Sustainability Outcomes in SMEs: A Configurational View of the Interplay of Strategic Orientations and Environmental Conditions

Abstract

Despite concerted scholarly and managerial interests in sustainability, integrating the principle of sustainable development in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) remains an elusive goal. This article examines the complex interdependent nature of three strategic orientations (entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, and sustainability orientation) and two external environmental conditions (competitive intensity and institutional support) and how they may jointly affect SME's financial, social, and environmental goals (triple bottom line or TBL)—in a nonlinear, configurational way. In accordance with this broad objective, the authors utilize fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) on a sample of 289 SMEs operating in a developing economy. This approach enables nuanced detection of the various ways in which causal conditions (i.e., strategic orientations) and contextual conditions (i.e., external environmental factors) together can lead to the presence and absence of TBL. The analyses reveal complex causality between TBL and its antecedent conditions that cannot be explained solely by isolated net effects. Specifically, for each TBL dimension, two distinctive configurations are found to be consistently sufficient, thereby providing important theoretical and managerial implications.

Keywords

entrepreneurial orientation market orientation sustainability orientation competitive intensity institutional support sustainable entrepreneurship triple bottomline fsQCA.

Introduction

Scholars overwhelmingly agree that sustainability initiatives can have a transformative impact on business, society, and the planet (Mittelstaedt et al. 2014; Varey 2010). Admirably, promoting harmony in business and society through corporate social responsibility (CSR) and nurturing the sentiments of a broader set of marketplace issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, ecological degradation, and social inequalities have become strategic necessity for firms around the world (Bhattacharya 2019; Laczniak and Shultz 2021; Sheth and Parvatiyar 2021). In essence, sustainability discourse—creating shared value for the firms and the other stakeholders and society as a whole—has evolved from a discretionary function to a centerpiece in business processes and operations. At the core of this sustainability imperative is the desire to rethink and reshape the business model and operate responsibly in advancing the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (Mende and Scott 2021; UN 2019) and seek a safer, healthier, and more prosperous world. As aptly put by Hollensebe et al. (2014, p. 1232), “Sustainability means seeking to replace what we use and repair what we damage, striving to leave the planet in a better condition than that in which we found it.” By extension, sustainability efforts reflect the notion of development that fulfills the basic needs of everyone without restricting future generations from meeting their own needs.

With public scrutiny predominantly focused on large corporations, the sustainability performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has attracted comparatively limited scholarly attention. This is striking given that SMEs make up 90% of businesses worldwide and over 50% of the global employment (World Bank 2019). Moreover, SMEs may have a stake in aligning sustainability initiatives to their day-to-day routines and practices. Granted, extant work provides useful insights into how SMEs may foster sustainability (e.g., Belz and Binder 2017; Hall, Deneke, and Lenox 2010), this literature has lagged in three respects. First, the firm-level factors have been investigated in a fragmented manner. For instance, Amankwah-Amoah, Danso, and Adomako (2019) examine the mediating effect of environmental sustainability orientation between entrepreneurial orientation and performance. Likewise, Schmidt et al. (2021) examine how the strategic orientation of the firm toward recycling mediates the relationship between market orientation and circular economy practices. Although research finds that various strategic orientations can individually or together affect SMEs’ performance, investigation into how multiple paths (i.e., different combinations of strategic orientations) might be at play to achieve the same outcomes is lacking. Second, there is a paucity of work examining the various contingencies that may influence the relationship between SMEs’ strategic orientations and sustainable performance. While most prior research investigating the relationship between SMEs’ strategic orientations and sustainability performance has pointed toward the pivotal role of industry- and country-level factors (e.g., Chan et al. 2012; Laukkanen et al. 2013), progress in understanding how different strategic orientations and environmental contexts may combine leaves much to be desired. Third, for the most part, the outcome variable used in these studies are based on operational performance along with economic returns (e.g., Kautonen et al. 2020; Malesios et al. 2018). Critically, these endeavors miss opportunities to assess sustainable development with respect to the societal well-being and environmental health.

Taken together, identifying common patterns and determining key combinations of various internal and external factors that contribute to a positive sustainability performance of SMEs remains an intriguing research challenge. To address this, the core postulate of our thesis is that three strategic orientations—entrepreneurial orientation (EO), market orientation (MO), and sustainability orientation (SO)—along with two contingencies, namely competitive intensity (CI) and institutional support (IS), can combine in a causal conjectural manner to explain SMEs’ sustainability performance. In particular, our focus is on triple bottom line (hereafter referred to as TBL)—performance pertaining to financial, social, and environmental dimensions (Elkington 2004). To investigate these interdependencies, we draw on fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), an analytical technique that supports a comprehensive understanding where “the whole is best understood from a systematic perspective and should be viewed as a constellation of interconnected elements” (Fiss, Cambre, and Marx 2013a, p. 2). This technique assesses the presence or absence of key conditions and their configurations for a specific outcome of interest (Ragin 2006, Fiss, Sharapov, and Cronqvist 2013b). Further, by identifying how different conditions can fruitfully combine to produce alternate paths toward the desired outcome, the asymmetric set-theoretic nature of fsQCA provides an alternative approach that goes beyond the scholarly work primarily based on covariance-based methods (Cooper and Glaesser 2011; Pappas and Woodside 2021). In our study, we conceptualize EO, MO, and SO as configurations of attributes that interdependently lead to enhanced sustainability performance. The theoretical expectation about the relationships among key constructs underlying the study context drives the choice of the appropriate method of analysis (Schneider and Wagemann 2012); and accordingly, the fsQCA configuration approach is particularly salient. We draw on a unique data set based on SMEs operating in a developing economy (Pakistan). Our analyses reveal several combinations of causal antecedent conditions leading to different TBL dimensions, which we detail in the findings section.

In turn, our study lays claim to four contributions. First, we integrate three internal factors (i.e., EO, MO, and SO) and two external environmental factors (i.e., CI and IS) to assess the sustainability performance of SMEs. Specifically, the analyses show that these factors can simultaneously be interdependent in how they influence TBL outcomes. By highlighting how the different strategic orientations may create opportunities for cross-functional fertilization, our findings generate knowledge at the intersection of marketing and entrepreneurship (Morrish et al. 2019). Second, while scholars have leaned toward either a one- or two-dimensional posture to assess sustainability (Halme et al. 2020), this study grasps the complexity of sustainability performance in more depth by exploring its multidimensional nature. Thus, our approach binds the full scope of sustainability outcomes. This is significant as SMEs’ social and environmental goals are often compromised and subordinated to the apple cart of profitability (Malesios and Evangelinos 2021). Third, a key methodological contribution of the present study is the utilization of the fsQCA, a configurational approach that offers a better understanding of how different strategic orientations, some affected by the external environment, explain SMEs’ performance in terms of sustainability imperatives. An integral component of this approach is the notion of conjunctural causality: “where each causal condition is considered in conjunction with others, as opposed to ‘in addition’ to others” (Schiehll, Lewellynn, and Muller-Kahle 2018, p. 1455), a notable shortcoming of traditional correlational techniques. In the fsQCA approach, an outcome may arise from various combinations of causal conditions, rather than the unique contribution of each condition. Thus, it is more conducive to our core postulate: sustainability performance is multidimensional, and the interpretation of the interaction of multiple strategic orientations and external environmental factors is context-dependent. Finally, this research sheds lights on how SMEs operating in a non-Western developing economy address the most pressing sustainability challenges. Extant research has primarily focused on developed markets and advanced economies with more vigilant mechanisms and more resources to invest in sustainability-related initiatives. Pakistan, a developing country, because of its cultural and social structures (i.e., high collectivism and power distance; Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov 2005), provides an interesting domain for validating and extending existing frameworks and theories. From substantive perspective, this research is relevant as the society is seeking to positively progress to sustainable development. Our findings generate clearer prescription for SMEs attempting to integrate economic health, societal value creation and environmental resilience through their entrepreneurial behavior.

Theoretical Background

TBL: A Multi-Dimensional View of the Sustainability Imperative

TBL framework enables firms to move toward a regenerative and more sustainable future. This framework accounts for the full cost of doing business by integrating financial, social, and environmental concerns within a business strategy (informally known as profit, people, and the planet, respectively) (Elkington 2004). Firms with a good TBL imperative will prioritize financial stability, incorporate the social benefits of diverse stakeholders affected by the firm's decisions, and preserve the natural environment to thrive in the long run. Contemporary approaches toward CSR or sustainability initiatives have explicitly focused on TBL, and as such, signal the effort to invest in sincere stakeholder engagement.

Financial sustainability refers to the efficient utilization of assets and capabilities to achieve desired economic goals and secure livelihoods. This includes traditional measures such as profits, return on investment, and sales growth over time. However, SMEs operating in developing economies face unique challenges in financial management due to resource scarcity, underdeveloped sales channels, and a lack of formal business institutions (Adomako and Ahsan 2022). Social sustainability, on the other hand, focuses on the impact of a firm's activities on the communities in which it operates. This encompasses aspects such as fair labor policies, gender balance, charitable contributions, and commitment to human rights. A firm's reputation as a good corporate citizen and its aspiration to attain a common good are key considerations in evaluating its social performance. This dimension encompasses mobilizing effort for satisfying both internal audiences (e.g., employees) and external stakeholders (e.g., society/community). Beyond economic and social considerations, firm policy and actions should be aimed at better stewardship of the biosphere, mitigating harm to an increasingly fragile planet and its inhabitants. With this frame of reference, environmental sustainability entails the efficient use of natural resources such as energy, land, and water, with the aim of replenishing them and safeguarding the ecosystem. Environmentally conscious firms minimize eco-degrading activities, such as pollution, emissions, hazardous waste, and carbon footprint, and achieve more sustainable manufacturing practices.

