The pursuit of
sustainability in the oil
industry
MASTER THESIS WITHIN: Business Administration NUMBER OF CREDITS: 30 ECTS
PROGRAMME OF STUDY: International Logistics and Supply Chain Management AUTHOR: Yara Galouk & Visa Seinelä
JÖNKÖPING May 2020
i
Master Thesis within Business Administration
Title: The pursuit of sustainability in the oil industry Authors: Yara Galouk & Visa Seinelä
Tutor: Waldkirch, Matthias Date: 2020-05-18
Key terms: Sustainability, Triple bottom line, supply chain management, supplier selection, supplier development, reactive practices, proactive practices, sustainability barriers
Abstract
Background: The oil industry is experiencing tremendous challenges due to the shifts in global markets and decreasing profits from oil. These challenges have steered companies to select more profitable investments and disregarding different matters of sustainability. However, the oil companies aim to be seen as more sustainable, since the demands of the public and governments increased toward sustainability. Thus, improving sustainability capabilities in the oil industry has become more critical than ever. In this study, the triple bottom line framework is used, which covers the social, environmental, and economical dimensions of sustainability. This study focuses on reactive and proactive practices that can overcome the barriers to achieving sustainability. Furthermore, the focus is on the oil industry’s pursuit of sustainability is facilitated by connecting reactive and proactive practices to improve the sustainability capabilities of a company.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is first to identify the barriers to achieving sustainability in the oil industry and understand how companies can overcome these barriers by conducting reactive and proactive practices. Furthermore, the purpose is to understand how reactive and proactive practices can improve companies' capabilities for sustainability performance.
Method: This study follows the inductive approach, as the aim was to discover new insights and assumptions from the studied phenomenon. Furthermore, the study is conducted as exploratory and qualitative, in order to provide a rich understanding of the barriers of sustainability within the oil industry, and how reactive and proactive practices can facilitate the capabilities for improving sustainability in companies. For the data collection method, semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts working within a single company that operates in the oil industry. The collected empirical data was analyzed with grounded analysis. Conclusion: With the empirical findings and existing literature, the internal and external barriers to achieving sustainability are identified. Furthermore, the connection with identified barriers and reactive and proactive practices is introduced, as well as how the practices facilitate overcoming these barriers. Also, the study connects reactive and proactive practices that improve sustainability capabilities in companies. The study suggests that practitioners focus on developing a solid foundation of reactive practices, on which to build strategies with proactive practices. Primarily the focus on the oil industry should be in the creation of environmental capabilities, as this potential is disregarded with the current set of practices. Improving triple bottom line dimensions is identified as a win-win process, which argues for the potential of improvement in environmental sustainability would assist in matching the economic and social demands of the oil industry.
ii
Table of content
1.
Introduction ... 1
1.1 Background ... 1 1.2 Problem Discussion ... 3 1.3 Purpose ... 41.4 Scope and delimitations ... 5
1.5 Keywords defined ... 5
2.
Literature Review ... 7
2.1 Sustainability ... 7
2.1.1 Sustainability in SSCM context ... 7
2.1.2 The triple bottom line approach ... 8
2.1.3 Stakeholder theory and sustainable development ... 10
2.1.4 Supplier selection ... 10
2.1.5 Challenges and barriers toward implementing sustainability ... 11
2.2 Reactive and proactive practices ... 16
2.2.1 Reactive practices ... 16
2.2.2 Proactive practices ... 17
2.2.3 Reactive sustainability practices ... 19
2.2.4 Proactive sustainability practices ... 19
2.2.5 Differences between reactive and proactive approaches ... 20
3.
Methodology ... 22
3.1 Research approach ... 22 3.2 Research Philosophy ... 23 3.2.1 Ontology ... 23 3.2.2 Epistemology ... 24 3.3 Data collection ... 25 3.4 Sample ... 26 3.5 Case study ... 273.5.1 Case study method ... 27
3.5.2 The case company and interview participants ... 28
3.6 Data analysis method ... 29
3.7 Time Horizon ... 32 3.8 Quality assurance ... 32 3.8.1 Credibility ... 33 3.8.2 Transferability ... 33 3.8.3 Dependability... 34 3.8.4 Confirmability ... 34 3.9 Research ethics ... 34
4.
Theoretical findings ... 36
4.1 Sustainability ... 36 4.2 Barriers of sustainability ... 37 4.2.1 External barriers ... 37 4.2.2 Internal Barriers ... 394.3 Reactive and proactive practices at the case company ... 41
4.3.1 Supplier selection criteria and process at the case company ... 41
iii
5.
Analysis ... 48
5.1 Sustainability ... 48 5.2 Barriers ... 49 5.2.1 External barriers ... 49 5.2.2 Internal barriers ... 525.3 Evaluation of the practices at the case company ... 53
5.3.1 Evaluation of reactive practices ... 54
5.3.2 Evaluation of proactive practices ... 56
5.4 Overcoming the barriers with reactive and proactive practices ... 57
5.5 Improving sustainability capabilities with reactive and proactive practices ... 59
5.5.1 Reactive practices and the TBL ... 60
5.5.2 Proactive practices and the TBL ... 62
6.
Conclusion ... 63
7.
Discussion ... 66
7.1 Theoretical implications ... 66 7.2 Managerial implication ... 67 7.3 Limitations ... 67 7.4 Future research ... 68References ... 69
Appendices ... 74
iv
Figures
Figure 1 Data structure ... 31
Figure 2 Timeframe of study ... 32
Tables
Table 1 Interview participants ... 29Table 2 Reactive practices at the case company ... 42
Table 3 Proactive practices at the case company ... 45
Table 4 Identified practices in literature and interviews ... 54
Table 5 Connecting the reactive and proactive practices to the TBL ... 60
Appendix
Figure 1 Guideline for semi-structured interview ... 741
1. Introduction
______________________________________________________________________
The first chapter emphasizes the importance and topicality of this study. After reading the background, the reader will have an introduction to the field of sustainability, supplier selection, current shifts in the oil industry, and reactive and proactive practices in supplier selection. The next sections discuss the problem and introduce the purpose and the research questions of the study. Finally, the scope and delimitations are discussed, and the keywords of the study are defined.
