Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Supply Chain Practices in the Oil and Gas Industry: A Case Study
Next Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Climate Change Transition Innovations on the Default Risk
Previous Article in Journal
Can Financial Agglomeration Development Reduce Carbon Emissions? Evidence from the Yangtze River Delta Region of China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Customer–Resource Relationships in the Continuous Business Model Innovation of Technology Companies: Google Cases
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/su16051719
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analyzing Factors That Affect Korean B2B Companies’ Sustainable Performance

by
Sungchang Lee
and
Young Jun Kim
*
Graduate School of Management of Technology, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(5), 1719; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su16051719
Submission received: 21 January 2024 / Revised: 14 February 2024 / Accepted: 18 February 2024 / Published: 20 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Business and Corporate Performance: Opportunities and Challenges)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study empirically examines factors that can influence the sustainable corporate performance of Korean business-to-business (B2B) companies with the help of unique survey data. Factors such as technological capability, the chief executive officer (CEO)’s risk-taking propensity, B2B seller skill, and key account management (KAM) are analyzed to clarify their impact on sustainable financial and non-financial performance. In particular, given that environment, society, and governance (ESG) reporting has recently been widely recognized as an important evaluation factor for companies, we look at the mediating effects of ESG management on sustainable business performance. The results show that the CEO’s risk-taking propensity and B2B seller skill significantly impact the company’s sustainable financial performance, while technological capability and the CEO’s risk-taking propensity significantly impact sustainable non-financial performance. The fact that a CEO’s risk-taking propensity affects both sustainable financial and non-financial performance indicates the importance of entrepreneurial competency in the sustainability of the company. Furthermore, the findings reveal that ESG management plays a crucial role in sustainable corporate performance. The mediating role of ESG management allows technological capability, B2B seller skill, and KAM to influence sustainable financial performance significantly. Likewise, all of the explanatory factors contribute to the company’s sustainable non-financial performance through ESG management. The findings are important for both practitioners and scholars because they emphasize the need to establish an optimal ESG management strategy for corporate survival and sustainability. Furthermore, this study underscores that ESG management should be implemented by all organizational members, from CEOs to employees. Future research will include more comprehensive samples and analyze various strategic factors not covered in this study to derive effective ways by which companies can increase their performance and sustainability. We will also explore the factors that contribute to good ESG management practices.

1. Introduction

B2B (business-to-business) refers to a business model based on transactions between companies, and B2B companies are those that engage in such transactions. The B2B market occupies a significant share in the current global environment, and its size is increasing significantly. According to the study “B2B Payments Transaction Market Size-Global Industry, Share, Analysis, Trends and Forecast 2022–2030” by Acumen Research (2022) [1], the global B2B payments transaction market size was USD 49,481 billion in 2021 and is projected to reach USD 81,840 billion by 2030, with a compound annual growth rate of 6% from 2022 to 2030. Additionally, the global B2B e-commerce market size was valued at USD 7413 billion in 2022, and it is projected to reach USD 36,108 billion by 2031, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 19.2% between 2023 and 2031 [2]. In the case of the United States, B2B companies generated USD 9.17 trillion of revenue in 2018, accounting for about 51% of the 2018 U.S. economy [3]. South Korean B2B market conditions are no exception. In 2019, the B2B e-commerce market size was approximately USD 1187 billion, which is about 10 times larger than the B2C (business-to-customer) e-commerce market size of USD 115 billion [4].
Given the size and importance of the B2B market, former studies have looked at the behavior of B2B companies [5,6,7,8,9]. However, many previous studies on corporate performance have been conducted without distinguishing between B2C and B2B [10,11,12,13,14]. Moreover, most prior literature on business performance has focused on the context of B2C industries. There has been relatively little research addressing B2B business performance, which has unique characteristics that differentiate it from B2C organizations.
Moreover, research to date has tended to analyze the impacts on simple corporate performance, which limits our ability to understand the factors that influence “sustainable” corporate performance. Sustainability refers to the ability to meet current demand while not compromising the ability to meet future demand [15]. Sustainability management began with the awareness that if a company neglects social and environmental issues because it is too busy maximizing profits, the survival of the company will ultimately become more difficult. As Gadenne et al. (2012) [16] noticed, in line with current economic and environmental changes, performance evaluation indicators for organizations and companies should primarily consider the performance of sustainable accounting practices. Scholars such as Asad et al. (2021) [17] argue that sustainable leadership has a significant impact on the sustainable performance of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Asif et al. (2021) [18] highlighted the importance of knowledge exploitation, knowledge exploration, and interactive performance management. This paper contributes to the literature by empirically exploring other factors that can affect sustainable business performance in the context of B2B businesses and elucidating the relationships between these factors.
Based on the previous literature and the characteristics of the B2B industry, this research considers technological capability, the chief executive officer’s (CEO) risk-taking propensity, B2B seller skill, key account management (KAM), and environmental–social–governance (ESG) management as the main factors that might influence the sustainable business performance of B2B firms. Technological capability is a performance factor that is widely studied in many studies of both B2B and B2C. This study examines the role of this factor within a B2B environment. As competition in the industry intensifies and volatility increases, the CEO’s risk-taking propensity is selected to assess the impacts of managers’ proactive and bold attitudes on sustainable corporate performance. B2B seller skill and KAM are marketing characteristics unique to the B2B industry and have been studied overseas, but research on Korean companies is lacking. Thus, we look at how seller skill and KAM influence sustainable performance among Korean B2B companies. In particular, ESG management has recently emerged as a new paradigm in corporate valuation and is attracting attention as an essential element rather than an option for companies. Many foreign and Korean evaluation agencies (i.e., ISS-ESG, CDP, Sustainalytics, KCGS, etc.) are using various ESG evaluation metrics to evaluate sustainable management. Additionally, most sustainability management evaluation indicators and standards, including ISO 26000 [19], are centered around ESG. This reflects the fact that ESG serves as a standard for evaluating corporate sustainability and can have a long-term impact on a company’s business strategy and performance. In this study, we seek to determine the impact of ESG management on corporate sustainable performance.
Business performance has many definitions and measurements. It is a complex construct influenced by many drivers [20,21]. Chandler and Hanks (1993) [22] argue that business results include financial benefits such as revenue, profit, and market share. In contrast, Walker and Brown (2004) [23] define business performance as non-financial benefits such as customer satisfaction, entrepreneur and employee satisfaction, business reputation, retention, goodwill, and the relationship environment. As Hwangbo et al. (2022) [24] pointed out, in the case of innovative companies, the financial performance and non-financial performance should be examined to consider the critical timing for survival and growth. Subjective performance indicators of companies, as well as objective performance indicators, can also be crucial because they can enable comparisons with competitors. In fact, various studies on business performance have been conducted on both financial performance and non-financial performance [25,26,27,28]. In Le (2022), Le and Ferasso (2022), and Spillan and Parnell (2006) [29,30,31], the sustainable performance assessment considers profit growth, increased market share, expanded customer database, efficiency in resource utilization, social welfare contribution, and environmental performance through environmentally friendly work methods as essential aspects. In sum, given that sustainable performance refers to the financial, social, and environmental performance of an organization, sustainable management performance should include objective data derived from financial indicators such as balance sheets and profit and loss statements, as well as related financial factors derived from non-financial factors such as corporate values, employee satisfaction, corporate image, and customer satisfaction. Therefore, this study adopts sustainable “financial” performance and “non-financial” performance to measure sustainable corporate performance.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Technological Capability

