Sustainability performance and sustainability reporting in SMEs: a love affair or a fight?

Abstract

This research aims to analyse the links and potential limiting and supporting factors between sustainability actions and sustainability reporting. Comparing companies involved in sustainability actions and those whose reporting practices lack a formal reporting system, this analysis focuses on Italian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the meat and cured meat industry, identifying the perspective (formative) that links sustainability action to communication in these SMEs. The qualitative interpretative approach, based on semistructured interviews, highlights the relevant strengths and weaknesses concerning substantive sustainability actions and the effect of communication on them, providing implications for international and sectoral policies and management choices. Filling a gap in the SME literature concerning their approaches to sustainability reporting and action (and the relationship thereof), this study also introduces, as a widely used practice, ‘greenhushing’, i.e., the deliberate absence of or limited communication on effectively implemented sustainability practices or their salient results.

Full text

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Sustainability performance and sustainability reporting
in SMEs: a love affair or a fight?
Davide Galli , Riccardo Torelli and Andrea Caccialanza
Department of Economic and Social Sciences, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via Emilia Parmense, 84 –29122
Piacenza, Italy
Corresponding author: Riccardo Torelli; Email: riccardo.torelli2@unicatt.it
(Received 30 November 2022; revised 5 May 2023; accepted 15 June 2023)
Abstract
This research aims to analyse the links and potential limiting and supporting factors between sustainabil-
ity actions and sustainability reporting. Comparing companies involved in sustainability actions and those
whose reporting practices lack a formal reporting system, this analysis focuses on Italian small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the meat and cured meat industry, identifying the perspective (for-
mative) that links sustainability action to communication in these SMEs. The qualitative interpretative
approach, based on semistructured interviews, highlights the relevant strengths and weaknesses concern-
ing substantive sustainability actions and the effect of communication on them, providing implications for
international and sectoral policies and management choices. Filling a gap in the SME literature concerning
their approaches to sustainability reporting and action (and the relationship thereof), this study also intro-
duces, as a widely used practice, ‘greenhushing’, i.e., the deliberate absence of or limited communication
on effectively implemented sustainability practices or their salient results.
Keywords: communication; corporate social responsibility; non-financial reporting; SMEs; sustainability
Introduction
Sustainability is a trending issue in both the accounting and supply chain (SC) research streams. A
growing number of studies have confirmed that sustainable innovation and reporting are positively
correlated with firms’competitiveness in terms of value creation and cost reduction and nonfinan-
cial assets (Assalzoo, 2021; Caiado, de Freitas Dias, Mattos, Quelhas, & Leal Filho, 2017;Greig,
Searcy, & Neumann, 2021; Hermundsdottir & Aspelund, 2021; Nigri, Del Baldo, & Agulini, 2020).
Previous studies have suggested that the inclusion of sustainability dimensions in firms across
different sectors and SCs, especially those related to technology innovation (Pigini & Conti, 2017;
Stewart & Niero, 2018) and the consequent reconfiguration of processes (Jenkins, 2004a,2004b;
Kamble, Gunasekaran, & Gawankar, 2018; Kasten, 2020), is diffuse. The inclusion and progres-
sive introduction of the dimensions of sustainability, however, are also relevant in SCs that are
more mature (Kamble, Gunasekaran, & Gawankar, 2018) and characterised by the extensive pres-
ence of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Isensee, Teuteberg, Griese, & Topi, 2020).
Distinguishing between manufacturing industries thus offers the opportunity to consider the food
industry significantly relevant in this context (Almerico, 2014; Crenna, Sinkko, & Sala, 2019;
Westerholz & Höhler, 2022). Several research perspectives suggest the crucial importance of pur-
suing a transition to more sustainable food production (Adams, Donovan, & Topple,
2021; Jawaad, Hasan, Amir, & Imam, 2022).
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with the Australian and New Zealand Academy of
Management. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the ori-
ginal work is properly cited.
Journal of Management & Organization (2023), page 1 of 26
doi:10.1017/jmo.2023.40
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Considering the environmental pillar, some scholars (Egilmez, Kucukvar, & Tatari, 2013; Xue
et al., 2019) have pointed out that when assessing manufacturing sector reporting practices, the
food and beverage (F&B) sector is particularly significant for greenhouse gases, energy use and
water management. Weber and Saunders-Hogberg (2018) have indicated the relevance of
water management and corporate social reporting performance for the whole F&B category
and its relation to water risk management.
Regarding the social pillar, prior studies have contributed to the understanding of local commu-
nities, firms’social performance improvement and the evaluation of institutional factors for sustain-
ability promotion (Han & Ito, 2023; Kelling, Sauer, Gold, & Seuring, 2021), which foster hunger
eradication and food accessibility (Capone, Bilali, Debs, Cardone, & Driouech, 2014;Qaim,
2020). Limited social performance at one step of the SC has been associated with a decrease in over-
all performance, especially in upstream stages of SCs and in contexts with limited enforcement
effects of norms and standards (Farooq, Zaman, & Nadeem, 2021; Ogilvy & Vail, 2018).
From a managerial point of view, in the field of accounting for sustainability reporting, there
are few studies concerning the F&B sector. Stranieri, Orsi, Banterle, and Ricci (2019) qualitatively
analyse European sustainability reports (SRs) from 53 F&B firms with mainly broad dimensions.
Iazzi, Ligorio, Vrontis, and Trio’s(2022) analysis of the progressive adoption of the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI) standards highlights how presence on a listed market is a driver of cor-
porate social responsibility (CSR) communication. Similarly, content analysis of SRs has also
been conducted among Italian F&B listed companies, showing a jeopardised commitment to sus-
tainability (Fiandrino, Busso, & Vrontis, 2019). Therefore, in this productive context, a gap has
emerged in the analyses of SMEs’sustainability reporting propensity.
Although the focus on sustainable development criteria cannot be ascribed solely to the
aspects mentioned above, the focus on (environmental) impacts has been mainly on certain cat-
egories of F&B products (Beall & Brocklesby, 2017). One of the most scrutinised branches of the
F&B sector throughout the European Union is the meat and cured meat sector (Gracia, de
Magistris, & Albisu, 2011; Van der Merwe, Kirsten, & Trienekens, 2019). On the list of the
most relevant implications, in terms of sustainability impacts, are water use, animal welfare
and land consumption (Amicarelli, Rana, Lombardi, & Bux, 2021; Forero-Cantor, Ribal, &
Sanjuán, 2020). Another distinguishing feature of this F&B product category is the overwhelming
prevalence of SMEs in the processing system (Fiandrino, Busso, & Vrontis, 2019; Golini, Moretto,
Caniato, Caridi, & Kalchschmidt, 2017). Nevertheless, despite the lack of attention to the sustain-
ability reporting drivers in SMEs, their role in the promotion of ecological transition is crucial
(Adams, Donovan, & Topple, 2021). In particular, insufficient attention has been given to
both the internal and external drivers that lead SMEs to report on sustainability practices
(Dienes, Sassen, & Fischer, 2016).
The contribution of this paper, then, aligns with the recent increase in the attention given to
sustainability disclosure, civil society and the consequences and impact of meat and cured meat
production and consumption on both the environmental and social spheres (Golini et al., 2017;
Leitch, 2003). The Italian context was chosen because it has one of the highest concentrations of
protected designation of origin (PDO) or protected geographical indication (PGI) within the
European context (ex-Regulation CE 510/2006) amid moderate consumption (OECD, 2022;
OECD/FAO, 2021; Statista, 2021). In fact, according to the Ismea-Qualivita report (2022), the
meat product sector of the 43 PDO and PGI products accounted for 25% of the entire category
and 14% of Italian agribusiness exports in 2021, while the consumer value reached €4.85 billion.
On the other hand, on the marketing side, consumers expect improvements in product quality,
traceability and process transparency with regard to both the meat and cured meat product cat-
egories (León-Bravo, Moretto, Cagliano, & Caniato, 2019; Wognum, Bremmers, Trienekens, Van
Der Vorst, & Bloemhof, 2011).
In light of the above considerations, this work aims to cover the observed research gap by con-
sidering the meat and cured meat industry and the specific link within this industry between
2 Davide Galli et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

sustainability actions and sustainability reporting. The main and original contribution of this
paper is, then, an analysis of the possible determinants of nonfinancial reporting in the context
of SMEs, in particular, the relationship between substantive practices aimed at a sustainable tran-
sition and sustainability communication. It is this relationship that has been insufficiently ana-
lysed in the literature focused only on reporting or sustainability performance. That is, the
focus on their relationship and the potential formative role of communication in action in a sec-
tor with a high socio-environmental impact is highly significant, meriting further analysis.
This paper is structured as follows: First, the research framework is defined. Second, the meth-
odology is elaborated, and a discussion of the results is provided. Finally, conclusions are drawn,
and proposals for further studies are suggested.
Research framework
Conceptual foundation
The role of SMEs in achieving sustainability goals and pursuing a future business idea more
anchored to the urgent needs of the present (e.g., respecting planetary boundaries) is generally
accepted and recognised, although the scientific world disagrees on some specific elements
(Dalton, 2020; Pizzi, Caputo, Corvino, & Venturelli, 2020,2021). Despite the limitations clearly
attributable to smaller firms, such as a scarcity of resources, difficulty finding specialised skills, a
lack of formalisation of long-term strategies and a low propensity to internationalisation, SMEs
represent the foundational economic fabric of the European Union and, in particular, of Italy,
historically recognised as a nation of small family businesses. Within the basket of for-profit com-
panies, then, there is a need to explore the mechanisms underlying the choice to engage in sus-
tainability strategies and actions, as well as the willingness to make them public and thus known
to the outside world (Walsh and Sulkowski, 2010).
While the quantitative approaches adopted in the past have provided an initial set of answers
and insights on the topic, these have generated some misconceptions and scientific disagreements
regarding the real commitment of SMEs to sustainability and its communication (Conca, Manta,
Morrone, & Toma, 2021; Ogilvy & Vail, 2018). Given the lack of generalizability of the extant
characteristics and phenomena attributed to SMEs, especially in a context strongly linked to
national and regional traditions, e.g., Italy, and characterised by wide sectoral differences
(Oduro, Maccario, & De Nisco, 2021), it seems necessary to study the role of SMEs using quali-
tative methods of inquiry that can reveal the peculiarities of the focal subjects. It is through this
interpretivist approach that the present study aims to investigate the relationship between SMEs
and sustainability practices, specifically, between their approach to sustainability and external
socioenvironmental communication.
Previous studies have focused on the drivers of better performance among SMEs (Gangi, Meles,
Monferrà, & Mustilli, 2020; Longo, Mura, & Bonoli, 2005) rather than the drivers related to wider
and better communication and transparency. Thus, in light of this research gap and Jenkins’s
(2004a) point that in SMEs, there is a lack of formalisation of socioenvironmental responsible prac-
tices (an element capable of acting as a barrier to even socioenvironmental reporting), this research
adopts the conceptual framework of Schoeneborn, Morsing, and Crane (2020) to evaluate SMEs
operating in the controversial meat (and cured meat) sector in the Italian context.
According to Schoeneborn, Morsing, and Crane (2020), there are two possible macrocate-
gories of linkage between sustainability communication and active sustainability practices: a rep-
resentational linkage where reporting describes and illustrates what the goals and results (as well
as the practices in place) are in terms of corporate sustainability and a formative linkage, which in
turn entails three subcategories. In the first category, formative link (walking to talk), socioenvir-
onmental reporting represents the last step in a process capable, however, of complementing and
giving full meaning to the practices concretely in place by providing a narrative of them, ensuring
access to information and data. A second possible formative link (talking to walk) involves
Journal of Management & Organization 3
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