______________________________________________________________________ 1.1 Background
The current developments in the interests of industry and academical literature have developed a situation where it is acknowledged that all the organizations must incorporate sustainability into their supply chain management (SCM) practices (e.g., Ageron, Gunasekaran, & Spalanzani, 2012; Altmann, 2015). The need to move towards sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) and sustainable practices is crucial, as it has a broad national and global impact on how global issues such as climate change and overuse of scarce natural resources are tackled. This SSCM awareness has made companies wanting to improve their environmental, social, and economic performance by integrating sustainability into their strategies. Also, it highlighted the importance of their partners’ sustainability values within the supply chain (SC), and the responsibility in setting up their SCs, by selecting the right business partners and suppliers (Ageron et al., 2012). Selecting environmentally and socially responsible suppliers is the starting point to govern the upstream flow of procedures. A higher level of control by screening suppliers at the early stages prevents the violation of sustainable measures in the future (Azevedo, Carvalho, Duarte, & Cruz-Machado, 2012). If companies do not succeed in selecting the right suppliers, they lose their chances of developing a competitive advantage (Fawcett & Waller, 2014). Also, this failure in supplier selection makes it impossible for a company to achieve sustainability (Atlmann, 2015). For a company, its supplier base has a significant impact on its sustainability performance (Kähkönen, Lintukangas, & Hallikas, 2018).
2
The oil industry considered the backbone of the economy and a fundamental cornerstone for almost every business process around the globe. Therefore, sustainability in the oil industry is crucial. This impact is due to a dual effect, as the industry adds to sustainable development in multiple ways, such as creating job opportunities and enabling economic development. However, at the same time, the oil industry causes harm to the environment, habitats, and natural resources (George, Siti-Nabiha, Jalaludin & Abdalla, 2016). Even though the consensus of improving sustainability in the oil industry has been reached, the challenges of the industry are present now more than ever, as the industry suffers from a decrease of demand, as well as the decrease of the oil price (Lu, Guo, Azimi & Huang, 2019; Hansen, 2020). The price of oil has plunged into a negative first time in history. This unforeseen change in oil prices is due to the Covid-19 pandemic, which has decreased oil demand enormously. However, the oil industry was already suffering from multiple disruptions before the start of the pandemic (Hansen, 2020). The current trend in the oil industry has led to a situation where companies face challenges that they are not able to solve (Lu et al., 2019).
Companies can have different levels of involvement when it comes to interpreting sustainability within their supplier selection strategy and decision-making processes. These forms of engagement can have different effects on the SC and how the company act and react regarding their supplier selection and other business partners. For a company to be able to establish a sustainable SC, it must choose the correct approach for supplier selection. This strategical approach is a combination of two aspects of practices, which are either reactive or proactive (Akhavan & Beckmann, 2017; Kim, 2018). When it comes to addressing sustainability with reactive and proactive practices, companies conducting reactive practices aim to adapt regulations and standards set by governments. On the contrary, companies conducting proactive strategies take the initiative in creating long-term solutions and developing a strategic plan to cover all aspects of sustainability (Ageron et al., 2012; Kähkönen et al., 2018). Most of the companies have become interested in increasing their sustainability performance and integrate the triple bottom line (TBL) dimensions into their work processes. However, even with the increased awareness of sustainability, companies are still failing in the transformation (Elena Windolph, Schaltegger & Herzig, 2014).
3 1.2 Problem Discussion
The main issue of sustainability is that it is a broad phenomenon and a complex concept that is challenging when measured or specified. Moreover, it is built on the notion of three-wide key areas, the society, the environment, and the economy, which are hard to combine into a single strategy (Epstein & Buhovac, 2010). As defined earlier, the companies struggle in their sustainability transformation (Elena Windolph et al., 2014). Especially the problems arise in complex SCs, where it is hard to track the sustainability of all parties involved. Trying to validate the sustainability performance of suppliers or multiple levels of suppliers is extremely demanding (Rauer and Kauffman, 2015). However, the challenges to achieving sustainability emerge on both the external and internal levels. However, the internal barriers for sustainability also limit companies from implementing sustainability into their SC (Grosvold, Hoejmose, & Roehrich, 2014). Therefore, understanding the barriers to sustainability in the oil industry has a critical impact on the oil companies, which are trying to improve their sustainability performance.
Furthermore, implementing reactive and proactive practices is challenging for a specific company’s context. Companies following solely reactive practices often are forced to due to external pressure (Kähkönen et al., 2018). Reactive practices are often initially less expensive, and thus, more enjoyable (Yao, Huang, Song, & Mishra, 2018). Proactive practices require sophisticated SCM capabilities and a solid foundation of reactive practices (Grosvold et al., 2014; Kähkönen et al., 2018). However, even having a set of reactive and proactive practices in use, companies might still fail in their pursuit of sustainability (Berrone, Walls, & Phan, 2011).
As the oil industry is faced with turmoil, the demand for findings solutions for improving sustainability is crucial. The oil industry has either a direct or indirect influence on almost all other industries. If sustainability can be integrated within this challenging industry, the positive effect will be spread to other industries that are dependent on it (George et al., 2016). This turmoil in the oil industry (e.g., Epstein & Buhovac, 2010; Lu et al., 2019; Hansen, 2020) shifts the focus of environmental and social sustainability to more pressing operational matters. This shift means that companies in the oil industry must focus on improving short-term profits. The challenge for improving sustainability is clear, as the
4
pressure steers the decision making. This pressure creates an obstacle for more long-term investments and practices (Epstein & Buhovac, 2010; Lu et al., 2018).
1.3 Purpose
Based on the problem discussion, we have identified two gaps in the literature. The first gap is identifying and closing the internal and external barriers of sustainability in the oil industry. The empirical study aims to contribute to the vast literature on sustainability by having different perspectives when studying the oil industry. The study identifies the barriers to sustainability, as well as connects reactive and proactive practices for removing these barriers. The second gap is related to the TBL literature and reactive and proactive practices. This research aims to close the gap by analyzing how reactive and proactive practices improve capabilities for sustainability performance. Therefore, the purpose of the study is:
’To identify barriers of sustainability in the oil industry, to understand how companies overcome barriers through reactive and proactive practices, as well as
understanding how these practices improve sustainability capabilities for companies.’
In order to fulfil the purpose of this study, two research questions will be answered. The first research question fulfils the purpose of identifying barriers to sustainability and understanding how to overcome these identified barriers. Thus, the first research question (RQ) is:
RQ1: What are the barriers to sustainability in the oil industry, and how to overcome these barriers with reactive and proactive practices?
