1. Introduction
The uncertainties and variability characterising the competitive arena and the changes in both social dynamics and sustainable regulations have strengthened the attention given to social and environmental issues. In this scenario, digitalization processes combining different technologies, such as the Internet of Things, big data analytics, blockchain and artificial intelligence, open up unforeseen possibilities and offer the potential to not only create radically new products and processes that are more environmentally friendly but also generate more innovative and sustainable business models [1,2,3]. Additionally, recent studies in the field of digitalization have identified new techniques, methodologies and tools—both physiological (e.g., ET, EMG, GSR and ECG) and neurophysiological (e.g., fMRI, EEG and ERP)—to better understand and predict consumer behaviour [4,5,6,7].
These aspects have led organisations to make considerable investments to explore how they can use digital technologies to build or improve their sustainable practices [8,9]. In fact, recent studies in the field of innovation and strategic management have argued that digitalization can be considered a promising approach to support the process of sustainable transformation [10,11]. Scholars have confirmed that the development of adequate digital technologies could have an important and positive impact on sustainability [12,13].
To support these calls to action, strategic changes are required in regard to operational processes, administrative practices, supply chains and organisational structures, with interesting implications for companies’ governance structures [14,15]. Indeed, the pursuit of digital and sustainable paths raises potential challenges for companies pertaining to corporate governance structures [16]. By implementing these changes, firms could empower their organisational actors by transforming them into bearers of positive values who are constantly engaged in dialogue with external stakeholders, thereby improving their internal and external communication aims [17]. In this sense, several studies have suggested that the level of interest in corporate sustainability has increased rapidly in recent years, which has encouraged companies to adopt appropriate digital communication strategies [18,19,20,21].
Consistent with the abovementioned information, the current paper aims to highlight whether new roles dedicated to digitalization and sustainability management have been integrated into a company’s governance structures and at what corporate level. In addition, if this integration has occurred, we analyse how these processes are communicated outside the company. In this way, this study proposes the investigation of the changes occurring with respect to the company’s corporate governance and corporate communication when companies decide to embrace digitalization and sustainability approaches.
These aims are investigated in fashion and food companies from Italy, France and Spain [22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Emphasis is placed on the way in which companies belonging to these sectors respond to digital pressures and sustainability concerns and how this response impacts their governance structures and corporate communications.
Fashion and food are relevant sectors for economic systems [29,30,31], and their economic impact is exponentially multiplied when considering the parental sectors of art/design and tourism [32]. Indeed, fashion and food are among the industries most affected by digitalization and sustainability trends [33,34,35,36]. Moreover, companies belonging to these sectors show common features, common success factors and similar business models. The fashion and food sectors are characterised by similarities in critical factors for competitiveness, such as the role of innovation and creativity, the focus on quality, the safety and traceability of the whole supply chain, relations with social contexts and policy-makers and the role of internationalisation strategies. These aspects have made the distinction between fashion and food companies less pronounced, and the two sectors increasingly impact each other in terms of inspiration and influence. Indeed, companies more often decide to pursue a multibusiness strategy in both sectors to exploit knowledge transfer and maximise synergies [37]; similarly, fashion and food companies frequently decide to either join multinational corporations and conglomerate groups—rather than compete distinctly—or create networks by increasing their value and global recognition. In fact, to develop a successful value proposition and a winning business idea, fashion and food companies increasingly refer to the concept of “lifestyle experience” with reference to human involvement, habits, trends, tastes and preferences.
In view of the above, studies on the parallels between these businesses have increasingly [38]. Despite their peculiarities in regard to physical and technical attributes, horizontal studies on topics are recommended to highlight the synergistic power that exists between the fashion and food industries, which is made even greater by considering the link with the parental sectors of art and tourism [39,40]. For these reasons, this study follows a transversal network approach for promoting the systemic management of the fashion and food sectors.
Currently, fashion and food companies are being tested by recent relevant shocks and changes, and they are facing new criticism in regard to their operations and processes. An evolution of their business models is required to support customer acquisition and retention, offering competitive differentiation, customer lifetime value and shareholder profits. Despite the amount of calls to action and changes in both sectors, the real challenge lies in companies growing without losing their artisanal soul. In particular, our analysis considers two of the main trends that are evident in the food and fashion sectors: digitalization and sustainability.
According to the research aim and by delimiting the analysis on fashion and food companies in the selected European countries, we posited the following research questions:
RQ1: How do digitalization and sustainability impact a company’s corporate governance?
RQ2: What roles dedicated to digitalization and sustainability should be integrated into governance structures?
RQ3: How do these changes affect the way companies communicate?
To answer these questions, we developed a research project based on an interpretive and qualitative approach. First, we reviewed the relevant literature on digitalization and sustainability and their impact on corporate governance to define what counts as state of the art in these fields.
Second, we analysed the corporate documents and press releases featured on the websites of a sample of Italian, French and Spanish listed companies within the fashion and food sectors. All the collected data—which are available on the companies’ websites—were examined via thematic qualitative coding techniques [41]. By critically integrating a literature review and data analysis, a framework was provided with the objective of highlighting the implication of digitalization and sustainability on the corporate governance structures of fashion and food companies.
This study contributes to several literature streams. First, it contributes to corporate governance studies by providing new insights into the integration of digitalization and sustainability roles into a company’s governance structures. Second, it contributes to corporate communication studies by pointing out the similarities, differences and intersections between sustainability and digitalization in terms of their communication. Third, concerning strategic management studies, our study suggests the different impacts of the two trends on the company’s position of competitive advantage.
The paper is structured as follows. The next section provides a theoretical background. Section 3 presents the research design, highlighting the national contexts and the impact of digitalization and sustainability trends with reference to the fashion and food sectors. Section 4 contains the methodological issues and provides a detailed description of the research methods used to address the research questions. Section 5 discusses the findings. Finally, the last section presents the conclusions, implications and limitations of the study.
2. Literature Review
Companies have begun to recognise the range of opportunities offered by sustainability and new digital technologies [15,42]. Thus, companies in several industries have begun to place digitalization and sustainability strategies at the top of their strategic agendas [43,44,45].
As strategic management studies suggest, corporate and business strategies should be developed by the “generals” [46,47], namely CEOs, executives and top management. Therefore, the increasing relevance of sustainability and digitalization can affect the governance structure of companies calling for the assignment of new “powers of attorney” on these topics [48]. These powers can be assigned to either existing roles or to new specifically defined roles. In any case, these decisions impact corporate governance.
We analysed the theoretical background regarding these issues with reference to three main literature streams: (1) studies on digitalization and sustainability; (2) the impact of digitalization and sustainability on corporate governance; and (3) the impact of digitalization and sustainability on corporate communication. Insights from the literature review were used to develop research questions.
2.1. Studies on Digitalization and on Sustainability
Smart technologies are critical to every organisation. As a consequence, there has been a significant amount of hype that has led organisations to make considerable investments to explore how they can use smart technologies to build or improve their business models [8,13]. Smart technologies refer to all networks of smart or intelligent objects and devices that enable corporate actors to make rapid yet accurate decisions in response to the changing environment [9,49]. Smart technologies include a wide range of automated systems equipped with automatic data exchange and technology capabilities characterised by “self-monitoring, analysis and reporting technology (SMART)” [50], p.1108. They pervade every business operation and characterise most organisations; in addition, they are widely used in a number of sectors, including fashion and food. The term “smart technologies” is an “umbrella term” that encompasses all those technological innovations—such as the Internet of Things, big data analytics, blockchain and artificial intelligence—that have an impact on organisations [9] and also includes tools and devices, such as eye-tracking technology and wireless EEG technology, that could enhance the effectiveness of the process of digitalization [51].
Currently, the digital era, by means of combining different smart technologies, is opening up unforeseen possibilities and offering the potential to create not only radically new products and services but also business models [52,53]. Digital technologies have radically changed the nature and structure of new products and services, shaped novel value creation and value appropriation pathways [54], enabled innovation collectives that involve dynamic sets of actors with diverse goals and capabilities [55] and produced a new breed of innovation processes [56,57,58]. Digitalization produces the creation of—and consequent changes in—market offerings, business processes or models that result from the use of new technology [59].
Overall, the relevant trend in terms of digital strategies [49,60,61] is so powerful that it is pushing companies towards the use of new business models [46,62,63,64,65], thereby making the impact on corporate governance increasingly relevant.
However, professional bodies highlight that although smart technologies are pivotal for the success of industries and companies, they are not necessarily embedded in their organisational architecture [66]. On the other hand, [67] smart technologies, although essential, are not always adopted in strategic decision-making by directors.
In this smart technology context, sustainability strategies have become increasingly vital. Specifically, sustainable development, which is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [68], informs the concept of sustainability strategies. Sustainability strategies are developed when companies recognise the importance of moral and ethical values and integrate aspects of corporate social responsibility into their business models [46,69,70,71,72].
Based on the potential benefits for companies and societies, sustainability strategies are becoming an increasingly relevant topic for scholars and practitioners [73]. In the past decade, research on social, environmental and ethical issues and green management has rapidly expanded [74,75,76,77,78]. In the field of business studies, socioenvironmental themes have been studied by scholars from many disciplines, such as strategy, accounting and operations [79,80,81,82,83]. Recent studies in the field of strategic management claim that giving attention to socioenvironmental issues can greatly affect business success by strengthening the company’s strategic positioning in company–customer and company–investor relationships [15,84,85]. The transition to a green economy has opened up new opportunities for companies by leading them to improve their business models [86,87]. Companies have progressively reoriented their management processes from the perspective of sustainability by conforming their strategic, organisational and governance models with the adoption of environmentally sustainable techniques, technologies and production processes [12,88,89]. Thus, companies are shifting from a traditional business model to a sustainable one by integrating social, environmental and ethical principles into their value propositions [13,84,90].
However, the success or failure of sustainability strategies is also related to the way in which strategies are realised. Although research shows that the adoption process is essential for success or failure [91], there is a lack of research on this topic [13,92]. Regardless of the path chosen for developing and realising sustainability strategies, companies inevitably face relevant organisational changes. Moreover, the role of governance in the sustainable business model adoption process remains relatively unexplored [2].
2.2. The Impact of Digitalization and Sustainability on Corporate Governance
Fostering digitalization and sustainability in the decision-making process involves several internal changes that have a strong impact on employees, routine management activities and the corporate culture [93,94,95,96]. The role of top management is of utmost importance in establishing appropriate strategic actions to make these changes possible. In this sense, the efforts of the top management could be directed to promoting incentive systems based on rewards to employees who develop new ideas, new “organisational unit” projects or cross-functional teams to improve performance and programs to increase employee awareness of these issues, thereby improving the internal communication of advantages related to actions implemented by companies.
