Fitriani Latief
Ahmad Firman- Institut Teknologi dan Bisnis Nobel Indonesia, Makassar, Indonesia
Sustainable supply chain research has long suggested that well-designed sustainability practices strengthen business resilience and competitiveness. However, resource-based enterprises in developing economies often operate with severe technological, financial, and managerial constraints, limiting their ability to adopt multiple sustainability initiatives simultaneously. Guided by the Resource Orchestration Theory framework of structuring, bundling, and leveraging resources, this study examined how combinations of internal sustainability practices, supply chain collaboration, and operational agility supported firms in optimising limited resources and adapting to environmental and market volatility. Using fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) on data from 139 resource-based enterprises in Indonesia, the analysis identified six distinct configurations that lead to high sustainability performance. The overall solution consistency (0.82) confirms the reliability of these pathways, while the solution coverage (0.83) indicates that they account for a substantial proportion of the empirical cases exhibiting high performance. Among these pathways, a fully integrated configuration produced the highest raw coverage (0.58), while an externally oriented social-environmental configuration accounted for a raw coverage of 0.52. Notably, one configuration revealed that operational agility was sufficient regardless of the presence or absence of other practices, suggesting its role as a decisive substitutive resource under conditions of resource scarcity. These findings demonstrate that no single practice is universally sufficient; instead, performance improvements emerge from context-specific combinations of internal practices, supply chain collaboration, and agility. This study contributes to sustainable supply chain management literature by emphasising the value of configuration-based strategies for small, resource-constrained enterprises in emerging economies.
Introduction
In recent years, the dynamics of global supply chains have come under increasing pressure due to economic uncertainty, climate change, and uneven digitalisation (Jiang et al., 2024; Sarkis et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2024). These pressures have particularly affected small-scale and resource-based businesses in developing countries, which typically operate with limited technological and managerial capacity and face sharp fluctuations in market demand (Day and Schoemaker, 2016). Recent literature has emphasised that sustainable supply chain management (SSCM), grounded in the triple bottom line (TBL) framework encompassing economic, social, and environmental dimensions, can strengthen the resilience and competitiveness of supply chains under unstable conditions (Masood et al., 2023; Nogueira et al., 2025). In line with this, various global organisations have begun investing seriously in sustainability integration, such as enhanced transparency, cross-actor collaboration, and digital innovation to support long-term supply chain viability (Shi and Fan, 2025).
However, even as sustainability-oriented practices become increasingly common among large and formal-sector firms, resource-based businesses in regions such as Indonesia continue to face substantial challenges in adopting these practices effectively. Structural limitations related to production facilities, digital literacy, and access to wider markets constrain their ability to fully implement sustainability principles (Costa et al., 2023; Sharma et al., 2016). These conditions highlight the need for supply chain models that are not only sustainability-oriented but also sufficiently agile and adaptable to survive in rapidly changing environments.
Although numerous studies have indicated that sustainable supply chain practices can lead to improved business performance, recent empirical findings suggest that this relationship is not always linear (Dubey et al., 2015; Hong et al., 2018). The literature reports mixed results, ranging from strong positive impacts to weak or inconclusive effects, implying that the effectiveness of sustainability practices is highly dependent on the operational context and organisational capacity (Maletič et al., 2018). This variability is even more evident in resource-based enterprises operating within complex supply chain ecosystems involving multiple actors, where each sustainability practice does not function in isolation but depends on how it is combined, sequenced, and adapted to local conditions (Ingold and Balsiger, 2015). Consequently, a key challenge is identifying which combinations of sustainability practices and operational capabilities, particularly supply chain agility, are most likely to produce improved performance in resource-constrained situations.
Building on these insights, this study seeks to examine how resource-based businesses manage and combine their resources to strengthen supply chain sustainability (Arda et al., 2021). The primary objective is to identify how sustainability practices and supply chain agility are simultaneously applied in small businesses with limited resources, and how these combinations contribute to improvements across economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability. More specifically, the study aims to determine which internal practices and external inter-actor practices are most relevant and feasible to develop in order to build supply chains that are both more adaptive and more sustainable (Maletič et al., 2018).
Departing from the complexity inherent in the relationship between sustainability practices and supply chain agility, this study employs a fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) approach to identify patterns of practice combinations that emerge under conditions of resource constraint (Geremew et al., 2023; Najjar et al., 2024). This method is particularly suitable because it captures non-linear causal dynamics and accommodates the possibility that multiple strategic pathways may lead to similar levels of sustainability performance. By analysing practices that the literature has shown to influence economic, social, and environmental dimensions, this study examines how businesses adapt these practices and how specific configurations contribute to optimal sustainability outcomes.
This study further seeks to determine whether resource-based businesses achieve improved sustainability performance through a single dominant pattern of practice or through several equally effective strategic combinations across different operational contexts. Given that the relationship between sustainability practices and supply chain agility is shaped by variations in local conditions and organisational capacity (Geremew et al., 2023), this study adopts a complexity perspective to explore how interactions among these practices collectively influence performance outcomes. This approach aligns with Resource Orchestration Theory (ROT), which emphasises that performance depends not merely on possessing resources, but on how firms structure internal assets, bundle them with external partners, and leverage them through agility to navigate scarcity (Hong et al., 2018; Ingold and Balsiger, 2015). Through this theoretical lens, the study focuses on examining how configurations of ‘structured’ internal practices, ‘bundled’ supply chain collaborations, and ‘leveraged’ operational agility interact to support improved sustainability performance.