After providing an understanding of how to overcome the barriers with reactive and proactive practices, the second RQ fulfils the purpose of understanding how reactive and proactive practices improve capabilities for sustainability performance in companies. Therefore, the second RQ is:
5
RQ2: How reactive and proactive practices improve capabilities for sustainability performance in companies?
To answer these research questions and to fulfil the purpose of the study, a single case study will be conducted. The case study was conducted in an international oil company. The goal of this study is to result in new insights on barriers to achieve sustainability and how to overcome these barriers. Furthermore, this study aims to facilitate the pursuit of sustainability in the oil industry when improving the understanding of sustainability capabilities connection to reactive and proactive practices. This study contributes to research in the field of sustainability and SCM.
1.4 Scope and delimitations
This study is written as a master thesis in the field of business administration. This has an impact on the research, as reviewed literature is in the field of SCM. With the definition of scope, some delimitations are visible.
To narrow down the vast research based on sustainability, we have narrowed the decisions to be related to the TBL and SCM. Sustainability literature outside of this scope, which consists of the TBL approach, has not been included in the study. In addition, literature covering reactive and proactive practices is linked to sustainability. Therefore, the existing research which does not contribute to the field of sustainability has not been included.
1.5 Keywords defined Sustainability
Sustainability is defined as meeting the needs of today without limiting future generations to meet theirs. Sustainability consists of three main aspects: environmental, social, and economic (Altmann, 2015).
Triple bottom line
The TBL is a measurement method to analyze the performance of companies not only from an economic perspective but from a social, as well as an environmental perspective (Longoni & Cagliano, 2016).
6 Reactive practices
The reactive practices emerge on historical data and past actions (Shankar, 2006; Kirilmaz & Erol, 2017). They aim to react and respond to new legislation and requirements as they appear (Teixeira & Werther, 2013; Yao, Huang, Song, & Mishra, 2018). The reactive practices often are cheaper, as the cost of reacting is initially lower than in the proactive practices (Yao et al., 2018.)
Proactive practices
The proactive practices differ from the reactive practices in the following way. The practices focus on the future, which is driven by anticipation for change (Shankar, 2006). The company conducting proactive practices focuses on developing new dynamic capabilities, which can facilitate a company to tackle with complexness and instigate preparedness (Grosvold, Hoejmose, & Roehrich, 2014; Kähkönen et al., 2018). Proactive practices address either a broad range of issues or in a specific domain (Bitzer, Pascucci & Dentoni, 2016; Li, He, & Chen, 2017).
7
2. Literature Review
______________________________________________________________________
The purpose of this chapter is to provide the theoretical background for the study. Literature is reviewed from the field of sustainability and reactive and proactive practices. The sustainability covers the TBL, supplier selection and barriers to achieve sustainability. Reactive and proactive practices cover identifying of practices and their relation to sustainability.
______________________________________________________________________ 2.1 Sustainability
2.1.1 Sustainability in SSCM context
The importance of addressing sustainability issues within the SC has been much relevant than ever. Sustainable development is defined as meeting the needs of the present without limiting future generations to meet theirs (Altmann, 2015). To improve the overall sustainability levels in the SCs, companies need to follow the regulations and demands set by governments to cover the different aspects of sustainability and achieve a better sustainability level (Vahidi, Torabi & Ramezankhani, 2018). One of the most common management approaches to improve sustainability and increase the intended value delivered to customers is lean management, where the main focus is to minimize any kind of waste by maintaining profitability and cutting out unnecessary costs. Waste can take different forms, as it can be waste in material, time, energy, process duplication or overlapping, overproduction, and overstock (Green, Zelbst, Meacham, & Bhadauria, 2012).
Furthermore, the green management approach has been recognized to contribute, besides the social and environmental features, also in the cost reduction. This can happen, for example, by a reduction in the use of resources, such as water, energy, or raw materials, by using the resources more efficiently. Therefore, companies who are focusing solely on the economical function while ignoring the environmental function are seen to miss out on potential commercial opportunities and will lose, especially when the price of the scarce commodities rises. (Azevedo et al., 2012).
8
The shift towards more sustainable ways of doing things within companies and in SCs is one of the main topics in the academic literature (Ageron et al., 2012; Altmann, 2015). As sustainability consists of three main pillars economic, social, and environmental (later defined as the TBL), it is that businesses must re-design their SC according to match the challenges caused by the environmental issues. Azevedo et al. (2012) argue that even the green and lean paradigms are often addressed by companies to manage their relationships with suppliers, companies still lack a clear vision or understanding of how it is reflected in companies' overall performance. Besides this complexity, Altmann (2015) states that most of the approaches of sustainability procedures implemented when moving towards SSCM consider the economical function of the triple-bottom-line, where the social and the environmental aspects are more likely ignored.
2.1.2 The triple bottom line approach
The framework of the triple bottom the TBL was developed by Elkington in 1994, as a measurement method to analyze the performance of companies not only from an economic perspective but from a social, as well as an environmental perspective. This framework has shifted the focus from the one bottom-line thinking, that evaluates the company's performance by looking at the company's profit and financial progress, to expand the scope to include people and the planet. This means integrating the three different aspects of sustainability, environmental, social, and economic, into the company's corporate culture, management, and strategy (Longoni & Cagliano, 2016).
According to the TBL, social sustainability includes improving the welfare and well-being of the employees internally and the community externally. By securing suitable working conditions, maximizing safety, and developing social programs to support and sustain the well-being of the more significant number of stakeholders. For some companies, social performance measurement is forced by the law and is seen as one of the business obligations, such as ensuring employment standards and rights. Also, some consider the social aspect of following up with customers' expectations and improve firms 'reputation. The social performance can also be impacted by the leadership group, which can differ widely from a corporation to another. Therefore, it could be measured by diverse activities, such as donations, sponsorships, employee welfare programs, and supplier-standards. Environmental sustainability is defined by caring for the planet and
9
animals, where companies should maximize their efforts to reduce the consumption of natural resources and eliminate their footprint by reducing emissions and pollution. Finally, economic sustainability is referred to as pursing the financial goals of a business and sustaining profitability over time (Longoni & Cagliano, 2016).