The integration of sustainability and digitalization into the overall strategic process affects both internal and external corporate governance mechanisms. The achievement of new goals leads to the introduction of new rules and standards for corporate accountability and transparency, such as committees and reporting, the inclusion of experts in company boards and independent audit development [47,97,98,99,100]. In this sense, corporate governance can play an active role. Companies could create a corporate governance structure, that engages with more corporate social responsibility and digitalization activities, to tackle current challenges, with this also being able to support communication with stakeholders about a company’s strategies and policies and can internally transfer, to all company levels, an orientation towards digitalization and sustainability [101,102,103,104]. Similarly, an inverse process of corporate growth and strategic improvement can be observed; by embracing sustainability and digitalization trends—which converge in regard to their basic rules and assumptions—companies can produce, even unintentionally, positive impacts on their corporate governance structures [105]. These decisions can influence the entire corporate team to push for the recruitment of new professional figures—even at the top management levels—in the organisation hierarchy.
Governance mechanisms affect the ability of companies to introduce strategic changes [106,107]. In this sense, companies need to identify key roles and relationships in their governance structure design that are able to support digitalization and sustainability processes [108]. The development of new managerial figures is required to stimulate the entire organisational structure to remove inhibitions and obstacles to change [109,110]. Otherwise, in the absence of a real conviction of the top management to focus on these recent trends, it will only be possible to achieve isolated behaviours, that may still be profitable, without any relevant impact on the company’s value proposition [111].
The present situation in the field of corporate governance is interesting because the influence of digitalization and sustainability on governance structures is fuzzy, and the exploitation of opportunities by new powers and roles is challenging [112,113,114]. Digitalization and sustainability require developing new resources, the balancing of new models and tools and managing new organisational relationships, together with the evolution of governance structures, due to the integration of new roles, organisational units, tasks, responsibilities and leadership. In this sense, our aim was to contribute to overcoming the current research gaps by exploring how companies should change their governance structures and the main implications for digitalization and sustainability development.
2.3. The Impact of Digitalization and Sustainability on Corporate Communication
The communication of new digitalization and sustainability paths represents a key success factor and one of the main challenges for companies [21,115]. Effective communication can be aimed towards sharing sustainable and innovative values with stakeholders. In this sense, scholars have affirmed that digitalization and sustainability can impact corporate communication [116,117,118].
Specifically, the digital era and the Industry 4.0 paradigm, by providing new communication systems and tools, have accelerated changes in corporate communication, both internal and external [119,120,121].
During and after the recent pandemic lockdown, communication within and between organisations shifted to the virtual realm, and workplaces have rapidly transformed with the increased use of video calls, virtual conferences and digital get-togethers [122]. Digital changes and related innovative technologies are communicated externally by companies, impacting strategic positions, marketing-oriented processes and public relations [123,124,125]. Through digital technologies and intelligent networked production implementation, interconnections between products, services and customers emerge; these interconnections enable companies to gather information through data collection and data analytics [126,127]. This information can be used to create and strengthen the corporate image; furthermore, it can be used for strategic decisions and corporate marketing activities.
Meanwhile, the growing interest in sustainability issues has led companies to adopt appropriate channels both to communicate their commitment and to engage with their stakeholders. In this stream of research, scholars have highlighted the effectiveness of corporate communication in supporting sustainability goals [12,128,129,130]. Moreover, sustainability communication has recently intensified, partly due to political and institutional regulations and standards such as the IIRC’s framework for integrated reporting [131,132]. Several scholars are engaged in the identification of relevant value drivers and key performance indicators that may be integrated into corporate reports for internal and external communication aims as well as in the evaluation of the socioenvironmental results obtained, thereby allowing for necessary changes to the policies previously implemented [83,133,134].
Thus, increasing socioenvironmental issues promote an evolution in the disclosure of nonfinancial information to increase stakeholder engagement practices [84,135]. Corporate communication based on sustainability can greatly affect business success by increasing not only credibility and risk prevention but also the overall value creation process [1,136]; companies can gain new competitive advantages and create differentiation benefits with regard to socioenvironmentally sensitive customers [137,138,139].
By improving their internal and external communication sustainable aims, companies can empower organisational actors by transforming them into bearers of positive values who are constantly engaged in dialogue with external stakeholders [15,140,141,142]. In this sense, several studies have linked sustainability themes with digitalization processes by providing new methods to improve corporate communication management and to encourage public participation [11,21,117]. The sharing of reliable and certified information can improve the processes of social consensus building. The digital revolution can help to change preferences and habits, including consumer habits, thereby encouraging more conscious and responsible choices—for instance, the use of “smart labels”—that are able to inform customers about the socioenvironmental impact of products or on the sustainability policies applied by companies.
Overall, the impact of digitalization and sustainability on corporate communication, as well as the related required changes, can only be successful if implemented in a coherent and unified way by top management [143,144,145]. Thus, companies could create a corporate governance structure that is able to support communication with stakeholders about a company’s strategies and policies regarding these trends and to transfer these new values and processes internally to all organisational levels [146,147].
Overall, the above analysis of studies on digitalization and sustainability reveals their potential impact on corporate governance and corporate communication. Moreover, these latter two aspects are interconnected and influence the success of the implementation of the two trends.
3. Digitalization and Sustainability Trends in the Fashion and Food Sectors
Considering to be among the driving industries in the European economy, fashion and food are among the economic and social pillars of the productive fabrics of many countries.
Currently, the fashion and food industries are characterised by high levels of creativity and innovation; in addition, these sectors show a complex supply and production chain, where the consumer’s level of attention paid to concerns associated with wellness, safety, social impact, experience and transparency are differential factors for implementing a successful value proposition.
Specifically, the fashion system is so large and complex that it can be considered a cluster of closely interconnected industries. Often, attention is focused only on end products (apparel, knitwear, hosiery and accessories, etc.). However, these products are the result of different stages, activities and technologies stages, collectively known as the fashion pipeline or supply chain, whose interaction is largely responsible for the product’s final success on the market. The pipeline represents the vertical system—including different sectors and subsectors—that starts with the production of raw materials (fibres from the agricultural or chemical industries) and continues down to the manufacturing and distribution of textile and clothing.
The food industry encompasses the entire range of actors and their interlinked value-adding activities involved in the production, processing, distribution, consumption and disposal of food products that originate from agriculture, forestry or fisheries [148]. The food supply chain consists of a chain of activities that influence how a product is produced and delivered to consumers. At each stage of the chain, value or values are added to the product by each player (i.e., farmers, processors, distributors and retailers) [109]. For both sectors, the industries that are not part of the vertical production cycle but still support the whole system are also part of the pipeline. These include the textile machinery industry or food equipment/food machinery industry and various sections of the service industry (publishing, trade fairs, advertising, communication and so on).
Regarding the selected European countries—Italy, France and Spain—the impact of these industries on their overall economies is significant, even considering the relevant differences and specificities. The “Made in Italy” and “Made in France” logos are globally recognised as synonyms of excellence and exclusiveness in terms of products and trust in both artisan and industrial production [24]; also, currently, the concept of the “Made in Spain” logo, which identifies good quality products but at more affordable prices, representative of a simple and casual lifestyle, is gaining success on the market [27].
Specifically, as of today, Italy is at the forefront of and a world leader in the food and fashion industries, and the “Made in Italy” logo is in seventh place in terms of an index of consumer satisfaction all over the world. The Italian industrial landscape is mostly made up of numerous small-medium companies and craft traditions that must compete with the rise of low-cost manufacturers coming from the Asian market; however, 2021 ended with a record in terms of revenues, with an increase of 15% between January and August 2021 for Italian companies (compared to the same period in 2020), which added approximately four billion to the industry’s revenues [29]. Eno-gastronomy is probably one of the driving sectors of Italian tourism. According to several studies, it is estimated that approximately one tourist out of four decides to visit Italy because of food and wine [29,149]. With reference to the economic trend of the fashion sector, according to Confindustria Moda (the Italian Federation of Textiles, Fashion and Accessories), the textile-clothing sector ended 2021 with revenues of over €90 billion. Nevertheless, the performance of this sector still struggles to reach the average growth preceding the pandemic crisis (−6.4% gap compared to 2019); however, the prospects of improvement appear to be positive considering the trends of domestic and foreign orders [150].
The fashion and food industries compose two of the major poles of the French economy. In particular, France is recognised as the inventor of haute couture, and Paris is arguably the worldwide symbol of elegance and luxury. Despite the difficulties faced by the fashion and apparel industry in recent years, which have been mainly caused by the country’s economic downturn and post-pandemic effects, France still holds its strong position in the global market. Indeed, France is one of the largest fashion and apparel markets in the EU in terms of revenue [151]. According to data from the French Fashion Institute [152], the fashion industry in France is now worth up to €154 billion, or 3.1% of France’s GDP, and accounts for up to 1 million jobs. The revenue of the fashion industry in France amounts to over USD 13 billion a year, and it is expected to surpass USD 20 billion in 2022, representing a CAGR of over 10% from 2017 to 2021. Apparel is the largest segment of the French fashion industry in terms of sales, with a market volume of USD 8 billion in 2021. Over recent decades, France has also put more focus on innovative and high value-added textile products such as technical textiles, which now represent 15% of the market [30].
French food and beverages output is forecast to grow by approximately 4% in 2022, after increasing 4.6% in 2021 and experiencing a 2.0% contraction in 2020. During the lockdowns of 2020 and early 2021, food service providers and producers/processors of key segments such as beverages and meat suffered from a deteriorating hospitality and catering demand, which had a negative impact on their margins. Agrifood is one of the rare sectors that has seen growth at unprecedented rates, even during and after the pandemic—+5.1% from 2019 to 2021—but the revenues have not yet reached pre-pandemic levels [153].
Among the most promising sectors in Spain, we find the creative industries—fashion, architecture, PR, design and editorial—which are linked with food, tourism and hospitality. Specifically, the Spanish food and beverage industry is—with a production of almost 94 billion euro in 2021—the most important industry in the Spanish economy and one of the most important in Europe in terms of production, employment and exports. This industry offers both tradition and a high level of technology; furthermore, in recent years, it has invested heavily in innovation and specialisation. The fashion sector represents a fundamental economic driver, generating 2.8% of the national GDP. The entire value chain contributes to generating this level of activity by creating 4.1% of the labour market. Fashion products account for 9% of exports and attract 13% of the nation’s global shopping tourism. However, the profitability of these sectors has been significantly undermined because of the COVID-19 pandemic [31]. The Spanish government has adopted measures to try to alleviate the associated adverse effects, but the current situation shows that these measures are not enough, with this highlighting the need to create new business models to cope with imminent changes in demands and consumption habits.