considering sustainability reporting the first step in a broader and more complex process, capable
of acting as a promoter and guide for future concrete actions. In the third link (t(w)alking), sub-
stantive sustainability actions and their reporting proceed in a parallel, coordinated and indivis-
ible path. These categories therefore provide a starting point for analysing the practices in the
focal SMEs; the peculiarities in this category of companies could allow the detection of a novel
link between sustainability practices compared to those in the literature and proposed in the
framework of Schoeneborn, Morsing, and Crane (2020).
In light of this, the main objective of the present research is to uncover and shed light on the
key elements in the complex and currently little-understood relationship among (1) sustainability
practices, (2) sustainability reporting and (3) SMEs (Álvarez Jaramillo, Zartha Sossa, & Orozco
Mendoza, 2019; Bos-Brouwers, 2010; Cassells & Lewis, 2011).
Sustainability factors
Based on the conceptual foundations and the objective outlined above, we have explored prior
studies to obtain the main factors, at the institutional and firm level, which may have an effect
on corporate sustainability practices, especially on their external communication. These factors
provide a solid starting point for our analysis, which aims to build a bridge between existing scho-
lars’works on large companies and SMEs amid the full awareness that the known relationships
and reciprocal effects are not automatically generalisable to small and medium-sized companies
(Jenkins, 2004a; Russo & Tencati, 2009). Hence, the factors explored and presented below are
usually described as elements capable of acting as the drivers or determinants of sustainability
reporting practices. However, given the specificity of this research’s focus and the lack of previous
studies applying these factors to SMEs, the following empirical analysis is carried out without
bias, with an awareness SMEs could also play a possible role, as barriers and deterrents, between
sustainability actions and sustainability reporting.
Institutional factors
Sustainability reporting determinants can vary due to several causes, such as the economic devel-
opment of institutional context or the normative approach (Aureli, Del Baldo, Lombardi, &
Nappo, 2020; Belal, 2000). Alshbili, Elamer, and Moustafa (2021) have considered institutional
factors to determine those that are the most impactful in developing countries, namely, insuffi-
cient awareness and knowledge, the absence of legal requirements, the lack of governmental
motivation and the fear of change. Such factors are expected to be more mitigated in the
Italian context due to the influence of European (Directive 2014/95/UE) and national
(Legislative Decree 254/2016) regulations that oblige certain firms or groups to implement non-
financial reports. In this analysis, we have identified four main factors, namely, normative con-
text, coordination, the basket of hard and soft competences and stakeholder expectations and
needs (see Table 1).
The literature on company reporting initiatives has explored the issue of sustainable reporting,
highlighting different instruments at the country level and in terms of their span of analysis. In
particular, Jensen and Berg (2012) show that companies producing an integrated report are dif-
ferent from traditional sustainability reporting companies with regards to several country-level
determinants. Various legal systems and corporate governance structures have been shown to
impact sustainability reporting engagement by Miniaoui, Chibani, and Hussainey (2019). In par-
ticular, a substitutive effect on reporting, between country-level governance and the regulatory
environment, has been demonstrated (Ernstberger & Grüning, 2013). This assumption may be
enforced by the vital role that institutional networks, forums, standards and nongovernmental
organisations play in developing countries and emerging markets (Ali & Frynas, 2018;
Neumayer & Perkins, 2004). In developing countries, regulation fragmentation, a limited sustain-
ability culture and the need for a legitimated actor that supports the institutionalisation of
4 Davide Galli et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

normative models are considered the leading drivers of nonfinancial reporting (Negash &
Lemma, 2020). Vollero, Conte, Siano, and Covucci (2019) have also underscored the relevance
of the industry involved in an analysis, highlighting differences, in particular, with regards to con-
troversial industries, while Dhar, Sarkar, and Ayittey (2022) have noted the positive correlation
between sustainability reporting and the sustainable development path of relevant companies.
Mathobela’s(2010) interpretative research has indicated five challenges that may affect the coord-
ination of sustainability reporting mechanisms: (i) stakeholder engagement, part of ‘stakeholder sym-
biosis’and ‘dialogue[s] with each community of interest’; (ii) culture creation, which according to
Schein (1993) promotes the acknowledgement and understanding of shared values; (iii) organisa-
tional learning; (iv) holistic thinking, entailing an awareness that complexity, integration and con-
nectivity hinder leaders from applying simple top-down strategic models; and (v) measurement
and reporting, involving the increasing number of standard and monitoring systems that should
fit the particular culture of a firm (Latif, Cukier, Gagnon, & Chraibi, 2018). Moreover, accordingly
with Kamble, Gunasekaran, and Gawankar (2018), the effectiveness of industry 4.0 technologies in
the promotion of efficiency and better organization of resources at SC level has been pointed out;
therefore leading to a better coordination of activities overall also at firm level. Within the F&B sec-
tor, the coordination factor can also be influenced by sourcing standards, stakeholders’involvement
in environmental impacts and the costs related to their engagement (Stranieri et al., 2019).
D’Souza, McCormack, Taghian, Chu, Sullivan-Mort, and Ahmed (2019) focus on sustainability’s
hard and soft competencies, outlining how they should be part of the education and organisational
system. According to their qualitative literature analyses, these are as follows: (i) system thinking
Table 1. Factors and their main references
Corporate factors Main references
The evolution of
sustainability orientation
Bock and Van Huik (2007); Hahn and Kuhnen (2013); Kuzey and Uyar (2017); Lin-Hi
and Blumberg (2018); Melissen et al. (2018); Vitolla, Raimo, and Rubino (2019)
Explicit (or implicit) drivers Díez-Vial and Fernández-Olmos (2013); Pérez-López, Moreno-Romero, and
Barkemeyer (2015)
Risk mitigation Tchankova (2002); Hoyt and Liebenberg (2011); Kern, Moser, Hartmann, and Moder
(2012); Kouloukoui et al. (2019); Blagojevic et al. (2021)
Strategy formulation Loorbach (2007); Sulkowski and White (2010); Chang, Chen, Hsu, and Hu (2015);
Pizzi (2018); Crous, Battisti, and Leonidou (2021); Manninen and Huiskonen
(2022)
Institutional factors Main references
Stakeholders expectation
and needs
Isenmann and Kim (2006); Tilt (2010); Segalàs, Ferrer-Balas, and Mulder (2010);
Manetti (2011); Manetti and Toccafondi (2012); Amran, Lee, and Devi (2014);
Higgins, Milne, and Van Gramberg (2015); Herremans, Nazari, and Mahmoudian
(2016); García-Sánchez, Gómez-Miranda, David, and Rodríguez-Ariza (2019);
Romero, Ruiz, and Fernandez-Feijoo (2019); Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria
(2020); Braun et al. (2021); Salvador et al. (2021); Li, Zhu, and Darbandi (2022).
Normative context Wiek, Withycombe, and Redman (2011); Ernstberger and Grüning (2013);
Accounting Directive 2013/34/EU; Directive 2014/95/EU; Dlgs 254/2016;
Dentchev, Haezendonck, and Van Balen (2017); Idemudia and Kwakyewah
(2018); Alshbili, Elamer, and Moustafa (2021)
Basket of hard and soft
competences
Garrett and Roberson (2008); Adams, Donovan, and Topple (2021); Wiek,
Withycombe, and Redman (2011); Crews (2010); de Oliveira, Espindola, da Silva,
da Silva, and Rocha (2018); D’Souza et al. (2019)
Coordination Mathobela (2010); Kamble, Gunasekaran, and Gawankar (2018); Stranieri et al.
(2019); Tseng, Chang, Lin, Nguyen, and Lim (2020); Zaid, Abuhijleh, and
Pucheta-Martínez (2020)
Journal of Management & Organization 5
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

