This study addresses a developing research concern about the relationship of organization performance (OP) with stakeholder integration (SI) (stakeholder interaction (SInt), behaviours of adaptation (BA)), environmental sustainability concerns (ESC) (knowledge, practice and commitment to environmental sustainability (CES)) and the level of competition (competition intensity). SI refers to the extent of SInt and adaptive behaviour that shapes the decision-making processes of any firm. ESC are reflected in organizations’ knowledge, practices and commitment to sustainability, while competitive intensity (CI) captures the external market pressure faced by firms. The study is based on a primary survey of 242 executive-level personnel and leaders of multinational corporations (MNCs) and business firms in India. Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modelling (SEM), we have tried to establish the relationship between SI, ESC, level of competition, and OP. The growth of a firm is aided by its stakeholders, who make tactical choices. Ecological sustainability concerns and a firm’s competition level are other indicators linked with performance; thus, the present study measures the mentioned constructs through a causal relationship with SEM. Indicating that businesses’ efforts towards environmental sustainability practices and commitment contribute to an organization’s solid performance, and that SInt and competition intensity give businesses in developing countries like India a competitive edge. We find a positive and significant association between SInt, environmental sustainability practices, CES, and CI, whereas a non-significant relationship emerges between behaviours of adaptation and knowledge of environmental sustainability (KES).
AdamsD., AdamsK., Attah-BoakyeR., UllahS., RodgersW., & KimaniD. (2022). Social and environmental practices and corporate financial performance of multinational corporations in emerging markets: Evidence from 20 oil-rich African countries. Resources Policy, 78, 102756.
2.
AdomakoS., & TranM. D. (2022). Stakeholder management, CSR commitment, corporate social performance: The moderating role of uncertainty in CSR regulation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(5), 1414–1423.
3.
AikenL. S., & WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage Publications.
4.
Al FarooqueO., & AhuluH. (2017). Determinants of social and economic reportings: Evidence from Australia, the UK and South African multinational enterprises. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 25(2), 177–200.
5.
Al-HakimiM. A., SalehM. H., BoradeD. B., HasanM. B., & SharmaD. (2022). Competitor orientation and SME performance in competitive environments: The moderating effect of marketing ethics. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 15(1), 1490–1511.
6.
Al-HiyariA., & KolsiM. C. (2024). How do stock market participants value ESG performance? Evidence from Middle Eastern and North African countries. Global Business Review, 25(4), 934–956.
7.
AliS. S., KaurR., & KhanS. (2022). Evaluating sustainability initiatives in a warehouse for measuring sustainability performance: An emerging economy perspective. Annals of Operations Research, 324, 1–40.
8.
Amankwah-AmoahJ., DansoA., & AdomakoS. (2019). Entrepreneurial orientation, environmental sustainability and new venture performance: Does stakeholder integration matter?Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 79–87.
9.
AndersonJ. C., & GerbingD. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411.
10.
Anning-DorsonT. (2016). Interactivity innovations, competitive intensity, customer demand and performance. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 8(4), 536–554.
ArmstrongJ. S., & OvertonT. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.
13.
AwayshehA., HeronR. A., PerryT., & WilsonJ. I. (2020). On the relation between corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 41(6), 965–987.
14.
BabarM., & HabibA. (2021). Product market competition in accounting, finance, and corporate governance: A review of the literature. International Review of Financial Analysis, 73, 101607.
15.
BadhotiyaG. K., AvikalS., SoniG., & SengarN. (2022). Analyzing barriers to the adoption of circular economy in the manufacturing sector. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 71(3), 912–931.
16.
BaggsJ., & De BettigniesJ. E. (2007). Product market competition and agency costs. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 55(2), 289–323.
17.
BalonV., KottalaS. Y., & ReddyK. S. (2022). Mandatory corporate social responsibility and firm performance in emerging economies: An institution-based view. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 1(3), 100023.
18.