Given the phenomenal technological advances in recent decades, a firm’s sustainable performance depends largely on the continued application of novel technologies, leading to a new focus on the role of the firm’s technological capability in the sustainability of its business. Schumpeter [32] was the first scholar to introduce the role of technology in business management. He demonstrated technological innovation as a fundamental change and development in the economic system, leading to the “creative destruction” of the equilibrium of the market. Technological capability, including technological innovation and commercialization capability, comprises various dimensions such as the level of technology possessed, integration with scientific foundations, the technology life cycle, new product count, new processes, new services, research and development (R&D) investment proportion, patent holdings, scale, and the proportion of R&D personnel [33,34,35,36]. Wernerfelt (1984) [37] views technological innovation capability as a key factor in explaining a company’s competitive advantage from a resource-based perspective, positively impacting the market success of new products. Additionally, technology commercialization capability is defined as encompassing all activity areas required for transitioning new technologies, knowledge, processes, or products from conceptualization to the market [38,39].
Technological capability is a topic that has been covered in many studies. For instance, Wang et al. (2008) [40] argued that technical innovation capability increases a firm’s competitiveness. Companies can continuously progress and augment financial performance through technological innovations such as new product development [41,42]. In the recent study by Çelik and Uzunçarşılı (2023) [43], it was found that technological innovation capability has a positive impact on firm performance, and competitive advantage partially mediates this relationship. Additionally, technical innovation capability is considered relevant to long-term strategic success. Firms with technical innovation capabilities take the lead and grow as a result of their business success [44].
Azubuike (2014) [45] shows that technology commercialization through technological innovation has a significant impact on the relationship with corporate performance. Additionally, Zahra and Bogner (2000) [46] proved that factors related to technological commercialization capability, such as R&D investment, product enhancement, external resource utilization, and copyright, influence business performance. Lee and Chung (2008) [36] found that among the evaluation indicators used for selecting Korean SMEs, technological commercialization capability, particularly technological production capability, significantly impacted operational performance. Innovative companies can take a unique position in the market and continually enhance their revenue through successful new product development and sustained technological innovation [47]. Technological capability is emphasized for its impact on business performance and for creating and enhancing sustained competitive advantage [36]. Kim and Lee (2023) [48] demonstrate that technological innovation outcomes have a significant positive effect on companies’ investments, and companies’ investments are positively associated with sustainable company growth. Therefore, we develop the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1.
Technological capability is positively associated with sustainable business performance:
H1-1. 
Technological capability is positively associated with sustainable financial performance.
H1-2. 
Technological capability is positively associated with sustainable non-financial performance.

2.2. CEO’s Risk-Taking Propensity

Risk-taking involves the readiness to invest a large amount despite the possibility of incurring substantial losses in the event of failure [49]. It refers to the tendency to pursue opportunities by willingly investing resources and taking the risk of investing beyond the range of resource utilization in a business with uncertain expected returns [50]. Buyl et al. (2019) [51] found that a bank CEO’s risk-taking propensity is likely to include increased investment in more profitable investments and increased financial innovation. Despite the risks associated with innovation, companies whose CEOs show a high risk-taking propensity are more likely to invest resources confidently and actively in uncertain business opportunities. In addition, Arunachalam et al. (2018) [52] argued that a CEO’s risk-taking propensity enhances a company’s willingness to experiment with new ideas and learn from failures, thereby reinforcing the organization’s capacity to respond proactively to market demand. This trait assists companies in actively adapting to changing market requirements.
A CEO’s risk-taking propensity can be a key driver for overcoming inherent limitations, such as human resource constraints and scarcity of other resources, especially in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It can play a crucial role in enhancing the company’s capabilities, thus emerging as an important factor influencing the successful performance of companies. In Yang and Lee’s study (2021) [53], a CEO’s risk-taking propensity was found to moderate the relationship between technological capability and innovation performance positively and moderate the relationship between marketing capability and innovation performance. Jeon and Lim (2018) [54] demonstrated that a higher risk-taking propensity on the part of CEOs in SMEs leads to better outcomes in new product development performance when combined with higher R&D capability, technological accumulation capability, and technological innovation systems. According to Zhu and Chen (2015) [55], a CEO’s risk-taking propensity leads to more risky spending when directors have more favorable dispositions toward the CEO. Additionally, CEO compensation indirectly influences firm performance through its direct effects on CEO risk-taking behavior [56]. Therefore, we developed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2.
A CEO’s risk-taking propensity is positively associated with sustainable business performance:
H2-1. 
A CEO’s risk-taking propensity is positively associated with sustainable financial performance.
H2-2. 
A CEO’s risk-taking propensity is positively associated with sustainable non-financial performance.

2.3. B2B Seller Skill

B2B seller skill is a pivotal aspect within the metrics of sales performance [57,58,59]. It represents the competencies of individuals engaged in sales tasks through marketing as observed in B2B businesses [60,61,62]. As Basir et al. (2010) and Amor et al. (2019) [57,63] pointed out, B2B seller skill is a determining factor in ensuring successful sales within the context of a B2B business. Høgevold et al. (2021) [64] conceptualized seven dimensions of B2B seller skills that impact sales performance. These include presentation skills, communication skills, use of technology, customer knowledge, product/technology knowledge, ability to modify sales behavior, and ability to modify sales approach.
B2B seller skills can be discussed within the realm of market orientation literature. Kohli and Jaworski (1990) [65] used the term (market orientation) in relation to the marketing concept. They highlight the market information perspective and argue that market orientation consists of sub-concepts such as the creation and diffusion of information and the response to the market and consumers. Narver and Slater (1990) [66] also conceptualized market orientation as a cultural perspective. According to them, market orientation is an organizational culture that creates the most efficient and effective resources needed to deliver exceptional value to consumers. Day and Wensley (1988) [67] explored the potential customer value chain that creates new consumers for the company and provides value that can satisfy them. Many studies have pointed out that market-oriented companies outperform those that lack a working knowledge of active market agents. For instance, Kohli and Jaworski (1990) [65] proved that higher market orientation results in greater business performance, employee morale, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and customer satisfaction, which increases repeat purchases from customers. A study by Hwangbo et al. (2022) [24] also showed that market orientation positively affects a firm’s perceived financial and non-financial performance.
Previous research has examined the relationship between B2B seller skills and business performance. Boles et al. (2000) and Darrat et al. (2017) [68,69] showed that the success of a company largely depends on its seller’s performance. In a study by Rodriguez et al. (2023) [70], it was confirmed that B2B sellers’ interpersonal communication and presentation skills influence relative and absolute performance. Rentz et al. (2002) [71] argued that, among the various indicators of sales performance and corporate performance, seller skill and other personal factors are what determine whether you perform better than others. Additionally, Shin and Hong (2022) [72] found that learning agility in the context of the B2B seller skill impacts knowledge sharing and non-financial sales performance positively. Therefore, we developed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3.
B2B seller skill is positively associated with sustainable business performance:
H3-1. 
B2B seller skill is positively associated with sustainable financial performance.
H3-2. 
B2B seller skill is positively associated with sustainable non-financial performance.