(Garrett & Roberson, 2008); (ii) anticipatory competence; (iii) normative competence (Wiek,
Withycombe, & Redman, 2011); (iv) strategic competence (Bryant & Jaworski, 2012; Loorbach,
2007); (v) interpersonal competence (Wiek, Withycombe, & Redman, 2011); (vi) long-term, far-
sighted reasoning and strategising (Pepper & Wildy, 2008); (vii) stakeholder engagement and
group collaboration (Segalàs, Ferrer-Balas, & Mulder, 2010); and (viii) action orientation and
change agent skills (Wiek, Withycombe, & Redman, 2011). Bryant and Jaworski (2012)have
also identified gaps in certain skills and skill shortages specific to the F&B sector, highlighting
the narrow segmentation of salient competences. For small workforce organisations such as
SMEs, this problem might have even more impactful effects.
In addition, there is a vast literature supporting the role of stakeholder engagement in sustain-
ability reporting; it has been validated as a valuable mechanism for effectively implementing stan-
dards (Braun, Visentin, da Silva Trentin, & Thomé, 2021) and enhancing organisational
knowledge (Li, Zhu, & Darbandi, 2022; Salvador, Barros, do Prado, Pagani, Piekarski, & de
Francisco, 2021). Stakeholder voices, expectations and needs have a crucial role in defining the
sustainability actions and communication process of a company, in achieving a sustainable com-
petitive advantage (Waheed & Zhang, 2020) and higher performance (Waheed & Yang, 2019). In
particular, for SMEs, stakeholder expectations increase the pressure on corporate sustainability
performance and demonstrate that social proximity is a motivation driver (Ernst, Gerken,
Hack, & Hülsbeck, 2022). In addition, D’Adamo (2022) further highlighted how stakeholder
engagement in the Italian F&B context has further fostered: the impact on communities, innov-
ation and product development, the commitment to the environmental dimension and local SC.
Internal and external corporate factors
Several authors have defined the relevant factors of sustainability reporting at the company level:
the relevant determinants (Dienes, Sassen, & Fischer, 2016; Hahn & Kühnen, 2013), the relation
between external and internal motives (Pérez-López, Moreno-Romero, & Barkemeyer, 2015), the
implementation of sustainability strategies (Crous, Battisti, & Leonidou, 2021) and the role of a
progressive inclusion of sustainability principles in firms’strategic orientations and reporting
practices (Melissen, Mzembe, Idemudia, & Novakovic, 2018).
Hahn and Kühnen (2013) list corporate size and financial performance as the most frequently
examined internal determinants of sustainability reporting and media exposure as the most fre-
quently examined external determinants thereof. Since public reputation has been correlated with
internal voluntary engagement and the avoidance of undesired behaviour (Lin-Hi & Blumberg,
2018), it is one of the elements included in the overall evaluation of the evolution of sustainability
orientation (see Table 1 for other references). Following Vitolla, Raimo, and Rubino (2019), this
study therefore explores the relationship between integrated reporting and integrated thinking in
the specific context of SMEs’black boxes, fostering an understanding of stakeholders’expecta-
tions of sustainability performance.
Pérez-López, Moreno-Romero, and Barkemeyer (2015) focus on the internal and external
motives in corporate approaches to sustainability reporting. Such external motives include demon-
strating compliance with local regulations and public norms, providing transparency to a range of
stakeholders, garnering reputational benefits and credibility, ensuring the ability to communicate
efforts, possessing the licence to operate and campaign. These motives reinforce the factors deemed
relevant from the institutional perspective. On the other hand, the internal motives comprise envir-
onmental scanning, the improvement of risk management and the identification of strategic oppor-
tunities to enforce strategy formulation, evaluation and implementation. Other internal areas are,
reasonably, operational performance-enhancing processes and cross-functional collaborations, the
greater awareness of sustainability throughout an organisation, the enhanced ability to track pro-
gress towards specific targets and the innovation and learning process. According to Matten and
Moon (2008), the planning of long-term sustainability initiatives seems predominantly associated
with large firms in the European context due to the barriers that smaller firms face.
6 Davide Galli et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Risk (management) mitigation factors have been investigated mainly with a focus on the envir-
onmental dimension, e.g., by Kouloukoui et al. (2019) in relation to climate change. However, this
challenge may not be perceived as sufficiently relevant, as an internal driver for polluting firms to
implement more sustainable practices. In this context, especially in developing countries, institu-
tional regulation has been suggested as an effective solution that anticipates social pressure,
improves reputation and maintains legitimacy (Bridge, 2016). Firms’involvement with the envir-
onmental dimension is also associated with the adequacy and reliability of the measures and
metrics they adopt (Helfaya & Whittington, 2019). For SMEs with more limited financial and
human resources, then, this implementation is arguably more difficult, e.g., in the F&B sector.
However, a reliable performance measurement system is also a precondition for the develop-
ment of effective strategy formulation at the firm level from the (talking to walk) and t(w)alking
perspective of Schoeneborn, Morsing, and Crane (2020). Similarly, other scholars have offered
both empirical and theoretical evidence for the relevance of strategy formulation for the effective
implementation of sustainability practices and communication (Manninen & Huiskonen, 2022;
Pizzi, Rosati, & Venturelli, 2021). Hence, among F&B SMEs, this process should foster a more
reliable allocation of (limited) resources, disclosure of sustainability performance and higher
motivation to transition to more sustainable managerial practices.
Methodology
This research adopts a qualitative interpretivist approach, which is particularly useful when the
goal is to examine contemporary events and sets of relationships (Eisenhardt & Graebner,
2007; Landrum & Ohsowski, 2018). This study is based on both primary and secondary data
sources, consisting of semistructured interviews with CSR/sustainability managers/specialists,
websites and companies’SRs, to allow the triangulation of data (Robertson & Samy, 2015).
The focal companies were selected from those in the statistical classification of economic activ-
ities (NACE rev. 2) in the manufacturing section (C), division of the ‘manufacture of food pro-
ducts’(division 10), among the group involved in the ‘processing and preserving of meat and
production of meat products’(group 10.1). In the Italian context, 3632 companies were found
in the AIDA –Bureau van Dijk database. Second, within this group, those with an active legal
status were filtered (2315). Once the list was obtained, research on SRs was conducted using
the ASSICA, the Italian association of meat and meat-based transformation products. Eight com-
panies were identified as those that had implemented an SR, and four of them agreed to partici-
pate in the interviews (response rate 50%). To create an antagonist group that had not
implemented formalised communication activities (SRs) but still had performed substantial
sustainability-related actions, we filtered these companies by size, revenue, geographic area and
business portfolio, whereby we identified six companies similar to the four companies we had
already interviewed. Four of these six agreed to participate (75%). The total number of interviews
(8–4 with sustainability actions and reporting practices, 4 with only sustainability actions and no
reporting) was thus limited by the number of companies in the industry that produce SRs and the
response rate we obtained, although it was very high (see Table 2 for company details).
The collected and analysed data came primarily from semistructured interviews (Farooq,
Zaman, & Nadeem, 2021; Kumar, Connell, & Bhattacharyya, 2020; Roy, Al-Abdin, & Quazi,
2020) and secondarily, to supplement and deepen these, from the SRs of the companies produ-
cing them, their websites and other formal documents pertaining to sustainability. These second-
ary data were all discussed and used to offer important insights during the interviews and for
complete and clear triangulation. The choice of the interview method was based on the fact
that it is widely recognised as an appropriate and correct research method in studies concerning
complex situations that cannot be analysed through quantitative methods, where direct contact
and dialogue with the people involved in strategic choices are considered significant and relevant
(Yin, 2017). The choice, in particular, of the semistructured interview method was based on the
Journal of Management & Organization 7
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 2. Sample characteristics
Group Silent companies (SCs) Reporting companies (RCs)
ID SC1 SC2 SC3 SC4 RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4
SDGs references NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES
SDGs target –– – 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8,
10, 11, 12, 13,
17
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 12,
13, 16
2, 3, 4, 8, 12, 13 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 15 2, 7, 8, 9, 12
B-Corp NO NO In progress –
expected by
2023
NO NO YES NO NO
Production Conventional Conventional
and organic
Conventional Conventional
and organic
Conventional Conventional and
organic
Conventional and
organic
Conventional and
organic
Sustainability
report edition
00 0 0 3 2 4 2
Standards/
certifications
Gluten-free;
IFS
IFS; BRC; ISO
14001; ISO
22005:2008
BRC; ISO
22005:2008;
ISO 14001
IFS; BRC; ISO
14001; ISO
45001
SA8000; ISO
26000
IFS; BRC; Carbon
Footprint; ISO
22005; ISO 50001
in progress
GMO-free; ISO
14001; IFS; EMAS
(at least one
reference)
IFS; BRC; ISO 14001;
ISO 45001; ISO
22005:2008; Nitrite
free (at least one
reference)
ISF, International Food Standard; BRC, British Retail Consortium; EMAS, Eco-Management and Audit Scheme; GMO, Genetically Modified Organisms.
8 Davide Galli et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