In summary, a TBL framework emphasizes the simultaneous consideration of financial, social, and environmental dimensions without suppressing any of them, and the present study seeks to identify the various pathways that can lead to the successful attainment of SMEs’ TBL goals.

Strategic Orientations

Generally characterized as distinct practices and actions adopted by firms to optimize their physical, financial, and human resources and develop advantages, especially over time (e.g., Dahlquist and Lehnart 2023; Menguc and Auh 2005), strategic orientations have aroused great interests in both management and marketing literatures. Hakala (2011, p. 199) defines strategic orientations as “principles that direct and inﬂuence the activities of a firm and generate the behaviors intended to ensure its viability and performance.” Subsequently, the impact of strategic orientations on SME performance and long-term survival has been a fertile area of scholarly investigation (e.g., Beliaeva et al. 2020; Laukkanen et al. 2013; Obel and Gurkov 2023).

Our study focuses on three strategic orientations that firms pursue to attain superior performance: EO (Covin and Slevin 1989), MO (Narver and Slater 1990), and SO (Khizar et al. 2022). EO, a general strategic posture that manifests in a firm's ability to recognize and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities (Lumpkin and Dess 1996; Miller 1983), has emerged as a pivotal factor for viability and success. It encompasses a firm's pattern of behaviors that “comprise a basic, unidimensional strategic orientation” (Covin and Slevin 1989, p. 79). Prior research lent importance to its three distinct elements: innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking (e.g., Lumpkin and Dess 1996). Furthermore, an accumulated body of research has shown that EO enhances a firm's ability to obtain market knowledge and necessary resources from the external environment and create value for its customers (Chan et al. 2012; Martens et al. 2016).

MO is conceptualized as organization-wide generation and dissemination of market intelligence, along with an appropriate response related to consumer needs and preferences (Kohli and Jaworski 1990). In essence, it reflects the degree to which a firm implements the marketing concept. Narver and Slater (1990, p. 21) define MO as an organizational culture “that most effectively and efficiently creates the necessary behaviors for the creation of superior value for buyers and thus, continues superior performance for the business.” Empirical studies in the marketing literature have mostly shown that commitment to MO is associated with positive organizational performance (e.g., Morgan, Vorhies, and Mason 2009). Usefully, a stream of research has unpacked the presence of an association between MO and sustainability initiatives (e.g., Mitchell, Wooliscroft, and Higham 2010; Rudawska 2018).

In recent years, the concept of SO has emerged as a new strategic imperative in business management and entrepreneurship literature, emphasizing a commitment to grow the business in an environmentally and socially responsible manner (Divito and Bohnsack 2017; Chistov et al. 2023). SO can be defined as an “overall proactive strategic stance of firms toward the integration of environmental (and social) concerns and practices into their strategic, tactical, and operational activities” (Roxas and Coetzer 2012, p. 464). It indicates a firm's sense of devotion to prioritize shared, societal, and ecological interests alongside economic considerations (Calic and Mosakowski 2016; Shou et al. 2019). Similar to EO and MO, SO can shape normative frameworks for firms to influence various outcomes.

SMEs are often guided by multiple strategic orientations, and managers should be mindful of adopting a balanced approach; that is, implementing processes and utilizing resources that synergistically enact different strategic orientations (Yang et al. 2022). How the adoption of multiple strategic orientations can lead to positive outcomes is unclear ex ante. For instance, prior research has depicted EO and SO as representing conflicting values that may not be easily reconciled, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes (DiVito and Bohnsack 2017; York and Venkatraman 2010). Similarly, Morgan et al. (2015) report a negative interaction of EO and MO on new product development. All in all, researchers have placed focus on isolated effects of different strategic orientations, and consequently, the field lacks a broader understanding of their complex interplay toward sustainability outcomes. We address this issue by adopting a configurational view, in which we show how a multitude of combinations of different strategic orientations can impact SMEs’ green transformation (Beliaeva et al. 2020; Klein, Spieth, and Heidenreich 2021).

Environmental Contexts

Previous research has shown that external environmental factors can influence performance payoffs (e.g., Du and Kim 2021). Building upon this understanding, it is likely that relationships between SMEs’ strategic orientations and sustainability performance are contingent upon changes in the marketplace, which are largely outside of an SMEs’ control. To achieve a better product–market performance, SMEs ought to adapt and align their strategies with external environmental conditions. In this study, we examine two such contingencies: CI and IS.

Prior literature conceptualizes CI as a situation where a large number of competitors vie with one another for market share, resulting in limited growth opportunities (Auh and Menguc 2005; Martin and Javalgi 2016). In such an environment, intense competition creates challenges for firms to establish a position of superiority over rivals. Particularly in economically unequal settings, as in developing countries, CI is likely to have an adverse effect on SME performance.

Correspondingly, IS signifies the degree to which local institutions provide a social safety net, offering protection to organizations against the adverse impacts of imperfect markets and legal systems. For example, these institutions could help SMEs with various services such as access to finance, R&D (research and development) and human resource training, and assistance in technology and business process development (Ahsan, Adomako, and Mole 2021). In developing economies, SMEs must cope with weak market structures, ineffective property rights protection, and limited access to assistance (Adomako et al. 2021a), which can adversely affect their performance.

The Interplay of Strategic Orientations and Environmental Contexts

The bulk of previous strategic orientation–performance investigations are based on contingency theory, which suggests that there is no universally effective strategy applicable in all circumstances. Instead, the optimal course of action is largely predicated on various environmental exigencies (e.g., Donaldson 2001). Within the contingency perspective, the value of the resources varies depending on the contexts in which they are being utilized, and the effectiveness of different strategic orientations will vary across contextual factors. Simply put, the stronger the fit between the strategic choice and the external environment, the better the performance (Drazin and Van de Ven 1985; Husted 2000; Van de Ven and Drazin 1985). Relatedly, studies featuring the interplay of strategy and external environment are prominent in prior literature (e.g., Chistov et al. 2023; Fainshmidt et al. 2019). However, this approach falls short of informing our understanding regarding the best configurations for the desired sustainability outcomes. More pointedly, there could be multiple viable configurations leading to superior performance on different sustainability dimensions. This establishes the grounds for further advancements through adopting the configurational approach. The fundamental narrative is that a strategy is formed by the combination of specific elements that have greater collective meaning than individual significance (Misangyi et al. 2017). To illustrate, the configurational view helps visualize the beneficial interplay of the components of a system, whereby the existence of one component enhances the value of others, and the overall gain from increasing each component of the system is greater than the sum of its parts (Ennen and Richter 2010). Placed in a broader perspective, SMEs can uniquely configure their resources and capabilities, either individually or in combination, to thrive amidst increasing competition (Irwin et al. 2018).

Moreover, recent advances in strategic management research assert the need for a further foray into the causal complexities of internal and external organizational environments (Misangyi et al. 2017). Along this line, this study underlines the crucial role of operating environments. We argue that a firm's ability to balance EO, MO, and SO with external environmental factors will give rise to a unique configuration of resources and capabilities, which in turn lead to superior TBL outcomes. Scholars have argued that configurational approaches can capture more complex, mutually reinforcing interdependencies in a given context, as opposed to symmetrical analyses (e.g., Miller 1996). The strategic orientations we identify—EO, MO, and SO—allow us to develop a theory grounded in prior work and draw from the theoretical underpinning of the configurational approach. In short, we postulate that SMEs can attain desired TBL outcomes in uncertain operating environments through multiple pathways. Figure 1 provides an overview of our conceptual model.

Method

Empirical Setting and Sample

Our research setting is that of manufacturing SMEs located in the Punjab province of Pakistan. The empirical context is important as according to recent estimates by the Small & Medium Enterprise Development Authority (SMEDA), in Pakistan, SMEs represent about 90% of the total business activities and contribute 40% to the GDP (State Bank of Pakistan 2022). Besides, 65% of the total businesses in Pakistan are situated in the Punjab province, making it the primary hub of economic activities in the country. To obtain a representative sample, we used a sampling frame of SMEs (in total, 3,228) registered with the Chamber of Commerce and Industries of three districts: Bahawalpur, Multan, and Rahim Yar Khan.

A self-administered survey was conducted using the key respondent approach (owner or a manager who have authority to make decisions and enforce compliance). In this regard, questionnaires were delivered to 400 randomly chosen SMEs. We used a group of experienced student researchers to facilitate the data collection, and three different groups (comprising five to seven members) were used for each district. The respondents were informed regarding the academic nature of the study, and the secrecy of their identity and responses. After one reminder, our effort yielded 289 usable responses (72% response rate). The data were collected in the year 2022. Characteristics of the respondents are as follows: 96% male, 58% between 31 and 50 years of age, 71% SME owners, 55% having a college education or above, and 44% with more than 10 years of experience in this business. It is worth noting that our sample is heavily skewed toward male. This skewness can be attributed to the male dominance in the top management (i.e., owners/managers) of SMEs operating in Pakistan.