Integrating all aspects of the TBL approach puts companies and managers in a challenge to meet the current short-term needs of a business without sacrificing the long-term responsibility toward people and the planet. Capturing the holistic picture by interpreting business ethics, the TBL approach of sustainability, and business goals into companies' corporate culture, strategy, and operations is the core challenge as it can be associated with a high level of complexity, and different obstacles (Longoni & Cagliano, 2016). 2.1.2.1 The win-win perspective and trade of perspective
Literature suggested two perspectives regarding the TBL approach. The first is referred to as a win-win view, also called a business case perspective. It suggests that synergies and intercorrelations exist between two or more of the TBL aspects, and therefore common benefits can be achieved by pursuing the different aspects. For instance, improving the environmental and social performance can result in financial growth for corporations, as when a company focuses on protecting the planet, that can result in an enhanced reputation and position in the market, thus higher profitability (Longoni & Cagliano, 2016).
On the other hand, the trade-off perspective addresses the situations where synergies are missing between the different dimensions. This perspective focuses on the cases in which the contribution of corporations toward sustainability can only be attained by compromising at least two aspects of the TBL where they can interfere with each other (Longoni & Cagliano, 2016). Purvis, Mao & Robinson (2018) argued that the dominant dimension will always be economical, as the core objective of any business is making a profit. Therefore, placing focus on the other pillars can weaken and distract the business from achieving its economic goals.
10
2.1.3 Stakeholder theory and sustainable development
The term "sustainable development" has emerged as a result of the change in the global way of thinking, which is pressuring corporations to re-design their business operations and strategies, and to re-evaluate their performance according to those sustainable measures. However, still, many companies perceive sustainability as a purely environmental act or a purely economic measure and do not consider the holistic picture of it. This can be a barrier itself that limits these companies from perceiving the whole picture and react according to that. However, by taking into consideration the stakeholder's theory and the long-term impact on the future generation, the TBL approach could be a viable performance measurement system for organizational sustainable development (Longoni & Cagliano, 2016).
2.1.4 Supplier selection
The SC design and infrastructure play a crucial role in the tactical, operational, and strategic planning levels. The set-up of SC includes different nodes, partners, and entities that create the SC structure. This structure has a significant influence on the overall flow and performance. Nowadays, companies cannot be competitive anymore on their own. Competitive SCs have become the determinant factor of success in today's challenging business world. Drawing, combining, and designing the different capabilities, resources, and skills are the backbones of configuring the SC shape and design. Companies can get a superior advantage in the marketplace by developing their SC design and improving their upstream and downstream partners throughout the chain. This can result in cost efficiency, enhanced strategic alignment and planning, improved lead-time, responsiveness, and visibility (Melnyk, Narasimhan & Decampos, 2013).
It has been argued that strategic decisions have a more significant influence on the environmental aspect of business performance than operational and tactical decisions. Therefore, closer attention is required to establish an SC system and design. This is done by taking the decisions regarding the number, locations, and types of SC entities, such as selecting suppliers, facilities, warehouses, and distribution methods (Altmann, 2015). Altmann, (2015) argued that companies cannot achieve sustainability if they fail to address sustainability measures in the upstream and downstream of the SC. An important decision when designing the SC is the selection of a firm's key suppliers. Businesses can
11
have different approaches when selecting suppliers. Some companies follow general standards such as selecting suppliers with approved sustainability certificates, or by requesting suppliers to comply with their code of conduct. Other companies will be willing to reach out to their suppliers to coordinate through creating common solutions and strategies, even beyond companies' boundaries (Ageron et al., 2012). Therefore, selecting the right business partners helps companies to build the right strategic system design that is crucial in attaining a competitive advantage in the market. To achieve that position, strategic decisions must be made by managers regarding three key aspects: right players, rights roles, and right relationships (Fawcett & Waller, 2014).
To enhance the value chain, and ensure compliance of other partners, companies should extend their values, and promote their ethics to reach up to suppliers as well as to end-customers down in the SC. Processes like inventory management, waste, and emissions reduction, energy consumption, cost, and resource efficiency, managing non-renewable resources, are crucial to be controlled throughout the chain. Research suggests that some businesses prefer to contract with local suppliers to have a higher level of control and monitoring, which contributes to social and environmental sustainability (Carvalho et al., 2012).
Azevedo et al. (2012) suggest different practices on how to maintain greener upstream SCs. Practices such as diagnosing and addressing environmental issues jointly with suppliers when planning and solving different sustainability challenges. For instance, a company must attain mutual agreements with its suppliers to reduce the logistical effect of material flow as much as possible. Moreover, proactive monitoring and tracking of suppliers' activities to improve their environmental performance. A company should also set up social and environmental requirements and standards for suppliers to align with and establishing green purchasing specifications and logistics guidelines, where putting mutual efforts in developing innovative product design.
2.1.5 Challenges and barriers toward implementing sustainability
As discussed earlier, to achieve higher sustainability levels, companies need to change their SC designs by selecting their key partners regarding sustainability standards and considerations. Therefore, it is essential to understand what are the internal or external
12
barriers that limit them from changing toward an enhanced sustainability performance (Biedenbach & Manzhynski, 2016).
It has been argued by Salas-Zapata, Ríos-Osorio, and Cardona-Arias (2018), that the three following aspects can measure change toward sustainability: knowledge, attitudes, and actions. Knowledge stands for the level of awareness, understanding, and the set of facts companies have around sustainability. Attitudes represent the level of motivation and commitment to take action. Finally, practices are the actions taken by the individuals or groups to address their knowledge, believes, and attitudes by transferring them into actions. These three aspects combined are needed for companies to move their intentions forward and make the change toward sustainability successfully.
Rauer and Kaufmann (2015) stated that the barriers for change in SCM could be from either an internal or an external source. Internal barriers appear within the organization, and they relate to how the business itself can conduct the change process. On the contrary, external barriers occur outside the company's borders, between businesses working in the same SC. These external effects can create obstacles for the change process toward sustainability to be completed successfully. In most cases, the main reason that causes the external challenge for companies has been related to suppliers. Suppliers who are resisting the change or are located in different countries where regulations differ significantly. With these business partners creating an external obstacle for the company, collaboration might often be challenging and complex, which makes the mitigation of the barrier harder. Where on the other hand, resolving internal barriers is in most cases easier, as they are limited within the boundaries of the business, and can be better monitored and controlled to a certain extent (Rauer and Kaufmann, 2015).