The structure of this article is as follows. The next section outlines the theoretical foundations, including sustainability practices within supply chains, operational agility capabilities, and the relevance of Resource Orchestration Theory for managing limited resources. This is followed by an explanation of the research design, measurement of variables, and fsQCA procedures used to identify practice combinations relevant to resource-based businesses in Indonesia. The subsequent section presents the empirical findings and interpretations of the resulting configurations. The article concludes with a discussion of theoretical and practical implications, research limitations, and directions for future research.
Literature review
Characteristics of resource-based business actors in the Indonesian context
In this study, ‘resource-based business actors’ are defined primarily as micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) operating within the agriculture, fisheries, and agro-forestry sectors (Yusriadi et al., 2024). Unlike manufacturing or service firms where production can be strictly controlled, the operational characteristics of these actors are intrinsically tied to biological cycles, seasonality, and the perishability of raw materials. Production volumes are often dictated by natural rhythms rather than market demand alone, creating a high degree of supply uncertainty. For instance, actors in the fisheries sector must contend with unpredictable catch volumes, while agricultural enterprises face harvest cycles that require rapid post-harvest handling to prevent value loss.
Within the specific context of Indonesia, these operational challenges are compounded by the country’s unique archipelagic geography (Yusriadi, 2025). The fragmentation of supply chains across thousands of islands creates significant logistical hurdles and high transportation costs, often isolating resource-based producers from major urban markets. This geographical disconnect forces actors to rely on multi-tiered, often informal, intermediary networks to move goods, which can dilute profit margins and reduce supply chain visibility (Sarkis et al., 2020). Consequently, the ability to navigate these logistical constraints requires a distinct form of adaptability that differs from standard industrial supply chain models.
Furthermore, the resource dependency of these actors is dual in nature. First, they rely heavily on natural capital, which is increasingly vulnerable to climate volatility and environmental degradation common in tropical regions. Second, as highlighted in the demographic profile of this study, these businesses predominantly operate at the micro and small scale, characterized by severe constraints in financial capital, technological infrastructure, and managerial capacity. They typically depend on traditional ecological knowledge and labor-intensive practices, facing a steep learning curve to adapt to modern requirements for sustainability and digitalization. These combined factors—biological dependence, geographical fragmentation, and resource scarcity—frame the unique context in which these actors must orchestrate their limited resources.
Resource orchestration in resource-constrained supply chains
Efforts to understand how businesses identify, develop, and utilise resources to enhance performance have become a central focus in strategic management theory. Within this domain, resource-based theory (RBT) and its subsequent developments have served as key frameworks for explaining how organisations manage their assets to create and sustain value. As the theory has evolved, scholars have emphasised that performance is determined not only by the inherent characteristics of resources but also by how those resources are strategically combined, configured, and organised (Cantele et al., 2023; Evans, 2016). This configurational perspective has gained increasing attention, particularly because it offers explanatory power for understanding performance variations in organisations operating with resource limitations (Yusriadi et al., 2022). In the context of resource-based businesses, such a perspective is especially relevant for analysing how sustainability practices and operational capabilities can be orchestrated to generate optimal benefits despite structural constraints.
Among the theoretical approaches that underscore the strategic combination of resources, Resource Orchestration Theory (ROT) provides a more explicit explanation of the role of decision-makers in structuring, bundling, and leveraging resources (Carnes et al., 2017). ROT highlights that value is created not merely through resource possession, but through the way resources are sequenced, developed, and adapted to operational needs (Najjar et al., 2024).
To operationalise this theory within the context of resource-constrained enterprises, this study maps the research variables into Chowhan (2016) orchestration framework. First, structuring is represented by internal sustainability practices (HR, Environment, Community), reflecting the accumulation of basic internal assets required for legitimacy. Second, bundling is represented by external supply chain practices (Social and Environmental Supply Chain), capturing the integration of internal resources with external partners to create unique capabilities. Third, leveraging is represented by operational agility and digital capability, which serve as dynamic mechanisms to mobilise these bundled resources to seize market opportunities and drive sustainability performance. Thus, ROT guides our condition selection by categorising practices into static resources (structure), relational resources (bundle), and dynamic capabilities (leverage).
This perspective is particularly important for businesses characterised by limited capital, managerial capacity, and infrastructure, where the effectiveness of sustainability practices depends heavily on how those practices are arranged to complement one another. Consistent with complexity theory, the relationships among organisational practices are not linear; certain combinations may yield different outcomes depending on the context, and multiple strategic pathways may lead to similar levels of performance.
Based on these theoretical insights, this study assumes that various configurations of sustainability practices and supply chain agility may serve as alternative pathways to achieving high sustainability performance. The conceptual framework of this study (Figure 1) illustrates how different combinations of internal and external sustainability practices, together with operational agility, may produce diverse performance outcomes depending on the operational context of resource-based enterprises.
Figure 1. Configurational model of sustainability practices, agility, and digital capability.
Sustainability practices in resource-constrained supply chains
Research on supply chain sustainability generally distinguishes between practices undertaken within the firm and those involving external actors across the supply chain (Frostenson and Prenkert, 2015; Siems et al., 2023). This distinction is critical because sustainability efforts require not only internal resource management but also coordinated actions with suppliers, buyers, and distribution partners. In the case of resource-constrained small enterprises, this distinction becomes even more relevant, as operational limitations often push these firms to rely on a combination of simple internal practices and informal, trust-based relationships with external actors.
In this study, internal sustainability practices refer to initiatives that fall under the direct control of the business. These include basic human resource management ensuring worker safety and welfare; social engagement through relationships with surrounding communities; and internal environmental management such as efficient raw material use, waste reduction, and the adoption of environmentally safer production processes. Although these practices are often implemented gradually and informally, they can stabilise production processes and strengthen supply reliability in small-scale firms.