desire to allow the opportunity, albeit controlled and limited, for the interviewees to add details or
deviate from the questions asked when the interview protocol did not provide for any in-depth
explanation of the concepts, facts and events deemed significant by the interviewees. This aspect
is of particular importance in research on SMEs because of the differences, even substantial ones,
which distinguish them from other types of businesses. Therefore, it is of paramount importance
to leave room for respondents’further reflections. The methodological and operational guide for
the preparation and execution of the interviews followed the interview protocol, created using
previous research and carefully adapted to the focal industry. It was constructed to analyse the
different institutional and firm-level factors that could play a role (of any kind) in the relationship
between sustainability actions and sustainability reporting. Supplementary Table I thus illustrates
how the interview protocol was structured and the questions that were proposed in the interviews.
To confirm the validity, clarity and effectiveness of the protocol, it was successfully tested on a
company outside the sample but within the same industry sector.
All the interviews were conducted through online video conference platforms from February
2022 to September 2022, and two members of the research team were involved in all of them,
which ranged from 45min to 1.5 h. All audio that was recorded (with the consent of the partici-
pants) was transcribed and analysed by the whole research team with the help of NVivo software.
We conducted thematic analysis to deepen the patterns within the data collected through the
interviews (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This is a useful and validated qualitative method for identi-
fying, analysing, organising, describing and reporting the themes found in a variety of data
(Nowell, Norris, White, & Moules, 2017). In particular, it allows researchers to highlight similar-
ities and differences and to generate novel insights or summarise key issues. The first step in the-
matic analysis is data familiarisation across the research team that has interpreted the main,
emerging issues from data coding (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016). In the second step,
the data were coded by the three authors to highlight all the relevant content. All the codes
were then reviewed by the entire research team. Each term, sentence or paragraph relevant to
the research, according to the adopted theoretical-conceptual framework and the objectives of
the analysis, was coded by categorising it according to an underlying significant element (a
total of 40 codes were created). In this step, the significant content collected through the inter-
views was organised and structured to ensure a comprehensive analysis, capable of showing the
elements of distinctiveness among the focal companies. The third step was the organisation and
subdivision of the codes obtained from the analysis of the interviews into different main themes.
This step in the empirical analysis was carried out through careful textual analysis by the entire
research team, which made it possible to group all the significant codes into the eight identified
themes (see Table 3). The specific meaning of the codes assigned to each theme suggests how
the latter is present within the researched sample, delineating the role of the selected factors in
constructing the relationship between actions and sustainability reporting and allowing a dee-
per exploration and understanding of the peculiarities of SMEs, as described in the following
section.
Discussion of findings
The coding activity that resulted from the application of the factors proposed in the literature in
this study made it possible to highlight the significant trends among the focal SMEs and to shed
light on important differences between companies that adopt substantial sustainability practices
without any socioenvironmental reporting and companies that engage in both substantial action
and reporting processes (see Table 4 for the results overview). Accordingly, our analysis and pres-
entation of the predominant factors, their role in sustainability action and reporting, and the dif-
ferences between the two groups of focal SMEs have allowed us to deepen the understanding of
the singular and distinct processes among SMEs and to significantly extend the explanation of the
mechanisms linking sustainability action and communication processes.
Journal of Management & Organization 9
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 3. Themes and codes
Corporate factors Institutional factors
Themes Codes Themes Codes
The evolution of
sustainability
orientation
Animal welfare focus Stakeholder
expectations and
needs
Distribution and customers
are driving
Energy efficiency focus Stakeholder listening and
alignment
Change of mindset Sustainability as a
commonly used concept
Packaging focus Normative context Legislation as an
accelerator
Support to external actors Basket of hard and
soft competences
Communication only
makes sense if you have
measured data
Sustainability-quality
association
Need for external help
Unconscious sensitivity Need for specific skills
Explicit (or implicit)
drivers
Attention to return of external
sustainability practices
Coordination Attention to the internal
culture of sustainability
External requirement Beginning of a ritual
Need for external recognition of
achievements
Economic rewards and
incentives
Need to show improvement Extensive internal
involvement
Report is competitive
advantage
First internal sustainability
assessment
Unavoidable necessity Internal sustainability
education
Risk mitigation Sustainability as support in the
management of external
risks
Lack of clear roles
Strategy formulation Applying some practices could
worsen the quality
New governance practices
(Code of Ethics)
Communicating sustainability
as a very delicate element
Regular measurement and
control
Difficulties in conceiving 360°
sustainability
Young pathway
Difficulties in measuring
sustainability
Difficulties in translating
sustainability concepts
Positive consequences through
communication
Need for consistent prices
Not useful for image and
publicity
Pressing issues are others
10 Davide Galli et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 4. Results overview
Themes Codes
Reporting
companies (4)
Frequencies
R.C. (%)
Silent
companies
(4)
Frequencies
S.C. (%)
Total
companies
(8)
Total
frequencies
(%)
The evolution of
sustainability
orientation
Animal welfare focus 3 75 2 50 5 63
Energy efficiency focus 3 75 4 100 7 88
Change of mindset 3 75 0 0 3 38
Packaging focus 1 25 1 25 2 25
Support to external actors 2 50 2 50 4 50
Sustainability-quality
association
250250450
Unconscious sensitivity 4 100 4 100 8 100
Explicit (or implicit)
drivers
Attention to return of external
sustainability practices
0 0 4 100 4 50
External requirement 3 75 3 75 6 75
Need for external recognition
of achievements
3750 0338
Need to show improvement 3 75 0 0 3 38
Report as competitive
advantage
3750 0338
Unavoidable necessity 4 100 2 50 6 75
Risk mitigation Sustainability as support in
the management of
external risks
2500 0225
Strategy
formulation
Applying sustainability
practices could worsen the
quality
250141338
Communicating sustainability
as a very delicate element
250375563
00375338
(Continued)
Journal of Management & Organization 11
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 4. (Continued.)
Themes Codes
Reporting
companies (4)
Frequencies
R.C. (%)
Silent
companies
(4)
Frequencies
S.C. (%)
Total
companies
(8)
Total
frequencies
(%)
Difficulties in conceiving 360°
sustainability
Difficulties in measuring
sustainability
250250450
Difficulties in translating
sustainability concepts in
actions
250250450
Positive consequences
through communication
3750 0338
Need for consistent prices 4 100 0 0 4 50
Not useful for image and
brand
375250563
Pressing issues are others 2 50 2 50 4 50
Stakeholder
expectations and
needs
Distribution and customers
are driving
4 100 3 75 7 88
Stakeholder listening and
alignment
2500 0225
Sustainability as a commonly
used concept
2500 0225
Normative context Legislation as an accelerator 2 50 3 75 5 63
Basket of hard and
soft
competences
Communication only makes
sense if you have measured
data
4 100 2 50 6 75
Need for external help 3 75 3 75 6 75
Need for specific skills 3 75 4 100 7 88
Coordination Attention to the internal
culture of sustainability
375250563
Beginning of a ritual 2 50 0 0 2 25
12 Davide Galli et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Economic rewards and
incentives
3750 0338
Extensive internal involvement 4 100 1 25 5 63
First internal sustainability
assessment
4 100 1 25 5 63
Internal sustainability
education
375375675
Lack of clear roles 2 50 2 50 4 50
New governance practices
(Code of Ethics)
125250338
Regular measurement and
control
4 100 0 0 4 50
Young pathway 2 50 3 75 5 63
Journal of Management & Organization 13
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

The evolution of sustainability orientation
The sustainability orientation of the focal companies, especially in light of the particular indus-
trial sector where they operate (meat and cured meats) and the country in which they are based
(Italy), represents the first relevant factor to be analysed, given, moreover, their increasingly con-
sistent push towards sustainability practices (and their communication) by regulators and differ-
ent groups of stakeholders. For both groups of companies, reporting companies (RCs) and silent
companies (SCs), the sensitivity to the macrotheme of sustainability is always present (100% of
the companies surveyed). This consideration of the topic is, however, something unconscious and
not formalised or according to a specific historical moment in or evolutionary step of a company.
It is, therefore, a topic that according to the interviewees has always been present in the sensitivity
of company managers or owners. For example, as one interviewee claimed, ‘What I can say con-
fidently is that the approach to sustainability has always been there’(SC3). Another one stated that
‘…even if unconsciously, there was a particular attention, even from our president who was the 100
percent owner of the company before the end of 2019…’(RC1). This presence, although not for-
malised, has inevitably led this company to adopt certain sustainability practices, to set its socio-
environmental improvement objectives and, in some cases, to create forms for reporting and
communicating the results achieved (see RCs).
In the projections towards more sustainable processes and strategies, however, among 50% of the
focal SMEs (half RCs and half SCs), there is an ambiguous conceptual relationship between the very
concept of sustainability and that of quality(of the end product). The sustainability–quality relation-
ship is seen by half the sample as something natural and inseparable, as if the attention to sustainabil-
ity practices automatically leads to an increase in the quality of the end product and vice versa. This
relationship is seen as fundamental and necessary; hence, ‘We pursue a path of sustainability that must
respect the quality of our product; otherwise, we would betray our consumers. It has to be a fair medi-
ation, that is, pursuing a sustainable path while maintaining the cornerstones of our product’(RC2).
Despite the clear focus on and consideration of sustainability among both groups of SMEs, there
is a substantial difference between the RCs and SCs: the change in mindset underlying the adoption
of substantial sustainability practices. As RC4 highlighted, this is a new approach to producing and
doing business, namely, ‘…an approach that is not the mere focus on how much the product costs;
you start from certainly more important and higher values’. This is a change in the managerial vision
specific to RCs (75% of RCs and 0% of SCs) and characterised, primarily, by ‘a new openness, also
mentally’(RC1). The openness mentioned in this RC has probably led to a felt need and a strong
desire to be open to the outside world, rendered explicit, operationally, through the measurement of
its socio-environmental performance and its subsequent reporting. In other cases (SCs), the lack of
sustainability reporting is linked to a lack of any change in approach to business management. The
RCs that mentioned this new approach emphasised that the practice of reporting, to corporate sta-
keholders, one’s sustainability practices and goals is a final step in the change process. It is a tool for
communicating what has been done and what will be done, the so-called walking to talk formative
view analysed and proposed by Schoeneborn, Morsing, and Crane (2020). This approach is also in
line with Dhar, Sarkar, and Ayittey (2022), who highlight an important connection between sustain-
ability communication/reporting and the path of a company towards more sustainable management
and impact. These represent two sides of the same coin that are difficult to separate, and for which it
is difficult to establish a logical-temporal sequence, as they are often interconnected and self-feeding
processes.
Specifically, the general evolution towards more sustainable approaches has led both groups of
SMEs, with very few differences, to focus their attention on a particular group of sensitive issues
in their sector (in decreasing order of importance): energy efficiency (88% of the total), animal
welfare (63% of the total), support for external stakeholders (50% of the total) and packaging
(25% of the total). These are the issues that have not only been felt and addressed by most of
the focal SMEs (as far as energy efficiency and animal welfare are concerned) but are also due to
14 Davide Galli et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

recent crises that have enabled a strong push towards maximum energy efficiency and the use of
renewable energy sources. For example, ‘we have a considerable area of photovoltaic panels and
have already planned a major implementation…We are also trying in every way to implement biogas’
(SC3). In addition, the demands of the market and key stakeholders (in this case, the distribution
tier of the SC) have provided a further element for acceleration, especially towards enhanced animal
welfare and animal rights, as clearly recalled by SC3: ‘there’s really a discussion of the animal welfare
approach as far as the whole supply chain is concerned…it’s something that’s in our DNA’.
Explicit (or implicit) drivers
Seventy-five per cent of the focal SMEs clearly stated that attention to sustainability (regardless of
the focus on communication or substantive action) has become an inescapable necessity and a
strong external requirement. ‘Today, moving towards a path of sustainability is a necessity’, stated
SC1, something taken up and reinforced by RC3: ‘We do it, yes, for an ethical reason, but now, it is
no longer just an ethical reason. Here is the world that is changing and going in this direction.’In
short, this is an issue that cannot be avoided, even for these SMEs in a sector that is inextricably
rooted in national and local traditions and culture. Indeed, the theme of this unavoidable need is
the concept most repeated and expressed throughout the research, especially by the group of RCs
(100 vs. 50% of SCs). The understanding of this necessity is closely linked to the demand and
needs of their stakeholders and the society with which these SMEs relate, as stated by RC4: ‘I
have tried to be forward-looking, and I have realised that this is a forced path.’
Despite this broad recognition, some drivers play a key role only in the RC group, entailing an
absence from SCs and a 75% presence among RCs. These drivers are the need for external rec-
ognition of achievements (in sustainability), the need to show improvement (in sustainability)
and the use of sustainability reporting as a source of competitive advantage. These are three ele-
ments inherent to the openness of one’s practices and behaviour to the outside world, a strong
link to the concept of transparency. Although RCs maintain active, positive sustainability pro-
cesses and practices, they do not contemplate the need to communicate these achievements
and commitments externally, as they do not see this as a possible source of competitive advan-
tage. In this logic, RCs see the potential of this transparency and the potential consequent benefits
and feel the need to ‘…to improve and close the gaps more and more by then providing objective
data and showing this continuous improvement, and more and more we are going to communicate
it accordingly’(RC1). This is clearly a formative t(w)alking perspective (Schoeneborn, Morsing, &
Crane, 2020) where sustainability actions go hand in hand with sustainability reporting in a
mutually supportive and self-sustaining process (Dhar, Sarkar, & Ayittey, 2022). The reporting
process for these RCs, then, is only one step in a broader process of measurement and improve-
ment; in fact, ‘the main purpose is to measure goal achievement. To measure what I did, whether I
did it and how I did it, and to give myself additional goals. So, here, then, is the evolution: to deter-
mine how you see yourself in future years and decide what action to take’(RC4). The approach
driving SCs, on the other hand, is totally different, almost antipodal. It is a process that entails
the adoption of sustainability practices with a strong component based on the search for economic
return (an element present in 100% of CSs vs. 0% of RCs) but that avoids reporting practices via a
perspective clearly aligned with ‘greenhushing’, i.e., the deliberate choice to omit or only partially
provide information on one’s effective sustainability practices to avoid creating problems for
one’s own sector, collaborating companies or clients (Font, Elgammal, & Lamond, 2017).
Risk mitigation
A third theme considered relevant by the focal sample, albeit only RCs (50% of them vs. 0% of
SCs), is the consideration and adoption of substantial sustainability practices, as well as commu-
nication for risk management and mitigation. Indeed, the data analysis indicated that it is
Journal of Management & Organization 15
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