2.4. KAM

Key account management (KAM) is a B2B business marketing method whose importance has been verified in B2B marketing-related research [73,74,75,76,77]. It has emerged as a powerful relationship marketing tool for managing strategic customers. In many papers, the concept of KAM orientation, which reflects the values that companies must develop to manage relationships with key customers effectively, is empirically examined [78,79,80,81,82,83,84]. Sharma (1997), Sandesh et al. (2023), Millman (1996), Napolitano (1997), and Pardo (1999) [73,74,75,76,77] indicated that many B2B companies follow this relationship-oriented approach in some form. Companies provide organizational methodologies for creating and executing KAM to foster key relationships, and thus, KAM is often seen as a potentially good way to implement a relationship-selling strategy [85]. Klopić et al. (2021) [86] also approached KAM from a relationship marketing perspective.
Similar to B2B seller skill, KAM can be explained via the concept of market orientation, which is considered a crucial element contributing to superior performance because it can identify consumer demands and satisfy them. A market-oriented company can have a competitive advantage in the market [87] and can improve corporate performance by providing higher value to target customers compared with its competitors [65,66]. In other words, market-oriented companies can improve their performance by satisfying customers through products or services that can meet consumer needs [65].
The association between KAM and corporate performance has been confirmed in many previous studies. For instance, Jones et al. (2009) [88] demonstrated that, like KAM, if satisfaction, trust, and commitment to a supplier increase, the supplier’s revenues and profits can also increase. In the study by Tzempelikos and Gounaris (2015) [89], satisfaction and trust were found to positively impact the company’s sales and profits, while commitment was identified to have a positive impact only on sales. Because of KAM’s high management costs, commitment can be expected to be meaningless for profits. Thus, Mittal et al. (2021) [90] argued that to positively impact business performance, communications, ongoing service, and support must be actively designed to increase customer satisfaction.
In a study conducted on companies in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Klopić et al. (2021) [86] found that customer orientation toward key customers has a positive impact on financial performance, such as sales, market share, profitability, and return on investment, and non-financial performance, such as benchmark value, knowledge development, and process efficiency. Cho et al. (2017) [91] revealed a positive relationship between customer-oriented sales and revenue, confirming that customer-oriented sales influence financial performance. Additionally, Yeo et al. (2021) [92] proved that sales representatives’ customer-oriented sales behaviors positively impact sales performance. Thus, customer-oriented sales behavior can improve business performance by meeting customer needs and maintaining relationships for long-term benefit. Therefore:
Hypothesis 4.
KAM is positively associated with sustainable business performance:
H4-1. 
KAM is positively associated with sustainable financial performance.
H4-2. 
KAM is positively associated with sustainable non-financial performance.

2.5. ESG Management

The triple bottom line theory introduced by Elkington (1998) [93] suggests that qualitative factors should be incorporated in measuring the success of an organization. In accordance with this theory, a company’s commitment to being socially and environmentally responsible is used along with profitability to evaluate corporate performance. In fact, in a very uncertain global environment featuring natural disasters, high inflation, and new infectious diseases, ESG takes the lead in developing eco-friendly policies for a sustainable future for companies and manages and implements social responsibility and contribution through support for the socially disadvantaged, information disclosure through transparent, ethical management, and transparency in management and governance. According to the theory of sustainable development, environmental performance, social responsibility performance, and corporate governance performance, which constitute ESG, represent tools to promote the sustainable development of firms. “Who Cares Wins”, set out by the 2004 United Nations Global Compact [94], reports that ESG is a key element for the sustainable operation of companies and that stakeholders should consider ESG as an essential feature of a sustainable investment market and society. ESG activities are rooted in corporate business operations and are closely related to financial performance [95]. Studies also show that corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities, which serve as a standard for evaluating corporate value and sustainability, are determinants of financial performance [96,97,98]. Khan et al. (2023) [99] showed that community-oriented CSR activities and environmental protection-focused CSR activities improve the sustainability of SMEs.
Ma et al. (2023) [100], using listed Chinese A-share companies, proved that ESG performance makes a significant positive contribution to corporate development and promotes company development by reducing financing constraints. Huh et al. (2022) [101] examined the structural relationship between ESG management, corporate reputation, and financial performance and found that all components of ESG management had a significant and positive impact on corporate reputation. Luan and Wang (2023) [102] analyzed the structural relationship between open innovation and ESG corporate value and discovered that an enterprise’s open innovation significantly improves enterprise value. They argued that open innovation also improves the enterprises’ ESG simultaneously, and the increase in enterprise value owing to open innovation is partly mediated by ESG. In Zhao et al. (2023) [103], better ESG performance was shown to improve risk management capabilities and reduce corporate risks.
However, Almulhim and Aljughaiman (2023) [104] revealed that firms with more ESG activities tend to have negative financial performance. In Yang et al. [105], among ESG activity variables, only governance was found to have a significant negative impact on financial performance, and environmental and social variables were found to have no significant impact on financial or non-financial performance. We will thus examine how firms’ ESG management affects companies’ sustainable performance in this study. Moreover, while most former ESG studies have analyzed the direct impact on corporate performance, this study investigates whether the indirect effects of ESG management can also be identified in the relationship between business performance and factors affecting sustainable performance. Therefore:
Hypothesis 5.
ESG management mediates the relationship between technological capability and sustainable business performance:
H5-1. 
ESG management mediates the relationship between technological capability and sustainable financial performance.
H5-2. 
ESG management mediates the relationship between technological capability and sustainable non-financial performance.
Hypothesis 6.
ESG management mediates the relationship between the CEO’s risk-taking propensity and sustainable business performance:
H6-1. 
ESG management mediates the relationship between the CEO’s risk-taking propensity and sustainable financial performance.
H6-2. 
ESG management mediates the relationship between the CEO’s risk-taking propensity and sustainable non-financial performance.
Hypothesis 7.
ESG management mediates the relationship between B2B seller skill and sustainable business performance:
H7-1. 
ESG management mediates the relationship between B2B seller skill and sustainable financial performance.
H7-2. 
ESG management mediates the relationship between B2B seller skill and sustainable non-financial performance.
Hypothesis 8.
ESG management mediates the relationship between KAM and sustainable business performance:
H8-1. 
ESG management mediates the relationship between KAM and sustainable financial performance.
H8-2. 
ESG management mediates the relationship between KAM and sustainable non-financial performance.

3. Method

3.1. Research Model

Based on the theoretical background and hypotheses developed in Section 2, a research model has been constructed as follows (Figure 1).

3.2. Data

This study used convenience sampling, a non-probability sampling method, to select a sample for research. The survey targeted professionals with over 5 years of working experience in Korean B2B companies. In addition, sampling was conducted at a ratio of 20% of workers in large companies and 80% of workers in small- and medium-sized companies, reflecting the ratio of workers employed in large companies and SMEs across Korea [106]. The data were collected through an online survey questionnaire using a link (i.e., Google Forms) in June 2023. From the distributed questionnaires, 315 questionnaires were collected. From these, we excluded responses from participants deemed unreliable or outliers, and 250 responses were included in the final sample. The demographic characteristics of the sample’s respondents are listed in Table 1.

3.2.1. Validity and Reliability of Research Instruments

Exploratory factor analysis, a method of verifying construct validity, was conducted to indicate whether the intended meaning was accurately measured. It is a method of extracting factors or concepts in the absence of existing theoretical constructs or prior knowledge [107,108,109,110,111]. This study employed common factor analysis to understand the structure between variables by finding the dimensions inherent to them that affect a company’s management performance. It was used as a factor extraction method to determine the number of factors based on eigenvalues greater than 1. A rotation method using oblimin was applied along with Kaiser normalization. The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach’s α coefficient, which measures the internal consistency of the questionnaire to ensure the accurate measurement of the intended construct. During the factor analysis process, we excluded items with low factor loadings and performed the analysis again.
(1) Factors influencing sustainable business performance
The questionnaire was based on a five-point Likert scale. The five explanatory and mediating factors explained 73.372% of the variance in factors affecting the dependent variables (Table 2). All Cronbach’s α values indicate good internal consistency.
(2) Sustainable Business Performance
The questionnaire used a five-point Likert scale. The factor analysis results are shown in Table 3. The two factors—sustainable financial performance and non-financial performance—explained 80.042% of the variance in sustainable business performance. The Cronbach’s α values were 0.910 and 0.871, respectively, demonstrating high internal consistency.

3.2.2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis

Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics of the variables. Also, Pearson correlation analysis between variables was performed (Table 5), and no multicollinearity issues were identified [112,113].