Meanwhile, external sustainability practices encompass efforts that involve interactions with suppliers, customers, and logistics partners (Tamsah et al., 2022). For many small businesses, these practices take the form of cooperation to maintain raw material quality, establishing fairer pricing arrangements, increasing transparency in demand information, or harmonising simple environmental standards across the supply chain (Boström et al., 2015). Despite being largely informal, these inter-organisational relationships play a crucial role in reinforcing supply chain resilience, particularly in contexts where infrastructure, technology, and market access remain limited.
Previous literature often analyses single dimensions of sustainability in isolation, for example, focusing only on environmental practices or operational efficiency. Such fragmented approaches, however, are insufficient for understanding the realities faced by small resource-based businesses, which must simultaneously balance economic, social, and environmental considerations. To address this gap, this study adopts an integrated view by examining both internal and external sustainability practices within the triple bottom line framework. This approach enables a more realistic understanding of how small businesses combine multiple modest practices to build supply chains that are adaptive, resilient, and sustainable despite substantial resource constraints.
Sustainability practices and supply chain agility in resource-limited enterprises
Supply chain agility is widely regarded as a strategic capability that enables businesses to adjust their operations and decision-making rapidly in response to changes in the business environment (Wu et al., 2017). For small and resource-limited enterprises, agility is particularly critical because they frequently encounter demand fluctuations, unstable supply conditions, and infrastructure constraints (Cantele et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2017). Agility encompasses not only the speed of adjustment but also production flexibility, the ability to switch raw material sources, and the use of social relationships to facilitate faster coordination across actors in the supply chain (Hong et al., 2018). Under conditions of persistent uncertainty, agility therefore supports operational stability while enhancing longer-term adaptability.
The relationship between sustainability practices and agility is generally synergistic. Internal sustainability practices, such as efficient raw material use, waste reduction, and production process optimisation can enhance the flexibility of firms to adjust production volumes and patterns (Sun et al., 2024). Conversely, supply chain–level sustainability practices, including supplier cooperation, quality agreements, and the exchange of demand information, can strengthen firms’ responsiveness to market changes (Dahlmann and Roehrich, 2019). This perspective aligns with previous literature indicating that sustainability and agility tend to reinforce each other: sustainability contributes to operational stability, while agility accelerates the implementation and effectiveness of sustainability initiatives (Miceli et al., 2021).
Importantly, the interaction between these two groups of practices is not always linear. The effectiveness of specific combinations may vary across firms depending on market characteristics, product type, and resource availability. In resource-based small enterprises, some firms may achieve higher sustainability performance through simple yet consistent internal practices, while others rely more heavily on strong external relationships to enhance responsiveness and adaptability (Chowhan, 2016). This diversity of effective pathways underscores the need for a configurational perspective that recognises the existence of multiple, equally effective strategic combinations.
Accordingly, this study views the interaction between sustainability practices and agility as part of a broader resource orchestration process in which different configurations of practices may still lead to high sustainability performance. This perspective is reflected in the conceptual framework presented in Figure 1.
Formulation of the research propositions for resource-constrained supply chains
Resource Orchestration Theory (ROT) posits that every organisation and supply chain network possesses unique resource characteristics, including resource-based small businesses that operate with limited technology, capital, and managerial capacity (Carnes et al., 2017). Within this framework, strategic value depends not only on what resources firms possess but also on how those resources are selected, developed, and combined to generate optimal performance. For businesses that are unable to adopt multiple initiatives simultaneously due to resource constraints, the ability to orchestrate sustainability practices and operational agility becomes a key determinant of achieving adaptive and sustainable performance outcomes.
The configurational approach used in this study is grounded in the assumption that sustainability performance is not generated by any single practice but rather emerges from the interactions among multiple complementary practices. Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) is particularly suited to this context because it enables the identification of several distinct combinations of causal conditions that lead to similar outcomes (Geremew et al., 2023). This asymmetric perspective recognises that the drivers of high performance are not simply the inverse of the drivers of low performance (Najjar et al., 2024). Accordingly, fsQCA helps reveal how internal practices, supply chain practices, basic digital capabilities, and operational agility operate in different configurations to support sustainability performance in small firms.
Complexity theory further strengthens this approach by emphasising that relationships among variables in constrained systems are often non-linear and may produce different effects under different contextual conditions (Turner and Baker, 2019). In such environments, certain practices may be critical in one configuration but less relevant in another, depending on the accompanying resource combinations. Integrating ROT principles, complexity theory, and fsQCA therefore enables this study to more accurately capture these dynamics, particularly in understanding how sustainability practices and supply chain agility interact within small businesses operating in volatile and resource-limited settings.
Based on this integrated theoretical framework, the study formulates three configurational propositions regarding how internal sustainability practices, supply chain sustainability practices, and operational agility contribute to sustainability performance:
RP1. Multiple configurations of internal sustainability practices, supply chain sustainability practices, and operational agility can equally lead to high sustainability performance (equifinality).
RP2. Each individual factor in the configuration, whether internal sustainability practices, external sustainability practices, or operational agility, acts as a critical antecedent but is rarely sufficient on its own to produce high sustainability performance in small businesses.
RP3. The contribution of each sustainability practice and operational agility varies across contexts; depending on the accompanying combination of practices, its effect can be strong, weak, or even insignificant.
