From ESG awareness to usage
Challenges posed by the sustainability transition for SMEs
Abstract
The sustainability transition is one of the most important business challenges of our time, requiring companies to integrate ESG (environmental, social, governance) considerations into their operations. The aim of our research is to explore the challenges and opportunities of the sustainability transition for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), with a particular focus on the maturity of their ESG practices. We conducted a questionnaire survey and used factor analysis to analyse the data. To evaluate the results, we used the Attitude–Awareness–Usage (AAU) model, which is well known in marketing and allowed us to measure companies’ attitudes toward ESG, their level of awareness, and their application in practice, and to position them in an ESG maturity matrix based on these indicators. Our results identify the gap between ESG awareness and usage, as well as the most important sustainability issues for SMEs. Our study is the first to provide a comprehensive picture of the ESG maturity of Hungarian SMEs. With the help of the framework developed, decision-makers can identify areas for improvement in their sustainability performance, supporting their ESG transformation and contributing to the success of the sustainability transition.
References
ABOELMAGED, M. [2018]: The drivers of sustainable manufacturing practices in Egyptian SMEs and their impact on competitive capabilities: A PLS-SEM model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 175. köt. 207–221. o. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.053
AJZEN, I.–FISHBEIN, M. [1980]: Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
BANSAL, P. [2005]: Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26. évf. 3. sz. 197–218. o. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.441
BARNEY, J. [1991]: Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17. évf. 1. sz. 99–120. o. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
BAUMGARTNER, R. J.–EBNER, D. [2010]: Corporate sustainability strategies: Sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustainable Development, 18. évf. 2. sz. 76–89. o. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.447
BENDLE, N. T.–FARRIS, P. W.–PFEIFER, P. E.–REIBSTEIN, D. J. [2020]: Marketing metrics: The manager’s guide to measuring marketing performance (3rd ed.). Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
BÖCSKEI ELVIRA–SOMOGYI RÓBERT [2023]: A vállalkozások fenntartható tevékenysége: A taxonómiarendelet hatásainak piacelméleti modellezése. Közgazdasági Szemle, 70. évf. 4. sz. 432–450. o. https://doi.org/10.18414/KSZ.2023.4.432
CANTELE, S.–ZARDINI, A. [2020]: What drives small and medium enterprises towards sustainability? Role of interactions between pressures, barriers, and benefits. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27. évf. 1. sz. 126–136. o. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1778
CARROLL, A. B. [1979]: A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4. évf. 4. sz. 497–505. o. https://doi.org/10.2307/257850
CUMMING, D. J.–TINGLE, B.–ZHAN, F. [2021]: For whom (and for when) is the firm governed? The effect of changes in corporate fiduciary duties on tax strategies and earnings management. European Financial Management, 27. évf. 5. sz. 775–813. o. https://doi.org/10.1111/eufm.12332
DONALDSON, T.–PRESTON, L. E. [1995]: The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20. évf. 1. sz. 65–91. o. https://doi.org/10.2307/258887
ECCLES, R. G.–KLIMENKO, S. [2019]: The investor revolution. Harvard Business Review, 97. évf. 3. sz. 106–116. o. https://hbsp.harvard.edu/product/R1903G-PDF-ENG
ECCLES, R. G.–IOANNOU, I.–SERAFEIM, G. [2014]: The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60. évf. 11. sz. 2835–2857. o. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1984
ELKINGTON, J. [1997]: Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone Publishing, Oxford.
EURÓPAI PARLAMENT [2022]: Az Európai Parlament és a Tanács (EU) 2022/2464 irányelve az 537/2014/EU rendeletnek, a 2004/109/EK irányelvnek, a 2006/43/EK irányelvnek és a 2013/34/EU irányelvnek a fenntarthatósággal kapcsolatos vállalati beszámolás tekintetében történő módosításáról (2022. december 14.). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2464/oj
FREEMAN, R. E. [1984]: Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston, MA.
FREEMAN, R. E.–WICKS, A. C.–PARMAR, B. [2004]: Stakeholder theory and “the corporate objective revisited”. Organization Science, 15. évf. 3. sz. 364–369. o. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0066
GOODPASTER, K. E. [1991]: Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1. évf. 1. sz. 53–73. o. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857592
HART, S. L. [1995]: A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20. évf. 4. sz. 986–1014. o. https://doi.org/10.2307/258963
HODGES JR., J. L.–LEHMANN, E. L. [1963]: Estimates of location based on rank tests. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34. évf. 2. sz. 598–611. o. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177704172
HOLCZINGER NORBERT–SÁRVÁRI BALÁZS [2025]: Fenntartható közgazdaságtan. Oktatói kézikönyv. Budapesti Metropolitan Egyetem–Magyar Nemzeti Bank, Budapest.