4. Empirical Results and Discussion

4.1. Impact of the Factors on Sustainable “Financial” Performance

Multiple regression analysis was conducted to identify the determinants of a company’s sustainable financial performance. Table 6 reports the results. As expected, sustainable financial performance was found to be statistically significantly influenced by (in order) the CEO’s risk-taking propensity (β = 0.389) and B2B seller skill (β = 0.180). These results show that the bolder the company CEO’s decision-making, along with more aggressive execution ability, high investment, and interest, as well as greater product and technical knowledge, customer information power, and customer-specific communication and approach on the part of the salesperson, the more positive the sustainable financial performance will be. This finding supports Koliby et al.’s (2024) research, arguing that entrepreneurial competencies are robust and noteworthy in promoting innovation and sustainable performance in SMEs [116].
One of the unexpected findings is that technological capability does not significantly impact sustainable financial performance. This result is consistent with the study by Xin, Y et al. (2023) [117], showing that technical resources have no meaningful impact on SMEs’ long-term performance. This suggests that despite technological advancement and innovation, sustained sales, profit, and market share growth cannot be achieved without the ability of sellers and CEOs to make bold investments and support. Moreover, because of technology’s fundamental and complex nature, the technological capabilities may take time to translate into financial performance.
In addition, KAM seems to have insignificant impacts on sustainable financial performance. While managing core customers can help a company build lasting relationships with them through customer satisfaction, they also need sellers with excellent sales skills to attract new customers to continue to grow sales and increase market share and profits. Managing existing core customers without acquiring new customers will not lead to future growth. This is consistent with real, everyday business situations, and KAM and new customer acquisition are expected to go hand in hand in improving sustainable financial performance.

4.2. Impacts of the Factors on Sustainable “Non-Financial” Performance

The results of the multiple regression analysis for sustainable non-financial performance are shown in Table 7. As expected, sustainable non-financial performance turns out to be statistically significantly influenced in the relative order of the CEO’s risk-taking propensity (β = 0.357) and technological capability (β = 0.235). This verifies that bold decision-making, aggressive execution ability, and high investments and interest on the part of the CEO constitute the foundation of the company’s sustainable increase in non-financial performance. Additionally, the company believes that, although technological capability does not lead to immediate financial performance benefits, the company’s technological capability is critical to maintaining continued customer satisfaction, product and service innovation, and continuous improvements in corporate and brand value.
B2B seller skill and KAM appear to have no statistically significant impact on a company’s non-financial performance. This suggests that even if the seller possesses outstanding sales skills, this does not influence the qualitative assessment perceived by customers. Additionally, focusing on existing customer management through KAM without managing new customers does not contribute to overall customer satisfaction and an increase in sustainable corporate value. Similar to the case for sustainable financial performance, it suggests that the management of new customers should be a focus to enhance the sustainable non-financial value of the company and its business performance.

4.3. Mediating Effect

4.3.1. Mediating Effect of ESG Management in the Relationship between the Factors and Sustainable Financial Performance

The PROCESS Macro Model 4 proposed by Hayes (2012) [118] is used to verify the mediating effect of ESG management on the relationship between explanatory factors and sustainable financial performance. In the indirect mediation analysis methods, if the lower limit confidence interval (LLCI) and upper limit confidence interval (ULCI) include 0, the mediation effect is defined as non-existent. After bootstrapping with 5000 iterations, we determine significance by setting 95% confidence intervals (LLCI, ULCI) and checking whether the confidence intervals contain 0. Table 8 shows the results regarding direct mediation effects, while Table 9 presents the results of indirect mediation effects.
The findings confirm that technological capability, B2B seller skill, and KAM levels contribute to the company’s sustainable numerical performance through ESG management because these factors do not contain 0. As can be seen in [119,120], this is consistent with research showing numerical results by imprinting a positive image of the company on customers by practicing ESG management. Ye et al. (2022) [121] also observed that ESG reporting leads to stable financial performance through stock returns. However, the unexpected outcome is that the CEO’s risk-taking propensity does not positively affect sustainable financial performance through the mediation of ESG management. This implies that even if the CEO displays risk tolerance, companies prioritizing corporate survival and focusing on costs are unlikely to actively engage in ESG activities that may reduce cost benefits.

4.3.2. Mediating effect of ESG Management in the Relationship between the Factors and Sustainable Non-Financial Performance

Non-financial performance is analyzed similarly to sustainable financial performance in Section 4.3.1. Table 10 summarizes the results of the direct mediation effect, while Table 11 depicts the results of the indirect mediation effect.
The findings demonstrate that all of the explanatory factors contribute to the company’s non-financial performance through ESG management because these factors do not contain 0. The results imply that by actively implementing ESG management, a non-financial activity, the company can impress upon customers that it practices ESG. As a result, the company’s image, including its corporate value and customer satisfaction, will be improved. This finding highlights the increasing importance of ESG management in the Korean B2B market.

