Ajbed 23021302

Advance Journal of Business & Entrepreneurship Development
Adv. J. Bus. Ent. Dev.

Volume: 7; Issue: 01,
January-February, 2023
ISSN: 4405-3914 (Print Version)
ISSN: 2507-4309 (Electronic Version)
Impact Factor: 4.03
Advance Scholars Publication
Published by International Institute of Advance Scholars Development
https://aspjournals.org/ajbed/index.php/ajbed
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL

PERFORMANCE IN SELECTED TABLE WATER
MANUFACTURING COMPANIES IN BENIN CITY NIGERIA
Oguh Festus A. And Onaghise Osagie C.

Department of Business Administration Wellspring University Benin City Edo State Nigeria
Mail:festusoguh1970@gmail.com & merrycollins316@gmail.com
Keywords: Abstract: This study explored the effect of corporate sustainability on
Environmental organizational performance in selected table water manufacturing companies
sustainability, in Benin City. The specific objectives were to examine the effect of
Economic environmental, economic and social sustainability on customer satisfaction in
sustainability, selected table water manufacturing companies in Benin City. The study applied
Social structured questionnaires to a sample size of 372 respondents drawn using Taro
sustainability Yamane. The data generated was analyzed using both descriptive and
and Financial inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics such as frequencies and means were
performance used; inferential statistics such as Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Coefficient was used. The findings of the study showed that there was a
statistically significant effect between environmental, economic and social
sustainability and customer satisfaction in table water manufacturing
companies in Benin City. Based on the findings of this study, and in line with its
specific objectives, environmental, economic and social sustainability are
important variables influencing the performance of table water manufacturing
companies in Edo State, Nigeria. It is recommended that the companies need to
maintain their consistencies in sustaining these measures because of the benefits
they gain.
Introduction Global Reporting Initiative Sustainability Report

Corporate sustainability practices are recognized (2009), disclosure provides reporting companies
as the foundation for an entity's continuity and with a wide range of intangible benefits, such as
success in the green revolution era. Finally, firms employee loyalty and consumer reputation. The
have recently adopted sustainability strategies to pursuit of sustainability has prompted
gain a competitive advantage. Firms have businesses to develop and implement deliberate
accepted and integrated sustainability practices measures and strategies to improve the
into their organizational strategy and activities, environmental, economic, and social dimensions
according to the Global Reporting Initiative of corporate sustainability. Though corporate
Sustainability Report (2009). According to the sustainability contributes to enhancing a firm’s
Oguh Festus A. and Onaghise Osagie C.
42
Impact Factor: 4.03
competitive advantage and innovation their credibility, trust, brand reputation, achieve
capabilities, the outcome of studies in this cost savings, meet customer needs, raise market
domain has provided mixed outcomes. Some standards, improve employee engagement,
studies argue there is a clear liaison between talent acquisition, ability to comply with
some dimensions of corporate sustainability and regulations, and so on. All of these factors can
firm performance. Others report negative impact have a negative impact on the organization's
and the remainder neutral. Economic gains by ability to achieve its goals and objectives.
far serve as the underlying factor for corporate Although there have been some studies on
sustainability practices Nikolaou, Tsalis, and corporate sustainability, none on corporate
Evangelinos (2019); Laskar (2018). The sustainability and organizational performance in
rationale for this outcome can be attributed to selected table water manufacturing companies in
less attention placed on the role of external Benin City. This therefore is the research gap
agents in the organizational setting. Since that this study wants to fill. The main aim of this
organizations rely on other entities in the study is to examine the effect of corporate
institutional setting to achieve their strategic sustainability on organizational performance in
goals and objectives, it is prudent to ascertain selected table water manufacturing companies in
how external factors influence the association Benin City, Nigeria. Specifically, this study
between corporate sustainability and firm intends to:
performance.  Evaluate the effect of environmental
Every organization is designed to achieve sustainability on customer satisfaction in
specific goals and objectives. Organizational selected table water manufacturing
performance is solely determined by how well it companies in Benin City, Nigeria.
achieves its stated goals and objectives. Today's  Examine the effect of economic
society is grappling with the issue of sustainability on customer satisfaction in
organizational performance assurance, selected table water manufacturing
particularly achieving success in an increasingly companies in Benin City, Nigeria.
competitive market (Doval, 2020) Corporate  To investigate the effect of social
sustainability practices can significantly improve sustainability on customer satisfaction in
a company's performance by providing the selected table water manufacturing
necessary leverage to enter new markets and companies in Benin City, Nigeria.
opportunities, improve customer satisfaction Research Questions
and loyalty, and boost the organization's  What is the effect of environmental
competitive advantage. sustainability on customer satisfaction in
It is critical for businesses to implement selected table water manufacturing
corporate sustainability measures in order to run companies in Benin City, Nigeria?
smoothly. When companies fail to implement  Does economic sustainability have effect
corporate sustainability measures, their on customer satisfaction in selected table
competitive advantage and innovation
capabilities suffer; they may struggle to improve
43
Impact Factor: 4.03
water manufacturing companies in Benin development literally refers to the ability to