Methods
Data collection
This study employed fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) to identify configurations of sustainability practices at both the firm and supply chain levels, as well as the role of operational agility in shaping sustainability performance. The fsQCA approach enables the examination of conjunctural causality and the principle of equifinality (Geremew et al., 2023; Najjar et al., 2024), allowing for a deeper understanding of how combinations of sustainability practices and agility capabilities jointly contribute to high sustainability performance among resource-based MSMEs. Through fsQCA, researchers can trace how multiple causal conditions interact to produce specific outcomes, including alternative pathways that lead to similar performance levels (Geremew et al., 2023).
To address the study objectives, data were collected using a combination of online and offline surveys administered to resource-based micro, small, and medium enterprises in South Sulawesi Province. This region was selected because it hosts a diverse population of entrepreneurs operating primarily within small-scale resource-based sectors, characterized by limited technological and managerial capacity and largely informal supply chain linkages. Data collection took place over a three-month period and covered several sectors, including agriculture, fisheries, livestock, and local product processing.
A total of 167 responses were obtained from business owners and production managers, of which 139 complete responses met the criteria for fsQCA analysis. The questionnaire captured three major categories of constructs: internal sustainability practices, external supply chain sustainability practices, and operational agility. To minimize potential non-response bias, early and late respondents were compared, and no significant differences were found across the measured constructs. Thus, non-response bias was not considered a threat to the validity of the findings. The characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Demographic profile of the respondents.
Measures
All research variables were established through a comprehensive literature review and were further refined through a pretest involving five MSME practitioners and three academics with expertise in supply chain management and sustainability. Feedback from this panel was used to improve the structure, clarity, and contextual relevance of the survey instrument, ensuring the face validity of the constructs employed in this study.
The variables were measured using adaptations of validated scales from prior studies. Internal sustainability practices consisted of three constructs. Human resource welfare (HR) was measured using four items adapted from Lu et al. (2023) and Pellegrini et al. (2018), covering employee safety, basic labor rights, and decent working conditions. Community involvement (COMM) was assessed using three items based on Cori et al. (2019), reflecting the enterprise’s contribution to local social environments. Internal environmental sustainability (ES) was measured with four items adapted from Franco (2021) and Biedenbach and Manzhynski (2016), including indicators such as material efficiency and waste reduction.
External supply chain sustainability practices were also measured using three constructs. Social sustainability in the supply chain (SSSC) was measured using four items adapted from Mani et al. (2016), capturing supplier labor safety and fair labor standards. Environmental sustainability in the supply chain (ESSC) was measured with four items based on Ingold and Balsiger (2015) and Cori et al. (2019), including the use of environmentally friendly materials and supplier waste management. Customer-related social responsibility (CSR2C) was assessed using five items adapted from Latif et al. (2018), covering product transparency, food safety, and ethical communication with customers.
Operational agility (AGI) was measured using five items adapted from Panigrahi et al. (2022), measuring the ability to adjust production volume, flexibly source alternative materials, and respond quickly to demand fluctuations. Basic digital capability (BDC) was assessed with four items based on MSME digital literacy indicators, including the use of communication applications, simple digital record-keeping, and access to market information through digital devices.
All variables were measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The outcome variable, sustainability performance, was measured across the three dimensions of the triple bottom line (TBL): social performance (5 items), environmental performance (6 items), and economic performance (5 items). Indicators were adapted from Hourneaux Jr et al. (2018) and Nicoletti Junior et al. (2018), and were assessed based on perceived improvements over the past two years. The outcome score was computed as the average of the three TBL dimensions.
Reliability analysis showed that all constructs met the recommended thresholds for Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (>0.70), in line with Cheung et al. (2024). Convergent validity was also confirmed, with all factor loadings exceeding 0.60 (Cheung et al., 2024) and average variance extracted (AVE) values surpassing the recommended threshold of 0.50 (Cheung et al., 2024). Detailed results of the reliability and validity tests are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Reliability and validity of the constructs.
Data analysis
Qualitative comparative analysis steps
The fsQCA procedure adopted in this study followed the four main stages recommended in the literature (Geremew et al., 2023). The first stage involved defining the property space, which consists of identifying the causal conditions to be examined and specifying the range of possible configurations that may emerge from their combinations. The second stage entailed developing the set membership scores, in which all variables were calibrated into fuzzy-set values using theoretically informed anchors and empirical data distributions. The third stage focused on evaluating set-theoretic consistency, which assesses the extent to which a condition or a combination of conditions can be considered a reliable causal contributor to the outcome. The fourth stage involved conducting logical minimization and configurational analysis to derive solution terms that represent alternative pathways leading to high sustainability performance. Each of these steps is described in more detail in the subsequent sections.
The property space
The first stage of the fsQCA procedure involved defining the property space, which represents the full range of possible combinations of causal conditions that may influence sustainability performance. This space was constructed based on the theoretical framework presented in Figure 1. Initially, Basic Digital Capability (BDC) was considered as a potential interacting condition. However, preliminary analysis indicated that BDC did not meet the necessary consistency thresholds nor did it exhibit sufficient empirical variation to serve as a robust differentiator in the configurational analysis. Consequently, to ensure model parsimony and focus on the most explanatory factors, BDC was excluded from the final property space.
Therefore, the final analysis proceeded with conditions representing internal sustainability practices (HR, COMM, ES), external supply chain sustainability practices (SSSC, ESSC, CSR2C), and operational agility (AGI). Each condition was conceptualized as an attribute that could be present or absent within a configuration. With seven causal conditions included in the final analysis, the property space comprised 128 possible combinations (27), each representing a potential arrangement of sustainability-related resources among resource-based MSMEs. This probabilistic space provided the analytical basis for examining how different configurations of attributes contribute to high levels of sustainability performance.