5. Concluding Remarks

This study selected experts with work experience in the B2B industry, whose importance is increasing, and analyzed key elements related to sustainable financial and non-financial performance. The findings of this study are expected to provide valuable insights and references for a variety of B2B management practitioners and policymakers interested in performance and sustainability.
First, priority should be given to the CEO’s risk-taking propensity and B2B seller skills to enhance sustainable financial performance. These results underscore that sustainable financial performance is achieved through the combined efforts of all members, from top management to frontline staff. Hence, management should continue to make bold decisions, maintain a strong focus on business operations, and establish infrastructure to enhance the sales team’s capabilities through training, investment, and system implementation. Sales personnel must leverage CEO support to improve their product and technical knowledge and customer communication skills and develop customized sales strategies, thereby boosting sustainable revenue and profitability.
Next, sustainable non-financial performance can be enhanced by focusing on technological capability and the CEO’s risk-taking propensity. Thus, improving sustainable non-financial performance requires organization-wide efforts. Company leaders must make daring decisions, invest in potential opportunities, and establish systems to build technological capability through innovation, organizational structuring, and strategic planning. These findings offer practical insights that emphasize the importance of boldness, aggressive execution, high investment, and focus on the part of CEOs as priorities in achieving successful sustainable business performance.
In particular, the results of this study demonstrate that when companies practice ESG management, they can magnify the impacts of factors on sustainable corporate performance. This supports the argument that ESG management plays an important role in various aspects of a company, including building trust with partners, meeting customer requirements, securing funding, ensuring legal compliance, and creating business opportunities. Accordingly, investing in and implementing ESG management is essential for the sustainable growth of a company. Therefore, through ESG management, companies must protect the environment, consider the socially vulnerable, and follow legal and ethical requirements. Internally, they need to imprint the importance of ESG management on their employees so that they can prepare themselves to put it into practice. Furthermore, their image as a good company should be enhanced by making consumers aware that they practice ESG management.
One of the limitations of this study is that, while this paper examines determinants of a company’s sustainable financial and non-financial performance, there may also be other factors that can affect sustainable corporate performance. In other words, the survey questionnaire may not be comprehensive enough to capture all the factors that impact sustainable corporate performance. Moreover, the sample size appears to be small due to the convenience sampling method used in this study. Future research will include more comprehensive samples and analyze various strategic factors not covered in this study to derive effective ways for companies to increase performance and sustainability. Additionally, given that the results indicate the importance of ESG management in sustainable business performance, we will explore the factors that contribute to good ESG management practices. Researchers should focus on this area.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, S.L.; writing—review, editing, supervision, Y.J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Research, A. B2B Payments Transaction Market Size—Global Industry, Share, Analysis, Trends and Forecast 2022–2030; Acumen Research And Consulting: Pune, India, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  2. Straits Research. B2B Ecommerce Market Share, Size and Forecast to 2031; Straits Research: Pune, India, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bonde, A.; Bruno, J.; Susan, W.; Charlie, R.; Rachel, B.U.S. B2B eCommerce Will Hit $1.8 Trillion by 2023; Forrester Brief: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  4. Seungah, H.; Elias, P. The E-Commerce Market in South Korea; Nowak & Partner Report: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kumar, V.; Venkatesan, R.; Reinartz, W. Performance Implications of Adopting a Customer-Focused Sales Campaign. J. Mark. 2008, 72, 50–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Liu, Y.; Zhao, X.; Wang, T. Value-Based Selling Capability: Antecedents and Implications for B2B Sales Performance. J. Bus. Bus. Mark. 2023, 30, 395–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sahoo, S.; Kumar, S.; Donthu, N.; Singh, A.K. Artificial intelligence capabilities, open innovation, and business performance—Empirical insights from multinational B2B companies. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2024, 117, 28–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Edwards, J.; Miles, M.P.; D’Alessandro, S.; Frost, M. Entrepreneurial strategy-making, corporate entrepreneurship preparedness and entrepreneurial sales actions: Improving B2B sales performance. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 157, 113586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Karami, M.; Wooliscroft, B.; McNeill, L. Effectual networking capability and SME performance in international B2B markets. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2023, 38, 2655–2672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Joshi, A.W. Continuous Supplier Performance Improvement: Effects of Collaborative Communication and Control. J. Mark. 2009, 73, 133–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Islami, X. Lean manufacturing and firms’ financial performance: The role of strategic supplier partnership and information sharing. Benchmarking Int. J. 2023, 30, 2809–2831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Park, S.B. Internationalization and firm performance: Moderating role of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Multinatl. Bus. Rev. 2023, 31, 518–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Song, P.; Zheng, C.; Zhang, C.; Yu, X. Data analytics and firm performance: An empirical study in an online B2C platform. Inf. Manag. 2018, 55, 633–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bubber, D.; Jain, R.K.; Babber, G. Shashi, Transforming product development and production to be lean for improving business performance. Benchmarking Int. J. 2023, 30, 3021–3039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bodhanwala, S.; Bodhanwala, R. Does corporate sustainability impact firm profitability? Evidence from India. Manag. Decis. 2018, 56, 1734–1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gadenne, D.; Mia, L.; Sands, J.; Winata, L.; Hooi, G. The influence of sustainability performance management practices on organisational sustainability performance. J. Account. Organ. Chang. 2012, 8, 210–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Asad, M.; Asif, M.U.; Allam, Z.; Sheikh, U.A. A Mediated Moderated Analysis of Psychological Safety and Employee Empowerment between Sustainable Leadership and Sustainable Performance of SMEs. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Islamic Business and Finance, Sakheer, Bahrain, 5–6 December 2021; pp. 33–38. [Google Scholar]
  18. Asif, M.U.; Asad, M.; Kashif, M.; Haq, M.A.u. Knowledge Exploitation and Knowledge Exploration for Sustainable Performance of SMEs. In Proceedings of the 2021 Third International Sustainability and Resilience Conference: Climate Change, Sakheer, Bahrain, 15–16 November 2021; pp. 29–34. [Google Scholar]
  19. ISO 26000; Social Responsibility. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
  20. Dess, G.G.; Robinson, R.B., Jr. Measuring Organizational Performance in the Absence of Objective Measures: The Case of the Privately-held Firm and Conglomerate Business Unit. Strateg. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Aisjah, S.; Arsawan, I.W.E.; Suhartanto, D. Predicting SME’s business performance: Integrating stakeholder theory and performance based innovation model. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2023, 9, 100122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chandler, G.N.; Hanks, S.H. Measuring the performance of emerging businesses: A validation study. J. Bus. Ventur. 1993, 8, 391–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Walker, E.; Brown, A. What Success Factors are Important to Small Business Owners? Int. Small Bus. J. 2004, 22, 577–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hwangbo, Y.; Shin, W.J.; Kim, Y.J. Moderating Effects of Leadership and Innovation Activities on the Technological Innovation, Market Orientation and Corporate Performance Model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Loan, N.T.; Brahmi, M.; Nuong, L.T.; Binh, L.T. Do innovation and proactiveness impact the business performance of women-owned small and medium-scale enterprises in Vietnam? A study using the PLS-SEM approach. Nurture 2023, 17, 253–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ko, H.J.; Kim, Y.J. A study on the impact of technological innovation on firm performance. Korean Corp. Manag. Rev. 2021, 28, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jung, J.H.; Kim, Y.J. A study on corporate foresight and firm performance in Korean SMEs with mediating effect of innovativeness. Product. Res. Int. Interdiscip. J. 2020, 34, 3–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Shin, W.J.; Kim, Y.J. A study on the effect of technical innovation and market orientation on the corporate performance and moderating effect of leadership. Korean J. Bus. Adm. 2021, 34, 1661–1699. [Google Scholar]