HÖRISCH, J.–JOHNSON, M. P.–SCHALTEGGER, S. [2015]: Implementation of sustainability management and company size: A knowledge-based view. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24. évf. 8. sz. 765–779. o. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1844
JENKINS, H. [2006]: Small business champions for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 67. évf. 3. sz. 241–256. o. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9182-6
KIRON, D.–UNRUH, G.–REEVES, M.–KRUSCHWITZ, N.–MEYER ZUM FELDE, A. [2017]: Corporate sustainability at a crossroads: Progress toward our common future in uncertain times. MIT Sloan Management Review (Research Report, May 2017), Cambridge, MA.
KOTLER, P.–KELLER, K. L. [2016]: Marketing management (15th ed.). Pearson Education. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
LAVIDGE, R. J.–STEINER, G. A. [1961]: A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25. évf. 6. sz. 59–62. sz. https://doi.org/10.2307/1248516
MCWILLIAMS, A.–SIEGEL, D. [2001]: Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26. évf. 1. sz. 117–127. o. https://doi.org/10.2307/259398
MISHRA, S.–SUAR, D. [2010]: Does corporate social responsibility influence firm performance of Indian companies? Journal of Business Ethics, 95. köt. 4. sz. 571–601. o. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0441-1
MONTIEL, I. [2008]: Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: Separate pasts, common futures. Organization & Environment, 21. évf. 3. sz. 245–269. o. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026608321329
NIDUMOLU, R.–PRAHALAD, C. K.–RANGASWAMI, M. R. [2009]: Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 87. évf. 9. sz. 56–64. o.
PAPP DÁVID–SÁRVÁRI BALÁZS–VARGA MÁRTON [2022]: Fenntartható pénzügyek. A pénzügyi rendszer és a fenntarthatóság kapcsolata. Megjelent: Baksay Gergely–Matolcsy György–Virág Barnabás (szerk.): Új fenntartható közgazdaságtan. Globális vitairat. Magyar Nemzeti Bank, Budapest, 591–620. o.
PORTER, M. E.–KRAMER, M. R. [2006]: Strategy & society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84. évf. 12. sz. 78–92. o.
REZAEE, Z. [2016]: Business sustainability research: A theoretical and integrated perspective. Journal of Accounting Literature, 36. évf. 1. sz. 48–64. o. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acclit.2016.05.003
SÁRVÁRI BALÁZS [2022]: A zöld pénzügyi kapacitásfejlesztés trendjei és dilemmái. Hitelintézeti Szemle, 21. évf. 4. sz. 207–218. o. http://real.mtak.hu/id/eprint/156178
SCHALTEGGER, S.–WAGNER, M. [2011]: Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20. évf. 4. sz. 222–237. o. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.682
SCHÄUFELE, I.–JANSSEN, M. [2021]: How and why does the attitude-behavior gap differ between product categories of sustainable food? Analysis of organic food purchases based on household panel data. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. évf. 595636. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.595636
SURMAN VIVIEN–BÖCSKEI ELVIRA [2023]: Fenntarthatóság a magyar kis- és középvállalati szektorban. Vezetéstudomány, 54. évf. 10. sz. 15–28. o. https://doi.org/10.14267/VEZTUD.2023.10.02
SURMAN VIVIEN–BÖCSKEI ELVIRA–DOBOS IMRE [2024]: Fenntarthatósági nyomás a magyar kkv-k szemszögéből, bináris változók elemzésével. Statisztikai Szemle, 102. évf. 8. sz. 821–836. o. https://doi.org/10.20311/stat2024.08.hu0821
SURMAN VIVIEN–DOBOS IMRE–BÖCSKEI ELVIRA [2025]: Az érintettek nyomásgyakorlása a kis- és középvállalatok fenntarthatósági magatartására, vármegyénként – klaszterelemzés, 2022. Területi Statisztika, 65. évf. 1. sz. 77–96. o. http://doi.org/10.15196/TS650103
WILCOXON, F. [1945]: Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods. Biometrics Bulletin, 1. évf. 6. sz. 80–83. o. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001968
WINTSCHNIG, B. A. [2021]: The attitude-behavior gap. Drivers and barriers of sustainable consumption. Junior Management Science, 6. évf. 2. sz. 324–346. o. https://doi.org/10.5282/jums/v6i2pp324-346