BanerjeeS. (2020). Institutionalization of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in India and its effects on CSR reporting: A case study of the petroleum and gas industry. In Mandated corporate social responsibility: Evidence from India (pp. 141–157). Springer.
19.
BoubakerS., DangV. A., & SassiS. (2022). Competitive pressure and firm investment efficiency: Evidence from corporate employment decisions. European Financial Management, 28(1), 113–161.
20.
BrammerS., & PavelinS. (2008). Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental disclosure. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(2), 120–136.
21.
BrockhausS., PetersenM., & KnemeyerA. M. (2019). The fallacy of “trickle-down” product sustainability: Translating strategic sustainability targets into product development efforts. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 39(9/10), 1166–1190.
22.
BrowerJ., & RoweK. (2017). Where the eyes go, the body follows. Understanding the impact of strategic orientation on corporate social performance. Journal of Business Research, 79, 134–142.
23.
CaltonJ. M., & PayneS. L. (2003). Coping with a paradox: Multistakeholder learning dialogue as a pluralist sensemaking process for addressing messy problems. Business & Society, 42(1), 7–42.
24.
ChernevA., & BlairS. (2015). Doing well by doing good: The benevolent halo of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(6), 1412–1425.
25.
ChingH. Y., & GerabF. (2017). Sustainability reports in Brazil through the lens of signalling, legitimacy and stakeholder theories. Social Responsibility Journal, 13(1), 95–110.
26.
ChoC. H., & PattenD. M. (2007). The role of environmental disclosures as tools of legitimacy: A research note. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7–8), 639–647.
27.
CordeiroJ. J., GaleazzoA., ShawT. S., VeliyathR., & NandakumarM. K. (2018). Ownership influences on corporate social responsibility in the Indian context. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35, 1107–1136.
28.
DaiJ., LuC., & QiJ. (2019). Corporate social responsibility disclosure and stock price crash risk: Evidence from China. Sustainability, 11(2), 448.
29.
DansoA., AdomakoS., LarteyT., Amankwah-AmoahJ., & Owusu-YirenkyiD. (2020). Stakeholder integration, environmental sustainability orientation and financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 119, 652–662.
30.
DeeganC., & BlomquistC. (2006). Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: An exploration of the interaction between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industry. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(4–5), 343–372.
31.
DelmasM. A., & ToffelM. W. (2008). Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10), 1027–1055.
32.
DesaiV. M. (2018). Collaborative stakeholder engagement: An integration between theories of organizational legitimacy and learning. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 220–244.
33.
Di VaioA., & VarrialeL. (2020). SDGs and airport sustainable performance: Evidence from Italy on organizational, accounting and reporting practices through financial and non-financial disclosure. Journal of Cleaner Production, 249, 119431.
34.
DocekalovaM., KocmanováA., & KoleňákJ. (2015). Determination of economic indicators in the context of corporate sustainability performance. Business: Theory and Practice, 16(1), 15–24.
35.
DyllickT., & HockertsK. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.
36.
EisenhardtK. M. (1988). Agency and institutional theory explanations: The case of retail sales compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 488–511.
37.
ElkingtonJ. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37–51.
38.
FanQ., AbbasJ., ZhongY., PawarP. S., AdamN. A., & AlarifG. B. (2023). Role of organizational and environmental factors in firm green innovation and sustainable development: Moderating role of knowledge absorptive capacity. Journal of Cleaner Production, 411, 137262.
39.
FengT., CaiD., WangD., & ZhangX. (2016). Environmental management systems and financial performance: The joint effect of switching cost and competitive intensity. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 781–791.
40.
FengT., WangD., LawtonA., & LuoB. N. (2019). Customer orientation and firm performance: The joint moderating effects of ethical leadership and competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 100, 111–121.
41.
FengM., YuW., WangX., WongC. Y., XuM., & XiaoZ. (2018). Green supply chain management and financial performance: The mediating roles of operational and environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(7), 811–824.
42.
FornellC., & LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
43.
FreemanR. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.