To provide more explicit information on the adequacy of our sample size, we refer to the sample selection criteria (i.e., conditions to cases ratio) outlined by Marx and Dusa (2011). For CsQCA studies, scholars have recommended a ratio greater than 3 cases to 1 condition for an analysis with 3 or 4 conditions and 4 cases to 1 condition for an analysis with 5 or 6 conditions. Moreover, in a recent systematic review of fsQCA studies in entrepreneurship and innovation-related research fields, Kraus, Ribeiro-Soriano, and Schüssler (2018) reveal that this technique has been applied with an average sample size ranging from 100 to 400. This is consistent with our study sample. Table 1 presents the profile of the respondents.

Table 1.

Respondents’ Profile.

Attributes	Description	Frequency(n)	%
Gender	Male	278	96.19
	Female	11	3.81
	Prefer not to say	0	00
Respondent age (in years)	Under 20	9	3.11
	21–30	57	19.72
	31–50	169	58.48
	Over 50	54	18.69
Education	Never gone to school	28	9.69
	Matriculation	41	14.19
	Intermediate	61	21.10
	Graduation & above	159	55.01
Position in the firm	Owner	203	70.24
Position in the firm	Manager	86	29.76
Experience/years in this business	Less than 5	93	32.18
	6–10	71	24.57
	11–15	58	20.07
	More than 15	67	23.18
Industry/sector	Food & beverages	74	25.60
	Textile	66	22.84
	Leather	32	11.07
	Chemicals/pesticides	46	15.20
	Fertilizer	13	4.50
	Pharmaceutical	19	6.57
	Surgical instruments	4	1.38
	Herbal	11	3.81
	Auto part manufacturing	3	1.04
	Sports goods	6	2.08
	Others (Misc.)	15	5.19

Measures

We used established measures from extant research. The EO scale comprised nine items and was measured on three dimensions: innovativeness, pro-activeness, and risk-taking (Covin and Slevin 1989). The MO scale, adopted from Narver and Slater (1990), comprised a total of 15 items for three dimensions: competitor orientation (four items), customer orientation (six items), and inter-functional coordination (five items). For the measurement of SO, we adopted the scale of nine-item taken from Auwal et al. (2020) and Vătămănescu et al. (2017). The CI was captured by five items adapted from Jaworski and Kohli (1993). The scale of IS contained four items to determine the level of support provided by the government and its agencies over the last three years (Du and Kim 2021; Li and Atuahene-Gima 2001). For TBL performance, the outcome of interest, we used the taxonomy of financial, social, and environmental performance as a basis. It comprised 18 items (six items for each dimension) adapted from Auwal et al. (2020) and Shou et al. (2019). All responses were based on a 1-to-5 Likert-type scale. Table 2 documents the measures and the loadings.

Table 2.

Measures and Loadings.

Constructs/Source	Items	Loadings
Entrepreneurial orientation (Covin and Slevin 1989)	1. In general, we favor a strong emphasis on R&D, technological leadership, and innovations.	.827
	2. My firm has marketed very many new lines of products or services in the past five years.	.825
	3. Changes in product or service lines have usually been quite dramatic.	.804
	4. In dealing with its competitors my firm typically initiates actions which competitors then respond to.	.799
	5. In dealing with its competitors, my firm is very often the first business to introduce new products/services, administrative techniques, operating technologies, etc.	.834
	6. In dealing with its competitors, my firm typically adopts a very competitive, ‘undo-the-competitors’ posture.	.836
	7. In general, we have a strong proclivity for high-risk projects (with chances of very high returns)	.835
	8. In general, we believe that owing to the nature of the environment, bold, wide-ranging acts are necessary to achieve the firm's objectives.	.836
	9. When confronted with decision-making situations involving uncertainty, we typically adopt a bold, aggressive posture in order to maximize the probability of exploiting potential opportunities”	.815
Market orientation (Narver and Slater 1990)	1. We constantly monitor our level of commitment and orientation to serving customers’ needs.	.893
	2. Our business strategies are driven by our beliefs about how we can create greater value for customers.	.886
	3. Our strategy for competitive advantage is based on our understanding of customer needs	.856
	4. Our business objectives are driven primarily by customer satisfaction	.863
	5. We give close attention to after-sales service.	.862
	6. We measure customer satisfaction systematically and frequently”	.843
	7. The top management team regularly discusses competitors’ strengths and strategies.	.871
	8. We target customers and customer groups where we have, or can develop a competitive advantage.	.861
	9. Our salespeople regularly share information within our business concerning competitors’ strategies.	.899
	10. We rapidly respond to competitive actions that threaten us.	.871
	11. Our top managers from every function regularly visit our current and prospective customers.	.833
	12. We freely communicate information about our successful and unsuccessful customer experiences across all business functions.	.889
	13. All of our business functions (e.g., marketing/sales, manufacturing, R&D, finance/accounting, etc.) are integrated in serving the needs of our target markets.	.892
	14. All of our managers understand how everyone in our company can contribute to creating customer value.	.880
	15. All of our business functions share resources with other business units (information, etc.).	.844
Sustainability orientation (Vătămănescu et al. 2017; Auwal et al. 2020)	1. Our products and/or services are harmless in terms of societal and environmental issues.	.992
	2. Our products and/or services yield benefits to the larger community.	.788
	3. In general, we treat the workforce and partners with due respect.	.823
	4. In general, we are actively involved in community growth.	.789
	5. In general, we struggle for an image of environmental responsibility.	.844
	6. In general, environmental preservation is a high priority in my firm,	.851
	7. My firm is committed to pollution control.	.741
	8. My firm is committed to enhancing social responsibility.	.748
	9. My firm is committed to improving its market share.	.803
Competitive Intensity (Jaworski and Kohli 1993)	1. Competition in our industry is cutthroat.	.848
	2. There are many“promotion wars” in our industry.	.828
	3. Price competition is a hallmark of our industry.	.767
	4. One hears of a new competitive move almost every day.	.777
	5. Anything that one competitor can offer, others can match readily.	.757
Institutional Support (Du and Kim 2021; Li and Atuahene-Gima 2001)	1. Implemented policies & programs that have been beneficial for your firm.	.757
	2. Provided needed technology information & technical support to your firm.	.769
	3. Played a significant role in providing financial support for your firm.	.625
	4. Helped your firm to obtain licenses for imports of technology, manufacturing, and other equipment.	.794
Financial Performance (Shou et al. 2019; Auwal et al. 2020)	Product reliability	.891
	Abilityto rapidly change production volumes	.811
	Market share	.910
	Sales growth	.934
	Return on investment (ROI)	.859
	Profit margin on sales	.894
Social Performance (Shou et al. 2019; Auwal et al. 2020)	Employee health and safety	.838
	Employee quality of life	.886
	Corporate reputation/image	.873
	Social commitment	.843
	Engagement with government officials	.719
	Relationship with local communities	.770
Environmental Performance (Shou et al. 2019; Auwal et al. 2020)	Reduction of emissions	.838
	Reduction of solid waste & water waste	.811
	Reduction of energy consumption	.720
	Recycling of waste materials	.637
	Consumption of toxic materials	.654
	Frequency ofenvironmental accidents	.775

Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA)

This study employs the fsQCA method to examine how multiple antecedent conditions contribute simultaneously to the outcome under study (Fiss 2011; Ragin 2008). Kraus, Ribeiro-Sariano, and Schüssler (2018) note that fsQCA has gained prominence in entrepreneurship research due to its ability for explaining the intricacies among conditions by surpassing the conventional techniques that primarily focus on “the single effect of individual variables” (p. 16). This approach recognizes that outcomes often depend on multiple antecedent conditions that operate independently, however, a particular condition may cause negative or positive effects depending on how it interacts with others (Greckhamer et al. 2018). Therefore, this technique is particularly well-suited to disentangle the complex interdependencies among a set of interconnected elements. Specifically, it allows for empirical investigations of causal complexity, where “multiple causal attributes combine into distinct configurations to produce an outcome of interest” (Misangyi et al. 2017, p. 3).

There are three notable facets of causal complexity: (i) nonlinearity (i.e., relationships among the variables are not always symmetric), (ii) synergistic effects (i.e., effects of combinations of variables rather than net effects), and (iii) equifinality (i.e., alternative paths can explain a given outcome) (Misangyi and Acharya 2014, Ragin 2008). This methodological tool documents the combinatorial effects of various interrelated antecedent conditions that we are considering. Therefore, in our research context, fsQCA is more appropriate than narrowly scoped methods that estimate independent net effects.

The fsQCA methodology uses Boolean method of logical comparison where each case is represented as a set of conditions, and analyzes the extent to which different combinations of these conditions are associated with the outcome. In the context of the present study, the efficacy of various strategic orientations will depend on how they combine with external environmental variables outside of the firm's control. Specifically, within this view, an influence can be either negative or positive depending on contextual conditions. Therefore, fsQCA allows for investigations of the conditions that are both necessary and sufficient for an outcome to occur. By doing so, it provides a more comprehensive coverage of the necessary conditions of the configurations that are associated with the presence or the absence of the outcome of interest, as compared to conventional net-effects analyses (e.g., direct and/or indirect effects of the independent variables on the dependent variable). Our analysis is conducted by the fsQCA software package version 3.0 (Ragin and Davey 2016).

Calibration

An essential aspect of fsQCA methodology is that raw data (both causal and contextual conditions and the outcomes) must be calibrated as fuzzy-set membership scores. A given data can range from 0 to 1 where a membership score 1 is a full membership ( fully in the set) and a case with a membership score of 0 is a full nonmember (fully outhe set of t). A membership score of 0.5 represents a crossover point (the point of maximum ambiguity or neither in nor out of membership). Calibration thresholds are derived from existing theory and researchers’ prior knowledge (Ragin 2008). The utilization of percentile as a transformation basis for attributing fuzzy-set membership is widely prevalent in QCA research (e.g., Kraus et al. 2018; Pappas and Woodside 2021).

