Data analysis
The interviews conducted have been reviewed, transcribed, analysed and compared among themselves. Analysis and comparison required a significant amount of time and effort and culminated in the following table that compares various aspects of the different interviewees.| Category | Company 1 | Company 2 | Company 3 | Company 4 | Company 5 |
| Country | Italy | Romania | Greece | Greece | Netherlands |
| Total Employees (EU) | 1,500 | 15 | 280 | 180 | Association of 5,000 member companies |
| Main Suppliers | Italy, Turkey, France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, France, Poland, Bulgaria, and Croatia | Global Suppliers | Mercedes Benz, Setra | Greek Suppliers | No specific suppliers mentioned) |
| EU Directive Awareness | Aware but not detailed | Aware but not detailed | Not aware | Aware of CSRD and Due Diligence Directive | Medium to high awareness |
| Supply Chain Position | Part of Large Company’s supply chain | Not part of Large Company’s supply chain | Not part of Large Company’s supply chain | Not part of Large Company’s supply chain | Association of companies |
| Voluntary Changes for Sustainability | Yes | No | No | Yes | LCs and SMEs generally have internal strategies |
| Sustainability Reporting | Collection of data through a questionnaire | No clear plans | No plans for reporting | Yes, willing to use a platform for reporting, networking, and educational tools | Large companies report on their own emissions and ask for data on their supply chain |
| Sustainability Management | Centralised sustainability department | Sustainability managed by internal departments | Decisions made by owners; no dedicated sustainability department | Considering a partner for sustainability; cost is a relevant criterion | LCs focus on environmental, social, and governance aspects |
| Interest in Sustainability Platform | Positive, interested in using a platform for reporting and networking, willing to pay if it brings benefits | Negative, not willing to use, prefers ESG reporting in their software | Negative, not willing to use | Positive, willing to use for reporting, networking, and educational tools, not sure if willing to pay | Positive but cautious about data usage; emphasizes the need for reducing CO2 emissions |
Table 2 – Key aspects of companies interviewed.
As part of the data analysis, the author considered it appropriate to analyse the sample of research according to the strategic sustainability behaviour categories (Figure 1), a framework developed in the article – Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: a systematic review – written by Klewitz and Hansen[1], providing an evaluation of a company’s commitment to sustainability improvements. The diverse categories are further analysed by considering factors such as profit function, goals, and interaction with external factors (Table 3).
Figure 1 – Integrated framework for SOI practices of SMEs.
Source: J. Klewitz, E.G. Hansen / Journal of Cleaner Production 65 (2014) 57-75.| Strategic behaviour | Profit function | Goals | Interaction with external actors |
| Resistant | Ignorance of environmental and social factors, no ambition | Compliance | No interaction |
| Reactive | Environmental or social issues are seen as an additional cost, response to external pressure like regulation | Compliance and limited action beyond | Limited interaction |
| Anticipatory | Consideration of environmental and social factor can reduce costs, attempt to stay ahead of regulation | Ahead of compliance and tangible cost reduction | Low interaction |
| Innovation-based | Consideration of environmental and social factors can lead to market success in the form of differentiation | Differentiation | Medium interaction |
| Sustainability-rooted | Integration of economic, environmental, and social aspects define core business | Market transformation | High interaction |
Table 3 – Extended taxonomy for strategic sustainability behaviours.
Source: J. Klewitz, E.G. Hansen / Journal of Cleaner Production 65 (2014) 57-75. The feedback from the interviews with the companies reveals a diverse landscape of approaches and attitudes toward sustainability and compliance. Company 1, with its centralised sustainability department and significant workforce, demonstrates an awareness of sustainability directives and actively engages in voluntary changes and reporting. In contrast, Company 2 seems less inclined to adopt external platforms, preferring embedded ESG reporting in its software. Company 3 lacks awareness of EU directives and is less open to voluntary changes or using online platforms for sustainability. Company 4 stands out with its awareness of EU directives and a positive outlook on using platforms for reporting and networking. Lastly, Company 5 underscores a medium to high awareness level among road transportation companies, emphasizing the importance of collaboration in achieving sustainability goals. The following scheme (Table 4) categorises the companies interviewed into the strategic sustainability behaviour framework. Overall, the feedback reflects a spectrum of responses, highlighting the diverse approaches in different countries.| Resistant | Company 3 | ||||
| Reactive | Company 1 | Company 2 | Company 4 | ||
| Anticipatory | |||||
| Innovation-based | Company 5 | ||||
| Sustainability-rooted |
Table 4 – Categorization of the companies into the framework adopted.<
[1]Brand, F.S., Berger, V., Hetze, K., Schmidt, J.E., Weber, M.C., Winistörfer, H. and Daub, C.H. (2018), “Overcoming current practical challenges in sustainability and integrated reporting: insights from a Swiss field study”, Sustainability Management Forum, Vol. 26 Nos 1/4, pp. 35-46.