari, M.; Akbari, M.; Foroudi, P. The Sharing Economy: A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2025, 49, e70010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Xanthopoulou, P.; Sahinidis, A. Mapping the intersection of entrepreneurship, digitalization and the SDGs: A Scopus-based literature review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 8420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Nilsson, F.; Göransson, M. Critical factors for the realization of sustainable supply chain innovations: Model development based on a systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 296, 126471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Wu, H.; Li, S.; Zhang, X.; Hou, W. Achieving sustainable innovation: A fit model of digital platforms and absorptive capacity. Sustainability 2025, 17, 8611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Kiron, D.; Unruh, G.; Kruschwitz, N.; Reeves, M.; Rubel, H.; Zum Felde, A.M. Corporate sustainability at a crossroads. In MIT Sloan Management: Review; Sloan Management Review Association: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  26. Schick, A.; Hobson, P.R.; Ibisch, P.L. Conservation and sustainable development in a VUCA world: The need for a systemic and ecosystem-based approach. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2017, 3, 11879075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Moch, E. The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Its Impact on Production Processes and Efficiency Enhancements Through Automation and Data Networking. East Afr. J. Bus. Econ. 2024, 7, 370–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Sott, M.K.; Bender, M.S. The role of adaptive leadership in times of crisis: A systematic review and conceptual framework. Merits 2025, 5, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Mutua, K.; Powell-Turner, J.; Spiers, M.; Callaghan, J. An in-depth analysis of barriers to corporate sustainability. Adm. Sci. 2025, 15, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Schulze, J.H.; Pinkow, F. Leadership for organisational adaptability: How enabling leaders create adaptive space. Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Philips. Annual Report 2025. Available online: https://www.results.philips.com/ (accessed on 16 December 2025).
  32. Available online: http://unilever.com/sustainability (accessed on 16 December 2025).
  33. Available online: https://www.ikea.com/global/en/newsroom/social-responsibility/ (accessed on 16 December 2025).
  34. Available online: https://www.siemens-healthineers.com/en-uk/csr (accessed on 16 December 2025).
  35. Available online: http://patagonia.com/social-responsibility (accessed on 16 December 2025).
  36. Kilintzis, P.; Avlogiaris, G.; Samara, E. Technology entrepreneurship: A model for the European case. J. Knowl. Econ. 2023, 14, 879–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Andronikidis, A.; Kouskoura, A.; Kalliontzi, E.; Bakouros, I. The embeddedness of responsible research innovation in territorial policies: The case of smart specialization in industrial systems. J. Innov. Entrep. 2025, 14, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Yang, P.; Yoon, J.Y.; Jin, S. Green drive force, energy efficiency and corporate sustainable development. Sustainability 2025, 17, 8630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Alhaddi, H. Triple Bottom Line and Sustainability: A Literature Review. Bus. Manag. Stud. 2015, 1, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Dyllick, T.; Hockerts, K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 12, 175–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Bartniczak, B.; Borys, T.; Ptak, M. Sustainable Development of the Organization—Environmental Responsibility; University of Economics in Wrocław: Wrocław, Poland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  42. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business; Capstone: Oxford, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  43. Farley, H.M.; Smith, Z.A. Sustainability: If It’s Everything, Is it Nothing? Routledge: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  44. Setyadi, A.; Soekotjo, S.; Lestari, S.D.; Pawirosumarto, S.; Damaris, A. Trends and opportunities in sustainable manufacturing: A systematic review of key dimensions from 2019 to 2024. Sustainability 2025, 17, 789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Marek-Kołodziej, K.; Łapuńka, I.; Jagoda-Sobalak, D. Project manager competency model according to the latest IPMA Project Execellence Baseline 4.0 guidelines. In Marketing and Management; Uniwersytet Szczeciński: Szczecin, Poland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  46. Rembiasz, M.; Borowiec, A.; Czajkowski, K. The impact of managerial competence on the competitive advantage of enterprises as a manifestation of intrapreneurship. Results of a Delphi study. In Organizacja i Zarządzanie; Politechnika Poznańska: Poznań, Poland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  47. Büth, L.; Bhakar, V.; Sihag, N.; Posselt, G.; Böhme, S.; Sangwan, K.S.; Herrmann, C. Bridging the qualification gap between academia and industry in India. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 9, 275–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Prifti, L.; Knigge, M.; Kienegger, H.; Krcmar, H.A. Competency Model for “Industrie 4.0” Employees. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, St. Gallen, Switzerland, 12–15 February 2017. [Google Scholar]