City, Nigeria? regenerate and the stability of the ecosystems.
 How does social sustainability have effect Environmental sustainability (Costanza and
on customer satisfaction in selected table Daly, 1992) is the conservation of natural capital
water manufacturing companies in Benin achieved by limiting the use of renewable
City, Nigeria? resources to sustainable yield levels and
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE reinvesting nonrenewable resources in
Corporate Sustainability renewable resources. Similarly, natural
There is no agreement on what constitutes resources should not be harvested before they
corporate sustainability; various authors have can regenerate, and waste should not be
proposed various definitions. Earlier definitions produced faster than it can be absorbed by the
of corporate sustainability practices tended to environment (Goodland and Daly, 1996).
emphasize environmental concerns. Corporate Economic Sustainability:
sustainability is an organizational goal that Based on Solow’s (1974) theory, economic
meets current organizational needs without sustainability is the equal share of wealth and
jeopardizing the capacity of future generations resources among generations. Economic
Frempong, Mu, Adu, Hossin, and Gyamfi (2021). sustainability is also defined as the act of
Dyllick and Hockerts (2022) define corporate maintaining resources for future benefit while
sustainability as a continuous and transitional maximizing the flow of income and consumption
process in which a company seeks to deliver of the firm (Hicks,1946; Maler, 1990). Moreover,
fiscal, societal, and ecological value to both it is also a production system that fulfills current
internal and external stakeholders. Corporate demands without harming future needs (Lobo,
sustainability and corporate social Pietriga, and Appert, 2015). Regarding the
responsibility– refer to companies system, “an economically sustainable system
demonstrating the inclusion of economic, social must be able to produce goods and services on a
and environmental concerns in business continuing basis, to maintain manageable levels
operations and in interactions with stakeholders of government and external debt, and to avoid
Amini and Bienstock (2014) extreme sectoral imbalances which damage
Dimensions of Corporate Sustainability agricultural or industrial production”
Overall, scholars agree today that corporate (Monivibol, 2021)
sustainability has three main interdependent Social sustainability:
dimensions consisting of environmental, This is mainly about accessibility, fairness,
economic and social sustainability Hahn, Pinkse, empowerment, equity, institutional stability as
Preuss, and Figge (2015). well as cultural identity (Daly, 1992). The
Environmental sustainability: concept is mainly about people because people
Environmental sustainability is concerned with are the concerns of development (Monivibol,
the earth's ecosystem and how to preserve all of 2021). The goal of social sustainability is to
the natural environment's resources in order to reduce vulnerability and retain social health and
support human life. This aspect of sustainable cultural systems (Monivibol, 2021). Similarly,
44
Impact Factor: 4.03
Litting and Griebler (2005) also stated that Customer Satisfaction