To consider the experiences and consequences of the pandemic and the effects of war on commercial markets, the European Commission has updated its “strategy” to provide new tools and actions for the recovery of the European economy and industries [154]. In this context, the need to accelerate the digital and green transformation of companies has become particularly relevant.
In general, the fashion and food sectors have been severely tested by these recent economic dynamics; the restrictions on mobility and coordination and the increase in the cost of raw materials constitute not only significant issues for these industries but also an opportunity to further innovate and rethink business models (BMs) [155]. Indeed, several companies are trying to respond to current business changes and challenges by enhancing their innovation capacity in light of digitalization and sustainability pathways [8,9].
Specifically, digital transformation is fundamentally reshaping both the fashion and food industries. By developing digital technologies and analytics capabilities, such as marketing activity and data analysis, companies could enable new logistics and sales options and help predict and manage inventory to create a more resilient supply chain [156,157,158]. Brands and retailers must consider the digital space not only as an increasingly important sales channel but also as a means to support the adaptation of cost structures, making each step of the value chain faster and cheaper [158,159]. Moreover, digital technologies could help companies develop innovative ways of customer acquisition by personalisation, exclusivity and high standards, thereby increasing differentiation and adaptation to special targeted segments [127,160].
In the same way, digitalization trends in the food and beverage realm play an increasingly large role. Indeed, these businesses are characterised by a high cost-sensitivity and mass production; through digital technologies, companies could increase their performance in terms of food safety and quality and innovative packaging [161]. Moreover, digital technologies can help food companies redesign their entire supply chain. Grocers and food retailers must focus more on having a digital presence; they should create differentiated offers with a combination of online services and new in-store experiences.
At the same time, fashion and food companies are rethinking their value propositions as they relate to sustainable approaches [160]. The concepts of “sustainable fashion” and “sustainable food production” are based on the promotion of environmental and social responsibility in the development of clothing, shoes and other accessories or in the production, supply and consumption of safe and nutritious food [162]. In this sense, companies are developing new products/services that are eco-friendly and able to reach customers who are increasingly attentive to social–environmental issues. In this way, sustainability trends may support the establishment of a new position in terms of competitive advantages, with this having a positive impact on a company’s reputation, compliance and customer preferences.
The above analysis is even more salient when considering the existing interrelations between the two businesses and between the two trends examined. Indeed, on closer inspection, the sphere of food is now more than ever linked to fashion, and they are both linked to the concept of lifestyle. The two sectors are continuously impacted by new influences both in the field of preparation/design and in combination with visual stimulation. For these reasons, the development of a multibusiness strategy by the same company in both sectors is an increasingly widespread phenomenon. In fact, food and fashion companies, with other parental sectors, are increasingly diversifying their product offers to increase value propositions, market shares and revenues. Moreover, in recent years, there have been several M&A operations that have led these companies to converge in international luxury groups to improve their competitive performance and worldwide reputations. Moreover, the choices regarding the digitalization and sustainability of one company can influence those of many others, thereby influencing changes in operational, organisational and governance mechanisms.
Despite the relevance of these issues, the pathways and methods used to embrace digitalization and sustainability in fashion and food companies’ business models lack coordination. Decisions related to digitalization and sustainability impact corporate governance by requiring the alignment of companies’ structures, processes and technologies. In this sense, the inclusion into the top management of new powers, either in existing roles or in new specifically defined roles, that are able to manage such processes of change is now necessary.
4. Methodology
The current study adopted a cross-industry and cross-country approach, analysing how digitalization and sustainability trends affect the corporate governance structures and corporate communications of leading Italian, French and Spanish companies in the fashion and food industries.
After analysing and critically assessing the relevant literature on digitalization, sustainability and their impact on corporate governance and corporate communication, we collected data from the historical archives of corporate documents and press releases contained on companies’ websites. The data analysis adopted a qualitative approach based on a thematic analysis of the collected documents [41].
4.1. Companies Selection and Data Collection
To understand the changes occurring in companies’ corporate governance with respect to digitalization and sustainability trends, we investigated managerial teams of listed companies in the selected countries operating in the fashion and food sectors. Specifically, we identified and analysed a comprehensive group of 53 listed companies—21 Italian, 21 French and 11 Spanish—alternating between the fashion and food sectors, as shown in Table 1. This group of companies was not intended to be a representative sample of the population but rather to support our choice in terms of theoretical sampling [41].
Sample selection occurred through the utilisation of the data source provided by the following:
-. Borsa Italiana Spa, for the Italian context;
-. The Paris Stock Exchange, for the French market;
-. Bolsa de Madrid, for Spanish listed companies.
In this way, all leading Italian, French and Spanish companies in the fashion and food industries at the end of December 2021 were selected.
In the Borsa Italiana Spa, fashion and food listed companies are included in the following sectoral categories: “Food, Beverage and Tobacco”, “Consumer Products and Services” and “Personal Care, Drug and Grocery Stores”.
In the Paris Stock Exchange, fashion and food listed companies are included in the following sectoral categories: “Food, Beverage and Tobacco”, “Consumer Product and Services” and “Personal Care, Drug and Grocery Stores”.
In the Bolsa de Madrid, the Spanish fashion and food listed companies are included in the following sectoral categories: “Food and Beverage” and “Textiles Clothing and Shoes”.
To carry out this research, we examined the web pages of the selected companies. First, we analysed each company’s profile and structure. In this way, we identified the company’s managerial team and the related rules, powers and organisational procedures. We also analysed the company’s committees, such as those concerning “control and risks” or “nomination and remuneration”.
Recognising the importance of digital and sustainable trends, several companies have decided to add web page sections dedicated to these themes in order to communicate to external actors their sustainable commitments and their investments in digital and innovative projects; if available, these sections were also analysed.
4.2. Data Analysis
We adopted a qualitative approach based on a thematic analysis of the documents related to our sample [163].
Data were analysed using thematic qualitative coding techniques; during the data analysis, definitions and themes were drawn from the literature [41]. Thus, the thematic analysis was carried out to obtain evidence supporting the purpose of this research. Consequently, we did not rely on the statistical analysis of our results; rather, empirical data from each website were used to understand the possible changes that occur in terms of corporate governance structure and communication when companies decide to embrace digitalization and sustainability.
First, a suitable coding scheme was developed for identifying core categories [164]. Consequently, data were organised, and codes were developed. We defined the items to be filtered from the material [165]. Then, we developed a coding agenda.
In the following steps, all coded materials were examined and interpreted to determine whether and how they fit the expected process [163]. Four researchers were involved in the data analysis to minimise bias and increase the level of confidence in the plausibility of the results based on the principles of triangulation [166]. The documents were systematically analysed to identify categories and relationships of meanings [41,167]. An acceptable level of reliability was achieved [168]. Through this rigorous data analysis process, the authors maximised both the intercoder reliability and intercoder agreement [163].
From our data analysis, we identified two core categories (the impact of sustainability and the impact of digitalization) and two subthemes (corporate governance structure and corporate communication) for each core category.
5. Findings
Our research aimed to provide a comprehensive view of new managerial roles dedicated to digitalization and sustainability and examine how these roles have been integrated into Italian, French and Spanish fashion and food companies’ governance structures and corporate communications. The results are summarised in the Appendix A (Table A1, Table A2 and Table A3).
Overall, the results show a clear positive convergence regarding the inclusion of new corporate roles devoted to managing digitalization and sustainability processes.
The analysis of the corporate documents and press releases contained in the companies’ websites highlights the importance, but above all the pervasiveness, of these themes. During our study, we had the opportunity to observe that, in addition to the identified roles, food and fashion companies have approached the processes of digitalization and sustainability in a totalitarian way. The several declarations made about the importance of implementing new digital technologies and/or improving the nonfinancial disclosure on sustainability represent the intent of voluntarily developing an integrated approach that is systematic, shared at all organisational levels, and structured by the integration of top-down and bottom-up approaches; these aspects strengthen the decision-making process regarding digitalization and sustainability concerns.
The recognition of these new roles has different impacts on companies’ corporate governance structures; certain companies have created autonomous committees to manage these issues. However, our findings highlight that the development of committees is related only to sustainability. This aspect can be traced back to the conviction that in the digital era, the development of new technologies is considered an essential prerogative to doing business that goes beyond the public’s confidence and consensus.
Similar results emerge with reference to corporate communication when observing companies’ websites, with there being sections specifically dedicated to explaining to stakeholders the companies’ commitments to digitalization and sustainability. Indeed, our analysis shows that for the selected sample of fashion and food companies, the corporate communication of sustainability commitments appears to be greater than the technological and innovative development goals; while recognising the importance of digital technologies—the roles shown in the tables in the annex are proof—companies appear to consider it more profitable to externally communicate their commitments to ethical and environmental social protections.
In fact, during the analysis, we often found that the topic of sustainability is not only considered by the companies but that it is also the central theme through which greater competitive and financial performance is achieved. Sustainability commitment communication, through several nonfinancial disclosure documents, appears to confirm that this topic is currently considered a key factor of differentiation and a competitive tool that can guide consumers’ choices, while digitalization appears to be configured as an internal process aimed at guiding the company; digital commitment is perceived more as a means of production than as a value “to be told” when compared to sustainability. Moreover, digital advancements are often hidden to protect companies from imitative attacks by competitors.
This approach is similar for both the food and fashion sectors; however, considering the three countries analysed, Spain appears to be slightly different from France and Italy.
Indeed, regarding the Italian context, for the fashion sector, 9 companies out of 10 have a sustainability section, while 3 companies also present a section dedicated to innovation and digital themes. Similar results were found for the analysis of the food sector, jointly considering the food, beverage and tobacco sector and the consumer products and services sector; specifically, 8 companies out of 11 have a sustainability section, while only 2 companies present a section dedicated to innovation and digital themes.
Likewise, regarding the French context, based on the analysis of the sample fashion companies’ websites, 7 companies out of 9 have a sustainability section, while 4 companies have a section dedicated to innovation and digital themes. Concerning the food sector—jointly considering the food, beverage and tobacco sector and the consumer products and services sector—9 companies out of 12 have a sustainability section, while only 7 have an innovation and/or digital section.
Finally, regarding the Spanish context, the analysis shows more homogeneous results; the sample fashion companies all have both a sustainability section and an innovation and digital section on their websites. Similar results were found for the food sector; 5 companies out of 7 have a sustainability section, and the same was found for the innovation and digital themes (5 companies out of 7).
Despite the discrepancy in terms of the samples, it is possible to infer the origin of these different approaches; the Spanish companies, compared to French and Italian ones, are located upstream of the production chain in both the fashion and food sectors. Spanish companies are characterised by a more “industrial and larger-scale nature”; in this case, the communication of digital and innovative excellence can allow companies to acquire an advantage in terms of differentiation and influence the purchasing choices of actors that are lower in the supply chain, which is on par with sustainability. In addition, this type of communication could demonstrate greater managerial technical reliability in regard to addressing the actors involved in the earlier stages of the supply chain.