Consistent with conventional procedure (Fiss 2011; Ragin 2008), the measures were transformed into the fuzzy sets via the calibration routine using fsQCA software. Given that our data are skewed and not normally distributed, all the causal conditions (i.e., EO, MO, SO) and contextual conditions (CI and IS) and outcome variables (i.e., financial performance, social performance, and environmental performance) were calibrated in the 80^th percentile, 20^th percentile, and mean value, as the thresholds for a complete membership, complete nonmembership, and cross-over point (see Table 3). This calibration approach is consistent with recent QCA studies (e.g., Gupta, Crilly, and Greckhamer 2020).

Table 3.

Calibration of the Conditions and Outcome Measures.

	Variables	20^thPercentile	∑Mean	80^thPercentile
Strategic Orientations	Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO)	EO < 3.77	EO = 4.06	EO > 4.88
	Market Orientation (MO)	MO < 3.50	MO = 3.96	MO > 4.93
	Sustainability Orientation (SO)	SO < 2.33	SO = 3.92	SO > 4.88
External Environment	Competitive Intensity (CI)	CI < 3.32	CI = 4.19	CI > 4.8
External Environment	Institutional Support (IS)	IS < 1.75	IS = 3.071	IS > 4.25
Sustainable Performance	Financial Performance (FP)	EcP < 3.66	EcP = 3.84	EcP > 4.66
	Social Performance (SP)	ScP < 2.67	ScP = 3.92	ScP > 5.00
	Environmental Performance (EP)	EnP < 2.67	EnP = 3.93	EnP > 5.00

Analysis Procedure

QCA performs two separate analyses: necessity analysis and sufficiency analysis. A necessary condition is a condition (or a set of conditions) that is always present whenever the outcome occurs. That is, it examines whether any factor is necessary for the outcome to occur. A sufficient condition, on the other hand, is a condition (or set of conditions) that will generate the outcome. Thus, a necessary condition must be there, but it alone does not provide sufficient conditions for the occurrence of the event.

Analysis of Necessary Conditions

Necessary conditions ought to be identified before ascertaining the sufficient configurations for an outcome (Schneider and Wagemann 2012). Using fsQCA 3.0 (Ragin and Davey 2016), we first analyzed the necessity of both the presence and absence of causal condition with regard to influencing TBL performance of EMEs. The condition with a consistency of 0.9 suggests “almost always necessary” and will be part of all sufficient conditions. Using a consistency benchmark of 0.90 (see Table 4), we found that EO and MO are necessary conditions for attaining strong financial return, SO is a necessary condition for social performance, and EO and SO are necessary conditions for environmental performance. However, the identified conditions are necessary but not sufficient for the outcome to occur. Therefore, we conducted a further sufficiency analysis to identify the complex combinations of single conditions that cause the outcome to occur.

Table 4.

Analysis of Necessary Conditions for the Presence of TBL Performance.

		FinancialPerformance		SocialPerformance		Environmental Performance
	Condition	Consistency	Coverage	Consistency	Coverage	Consistency	Coverage
Strategic Orientations	EO	*0.905406	0.828825	0.818471	0.700593	*0.908347	0.809363
	∼ EO	0.193529	0.390836	0.247269	0.466940	0.179186	0.352230
	MO	*0.917985	0.891063	0.835508	0.758343	0.769287	0.726830
	∼ MO	0.193529	0.347230	0.256962	0.431106	0.298155	0.520697
	SO	0.786146	0.742773	*0.994595	0.878704	*0.993284	*0.913479
	∼SO	0.264556	0.499944	0.105335	0.186131	0.101868	0.187376
External Environment	CI	0.663699	0.716650	0.534250	0.539415	0.463062	0.486684
	∼CI	0.491870	0.743626	0.549055	0.776181	0.646820	0.951830
	IS	0.628377	0.758906	0.738221	0.833676	0.751792	0.883766
	∼IS	0.482587	0.635353	0.327166	0.402763	0.314973	0.403631

Analysis for Sufficient Conditions

The next step involves identifying the combination of sufficient causal conditions associated with the outcome of interest. If a particular condition or a combination of conditions consistently results in a particular outcome, it is deemed sufficient (Ragin 2008). Using the fsQCA 3.0 software (Ragin and Davey 2016), our analysis aimed to determine the configurational paths that lead to strengthened or weakened TBL performance. We constructed a truth table—the list of all possible and empirically occurring configurations (Ragin 2008) —for the outcome and its negation. The truth table shows the various combinations equal to 2^k, where k is the number of conditions assumed. Since the study has five causal conditions, the truth table produced 2⁵ combinations to explain the outcome. Hence, 96 possible combinations were produced (i.e., 32 for each outcome). Next, a logical minimization process was used to simplify the table by eliminating all redundant, unnecessary, or inconsistent combinations. By revealing the simplest and most parsimonious set of combinations that account for the outcome, a logical minimization process provides a cleaner understanding of the relationships between conditions and outcomes in complex systems. We set the frequency cut-off point at 2 (i.e., the minimum number of cases) and the consistency benchmark at 0.80 (i.e., the minimum level of consistency of a configuration with an outcome). In the last step of our fsQCA analysis, the truth table was reduced into simplified solutions by utilizing the Quine-McClusky algorithm, which resulted in various configurational pathways sufficient for achieving TBL.

Table 5 displays the configurations identified in sufficiency analysis. It reveals two pathways for a favorable performance in each of the TBL outcomes. Following previous fsQCA studies (e.g., Misangyi and Acharya 2014), our interpretation of the configurations rely upon both core and peripheral conditions. The distinction between core and peripheral conditions is crucial for understanding the causal patterns and mechanisms that drive the outcome of interest. According to Fiss (2011, p. 394), core conditions are “those causal conditions for which the evidence indicates a strong causal relationship with the outcome of interest.” Peripheral elements are considered to have a weaker causal relationship but still are important for their potential reinforcing role for the causal features of core conditions (Fiss, 2011). The core conditions have strong causal relationships with the outcome, as they appear in both “intermediate” and “parsimonious” solutions, while the peripheral conditions have a weaker causal relationship with the outcome, as they only appear in intermediate solutions.

Table 5.

Configurations Leading to High/Low TBL Performance of SMEs.

Causal Conditions		Configurations for the Presence of TBL(High TBL)						Configurations for the Absence of TBL(Low TBL)
Causal Conditions		FP-1	FP-2	SP-1	SP-2	EP-1	EP-2	∼FP	∼SP	∼EP
Strategic Orientation	EO	●	●	●		●	●	Ɵ	●	●
	MO	●	●	●	●		●	Ɵ	●	●
	SO		●	●	●	●	●	Ɵ	Ɵ	Ɵ
Environment	CI	●		●	●	Ɵ	●	●	●	●
Environment	IS	Ɵ	●		●	●		Ɵ	Ɵ	Ɵ
Raw Coverage		0.40	0.47	0.42	0.41	0.53	0.40	0.48	0.38	0.40
Unique Coverage		0.28	0.19	0.11	0.10	0.33	0.10	0.48	0.30	0.32
Consistency		0.99	0.94	0.99	0.99	0.99	0.98	0.97	0.98	0.97
Solution coverage		0.84		0.75		0.78		0.48	0.74	0.79
Solution consistency		0.94		0.85		0.93		0.97	0.99	0.98

Collectively, the result shows multiple pathways that are consistently sufficient for favorable financial, social, and environmental performance. For the interpretations of the configurations generated from the fsQCA analysis, we use Ragin and Fiss (2008) notation, where black-filled circles represent the presence of antecedent conditions, and crossed-out circles represents absence or negation. The blank spaces indicate the ambiguous or “don’t care” conditions, in which the corresponding antecedent condition may be present or absent, and hence, plays not significant roles. Moreover, the larger circles indicate the core conditions while the smaller circles denote peripheral conditions. The solution table also presents the consistency and coverage scores, which are two diagnostic metrics used to evaluate the robustness and reliability of results obtained through the QCA process. Consistency refers to the extent to which the obtained results correspond with the observed outcomes (Ragin 2006). It is calculated by dividing the number of observed cases that are consistent with the results obtained from QCA by the total number of observed cases. The range of consistency score can be from 0 to 1, where higher consistency indicates greater robustness and 1 means perfect consistency. Coverage refers to the extent to which the results obtained from QCA reflect all the possible outcomes (Ragin 2006). It is calculated by dividing the number of observed cases that are covered by the results obtained from QCA by the total number of observed cases. The higher the coverage scores, the more comprehensive the results. These metrics should be used as diagnostic tools rather than hierarchical measures. This means that they are not used to determine which results are better or worse, but rather to provide insight into the robustness and reliability of the results obtained from the QCA process.

The overall solution coverage indicates the proportion of the outcome covered by the identified configurations/solutions, while the solution consistency reports the fit between the identified configurations/solutions and the outcome (Ragin 2008). Moreover, the raw coverage reflects the degree to which the configuration explains the outcome, and its score denotes the percentage or the proportion of the outcome covered by the individual solution. It is similar to the effect size in null hypothesis significance testing (Woodside and Zhang 2012). Moreover, the scores of unique coverage indicate the percentage of the outcome that is uniquely covered by the individual solution (Ragin 2008). In sum, the key assumption of fsQCA—the existence of alternative combinations of causal conditions leading to the outcome of interest—is fulfilled. Since the same results can be produced through these alternative causal configurations, the principle of equifinality is confirmed as well.