social sustainability is a social organization Customer satisfaction refers to a client's overall
system that seeks to ease poverty. Besides evaluation of a firm based on the total purchase
poverty, social sustainability is also connected to and consumption experience over a period of
environmental destruction. Monivibol (2021) as time (Fornell, 1992). Štreimikienė, Navikaitė,
well as the economic resource on which the and Varanavičius (2016), described customer
society relies on Scopelliti, Molinario, Bonaiuto, satisfaction as “an emotional reaction which
Bonnes, Cicero, De Dominicis, and Bonaiuto highly depends on the fact whether the
(2018). Other issues including education customer’s needs and expectations are realized
equality, gender equity, proper healthcare, or not”.
human rights, peace, and stability, are all Angelova and Zekiri (2011) opined that customer
matters of social sustainability Guo (2017). satisfaction majorly depends on these factors:
Benefits of Corporate Sustainability “friendly employees, courteous employees,
More potential sources of revenue, improved knowledgeable employees, helpful employees,
customer loyalty, more efficient use of resources, accuracy of billing, billing timeliness,
cost savings, greater pricing power, meeting competitive pricing, service quality, good value,
customers' needs, raising market standards, billing clarity and quick service” .
improving employee engagement, enhanced Environment Sustainability and
talent acquisition, enhanced ability to comply Customer Satisfaction
with regulation, and a stronger brand are all He and Lai (2014) conducted a study among
benefits of sustainability (Monivibol, 2021). Hong Kong personal care product consumers,
Organizational performance concluding that companies perceived as more
The actual output or results of an organization as ethical, law-abiding, and environmentally
measured against its intended outputs comprise conscious can benefit from higher customer
organizational performance (or goals and satisfaction and loyalty, with the positive
objectives). The organizational performance is relationship mediated by brand image.
determined first and foremost by how it is Companies' environmental performance reflects
managed, and then by the employees' active and the success of their environmental management
correct participation in achieving the companies' initiatives; therefore, by improving their
strategic goals (2020). Organizational environmental performance, businesses will be
performance, according to Richard, Devinney, better able to increase customer confidence in
Yip, and Johnson (2009), includes three distinct their environmental management initiatives. It
areas of firm outcomes: Profitability (profits, is expected that such confidence will lead to
return on assets, return on investment, and so greater identification and desirability for
on); Product market performance (sales, market companies' goods and services, which will
share, and so on); and Shareholder return (total eventually lead to customer satisfaction as value
shareholder return, economic value-added, etc.). perceptions and expectations are met
(Mendonca and Yan Zhou, 2019).
45
Impact Factor: 4.03
Economic Sustainability and Customer Theoretical Framework

Satisfaction Stakeholder Theory
Economic sustainability refers to the act of This work is going to be based on the Stakeholder
preserving resources for future benefit while Theory by Freeman and Reed (1983}. Recent
maximizing the business's income flow. ‘ Profit, theories on corporations argue for the
prosperity, or the economic bottom line all refer stakeholder perspective and emphasize long run
to the economic value created by a company. The sustainability over the shareholder perspective
economic value created, or profit itself, must be and profit maximization.
evaluated from the perspective of society as a The stakeholder perspective or theory argues
whole; if the evaluation is positive, customers that the corporation exists not only for the
will patronize the firm's goods and services, and benefit of shareholders, but for that of the
if impressed with the goods and services stakeholders: employees, suppliers, customers
purchased, customers will be satisfied. and to some extent for the benefits of society. It
More recently, Lee, Park, Kwon, and Pobil (2015) departs from single-objective optimization
discovered that adopting economic centered on the shareholder in favor of multiple-
sustainability principles in telecom companies objective optimization for stakeholders.
increases customer satisfaction, resulting in Alternatively, Freeman and Reed (1983) argue
higher loyalty in terms of repurchase, word of that the corporation owes it to all of its
mouth, and willingness to pay premium prices. stakeholders, including shareholders, to act in
Social Sustainability and Customer their best interests. The manager should be
Satisfaction concerned about all value chain partners and
When businesses engage in societal development serve the interests of all stakeholders
and repair, their customers have the opportunity (shareholders, employees, creditors, customers,
to help societal development and repair as a and communities). According to Freeman,
result of their association with those businesses. Wicks, and Parmar (2004), stakeholder theory is
This opportunity is more likely to result in consistent with shareholder theory and that the
customers being more satisfied with a company's goal of maximizing stakeholder value is pro-
goods and services. Furthermore, customers are shareholder.
more likely to perceive perceived quality and This theory is important for this study because it
perceived value from companies that contribute provides a better way for corporations to think
to broader societal development. These are likely about entrepreneurial management and risks.
to increase customer satisfaction. Sullivan and Corporations should be concerned not only with
Anderson (1993). profits, but also with food safety and
Vlachos, Tsamakos, Vrechopoulos, and contributions to the benefit of nature and future
Avramidis (2009) reached a similar conclusion, generations.
indicating that appropriately motivated social Empirical Review
responsibility actions can positively affect Gerdt, Wagner, and Schewe (2019) used eWOM
customer satisfaction and loyalty through (electronic word of mouth) as a data source to
corporate brand trust. conduct an exploratory investigation of the
46
Impact Factor: 4.03
relationship between sustainable development sustainability-oriented supplier partnership has