fundamental to consider ‘the risk that we can have overnight for our economic activities. These
risks are linked to sustainability because, for example, intensive and hyperintensive livestock
farms are at a very high risk for the spread of various diseases, and so we understand that it is
all linked and that these are clearly risks that should not be underestimated’(RC1). The RCs
also evaluated this link between sustainability actions and the better management of business
or contingent risks. This constitutes a further awareness of the potential benefits of adopting a
sustainable approach and its links with other areas of business management, as well as with add-
itional internal and external strategic elements.
Strategy formulation
Concerning sustainability actions and their reporting, several critical and weak elements emerged
strongly and significantly from the data analysis and were widespread among the various focal
SMEs. These elements are indifferently present among both RCs and SCs. The first aspect con-
cerns the negative potential of the application of certain sustainability actions (especially the most
impacting and complex ones) on the quality of a product and thus on the company’s ability to
continue to maintain the production processes and quality of raw materials thereof, as clearly
explained by RC2: ‘today, the company would not be ready to apply these practices, mostly because
the quality of our product would be affected’. This goes hand in hand with reinforcing a feeling of
uncertainty amid action towards sustainability with the knowledge, or at least the perception, that
the current pressing issues to be addressed are others, such as those ‘related to the energy market
and the availability of raw materials’(RC1). This limiting force is added to the concrete and oper-
ational difficulties that SMEs in the Italian meat and charcuterie sector face today with regards to
sustainability, namely, (1) the complexities when translating concepts linked to the socioenviron-
mental sphere into concrete actions and projects (50% of total SMEs) and (2) the strategic and
operational difficulty in measuring progress in the field of sustainability (also 50% of total
SMEs). These two problems in the narratives and the words of the interviewees are thus strongly
connected and linked to strategic, operational and management difficulties. That is, these prac-
tices are mostly new and have not yet been appropriately and stably embedded within corporate
systems: ‘We have not yet started a real measurement path. A new preliminary activity has been
done, but only the real assessment activity will lead us to understand what our real needs are…
at present I honestly don’t know because we don’t have experience in this regard…I don’t know
whether it will be sufficient to have a coordinating person to collect the various information
from the different functions or whether it will also be necessary, from a future perspective, to struc-
ture properly’(SC2). A further difficulty concerns only SCs: contemplating sustainability at 360°,
i.e., applying it in all areas of one’s own business life and all ongoing processes. This limitation
has been perceived, above all, in relation to any potential consequences, including for the product
and market levels, e.g., ‘if you want to do a broad sustainability project starting from farming to the
last stages, it means making a product that is probably for a niche market’(SC4). When the stra-
tegic aspect is shifted to the issue of communication and reporting (already current –RCs –or
potential in the future –SCs), the focal elements show that there is a strong and positive percep-
tion (75% of RCs) of communication/reporting, which is seen by RCs as a tool for obtaining fur-
ther advantages and positive consequences (in terms of the market, relations, images,
regulations), and not only as the last step towards sustainable action. These positive aspects, how-
ever, are seen by RCs as connected to a still unresolved factor, namely, the lack of recognition by
consumers of a more sustainable product or one produced by a more sustainable company (100%
RCs), e.g., ‘in Italy, so many people talk about it (sustainability), but when you are confronted with
the different costs of a sustainable company’s products, then you immediately stop. We feel sadness
because everyone talks about it, everyone wants sustainable products, but then no one pays for
them. In contrast, abroad, the sensibility is different’(RC3). On the other hand, aspects that are
coordinated between the two groups of SMEs and of extreme importance concern low usefulness,
16 Davide Galli et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

for image purposes in the focal sector, of sustainability communication compared to other strategic
tools (63% of all SMEs) and the sensitivity of communicating sustainability aspects to the public and
the market (63% of all SMEs): ‘Sustainability reporting in our industry has been used discreetly, care-
fully and accurately, but little, from a publicity standpoint, because that was not the goal’(SC2).
Disclosing one’s brand, vision and products is not, for the majority of companies, considered an
aspect directly connected with sustainability reporting to which other objectives are linked. Even
the objective of the transparency and exchange of information with various stakeholders is not per-
petuated by sustainability reporting, e.g., ‘many clients do not go to check our sustainability report but
ask us for very specific information’(RC3). There is also much resistance to the use and publication of
sustainability reporting documents (e.g., SRs) because ‘the fact that we are increasing sustainability
communication and emphasise certain issues related to sustainability is quite a delicate thing’
(RC1). This is also the case for those who are not currently reporting, the SCs, but are reflecting
on the possibility of doing so, such as SC4, who claims that the first SR his or her firm is about
to produce will be ‘for internal use; it will not yet be made public’. From the analysis on strategy for-
mulation factors, it has thus emerged how the approach adopted by the focal SMEs for sustainability
action and reporting is always of a formative nature. These actions lead to the construction of com-
munication, which in turn plays a clear role in self-improvement (walking to talk)(Schoeneborn,
Morsing, & Crane, 2020) that can be contaminated by a perspective linked to ‘greenhushing’,
above all, for reasons driven by the fear of triggering negative processes on the market and exposing
one’s company to criticism or misunderstanding (Font, Elgammal, & Lamond, 2017).
Stakeholder expectations and needs
With regards to attention to and openness towards stakeholders internal and external, there is a
clear difference between SCs and RCs (0% for SCs vs. 50% for RCs). The latter have a stronger
propensity to listen to stakeholders and align with their requests and wishes. RC3 effectively
defined this process in relation to the definition of sustainability goals: ‘We did, with all our sta-
keholders, an assessment in which we interviewed customers, suppliers, associations, [and]banks,
asking what they consider important values to carry forward in our sustainable development. We
then cross-referenced our strategic sustainability plan with the same assessment in such a way that
we redefined a strategic sustainability plan, influenced by our stakeholders, and [then,]based on
that, we defined the activities that we are going to do in the medium term.’In this virtuous process,
the RCs themselves have noted that a supportive element in addressing different stakeholder
groups is that sustainability today ‘represents a common language’(RC1). Additionally, in this
case, a clear dynamic has emerged that can be attributed to the category of t(w)alking. The pro-
cess of communicating, or even just the willingness to communicate, pushes a company to work
harder to achieve results regarding the sustainability of its processes and impacts. In this case,
listening to and considering stakeholders is enhanced when a company is committed to commu-
nicating its sustainability practices and achievements (Schoeneborn, Morsing, & Crane, 2020).
A common characteristic among the RCs and SCs is the identification of distribution custo-
mers and consumers as the key stakeholders, capable of drawing the line to be followed and of
influencing important strategic decisions and the future (present for 88% of the total focal
SMEs). These two stakeholder groups in the focal sector are steadily increasing their level of
attention to and interest in sustainability issues, thereby driving companies towards increasingly
sustainable practices: ‘Consumers, at least according to what they say, are increasingly aware of sus-
tainability issues, but so are our customers (distribution)’(SC4).
Normative context
In 63% of the cases, with no relevant differences between SCs and RCs, national and international
legislation and regulation is seen as a tool for accelerating sustainability actions and sustainability
Journal of Management & Organization 17
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

reporting. A large proportion of the focal SMEs also recognise the existence of a potential risk in fail-
ing to proactively adapt to sustainability legislation, for example, ‘the real problem is that in two/three
years the carbon footprint will probably be mandatory and will have to be included in the sustainability
reporting …if we don’t do it this year, probably, in two or three years it will be mandatory, so you need
to be able to be one step ahead of the others’(RC3). This path is also seen as positive due to another
aspect, namely, its potential cascading effects on the entire SC, which today cannot yet be measured
to report and disseminate meaningful and complete data on these nonfinancial impacts. In fact, for
SC4, ‘pushing even the smallest companies to have simple tools for monitoring sustainability perform-
ance would allow access to information and its visibility in our supply chain because if we go, today,
and ask our SMEs to tell us some sustainability performance data that is environmental and social, it is
likely that they will have nothing to tell us’. In this case, then, legislation, if focused on supporting/
encouraging/obliging sustainability communication (as is the case in Europe today), can play a
role in creating the formative relationship between actions and communication. Moreover, a com-
pany pushed or obliged to report its sustainability practices will inevitably, and with distinct timing
and motivations, be pushed to adopt certain sustainable practices.
Basket of hard and soft competences
In the field of skills, there is substantial agreement among the RCs and the SCs: the awareness of
the importance of measuring data prior to their communication. However, there is also a need to
find the specific skills for carrying out these processes; sometimes, these skills can only be found
by relying on external help and professionalism. Among 75% of the focal SMEs (100% for RCs
and 50% for SCs), the precise and structured measurement of socioenvironmental data/perfor-
mances is considered fundamental for communicating results and progress externally, which is
more in line with a representative vision of the relationship between sustainability actions and
sustainability reporting (walking to talk according to Schoeneborn, Morsing, and Crane, 2020).
The systematised process of collecting data and analysing and interpreting them is thus a funda-
mental basis for all subsequent processes of utilisation in operational strategies and concrete prac-
tices, as well as in communicative actions, as advocated by RC1: ‘if you have measured
sustainability issues, then you are clearly in a precise position, and you can communicate them,
otherwise it becomes, like, overgeneralised and overblown communication, related to sustainability’.
Here, the representative approach is demonstrated by extending the competence factor, highlight-
ing how transversal skills regarding sustainable transition are of vital importance and have a joint
effect, first, on effective change and, second, as a direct consequence for communication skills.
RC4 emphasised this as follows: ‘sustainability must become truly tangible and not just stop at
words’. Accordingly, communication practices that are not based on concrete and correctly mea-
sured data, such as greenwashing, are recognised as incorrect and inappropriate. Among 75% of
the focal SMEs, there is a clear perception of the need for external professional support, both for
substantive practices and for the communication aspect, e.g., the practice of ‘using outside con-
sultants to prepare the sustainability report’(RC3). Even when these skills are not sought exter-
nally (in 88% of SMEs), it is necessary to have specialised skills and ‘someone with a more open
mind who can enable us to derive the sustainability data and analyse them’(RC3).
Coordination
Finally, with regards to coordination within the focal SMEs for sustainability actions and com-
munication, there is a strong focus on internal culture concerning sustainability issues (63% of
the total), on education in these issues (75% of the total) and on the creation, in some cases,
of new and sustainable governance tools, such as a code of ethics (38% of the total). On the
other hand, in 63% of the cases, sustainability practices represent, with all the problems of
each case, a new path for these companies, whereby 50% of these cases lack clearly identified
18 Davide Galli et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

roles within their corporate governance. The aspect internal culture is also strongly felt; hence, it was
defined by SC2 as ‘a substrate of culture that needs to be brought into the company and that needs to
be across the board. If this is not there, it becomes very difficult, then, to move projects forward. The
risk is to create situations that are understood only in one office and are not then shared by the whole
company’. This optimal condition becomes attainable if one invests and believes in the specific edu-
cation of the people who make up and work in one’s company. Accordingly, in most of the focal
SMEs, actions and strategies are planned to ensure the ‘continuous training of employees’(RC3).
Regardless of the focal group (RCs or SCs), however, in more than half the cases, these paths
and choices were adopted a few years ago, especially from 2019 onwards. The newness of this
change has thus inevitably entailed the difficulty of insufficient organisation and preparation,
made even more evident in the context of the SCs. In fact, as specified by RC1, these have often
been situations in which ‘each one doesn’t have a very specific function; we do a lot of different things.
So, anyway it was a quite invasive process’. This path, exclusively for RCs, has in 50% of these cases
marked the beginning of a veritably new operational and procedural ritual; for all the RCs, this has
meant the broad involvement of several corporate areas. This ritual specifically refers to the inclu-
sion, in the succession of activities, actions related to strategic planning, measurement, reporting and
monitoring in terms of sustainability: ‘a ritual where at least once in a year, in the sustainability
report, you have to be measured and take stock of and look at improvements from all angles’
(RC1) with the goal of ‘monitoring the state of the art with respect to the different priority areas
on sustainability, just for the sustainability report that we are now building’(RC2). It is clear,
then, how this consideration of measuring and monitoring social-environmental performance
leads to the formative talking to walk vision, where the willingness to communicate to the best of
one’s ability provides input and impetus to substantive sustainability practices (Schoeneborn,
Morsing, & Crane, 2020). The SR therefore becomes a ‘tool for keeping the bar straight. Each
year, within the sustainability report, we take a snapshot of how we are positioned on the various
areas and set goals for the following years’(RC3). To support and enhance this tool and its potential
positive effects across their entire company, 75% of the RCs have adopted economic incentive sys-
tems based on sustainability targets, which entail ‘tying sustainability goals to corporate rewards, and,
as a result, those involved in this system always want to know the degree of the achievement of the
goals and the current performance because, in addition to being involved from a moral point of
view, they are also involved from an economic point of view’(RC2).
Conclusions, implications and future research directions
Analysing the link between sustainability actions and sustainability reporting is of particular rele-
vance, especially in the field of SMEs, given their peculiarities compared to large companies, the
typical subjects of SR studies. Taking the different approaches to sustainability reporting outlined
by Schoeneborn, Morsing, and Crane (2020) as the conceptual foundations and focusing on a
framework of sustainability factors derived from the literature (referring to institutional and cor-
porate factors), the substantive and communicative practices of four communicating and four
noncommunicating SMEs in the Italian meat and cured meat industry have been analysed. A
qualitative interpretative approach with a mixed deductive-inductive method has enabled,
through a semistructured interview protocol and analysis of other secondary data, adapting
and contextualising extant results concerning SMEs, which to date remain rather underinvesti-
gated (Álvarez Jaramillo, Zartha Sossa, & Orozco Mendoza, 2019; Bos-Brouwers, 2010;
Cassells & Lewis, 2011; Jenkins, 2004a). Through a thematic analysis of the collected data, the
concepts that have emerged from the focal SCs and RCs and the factors that could create differ-
ences between these two groups have been disclosed. Focus was placed on sustainability commu-
nication practices, substantive sustainability practices and their relationships.
The first finding therefore advances knowledge regarding the factors that may limit or accel-
erate substantive and/or communication practices with regards to sustainability. In the previous
Journal of Management & Organization 19
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

section, it was noted that the various topics explored have different effects on the practices of the
focal SMEs. In sum, with regards to the institutional factor of corporate evolution towards sus-
tainability, the progress of the focal companies towards a greater consideration of sustainability
in their practices has created a strong conviction for a concrete commitment to and creation
of sustainability actions, which can subsequently be reported and narrated in specific communi-
cation (SR). This is the formative walking to talk perspective (Schoeneborn, Morsing, & Crane,
2020), where the reporting process also plays a role in operational practices: it is not just a
recounting of the past but a steppingstone from which to start again and, thus, both a spur to
do better and a direction for the future. This view is also reinforced by a company-level factor,
the skills needed. These skills play a key role in ensuring that the link between actions and sus-
tainability reporting is not just representative but formative, i.e., based on real and properly mea-
sured data. The factor represented by implicit and explicit drivers (Matten & Moon, 2008;
Pérez-López, Moreno-Romero, & Barkemeyer, 2015; see Table 1) also leads to a greater integra-
tion of sustainability actions and sustainability reporting, whereby we can consider their link as t
(w)alking, i.e., a formative vision in which reporting and action go hand in hand, feeding off each
other and continuously reinforcing each other. Additionally, regarding the strategic factor, the
validity for the focal SMEs of this perspective and this link has been highlighted (Manninen &
Huiskonen, 2022; Pizzi, 2018; see Table 1). In this case, however, the communication carried
out is deliberately limited or even absent due to a clear and precise will of company management
(so-called greenhushing) (see Font, Elgammal, & Lamond, 2017). In the focal industry, in fact,
there are particular dynamics worthy of further investigation, for which the communication of
positive sustainability practices could paradoxically create negative effects with repercussions
for a company and its relations with other market players. This represents a possible limiting
and blocking factor, together with the rather widespread lack of specialised expertise and the dif-
ficulty of putting sustainability concepts into practice, especially in regards to systematic measure-
ment practices. Some elements, however, can function as potential resolvers, such as relevant
legislation, the demands of key stakeholders and the changing mentalities in the market and
within companies.
The second contribution has a theoretical-conceptual nature. This study has applied the
framework of Schoeneborn, Morsing, and Crane (2020) to the sphere of SMEs and verified its
validity and practical applicability. Hence, there is a strong and evident need to identify the
theoretical-conceptual bases that are also valid for the business fabric of SMEs, thus far insuffi-
ciently considered or analysed with unsuitable theoretical frameworks or conceptual bases.
The third contribution concerns the disclosure of the effective practices in the focal field, car-
ried out by SMEs, and of some weaknesses yet to be resolved. Thus, this study has relevant man-
agerial implications for SMEs in different sectors engaged in sustainability communication
actions and/or practices. The results highlighted above provide a broad view of the possible
choices for the communication of sustainability performance and the relationship between sub-
stantive actions and formal communication. Despite the peculiarities of the focal sector, which
have inevitably influenced the behaviour of the focal companies, the delicacy of communicative
action, especially towards certain categories of stakeholders, is evident. Communication, then, is
often seen only as a tool for improving economic and market performance, but it could also nega-
tively influence relations with other actors in the SC without creating positive cascading effects.
On the other hand, the results presented above clearly illustrate an overall picture, whereby com-
panies approaching sustainability communication are more strongly pushed and urged to pay
more attention to the substantive aspects as well, the so-called formative role of communication.
This role should not be underestimated by companies that today do not communicate or do so
without conviction; it is capable of triggering a virtuous circle from which the various aspects
linked to economic returns, market competitiveness, relations with stakeholders and proactive
actions towards changes and unforeseen events can certainly benefit. Consequently, the fourth
contribution impacts the policies concerning the behaviour of companies in the field of
20 Davide Galli et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