44.
GambleE. N., ParkerS. C., & MorozP. W. (2020). Measuring the integration of social and environmental missions in hybrid organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 167, 271–284.
45.
GarrigaE., & MeléD. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1/2), 51–71.
46.
GoodlandR. (1995). The concept of environmental sustainability. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 26(1), 1–24
47.
GreenwoodM. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327.
48.
GrimmJ. H., HofstetterJ. S., & SarkisJ. (2022). Corporate sustainability standards in multi-tier supply chains—An institutional entrepreneurship perspective. International Journal of Production Research, 61, 1–23.
49.
GuptaR., & KumarP. (2022). Corporate social responsibility practices: An empirical study of voluntary and mandatory disclosure by NIFTY 100 companies. Journal of Public Affairs, 22, e2748.
50.
HairJ. F., BlackW. C., BabinB. J., AndersonR. E., & TathamR. L. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
51.
HartS. L., & AhujaG. (1996). Does it pay to be green? An empirical examination of the relationship between emission reduction and firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 5(1), 30–37.
52.
HeQ. (2025). The influence of organizational policies on firm environmental performance through sustainable technologies and innovation and stakeholder concerns. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 10019.
53.
HeniszW. J., DorobantuS., & NarteyL. J. (2014). Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement. Strategic Management Journal, 35(12), 1727–1748.
54.
HernandezM. (2012). Toward an understanding of the psychology of stewardship. Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 172–193.
55.
HoP.-H., & TaylorG. (2013). Corporate governance and different types of voluntary disclosure. Pacific Accounting Review, 25(1), 4–29.
56.
HollebeekL. D., KumarV., & SrivastavaR. K. (2022). From customer-, to actor-, to stakeholder engagement: Taking stock, conceptualization, and future directions. Journal of Service Research, 25(2), 328–343.
57.
HongP., JaganiS., KimJ., & YounS. H. (2019). Managing sustainability orientation: An empirical investigation of manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 211, 71–81.
58.
HristovI., & AppolloniA. (2022). Stakeholders’ engagement in the business strategy as a key driver to increase companies’ performance: Evidence from managerial and stakeholders’ practices. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(4), 1488–1503.
59.
HuS., WangM., WuM., & WangA. (2023). Voluntary environmental regulations, greenwashing, and green innovation: Empirical study of China’s ISO14001 certification. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 102, 107224.
60.
HuangX. (2023). The roles of competition on innovation efficiency and firm performance: Evidence from the Chinese manufacturing industry. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 29(1), 100201.
61.
HynesN. (2009). Corporate culture, strategic orientation, and business performance: New approaches to modeling complex relationships. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(5), 644–651.
62.
JaganiS., & HongP. (2022). Sustainability orientation, byproduct management and business performance: An empirical investigation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 357, 131707.
63.
JansenJ. J., Van Den BoschF. A., & VolberdaH. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.
64.
JensenM. C. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American Economic Review, 76(2), 323–329.
65.
JensenM. C., & MecklingW. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
66.
JhaA., & AggrawalV. S. (2020). Institutional pressures for corporate social responsibility implementation: A study of Indian executives. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(4), 555–577.
67.
JianM., & LeeK. W. (2015). CEO compensation and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 29, 46–65.
68.
JonesT. M., FelpsW., & BigleyG. A. (2007). Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 137–155.
69.
JonesT. M., HarrisonJ. S., & FelpsW. (2018). How applying instrumental stakeholder theory can provide sustainable competitive advantage, Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 371–391.
70.
KaramanA. S., KilicM., & UyarA. (2018). Sustainability reporting in the aviation industry: Worldwide evidence. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 9(4), 362–391.
71.
KatperN., SalmanS. M., & Mohy-ud-DinK. (2024). Unleashing the mechanism in green finance, corporate social responsibility and shareholders wealth: Insight from quantile GMM. Global Business Review, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/09721509241276254
72.