and customer satisfaction in the hospitality no positive influence on the relationship between
industry. The study was conducted in the environmental, economic, and firm
hospitality industry, and 52,493 reviews from performance. Green innovation capabilities
106 hotels in Germany were collected and indirectly influence the effect of social and
analyzed. The study's findings demonstrated economic sustainability on firm performance
that sustainability influences customer except for environmental sustainability.
satisfaction, particularly when the hotel directly Albatayneh (2014) conducted research on the
presents it to guests. However, some relationship between efficiency strategy,
sustainability measures, such as water-saving sustainability performance, and corporate
showerheads, reduce guest comfort and are financial performance in Jordan's service and
perceived negatively by guests. Westin, industry sectors. The two dimensions of
Hallencreutz and Parmler (2022) conducted a corporate efficiency strategy are socio-efficiency
study in which they estimated a Sustainable and eco-efficiency. Corporate sustainability
Development Index (SDI) as a simple survey performance is measured in two dimensions:
item that was used to estimate customer corporate social performance and corporate
perceptions. The research data consists of cross- environmental performance, whereas corporate
sectional multi-industry customer perception financial performance is measured using ROI
data from 606 final respondents. The findings (return on investment), ROA (return on asset),
provide empirical support for the constructed sales growth, and profit growth. The information
index relation as an approximation of universal was gathered through a mail survey sent directly
SD items and a driving factor in the customer to company managers involved in social and
experience. environmental performance. In 2011, 232
Frempong, Mu, Adu M, Hossin, and Adu S service and industry companies listed on the
(2021) conducted research to investigate the Amman Stock Exchange were sent
impact of corporate sustainability on firm questionnaires, and 101 (43.5%) responded. The
performance by examining the indirect effect of analysis used the linear and multiple regressions
a firm's sustainability-oriented supplier of analysis of the data. The study found out that
partnership and green innovation capabilities. sustainability performance and efficiency
Using a list provided by the Association of Ghana strategy lead to greater financial performance.
Industries, data was collected from management Corporate sustainability performance was found
personnel, officers, and experts in the Ghana to be partially mediating the relationship
manufacturing sector to answer the research between efficiency strategy and the financial
question. The empirical study supports seven (7) performance model.
of the eight (8) hypotheses stated. The findings Abdulsattar, Najm, and Jasser (2017) conducted
suggest that a supplier partnership focused on a study to investigate the sustainability
sustainability indirectly influences the impact of indicators in Jordan's pharmaceutical industry
social sustainability practices on a firm's and the impact of the three dimensions of
performance. According to the same findings, a sustainability (economic, social, and
47
Impact Factor: 4.03
environmental) on organizational performance Benin city. The population of this study was
(market share, profitability, and organization made up of 5247 customers of the three selected
expansion). The study's sample included 180 table water manufacturing companies namely
managerial staff members drawn at random Notre-Dame International Company Limited,
from three major pharmaceutical companies: Al- Cway Integrated Benin Limited, and Olivia
Hikma Pharmaceutical Co., Dar Al Dawa, and Water Limited between the years 2021 to 2022
Ram Pharma. To test the study's hypotheses, the in Benin City. Primary and secondary sources of
collected data was carefully reviewed and data were explored in extracting useful
analyzed using appropriate statistical tools. The information for this study. The primary source of
findings indicate that all three dimensions of data consisted of the questionnaire while the
sustainability have an impact on organizational secondary sources of data consisted of data
performance. generated from, websites, theses, textbooks, and
Ovidiu (2018) conducted a study to compare the journals.A structured questionnaire was
impact of customer-based perceptual corporate developed and administered to the respondents.
sustainability on customer loyalty in four The instrument adopted a five-point Likert scale.
important industries in a developing country Each item on the Likert scale was rated. The scale
(mobile telecommunications services, retail was anchored as follows: 1 = undecided, 2 =
banking services, dairy products, and personal strongly disagree, 3 = disagree, 4 = agree, 5 =
care products). A consumer survey was strongly agree. The questionnaire was designed
conducted among 1464 consumers from a according to the objectives of the research study.
developing European country's urban area. Table 1: Population of the Table Water
According to the findings, customer-based Manufacturing Companies
perceptual corporate sustainability has a S/N Table Water Population of
significant and positive impact on customer Manufacturing Customers
loyalty in all investigated industries, with a Companies
greater impact in retail banking services and a 1 Notre-Dame International 2078
Company Limited
lower impact in personal care products. 2 Cway Integrated Benin 1443
Based on the findings of the literature reviewed, Limited
it was observed that none of the studies had 3 Olivia Water Limited 1726
carried out any research on corporate
Total 5247
sustainability and organizational performance in
selected table water manufacturing companies in Source: Researcher’s field survey, 2023
Benin city. This therefore is the research gap that Sample size and Sampling Techniques
this study wants to fill. The sample size was obtained using Taro
METHODOLOGY Yamane’s formula which is given as;
The study employed descriptive survey research n= N
design to find out the effect of corporate 1 + N (e)2
sustainability on organizational performance in Where: n = Sample size
selected table water manufacturing companies in N = Total Population
48
Impact Factor: 4.03
e = sampling error (0.05) or 5% supervisor examined the items to determine if