  29. Le, T.T. How do corporate social responsibility and green innovation transform corporate green strategy into sustainable firm performance? J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 362, 132228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Le, T.T.; Ferasso, M. How green investment drives sustainable business performance for food manufacturing small- and medium-sized enterprises? Evidence from an emerging economy. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022, 29, 1034–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Spillan, J.; Parnell, J. Marketing Resources and Firm Performance among SMEs. Eur. Manag. J. 2006, 24, 236–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Schumpeter, J.A. The Theory of Economic Development: An inquiry into Profits Capital, Credit, Interests, and the Business Cycle; Transaction Publishers: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 1934; pp. 3–30. [Google Scholar]
  33. Coombs, J.E.; Bierly, P.E. Measuring technological capability and performance. RD Manag. 2006, 36, 421–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kim, Y.; Lee, B. Patterns of technological learning among the strategic groups in the Korean Electronic Parts Industry. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 543–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Burgelman, R.A.; Christensen, C.M.; Wheelwright, S.C. Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation, 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill Irwin: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee, D.S.; Chung, L.C. A study for the impact of the key evaluation indexes on the business performance in Korean inno-biz. J. Ind. Innov. 2008, 24, 121–143. [Google Scholar]
  37. Wernerfelt, B. A Resource-Based View of the Firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mitchell, W.; Singh, K. Survival of Businesses Using Collaborative Relationships to Commercialize Complex Goods. Strateg. Manag. J. 1996, 17, 169–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rourke, D.L. From Invention to Innovation; US Department of Energy: Washington, DC, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang, C.H.; Lu, I.Y.; Chen, C.B. Evaluating firm technological innovation capability under uncertainty. Technovation 2008, 28, 349–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Banbury, C.M.; Mitchell, W. The effect of introducing important incremental innovations on market share and business survival. Strateg. Manag. J. 1995, 16, 161–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Soni, P.K.; Lilien, G.L.; Wilson, D.T. Industrial innovation and firm performance: A re-conceptualization and exploratory structural equation analysis. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1993, 10, 365–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Çelik, D.; Uzunçarşılı, Ü. Is the Effect of Organizational Ambidexterity and Technological Innovation Capability on Firm Performance Mediated by Competitive Advantage? An Empirical Research on Turkish Manufacturing and Service Industries. SAGE Open 2023, 13, 21582440231206367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Figueroa, E.; Conceição, P. Rethinking the innovation process in large organizations: A case study of 3M. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2000, 17, 93–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Azubuike, V.M.U. Technological innovation capability and firm’s performance in new product development. Commun. IIMA 2014, 13, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zahra, S.A.; Bogner, W.C. Technology strategy and software new ventures’ performance: Exploring the moderating effect of the competitive environment. J. Bus. Ventur. 2000, 15, 35–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lawless, M.W.; Fisher, R.J. Sources of Durable Competitive Advantage in New Products. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 1990, 7, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kim, J.; Lee, H. How Does Corporate Innovation Affect Sustainable Business Investment? Sustainability 2023, 15, 13367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lumpkin, G.T.; Dess, G.G. Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1996, 21, 135–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Covin, J.G.; Slevin, D.P. Strategic Management of Small Firms in Hostile and Benign Environments. Strateg. Manag. J. 1989, 10, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Buyl, T.; Boone, C.; Wade, J.B. CEO Narcissism, Risk-Taking, and Resilience: An Empirical Analysis in U.S. Commercial Banks. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 1372–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Arunachalam, S.; Ramaswami, S.N.; Herrmann, P.; Walker, D. Correction to: Innovation pathway to profitability: The role of entrepreneurial orientation and marketing capabilities. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. Off. Publ. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2018, 46, 767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yang, Y.S.; Lee, J.E. The impact of SMEs’ capabilities on innovation performance of SMEs: Moderating effects of CEO risk-taking propensity and learning orientation. J. Corp. Innov. 2021, 44, 243–259. [Google Scholar]
  54. Jeon, J.I.; Lim, H.J. Effects of CEO’s Entrepreneurship and Technological Innovation Capability on New Product Performance in SMEs and the Moderating Role of Absorption Capability. J. Korea Saf. Manag. Sci. 2018, 20, 21–37. [Google Scholar]
  55. Zhu, D.H.; Chen, G. CEO Narcissism and the Impact of Prior Board Experience on Corporate Strategy. Adm. Sci. Q. 2015, 60, 31–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Al-Shammari, H.A. CEO compensation and firm performance: The mediating effects of CEO risk taking behaviour. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1894893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Basir, M.S.; Ahmad, S.Z.; Kitchen, P.J. The relationship between sales skills and salesperson performance: An empirical study in the Malaysia telecommunications company. Int. J. Manag. Mark. Res. 2010, 3, 51–73. [Google Scholar]
  58. Churchill, G.A.; Ford, N.M., Jr.; Johnson, M.W.; Walker, O.C. Sales Force Management, 6th ed.; McGraw-Hill Irwin: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  59. Verbeke, W.; Dietz, B.; Verwaal, E. Drivers of sales performance: A contemporary metanalysis. Have salespeople become knowledge brokers? J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2011, 39, 407–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ford, N.M.; Walker, O.C.; Churchill, G.A.; Hartley, S.W. Selecting successful salespeople: A meta-analysis of biographical and psychological selection criteria. Rev. Mark. 1987, 10, 90–131. [Google Scholar]
  61. Futrell, C.M. Fundamental of Selling: Customer for Life through Services, 9th ed.; McGraw-Hill Irwin: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  62. Peterson, R.T.; Limbu, Y. The Convergence of Mirroring and Empathy: Communications Training in Business-to-Business Personal Selling Persuasion Efforts. J. Bus. Bus. Mark. 2009, 16, 193–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Amor, N.E.H.B. What Skills Make a Salesperson Effective? An Exploratory Comparative Study among Car Sales Professionals. Int. Bus. Res. 2019, 12, 76–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Høgevold, N.; Rodriguez, R.; Svensson, G.; Otero-Neira, C. B to B Sellers’ Skill Level in Sales Performance—Frameworks and Findings. J. Bus. Bus. Mark. 2021, 28, 265–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kohli, A.K.; Jaworski, B.J. Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. J. Mark. 1990, 54, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Narver, J.C.; Slater, S.F. The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. J. Mark. 1990, 54, 20–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Day, G.S.; Wensley, R. Assessing Advantage: A Framework for Diagnosing Competitive Superiority. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Boles, J.; Brashear, T.; Bellenger, D.; Barksdale, H. Relationship selling behaviors: Antecedents and relationship with performance. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2000, 15, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Darrat, M.A.; Amyx, D.A.; Bennett, R.J. Examining the impact of job embeddedness on salesperson deviance: The moderating role of job satisfaction. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2017, 63, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rodriguez, R.; Høgevold, N.M.; Otero-Neira, C.; Svensson, G. The direct effect of B2B sellers’ skills on relative and absolute sales performance: A dual measurement approach. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2023, 36, 64–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rentz, J.; Shepherd, C.; Tashchian, A.; Dabholkar, P.; Ladd, R. A Measure of Selling Skill: Scale Development and Validation. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 2013, 22, 13–21. [Google Scholar]
  72. Shin, H.J.; Hong, A.J. Influence of learning agility on sales performance and mediating effect of knowledge sharing. Andragogy Today 2022, 25, 85–112. [Google Scholar]
  73. Sharma, A. Who Prefers Key Account Management Programs? An Investigation of Business Buying Behavior and Buying Firm Characteristics. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 1997, 17, 27–39. [Google Scholar]
  74. Sandesh, S.P.; Sreejesh, S.; Paul, J. Key account management in B2B marketing: A systematic literature review and research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 156, 113541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Millman, T.F. Global key account management and systems selling. Int. Bus. Rev. 1996, 5, 631–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Napolitano, L. Customer-Supplier Partnering: A Strategy Whose Time Has Come. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 1997, 17, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  77. Pardo, C. Key account management in the business-to-business field: A French overview. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 1999, 14, 276–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. McDonald, M.; Millman, T.; Rogers, B. Key account management: Theory, practice and challenges. J. Mark. Manag. 1997, 13, 737–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pardo, C. Key Account Management in the Business to Business Field: The Key Account’s Point of View. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 1997, 17, 17–26. [Google Scholar]