KentP., & MonemR. (2008). What drives TBL reporting: Good governance or threat to legitimacy?Australian Accounting Review, 18(4), 297–309.
73.
KhanR. U., SaqibA., AbbasiM. A., MikhaylovA., & PinterG. (2023). Green leadership, environmental knowledge sharing, and sustainable performance in manufacturing industry: Application from upper echelon theory. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 60, 103540.
74.
KharbR., ShriC., & SainiN. (2024). Growth-accelerating factors of green finance for green growth: A study using TISM. Kybernetes, 54(5), 2773–2805.
75.
KharbR., SunejaV., AggarwalS., SinghP., ShahzadU., SainiN., & KumarD. (2024). The relationship between investment determinants and environmental sustainability: Evidence through meta-analysis. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2024.02.001
76.
KohtamäkiM., EinolaS., & RabetinoR. (2020). Exploring servitization through the paradox lens: Coping practices in servitization. International Journal of Production Economics, 226, 107619.
77.
KujalaJ., SachsS., LeinonenH., HeikkinenA., & LaudeD. (2022). Stakeholder engagement: Past, present, and future. Business & Society, 61(5), 1136–1196.
78.
KumarG., & GoswamiM. (2019). Sustainable supply chain performance, its practice and impact on barriers to collaboration. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 68(8), 1434–1456.
79.
LeT. T., & IkramM. (2022). Do sustainability innovation and firm competitiveness help improve firm performance? Evidence from the SME sector in Vietnam. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 29, 588–599.
80.
LeeM. T., & RaschkeR. L. (2023). Stakeholder legitimacy in firm greening and financial performance: What about greenwashing temptations?Journal of Business Research, 155, 113393.
81.
LeonidouE., ChristofiM., VrontisD., & ThrassouA. (2020). An integrative framework of stakeholder engagement for innovation management and entrepreneurship development. Journal of Business Research, 119, 245–258.
82.
López-GameroM. D., Molina-AzorínJ. F., & Claver-CortésE. (2010). The potential of environmental regulation to change managerial perception, environmental management, competitiveness and financial performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(10–11), 963–974.
83.
MairJ., & MartiI. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419–435.
84.
McCuddyM., & PirieW. (2007). Spirituality, stewardship, and financial decision-making: Toward a theory of intertemporal stewardship. Managerial Finance, 33(12), 957–969.
85.
MilesM. P., MunillaL. S., & DarrochJ. (2006). The role of strategic conversations with stakeholders in the formation of corporate social responsibility strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 195–205.
86.
MitchellR. K., AgleB. R., & WoodD. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.
87.
Mohammad ShafieeM. (2022). Competitive advantage via intellectual capital: A moderated mediation analysis. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 23(5), 957–997.
88.
MulchandaniK., MulchandaniK., IyerG., & LonareA. (2022). Do equity investors care about environment, social and governance (ESG) disclosure performance? Evidence from India. Global Business Review, 23(6), 1336–1352.
89.
NarangS., & KaurM. (2014). Impact of firm-specific attributes on shareholder value creation of Indian companies: An empirical analysis. Global Business Review, 15(4), 847–866.
90.
NguyenT. H., ElmagrhiM. H., NtimC. G., & WuY. (2021). Environmental performance, sustainability, governance and financial performance: Evidence from heavily polluting industries in China. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(5), 2313–2331.
91.
NieuwoudtR., & HallJ. H. (2022). Impact of firm-specific attributes on the shareholder value creation of listed South African companies. Global Business Review, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/09721509221123198
92.
NunnallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
OkaforA., AdeleyeB. N., & AduseiM. (2021). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Evidence from US tech firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 292, 126078.
95.
OliverC. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.
96.
OseiA., AgyemangA. O., & CobbinahJ. (2025). Strategic sustainability initiatives and the circular economy: Insights from firm-level targets, board dynamics, stakeholder pressure, and digital transformation. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 34(4), 4485–4506.
97.