Where N = 5247 they were related to the objectives of the study.
Substituting in the formula, we have He offered useful suggestions and corrections
n= 5247 after examining the instruments which were
1+5247 (0.05) 2 effected by the researcher.
n= 5247 Reliability of Instrument
1+5247 (0.0025) The reliability test of the questionnaire
n= 5247 was done using Cronbach’s Alpha at 0.05 level of
1+13.1175 significance. The results of the reliability test are
n = 5247 shown in table 1 below:
14.1175 Table 2: Cronbach Alpha
=372 Cronbach’s Cronbach’s Alpha No of Items
Hence, the sample size of the study is 372 Alpha Based on
Methods of Data Analysis Standardized
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Items
ver. 23 program was used in the data analysis. .843 .847 28
The study used both descriptive and inferential Computation: SPSS ver. 23
statistics for data analysis. Descriptive statistics, A correlation coefficient of 0.843 was obtained
such as frequencies, and mean scores were used with the aid of Statistical Package for Social
for data analysis. Inferential statistics such as Science (SPSS) ver. 23. The result revealed that
Pearson Product Moment Correlation the instrument is reliable.
Coefficient was used in analyzing the DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
relationship between the dependent and Administration of Research Instrument
independent variables of the hypotheses at 5% A total number of 372 copies of the questionnaire
level of significance. were administered to the respondents using
Validity of Instrument three research assistants. 348 copies of the
The research instrument was validated through questionnaire that were fully and properly filled
content validity. Draft copies of the were retrieved giving a recovery rate of 93.5%.
questionnaire together with the objectives of the Analysis of Questionnaire
study, research questions and hypothesis were Analysis of Responses in the
submitted to the researcher’s supervisor; the Questionnaire.
TABLE 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
S/N ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY UD SD D A SA N Mean
PARAMETERS
1 2 3 4 5
1 Diligent in the use of environmentally friendly 0 0 0 21 327 348 4.94

materials.
2 Concerned with waste management and 0 0 10 0 338 348 4.94
recycling.
49
Impact Factor: 4.03
3 Strives to minimize the consumption of natural 0 0 32 44 272 348 4.69

resources.
4 Diligent in reducing air and land pollution. 0 0 32 45 271 348 4.69
5 The organization views environmental 0 0 22 44 282 348 4.75

sustainability practices as a critical tool for
success in a green environment.
6 The company prefers to work with partners and 0 0 11 1 336 348 4.93
other organizations that have environmental
certifications.
7 The organization intentionally implements 0 0 11 35 302 348 4.84

measures to promote the offering of
environmentally friendly products and services.
Average Mean 4.83
Source: Researcher’s field survey, 2023
From the above table, the average mean is 4.83, that the respective organizations are
this implies that the respondents strongly agreed environmentally sustainable.
TABLE 4: ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
S/N UD SD D A SA N Mean
ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
PARAMETERS
1 2 3 4 5
1 The company strives to increase profits from 0 0 0 23 325 348 4.93

its activity.
2 The company creates and sustains jobs in the 0 0 11 0 337 348 4.94
region.
3 The organization contributes to limiting 0 0 26 57 265 348 4.69
poverty
4 The company has gained access to new market 0 0 28 54 266 348 4.68
opportunities as a result of supplying green
products.
5 The company strives for economic success 0 0 20 49 279 348 4.74
without compromising social or
environmental factors.
6 Income from green practices has a beneficial 0 0 11 2 335 348 4.93
influence on the firm.
7 The organization views economic 0 0 11 35 302 348 4.84
sustainability practices as a critical tool for
progress in a green environment.
Average Mean 4.82
50
Impact Factor: 4.03
From the above table, the average mean is 4.82, that the respective organizations are
this implies that the respondents strongly agreed economically sustainable.
TABLE 5: SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
S/N SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY UD SD D A SA N Mean
PARAMETERS
1 2 3 4 5
1 The organization contributes to the welfare 0 0 0 24 324 348 4.93