  80. Sengupta, S.; Krapfel, R.E.; Pusateri, M.A. Switching Costs in Key Account Relationships. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 1997, 17, 9–16. [Google Scholar]
  81. Philippe Gosselin, D.; André Bauwen, G. Strategic account management: Customer value creation through customer alignment. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2006, 21, 376–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gounaris, S.; Tzempelikos, N. Key Account Management Orientation and Its Implications: A Conceptual and Empirical Examination. J. Bus. Bus. Mark. 2013, 20, 33–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gounaris, S.; Tzempelikos, N. Relational key account management: Building key account management effectiveness through structural reformations and relationship management skills. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 1110–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Davies, I.A.; Ryals, L.J. The effectiveness of Key Account Management practices. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2014, 43, 1182–1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Guenzi, P.; Pardo, C.; Georges, L. Relational selling strategy and key account managers’ relational behaviors: An exploratory study. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2007, 36, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Klopić, V.; Klopić, A.; Alić, A. Impact of key account management orientation on company’s non-financial performance. BH Econ. Forum 2021, 14, 55–71. [Google Scholar]
  87. Kohli, A.K.; Jaworski, B.J.; Kumar, A. Markor: A measure of market orientation. J. Mark. Res. 1993, 20, 466–477. [Google Scholar]
  88. Jones, E.; Richards, K.A.; Halstead, D.; Fu, F.Q. Developing a strategic framework of key account performance. J. Strateg. Mark. 2009, 17, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Tzempelikos, N.; Gounaris, S. Linking key account management practices to performance outcomes. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2015, 45, 22–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Mittal, V.; Han, K.; Lee, J.-Y.; Sridhar, S. Improving Business-to-Business Customer Satisfaction Programs: Assessment of Asymmetry, Heterogeneity, and Financial Impact. J. Mark. Res. 2021, 58, 615–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Cho, A.R.; Park, C.W.; Tak, I.C. A study on the impact of the salespeople’s customer orientation selling on the corporate performance: Mediating effect of organizational commitment. Acad. Acad. Cust. Satisf. Manag. 2017, 19, 59–78. [Google Scholar]
  92. Yeo, C.K.; Jang, M.G.; Kim, J.S. The effect of a company’s sales capacity on performance: Focusing on the value congruence between the salesperson and the company and the behavior of the salesperson. J. Channel Retail. 2021, 26, 53–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Elkington, J. Partnerships from Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st-Century Business. Environ. Qual. Manag. 1998, 8, 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. The Global Compact. Who Cares Wins; United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative: Geneva, Switzerland, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  95. Zhou, R.; Hou, J.; Ding, F. Understanding the nexus between environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and financial performance: Evidence from Chinese-listed companies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 73231–73253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Zhang, J.; Liu, Z. The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Financial Performance and Brand Value. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bogdan, V.; Rus, L.; Gherai, D.S.; Florea, A.G.; Bugnar, N.G. A Streamline Sustainable Business Performance Reporting Model by an Integrated FinESG Approach. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Hovde, H.A.; Korstad, K. ESG Scores and Company Financial Performance in the United States; Handelshøyskolen BI: Oslo, Norway, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  99. Khan, S.A.R.; Sheikh, A.A.; Tahir, M.S. Corporate social responsibility—An antidote for sustainable business performance: Interconnecting role of digital technologies, employee eco-behavior, and tax avoidance. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 31, 4365–4383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ma, D.; Li, L.; Song, Y.; Wang, M.; Han, Q. Corporate Sustainability: The Impact of Environmental, Social, and Governance Performance on Corporate Development and Innovation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Huh, J.H.; Park, B.K.; Kim, R.A.; Kim, T.M. The analysis of structural relationship among ESG management, corporate reputation, and financial performance: Integrated use of experimental and field data. Product. Res. Int. Interdiscip. J. 2022, 36, 5–31. [Google Scholar]
  102. Luan, X.; Wang, X. Open innovation, enterprise value and the mediating effect of ESG. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2023, 29, 489–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Zhao, Y.; Elahi, E.; Khalid, Z.; Sun, X.; Sun, F. Environmental, Social and Governance Performance: Analysis of CEO Power and Corporate Risk. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Almulhim, A.A.; Aljughaiman, A.A. Corporate Sustainability and Financial Performance: The Moderating Effect of CEO Characteristics. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Yang, B.M.; Yang, O.S. A Study on the Effect of ESG on Corporate Performance: Focusing on the Moderating Effect of Balanced ESG Management Strategy. Int. Bus. Rev. 2023, 27, 115–128. [Google Scholar]
  106. Korea, Ministry of SMEs and Startup. SMEs Business Status; Ministry of SMEs and Startup: Sejong, Republic of Korea, 2021.
  107. Fabrigar, L.R.; Wegener, D.T. Exploratory Factor Analysis; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  108. Gyesoo, K. AMOS 18.0 Structural Equation Model Analysis; Hannarae Academy: Tokyo, Japan, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  109. NPJ Data Analysis Research Institute. Write a Thesis Using SPSS and PROCESS MACRO; NPJ: Joeunddang, Republic of Korea, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  110. Chair, S.Y.; Wong, F.K.Y.; Bryant-Lukosius, D.; Liu, T.; Jokiniemi, K. Construct validity of advanced practice nurse core competence scale: An exploratory factor analysis. BMC Nurs 2023, 22, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Palsodkar, M.A.; Nagare, M.R.; Narwane, V.S. Exploratory Analysis of Factors Inuencing Agile New Product Development Adoption in Manufacturing Industries. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Kim, J.H.; Kim, M.K.; Hong, S.H. Writing a Thesis with a Structural Equation Model; Communication Books: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  113. Nunnallyl, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  114. Mardia, K.V. Measures of Multivariate Skewness and Kurtosis with Applications. Biometrika 1970, 57, 519–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Seong, T.J. Modern Basic Statistics, 8th ed.; Hakjisa: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  116. Mokbel Al Koliby, I.S.; Abdullah, H.H.; Mohd Suki, N. Linking entrepreneurial competencies, innovation and sustainable performance of manufacturing SMEs. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2024, 16, 21–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Xin, Y.; Khan, R.U.; Dagar, V.; Qian, F. Do international resources configure SMEs’ sustainable performance in the digital era? Evidence from Pakistarn. Resour. Policy 2023, 80, 103169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Hayes, A.F. PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling; University of Kansas: Lawrence, KS, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  119. Jeong, K.H.; Choi, S.U. The effect of ESG Management on firm value: Focused on the role of financial statement comparability. Korea Account. Inf. Assoc. 2022, 40, 73–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Erol, I.; Unal, U.; Coskun, Y. ESG investing and the financial performance: A panel data analysis of developed REIT markets. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 85154–85169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Ye, C.; Song, X.; Liang, Y. Corporate sustainability performance, stock returns, and ESG indicators: Fresh insights from EU member states. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 87680–87691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 01719 g001
Figure 1. Research framework.
Figure 1. Research framework.
Sustainability 16 01719 g001
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample.
Categoryn%
Age≤3911345.2
40–498835.2
≥504919.6
PositionJunior166.4
Assistant manager6626.4
Manager10943.6
Deputy manager4518
Executive145.6
Working period at the current company (years)<56425.5
5–96626.3
10–144919.5
≥15145.6
Company sizeLarge5220.8
Mid-size7028
Small12851.2
Type of businessManufacturing13453.6
Service (logistics, distribution)4116.4
Information technology3413.6
Other4116.4
Total250100
Table 2. Factor analysis (explanatory and mediating factors).
Table 2. Factor analysis (explanatory and mediating factors).
FactorVariableFactor LoadingVariance
Explanatory Power
(Eigenvalue)		Cronbach’s α
Technological capabilityMaintain and manage standardization standards for owned technology0.87152.493
(14.173)		0.936
Establishment of new product development process standardization0.863
Obtain technical information related to R&D0.772
Production management system upgrade and facility introduction plan0.743
Establishment of marketing strategy through product life cycle analysis0.689
Planning and management of technological innovation0.675
When pursuing research and development, invest resources and time0.617
Technology data conversion and accumulation system0.559
Build a system that quickly reflects customer needs0.555
B2B seller skillProduct and technical knowledge−0.8357.053
(1.904)		0.920
Communication with customers−0.805
Information about customers−0.781
Customer-specific sales approach−0.685
CEO’s risk-taking propensityPreference for projects with high risk but high expected returns0.8995.618
(1.571)		0.871
Aggressive strategy execution0.884
Proactive attitude when conducting new business0.775
Very high interest and investment in corporate management0.543