2.1.5.1 External barriers
Sustainability management entails developing internal sustainability tools and measures, as well as contributing to other stakeholders externally to support society and the environment (Johnson, 2013). On the external level, to design sustainable SCs, a firm needs the right business partners that can add value and increase the value proposed throughout the chain. However, one of the essential aspects of selecting a business partner
13
is to have a shared vision and working ethics regarding critical issues such as sustainability and its different areas (Ehrgott, Reimann, Kaufmann, & Carter, 2010). Aligning with other partners in the oil industry is harder than other industries as the chain is longer where many different parties are involved upstream, midstream, and downstream. That can add significant weight to management decision making, as many external aspects can influence the way the operations are being processed (Spangler & Pompper, 2011).
Another external aspect is the governmental control of oil and gas prices that can be challenging for firms in this industry. This forces firms to shift their attention to mainly focus on profit, and ignore other topics such as sustainability. Also, this effect makes firms follow fast returns investments that increase their profit on the short-run scale rather than investing in other projects that might take more time to pay off. This has been argued by Epstein & Buhovac (2010), explaining the financial incentives pressure, where managers find it hard to integrate sustainability in their daily decision making as they have the pressure to increase their short-term profit. Practices that can increase the financial, environmental, and social aspects simultaneously like a decrease in resource consumption and waste are seen as an economic opportunity. This can make the decision making easier for mangers as the economic incentive is clearly seen. On the other hand, when only the social and environmental benefits are seen, the decision making will be harder as managers need to evaluate the economic cost. The costs of prioritizing social and environmental aspects are not always stable, and in many scenarios, can increase by time. This challenge can put management under pressure when making business decisions.
Rauer and Kauffman (2015) have identified two key barriers when implementing SSCM practices in the SCs. The first one is the lack of SC transparency. This happens when the sustainable practices, that are implemented in the SC, are performed without the manager's reach to oversee processes. This problem occurs when a company is challenged to verify information related to the SSCM functions in the first, second-tier, or further suppliers. The second barrier is at the implementation phase and identified as the lack of influence on suppliers. A business has to have strong cooperation from its participants in the SC to be able to lead the sustainable development in the SC. Therefore, complex
14
multitier SCs are more likely to face transparency issues, as well as difficulties in influencing different business partners.
One crucial aspect of the SC design is the technology applied to link the different entities and ensure the information flow between all the different functional areas of the chain. Already in the 1980s, companies working in the oil industry began to adopt digital technologies within their SCs. The motivation for this was to understand the production potential of oil better, as well as improve the marginal operational efficiency. The challenge related to the implementation of the digitalization has been the vast amount of data, and how to use this data meaningfully in strategic decision making. The reason for the slow development of digital solutions is that industry professionals have had change resistance for the new methods of doing things. Only during the past ten years, digital technologies and its possibilities have been widely recognized. The rapid development of technologies, such as big data, internet of things and cloud computing are, arguably, facilitating the need for change and adopting these solutions, as they are going to change the oil industry and its SCs design profoundly (Lu, et al. 2019).
2.1.5.2 Internal barriers
At an organization level, the growing awareness toward sustainability has provoked the need for managers to set up sustainability tools and policies in their organizations (Biedenbach & Manzhynski, 2016). However, managers are still facing challenges despite the spread of attention toward sustainability. These challenges are mostly related to integrating sustainability in business practices and activities, and in addressing sustainability along with other performance measures. For a goal to be achieved, it should be measurable and specific. When it comes to sustainability, setting clear targets and defined goals are not as easy as setting goals for other kinds of strategies. This is since all other business goals can be linked directly to profit. As on the contrary, sustainability cannot be linked directly in the same way, which makes it harder to measure (Epstein & Buhovac, 2010).
Biedenbach & Manzhynski (2016) further argued that to achieve enhanced sustainability performance, managers need to understand the root obstacles that prevent a successful sustainability implementation. One of these obstacles is the absence of the linkage
15
between the contribution of sustainability to the overall corporate performance (Epstein & Buhovac, 2010). Some researchers have suggested that the lack of a clear company's vision and culture can have a significant influence on how sustainability is incorporated and reflected by the company and its SCs (Kucharska & Kowalczyk, 2018). According to Kotler (2011), business strategies and goals must be aligned with their tactical planning and efforts to achieve the aimed sustainability level.
To influence the companies' sustainability performance positively, Kumar and Christodoulopoulou (2014), have suggested that sustainability should be promoted internally between employees, and externally between the different stakeholders. Internal branding entails spreading awareness as well as reinforcing knowledge toward the company's corporate brand and vision, such as the company's sustainability policy. Gapp and Merrilees (2006), have found that the level of employees' engagement rises when initiating effective internal branding practices to improve sustainability performance within a corporation. On the other hand, the corporate sustainability model illustrates the importance of top management support when addressing sustainability measures and initiatives within a company. This model specifies the leadership role in steering the wheel for of the company's practices toward social and environmental sustainability. It consists of four main stages, which are the inputs, process, outputs, and outcomes. Leadership has a central role in receiving the inputs from the internal and external contexts, and transfer it to practices implemented by the company. By using the inputs that consist of facts and information, the management can develop sustainability strategies and systems to achieve the intended sustainability performance (Epstein & Buhovac, 2010).
According to Garbie (2015), the extent of sustainability awareness can be assessed by the way knowledge and facts are realized and utilized. Sustainability awareness in the industrial environment is not the same as in public. Rising the level of employees' sustainability awareness by encouraging sustainability efforts can have a significant impact on the way employees execute their tasks at work (Garbie, 2015). Setting up appropriate tools is important to support management in their decision-making process when tackling the different issues of sustainability (Johnson, 2013). Most of the companies understand the importance of sustainability and the need to implement it in
16
the business world but find difficulties when transferring it into practice. To move from sustainability as a concept or a vision to sustainability as a way of working, companies would need to have the correct management tools in place (Elena Windolph et al., 2014).
There are different sustainability tools a company can implement to assist their daily work toward sustainability. However, not every tool can be suitable for every kind of organization. Therefore, the evaluation of each tool and its applicability is crucial to evaluate the fit between the need of the company and what this tool can assist with (Johnson, 2013). Different kinds of tools have been developed to help with addressing sustainability in the business world. These tools can be set up in different functions or departments within an organization to help to address sustainability in that specific function. Companies have to pick and implement the most suitable tools that can help the company in managing and improving their sustainability practices and the best way. For instance, tools can have different orientations to help with solving different kinds of issues. These tools include accounting tools, environmental and social audits, benchmarking tools, employee development tools, environmental and social management systems, reporting schemes, and stakeholders' tools (Johnson, 2013). However, the lack of the right tools can cause a big gap for companies that aim to achieve sustainability goals.