sustainability and its communication. European regulations are shaping sustainability communi-
cation by periodically setting increasingly specific and challenging targets for companies through
nonfinancial reporting directives. With the new Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive
(CSRD –2022/2464/EU), an extremely impactful and relevant process is about to start, which
will see listed SMEs obliged to produce a document able of reporting on aspects and impacts
inherent to the social, environmental and governance spheres of companies from 1 January
2016 (with an impact on published reports from 2017). To support this change, companies
(not only SMEs) will also have at their disposal a new set of reference standards valid throughout
the European Union for nonfinancial reporting: European Sustainability Reporting Standards
(ESRS) created by the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG). This push by
the European bodies will affect not only the number of companies (including SMEs) obliged
to sustainability reporting (almost 50,000) but also their substantive practices and their relation-
ship with related communication and transparency. In light of the above results, then, the forma-
tive and accelerating effect that the incentivisation or even compulsory nature of nonfinancial
reporting can have on economic actors is evident, especially in sectors such as the one investi-
gated, where social and/or environmental issues and impacts are relevant.
Nevertheless, this research, like all scientific research, has certain limitations. These are (1) the
focus on a single industry (meat and cured meat) in a single country (Italy), (2) the lack of pos-
sibility for the generalisation of the results (qualitative study based on interviews) and (3) the lim-
ited number of companies included in the sample (due to the limited number, 8, of the
companies in the panorama of contacted companies producing SRs).
Future research could thus verify the applicability of this study’s theoretical framework, in par-
ticular, the validity of the two focal approaches (walking to talk and t(w)alking, as well as the
practice of ‘greenhushing’) for SMEs in other industrial sectors. Studies could thereby expand
the focal subject and employ different methods, such as those belonging to quantitative method-
ologies, to broaden the possibility of generalising the above results.
Supplementary material. The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40
Acknowledgements. This study was supported by the Doctoral School on the Agro-Food System (Agrisystem) of the
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (Italy).
Financial support. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore contributed to the funding of this research project and its publi-
cation (D.3.2. 2020 –R2104500099 –VIS –Valore Impresa Sostenibile).
Competing interests. None.
References
Adams, D., Donovan, J., & Topple, C. (2021). Achieving sustainability in food manufacturing operations and their supply
chains: Key insights from a systematic literature review. Sustainable Production and Consumption,28, 1491–1499.
Ali, W., & Frynas, J. G. (2018). The role of normative CSR-promoting institutions in stimulating CSR disclosures in devel-
oping countries. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,25(4), 373–390.
Almerico, G. M. (2014). Food and identity: Food studies, cultural, and personal identity. Journal of International Business and
Cultural Studies,8,1–8.
Alshbili, I., Elamer, A. A., & Moustafa, M. W. (2021). Social and environmental reporting, sustainable development and insti-
tutional voids: Evidence from a developing country. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
28(2), 881–895.
Álvarez Jaramillo, J., Zartha Sossa, J. W., & Orozco Mendoza, G. L. (2019). Barriers to sustainability for small and medium enter-
prises in the framework of sustainable development –literature review. Business Strategy and the Environment,28(4), 512–524.
Amicarelli, V., Rana, R., Lombardi, M., & Bux, C. (2021). Material flow analysis and sustainability of the Italian meat industry.
Journal of Cleaner Production,299, Article 126902.
Amran, A., Lee, S. P., & Devi, S. S. (2014). The influence of governance structure and strategic corporate social responsibility
toward sustainability reporting quality. Business Strategy and the Environment,23(4), 217–235.
Assalzoo. (2021). Annual report 2020. Retrieved from: https://www.assalzoo.it/annuario_assalzoo/annuario-2020/.
Journal of Management & Organization 21
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Aureli, S., Del Baldo, M., Lombardi, R., & Nappo, F. (2020). Nonfinancial reporting regulation and challenges in sustainability
disclosure and corporate governance practices. Business Strategy and the Environment,29(6), 2392–2403.
Beall, E., & Brocklesby, J. (2017). Exploring with Māori organizations comparative advantage in the context of climate
change. Journal of Management & Organization,23(6), 821–838.
Belal, A. R. (2000). Environmental reporting in developing countries: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh. Eco-Management
and Auditing: The Journal of Corporate Environmental Management,7(3), 114–121.
Blagojevic, B., Nesbakken, T., Alvseike, O., Vågsholm, I., Antic, D., Johler, S., …Alban, L. (2021). Drivers, opportunities, and
challenges of the European risk-based meat safety assurance system. Food Control,124, Article 107870.
Bock, B. B., & Van Huik, M. M. (2007). Animal welfare: The attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food
Journal,109(11), 931–944.
Boiral, O., & Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. (2020). Sustainability reporting assurance: Creating stakeholder accountability through
hyperreality? Journal of Cleaner Production,243, Article 118596.
Bos-Brouwers, H. E. J. (2010). Corporate sustainability and innovation in SMEs: Evidence of themes and activities in practice.
Business Strategy and the Environment,19(7), 417–435.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology,3(2), 77–101.
Braun, A. B., Visentin, C., da Silva Trentin, A. W., & Thomé, A. (2021). List of relevant sustainability indicators in remedi-
ation processes and their validation by stakeholders. Journal of Cleaner Production,317, Article 128440.
Bridge, S. (2016). Self-employment: Deviation or the norm? Journal of Management & Organization,22(6), 764–778.
Bryant, L., & Jaworski, K. (2012). Minding the gaps: Examining skill shortages in Australian rural non-agricultural work-
places. Journal of Management & Organization,18(4), 499–515.
Caiado, R. G. G., de Freitas Dias, R., Mattos, L. V., Quelhas, O. L. G., & Leal Filho, W. (2017). Towards sustainable development
through the perspective of eco-efficiency –a systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production,165,890–904.
Capone, R., Bilali, H. E., Debs, P., Cardone, G., & Driouech, N. (2014). Food system sustainability and food security:
Connecting the dots. Journal of Food Security,2(1), 13–22.
Cassells, S., & Lewis, K. (2011). SMEs and environmental responsibility: Do actions reflect attitudes? Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management,18(3), 186–199.
Chang, D. S., Chen, S. H., Hsu, C. W., & Hu, A. H. (2015). Identifying strategic factors of the implantation CSR in the airline
industry: The case of Asia-Pacific airlines. Sustainability,7(6), 7762–7783.
Conca, L., Manta, F., Morrone, D., & Toma, P. (2021). The impact of direct environmental, social, and governance reporting:
Empirical evidence in European-listed companies in the agri-food sector. Business Strategy and the Environment,30(2),
1080–1093.
Crenna, E., Sinkko, T., & Sala, S. (2019). Biodiversity impacts due to food consumption in Europe. Journal of Cleaner
Production,227, 378–391.
Crews, D. E. (2010). Strategies for implementing sustainability: Five leadership challenges. SAM Advanced Management
Journal,75(2), 15–22.
Crous, C., Battisti, E., & Leonidou, E. (2021). Non-financial reporting and company financial performance: A systematic lit-
erature review and integrated framework. EuroMed Journal of Business,17(4), 652–676.
D’adamo, I. (2022). The analytic hierarchy process as an innovative way to enable stakeholder engagement for sustainability
reporting in the food industry. Environment, Development and Sustainability,1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-
02700-0.
Dalton, V. (2020). The challenge of engaging with and reporting against the SDGs for SMEs such as Sydney Theatre
Company. Journal of Management & Organization,26(6), 975–994.
Dentchev, N. A., Haezendonck, E., & Van Balen, M. (2017). The role of governments in the business and society debate.
Business & Society,56(4), 527–544.
de Oliveira, U. R., Espindola, L. S., da Silva, I. R., da Silva, I. N., & Rocha, H. M. (2018). A systematic literature review on
green supply chain management: Research implications and future perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production,187,537–561.
Dhar, B. K., Sarkar, S. M., & Ayittey, F. K. (2022). Impact of social responsibility disclosure between implementation of green
accounting and sustainable development: A study on heavily polluting companies in Bangladesh. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management,29(1), 71–78.
Díez-Vial, I., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2013). Internal resources, local externalities and export performance: An application
in the Iberian ham cluster. Journal of Management & Organization,19(4), 478–497.
Dienes, D., Sassen, R., & Fischer, J. (2016). What are the drivers of sustainability reporting? A systematic review. Sustainability
Accounting, Management and Policy Journal,7(2), 154–189.
D’Souza, C., McCormack, S., Taghian, M., Chu, M. T., Sullivan-Mort, G., & Ahmed, T. (2019). Influence of sustainability
scholarship on competencies–an empirical evidence. Education + Training,61(3), 310–325.
Egilmez, G., Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2013). Sustainability assessment of US manufacturing sectors: An economic input
output-based frontier approach. Journal of Cleaner Production,53,91–102.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of
Management Journal,50(1), 25–32.
22 Davide Galli et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Ernst, R. A., Gerken, M., Hack, A., & Hülsbeck, M. (2022). SMES’reluctance to embrace corporate sustainability: The effect of
stakeholder pressure on self-determination and the role of social proximity. Journal of Cleaner Production,335, Article
130273.
Ernstberger, J., & Grüning, M. (2013). How do firm- and country-level governance mechanisms affect firms’disclosure?
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,32(3), 50–67.
Farooq, M. B., Zaman, R., & Nadeem, M. (2021). Account Ability’s AA1000AP standard: A framework for integrating sus-
tainability into organisations. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal,12(5), 1108–1139.
Fiandrino, S., Busso, D., & Vrontis, D. (2019). Sustainable responsible conduct beyond the boundaries of compliance: Lessons
from Italian listed food and beverage companies. British Food Journal,121(5), 1035–1049.
Font, X., Elgammal, I., & Lamond, I. (2017). Greenhushing: The deliberate under communicating of sustainability practices
by tourism businesses. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,25(7), 1007–1023.
Forero-Cantor, G., Ribal, J., & Sanjuán, N. (2020). Levying carbon footprint taxes on animal-sourced foods. A case study in
Spain. Journal of Cleaner Production,243, Article 118668.
Gangi, F., Meles, A., Monferrà, S., & Mustilli, M. (2020). Does corporate social responsibility help the survivorship of SMEs
and large firms? Global Finance Journal,43, Article 100402.
García-Sánchez, I. M., Gómez-Miranda, M. E., David, F., & Rodríguez-Ariza, L. (2019). Analyst coverage and forecast accur-
acy when CSR reports improve stakeholder engagement: The Global Reporting Initiative-International Finance
Corporation disclosure strategy. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,26(6), 1392–1406.
Garrett, S., & Roberson, S. (2008). Systems thinking and students: Relationships, student achievement, and the curriculum.
AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice,5(1), 21–26.
Golini, R., Moretto, A., Caniato, F., Caridi, M., & Kalchschmidt, M. (2017). Developing sustainability in the Italian meat sup-
ply chain: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Production Research,55(4), 1183–1209.
Gracia, A., de Magistris, T., & Albisu, L. M. (2011). Supply chain relationships and SME firms’competitiveness in the Spanish
pig-to-cured ham chain. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing,23(3), 192–210.
Greig, M. A., Searcy, C., & Neumann, W. P. (2021). Work environment in the context of corporate social responsibility reporting:
Developing common terms for consistent reporting in organizations. Journal of Cleaner Production,328, Article 129513.
Hahn, R., & Kühnen, M. (2013). Determinants of sustainability reporting: A review of results, trends, theory, and opportun-
ities in an expanding field of research. Journal of Cleaner Production,59,5–21.
Han, S., & Ito, K. (2023). What explains the spread of corporate social responsibility? The role of competitive pressure and
institutional isomorphism in the diffusion of voluntary adoption. Journal of Management & Organization,1–22. doi:
10.1017/jmo.2023.21
Helfaya, A., & Whittington, M. (2019). Does designing environmental sustainability disclosure quality measures make a dif-
ference? Business Strategy and the Environment,28(4), 525–541.
Hermundsdottir, F., & Aspelund, A. (2021). Sustainability innovations and firm competitiveness: A review. Journal of Cleaner
Production,280, Article 124715.
Herremans, I. M., Nazari, J. A., & Mahmoudian, F. (2016). Stakeholder relationships, engagement, and sustainability report-
ing. Journal of Business Ethics,138, 417–435. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2634-0
Higgins, C., Milne, M. J., & Van Gramberg, B. (2015). The uptake of sustainability reporting in Australia. Journal of Business
Ethics,129(2), 445–468.
Hoyt, R. E., & Liebenberg, A. P. (2011). The value of enterprise risk management. Journal of Risk and Insurance,78(4), 795–822.
Iazzi, A., Ligorio, L., Vrontis, D., & Trio, O. (2022). Sustainable development goals and healthy foods: Perspective from the
food system. British Food Journal,124(4), 1081–1102.
Idemudia, U., & Kwakyewah, C. (2018). Analysis of the Canadian national corporate social responsibility strategy: Insights
and implications. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,25(5), 928–938.
Isenmann, R., & Kim, K. C. (2006). Interactive sustainability reporting. Developing clear target group tailoring and stimu-
lating stakeholder dialogue. In S. Schaltegger, M. Bennett & R. Burritt (Eds.), Sustainability accounting and reporting
(pp. 533–555). Berlin: Springer.
Isensee, C., Teuteberg, F., Griese, K. M., & Topi, C. (2020). The relationship between organizational culture, sustainability,
and digitalization in SMEs: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production,275, Article 122944.
Ismea-Qualivita report. (2022). Rapporto Ismea-Qualivita 2022 sulle produzioni agroalimentari e vitivinicole italiane DOP,
IGP e STG, Edizioni Qualivita –Fondazione Qualivita –Siena, 2022. ISBN: 978-88-96530-56-6. Retrieved from www.
qualivita.it (Accessed May 2023).
Jawaad, M., Hasan, T., Amir, A., & Imam, H. (2022). Exploring the impact of green human resource management on firm
sustainable performance: Roles of green supply chain management and firm size. Journal of Management & Organization,
1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.68
Jenkins, H. (2004a). A critique of conventional CSR theory: An SME perspective. Journal of General Management,29(4), 37–57.
Jenkins, H. (2004b). Corporate social responsibility and the mining industry: Conflicts and constructs. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management,11(1), 23–34.
Journal of Management & Organization 23
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Jensen, J. C., & Berg, N. (2012). Determinants of traditional sustainability reporting versus integrated reporting. An institu-
tionalist approach. Business Strategy and the Environment,21(5), 299–316.
Kamble, S. S., Gunasekaran, A., & Gawankar, S. A. (2018). Sustainable industry 4.0 framework: A systematic literature review
identifying the current trends and future perspectives. Process Safety and Environmental Protection,117, 408–425.
Kasten, J. (2020). Blockchain on the farm: A systematic literature review. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability,15
(2), 129–153.
Kelling, N. K., Sauer, P. C., Gold, S., & Seuring, S. (2021). The role of institutional uncertainty for social sustainability of
companies and supply chains. Journal of Business Ethics,173(4), 813–833.
Kern, D., Moser, R., Hartmann, E., & Moder, M. (2012). Supply risk management: Model development and empirical ana-
lysis. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,42(1), 60–82.
Kouloukoui, D., Sant’Anna, ÂMO, da Silva Gomes, S. M., de Oliveira Marinho, M. M., de Jong, P., Kiperstok, A., & Torres, E.
A. (2019). Factors influencing the level of environmental disclosures in sustainability reports: Case of climate risk disclos-
ure by Brazilian companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,26(4), 791–804.
Kumar, A., Connell, J., & Bhattacharyya, A. (2020). Co-opetition for corporate social responsibility and sustainability: Drivers
and success factors. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal,12(6), 1208–1238.
Kuzey, C., & Uyar, A. (2017). Determinants of sustainability reporting and its impact on firm value: Evidence from the emer-
ging market of Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production,143,27–39.
Landrum, N. E., & Ohsowski, B. (2018). Identifying worldviews on corporate sustainability: A content analysis of corporate
sustainability reports. Business Strategy and the Environment,27(1), 128–151.
Latif, R., Cukier, W., Gagnon, S., & Chraibi, R. (2018). The diversity of professional Canadian Muslim women: Faith, agency,
and ‘performing’identity. Journal of Management & Organization,24(5), 612–633.
Leitch, A. (2003). Slow food and the politics of pork fat: Italian food and European identity. Ethnos,68(4), 437–462.
León-Bravo, V., Moretto, A., Cagliano, R., & Caniato, F. (2019). Innovation for sustainable development in the food industry:
Retro and forward-looking innovation approaches to improve quality and healthiness. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management,26(5), 1049–1062.
Li, Y., Zhu, X., & Darbandi, M. (2022). A comprehensive and bibliometric review on the blockchain-enabled IoT technology
for designing a secure supply chain management system. Journal of Management & Organization,1–18. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2022.74
Lin-Hi, N., & Blumberg, I. (2018). The link between (not) practicing CSR and corporate reputation: Psychological founda-
tions and managerial implications. Journal of Business Ethics,150(1), 185–198.
Longo, M., Mura, M., & Bonoli, A. (2005). Corporate social responsibility and corporate performance: The case of Italian
SMEs. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society,5(4), 28–42.
Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition management. New mode of governance for sustainable development. Utrecht: International Books.
Manetti, G. (2011). The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: Empirical evidence and critical points.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,18(2), 110–122.
Manetti, G., & Toccafondi, S. (2012). The role of stakeholders in sustainability reporting assurance. Journal of Business Ethics,
107, 363–377. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1044-1
Manninen, K., & Huiskonen, J. (2022). Factors influencing the implementation of an integrated corporate sustainability and
business strategy. Journal of Cleaner Production,343, Article 131036.
Mathobela, T. (2010). Strategies for implementing sustainability: Five leadership challenges. SAM Advanced Management
Journal,15,15–21.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). ‘Implicit’and ‘explicit’CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of
corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review,33(2), 404–424.
Melissen, F., Mzembe, A. N., Idemudia, U., & Novakovic, Y. (2018). Institutional antecedents of the corporate social respon-
sibility narrative in the developing world context: Implications for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the
Environment,27(6), 657–676.
Miniaoui, Z., Chibani, F., & Hussainey, K. (2019). The impact of country-level institutional differences on corporate social
responsibility disclosure engagement. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,26(6), 1307–1320.
Negash, M., & Lemma, T. T. (2020). Institutional pressures and the accounting and reporting of environmental liabilities.
Business Strategy and the Environment,29(5), 1941–1960.
Neumayer, E., & Perkins, R. (2004). What explainsthe uneven take-up of ISO 14001 at the global level? A panel-data analysis.
Environment and Planning A,36(5), 823–839.
Nigri, G., Del Baldo, M., & Agulini, A. (2020). Governance and accountability models in Italian certified benefit corporations.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,27(5), 2368–2380.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness
criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,16(1), 1–13.
Oduro, S., Maccario, G., & De Nisco, A. (2021). Green innovation: A multidomain systematic review. European Journal of
Innovation Management,25(2), 567–591.
OECD (2022) Meat consumption (indicator). doi: 10.1787/fa290fd0-en (Accessed on 31 March 2022).
24 Davide Galli et al.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