Set membership measures
fsQCA operates on the principle of set membership and therefore requires all variables to be calibrated into fuzzy-set membership scores. Calibration enables researchers to capture fine-grained variation in the degree of membership, providing a richer representation of the data than categorical or dichotomous approaches (Najjar et al., 2024). Because the variables in this study were continuous in nature, fuzzy sets with membership values ranging from 0 to 1 were employed. All causal conditions were calibrated using three key anchors: 0.95 for full membership, 0.50 as the crossover point, and 0.05 for full non-membership (Badaruddin et al., 2025). By allowing for partial membership within this interval, fsQCA preserves meaningful variance and avoids oversimplifying constructs measured on continuous scales.
In this study, the anchor points were determined based on the empirical distribution of the data and the structure of the five-point Likert scale used in the questionnaire. The highest Likert score was mapped to full membership (0.95), the lowest score to full non-membership (0.05), and the scale midpoint was used as the crossover point (0.50). The placement of crossover thresholds also considered the median values of each variable, following a conceptually and empirically grounded calibration approach as recommended by Hitchcock and Onwuegbuzie (2019). Calibration rules for each condition were applied consistently using the log-odds transformation function in the fs/QCA software, ensuring an accurate conversion from raw scores to fuzzy-set membership values. A summary of the calibration thresholds for all constructs is presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Fuzzy set calibration rules.
Consistency in set relations
The next step in the fsQCA procedure involved assessing set-theoretic consistency, which reflects the extent to which a combination of conditions can be considered sufficient for producing the outcome of interest. In this study, the outcome was defined as high sustainability performance; therefore, membership scores approaching 1 indicated that a case belonged to the set of firms with superior sustainability outcomes. All possible combinations of causal conditions were compiled into a truth table, which listed each potential configuration along with its associated consistency value. Truth table reduction was performed using a minimum frequency threshold of two cases, following standard criteria of frequency and consistency (Weber et al., 2016). Consistency was calculated as the proportion of cases whose membership in a causal configuration aligned with their membership in the outcome. This measure therefore evaluates the degree to which a configuration can be deemed a reliable causal pathway (Bollen, 2011). Following established practice, this study adopted the intermediate solution, which balances theoretical plausibility and empirical stability without imposing overly restrictive assumptions (Schmidt, 2011).
In addition to consistency, fsQCA computes coverage, which indicates the extent to which a configuration—or the overall solution—explains the outcome. A minimum consistency threshold of 0.80 was applied, which is more conservative than the commonly cited minimum of 0.75 (Ban et al., 2016), to ensure the robustness of causal interpretations. The analysis produced an overall solution coverage of 0.83 and an overall consistency of 0.82, indicating a strong set-theoretic relationship. Specifically, the solution coverage suggests that the identified configurations account for a large proportion of the membership in the outcome set, while the consistency score confirms the high degree of sufficiency of these configurations for achieving high sustainability performance. Raw coverage values represent the proportion of outcome membership explained by each configuration and provide insight into the relative contribution of different causal pathways. For example, the configuration with the highest raw coverage (0.60) accounted for the largest share of high-performance cases, followed by configurations with raw coverage of 0.55 and 0.39.
Unique coverage, by contrast, captures the portion of the outcome explained exclusively by a particular configuration after accounting for overlap among solutions (Baumgartner and Ambühl, 2021). This metric is essential for identifying configurations that offer distinct explanatory power. Table 4 presents the configurations that met the thresholds for consistency and coverage, with the first configuration providing the strongest contribution to explaining high sustainability performance, followed by additional pathways that also offer substantial explanatory value.
Table 4. Configurations for high sustainability performance.
Logical reduction and analysis of configuration
At this stage, fsQCA performed the logical reduction process to identify the simplest and most consistent configurations capable of explaining the outcome, namely high sustainability performance. Coverage was used to assess the extent to which each configuration accounted for empirical membership in the outcome and to evaluate the relative contribution of each causal combination (Geremew et al., 2023). A configuration was considered substantively meaningful when its raw coverage exceeded 0.10, following established recommendations in the fsQCA literature (Baumgartner and Ambühl, 2021).
This study adopted the intermediate solution, in line with recent methodological guidance suggesting that this approach offers the most balanced option by retaining empirical grounding while incorporating theoretically plausible counterfactuals (Weber and Leuridan, 2008). The intermediate solution was derived through a counterfactual analysis that included only theoretically meaningful simplifying assumptions, thereby producing configurations that are both stable and theoretically defensible (Ban et al., 2016). Within this approach, conditions that appeared consistently in both the parsimonious and intermediate solutions were classified as core conditions, indicating strong and robust causal relationships. In contrast, conditions present only in one solution type were treated as peripheral conditions, reflecting complementary but non-essential causal roles.
Table 4 presents the six configurations that met the thresholds for both consistency and coverage. Each configuration comprises a unique combination of core and peripheral conditions that collectively lead to high sustainability performance among resource-based MSMEs. These findings demonstrate that no single causal pathway dominates; instead, multiple configurations of sustainability practices and operational agility can produce similarly high levels of performance, reflecting the principle of equifinality in fsQCA.
Research ethics
This study followed standard ethical procedures for social science research. All participants were informed about the purpose of the study and voluntarily agreed to take part. No personal identifying information was collected, ensuring anonymity and confidentiality. Responses were used only for academic purposes and reported in aggregated form. Because the study used a non-invasive survey with minimal risk, it falls under low-risk research and complies with general institutional ethical guidelines.
Result
The findings from the fuzzy-set analysis showed several causal configurations that were sufficient to explain high sustainability performance among resource-based enterprises (Table 4). Black circles indicated the presence of a condition as an important factor within a configuration, whereas crossed-out circles represented its absence as a core condition. Blank spaces denoted that the condition did not play a significant role in a particular solution and could be either present or absent without altering the contribution of the configuration to the outcome. The identification of these sufficient combinations, as shown in Table 4, demonstrated the presence of equifinality (Cantele et al., 2023), meaning that multiple alternative pathways could lead to high sustainability performance. These findings supported Proposition 1, indicating that no single dominant pathway existed; rather, several different configurations could enable small firms to achieve superior sustainability performance.
Six configurations that produced high sustainability performance were identified.
Solution 1 showed that firms could achieve superior sustainability outcomes when all major conditions—HR, ES, SSSC, ESSC, COMM, CSR2C, and AGI—were consistently present within the configuration. This solution represented a fully integrated approach in which internal and external sustainability practices worked in tandem and were reinforced by a high level of operational agility.
In contrast, Solution 2 showed that high sustainability performance could also be achieved through a simpler combination, where ES, COMM, and AGI emerged as core conditions while the remaining variables did not play a role in the configuration. This configuration suggested that, in certain contexts, internal environmental efficiency, community engagement, and operational agility alone were sufficient to generate high sustainability performance. It also opened the possibility that additional variables outside the model might have influenced firm outcomes.
Unlike Solutions 1 and 2, Solution 3 showed a configuration where operational agility (AGI) appears as the sole core condition. In this pathway, the other conditions (HR, ES, SSSC, ESSC, and COMM) are “do not care” conditions, meaning they can be either present or absent without altering the outcome. This implies that operational agility was sufficient to generate high sustainability performance regardless of the presence or absence of other antecedent conditions. In other words, for these specific cases, the firm’s capacity to respond and adapt to market fluctuations serves as a decisive driver, potentially overriding the necessity for specific combinations of other sustainability practices. Consequently, Proposition 2 was not fully supported within the context of this specific configuration.
Solution 4 showed that firms could achieve high sustainability performance when they exhibited high levels of ES, ESSC, CSR2C, and operational agility, while HR and COMM did not play a role in the configuration. This solution was characterised by an emphasis on environmentally oriented and supply chain–related sustainability practices, reflecting conditions in which external pressures from suppliers and customers encouraged firms to enhance sustainability performance even when internal social practices had not yet been fully institutionalised.
Solution 5 indicated that high sustainability performance could be achieved when social and environmental supply chain practices—SSSC, ESSC, COMM, and CSR2C—were consistently present, even though operational agility did not play an important role in this configuration. This solution suggested that sustainability approaches grounded in external relationships and social engagement could generate superior performance independently of the firm’s adaptive operational capability.
Finally, Solution 6 showed that firms could generate high sustainability performance when they demonstrated high levels of ES, SSSC, ESSC, COMM, and AGI, while HR did not contribute to the configuration. This pattern aligned with a “semi-integrated” sustainability approach, where environmental and social practices—both internal and external—were combined with operational agility to produce superior sustainability outcomes.
Overall, several firms were still able to achieve high sustainability performance even without possessing all supply chain practices or internal conditions—such as in Solutions 2 and 3—in which only a small subset of antecedents was present yet still produced strong outcomes. At the same time, the same antecedents—such as environmental supply chain practices (ESSC) or social collaboration (COMM)—could play a dominant role in one configuration (e.g., Solutions 1 and 5) but be irrelevant or absent in another (e.g., Solutions 3 or 6). This variation demonstrated that the contribution of each antecedent was not universal but depended strongly on the combination of accompanying conditions within a specific configuration. Thus, the observed patterns supported Proposition 3, which posited that high sustainability performance could be achieved through multiple alternative pathways that combine internal practices, supply chain relationships, and operational agility in different ways.
Finally, as shown in Table 4, the configuration that provided the strongest representation of high sustainability performance was Solution 1, with the highest raw coverage value of 0.58, followed by Solution 5 with a raw coverage of 0.52. This confirmed that the most dominant pathway for explaining high sustainability performance stemmed from a fully integrated combination of internal sustainability practices, cross-supply-chain relationships, and operational agility, while the external social–collaborative configuration served as a strong alternative pathway contributing substantially to the outcome.
Discussion
This study shows that improvements in sustainability performance among resource-based enterprises do not depend on a single set of practices, but can be achieved through multiple combinations of internal sustainability practices, cross–supply chain collaboration, and operational agility. This finding is consistent with configurational literature, which emphasises that firms often adopt different strategic pathways to achieve similar outcomes depending on market pressures, resource conditions, and organisational capabilities. Unlike conventional studies that evaluate each sustainability practice as an independent driver, the present findings explain why firms choose specific configurations: resource constraints push them to combine only those practices that are feasible and most relevant to their operational context. Thus, managers have the flexibility to allocate attention and investments selectively, and this flexibility—rather than the completeness of practices—becomes the key factor for success in turbulent and highly uncertain environments.
A comparison with previous literature reveals several notable patterns. Classical SSCM studies, such as Dahlmann and Roehrich (2019) and Jiang et al. (2024), highlight the dominance of external supply chain sustainability practices—particularly supplier collaboration and customer engagement—as primary drivers of environmental and social performance. Similarly, Andalib Ardakani et al. (2022) emphasise the importance of external pressures and supply chain coordination in improving environmental outcomes. However, the present study identifies a different pattern: in several configurations, internal practices, such as environmental efficiency and community engagement, emerge as the main drivers of sustainability performance—even in the absence of strong external supply chain practices. These configurations arise because small firms in developing countries often face informal supplier networks, limited logistics infrastructure, and low levels of supply chain integration. In such situations, reliance on external practices is not always feasible, leading firms to depend on internal resources that are easier to control.