2.2 Reactive and proactive practices 2.2.1 Reactive practices
Organizations traditionally are keener to move toward sustainability and engage the sustainable practices mainly as a reaction for external pressures (Kähkönen et al., 2018). Besides this, companies are often inexperienced when dealing with environmental issues creatively, and they lack the knowledge of the environmental impacts of their practices. The lack of understanding of the strategic importance of sustainability leads to misunderstanding the commercial benefits that sustainable practices might provide for them. Therefore, companies often end up using solely reactive sustainability practices (De Marchi & Grandinetti, 2013).
17
In their study Grosvold et al. (2014) identify that companies conducting reactive strategies usually tend to have no connection between measurement and management of the sustainable practices that they are covering. If a company is measuring the practices, but not managing them, the company is aiming to minimize the risk. In contrast, some companies have management practices that facilitate improving the overall sustainability but lack the measurement of these practices. These companies are actively managing sustainability issues and use these to gain business advantages. However, as the measurement tools are not actively measuring the right things, there is a possibility for a mismatch of intentions and the actual outcomes of these actions. Therefore, the loop between these two practices is required if the companies want to do more than act reactively on sustainability issues. Companies conducting reactive sustainability strategy often have specific requirements for their suppliers, but these requirements are often not monitored. The problem emerges when the capabilities of measuring sustainable engagement and knowing how to interpret that data are not sufficient. Thus, the implementation of the practices into the company’s day-to-day work fails (Grosvold et al., 2014).
The reactive sustainability practices focus on risk management practices (Kirilmaz & Erol 2017; Kähkönen et al., 2018). These include practices such as environmental and management standards, as well as supplier auditing and screening. However, the strategies that solely focus on risk management are usually more cost-focused, where the aim is to reduce supplier-related risks. In supplier selection, the companies evaluates suppliers by sustainability, but the focus is on risk avoidance. Thus, reactive strategies might not be able to develop new capabilities for companies and SCs (Kähkönen et al., 2018).
2.2.2 Proactive practices
The proactive practices require a company to have sophisticated SCM capabilities for efficient management of supplier and supplier selection (Kähkönen et al., 2018). In the current turbulent business environment, many companies must be able to react quickly to emerging changes (Teixeira & Werther, 2013). Proactive practices allow companies to maintain operations function in situations that would disrupt the companies conducting solely reactive practices. The requirement for better resilience is that a company develops
18
processes in cooperation with the suppliers. With this development, a competitive advantage is achieved. The more influence the company has, the easier it is to achieve these benefits (Cheng & Lu, 2017). Proactive strategies increase the capabilities of the company to manage it through changes, as well as discover new business opportunities (Teixeira & Werther, 2013). Companies wanting to address the sustainability need to have dynamic and proactive practices, which lead to developing capabilities required for SSCM. Often the successful companies are the ones that can build a strategy with proactive practices. They aim to modify their competencies to fit these proactive practices and develop new capabilities whenever needed (Kähkönen et al., 2018). The need for the company to develop new capabilities, primarily due to continuously changing and increasing sustainability requirements, is acknowledged in many studies (e.g., Berrone et al., 2011; Grosvold et al., 2014; Akhavan & Beckmann, 2017; Kähkönen et al., 2018). This constant change requires companies to adjust, and therefore, be proactively ahead of the upcoming changes in the legal requirements. The proactive practices do not focus on mitigating risks per se. However, they extend the strategies outside of their boundaries, as well as develop the suppliers and their capabilities. Therefore, proactive practices address sustainability issues directly. Especially proactive environmental capabilities develop unique capabilities for companies. These capabilities can facilitate the implementation of sustainable practices throughout the SC (Kähkönen et al., 2018).
Companies conducting strategy based on proactive practices use reactive practices, such as supplier audits or supplier screening, as the starting point for developing and educating their suppliers. In the best-case scenario, these companies have a combination of practices in use, which allows them to re-evaluate and assess the company’s procedures continuously. This process provides the capability to establish preparedness for specific issues and problems. (Grosvold et al., 2014; Yao et al., 2018). With this, companies can deploy SSCM management and measurement practices, which facilitate the overall sustainability performance of their SCs (Grosvold et al., 2014). Improving relationships and developing cooperation with suppliers is necessary for a company to be able to tackle complexity and establish proactive strategies. This practice is essential when companies aim to reduce their environmental impacts (De Marchi & Grandinetti, 2013; Grosvold et al., 2014).
19 2.2.3 Reactive sustainability practices
To meet the challenges and issues related to sustainability, companies adopt the following reactive sustainability practices. International standards are the cornerstone for companies in establishing criteria for their supplier selection. These international standards focus on environmental or quality management practices, and these standards are third-party verified (Grosvold et al., 2014; Kähkönen et al., 2018). These externally verified standards and certifications are common, but they do not directly address sustainability issues in the SC, and they require substantial top-management support to be monitored and managed efficiently (Kähkönen et al., 2018). The suppliers are also required to approve the code of conduct, and it is the standard tool for trying to maintain sustainability in the SC. The code of conduct is a voluntary document written by a single company or on an industry level. The code of conduct usually includes requirements, such as labor or environmental protection standards. However, the code of conduct has received negative feedback, as it often does not include sanctions or rewards for a company when meeting or discarding the requirements. Also, companies try to measure their suppliers by pre-selecting them by a “traffic light” system, which includes formal scoring processes and supplier questionnaires. Thus, for a supplier to have a “green light,” the supplier must have passed the pre-selecting process with a satisfactory score. These systems can rank the suppliers by their sustainability performance. The reactive sustainability practices also include auditing of the suppliers (Grosvold et al., 2014; Kähkönen et al., 2018). The audits may provide valuable information for suppliers’ improvement potential, which is mostly related to the quality of supplied products, the security of the supply, and the process innovativeness. However, audits do not provide a straight contribution to sustainability performance (Kähkönen et al., 2018).
2.2.4 Proactive sustainability practices
The company’s proactive sustainability strategy emphasizes the creation of environmental capabilities for the focal company and its suppliers (Berrone et al., 2011; Kähkönen et al., 2018). Proactive practices address either a broad range of issues or in a specific domain (Bitzer et al., 2016; Li et al., 2017). These capabilities are unique combinations of resources within a company or in an SC. The capabilities are developed either by internal or external capabilities. Internal capabilities are the skills and knowledge within the company, as the external capabilities are within the SC networks.