OsiichukD., & WnuczakP. (2022). Do generous trade credit terms provide a competitive edge? Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 14(1), 72–100.
98.
OwareK. M., & MallikarjunappaT. (2022). CSR expenditure, mandatory CSR reporting and financial performance of listed firms in India: An institutional theory perspective. Meditari Accountancy Research, 30(1), 1–21.
99.
PazienzaM., de JongM., & SchoenmakerD. (2022). Clarifying the concept of corporate sustainability and providing convergence for its definition. Sustainability, 14(13), 7838.
100.
PfefferJ., & SuttonR. I. (1999). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies turn knowledge into action. Harvard Business Press.
101.
Plaza-ÚbedaJ. A., de Burgos-JiménezJ., & Carmona-MorenoE. (2010). Measuring stakeholder integration: Knowledge, interaction and adaptational behaviour dimensions. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(3), 419–442.
102.
PodsakoffP. M., MacKenzieS. B., LeeJ. Y., & PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
103.
RajR., BeckV., & SolimanA. (2019). Utilization of value-based management in the strategic management of German automotive industry. Global Business Review, 20(4), 871–886.
104.
RoxasB., AshillN., & ChadeeD. (2017). Effects of entrepreneurial and environmental sustainability orientations on firm performance: A study of small businesses in the Philippines. Journal of Small Business Management, 55, 163–178.
105.
SainiN., SinghaniaM., HasanM., YadavM. P., & AbedinM. Z. (2022). Non-financial disclosures and sustainable development: A scientometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 381, 135173.
106.
SarkisJ. (2020). Supply chain sustainability: Learning from the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 41(1), 63–73.
107.
SharmaM., & ChoubeyA. (2022). Green banking initiatives: A qualitative study on the Indian banking sector. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(1), 293–319.
108.
ShirodkarV., BeddewelaE., & RichterU. H. (2018). Firm-level determinants of political CSR in emerging economies: Evidence from India. Journal of Business Ethics, 148, 673–688.
109.
Shubham, CharanP., & MurtyL. S. (2018). Organizational adoption of sustainable manufacturing practices in India: Integrating institutional theory and corporate environmental responsibility. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 25(1), 23–34.
110.
SilvestreW. J., FonsecaA., & MoriokaS. N. (2022). Strategic sustainability integration: Merging management tools to support business model decisions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(5), 2052–2067.
111.
SinghaniaM., & SainiN. (2021). Demystifying the pollution haven hypothesis: Role of FDI. Journal of Business Research, 123, 516–528.
112.
SinghaniaM., SainiN., ShriC., & BhatiaS. (2023). Cross-country comparative trend analysis in ESG regulatory framework across developed and developing nations. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 35(1), 61–100.
113.
TaoketaoE., FengT., SongY., & NieY. (2018). Does sustainability marketing strategy achieve payback profits? A signalling theory perspective. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(6), 1039–1049.
114.
VelteP. (2019). The bidirectional relationship between ESG performance and earnings management—Empirical evidence from Germany. Journal of Global Responsibility, 10(4), 322–338.
115.
VossG. B., & VossZ. G. (2000). Strategic orientation and firm performance in an artistic environment. Journal of Marketing, 64(1), 67–83.
116.
WagnerF., PreussH., & KöneckeT. (2021). A central element of Europe’s football ecosystem: Competitive intensity in the “big five”. Sustainability, 13(6), 3097.
117.
ZahraS. A., & CovinJ. G. (1995). Contextual influences on the corporate entrepreneurship-performance relationship: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(1), 43–58.
118.
ZhangJ., NomanM., AliA., AliZ., QayyumS., KhanA. A., & SherwaniM. (2025). A moderated mediation model linking stakeholder integration to green innovation: A stakeholder theory perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 34(3), 3764–3780.
119.
ZouS., & CavusgilS. T. (2002). The GMS: A broad conceptualization of global marketing strategy and its effect on firm performance. Journal of Marketing, 66(4), 40–56.