ESG
management		Eco-friendly management activities0.8114.837
(1.306)		0.909
Energy and resource saving0.804
Disclosure of information for fair relationships with stakeholders0.731
Practice ethical management0.727
Human rights protection for employees0.718
Shared growth with partners0.652
Key account managementImprove corporate performance0.6963.370
(0.910)		0.909
Realizing customer value0.687
Enhancing customer satisfaction and reliability0.681
Increase profits and efficiency with clients0.626
Total73.372
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin = 0.952. Bartlett’s test of sphericity test = 5515.843, df = 351, p < 0.001.
Table 3. Factor analysis (dependent variables).
Table 3. Factor analysis (dependent variables).
FactorVariableFactor
Loading		Variance
Explanatory Power
(Eigenvalue)		Cronbach’s α
Sustainable financial
performance		Sustained sales increase0.98569.657
(4.876)		0.910
Sustained profit margin
increase		0.915
Sustained financial statement0.801
Sustained market share
increase		0.658
Sustainable non-financial performanceMaintain continuous customer satisfaction0.95810.385
(0.727)		0.871
Continuous product and
service innovation		0.848
Sustained increase in
brand and corporate value		0.610
Total80.042
Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin = 0.906. Bartlett’s test of sphericity test = 1298.848, df = 21, p < 0.001.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the variables.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the variables.
DivisionMeanStandard DeviationSkewnessKurtosis
Technological capability3.2470.838−0.197−0.065
B2B seller skill3.2440.825−0.5980.369
CEO’s risk-taking propensity2.9640.864−0.397−0.366
KAM3.4660.788−0.6840.709
ESG management3.2490.815−0.279−0.054
Sustainable financial
performance		3.1180.876−0.334−0.218
Sustainable non-financial
performance		3.1490.803−0.3450.339
The normality of the sub-factors is deemed acceptable when the skewness remains below ± 3 and kurtosis does not exceed ± 10 [114,115]. The skewness and kurtosis are here within acceptable limits, confirming the assumption of normality of the variables.
Table 5. Correlation analysis between variables.
Table 5. Correlation analysis between variables.
Division123456
Technological capability1
B2B seller skill0.637 ***1
CEO’s risk-taking propensity0.625 ***0.590 ***1
KAM0.645 ***0.721 ***0.556 ***1
ESG management0.745 ***0.616 ***0.621 ***0.682 ***1
Sustainable financial
performance		0.419 ***0.428 ***0.524 ***0.348 ***0.397 ***1
Sustainable non-financial
performance		0.585 ***0.524 ***0.616 ***0.525 ***0.509 ***0.754 ***
*** p < 0.01.
Table 6. Multiple regression analysis for sustainable financial performance.
Table 6. Multiple regression analysis for sustainable financial performance.
ModelUnstandardized CoefficientsStandardized CoefficientstpVIF *
BStandard ErrorBeta
(Constant)1.2270.224 5.475 ***<0.001
Technological
capability		0.1080.0820.1041.3150.1902.180
B2B seller skill0.1910.0890.1802.148 *0.0332.452
CEO’s risk-taking propensity0.3950.0740.3895.356 ***<0.0011.848
KAM−0.0720.092−0.0650.7830.4352.399
Model summaryR = 0.549, R2 = 0.301, df = 4, F = 26.428
p < 0.001, Durbin–Watson: 1.888
Dependent variable: Sustainable business performance (financial performance). * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001. Variance inflation factor. The explanatory factors account for 30.1% of the variance in sustainable financial performance. Multicollinearity is examined to verify the assumptions. The variance inflation factor ranges from 1.848 to 2.452, which is below the threshold of 10, indicating the absence of multicollinearity. The Durbin–Watson value is examined to assess the autocorrelation in errors, resulting in a value of 1.888, which indicates no significant autocorrelation.
Table 7. Multiple regression analysis for sustainable non-financial performance.
Table 7. Multiple regression analysis for sustainable non-financial performance.
ModelUnstandardized CoefficientsStandardized CoefficientstpVIF *
BStandard ErrorBeta
(Constant)0.7690.180 4.264 ***<0.001
Technological
capability		0.2250.0660.2353.395 **0.0012.180
B2B seller skill0.0760.0710.0781.0680.2872.452
CEO’s risk-taking propensity0.3320.0590.3575.601 ***<0.0011.848
KAM0.1200.0740.1181.6260.1052.399
Model summaryR = 0.679, R2 = 0.461, df = 4, F = 52.327
p < 0.001, Durbin–Watson: 1.904
Dependent variable: Sustainable business performance (non-financial performance). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Variance Inflation Factor. The results exhibit that the factors explain 46.1% of the variance in sustainable non-financial performance. The Durbin–Watson value is examined to assess the autocorrelation in errors, resulting in a value of 1.904, and indicates no significant autocorrelation.
Table 8. Direct mediation effects of ESG management in the relationship between the factors and sustainable financial performance.
Table 8. Direct mediation effects of ESG management in the relationship between the factors and sustainable financial performance.
RouteBS.EtpLLCIULCI
Technological
capability		→ESG management0.7240.04117.577 ***0.0000.6430.805
Technological
capability		→Sustainable financial
performance		0.2910.0903.244 **0.0010.1140.467
ESG management→Sustainable financial
performance		0.2040.0922.212 *0.0280.0220.385
CEO’s risk-taking propensity→ESG management0.5860.04712.466 ***0.0000.4930.678
CEO’s risk-taking propensity→Sustainable financial
performance		0.4580.0706.561 ***0.0000.3200.595
ESG management→Sustainable financial
performance		0.1260.0741.7000.090−0.0200.271
B2B seller skill→ESG management0.6080.04912.300 ***0.0000.5110.706
B2B seller skill→Sustainable financial
performance		0.3150.0764.134 ***0.0000.1650.465
ESG management→Sustainable financial
performance		0.2300.0772.992 **0.0030.0790.382
KAM→ESG management0.7050.04814.666 ***0.0000.6100.800
KAM→Sustainable financial
performance		0.1610.0881.8270.069−0.0130.335
ESG management→Sustainable financial
performance		0.3200.0853.760 ***0.0000.1530.488
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. The results exhibit that technological capability, CEO’s risk-taking propensity, and B2B seller skill do not contain 0 when setting 95% confidence intervals (LLCI, ULCI).
Table 9. Indirect mediation effects of ESG management in the relationship between the factors and sustainable financial performance.
Table 9. Indirect mediation effects of ESG management in the relationship between the factors and sustainable financial performance.
Independent VariableMediating VariableDependent VariableEffectBootSELLCIULCI
Technological
capability		ESG managementSustainable financial
performance		0.1480.0670.0150.278
CEO’s risk-taking propensityESG managementSustainable financial
performance		0.0740.051−0.0270.177
B2B seller skillESG managementSustainable financial
performance		0.1400.0540.0340.246
KAMESG managementSustainable financial
performance		0.2260.0740.0750.366
Indirect effect analysis does not include the p-value. The results exhibit that technological capability, B2B seller skill, and KAM do not contain 0 when setting 95% confidence intervals (LLCI, ULCI).
Table 10. Direct mediation effect of ESG management in the relationship between the factors and sustainable non-financial performance.
Table 10. Direct mediation effect of ESG management in the relationship between the factors and sustainable non-financial performance.
RouteBS.EtpLLCIULCI
Technological
capability		→ESG management0.7240.04117.577 ***0.0000.6430.805
Technological
capability		→Sustainable non-financial
performance		0.4420.0736.021 **0.0000.2970.586
ESG management→Sustainable non-financial
performance		0.1630.0752.155 *0.0320.0140.311
CEO’s risk-taking propensity→ESG management0.5860.04712.46 6***0.0000.4930.678
CEO’s risk-taking propensity→Sustainable non-financial
performance		0.4540.0587.808 ***0.0000.3400.569
ESG management→Sustainable non-financial
performance		0.2030.0623.289 **0.0010.0810.324
B2B seller skill→ESG management0.6080.04912.300 ***0.0000.5110.706
B2B seller skill→Sustainable non-financial
performance		0.3030.0645.139 ***0.0000.2040.457
ESG management→Sustainable non-financial
performance		0.2950.0654.541 ***0.0000.1670.423
KAM→ESG management0.7050.04814.666 ***0.0000.6100.800
KAM→Sustainable non-financial
performance		0.3390.0734.636 ***0.0000.1950.483
ESG management→Sustainable non-financial
performance		0.2780.0713.930 ***0.0000.1390.417
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. The results show that technological capability, CEO’s risk-taking propensity, B2B seller skill, and KAM do not contain 0 when setting 95% confidence intervals (LLCI, ULCI).
Table 11. Indirect mediation effect of ESG management in the relationship between the factors and sustainable non-financial performance.
Table 11. Indirect mediation effect of ESG management in the relationship between the factors and sustainable non-financial performance.
Independent VariableMediating VariableDependent VariableEffectBootSELLCIULCI
Technological
capability		ESG managementSustainable non-
financial performance		0.1180.0570.0030.230
CEO’s risk-taking propensityESG managementSustainable non-
financial performance		0.1190.0430.0360.205
B2B seller skillESG managementSustainable non-
financial performance		0.1800.0460.0930.271
KAMESG managementSustainable non-
financial performance		0.1960.0590.0850.317
Indirect effect analysis does not include p-value. The results show that technological capability, CEO’s risk-taking propensity, B2B seller skill, and KAM do not contain 0 when setting 95% confidence intervals (LLCI, ULCI).
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, S.; Kim, Y.J. Analyzing Factors That Affect Korean B2B Companies’ Sustainable Performance. Sustainability 2024, 16, 1719. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su16051719

AMA Style

Lee S, Kim YJ. Analyzing Factors That Affect Korean B2B Companies’ Sustainable Performance. Sustainability. 2024; 16(5):1719. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su16051719

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Sungchang, and Young Jun Kim. 2024. "Analyzing Factors That Affect Korean B2B Companies’ Sustainable Performance" Sustainability 16, no. 5: 1719. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su16051719

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop