2. Non responsiveness is that the firms do not regard social and natural environment as objects of exploitation. However the firm excludes the social and natural concern from the decision making process. 3. Compliance is that the firm pays attention to the natural and social environment for the purpose of legal compliance. 4. Efficiency is that the firm generating environmental issues if only the cost benefit is obvious. 5. Strategy pro activity is that the firm actively develops innovation for the purpose of competitive advantages. 6. The sustainability firm is that the firm cooperate with social and natural interests for the purpose of the firm’s and human welfare and natural renewal There are several alternatives to determine the level of SMEs’ sustainability by applying qualitative or quantitative measures, or a combination of both. In qualitative research, a researcher conducts a case study, focus-group discussion, or an in-depth interview to analyze the level in firms’ sustainability. However, qualitative study is not applicable if a study would like to generalize-ability which is provided by the quantitative one. In a quantitative methodology such as a survey, each measurement can be directly classified into the modification of the sustainability level of Benn et al. (2007) . Then, non-parametric statistics can be applied to determine SMEs’ sustainability level. However, it is time consuming, since respondents should grade each measurement into a single level, which requires critical consideration. Another quantitative technique is using a Likert scale or any other interval scale. It is easier for respondents since they only have to assess each sustainability item without classifying their classes. Respondents should only state their level of agreement or disagreement towards items in the questionnaire. Similarly, it will be difficult to conclude which level is their level, since it may result
International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 2013, 2(12):193-207 203 in a decimal value, which makes it difficult to the level of the firm’s su stainability. For example, if social dimension to sustainability results in 3.5, this value is between the level of compliance (stage three) and efficiency (stage four). Moreover, it is not appropriate to mention that a 1 to 6 interval scale is the same level as the sustainability level for rejection (the first or lowest level) to the sustainability enterprises (the sixth or highest level). Thus, if applicable, a researcher may apply mixed methods since quantitative method provides generalize-ability, while the qualitative one offers deeper explanation and information. 5. CONCLUSION This literature review reveals several gaps relating to the measurement, the methodology, and the current results of a firm’s sustainability. Firstly, several researchers, such a s Lawrence et al.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 15 pages?
- Spring '16
- Business, Management