These results confirm that there are differences in terms of communication regarding these topics among fashion and food companies that primarily pursue B2B or B2C channels.
In general, these results testify to an increasing concern with socioenvironmental issues in food and fashion companies; sustainability is now recognised as a successful trend that companies can embrace to increase their value proposition. In the food industry, we can observe that consumers are increasingly more attentive to the sustainability and safety of the food supply of the products they consume. Additionally important is the manufacturing process; there is increased demand for organic products, new forms of distribution for locally produced, seasonal foods and restaurants that promote a balanced diet and specialise in healthy products. In the same way, the fashion industry, which for a long time has suffered from a poor reputation regarding working conditions and environmental damage from large-scale industrial accidents, has recently been called upon to re-examine its paths of growth in terms of sustainability for every link in the value chain. Fashion companies are more aware of how their corporate social responsibility strategies can drive their competitive business advantage since consumers currently consider a product excellent only if it is also sustainable.
Moreover, the results underline two other relevant insights. First, the current results are characterised by heterogeneous, and often not unitary, measures in terms of the degree of independence and decision-making power of new managerial roles in the companies’ governance structures. The analysis shows that certain figures hold managerial roles in the organisation hierarchy (i.e., executive director or chief), while other figures are placed as function heads or members of existing business divisions (i.e., manager or supervisor of a division). The different positions of these new roles in power structures represent a nonhomogeneous and nonshared awareness of the importance of sustainability and digitalization trends, even among companies operating in the same sectors. Moreover, it is often unclear who holds the role dedicated to digitalization or sustainability, as there is no single figure/committee in charge of these aspects. It is not possible to attribute responsibility for managing sustainability or digitalization in a precise and clear way. Currently, the decision to assign to top management new powers and new roles devoted to managing digitalization and sustainability processes represents the most profitable choice when it comes to implementing these new growth directives with success. However, to effectively support digitalization and sustainability, companies should develop dynamic capabilities to redefine internal work connections and interorganisational relationships.
Second, our results highlight a problem arising from the use of different names for the same managerial roles in the selected companies (see Appendix A); increasing digitalization and sustainability issues promote the evolution of the corporate governance structures and management models of food and fashion companies to achieve a (sometimes minimum) level of standardisation. Our study encourages the identification of governance models, as well as conditions and factors, that can promote the success of digitalization processes and sustainable paths aimed towards creating shared values in the food and fashion industries and in their parental sectors.
In view of the above, the pursuit of digitalization and sustainability trends affects corporate governance structure in both food and fashion companies. The differences in terms of position levels in the organisation hierarchy and/or in the development of dedicated committees rather than in the commitment to communicate these strategic choices externally depend less on the sector—the two sectors appear fairly aligned—and more on the capabilities of top management to place digitalization and sustainability strategies at the top of their strategic agendas. In this way, food and fashion companies will be able to identify governance models and coherent internal organisational practices based on the best sustainable and innovative processes.
6. Conclusions
Currently, digitalization and sustainability can be considered two of the main trends in terms of investing companies in the food and fashion sectors. In this context, several companies are trying to respond to current environmental changes by either enhancing or rethinking their business models and placing great relevance on these issues. In their response to digital pressures and sustainability concerns, companies belonging to these sectors thereby generate organisational changes in their governance structures; furthermore, new managerial figures, roles and committees are integrated into the companies’ corporate hierarchies—even at top levels or on companies’ boards—to improve their performance in terms of safety and quality, innovation and differentiated customer experiences. These changes are also reflected in corporate communication.
Our study, therefore, advances a comprehensive framework with the aim of highlighting the implications of digitalization and sustainability for the corporate governance structures of fashion and food companies. Specifically, we investigated the changes occurring in the listed Italian, French and Spanish companies operating in these sectors. In this respect, our findings show that digitalization and sustainability issues have promoted an evolution in corporate governance structures and managerial figures. Indeed, our analysis underlines that both food and fashion companies are trying to respond to current challenges by integrating new powers, roles and responsibilities for the management of digitalization and sustainability issues. Moreover, these companies are improving their external disclosure by developing website sections with the aim of explaining to stakeholders the company’s commitment to digitalization and sustainability.
Despite the overall convergence with regard to the impact of digitalization and sustainability on companies’ governance structures, our analysis shows nonhomogeneous changes in food and fashion companies’ corporate governance structures. Certain figures are placed at the top levels of the organisation hierarchy—even on companies’ boards—while other figures are integrated in the form of autonomous and dedicated committees or are placed as the functioning heads of existing business divisions. The findings, therefore, highlight a nonshared awareness about the importance of sustainability and digitalization trends, even among companies operating in the same sectors. In addition, we also observed limited standardisation regarding the naming of the managerial roles (see Table A1, Table A2 and Table A3 in Appendix A), which gives rise to problems regarding the comparability of data.
In addition, the current study provides important insights into communication issues. Our findings highlight an increase in communication about sustainability and digitalization and their related impacts on companies’ corporate governance. However, both the commitment to communicate sustainability issues externally and the related changes in governance structures appear to be more significant than with respect to digitalization, at least for companies downstream of the production chain and for companies that primarily pursue B2C channels. The topic of sustainability was confirmed as a relevant competitive tool to increase a company’s positions of advantage and to guide the consumer preferences, more so than digital and innovation aspects.
The study contributes to several literature streams.
First, we contribute to corporate governance studies. We provide new insights into the integration of digitalization and sustainability roles into companies’ governance structures. Indeed, the study deepens our understanding of opportunities and downsides arising from the positioning of organisational units at different corporate levels. At the same time, we highlight the different impacts of sustainability and digitalization trends on governance structures.
Second, we contribute to corporate communication studies. Our findings suggest that it is worthwhile paying attention to an understated issue, namely the communication of digitalization. While the literature on sustainability communication is very broad, scholars have paid little attention to corporate communication related to digitalization. Our findings point out similarities, differences and intersections between sustainability and digitalization.
Third, we contribute to strategic management studies. Specifically, we suggest that sustainability and digitalization can play different roles in business model changes. Our studies confirm that sustainability and digitalization can be success factors in the formulation and implementation of strategies. However, we usefully integrate previous studies by providing evidence on the different uses of these two trends; digitalization can be useful for achieving competitive advantages via internal strategies, and sustainability can be a source of competitive advantage for external strategies.
Finally, this study also offers important practical implications. From an industry perspective, the study highlights the relevant trends and opportunities for the fashion and food sectors, such as creativity and innovation and consumers’ attention to the wellness, safety, social impact, experience, transparency and traceability of the whole supply chain. In this sense, the analysis encourages food and fashion companies to improve their commitment to digitalization and sustainability to respond to current business dynamics and to either enhance or rethink their business models.
Indeed, our analysis encourages the evolution of governance models by identifying governance structures able to adequately promote digitalization processes and sustainable pathways. In this sense, the study pushes companies to recruit new figures and experts in leading positions with autonomous decision-making powers to promote top-down approaches to shared digitalization and sustainability commitments at all organisational levels. In this way, stakeholders and customers can perceive the responsibility for these issues as being more valid and concrete.
Moreover, the comparison of sustainability and digitalization suggests the opportunity to mutually exchange certain best practices. On the one hand, our findings should push companies to apply best practices obtained from their experience regarding sustainability by developing new committees for digitalization governance. On the other hand, the experience of sustainability reporting should be useful for improving digitalization communication.
Limitations and Future Research
This study comes with a limitation that offers opportunities for future research. We focused our analysis on food and fashion listed companies; however, we also recognise the presence of relevant non-listed companies within these sectors. Based on the results of this study, future research should be directed to broaden the test sample, including no-listed food and fashion companies or different companies operating within the parental sectors. In this way, it would be possible to generalise our results; we could test the effectiveness of the mutual influences among digitalization and sustainability trends on corporate governance structures.
We believe that our study provides a comprehensive framework by promoting an evolution in the corporate governance structures and corporate communications of food and fashion companies. We hope that this study will help scholars and practitioners identify governance models and different kinds of corporate communication that are able to promote digitalization processes and sustainable paths for companies.
All the authors designed the research. The paper is written by R.C., R.F., R.M.G. and S.G. The data was collected by R.C., R.F., R.M.G. and S.G. The analysis of data was performed by R.C., R.F., R.M.G. and S.G. Finally, the paper is written by R.C., R.F., R.M.G. and S.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Italian, French and Spanish listed companies in the fashion and food sectors.
| Italian Consumer Products and Services Sector | French Consumer Products and Services Sector | Spanish Consumer Products and Services Sector | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Company | Industry | Company | Industry | Company | Industry | |||
| 1 | AEFFE GROUP | Apparel and |
1 | CHRISTIAN DIOR | Apparel, |
1 | ADOLFO DOMÌNGUEZ | Textile, |
| 2 | BRUNELLO CUCINELLI Spa | Retail and Whole Discretionary | 2 | HERMES INTL | Apparel, |
2 | INDITEX |
Fashion |
| 3 | GEOX Spa | Casual and Sports Footwear | 3 | INTERPARFUMS | Cosmetics | 3 | LIWE ESPANOLA S.A. | Apparel and |
| 4 | MONCLER | Apparel, |
4 | L’OREAL | Cosmetics | 4 | NEXTIL | Textile |
| 5 | OVS Spa | Retail and Whole Discretionary | 5 | LA PERLA FASHION | Luxury |
|||
| 6 | PIQUADRO Spa | Leather Goods | 6 | LVMH | Apparel, |
|||
| 7 |
SALVATORE FERRAGAMO Spa | Apparel, |
7 | MAISON DU MONDE | Consumer |
|||
| 8 | TOD’S GROUP | Apparel, |
8 | LOUIS VOUITTON | Apparel, |
|||
| 9 | CALEFFI GROUP | Consumer |
9 | CELINE | Luxury |
|||
| 10 | SAFILO GROUP | Consumer |
||||||
| Italian Food, Beverage and Tobacco Sector | French Food, Beverage and Tobacco Sector | Spanish Food, Beverage and Tobacco Sector | ||||||
| 11 | B.F. Spa | Agricultural | 10 | ADVINI | Alcoholic |
5 | BODEGAS |
Alcoholic |
| 12 | BIOERA Spa | Consumer |
11 | AGROGENERATION | Agricultural | 6 | DEOLEO | Agricultural |
| 13 |
CAMPARI GROUP | Alcoholic |
12 | BONDUELLE | Consumer |
7 | EBRO FOODS S.A. | Food Products |
| 14 | LA |
Dairy Products | 13 | DANONE | Food Products | 8 | BORGES AGRICULTURAL & INDUST. NUTS S.A. | Agricultural |
| 15 | ENERVIT Spa | Health Care | 14 | DIAGEO | Beverages | 9 | NATURHOUSE HEALTH | Health Care |
| 16 | LA DORIA GROUP | Food Products | 15 | MOËT |
Alcoholic |
10 | COCA-COLA EUROPACIFIC PARTNERS PLC | Beverage |
| 17 | NEWLAT FOOD Spa | Agri-food | 16 | LAURENT |
Alcoholic |
11 | VISCOFAN S.A. | Food |
| 18 | ORSERO GROUP | Food Products Distribution | 17 | PERNOD |
Alcoholic |
|||
| 19 | VALSOIA Spa | Consumer |
18 | SAINT JEAN GROUPE | Agri-food | |||
| 19 | FD (FRANK DEVILLE) | Food Products | ||||||
|
Italian Personal Care, Drug and
|
French Personal Care, Drug and Grocery Stores Sector | |||||||
| 20 | IVS GROUP | Food and |
20 | CARREFOUR | Food Retailers and Wholesale | |||
| 21 | MARR Spa | Food Products Distribution | 21 | CASINO GUICHARD | Food Retailers and Wholesale | |||
Appendix A
Roles/Committees in Italian fashion and food listed companies.