and the quality of life of the people in the
region.
2 The company supports cultural and social 0 0 11 2 335 348 4.93
events.
3 Collaborates with other companies in the 0 0 21 59 268 348 4.71
region in solving societal problems.
4 Helps in the redistribution of wealth 0 0 25 52 271 348 4.71
5 Working to prevent child labour. 0 0 19 52 277 348 4.74
6 The organization has established a secured 0 0 10 3 335 348 4.93
healthy work environment.
7 Treat their employees without prejudice with 0 0 9 38 301 348 4.84
regard to their gender, ethnicity, and religion.
Average Mean 4.83
From the above table, the average mean is 4.83, that the respective organizations are socially
this implies that the respondents strongly agreed sustainable.
TABLE 6: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
S/N CUSTOMER SATISFACTION UD SD D A SA N Mean
PARAMETERS
1 2 3 4 5
1 Employees in the company are courteous with 0 0 0 22 326 348 4.94
customers.
2 The company’s employees are neat-appearing. 0 0 14 3 331 348 4.91
3 Service delivery in line with promises. 0 0 29 56 263 348 4.67

4 The company provides easy access and clarity 0 0 33 56 259 348 4.65
of information when needed.
5 Prompt speed of dealing with matters. 0 0 21 50 277 348 4.74
6 The company produces quality products. 0 0 12 1 335 348 4.93
7 The company insists on error free records. 0 0 12 32 304 348 4.84
Average Mean 4.81
51
Impact Factor: 4.03
From the above table, the average mean is 4.81,

this implies that the respondents are strongly
satisfied with the respective organizations.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Computation: SPSS ver.23
Table 7: Summary of the Correlation Result of the Hypothesis.
Environmental Economic Social Customer

Sustainability Sustainability Sustainability Satisfaction
Environmental Pearson
1 .222** .091 .156**
Sustainability Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .092 .003
N 348 348 348 348
Economic Sustainability Pearson
.222** 1 .104 .128*
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .052 .016
N 348 348 348 348
Social Sustainability Pearson
.091 .104 1 .213**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .092 .052 .000
N 348 348 348 348
Customer Satisfaction Pearson
.156** .128* .213** 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .016 .000
N 348 348 348 348
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
The above table indicates, that Environmental Discussion of Findings
Sustainability and Customer Satisfaction have a The findings above depicts that there was a
correlation coefficient of 0.156, and a p-value of significant effect between Environmental
0.003, this indicates a very weak relationship Sustainability and Customer Satisfaction. This
and it is statistically significant. Economic finding is consistent with previous findings of He
Sustainability and Customer Satisfaction have a and Lai (2014); Mendonca and Yan Zhou (2019)
correlation coefficient of 0.128 and a p-value of who postulated that environmental
0.016 this indicates a very weak relationship and sustainability has a significant effect on
it is statistically significant. Social Sustainability customer satisfaction.
and Customer Satisfaction have a correlation The findings above depicts that there was a
coefficient of 0.213 and a p-value of 0.000 this significant effect between Economic
indicates a weak relationship and it is Sustainability and Customer Satisfaction. This
statistically significant. finding is consistent with previous findings of
52
Impact Factor: 4.03
Lee, Park, Kwon, and Pobil (2015), who Retrieved from

postulated that economic sustainability has a http://www.ijeronline.com
significant effect on customer satisfaction.
The findings above depicts that there was a Albatayneh, S. (2014). The effect of corporate
significant effect between Social Sustainability sustainability performance on the
and Customer Satisfaction. This finding is relationship between corporate efficiency
consistent with previous findings of Anderson strategy and corporate financial
and Sullivan (1993); Vlachos, Tsamakos, performance (Unpublished doctoral
Vrechopoulos and Avramidis (2009) who all thesis), Universiti Utara, Malaysia.
postulated that social sustainability has a
Amini, M., and Bienstock, C. (2014). Corporate
significant effect on customer satisfaction.
sustainability: An integrative definition
Conclusion and Recommendations
and framework to evaluate corporate
Based on the findings, it is concluded that
practice and guide academic research.
environmental, economic and social
Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 12–19.
sustainability are important variables
influencing the performance of table water Anderson, E.W., and Sullivan, M.W. (1993). The
manufacturing. It is therefore recommended antecedents and consequences of
amongst others that: the organizations should customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing
put all the necessary amount of efforts and Science. 1(12), 125–143.
resources towards developing environmental,
economic and socially sustainable measures that Angelova, B., and Zekiri, J.(2011). “Measuring
are appealing to their customers; the Customer Satisfaction with Service Quality
organizations should maintain their Using American Customer Satisfaction
consistencies in building environmentally Model (ACSI Model)”, International
sustainable organizations that have significant Journal of Academic Research in Business
effect on customer satisfaction; the & Social Sciences, 1(3), 232-258.
organizations should also uphold their
consistencies in building economically Common, M., and Perrings, C. (1992). Towards
sustainable organizations that would have an ecological economics of sustainability.
significant effect on customer satisfaction; the Ecological Economics, 6(1), 7-34.
organizations should continue to be socially doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-
responsible organizations that could keep their 8009(92)90036-R
customer. Costanza, R., and Daly, H. (1992). Natural
REFERENCES capital and sustainable development.
Abdulsattar, H. Y., Najm, A.N., and Jasser A. N. Conservation Biology, 6(1), 37-46.
(2017). Sustainability and its role in
organizational performance in the Daly, H. E. (1992). Allocation, distribution, and
Jordanian pharmaceutical industry. scale: towards an economics that is
53
Impact Factor: 4.03
efficient, just, and sustainable. Ecological Gerdt, S. O., and Wagner, E., and Schewe, G.
Economics, 6(3), 185-193. (2019). The relationship between
sustainability and customer satisfaction in
Doval (2020). Organizational performance by hospitality: An explorative investigation
the process of knowledge creation. Review using eWOM as a data source. Tourism
of General Management, 32(2). Management, 74, 155-172.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.20
Dyllick, T., and Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the
19.02.010
business case for corporate sustainability.
Business Strategy and the Environment, Global Reporting Initiative Sustainability
11(2), 130-141. Report. (2009). Global Reporting
Initiative. Retrieved from
European Institute of Public Administration
https://www.globalreporting.org/reso...Su
(2009). Customer satisfaction
stainability-Report-2008-2009.pdf
management . Retrieved from https://
www.eipa.eu Goodland, R., and Daly, H. (1996).
Environmental sustainability: universal
Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer
and nonnegotiable. Ecological
satisfaction barometer: The Swedish
Applications, 6(4), 1002-1017.
experience. Journal of Marketing, 56(1),
6-21. doi:10.2307/1252129 Guo, F. (2017). The spirit and characteristic of
the general provisions of civil law. Law
Frempong, M.F., Mu, Y. I., Adu-Gyamfi, M.,
and Economics, 3, 5-16.
Hossin, M.A., and Adu-Yeboah, S.S.,
(2021). Corporate sustainability and firm Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., and Figge, F.
performance: The Role of Green (2015). Tensions in corporate
Innovation Capabilities and Sustainability sustainability: towards an integrative
Oriented Supplier–Buyer Relationship. framework. Journal of Business Ethics,
Sustainability 2021, 13, 10414. 127(2), 297–316.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ su131810414
He, Y., and Lai, K. K., (2014). The effect of
Freeman, R.E., and Reed, D.L., (1983). corporate social responsibility on brand
Stakeholders and stakeholders: A new loyalty: The mediating role of brand image.
perspective on corporate governance. Total Quality Management and Business
California Management Review, 88-106 Excellence, 25(3–4), 249–263
Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A.C., and Parmar B.L., Hicks, J. (1946). Value and Capital. Oxford, UK:
(2004). Stakeholder theory: The corporate Oxford University Press In.
objective revisited, Organization Science,
364-369 .Laskar (2018). Impact of corporate
sustainability reporting on firm
54
Impact Factor: 4.03
performance: an empirical examination in Nikolaou, T., Tsalis, A., and Evangelinos, K.

Asia. Journal of Asia Business Studies. (2019). A framework to measure corporate
sustainability performance: A strong
Lee, S., Park, E., Kwon, S., and Pobil, A. (2015). sustainability-based view of the firm.
Antecedents of behavioral intention to use Sustain. Prod. Consum.
mobile telecommunication services:
Effects of corporate social responsibility Ovidiu, L. M. (2018). From perceptual corporate
and technology acceptance. sustainability to customer loyalty: A multi-
Sustainability, 7(8), 11345–11359. sectorial investigation in a developing
country, Economic Research Ekonomska
Litting, B., and Griebler, E. (2005). Our common Istraživanja, 31(1), 55-72. DOI:
future, world commission on environment 10.1080/1331677X.2017.1421998
and development New York.
International Journal of Sustainable Richard, P., Devinney, T., Yip, G., Johnson, G.
Development, 8, 65–79. Brundtland (2009). Measuring Organizational
commission. Performance: Towards methodological
best practice. Journal of Management,
Lobo, M., Pietriga, E., and Appert, C. (2015). An 35(3), DOI:
evaluation of interactive map comparison 10.1177/0149206308330560.
techniques. In Proceedings of the 33rd
Annual ACM Conference on Human Scopelliti, M., Molinario, E., Bonaiuto, F.,
Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3573– Bonnes, M., Cicero, L., De Dominicis, S.
3582): Association for Computing and Bonaiuto, M. (2018). What makes you
Machinery. a ‘hero’ for nature? Sociopsychological
profiling of leaders committed to nature
Maler, K.G. (1990). Economic theory and and biodiversity protection across seven
environmental degradation: A survey of EU countries. Journal of Environmental
some problems. Revista de Análisis Planning and Management, 61(5-6), 970-
Económico, 5(2), 7-17. 993.
doi:10.1080/09640568.2017.1421526
Mendonca, T., and Zhou, Y. (2019).What does
targeting ecological sustainability mean Solow, R. (1974). Тhe economic of resources and
for company financial performance? Bus. the resources of economics: NY:
Strategy Environ. 1–11 McGrawHill.
Monivibol, R. (2021). Perception of sustainable Štreimikienė, D., Navikaitė, A., and
development of cambodian coffee shop on Varanavičius, V. (2016). Company’s value
customer satisfaction: An independent creation via customer satisfaction and
study (Unpublished masters thesis), environmental sustainability influence.
Burapha University, Cambodia. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 12(4),
55
Impact Factor: 4.03
19-28.
doi:https://doi.org/10.14254/1800-
5845/2016.12-4.2
Vlachos, P., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A. and
Avramidis, P. K. (2009). Corporate social
responsibility: Attributions, loyalty and
the mediating role of trust. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2),
170–180.
Westin, L., Hallencreutz, J., and Parmler, J.
(2022) Sustainable development as a
driver for customer experience.
Sustainability 14, 3505. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su14063505
56

Ajbed 23021302

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ajbed 23021302

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ajbed 23021302

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advance Journal of Business & Entrepreneurship Development

Adv. J. Bus. Ent. Dev.

CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AND ORGANIZATIONAL

Oguh Festus A. And Onaghise Osagie C.

Introduction Global Reporting Initiative Sustainability Report

water manufacturing companies in Benin development literally refers to the ability to

Litting and Griebler (2005) also stated that Customer Satisfaction

Oguh Festus A. and Onaghise Osagie C.

Economic Sustainability and Customer Theoretical Framework

relationship between sustainable development sustainability-oriented supplier partnership has

e = sampling error (0.05) or 5% supervisor examined the items to determine if

1 Diligent in the use of environmentally friendly 0 0 0 21 327 348 4.94

Oguh Festus A. and Onaghise Osagie C.

3 Strives to minimize the consumption of natural 0 0 32 44 272 348 4.69

5 The organization views environmental 0 0 22 44 282 348 4.75

7 The organization intentionally implements 0 0 11 35 302 348 4.84

1 The company strives to increase profits from 0 0 0 23 325 348 4.93

Oguh Festus A. and Onaghise Osagie C.

1 The organization contributes to the welfare 0 0 0 24 324 348 4.93

2 The company’s employees are neat-appearing. 0 0 14 3 331 348 4.91

3 Service delivery in line with promises. 0 0 29 56 263 348 4.67

From the above table, the average mean is 4.81,

Environmental Economic Social Customer

Oguh Festus A. and Onaghise Osagie C.

Lee, Park, Kwon, and Pobil (2015), who Retrieved from

Oguh Festus A. and Onaghise Osagie C.

performance: an empirical examination in Nikolaou, T., Tsalis, A., and Evangelinos, K.

Oguh Festus A. and Onaghise Osagie C.

Oguh Festus A. and Onaghise Osagie C.

You might also like