Configurations Sufficient for Financial Performance

We identified two configurations of antecedents that are sufficient for explaining high financial performance: (i) EO*MO*CI∼IS and (ii) EO*MO*SO*IS with MO being the core condition in both. These results represent overall high scores for solution coverage (0.84) and consistency (0.94), implying that these configurations cover 84% of the membership of the cases in the outcome and 94% of the times they are in place. The unique coverage scores for these configurations (0.28; 0.19) measure the extent to which each configuration(s) contributes to the explanation of the outcome. Solution 1 suggests that SMEs can pursue financial interests by deploying a combination of EO and MO in contexts where the presence of CI is combined with absence of IS. SO is an absent factor. The second solution indicates that the combination of SO, EO, and MO can be sufficient for high financial performance and serving shareholders’ interest but hinges on the presence of IS. That is, the integration of SO with EO and MO would only be beneficial for financial performance when SMEs receive ample support from institutions.

Configurations Sufficient for Social Performance

Our analysis generated two distinctive configurations that systematically lead to the presence of social performance: (i) EO*MO*SO*CI with SO being the core condition and (ii) MO*SO*CI*IS. These solutions had higher levels of overall solution coverage and consistency scores of 0.75 and 0.85, respectively. That is, these two distinct pathways cover 75% of cases with 85% consistency in achieving social performance. Overall, this indicates that the identified configurations are systematically leading to the presence of social performance. Solution 1 indicates that SMEs can achieve social performance by deploying a combination of three strategic orientations (i.e., EO, MO, and SO) in the presence of CI, where IS assumes the role of being an absent factor. Solution 2 indicates that in the presence of IS and CI, the combination of MO and SO principally contributes to high social performance. Taken together, these results imply that social performance cannot be achieved without deploying SO, in addition, MO is crucial and should be combined with SO when the level of competition is intense.

Configurations Sufficient for Environmental Performance

Our analysis of the antecedent conditions relating to environmental performance unveils two sufficient configurations: (i) EO*SO∼CI*IS with SO being the core condition and (ii) EO*MO*SO*CI. The obtained solutions also report high overall scores for coverage (0.78) and consistency (0.93). In an evaluation of the unique coverage of these configurations, Solution 1 (0.33) is distinctly favorable to Solution 2 (0.10). Solution 1 predicts that the presence of EO and SO are the conditions lead to high environmental performance, but it hinges on the presence of IS and absence of CI. This implies that the presence of CI may offset the positive effects of EO and SO on environmental performance. Solution 2, on the other hand, indicates that with the presence of CI, a combination of EO, MO, and SO forms a sufficient condition for high environmental performance. Overall, it can be included that the effects of EO, MO, and SO on environmental performance are strengthened in the presence of CI. Moreover, both solutions indicate that EO and SO comprise core preconditions for achieving superior environmental performance. Notably, IS is an absent factor in the second solution.

Configurations Sufficient for the Absence of TBL

Based on good practice recommendations (Greckhamer et al. 2018; Schneider and Wagemann 2013), we negate the outcome condition (from high into low performance) and rerun our analysis to identify the causal configurations for the nonoccurrence of the outcome. We received two configurations of antecedent conditions that are associated with the non-improvement of SMEs’ TBL performance: (i) EO∼MO∼SO*CI∼IS for financial performance and (ii) EO*MO∼SO*CI∼IS for both social and environmental performance. To illustrate, the absence of EO and MO in operating environments characterized by presence of CI and absence of IS can lead to weak financial performance. Further, low social and environmental performance can be result even in the presence of EO and MO, when there is presence of CI and absence of IS. The absence of SO is found to be the core condition associated with the recipe leading to the non-improvement in both social and environmental performance. These results are not complete opposite of the antecedents for the occurrence of TBL suggesting a level of asymmetry. However, both the solutions include one common feature: the critical role of SO in influencing social and environmental performance. Following recent fsQCA studies (e.g., Chuah et al. 2021), we adapted visual representation to present identified configurations (Figures 2, 3, and 4).

Robustness Checks

Robustness checks of the fsQCA-based analysis are especially important in large N-based studies (Fiss et al. 2013a). In line with prior methodological literature on QCA (e.g., Thiem 2014), various analyses were conducted to assess the stability of the configurations, such as changing the consistency thresholds (cutoff points) and frequency thresholds (minimum number of cases), altering the calibration thresholds, and analyzing fsQCA only for male respondents. We conducted fsQCA analysis by increasing and decreasing the consistency cutoff point (i.e., 85% and 95%) and the frequency thresholds (i.e., 2 and 5). In addition, we again calibrated our data on different percentiles for complete membership (i.e., 85^th percentile and 75^th percentile) and complete nonmembership (i.e., 15th percentile and 25th percentile) to discern any possible changes in the results. Lastly, to investigate potential gender-based differences in our results, we conducted fsQCA solely on the responses from male participants. In all instances, our analysis generated similar solutions.

Discussion and Conclusions

Sustainability has been hailed as the new frontier of business and led a powerful call to action, but its applicability to SMEs remains largely unexplored by the researchers, including those pursuing macromarketing scholarship (Hult et al. 2018; Prothero and McDonagh 2021). This research demonstrates the benefits of adopting a configurational approach to identify multiple pathways—involving different combinations of SO, MO, and EO and certain external environmental conditions (i.e., CI and IS) —for both high and low TBL performance of SMEs. Figure 5 captures the alternative configurations of conditions leading to the outcome and sets the stage for further theoretical development and enhanced practice.

Theoretical Implications

Although the literature on different strategic orientations and their various externalities has a long-standing tradition, little is known about their interface on a variety of firm and societal outcomes. Contrary to most prior studies that predominantly focused on specific strategic orientation's pure effect on sustainability performance (e.g., DiVito and Bohnsack 2017), by adopting a configurational approach, we identify multiple pathways for both high and low TBL performance. What is more, such approach enables us not to confound the impact of different constructs, a problem that has plagued much of the prior sustainability studies. At the most general level, our findings contribute to the emerging literature on the multi-stakeholder view of sustainability marketing (e.g., Laczniak and Shultz 2021; Tollin and Christensen 2019), more specifically by revealing that relevant causal recipes of different configurations can account for positive as well as negative influence on three TBL dimensions. These results enrich extant research which has been rather inconclusive on the ways different strategic orientations can impact key organizational outcomes.

Regarding firm's financial performance, Bhuian, Menguc, and Bell (2005) make a persuasive case for the need to consider the synergistic effect of MO and EO. Moreover, in the aforementioned work, the effect of MO is the strongest at moderate levels of EO. Complementarily, in our empirical findings, a combination of EO and MO is confirmed as a crucial factor in achieving strong financial performance in the presence of CI and absence of IS. Additionally, we provide empirical evidence that in the presence of IS, the combination of SO, EO, and MO can lead to higher financial performance. In doing so, we provide new understanding to the extant finding that MO and EO are positively associated with sustainability in SME context (Jansson et al. 2017).

Researchers have also underscored the importance of various strategic orientations for improving firms’ social performance. For instance, Bhattarai, Kwong, and Tasavori (2019) emphasize the importance of MO for concurrently enhancing social as well as financial performance. Likewise, Chavez and colleagues (2020) note that firms’ lean practices mediate the relationship between EO and social and environmental performance, as well as partially mediate the relationship between EO and operational performance. Our findings indicate two distinct ways in which strategic orientations can influence the social performance outcome. First, combination of the three strategic orientations (i.e., EO, MO, and SO) can enhance social performance even in the presence of CI. Furthermore, we find evidence that when both IS and CI are present, the combination of MO and SO alone can be sufficient to positively impact social performance.

Finally, we advance the literature on strategic orientation-environmental performance link which is primarily based on isolated net effects of different strategic orientations and their interactions with other factors. For instance, studies have demonstrated that SO is positively associated with firms’ environmental performance (Adomako et al. 2021b; Rehman et al. 2022). Similarly, evidence suggests that MO is positively associated with environmental performance, as consumers care about buying products or services from companies that demonstrate a commitment to meet environmental challenges (Chen et al. 2015). Interestingly, Tang and Tang (2018, p. 639) argue that EO can reduce firms’ environmental performance, as “proactive entrepreneurial firms can ‘lobby’ local governments to be lenient in enforcing these laws or to weaken the consequences of environmental violations.” In contrast, EO in isolation could diminish a firm's environmental performance, particularly if it prioritizes economic outcomes. Our findings establish that the combination of EO and SO leads to superior environmental performance in the presence of IS and low CI. We also find that in the presence of CI, the combination of EO, MO, and SO can enhance environmental performance.

Managerial Implications

This research has important, practical relevance for managers, policymakers, and society. The results of our inquiry and analysis offer SMEs’ owners/managers usable configurational knowledge, which if accounted for, can be instrumental in their effort to disrupt the traditional unsustainable industrial order (Hall et al. 2010) and add value to society on top of the products or services they are offering. Further, our findings allow public policy advocates to guide the design policies to encourage sustainable intentions and behaviors from the SMEs. It does carry significance because consumers tend to consider sustainability when they make a purchase.Foremost, insights obtained from this research reinforce that different strategic orientations may not be in harmony and as such, their impact may not always be linear and symmetric. Such findings signal to senior managers who are responsible for charting sustainability strategy that none of the strategic orientations should be considered in isolation. This is noteworthy as extant knowledge is primarily based on the net individual effects of different strategic orientations. In contrast, our fsQCA-based results acknowledge more complexity by revealing that there may be unique configurations that lead to desired sustainability outcomes.

For SMEs, pursuing different sustainability goals ought to be challenging given that they have limited resources and time to devote to different distinct priorities. The intended value of different strategic orientations is further complicated by the nonlinearity in how the effects of different strategic orientations manifest. An important finding related to this study pinpoints developing and promoting SO as a core condition for achieving superior performance in both social and environmental dimensions. Thus, our findings corroborates the prior notion that customers are paying increasing attention to firms’ social and environmental actions when it comes to purchasing decisions (Prothero et al. 2010). Based on our findings, placing a premium on sustainability practices could help SMEs to stand out and enjoy above market performance. Hence, managers should persevere to take their social aspirations to the next level. Substantively, this may lead to many specific actions. To name just a few: maintain the spirit and passion for corporate purpose, promote the well-being of their employees and the larger society, and reduce environmental degradation.

Finally, perhaps not so counterintuitively, a key picture emerges from our findings that a combination of EO and MO can be a key lever to stimulate superior financial performance in the context—presence of CI and absence of IS— typical of developing countries. Practitioners, therefore, should strive to form stable capabilities in EO and MO in an appreciable way. Table 5 illustrates the optimal mixing and matching of different strategic orientations and external environments leading to superior TBL outcomes.

Limitations and Future Research

This research is subject to a few limitations, which open avenues for further research. First, our ability to draw theoretical inferences should be interpreted in light of limitations that commonly arise with the fsQCA approach. For instance, fuzzy-set scoring can result in measurement errors and misleading inferences (Hug 2013). As a potential remedy, we paid close attention to the definitions and construction of our fuzzy set, and our calibrations were guided by Ragin's (2008) recommendations. Nonetheless, greater theoretical insight can be obtained by utilizing other methods, such as case studies and process tracing. Second, our empirical setting was constrained to manufacturing SMEs in a single province of a developing country, conditions that offered limited generalizability. In addition, the composition our sample—i.e., severely lacking female-owned SMEs —may condition the results. Future research would greatly benefit from focusing on a more diverse sample across different contextual settings. Furthermore, the fact that 45% of our respondents do not have a college degree may contribute to a somewhat simplistic view of complex topics such as R&D and promotional strategies. Although we employed the explicit assistance of a student group to mitigate response errors, we acknowledge that this limitation may have compromised the overall quality of our sample. Fourth, while our framework and its constructs (three strategic orientations and two external environmental contexts) have contributed valuable insights, future research endeavors could consider whether and how other strategic orientations and external environmental factors may influence performance outcome of sustainability. However, one must be mindful that adding conditions to a configurational model is not like adding control variables in a traditional regression model. A trade-off is involved between increasing the number of constructs to capture the complex reality and ensuring sufficient parsimony to deliver meaningful results (Schneider and Wagemann 2012). Finally, we acknowledge that using a perceptual measure of TBL—our outcome of interest—could be suboptimal. Future studies should focus on collecting objective data whenever possible.

In conclusion, achieving sustainable developments through stewardship of TBL will warrant a sustained response from SMEs. The present study uses a configurational approach and examines how potential interdependencies among key strategic orientations (i.e., EO, MO, and SO) and external environmental factors (i.e., CI and IS) influence sustainability performance. As compelling as is the need for SMEs to take ownership of delivering sustainable growth, there is an equally pressing need to build on the configurational perspective to develop deeper insights regarding how sustainability practices could be devised and strategically implemented within SMEs.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

Authors thank Furkan Gur for his invaluable comments on earlier draft and Douglas Turrell for assistance in copy edit.

Associate Editor

Ben Wooliscroft

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Hafiz Muhammad Usman Khizar

Author Biographies

Hafiz Muhammad Usman Khizar is an Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship in the Institute of Business, Management, and Administrative Sciences (IBMAS), the Islamia University of Bahawalpur. He has more than 13 years of teaching and research experience. His research interests include strategy, entrepreneurship, and organizational behaviors. He is an expert in conducting Systematic Literature Reviews (SLR), and fsQCA based research studies. His research has appeared in cross-disciplinary journals, including the Journal of Business Research, Technological Forcasting and Social Change, Sustainable Development, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, among others.

Muhammad Jawad Iqbal is a Professor, Dean Faculty of Management, and Director Institute of Business Management and Administrative Sciences (IBMAS), at The Islamia University of Bahawalpur. He received his PhD from the University of Technology, Malaysia. His current research interests include strategy, marketing, and leadership. His research has appeared in leading journals, including the Journal of Business Research, Computers & Education, Journal of Management & Organization, Sustainable Development, among others.

Feisal Murshed is an Associate Professor of Marketing in College of Business, Kutztown University of Pennsylvania. He received his PhD in marketing from the Katz School of Business, University of Pittsburgh. His research is concerned with marketing strategy, brand management, and sustainability. He has published in outlets such as Journal of Marketing Research, Marketing Science, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Product & Brand Management, and Harvard Business Review, among others. He serves in editorial board of multiple marketing journals.

Mujtaba Ahsan is a Professor of Management at San Diego State University. His research interests are in the areas of entrepreneurship, international business, and innovation. Dr. Ahsan's work has been published in journals such as Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, International Journal of Management Reviews, Journal of World Business, Journal of Small Business Management, International Small Business Journal, Journal of International Management, International Business Review, Journal of Business Research, Management International Review, Journal of Institutional Economics, and Journal of Business Ethics. He also serves as an Associate Editor for the Journal of Small Business Management and Journal of the International Council for Small Business.

References

Adomako

Samuel

Ahsan

Mujtaba

(2022), “Entrepreneurial Passion and SMEs’ Performance: Moderating Effects of Financial Resource Availability and Resource Flexibility,” Journal of Business Research, 144, 122-135.

Adomako

Samuel

Ahsan

Mujtaba

Amankwah-Amoah

Joseph

Danso

Albert

Kesse

Kwabena

Frimpong

Kwabena

(2021a), “Corruption and SME Growth: The Roles of Institutional Networking and Financial Slack,” Journal of Institutional Economics, 17 (4), 607-624.

Adomako

Samuel

Amankwah-Amoah

Joseph

Danso

Albert

Dankwah

George Obeng

(2021b), “Chief Executive Officers’ Sustainability Orientation and Firm Environmental Performance: Networking and Resource Contingencies,” Business Strategy and the Environment, 30 (4), 2184-2193.

Ahsan

Mujtaba

Adomako

Samuel

Mole

Kevin F.

(2021), “Perceived Institutional Support and Small Venture Performance: The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Persistence,” International Small Business Journal, 39 (1), 18-39.

Amankwah-Amoah

Joseph

Danso

Albert

Adomako

Samuel

(2019), “Entrepreneurial Orientation, Environmental Sustainability and New Venture Performance: Does Stakeholder Integration Matter?” Business Strategy and the Environment, 28 (1), 79-87.

Auh

Seigyoung

Menguc

Bulent

(2005), “Balancing Exploration and Exploitation: The Moderating Role of Competitive Intensity,” Journal of Business Research, 58 (12), 1652-1661.

Auwal

Abdullahi Muhammad

Zainalabidin

Mohamed

Shamsuddin

Mad Nasir

Sharifuddin

Juwaidah

Ali

Fazlin

(2020), “External Pressure Influence on Entrepreneurship Performance of SMEs: A Case Study of Malaysian Herbal Industry,” Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 32 (2), 149-171.

Beliaeva

Tatiana

Shirokova

Galina

Wales

William

Gafforova

Elena

(2020), “Benefiting from Economic Crisis? Strategic Orientation Effects, Trade-Offs, and Configurations with Resource Availability on SME Performance,” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16 (1), 165-194.

Belz

Frank Martin

Binder

Julia Katharina

(2017), “Sustainable Entrepreneurship: A Convergent Process Model,” Business Strategy and the Environment, 26 (1), 1-17.

10.

Bhattacharya

C. B.

(2019), Small Actions, Big Difference: Leveraging Corporate Sustainability to Drive Business and Societal Value. Routledge.

11.

Bhattarai

Charan Raj

Kwong

Caleb C. Y.

Tasavori

Misagh

(2019), “Market Orientation, Market Disruptiveness Capability and Social Enterprise Performance: An Empirical Study from the United Kingdom,”,” Journal of Business Research, 96, 47-60.

12.

Bhuian

Shahid N.

Menguc

Bulent

Bell

Simon J.

(2005), “Just Entrepreneurial Enough: The Moderating Effect of Entrepreneurship on the Relationship Between Market Orientation and Performance,” Journal of Business Research, 58 (1), 9-17.

13.

Calic

Goran

Mosakowski

Elaine

(2016), “Kicking off Social Entrepreneurship: How a Sustainability Orientation Influences Crowdfunding Success,” Journal of Management Studies, 53 (5), 738-767.

14.

Chan

Ricky Y. K.

Hongwei

Chan

Hing Kai

Wang

William Y. C.

(2012), “Environmental Orientation and Corporate Performance: The Mediation Mechanism of Green Supply Chain Management and Moderating Effect of Competitive Intensity,” Industrial Marketing Management, 41 (4), 621-630.

15.

Chavez

Roberto

Wantao

Sadiq Jajja

Muhammad Shakeel

Lecuna

Antonio

Fynes

Brian

(2020), “Can Entrepreneurial Orientation Improve Sustainable Development Through Leveraging Internal Lean Practices?” Business Strategy and the Environment, 29 (6), 2211-2225.

16.

Chen

Yang

Tang

Guiyao

Jin

Jiafei

Paillé

Pascal

(2015), “Linking Market Orientation and Environmental Performance: The Influence of Environmental Strategy, Employee’s Environmental Involvement, and Environmental Product Quality,” Journal of Business Ethics, 127 (2), 479-500.

17.

Chistov

Valery

Aramburu

Nekane

Fabra Florit

Maria Eugenia

Peña-Legazkue

Iñaki

Weritz

Pauline

(2023), “Sustainability Orientation and Firm Growth as Venture Mature,” Business Strategy and the Environment, https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3418.

18.

Chuah

Stephanie Hui-Wen

Ming-Lang

Tseng

Kuo-Jui

Cheng-Feng

Cheng

(2021), “Factors Influencing the Adoption of Sharing Economy in B2B Context in China: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 175 (12), 105892.

19.

Cooper

Barry

Glaesser

Judith

(2011), “Using Case-Based Approaches to Analyse Large Datasets: A Comparison of Ragin’s fsQCA and Fuzzy Cluster Analysis,” International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14 (1), 31-48.

20.

Covin

Jeffrey G.

Slevin

Dennis P.

(1989), “Strategic Management of Small Firms in Hostile and Benign Environments,” Strategic Management Journal, 10 (1), 75-87.

21.

Dahlquist

Steven

Lehnart

Kevin

(2023), “Strategic Orientation: Market Changer or Market Defender,” Journal of Macromarketing, 43 (1), 5-16.

22.

DiVito

Lori

Bohnsack

René

(2017), “Entrepreneurial Orientation and its Effect on Sustainability Decision Tradeoffs: The Case of Sustainable Fashion Firms,” Journal of Business Venturing, 32 (5), 569-587.

23.

Donaldson

Lex

(2001), The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Sage.

24.

Drazin

Robert

Van de Ven

Andrew H.

(1985), “Alternative Forms of Fit in Contingency Theory,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (4), 514-539.

25.

Yunzhou

Kim

Phillip H.

(2021), “One Size Does Not Fit All: Strategy Configurations, Complex Environments, and New Venture Performance in Emerging Economies,” Journal of Business Research, 124, 272-285.

26.

Elkington

John

(2004), “Enter the Triple Bottom Line,” (Accessed May 10, 2022) [available at http://www.johnelkington.com/archive/TBL-elkington-chapter.pdf].

27.

Ennen

Edgar

Richter

Ansgar

(2010), “The Whole is More Than the Sum of Its Parts—Or is It? A Review of the Empirical Literature on Complementarities in Organizations,” Journal of Management, 36 (1), 207-233.

28.

Fainshmidt

Stav

Wenger

Lucas

Pezeshkan

Amir

Mallon

Mark R.

(2019), “When do Dynamic Capabilities Lead to Competitive Advantage? The Importance of Strategic Fit,” Journal of Strategic Studies, 56 (4), 758-787.

29.

Fiss

Peer C.

(2011), “Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research,” Academy of Management Journal, 54 (2), 393-420.

30.

Fiss

Peer C.

Cambre

Bart

Marx

Axel

(2013a), “Configurational Theory and Methods in Organizational Research,” in Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Peer

C. F.

Bart

Axel

, eds. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 1-22.

31.

Fiss

Peer C.

Sharapov

Dmitry

Cronqvist

Lasse

(2013b), “Opposites Attract? Opportunities and Challenges for Integrating Large-N QCA and Econometric Analysis,” Political Research Quarterly, 66 (1), 191-235.

32.

Greckhamer

Thomas

Furnari

Santi

Fiss

Peer C.

Aguilera

Ruth V.

(2018), “Studying Configurations with Qualitative Comparative Analysis: Best Practices in Strategy and Organization Research,” Strategic Organization, 16 (4), 482-495.

33.

Gupta

Kamini

Crilly

Donal

Greckhamer

Thomas

(2020), “Stakeholder Engagement Strategies, National Institutions, and Firm Performance: A Configurational Perspective,” Strategic Management Journal, 41 (20), 1896-1900.

34.

Hakala

Henri

(2011), “Strategic Orientations in Management Literature: Three Approaches to Understanding the Interaction Between Market, Technology, Entrepreneurial and Learning Orientations,” International Journal of Management Review, 13(2), 199-217.

35.

Hall

Jeremy K.

Deneke

Gregory A.

Lenox

Michael J.

(2010), “Sustainable Development and Entrepreneurship,” Journal of Business Venturing, 25 (4), 409-416.

36.

Halme

Minna

Rintamäki

Jukka

Steen Knudsen

Jette

Lankoski

Leena

Kuisma

Mika

(2020), “When is There a Sustainability Case for CSR? Pathways to Environmental and Social Performance Improvements,” Business & Society, 59 (6), 1181-1227.

37.

Hofstede

Geert

Hofstede

Gert Jan

Minkov

Michael

(2005), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill.

38.

Hollensebe

Elaine

Wookey

Charles

Hickey

Loughlin

George

Gerard

(2014), “From the Editors: Organizations with Purpose,” Academy of Management Journal, 57 (5), 1227-1234.

39.

Hug

(2013), “Qualitative Comparative Analysis: How Inductive Use and Measurement Error Lead to Problematic Inference,” Political Analysis, 21 (2), 252-265.

40.

Hult

G. Tomas M.

Mena

Jeannette A.

Gonzalez-Perez

Maria A.

Lagerström

Katarina

Hult

Daniel T.

(2018), “A Ten Country-Company Study of Sustainability and Product-Market Performance: Influences of Doing Good, Warm Glow, and Price Fairness,” Journal of Macromarketing, 38 (3), 242-261.

41.

Husted

Bryan W.

(2000), “A Contingency Theory of Corporate Social Performance,” Business & Society, 39 (1), 24-48.

42.

Irwin

Kristin C.

Landay

Karen M.

Aaron

Joshua R.

McDowell

William C.

Marino

Louis D.

Geho

Patrick R.

(2018), “Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) and Human Resources Outsourcing (HRO): A “HERO” Combination for SME Performance,” Journal of Business Research, 90, 134-140.

43.

Jansson

Johan

Nilsson

Jonas

Modig

Frida

Vall

Gabriella Hed

(2017), “Commitment to Sustainability in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: The Influence of Strategic Orientations and Management Values,” Business Strategy and the Environment, 26 (1), 69-83.

44.

Jaworski

Bernard J.

Kohli

Ajay K.

(1993), “Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (3), 53-70.

45.

Kautonen

Teemu

Schillebeeckx

Simon J. D.

Gartner

Johannes

Hakala

Henri

Salmela-Aro

Katariina

Snellman

Kirsi

(2020), “The Dark Side of Sustainability Orientation for SME Performance,” Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 14 (3), e00198.

46.

Khizar

Hafiz Muhammad Usman

Iqbal

Muhammad Jawad

Khalid

Junaid

Adomako

Samuel

(2022), “Addressing the Conceptualization and Measurement Challenges of Sustainability Orientation: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda,” Journal of Business Research, 142, 718-743.

47.

Klein

Sascha

Spieth

Patrick

Heidenreich

Sven

(2021), “Facilitating Business Model Innovation: The Influence of Sustainability and the Mediating Role of Strategic Orientations,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38 (2), 271-288.

48.

Kohli

Ajay K.

Jaworski

Bernard J.

(1990), “Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Management Implications,”,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (2), 1-18.

49.

Kraus

Sascha

Ribeiro-Soriano

Domingo

Schüssler

Miriam

(2018), “Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (FsQCA) in Entrepreneurship and Innovation Research–The Rise of a Method,” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14 (1), 15-33.

50.

Laczniak

Gene

Shultz

Clifford

(2021), “Towards a Doctrine of Socially Responsible Marketing (SRM): A Macro and Normative-Ethical Perspective,” Journal of Macromarketing, 41 (2), 201-231.

51.

Laukkanen

Tommi

Nagy

Gábor

Hirvonen

Saku

Rijonen

Helen

Pasanen

Mika

(2013), “The Effect of Staretgic Orientations on Business Performance on SMEs,” International Marketing Review, 30 (6), 510-535.

52.

Haiyang

Atuahene-Gima

Kwaku

(2001), “Product Innovation Strategy and the Performance of New Technology Ventures in China.,” Academy of Management Journal, 44 (6), 1123-1134.

53.

Lumpkin

G. Tom

Dess

Gregory G.

(1996), “Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking it to Performance,” Academy of Management Review, 21 (1), 135-172.

54.

Malesios

Chrisovalantis

Evangelinos

Konstantinos

(2021), “Sustainability Performance Analysis of Small and Medium Sized Enterprises: Criteria, Methods and Framework,” Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 75, 100993.

55.

Malesios

Chrisovalantis

Skouloudis

Antonis

Dey

Prasanta Kumar

Abdelaziz

Fouad Ben

Kantartzis

Apostolos

Evangelinos

Konstantinos

(2018), “The Impact of SME Sustainability Practices and Performance on Economic Growth from a Managerial Perspective: Some Modeling Considerations and Empirical Analysis Results,” Business Strategy and the Environment, 27 (7), 960-972.

56.

Martens

Cristina Dai. Prá

Lacerda

Fabrício Martins

Belfort

Ana Claudia

Rodrigues de Freitas

Henrique Mello

(2016), “Research on Entrepreneurial Orientation: Current Status and Future Agenda,” International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 22 (4), 556-583.

57.

Martin

Silvia L.