OECD/FAO (2021) ‘Per capita availability of main food groups (calorie equivalent), by country income group’,in
OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2021–2030, Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1787/
471e9fe2-en
Ogilvy, S., & Vail, M. (2018). Standards-compliant accounting valuations of ecosystems. Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal,9(2), 98–117.
Pepper, C., & Wildy, H. (2008). Leading for sustainability: Is surface understanding enough? Journal of Educational
Administration,46(2), 613–629.
Pérez-López, D., Moreno-Romero, A., & Barkemeyer, R. (2015). Exploring the relationship between sustainability reporting
and sustainability management practices. Business Strategy and the Environment,24(8), 720–734.
Pigini, D., & Conti, M. (2017). NFC-based traceability in the food chain. Sustainability,9(10), 1910.
Pizzi, S. (2018). The relationship between non-financial reporting, environmental strategies and financial performance.
Empirical evidence from Milano stock exchange. Administrative Sciences,8(4), 76. doi: 10.3390/admsci8040076
Pizzi, S., Caputo, A., Corvino, A., & Venturelli, A. (2020). Management research and the UN sustainable development goals
(SDGs): A bibliometric investigation and systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production,276, Article 124033.
Pizzi, S., Rosati, F., & Venturelli, A. (2021). The determinants of business contribution to the 2030 Agenda: Introducing the
SDG reporting score. Business Strategy and the Environment,30(1), 404–421.
Qaim, M. (2020). Role of new plant breeding technologies for food security and sustainable agricultural development. Applied
Economic Perspectives and Policy,42(2), 129–150.
Robertson, F. A., & Samy, M. (2015). Factors affecting the diffusion of integrated reporting –a UK FTSE 100 perspective.
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal,6(2), 190–223.
Romero, S., Ruiz, S., & Fernandez-Feijoo, B. (2019). Sustainability reporting and stakeholder engagement in Spain: Different
instruments, different quality. Business Strategy and the Environment,28(1), 221–232.
Roy, T. K., Al-Abdin, A., & Quazi, A. (2020). Examining the CSR strategy of MNCs in Bangladesh. Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal,6(2), 190–223.
Russo, A., & Tencati, A. (2009). Formal vs. informal CSR strategies: Evidence from Italian micro, small, medium-sized, and
large firms. Journal of Business Ethics,85(2), 339–353.
Salvador, R., Barros, M. V., do Prado, G. F., Pagani, R. N., Piekarski, C. M., & de Francisco, A. C. (2021). Knowledge and
technology transfer in sustainability reports: Fomenting stakeholder engagement for sustainable development.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,28(1), 251–264.
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research methods for business students. Harlow, Essex: Pearson
Education Limited.
Schein, E. (1993). Organizational culture and leadership. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Schoeneborn, D., Morsing, M., & Crane, A. (2020). Formative perspectives on the relation between CSR communication and
CSR practices: Pathways for walking, talking, and t(w)alking. Business and Society,59(1), 5–33.
Segalàs, J., Ferrer-Balas, D., & Mulder, K. F. (2010). What do engineering students learn in sustainability courses? The effect
of the pedagogical approach. Journal of Cleaner Production,18(3), 275–284.
Statista. (2021). Per capita meat consumption forecast in European countries from 2015 to 2022 (in kilograms) [Graph]. In
Statista. Retrieved from: https://www.statista.com/forecasts/679528/per-capita-meat-consumption-european-union-eu
Stewart, R., & Niero, M. (2018). Circular economy in corporate sustainability strategies: A review of corporate sustainability
reports in the fast-moving consumer goods sector. Business Strategy and the Environment,27(7), 1005–1022.
Stranieri, S., Orsi, L., Banterle, A., & Ricci, E. C. (2019). Sustainable development and supply chain coordination: The impact
of corporate social responsibility rules in the European Union food industry. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management,26(2), 481–491.
Sulkowski, A., & White, S. (2010). Financial performance, pollution measures, and the propensity to use corporate respon-
sibility reporting: implications for business and legal scholarship. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law
and Policy,21, 491.
Tchankova, L. (2002). Risk identification–basic stage in risk management. Environmental Management and Health,13(3),
290–297.
Tilt, C. A. (2010). Corporate responsibility, accounting and accountants (11–32). Berlin: Springer.
Tseng, M. L., Chang, C. H., Lin, C. W., Nguyen, T. T. H., & Lim, M. K. (2020). Environmental responsibility drives board
structure and financial and governance performance: A cause and effect model with qualitative information. Journal of
Cleaner Production,258, Article 120668.
Van der Merwe, M., Kirsten, J. F., & Trienekens, J. H. (2019). Enforcement mechanisms and governance structures to protect
a region of origin lamb product. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,24(5), 561–573.
Vitolla, F., Raimo, N., & Rubino, M. (2019). Appreciations, criticisms, determinants, and effects of integrated reporting: A
systematic literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,26(2), 518–528.
Vollero, A., Conte, F., Siano, A., & Covucci, C. (2019). Corporate social responsibility information and involvement strategies
in controversial industries. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,26(1), 141–151.
Journal of Management & Organization 25
https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.40 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Waheed, A., & Yang, J. (2019). Effect of corporate social responsibility disclosure on firms’sales performance: A perspective
of stakeholder engagement and theory. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,26(3), 559–566.
Waheed, A., & Zhang,