Conversely, in other contexts, this study also finds configurations where external practices dominate, such as in Solution 5. This finding aligns with Xu et al. (2022), who stress that institutional pressures and market demands can compel firms to adopt cross–supply chain sustainability standards even when their internal capabilities remain limited. Such configurations emerge not because internal practices are unimportant, but because under certain conditions—such as when firms interact with powerful trading partners or operate within tightly regulated markets—external relationships hold stronger incentives that shape firm behaviour.
In addition, prior studies tend to examine the effects of social and environmental practices separately—for example, by analysing their individual impacts on social performance (Ebrahim and Rangan, 2014), environmental performance (Dubey et al., 2015), or financial performance (Cantele et al., 2023). Unlike these approaches, the present study shows why such effects are not always linear: sustainability emerges from the interaction among practices rather than from any single practice operating in isolation. By integrating Resource Orchestration Theory (ROT) with complexity theory, this study identifies operational agility as a crucial substitutive resource rather than merely a complementary one. While traditional ROT literature often suggests that resources must be bundled to create value, our findings indicate that in highly volatile and resource-constrained environments, operational agility can effectively substitute for the lack of formal sustainability practices. This aligns with the ‘dynamic capability’ perspective, which posits that the speed of adjustment can compensate for the lack of structural robustness. In this context, agility allows firms to align with environmental and market demands in real-time—thereby bypassing the need for static, capital-intensive sustainability structures.
Thus, the findings not only extend the SSCM literature but also explain why internal practices may substitute for external practices under certain conditions, and why external practices may dominate in others. This perspective highlights that managers in small, resource-based firms orchestrate resources adaptively in response to external pressures, internal capacity constraints, and the nature of their social and supply chain relationships. A configurational approach using fsQCA makes it possible to identify these adaptive patterns and demonstrates that firms can achieve high sustainability performance without following the linear pathways proposed in earlier research.
Theoretical implications
The findings of this study provide strong support for Proposition 1 and Proposition 3 and generate several important theoretical contributions. First, the six alternative configurations identified through fsQCA reinforce the idea that sustainability performance is not driven by uniformly high levels of all sustainability practices, but rather by context-specific combinations of mutually reinforcing practices. This stands in contrast to conventional regression-based studies, which typically examine the effects of individual practices in a linear and isolated manner. Studies such as Beckstead (2012) and Aronow and Samii (2016) assume that sustainability performance increases as the intensity of a particular practice rises; however, the present findings show that both high and low levels of certain practices can still produce superior performance when combined with supportive conditions. In other words, sustainability emerges as a non-linear phenomenon, where the effect of any given practice depends on the configuration in which it is embedded.
A configurational lens and complexity theory further emphasise that systems characterised by constraints and strong external pressures—such as resource-based MSMEs—tend to form adaptive patterns that cannot be explained by linear relationships. This provides a theoretical contribution by extending the understanding of the links between SSCM and the triple bottom line (TBL) through the lens of equifinality, an aspect that has been underexplored in previous SSCM research (Hourneaux Jr et al., 2018).
The second theoretical contribution lies in strengthening the explanatory power of Resource Orchestration Theory (ROT). While prior studies have largely focused on the net effects of individual sustainability practices on performance (Asiaei et al., 2021), the present findings explain why firms operating under resource scarcity rarely distribute investments evenly across all practices. The resulting configurations show that firms actively orchestrate—rather than simply possess—their resources, and that such orchestration depends on market conditions, institutional pressures, and access to supply chain networks. This contributes a ‘survival-based’ orchestration model to the literature, contrasting with the ‘compliance-based’ models often observed in developed economies.
For example, Solution 3 demonstrates that operational agility can function as a substitutive resource when firms are unable to develop complex sustainability practices. Conversely, Solutions 1 and 5 show that combinations of internal and external practices can act as complementary resource bundles when firms operate within more established supply chain relationships. These findings are theoretically significant because they demonstrate that resource bundles are not fixed; instead, they are dynamically constructed through orchestration processes, echoing the core principles of ROT (Baert et al., 2016; Sirmon et al., 2010). Accordingly, this study extends ROT by providing empirical evidence that various combinations of social governance practices, environmental efficiency, basic digital capabilities, and operational agility can yield alternative yet equally effective portfolios of strategic resources.
The third theoretical contribution stems from the simultaneous integration of internal and external sustainability practices within a single configurational framework. While prior literature often separates these two groups of practices—for example, Andalib Ardakani et al. (2022) emphasise cross–supply-chain collaboration, whereas Gani et al. (2022) focus on internal environmental efficiency—the findings of this study show why integrating both dimensions is particularly important in the context of MSMEs. Solution 5 illustrates that firms can achieve high sustainability performance through a combination of social and environmental supply chain practices, supported by internal social practices, even when operational agility is low. Conversely, Solution 6 demonstrates that firms may rely primarily on internal practices and operational agility without depending on complex cross–supply-chain sustainability practices. These patterns emerge because the level of supply chain formality, coordination capacity, and interdependence among actors varies substantially in resource-based sectors. Accordingly, this study provides theoretical insight that the relationship between internal and external sustainability practices is contingent and cannot be understood in isolation—particularly in developing-country markets characterised by informal supply chain structures.