Javalgi

Rajshekhar (Raj) G.

(2016), “Entrepreneurial Orientation, Marketing Capabilities and Performance: The Moderating Role of Competitive Intensity on Latin American International New Ventures,” Journal of Business Research, 69 (6), 2040-2051.

58.

Marx

Axel

Dusa

Adrian

(2011), “Crisp-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (csQCA), Contradictions and Consistency Benchmarks for Model Specification,” Methodological Innovations Online, 6 (2), 103-148.

59.

Mende

Martin

Scott

Maura L.

(2021), “May the Force be with You: Expanding the Scope for Marketing Research as a Force for Good in a Sustainable World,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 40 (2), 116-125.

60.

Menguc

Bulent

Auh

Seigyoung

(2005), “A Test of Strategic Orientation Formation Versus Strategic Orientation Implementation: The Influence of TmT Functional Diversity and Inter-Functional Coordination,” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 13 (2), 4-19.

61.

Miller

Danny

(1983), “The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Types of Firms,” Management Science, 29 (7), 770-791.

62.

Miller

Danny

(1996), “Configurations Revisited,” Strategic Management Journal, 17 (7), 505-512.

63.

Misangyi

Vilmos F.

Acharya

Abhijith G.

(2014), “Substitute or Complements? A Configurational Examination of Corporate Governance Mechanisms,” Academy of Management Journal, 57 (6), 1681-1705.

64.

Misangyi

Vilmos F.

Greckhamer

Thomas

Furnari

Santi

Fiss

Peer C.

Crilly

Donal

Aguilera

Ruth

(2017), “Embracing Causal Complexity: The Emergence of a Neo-Configurational Perspective,” Journal of Management, 43 (1), 255-282.

65.

Mitchell

Robert W.

Wooliscroft

Ben

Higham

James

(2010), “Sustainable Marketing Orientation: A New Approach to Managing Marketing Strategy,” Journal of Macromarketing, 30 (2), 160-170.

66.

Mittelstaedt

John D.

Schultz

Clifford J.

Kilbourne

William E.

Peterson

Mark

(2014), “Sustainability as Megatrend: Two Schools of Macromarketing Thought,” Journal of Macromarketing, 34 (3), 253-264.

67.

Morgan

Neil A.

Vorhies

Douglas W.

Mason

Charlotte H.

(2009), “Market Orientation, Marketing Capabilities, and Firm Performance,” Strategic Marketing Journal, 30 (8), 909-920.

68.

Morgan

Todd

Anoklin

Sergey

Kretinin

Andrey

Frushhammar

Johan

(2015), “The Dark Side of the Entrepreneurial Orientation and Market Orientation Interplay: A New Product Development Perspective,” International Small Business Journal, 33 (7), 731-751.

69.

Morrish

Sussie C.

Eggers

Fabian

Covin

Joffrey G.

Ali

Abdul

(2019), “Perspective on Entrepreneurship and Macromarketing: Introduction to the Special Issue,” Journal of Macromarketing, 39 (4), 353-357.

70.

Narver

John C.

Slater

Stanley F.

(1990), “The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (4), 20-35.

71.

Obel

Borge

Gurkov

Igor

(2023), “Strategic Orientation of the Firm Towards its Stakeholders and Inclination Towards Sustainability – The Conceptual Framework,” International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 31 (2), 462-475.

72.

Pappas

Ilias, O

Woodside

Arch

(2021), “Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fSQCA): Guideline for Research Practice in Information, Systems and Marketing,” International Journal of Information Management, 58, 102310.

73.

Prothero

Andrea

McDonagh

Pierre

(2021), “Ambiguity of Purpose and the Politics of Failure: Sustainability as Macromarketing’s Compelling Political Calling,” Journal of Macromarketing, 41 (1), 166-171.

74.

Prothero

Andrea

McDonagh

Pierre

Dobscha

Susan

(2010), “Is Green the New Black? Reflections on a Green Commodity Discourse,” Journal of Macromarketing, 30 (2), 147-159.

75.

Ragin

Charles C.

(2006), “Set Relations in Social Research: Evaluating Their Consistency and Coverage,” Political Analysis, 14 (3), 291-310.

76.

Ragin

Charles C.

(2008), Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University of Chicago Press.

77.

Ragin

Charles C.

Peer C

Fiss

, “Net Effects Analysis Versus Configurational Analysis: An Empirical Demonstration,” (2016), In Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. C. C. Ragin, ed, University of Chicago Press, 190-212.

78.

Ragin

Charles C.

Davey

Sean

(2016), Fuzzy-Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis3.0. University of California.

79.

Rehman

Shafique Ur

Stefano Bresciani

DorraYahiaoui

Giacosa

Elisa

(2022), “Environmental Sustainability Orientation and Corporate Social Responsibility Influence on Environmental Performance of Small and Medium Enterprises: The Mediating Effect of Green Capability,” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29 (6), 1954-1967.

80.

Roxas

Banjo

Coetzer

Alan

(2012), “Institutional Environment, Managerial Attitudes and Environmental Sustainability Orientation of Small Firms,” Journal of Business Ethics, 111 (4), 461-476.

81.

Rudawska

Edyta

(2018), “From Sustainable Market Orientation to Sustainability Marketing,” in in The Sustainable Marketing Concept in European SMEs, Rudawska

, ed. Emerald Publishing Limited, 53-79.

82.

Schiehll

Eduardo

Lewellynn

Krista B.

Muller-Kahle

Maureen I.

(2018), “Pilot, Pivot and Advisory Boards: The Role of Governance Configurations in Innovation Commitment,” Organization Studies, 39 (10), 1449-1472.

83.

Schmidt

Corinna Vera Hedwig

Kindermann

Bastian

Behlau

Cassian Felix

Flatten

Tessa Christina

(2021), “Understanding the Effect of Market Orientation on Circular Economy Practices: The Mediating Role of Closed-Loop Orientation in German SMEs,” Business Strategy and the Environment, 30 (8), 4171-4187.

84.

Schneider

Carsten Q.

Wagemann

Claudius

(2012), Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences. Cambridge University Press.

85.

Schneider

Carsten Q.

Wagemann

Claudius

(2013), “Doing Justice to Logical Remainders in QCA: Moving Beyond the Standard Analysis,” Political Research Quarterly, 66 (1), 211-220.

86.

Sheth

Jagdish N.

Parvatiyar

Atul

(2021), “Sustainable Marketing: Market-Driving, not Market-Driven,” Journal of Macromarketing, 41 (1), 150-165.

87.

Shou

Yongyi

Shao

Jinan

Lai

Kee-Hung

Kang

Mingu

Park

Youngwon

(2019), “The Impact of Sustainability and Operations Orientations on Sustainable Supply Management and the Triple Bottom Line,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 240, 118-280.

88.

State Bank of Pakistan (2022), “Challenge fund for SMEs,”(accessed January 10, 2023), [available at https://www.sbp.org.pk/smefd/circulars/2022/C4-Annex-A.pdf.].

89.

Tang

Zhi

Tang

Jintong

(2018), “Stakeholder Corporate Social Responsibility Orientation Congruence, Entrepreneurial Orientation and Environmental Performance of Chinese Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises,” British Journal of Management, 29 (4), 634-651.

90.

Thiem

Alrik

(2014), “Unifying Configurational Comparative Methods: Generalized-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis,” Sociological Methods & Research, 43 (2), 313-337.

91.

Tollin

Karin

Christensen

Lars B.

(2019), “Sustainability Marketing Commitment: Empirical Insights About Its Drivers at the Corporate and Functional Level of Marketing,” Journal of Business Ethics, 156 (4), 1165-1185.

92.

UN (2019), The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019. UN.

93.

Van de Ven

Andrew H.

Drazin

Robert

(1985), “The Concept of Fit in Contingency Theory,” in Research in Organizational Behavior, Cummins

Larry L.

Staw

Barry M.

, eds. JAI Press, 333-365.

94.

Varey

Richard, J.

(2010), “Marketing Means and Ends for a Sustainable Society: A Welfare Agenda for Transformative Change,” Journal of Macromarketing, 30 (2), 112-126.

95.

Vătămănescu

Elena-Mădălina

Gazzola

Patrizia

Mihaela Dincă

Violeta

Pezzetti

Roberta

(2017), “Mapping Entrepreneurs’ Orientation Towards Sustainability in Interaction Versus Network Marketing Practices,” Sustainability, 9 (9), 1580.

96.

Woodside

Arch G

Zhang

Mann

(2012), “Identifying X-Consumers Using Causal Recipes: “Whales” and “Jumbo Shrimps” Casino Gamblers,” Journal of Gambling Study, 28 (1), 13-26.

97.

World Bank (2019), “Improving SMEs’ Access to Finance and Finding Innovative Solutions to Unlock,” (accessed May 20, 2022), [available at http://www. documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/316871533711048308/improving-access-to-finance-for-smes-opportunities-through-credit-reporting-secured-lending-and-insolvency-practices].

98.

Yang

Marvello

Jaafar

Norizan

Al Mamun

Abdullah

Salameh

Anas A.

Nawi

Noorshella Che

(2022), “Modelling the Significance of Strategic Orientation for Competitive Advantage and Economic Sustainability: The Use of Hybrid SEM–Neural Network Analysis,” Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 11 (1), 1-28.

99.

York

Jeffrey G.

Venkatraman

Sankaram

(2010), “Entrepreneur-Environment Nexus: Uncertainty, Innovation, and Allocation,” Journal of Business Venturing, 25 (5), 449-463.