20
The external practices include actions such as transparency, joint development, and collaboration, which aim to enhance the sustainability performance of a company (Berrone et al., 2011; Kähkönen et al., 2018).
Kähkönen et al. (2018) argue that proactive practices aim to develop something new and not only adapt to the changes reactively. This development means that a company conducting proactive sustainability practices requires innovativeness and supplier development. This supplier development is a vital proactive approach, as the company’s supplier base has a significant impact on the level of sustainability performance that companies are able to operate. To be able to develop new dynamic capabilities, the companies must have continuity in the relationships with their suppliers. Therefore, it is essential to measure the whole SC performance and not merely a single company (Kähkönen et al., 2018). However, proactively measuring and monitoring practices create more costs than when conducting this reactively (Yao et al., 2018).
2.2.5 Differences between reactive and proactive approaches
Reactive practices are based on historical data and are reactions to past actions (Shankar, 2006; Kirilmaz & Erol, 2017). Usually, a strategy based on reactive approaches is slower when responding to new requirements (Teixeira & Werther, 2013; Yao et al., 2018). The proactive approach is focusing on the future, as anticipation drives the practices (Shankar, 2006). However, the significant difference, according to Grosvold et al. (2014), is that companies pursuing a solely reactive SC strategy usually do not have management or measurement processes of the sustainability practices. Sustainability might lose its value from this strategy. Thus, the reactive approach usually uses good intentions, such as supplier screening or code of conduct, which serve as supplier selection hurdles. However, the management and measurement of these requirements are low. The proactive approach uses these same reactive measures as a starting point for the strategy. However, once the supplier is approved, the supplier development process is started for improving the sustainability and integrating this to match the requirements of the SC (Grosvold et al., 2014; Kähkönen et al., 2018). Therefore, Grosvold et al. (2014) stated that commonly reactive practices answer questions on how to meet the legal requirements with as little effort as possible where proactive practices are driven by what the desired state for the sustainability is, and not the minimum requirements. However, as Akhavan
21
and Beckmann (2017) state, there is not a single solution available for companies, as they need to adjust their strategy to be a combination of reactive and proactive approaches, which suits their context the best. However, companies can use a combination of both approaches and still conduct weak environmental performance (Berrone et al., 2011).
22
3. Methodology
______________________________________________________________________
This chapter provides an understanding of the methodology and philosophical choices of the study. First, the research approach and the philosophical assumptions are presented. After this, the data collection, method, and analysis as presented. Then the timeframe of the study is introduced. Lastly, the quality of the findings is evaluated.
______________________________________________________________________ 3.1 Research approach
There are several approaches a researcher can choose from to implement a particular study. According to Saunders, Lewis, and Thornhill (2012), the most common approaches are inductive and deductive. The deductive approach is used when the aim is to test a pre-set theory or assumptions. This when the research aims to question, confirm or disconfirm the applicability and accuracy of these theories in a specific context. For this approach, the researcher would most likely carry on a quantitative method for data collection, where accurate statistical data are required to reveal the truth about a particular assumption. The reality cannot be located in a grey zone, but either in black or white. On the other hand, the inductive approach is applied when the study aims to explore an identified area or gap in the literature where the aim is to discover new insights and come up with new theories or assumptions based on different real-life situations. In order to achieve this, in-depth insights, individualized observations, and assumptions are required to assist the research purpose. The findings are extracted from human interactions and opinions where the data collected is based on qualitative methods, such conducting interviews where reality can be flexible according to different individuals' experiences, where grey zone could exist, and personal opinions and feelings count in analyzing and exploring the research purpose (Saunders et al., 2012).
The gaps found in the literature when it comes to an understanding the barriers of sustainability, and the suggested approaches to integrate the TBL in that context, motivated the choice of an inductive approach for this study. The aim is to investigate and explore new perspectives and collect in-depth insights into the field of study. Primary data will be collected by conducting semi-structured interviews with managers in the oil industry, where new insights and understanding will be developed and discovered. As we are conducting qualitative analysis, the first step is to collect data and then, based on this
23
data, to develop results. This approach helps in understanding the nature of the problem by achieving the aim of suggesting reactive and proactive practices through the information collected from specialists operating in the field. Therefore, the research strategy would be the inductive approach of grounded theory. This, as previously mentioned, is a data-based theory building. The inductive approach will provide tools for predicting and explaining behavior, as well as its emphasis on building and developing possible new theories (Easterby-Smith, Thorphe, & Jackson, 2018).
The study has an exploratory nature, as this will lead the interest of finding out "what is happening; to seek new insights; to ask questions and to assess phenomena in a new light" (Robson 2002, 59). It is, therefore, an excellent method when trying to clarify or understand a problem. It is also a flexible and adaptable approach, as when new data appears, the direction of the research is also valid for re-adjusting (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). An exploratory study is also justified, as most of the literature in the field is leaning on to mathematical modeling or statistical analysis as a primary criterion of rigor to judge the merit of the article. Qualitative and exploratory studies are critical to benefit the field in structuring the messy, complex, and dynamic problems. The exploratory study can identify new operation problems and offer insight into emerging paradigms (Roth, Singhal, Singhal, & Tang 2016).
3.2 Research Philosophy
The research philosophies are the assumptions based on ontology and epistemology. The ontology answers to the questions of what the nature of reality is. The epistemology is a general set of assumptions about ways of inquiring about the nature of the world. When developing methodologies for conducting research, assumptions on these two aspects of the research philosophy have an impact on the research. The awareness of philosophical assumptions can increase the quality of the research, as these assumptions highly influence the outcome of the research. In the next two sub-sections, we justify our research choices for our research philosophy approaches (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). 3.2.1 Ontology
Ontology has four different positions, which are realism, internal realism, relativism, and nominalism. These different positions differ in the way how the truth is. On the other side
24
is realism, which sees that for the nature of reality, there is only a single truth as on the other side is nominalism, which views that there is no truth. The ontology positionings differ in their assumptions on facts. For the realist ontology, the facts exist, and they can be revealed, as the nominalist views that all the facts are human creations (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). The philosophical assumptions of this study are on relativism. The relativism views that there are many truths, as there are many different perspectives on the issues. Thus, not there is not one unique reality. Therefore, the relativist assumption is that facts depend on the viewpoint of the observer. Besides, the status and past reputation of the observer may improve the ability to gain acceptance for their theories. Thus, the truth can vary in a different context, from place to place and from time to time. The truth emerges through discussion and agreement between the participants. The relativist approach acknowledges that acceptance of a theory may have a strong influence on the politics of business and commercial resources (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015).