| Company | Company Website * | Roles/Committees for |
Roles/Committees for |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer Products and Services Sector | ||||
| 1 | AEFFE GROUP |
|
DIGITAL STRATEGY AND |
RISK CONTROL AND |
| 2 | BRUNELLO |
|
WEB IMAGE AND |
COUNCIL FOR HUMAN |
| 3 | GEOX Spa |
|
DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND INNOVATION MANAGER | COMMITTEE FOR ETHICS AND |
| 4 | MONCLER GROUP |
|
GLOBAL DIGITAL DIRECTOR | CONTROL, RISKS AND |
| 5 | OVS Spa |
|
DIGITAL TRASFORMATION |
CONTROL AND RISK AND |
| 6 | PIQUADRO Spa |
|
DIGITAL TRAFFIC MANAGER | INVESTOR RELATIONS AND |
| 7 | SALVATORE FERRAGAMO |
|
CHIEF DIGITAL AND INNOVATION OFFICER | CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER |
| 8 | TOD’S GROUP |
|
CHIEF DIGITAL AND INNOVATION |
CSR MANAGER NETWORK |
| 9 | CALEFFI GROUP |
|
IT DIRECTOR | INVESTOR RELATIONS AND |
| 10 | SAFILO GROUP |
|
CHIEF DIGITAL OFFICER | SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE |
| Italian Food, Beverage and Tobacco Sector | ||||
| 11 | B.F. Spa |
|
IT MANAGER | R&D SUSTAINABILITY MANAGER |
| 12 | BIOERA Spa |
|
ICT—DIGITAL AND NEW MEDIA |
INVESTOR RELATIONS AND |
| 13 | CAMPARI |
|
HEAD OF IT | GLOBAL PUBLIC AFFAIRS |
| 14 | LA CENTRALE DEL LATTE D’ITALIA Spa |
|
HEAD OF IT AND DIGITAL | HEAD OF INTERNAL AUDIT AND |
| 15 | ENERVIT Spa |
|
DIGITAL MARKETING AND |
CORPORATE STRATEGY AND CSR MANAGER |
| 16 | LA DORIA GROUP |
|
DIGITAL AND CREATIVE DIRECTOR | CONTROL, RISKS AND |
| 17 | NEWLAT FOOD Spa |
|
HEAD OF IT AND DIGITAL | HEAD OF INTERNAL AUDIT AND |
| 18 | ORSERO GROUP |
|
DIGITAL INNOVATION DIRECTOR | SUSTAINABILITY MANAGER |
| 19 | VALSOIA Spa |
|
DIGITAL BUSINESS DIRECTOR | CSR AND SUSTAINABILITY MANAGER |
| Personal Care, Drug and Grocery Stores Sector | ||||
| 20 | IVS GROUP |
|
DESIGN AND DIGITAL CHANNELS |
SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM AND HR MANAGER |
| 21 | MARR Spa |
|
DIGITAL SPECIALIST | HEAD OF SUSTAINABILITY |
* Accessed on 31 January 2022.
Roles/Committees in French fashion and food listed companies.
| Company | Company |
Roles/Committees for |
Roles/Committees for |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer Products and Services Sector | ||||
| 1 | CHRISTIAN DIOR |
|
CRM AND DIGITAL MARKETING |
CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER |
| 2 | HERMES |
|
HEAD OF DIGITAL EXPERIENCE AND INNOVATION | CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER |
| 3 | INTERPARFUMS GROUPE |
|
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR—OPERATIONAL AND DIGITAL MARKETING | SUSTAINABILITY INDIPENDENT |
| 4 | L’OREAL |
|
DIGITAL AND ECOMMERCE DIRECTOR | CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER |
| 5 | LA PERLA FASHION |
|
GLOBAL DIGITAL DIRECTOR, |
MANAGING DIRECTOR AND |
| 6 | LVMH GROUPE |
|
DIGITAL DIRECTOR | ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT—SOURCING AND TRASPARENCY |
| 7 | MAISON DU MONDE |
|
DIGITAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE | CSR AND MAISON DU MONDE |
| 8 | LOUIS VOUITTON |
|
DIGITAL AND CLIENT |
GLOBAL HEAD OF SUSTAINABILITY |
| 9 | CELINE |
|
DIGITAL DIRECTOR | SUSTAINABILITY MANAGER |
| French Food, Beverage and Tobacco Sector | ||||
| 10 | ADVINI S.A. |
|
INNOVATION MANAGER | SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT |
| 11 | AGROGENERATION |
|
CHIEF OF AGRICULTURAL FOOD PRODUCTS INNOVATION MARKET | CSR DIRECTOR |
| 12 | BONDUELLE |
|
COMMUNICATION AND DIGITAL MARKETING MANAGER | CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICE AND CORPORATE COMUNICATION |
| 13 | DANONE |
|
HEAD OF DIGITAL MARKETING | CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER |
| 14 | DIAGEO |
|
CHIEF DIGITAL OFFICER | PRESIDENT, GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN AND PROCUREMENT AND CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER |
| 15 | MOËT CHANDON |
|
DIGITAL DIRECTOR | SUSTAINABILITY PROJECTS |
| 16 | LAURENT-PERRIER |
|
INNOVATION, MARKETING AND |
CSR MANAGER |
| 17 | PERNOD RICARD |
|
HEAD OF DIGITAL AND MEDIA | EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF CORPORATE COMMUNICATION, SUSTAINABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS |
| 18 | SAINT JEAN GROUPE |
|
DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS |
CSR AND SUSTAIBABILITY DIVISION |
| 19 | FD (FRANK DEVILLE) |
|
DIGITAL MARKETING DIVISION | R&D SUSTAINABILITY MANAGER |
| Personal Care, Drug and Grocery Stores Sector | ||||
| 20 | CARREFOUR |
|
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR |
HEAD OF SUSTAINABILITY |
| 21 | CASINO GUICHARD |
|
GROUP CHIEF DIGITAL OFFICER | GOVERNANCE AND SOCIAL |
* Accessed on 28 February 2022.
Roles/Committees in Spanish fashion and food listed companies.
| Company | Company Website * | Roles/Committees for |
Roles/Committees for |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consumer Products and Services Sector | ||||
| 1 | ADOLFO DOMÌNGUEZ |
|
DIGITAL INDUSTRY ADVISOR (RETAIL DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION) | STRATEGIC SUSTAINABILITY |
| 2 | INDITEX |
|
DIGITAL MARKETING MANAGER | SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT |
| 3 | LIWE ESPANOLA S.A. |
|
HEAD OF DIGITAL DIVISION | COMMITTEE ON SAFETY AND HEALTH |
| 4 | NEXTIL |
|
CHIEF INNOVATION OFFICER | COMMITTEE ON SAFETY AND HEALTH |
| Spanish Food, Beverage and Tobacco Sector | ||||
| 5 | BODEGAS RIOJANAS |
|
MARKETING AND DIGITAL |
CHIEF SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER |
| 6 | BORGES AGRICULTURAL & INDUST. NUTS, S.A |
|
CHIEF INNOVATION OFFICER | P&L MANAGER OF AGRICULTURAL BUSINESS UNIT |
| 7 | COCA-COLA EUROPACIFIC PARTNERS PLC |
|
GROUP DIGITAL DIRECTOR | CHIEF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, COMMUNICATIONS AND SUSTAINABILITY |
| 8 | DEOLEO |
|
CHIEF MARKETING AND |
BOARD OF DIRECTORS |
| 9 | EBRO FOODS, S.A. |
|
DIGITAL MARKETING MANAGER | SUSTAINABILITY AND COMPLIANCE DIRECTOR |
| 10 | NATURHOUSE HEALTH |
|
DIRECTOR OF DIGITAL BUSINESS | CSR DIRECTOR |
| 11 | VISCOFAN |
|
DIGITAL DIRECTOR | VICE CHAIRMAN |
* Accessed on 31 March 2022.
References
1. Yang, M.; Evans, S.; Vladimirova, D.; Rana, P. Value uncaptured perspective for sustainable business model innovation. J. Clean. Prod.; 2017; 140, pp. 1794-1804. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.102]
2. Wu, J.; Guo, S.; Huang, H.; Liu, W.; Xiang, Y. Information and communications technologies for sustainable development goals: State-of-the-art, needs and perspectives. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor.; 2017; 20, pp. 2389-2406. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2018.2812301]
3. Mikalef, P.; Boura, M.; Lekakos, G.; Krogstie, J. Big data analytics and firm performance: Findings from a mixed-method approach. J. Bus. Res.; 2019; 98, pp. 261-276. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.044]
4. Alsharif, A.H.; Md Salleh, N.Z.; Baharun, R.; Rami Hashem E, A. Neuromarketing research in the last five years: A bibliometric analysis. Cogent Bus. Manag.; 2021; 8, 1978620. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1978620]
5. Alsharif, A.H.; Md Salleh, N.Z.; Al-Zahrani, S.A.; Khraiwish, A. Consumer Behaviour to Be Considered in Advertising: A Systematic Analysis and Future Agenda. Behav. Sci.; 2022; 12, 472. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/bs12120472]
6. Lee, N.; Brandes, L.; Chamberlain, L.; Senior, C. This is your brain on neuromarketing: Reflections on a decade of research. J. Mark. Manag.; 2017; 33, pp. 878-892. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1327249]
7. Alsharif, A.H.; Md Salleh, N.Z.; Khraiwish, A. Biomedical Technology in Studying Consumers’ Subconscious Behavior. Inter. J. Online Biomed. Eng.; 2022; 18, pp. 98-114. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v18i08.31959]
8. Pan, X.; Chen, X.; Ning, L. Exploitative technological diversification, environmental contexts, and firm performance. Manag. Decis.; 2018; 56, pp. 1613-1629. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2017-0228]
9. Lee, H.J. A Review of Value Creating Motive and Business Model in Smart Technology. Human Centric Technology and Service in Smart Space; Park, Y.H.; Jin, Q.; Yeo, M.S.; Hu, B. Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2012.