  49. National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. Musculoskeletal Disorders and the Workplace: Low Back and Upper Extremities; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  50. Mengoni, M.; Matteucci, M.; Raponi, D. A multipath methodology to link ergonomics, safety and efficiency in factories. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 11, 1311–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Scafà, M.; Papetti, A.; Brunzini, A.; Germani, M. How to improve worker’s well-being and company performance: A method to identify effective corrective actions. Procedia CIRP 2019, 81, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Chetty, D.R.V.; Boojhawon, R.; Bhagwant, S.; Levy, L. Factors affecting the occupational safety and health of small and medium enterprises in the construction sector of Mauritius. Soc. Sci. Humanit. Open 2024, 10, 100964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Silvestre, W.J.; Antunes, P.; Leal Filho, W. The corporate sustainability typology: Analysing sustainability drivers and fostering sustainability at enterprises. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2018, 24, 513–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Broccardo, L.; Truant, E.; Zicari, A. Internal corporate sustainability drivers: What evidence from family firms? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Ławińska, O.; Korombel, A. Generation Z as a Challenge for Modern Business Management. Relationships, Social Media, and Crowdsourcing; Politechnika Częstochowska: Częstochowa, Poland, 2023; pp. 17–18. [Google Scholar]
  56. Chomątowska, B.; Żarczyńska-Dobiesz, A. The DNA of a leader according to representatives of Generation Z. Pr. Nauk. Uniw. Ekon. We Wrocławiu 2016, 430, 58–68. [Google Scholar]
  57. Singh, A.P.; Dangmei, J. Understanding the Generation Z: The Future Workforce. South-Asian J. Multidiscip. Stud. 2016, 3, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  58. Schroth, H. Are You Ready for Gen Z in the Workplace? Calif. Manag. Rev. 2019, 61, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  59. Dreyer, C.; Stojanová, H. How entrepreneurial is German Generation Z vs. Generation Y? A Literature Review. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2023, 217, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  60. Bonekamp, L.; Sure, M. Consequences of Industry 4.0 on human labour and work organization. J. Bus. Media Psychol. 2015, 6, 33–40. [Google Scholar]
  61. Sony, M.; Naik, S. Key ingredients for evaluating Industry 4.0 readiness for organizations: A literature review. Benchmarking Int. J. 2019, 26, 2025–2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Sony, M.; Mekoth, N. Employee adaptability skills for Industry 4.0 success: A road map. Prod. Manuf. Res. 2022, 10, 24–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  63. Nedelkoska, L.; Quintini, G. Skills for a Digital World; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  64. Chala, N.; Poplavska, O.; Danylevych, N.; Ievseitseva, O.; Sova, R. Intrinsic motivation of millennials and generation Z in the new post-pandemic reality. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2022, 20, 536–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  65. Riksen, M.; Spies, C. Leading with Soft Skill-Z: An Exploratory Case Study on the Influence of Soft Leadership Skills on the Motivation and Engagement of Generation Z as Employees. Master’s Thesis, Jönköping University, Linköping, Sweden, May 2023. [Google Scholar]
  66. Gaidhani, S.; Sharma, T. Understanding the attitude of Generation Z towards workplace. Int. J. Manag. Technol. Eng. 2019, 9, 2804–2812. [Google Scholar]
  67. Rzemieniak, M.; Wawer, M. Employer Branding in the Context of the Company’s Sustainable Development Strategy from the Perspective of Gender Diversity of Generation Z. Sustainability 2021, 13, 828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  68. Pandita, D.; Khatwani, G. Creating sustainable engagement practices for Generation Z: Role of CSR in organizations. J. Stat. Appl. Probab. 2022, 11, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  69. Li, Y.; Huang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Ye, Z. The impact of corporate environmental, social and governance performance on total factor productivity. Sustainability 2025, 17, 8552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  70. Feroz, A.K.; Zo, H.; Chiravuri, A. Digital transformation and environmental sustainability: A review and research agenda. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  71. Goel, A.; Masurkar, A.; Pathade, P. An overview of digital transformation and environmental sustainability. Sustainability 2024, 16, 11079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  72. Kuzior, A.; Kettler, K.; Raba, Ł. Great resignation—Ethical, cultural, relational, and personal dimensions of Generation Y and Z employees’ engagement. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  73. Thang, N.N.; Nguyen Ngoc, H.; Rowley, C.; Mayrhofer, W.; Nguyen, D.T. Generation Z job seekers in Vietnam: CSR-based employer attractiveness and job pursuit intention. Asia Pac. Bus. Rev. 2022, 29, 797–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  74. Florez-Jimenez, M.P.; Lleo, A.; Danvila del Valle, I.; Sánchez-Marín, G. Corporate sustainability, organizational resilience and corporate purpose: A triple concept for achieving long-term prosperity. Manag. Decis. 2024, 62, 2189–2213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  75. Glushchenko, A.V.; Kucherova, Y.P.; Yarkova, I.V. Ensuring an agricultural holding’s economic security by means of sustainable development strategies in terms of global crisis management. Espacios 2018, 39, 4. [Google Scholar]
  76. Zamiri, M.; Esmaeili, A. Methods and technologies for supporting knowledge sharing within learning communities: A systematic literature review. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  77. Rice, G.; Potts, H. Generation Z’s philanthropic engagement in the United States agrofood sector: Perceptions, motivations, and intentions. J. Agric. Educ. 2024, 65, 303–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  78. Meret, C.; Fioravanti, G.; Iannotta, M.; Gatti, M. The digital employee experience: Discovering Generation Z. In Digital Technology and Organizational Change; Rossignoli, C., Virili, F., Za, S., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; Volume 23, pp. 241–256. [Google Scholar]
  79. OECD. How Can Regions Attract and Retain the Talent Needed for the Green Transition? 2026. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2026/02/how-can-regions-attract-and-retain-the-talent-needed-for-their-green-transition_b57c23a8/fc604906-en.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2026).
  80. Baranowska, K.; Waszkiewicz, M. Creativity as a project manager’s skill. Prz. Organ. 2022, 12, 26–33. [Google Scholar]
  81. Turcato, C.R.P.; Pedroso, B.; Arnold, M.; Picinin, C.T. Adapting to Industry 4.0 in France: Essential competencies for a future-ready workforce. Adm. Sci. 2024, 14, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Table 1. Examples of innovative activities of selected corporations.
Table 1. Examples of innovative activities of selected corporations.
Area of InnovationCorporationInnovative ActivitiesImplications
Process innovationsUnileverOptimization of water and energy consumption in factories, transition of many plants to renewable energy, reduction of production waste (zero waste to landfill)Lower operating costs, smaller carbon footprint, increased efficiency and resilience of the supply chain
Product innovations (eco-design)IKEADesigns products that are easy to disassemble and recycle, uses wood from certified sources and recycled materials, develops a range of repair and replacement partsExtended product life cycle, reduced pressure on natural resources, strengthening of the image of a responsible brand
Business model innovation (circular economy)PhilipsLight as a service model—sells lighting as a service rather than a product; the company remains the owner of the equipment and is responsible for its maintenance and recyclingLower material consumption, stable long-term revenues, strong motivation to design durable products
Digital and data-driven innovationSiemensUses IoT and data analytics to monitor energy consumption and emissions, applies digital twins in industryReducing energy and raw material losses, better investment decisions, supporting customers in achieving ESG goals
Social and organizational innovationsPatagoniaPromotes repairing clothes instead of buying new products (“Don’t buy this jacket”), invests in good working conditions and transparent supply chains, and is committed to protecting the environmentHigh customer and employee loyalty, strong brand reputation, long-term business stability
Source: [31,32,33,34,35].
Table 2. Determinants of sustainable development perceived by Generation Z in Poland.
Table 2. Determinants of sustainable development perceived by Generation Z in Poland.
Expected SolutionsAFMSSW
Flexible working arrangements that support employee well-being (hours, location, working methods)84.52%43.55%39.68%29.03%55.48%
Health and work–life balance68.71%35.48%31.94%21.29%47.42%
Career development opportunities61.61%28.71%32.26%21.94%39.68%
Acceptance of diversity and inclusiveness in the organization24.19%11.29%12.26%8.39%15.81%
Transparency in organizational decisions30.32%12.26%17.74%8.06%22.26%
Development of employee support programs40.32%18.39%21.29%12.58%27.74%
Ethics and corporate social responsibility20.97%9.68%10.97%5.81%15.16%
Training courses determining the environmental friendliness of an organization’s activities43.55%23.55%19.68%13.55%30.00%
Effective communication and teamwork supporting sustainable organizational processes53.23%24.84%27.74%18.71%34.52%
Rewarding achievements that support sustainable development37.42%16.13%20.97%10.32%27.10%
More initiatives for sustainable development20.65%8.39%11.94%7.10%13.55%