The purpose of this study is to identify barriers to achieving sustainability in the oil industry and provide an understanding of how to overcome these barriers with reactive and proactive practices. Furthermore, the purpose is to connect reactive and proactive practices that improve the triple bottom line sustainability. In order to fulfill the purpose, a case study is conducted within a single company operating in the oil industry, and with multiple interview partners. The interviewees are experts in their field, and with the interviews, we want to explore what their truth is on the phenomenon. Therefore, the only possible approach for ontology is relativism, as there may be many different views on the topic. Other ontology approaches have a limiting way of seeing the truth, as realism sees that there is only a single truth. Internal realism views that truth exists but is obscure, and in nominalism, the reality exists without truth (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015).
3.2.2 Epistemology
The epistemology approach answers the question of how we know what we know. It is the study of the nature of knowledge, and ways of enquiring into physical and social worlds. There are two approaches for epistemology, positivism and social constructionism. Often these views are considered as opposites for each other, but often these approaches are mixed, as ideas from the other side complement the research. The positivism approach views that the social world exists externally and that its properties
25
are measurable with quantitative methods, rather than viewed through sensation or reflection. In positivism, the assumption is that knowledge observations create the external reality, and thus, is the result of empirical verification and requires evidence. The social constructionism views, that social reality is based on people and their views of the world. This approach implies the value of social behavior and the different meanings that people place upon their experience. The focus is on how people feel either individually or collectively, and understand their experiences (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015).
This study takes the social constructionism epistemology. The following reasons justify the decisions. Positivism implies that the results of the study should have generalization value, and the results should be able to be measured quantitatively. However, a case study creates a rich understanding of a phenomenon but might not be generalizable for other contexts. Thus, the research is not progressed through hypotheses and deduction, but with gathering rich data by interviews. Interviews act as the primary source of data, and therefore, the people are in the spotlight. This data collection method means that the positivist assumption that views of people are irrelevant would limit the study. Besides, the sampling of the interview partners is limited to a small number of specific participants rather than a large number of randomly selected samples (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015).
Easterby-Smith et al. (2015) state that research with relativist ontology and social constructionism as epistemology, an appropriate method is a case study approach. The data types are mostly words rather than numbers, and the outcome is theory generation. Therefore, the choices for ontology and epistemology are justified and coherent. Also, the assumptions are acknowledged and how they may shape the understanding of the results.
3.3 Data collection
Qualitative often refers to any data collection technique which provides no-numerical information, such as an interview (Saunders et al., 2012). The information that can be attained throughout the qualitative research is based on observations and in-depth insights, in contrast to the quantitative approach where research result is based on statistical equations (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992).
26
Interview methodology is used widely in qualitative studies as it allows expressing opinions about the research conducted, where in-depth information will be gained. Interviews can have different forms, such as structured, unstructured, and semi-structured. The previous mentioned kinds indicate the general setup of the interview, and the level of structure the interviewer has predetermined. For instance, in a structured interview, the interview would have a pre-defined agenda, with specific questions to answer. On the other hand, unstructured setups allow a high level of freedom and open discussion where the interviewer has general questions that can take other directions throughout the discussion. However, in semi-structured set-up, the researcher has a defined set of questions but also allows open-ended questions, as the open discussion is allowed to increase the scope of exploration, where one answer can lead you to a new emerged question (Bonilla-Ramirez, Marcos-Palacios, Quiroz-Flores, Ramos-Palomino, & Alvarez-Merino, 2019).
For this study, semi-structured interviews will be conducted to allow open-ended questions and freedom for discussion with better clarification in the interview process. The research will have a mono qualitative approach, and therefore, have a single data collection technique and corresponding analysis procedures. With this, the constant recording and reflection will be used on what is learned from the interviews. The chosen qualitative methodological approach fits the explorative nature of the study, as the aim is to gain in-depth insights and discoveries in terms of (Easterby-Smith et al., 2018). 3.4 Sample
A sample is a subgroup of a population (Levy & Lemeshow, 2008), used to be a representative of the whole population. In research, the sample of the study refers to the group of people whom the researchers have chosen to interview.
The primary sampling method of the study is purposive sampling, where managers chosen to interview are believed to add value to the research according to their expertise area, and their role in the company. The interviewees will be a sample of managers working within the oil industry at a single company. The participants were chosen based on a list of criteria that was estimated to ensure that all potential targeted interviewees are qualified to add the intended value. This list includes criteria such as the position of the
27
manager, how many years of experience they have, the relevance to the field of the study, and their potential contribution to the research.
3.5 Case study
3.5.1 Case study method
The study aims to provide a rich picture of the concept, how the interviewees perceive the challenges related to sustainability, and how a company can overcome these barriers. The case study method answers this goal, as it aims to provide a rich understanding of concepts (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). In this study, the approach and assumptions of the case study are from Stake (2006), which means that the approach is expressive. The expressive approach for a case study involves investigating cases due to their unique features, and the results may or may not be generalized to other concepts (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). The expressive approach suits this study well, as the study is conducted within a company in the oil industry. However, the results of the study may also have features of the instrumental feature, in which the aim is to define more generalization to other concepts (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). This is not our primary goal, but as the case company is a significant member of the industry, the results could be tested and proven useful in different companies. The case study approach with social constructionism assumptions is essential for inspiring new ideas and for illustrating abstract concepts. Also, this approach may demonstrate errors in mainstream ideas and practices (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). As our study focuses on sustainability, it is important to illustrate this abstract concept and define it better in the oil industry. The design of the study is also more emergent, and there is no hypothesis for the results. This design generation is also aligned with our approach. Therefore, the assumptions for the case study provided by Stake (2006) are well justified for this study.
The social constructionist approach case study is based on direct observation and personal contacts. In addition, this approach is feasible for conducting the study within a single company. Besides this, the study often places the data collection over a period of time. (Easterby-Smith et al., 2015). In this study, single observations can be seen through interviews. We focus on a single company, and the sampling is done among the experts