10. Castro, G.D.R.; Fernandez, M.C.G.; Colsa, Á.U. Unleashing the convergence amid digitalization and sustainability towards pursuing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A holistic review. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 280, 122204.
11. Brenner, B.; Hartl, B. The perceived relationship between digitalization and ecological, economic, and social sustainability. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 315, 128128. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128128]
12. Evans, S.; Vladimirova, D.; Holgado, M.; Van Fossen, K.; Yang, M.; Silva, E.; Barlow, C. Business model innovation for sustainability: Towards a unified perspective for creation of sustainable business models. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2017; 25, pp. 597-608. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1939]
13. Fiorentino, R.; Grimaldi, F.; Lamboglia, R.; Merendino, A. How smart technologies can support sustainable business models: Insights from an air navigation service provider. Manag. Decis.; 2020; 58, pp. 1715-1736. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2019-1327]
14. Bennet, A.; Bennet, D.; Fafard, K.; Fonda, M.; Lomond, T.; Messier, L.; Vaugeois, N. Knowledge Mobilization in the Social Sciences and Humanities; Mqi Press: Frost, WV, USA, 2007.
15. Garzella, S.; Fiorentino, R.; Capurro, R. Towards new conceptualization and scope of environmental dimension in the strategic formula. Corporate Social Responsibility: Theoretical Analysis and Practical Implications; Garzella, S. Franco Angeli: Milano, Italy, 2020; pp. 117-142.
16. Miceli, A.; Hagen, B.; Riccardi, M.P.; Sotti, F.; Settembre-Blundo, D. Thriving, not just surviving in changing times: How sustainability, agility and digitalization intertwine with organizational resilience. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 2052. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13042052]
17. Al-Rahmi, W.M.; Alzahrani, A.I.; Yahaya, N.; Alalwan, N.; Kamin, Y.B. Digital communication: Information and communication technology (ICT) usage for education sustainability. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 5052. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12125052]
18. Fuchs, C. The implications of new information and communication technologies for sustainability. Environ. Dev. Sustain.; 2008; 10, pp. 291-309. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-006-9065-0]
19. Du, S.; Bhattacharya, C.B.; Sen, S. Maximizing business returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. Int. J. Manag. Rev.; 2010; 12, pp. 8-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x]
20. Basil, E.; Erlandson, J. Corporate social responsibility website representation: A longitudinal study of internal and external self-presentations. J. Mark. Commun.; 2008; 14, pp. 125-137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527260701858497]
21. Kuntsman, A.; Rattle, I. Towards a paradigmatic shift in sustainability studies: A systematic review of peer reviewed literature and future agenda setting to consider environmental (Un) sustainability of digital communication. Environ. Commun.; 2019; 13, pp. 567-581. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1596144]
22. Battaglia, M.; Testa, F.; Bianchi, L.; Iraldo, F.; Frey, M. Corporate social responsibility and competitiveness within SMEs of the fashion industry: Evidence from Italy and France. Sustainability; 2014; 6, pp. 872-893. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su6020872]
23. Bigliardi, B.; Galati, F. Innovation trends in the food industry: The case of functional foods. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2013; 31, pp. 118-129. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2013.03.006]
24. Lazzeretti, L.; Oliva, S. Exploring the marriage between fashion and ‘Made in Italy’ and the key role of GB Giorgini. Eur. Plan. Stud.; 2022; 30, pp. 1717-1735. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1833842]
25. Aleksanyan, L.; Huiban, J.P. Economic and financial determinants of firm bankruptcy: Evidence from the French food industry. Rev. Agric. Food Environ. Stud.; 2016; 97, pp. 89-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41130-016-0020-7]
26. Izquierdo-Yusta, A.; Gómez-Cantó, C.M.; Pelegrin-Borondo, J.; Martínez-Ruiz, M.P. Consumers’ behaviour in fast-food restaurants: A food value perspective from Spain. Br. Food J.; 2019; 121, pp. 386-399. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2018-0059]
27. Binda, V.; Merlo, E. Trends in the fashion business: Spain and Italy in comparison, 1973–2013. Enterp. Soc.; 2020; 21, pp. 79-109. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/eso.2019.29]
28. Escobar-Rodríguez, T.; Bonsón-Fernández, R. Analysing online purchase intention in Spain: Fashion e-commerce. Inf. Syst. e-Bus. Manag.; 2017; 15, pp. 599-622. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10257-016-0319-6]
29. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT). Available online: https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/268009 (accessed on 28 February 2022).
30. Institute National de la Statistique et des Ètudes Èconomiques (INSEE) Discover French and European Economy. Available online: https://www.insee.fr/en/outil-interactif/5543645/tableau/70_SAC/73_IND (accessed on 10 September 2022).
31. Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). Available online: https://www.ine.es/ss/Satellite?L=en_GB&c=Page&cid=1254735550343&p=1254735550343&pagename=ProductosYServicios%2FPYSLayout (accessed on 1 September 2022).
32. Ghosh, P.; Cartone, A. A Spatio-temporal analysis of COVID-19 outbreak in Italy. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract.; 2020; 12, pp. 1047-1062. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12376]
33. Huynh, P.H. Enabling circular business models in the fashion industry: The role of digital innovation. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag.; 2022; 71, pp. 870-895. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-12-2020-0683]
34. Casciani, D.; Chkanikova, O.; Pal, R. Exploring the nature of digital transformation in the fashion industry: Opportunities for supply chains, business models, and sustainability-oriented innovations. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy; 2022; 18, pp. 773-795. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2022.2125640]
35. Annosi, C.M.; Brunetta, F.; Capo, F.; Heideveld, L. Digitalization in the agri-food industry: The relationship between technology and sustainable development. Manag. Decis.; 2020; 58, pp. 1737-1757. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2019-1328]
36. Abbate, S.; Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R. The digital and sustainable transition of the agri-food sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.; 2023; 187, 122222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122222]
37. Garzella, S.; Fiorentino, R. Synergy Value and Strategic Management; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2017.
38. Massi, M.; Turrini, A. When Fashion Meets Art: The Artification of Luxury Fashion Brands. The Artification of Luxury Fashion Brands; Palgrave Pivot: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1-32.
39. Hughes, D.E.; Le Bon, J.; Malshe, A. The marketing–sales interface at the interface: Creating market-based capabilities through organizational synergy. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag.; 2012; 32, pp. 57-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134320106]
40. Gertler, M.E. Synergy and strategic advantage: Cooperatives and sustainable development. J. Coop.; 2004; 18, pp. 32-46.
41. Eisenhardt, K.M.; Graebner, M.E.; Sonenshein, S. Grand challenges and inductive methods: Rigor without rigor mortis. Acad. Manag. J.; 2016; 59, pp. 1113-1123.
42. Singh, A.; Klarner, P.; Hess, T. How do chief digital officers pursue digital transformation activities? The role of organization design parameters. Long Range Plan.; 2020; 53, 101890. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.07.001]
43. Bonnet, D. A Portfolio Strategy to Execute Your Digital Transformation; Capgemini Consulting: Barcelona, Spain, 2016; Available online: www.capgemini-consulting.com (accessed on 31 May 2022).
44. Parida, V.; Sjödin, D.; Reim, W. Reviewing Literature on Digitalization, Business Model Innovation, and Sustainable Industry: Past achievements and future promises. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 391. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11020391]
45. Ghobakhloo, M. Industry 4.0, digitization, and opportunities for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 252, 119869. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119869]
46. Galeotti, M.; Garzella, S. Governo Strategico Dell’azienda. Prefazione del Prof. Umberto Bertini; Giappichelli: Torino, Italy, 2013.
47. Nguyen, Q.K. Audit committee effectiveness, bank efficiency and risk-taking: Evidence in ASEAN countries. Cogent Bus. Manag.; 2022; 9, 2080622. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2080622]
48. Naciti, V.; Cesaroni, F.; Pulejo, L. Corporate governance and sustainability: A review of the existing literature. J. Manag. Gov.; 2022; 26, pp. 55-74. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10997-020-09554-6]
49. Loebbecke, C.; Picot, A. Reflections on societal and business model transformation arising from digitization and big data analytics: A research agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst.; 2015; 24, pp. 149-157. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2015.08.002]
50. Mashhadi, A.R.; Cade, W.; Behdad, S. Moving towards real-time data-driven quality monitoring: A case study of hard disk drives. Procedia Manuf.; 2018; 26, pp. 1107-1115. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.07.147]
51. Alsharif, A.; Salleh, N.Z.M.; Pilelienė, L.; Abbas, A.F.; Ali, J. Current Trends in the Application of EEG in Neuromarketing: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sci. Ann. Econ. Bus.; 2022; 69, pp. 393-415. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47743/saeb-2022-0020]
52. Kathan, W.; Matzler, K.; Veider, V. The sharing economy: Your business model’s friend or foe?. Bus. Horiz.; 2016; 59, pp. 663-672. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.06.006]
53. Spieth, P.; Schneckenberg, D.; Matzler, K. Exploring the linkage between business model (&) innovation and the strategy of the firm. R&D Manag.; 2016; 46, pp. 403-413.
54. Porter, M.E.; Heppelmann, J.E. How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harv. Bus. Rev.; 2014; 92, pp. 64-88.
55. Boudreau, K.J.; Lakhani, K.R. Using the crowd as an innovation partner. Harv. Bus. Rev.; 2013; 91, pp. 60-69. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23593768]
56. Goettler, R.L.; Gordon, B.R. Competition and product innovation in dynamic oligopoly. Quant. Mark. Econ.; 2014; 12, pp. 1-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11129-013-9142-2]
57. Iansiti, M.; Lakhani, K.R. Digital ubiquity: How connections, sensors, and data are revolutionizing business. Harv. Bus. Rev.; 2014; 92, 19.
58. Rachinger, M.; Rauter, R.; Müller, C.; Vorraber, W.; Schirgi, E. Digitalization and its influence on business model innovation. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag.; 2019; 30, pp. 1143-1160. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-01-2018-0020]
59. Schallmo, D.; Williams, C. Digital Transformation Now! Guiding the Successful Digitalization of Your Business Model; 1st ed. Springier: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 15-33.