Technological infrastructure supporting sustainable work processes33.23%11.61%20.97%10.97%22.26%
The growing importance of digital skills31.29%11.61%19.35%10.65%20.65%
Increased opportunities for collaboration with other departments26.45%13.23%13.23%9.03%17.42%
Support for innovative development in the organization41.29%20.32%20.32%14.84%26.45%
Flexible forms of employment (freelance, contract) supporting organizational adaptability30.65%16.13%13.87%11.29%19.35%
Key: F—females, M—males, A—all respondents, S—students, SW—working students
Source: Own work.
Table 3. Perception of the importance of innovations and sustainable development in organizations.
Table 3. Perception of the importance of innovations and sustainable development in organizations.
Expected SolutionsArithmetic MeanCoefficient of Variation (%)
AFMSSWAFMSSW
Flexible working arrangements that support employee well-being (hours, location, working methods)4.234.364.084.264.2124.6823.0326.3125.2125.32
Health and work–life balance4.164.314.014.094.2022.7122.0123.0422.6021.96
Career development opportunities4.224.294.154.194.2320.5819.7821.5521.3320.46
Acceptance of diversity and inclusiveness in the organization3.543.793.283.583.5128.5623.1732.6929.9828.49
Transparency in organizational decisions3.793.903.693.723.8322.6321.2723.7123.5120.98
Development of support programs
for employees		3.944.083.793.973.9323.2221.7424.3323.2223.62
Ethics and corporate social responsibility3.733.973.503.653.7724.8921.2027.2726.1224.34
Training courses determining the environmental friendliness of an organization’s activities4.024.103.954.044.0121.2121.0921.3120.8420.91
Effective communication and teamwork supporting sustainable organizational processes4.224.274.164.194.2319.8520.1219.3819.2419.61
Rewarding achievements that support sustainable development3.974.083.863.943.9923.3722.1024.4223.9321.94
More initiatives for sustainable development3.663.733.593.703.6424.7422.8026.5925.8525.18
Technological infrastructure supporting sustainable work processes3.893.933.843.833.9222.3822.8322.0622.0722.00
The growing importance of digital skills3.843.863.823.893.8123.3323.1223.7523.3023.38
Increased opportunities for collaboration with other departments3.703.803.613.663.7225.3625.5225.0824.7225.59
Support for innovative development in the organization3.974.053.883.983.9623.6324.3222.8722.3024.07
Flexible forms of employment (freelance, contract) supporting organizational adaptability3.894.003.783.943.8725.1723.9926.1625.1125.57
Source: Own work.
Table 4. Perception of changes and innovations in the organizations determining sustainable development.
Table 4. Perception of changes and innovations in the organizations determining sustainable development.
Expected SolutionsMann-Whitney
U Test
p < 0.05 (F vs. M)		Kruskal-Wallis Test
(S vs. SW)
Flexible working arrangements that support employee well-being (hours, location, working methods)0.0070.967
Health and work–life balance0.0010.444
Career development opportunities0.1430.096
Acceptance of diversity and inclusiveness in the organization<0.0010.333
Transparency in organizational decisions0.0360.697
Development of support programs
for employees		0.0030.181
Ethics and corporate social responsibility<0.0010.090
Training courses determining the environmental friendliness of an organization’s activities0.0730.442
Effective communication and teamwork supporting sustainable organizational processes0.1170.953
Rewarding achievements that support sustainable development0.0250.537
More initiatives for sustainable development0.2570.559
Technological infrastructure supporting sustainable work processes0.2600.660
The growing importance of digital skills0.6460.683
Increased opportunities for collaboration with other departments0.0270.681
Support for innovative development in the organization0.0320.310
Flexible forms of employment (freelance, contract) supporting organizational adaptability0.0310.933
Source: Own work.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Łukasiński, W.; Romański, P.; Bińczycki, B. Social Innovations and Sustainable Development of Enterprises in Poland—The Social and Environmental Perspective of Generation Z. Sustainability 2026, 18, 3329. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073329

AMA Style

Łukasiński W, Romański P, Bińczycki B. Social Innovations and Sustainable Development of Enterprises in Poland—The Social and Environmental Perspective of Generation Z. Sustainability. 2026; 18(7):3329. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073329

Chicago/Turabian Style

Łukasiński, Wiesław, Piotr Romański, and Bernard Bińczycki. 2026. "Social Innovations and Sustainable Development of Enterprises in Poland—The Social and Environmental Perspective of Generation Z" Sustainability 18, no. 7: 3329. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073329

APA Style

Łukasiński, W., Romański, P., & Bińczycki, B. (2026). Social Innovations and Sustainable Development of Enterprises in Poland—The Social and Environmental Perspective of Generation Z. Sustainability, 18(7), 3329. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18073329

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