60. Fitzgerald, M.; Kruschwitz, N.; Bonnet, D.; Welch, M. Embracing digital technology: A new strategic imperative. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev.; 2014; 55, 1.
61. Roden, A.S.; Nucciarelli, A.; Li, F.; Graham, G. Big data and the transformation of operations models: A framework and a new research agenda. Prod. Plan. Control; 2017; 28, pp. 929-944. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1336792]
62. Cohen, B.; Kietzmann, J. Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy. Organ. Environ.; 2014; 27, pp. 279-296. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026614546199]
63. Fjeldstad, Ø.D.; Snow, C.C. Business models and organization design. Long Ran. Plan.; 2018; 51, pp. 32-39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.07.008]
64. Holweg, M.; Helo, P. Defining value chain architectures: Linking strategic value creation to operational supply chain design. Int. J. Prod. Econ.; 2014; 147, pp. 230-238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.06.015]
65. Garzella, S.; Fiorentino, R.; Caputo, A.; Lardo, A. Business model innovation in SMEs: The role of boundaries in the digital era. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag.; 2021; 33, pp. 31-43. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1787374]
66. Mariani, J.; Zmud, J.; Krimmel, E.; Sen, R.; Miller, M. Flying Smarter: The Smart Airport and the Internet of Things; Deloitte Development LLC: London, UK, 2019; Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/5007_Flying-smarter/DI_Flying-smarter.pdf (accessed on 2 September 2019).
67. Merendino, A.; Dibb, S.; Meadows, M.; Quinn, L.; Wilson, D.; Simkin, L.; Canhoto, A. Big data, big decisions: The impact of big data on board level decision-making. J. Bus. Res.; 2018; 93, pp. 67-78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.029]
68. WCED. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
69. Banerjee, S.B. Corporate environmental strategies and action. Manag. Decis.; 2001; 39, pp. 36-44. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005405]
70. Epstein, M.J.; Roy, M.J. Sustainability in action: Identifying and measuring the key performance drivers. Long Range Plan.; 2001; 34, pp. 585-604. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00084-X]
71. Galbreath, J. Building corporate social responsibility into strategy. Eur. Bus. Rev.; 2009; 21, pp. 109-127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555340910940123]
72. Elkington, J. Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win business strategies for sustainable development. Calif. Manag. Rev.; 1994; 36, pp. 90-100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41165746]
73. Garzella, S.; Fiorentino, R. An integrated framework to support the process of green management adoption. Bus. Proc. Manag. J.; 2014; 20, pp. 68-89.
74. Andersson, L.; Jackson, S.E.; Russel, S.V. Greening organizational behavior: An introduction to the special issue. J. Organ. Behav.; 2013; 34, pp. 151-155. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.1854]
75. Freedman, M.; Jaggi, B. Sustainability, Environmental Performance and Disclosure; Emer: Bingley, UK, 2010.
76. Schiederig, T.; Tietze, F.; Herstatt, C. Green innovation in technology and innovation management—An exploratory literature review. R&D Manag.; 2012; 42, pp. 180-192.
77. Taylor, J.; Vithayathil, J.; Yim, D. Are corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives such as sustainable development and environmental policies value enhancing or window dressing?. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.; 2018; 25, pp. 971-980. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/csr.1513]
78. Lo, F.Y.; Liao, P.C. Rethinking financial performance and corporate sustainability: Perspectives on resources and strategies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.; 2021; 162, 120346. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120346]
79. Bowen, F.; Bansal, P.; Slawinski, N. Scale matters: The scale of environmental issues in corporate collective actions. Strateg. Manag. J.; 2018; 39, pp. 1411-1436. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.2764]
80. Haden, S.S.P.; Oyler, J.D.; Humphreys, J.H. Historical, practical, and theoretical perspectives on green management: An exploratory analysis. Manag. Dec.; 2009; 47, pp. 1041-1055.
81. Lucas, M.T. Understanding environmental management practices: Integrating views from strategic management and ecological economics. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2010; 19, pp. 543-556. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.662]
82. Burritt, R.L.; Herzig, C.; Schaltegger, S.; Viere, T. Diffusion of environmental management accounting for cleaner production: Evidence from some case studies. J. Clean. Prod.; 2019; 224, pp. 479-491. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.227]
83. Hansen, E.G.; Schaltegger, S. The sustainability balanced scorecard: A systematic review of architectures. J. Bus. Ethics; 2016; 133, pp. 193-221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2340-3]
84. Capurro, R. Corporate Environmental Strategies and Value Creation: Challenges and Opportunities; Spring: Berlin, Germany, 2020.
85. Rosamartina, S.; Secundo, G.; Russo, A. Digital reputation and firm performance: The moderating role of firm orientation towards sustainable development goals (SDGs). J. Bus.; 2022; 152, pp. 315-325. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.07.025]
86. Engert, S.; Baumgartner, R.J. Corporate sustainability strategy–bridging the gap between formulation and implementation. J. Clean. Prod.; 2016; 113, pp. 822-834. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.094]
87. Vilanova, M.; Lozano, J.M.; Arenas, D. Exploring the nature of the relationship between CSR and competitiveness. J. Bus. Ethics; 2009; 87, pp. 57-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9812-2]
88. Freeman, R.E.; Dmytriyev, S. Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder theory: Learning from each other. Emerg. Issues Management.; 2017; 1, pp. 7-15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4468/2017.1.02freeman.dmytriyev]
89. D’amato, D.; Korhonen, J. Integrating the green economy, circular economy and bioeconomy in a strategic sustainability framework. Ecol. Econ.; 2021; 188, 107143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107143]
90. Stewart, R.; Niero, M. Circular economy in corporate sustainability strategies: A review of corporate sustainability reports in the fast-moving consumer goods sector. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2018; 27, pp. 1005-1022. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.2048]
91. Stål, H.; Corvellec, H. A decoupling perspective on circular business model implementation: Illustrations from Swedish apparel. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 171, pp. 630-643. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.249]
92. Aarseth, W.; Ahola, T.; Aaltonen, K.; Økland, A.; Andersen, B. Project sustainability strategies: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag.; 2017; 35, pp. 1071-1083. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.11.006]
93. Harris, L.C.; Crane, A. The greening of organizational culture: Management views on the depth, degree and diffusion of change. J. Organ. Chang. Manag.; 2002; 15, pp. 214-234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810210429273]
94. Margaretha, M.; Saragih, S.R. Developing new corporate culture through green human resource practice. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business, Economics, and Accounting; Bangkok, Thailand, 20–23 March 2013; Volume 1, pp. 67-92.
95. Bertels, S.; Papania, L.; Papania, D. Embedding Sustainability in Organizational Culture. A Systematic Review of the Body of Knowledge; Network Business Sustainbility: London, Canada, 2010.
96. Olson, E.G. Creating an enterprise-level “green” strategy. J. Bus. Strategy; 2008; 29, pp. 22-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02756660810858125]
97. Amran, A.; Lee, S.P.; Devi, S.S. The influence of governance structure and strategic corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2014; 23, pp. 217-235. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1767]
98. De Villiers, C.; Naiker, V.; Van Staden, C.J. The effect of board characteristics on firm environmental performance. J. Manag.; 2011; 37, pp. 1636-1663. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206311411506]
99. Bowen, F.E. Organizational slack and corporate greening: Broadening the debate. Br. J. Manag.; 2002; 13, pp. 305-316. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00248]
100. Brammer, S.; Pavelin, S. Factors influencing the quality of corporate environmental disclosure. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2008; 17, pp. 120-136. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.506]
101. Dang, V.C.; Nguyen, Q.K. Internal corporate governance and stock price crash risk: Evidence from Vietnam. J. Sustain. Financ. Invest.; 2021; pp. 1-18. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2021.2006128]
102. Perrault, E.; Clark, C. Environmental shareholder activism: Considering status and reputation in firm responsiveness. Organ. Environ.; 2016; 29, pp. 194-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1086026615571939]
103. Ben-Amar, W.; Chang, M.; McIlkenny, P. Board gender diversity and corporate response to sustainability initiatives: Evidence from the carbon disclosure project. J. Bus. Ethics; 2017; 142, pp. 369-383. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2759-1]
104. Oh, W.Y.; Chang, Y.K.; Martynov, A. The effect of ownership structure on corporate social responsibility: Empirical evidence from Korea. J. Bus. Ethics; 2011; 104, pp. 283-297. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0912-z]
105. Nguyen, Q.K.; Dang, V.C. Does the country’s institutional quality enhance the role of risk governance in preventing bank risk?. Appl. Econ. Lett.; 2022; pp. 1-4. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2022.2026868]
106. Slimane, F.B.; Angulo, L.P. Strategic change and corporate governance: Evidence from the stock exchange industry. J. Bus. Res.; 2019; 103, pp. 206-218. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.045]
107. Pathan, S.; Skully, M. Endogenously structured boards of directors in banks. J. Bank. Financ.; 2010; 34, pp. 1590-1606. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.03.006]
108. Qi, W.; Huang, Z.; Dinçer, H.; Korsakienė, R.; Yüksel, S. Corporate governance-based strategic approach to sustainability in energy industry of emerging economies with a novel interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid decision making model. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 3307. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12083307]
109. Brunninge, O.; Nordqvist, M.; Wiklund, J. Corporate governance and strategic change in SMEs: The effects of ownership, board composition and top management teams. Small Bus. Econ.; 2007; 29, pp. 295-308. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9021-2]
110. Boone, A.L.; Field, L.C.; Karpoff, J.M.; Raheja, C.G. The determinants of corporate board size and composition: An empirical analysis. J. Financ. Econ.; 2007; 85, pp. 66-101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2006.05.004]
111. Strange, R.; Jackson, G. Corporate Governance and International Business: Strategy, Performance and Institutional Change; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2008.
112. Erkut, B. From digital government to digital governance: Are we there yet?. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 860. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12030860]
113. Aksin-Sivrikaya, S.; Bhattacharya, C.B. Where Digitalization Meets Sustainability: Opportunities and Challenges. Sustainability in a Digital World; CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017.
114. Myeong, S.; Kwon, Y.; Seo, H. Sustainable e-governance: The relationship among trust, digital divide, and e-government. Sustainability; 2014; 6, pp. 6049-6069. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su6096049]
115. Kang, S. Communicating sustainable development in the digital age: The relationship between citizens’ storytelling and engagement intention. Sustain. Dev.; 2019; 27, pp. 337-348. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.1905]
116. Reilly, A.H.; Hynan, K.A. Corporate communication, sustainability, and social media: It’s not easy (really) being green. Bus. Horiz.; 2014; 57, pp. 747-758. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.07.008]
117. Manetti, G.; Bellucci, M. The use of social media for engaging stakeholders in sustainability reporting. Account. Audit. Account. J.; 2016; 29, pp. 985-1011. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2014-1797]
118. Bebbington, J.; Brown, J.; Frame, B. Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models. Ecol. Econ.; 2007; 61, pp. 224-236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.10.021]
119. Hauer, G.; Harte, P.; Kacemi, J. An exploration of the impact of industry 4.0 approach on corporate communication in the German manufacturing industry. Int. J. Supply Chain. Manag.; 2018; 7, pp. 125-131.
120. Camilleri, M.A. . Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2021.
121. Cornelissen, J.P. Corporate Communication: A Guide to Theory and Practice; 2nd ed. SAGE: London, UK, 2020.
122. Ayman, U.; Kaya, A.K.; Kuruç, Ü. The impact of digital communication and PR models on the sustainability of higher education during crises. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 8295. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12208295]
123. Katsikeas, C.; Leonidou, L.; Zeriti, A. Revisiting international marketing strategy in a digital era: Opportunities, challenges, and research directions. Int. Mark. Rev.; 2019; 37, pp. 405-424. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IMR-02-2019-0080]
124. Ismail, M.H.; Khater, M.; Zaki, M. Digital business transformation and strategy: What do we know so far. Camb. Serv. Alliance; 2017; 10, pp. 1-35.
125. Ivančić, L.; Vukšić, V.B.; Spremić, M. Mastering the digital transformation process: Business practices and lessons learned. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev.; 2019; 9, pp. 36-50. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1217]
126. Borges, A.F.; Laurindo, F.J.; Spínola, M.M.; Gonçalves, R.F.; Mattos, C.A. The strategic use of artificial intelligence in the digital era: Systematic literature review and future research directions. Int. J. Inf. Manag.; 2021; 57, 102225. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102225]
127. Capurro, R.; Fiorentino, R.; Garzella, S.; Giudici, A. Big data analytics in innovation processes: Which forms of dynamic capabilities should be developed and how to embrace digitization?. Eur. J. Innov. Manag.; 2021; 25, pp. 273-294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-05-2021-0256]
128. Matschoss, K. Repo, Forward-looking network analysis of ongoing sustainability transitions. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.; 2020; 161, 120288. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120288]
129. Dangelico, R.M.; Pujari, D.; Pontrandolfo, P. Green product innovation in manufacturing firms: A sustainability-oriented dynamic capability perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ.; 2017; 26, pp. 490-506. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.1932]
130. Capurro, R. Accelerating the transition towards sustainability through green innovations: An integrated framework to support business models evolution. Proceedings of the IFKAD, Managing Knowledge in Uncertain Times; Rome, Italy, 1–3 September 2021; pp. 1243-1258.
131. Köhler, K.; Hoffmann, C.P. Integrated reporting: Bridging investor relations and strategic management. The Handbook of Financial Communication and Investor Relations; Wiley Online Library: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 209-219.
132. Garzella, S.; Fiorentino, R. How to control environmental strategy?. Manag. Control; 2013; 1, pp. 45-76.
133. Epstein, M.J.; Wisner, P.S. Using a balanced scorecard to implement sustainability. Environ. Qual. Manag.; 2001; 11, pp. 1-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tqem.1300]
134. Kaplan, R.S.; Robert, N.P.D.K.S.; Davenport, T.H.; Norton, D.P. The Strategy-Focused Organization: How Balanced Scorecard Companies Thrive in the New Business Environment; Harvard Business Press: Brighton, MA, USA, 2001.
135. Chat, A.B. Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age. Artif. Intell.; 2021; 164, 244.
136. Chesbrough, H. Business model innovation: It’s not just about technology anymore. Strategy Leadersh.; 2007; 35, pp. 12-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10878570710833714]
137. Sellitto, M.A.; Camfield, C.G.; Buzuku, S. Green innovation and competitive advantages in a furniture industrial cluster: A survey and structural model. Sustain. Prod. Consum.; 2020; 23, pp. 94-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.04.007]
138. Ge, B.; Yang, Y.; Jiang, D.; Gao, Y.; Du, X.; Zhou, T. An empirical study on green innovation strategy and sustainable competitive advantages: Path and boundary. Sustainability; 2018; 10, 3631. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su10103631]
139. Chen, J.; Liu, L. Profiting from green innovation: The moderating effect of competitive strategy. Sustainability; 2018; 11, 15. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11010015]
140. Signitzer, B.; Prexl, A. Corporate sustainability communications: Aspects of theory and professionalization. J. Public Relat. Res.; 2007; 20, pp. 1-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10627260701726996]
141. Wang, C.H. How organizational green culture influences green performance and competitive advantage: The mediating role of green innovation. J. Manuf. Tech. Manag.; 2019; 30,
142. Schönborn, G.; Berlin, C.; Pinzone, M.; Hanisch, C.; Georgoulias, K.; Lanz, M. Why social sustainability counts: The impact of corporate social sustainability culture on financial success. Sustain. Prod. Consum.; 2019; 17, pp. 1-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.08.008]
143. Seele, P.; Lock, I. The game-changing potential of digitalization for sustainability: Possibilities, perils, and pathways. Sustain. Sci.; 2017; 12, pp. 183-185. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0426-4]
144. Henriques, I.; Sadorsky, P. The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Acad. Man. J.; 1999; 42, pp. 87-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256876]
145. Knaut, A. How CSR should Understand Digitalization: In Sustainability in a Digital World; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 249-256.
146. Post, C.; Rahman, N.; McQuillen, C. From board composition to corporate environmental performance through sustainability-themed alliances. Jour. of Bus. Ethics; 2015; 130, pp. 423-435. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2231-7]
147. Nguyen, Q.K. Audit committee structure, institutional quality, and bank stability: Evidence from ASEAN countries. Financ. Res. Lett.; 2022; 46, 102369. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2021.102369]
148. Rinaldi, M.; Murino, T.; Bottani, E. The Impact of COVID-19 On Logistic Systems: An Italian Case Study. Ifac-Papersonline; 2021; 54, pp. 1035-1040. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2021.08.123]
149. World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) UNWTO Tourism Data Dashboard. Available online: https://www.unwto.org/tourism-data/unwto-tourism-dashboard (accessed on 29 November 2022).
150. Confindustria Moda, Economic. Available online: https://www.sistemamodaitalia.com/en/press/note-economiche (accessed on 1 February 2022).
151. Federation de la Haute Couture et de la Mode. Available online: https://fhcm.paris/en/the-federation/facilities/ (accessed on 1 April 2022).
152. Food Industry Trends France. Available online: https://atradius.it/pubblicazioni/food-industry-trends-france-2022.html (accessed on 20 January 2022).
153. Amit, R.; Zott, C. Business Model Innovation: Creating Value in Times of Change; Working Paper, No. WP-870 IESE Business School: Barcelona, Spain, 2012.
154. Fourth Progress Report and Annexes on the EU Security Union Strategy. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/fourth-progress-report-and-annexes-eu-security-union-strategy_en (accessed on 25 March 2022).
155. Mastropetrou, M.; Bithas, G. Digital transformation in the luxury industry. International Conference on Business Intelligence & Modelling; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 117-124.
156. Kuusisto, M. Organizational effects of digitalization: A literature review. Int. J. Organ. Theory Behav.; 2017; 20, pp. 341-362. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-20-03-2017-B003]
157. Lee, M.R.; Kim, M.S. A Study on the Digitalization of the Fashion Industry. Int. J. Costume Cult.; 2001; 4, pp. 124-137.
158. Cabigiosu, A. Digitalization in the Luxury Fashion Industry; Spring: Berlin, Germany, 2020.
159. De Boissieu, E.; Kondrateva, G.; Baudier, P.; Ammi, C. The use of blockchain in the luxury industry: Supply chains and the traceability of goods. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag.; 2021; 34, pp. 1318-1338. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-11-2020-0471]
160. Friedrich, D. Benefits from sustainable development using bioplastics: A comparison between the food and fashion industries. Sustain. Dev.; 2021; 29, pp. 915-922. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sd.2184]
161. Vitsentzatou, E.; Tsoulfas, G.T.; Mihiotis, A.N. The Digital Transformation of the Marketing Mix in the Food and Beverage Service Supply Chain: A Grey DEMATEL Approach. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 15228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su142215228]
162. Provin, A.P.; De Aguiar Dutra, A.R. Circular economy for fashion industry: Use of waste from the food industry for the production of biotextiles. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.; 2021; 169, 120858. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120858]
163. Graebner, M.E.; Martin, J.A.; Roundy, P.T. Qualitative data: Cooking without a recipe. Strateg. Organ.; 2012; 10, pp. 276-284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476127012452821]
164. Strauss, A.; Corbin, J. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory; 2nd ed. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1998.
165. Titscher, S.; Meyer, M.; Wodak, R.; Vetter, E. Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2000.
166. Jonsen, K.; Jehn, K.A. Using triangulation to validate themes in qualitative studies. Qual. Res. Organ. Manag. Int. J.; 2009; 4, pp. 123-150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17465640910978391]
167. Guest, G.; Namey, E.; Taylor, J.; Eley, N.; McKenna, K. Comparing focus groups and individual interviews: Findings from a randomized study. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol.; 2017; 20, pp. 693-708. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1281601]
168. Bryman, A. Social Research Methods; 4th ed. Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Digitalization and sustainability are changing companies by transforming products, services and operations. While the growth of a digital and sustainable economy may increase firm performance, these new trends also raise potential challenges for companies pertaining to corporate governance structures. Companies are now faced with various alternatives regarding how digitalization and sustainability roles might be integrated into corporate governance structures. We aim to analyse how roles dedicated to digitalization and sustainability have been integrated into governance structures and how these changes impact corporate communication. We provide an explorative analysis in a sample of Italian, French and Spanish companies from the fashion and food sectors. These companies exhibit common features, analogous levels of success and critical factors and similar business models; moreover, fashion and food represent two of the main driving sectors of the selected countries’ economies. For these companies, the findings highlight a positive convergence regarding the inclusion of new corporate roles devoted to managing digitalization and sustainability processes. However, the analysis shows the different impacts of these roles on corporate governance structures and the different ways of externally communicating these impacts. In this sense, our study encourages the identification of governance models and different kinds of corporate communication that are able to promote digitalization processes and sustainable paths for companies. The paper contributes to the field of digitalization and sustainability studies and suggests insights to help practitioners manage related processes by promoting an evolution in the corporate governance structures and corporate communications of food and fashion companies.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Department of Business and Economics, University of Naples “Parthenope”, 80132 Naples, Italy
2 Department of Business Studies, Roma Tre University, 00145 Rome, Italy