The final theoretical contribution lies in highlighting the role of operational agility within sustainability performance configurations. Although sustainability and operations management literature has underscored the importance of agility in responding to uncertainty (Cantele et al., 2023; Panigrahi et al., 2022), studies that integrate agility with both internal and external sustainability practices remain limited. The findings of this study show that agility can function in two distinct ways: first, as a single stand-alone resource that is sufficient to drive sustainability performance (as seen in Solution 3); and second, as a complementary element that enhances the effectiveness of other sustainability practices (as in Solutions 1 and 6). Theoretically, this implies that agility acts as a compensatory dynamic capability: in resource-scarce environments, the ability to adjust flows (speed and flexibility) can substitute for the ability to build stocks (structural sustainability assets). In other words, agility not only strengthens firms’ capacity for rapid response but also fills structural gaps when other sustainability practices cannot be implemented. This offers an important theoretical contribution by demonstrating that agility is a multifunctional resource, the role of which depends on the broader configuration of accompanying attributes.
Managerial and policy implications
The findings of this study offer several important implications for managers and policymakers, particularly in the context of resource-based small enterprises operating in unstable market environments. First, the results challenge the common managerial assumption that firms must invest uniformly across all dimensions of sustainability—internal practices, external supply chain practices, and operational capabilities—to achieve high sustainability performance. Instead, the configurations identified through fsQCA demonstrate that firms can reach the same level of performance through alternative pathways that are more realistic and aligned with their resource constraints. This insight is especially relevant for small enterprises that often face financial limitations, shortages of skilled labor, and low technological capacity. By recognising that sustainability can be achieved through different combinations of resources, managers can avoid inefficient budget allocations toward costly or impractical practices.
Second, the study reinforces the importance of resource orchestration in sustainability strategy. Managers need to understand that sustainability outcomes depend not on the magnitude of investments but on how existing practices—such as environmental efficiency, community engagement, supplier collaboration, and operational agility—are strategically combined. This implies that siloed functional approaches are insufficient. Instead, firms must promote cross-unit coordination involving HR, HSE, public relations, marketing, and supply chain management to build sustainability portfolios aligned with operational needs. The configurational insights provide managers with a basis for prioritisation—for example, choosing an externally oriented sustainability pathway when supplier or customer pressure is high, or relying more heavily on agility when demand uncertainty increases. This approach offers far greater flexibility than uniform or checklist-based sustainability strategies.
From a policy perspective, the findings indicate that generalised government interventions—such as incentives provided without accounting for firm characteristics—are often ineffective in promoting sustainability among MSMEs. Because firms can achieve high sustainability performance through diverse configurations, a “one-size-fits-all” policy model does not reflect on-the-ground realities. Policymakers and support institutions should design incentives that are more tailored to industry characteristics, enterprise size, and even the degree of supply chain formality. For example, in sectors with strong supplier relationships, support for cross–supply-chain sustainability practices may be more effective than subsidies targeted at internal investments. Conversely, in contexts with weak supply chain infrastructure, enhancing operational agility or basic digital capabilities may yield more significant impacts. Therefore, policymakers need to understand not only which sustainability practices firms adopt but also how these practices are combined within each firm’s operational context.
Conclusion
This study investigated how 139 resource-based enterprises in Indonesia orchestrated sustainability practices and operational agility to enhance sustainability performance under structural constraints. Using fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA), the findings show that sustainability performance does not stem from isolated practices but rather from specific combinations of internal sustainability actions, supply chain–related practices, and adaptive capabilities.
The analysis identifies six distinct configurations capable of generating high sustainability performance, supported by an overall solution consistency of 0.82 and solution coverage of 0.83—indicating that these configurations explain a substantial share of the empirical variance. The most dominant pathway (raw coverage = 0.58) reflects a fully integrated approach in which internal environmental practices, social engagement, cross–supply-chain sustainability, and operational agility reinforce one another. A second strong pathway (raw coverage = 0.52) underscores the effectiveness of externally oriented social and environmental supply chain practices complemented by community engagement. At the same time, one configuration reveals that operational agility alone can yield high sustainability performance even in the absence of most sustainability practices, suggesting that agility may function as a substitutive resource in contexts of volatility and resource scarcity. Together, these quantitative patterns provide robust empirical support for Proposition 1 (equifinality) and Proposition 3 (context-dependent contributions).
Theoretically, the results advance the SSCM literature by demonstrating that sustainability outcomes are shaped by non-linear and asymmetric interactions among resource bundles. The coexistence of both high- and low-intensity practices across effective configurations aligns with Resource Orchestration Theory, indicating that firms do not simply accumulate resources but strategically sequence, combine, and adapt them to maximize performance. The numerical evidence further shows that internal and external practices may alternate between core and peripheral roles depending on how they interact with agility and digital capabilities, offering a more refined understanding of complementarity and substitutability within sustainability-related resources.
From a managerial perspective, the six viable pathways—each supported by strong consistency values (>0.82)—indicate that small firms do not need to adopt costly, comprehensive sustainability programs to achieve strong performance. Instead, managers can select the configuration that best matches their operational realities, industry pressures, and financial constraints. For policymakers, the findings highlight that targeted, context-specific interventions are likely to be more effective than generalised mandates, given that firms rely on different combinations of resources to achieve comparable sustainability outcomes.
In sum, this study demonstrates that small resource-based enterprises can attain high sustainability performance through multiple, equally effective strategic configurations. By integrating fsQCA results with theories of resource orchestration and complexity, the study provides a nuanced and empirically grounded understanding of how firms in emerging economies build resilience and long-term sustainability through adaptive and flexible resource combinations.
Limitations and future research
This study has several limitations that also offer important opportunities for future research. First, although fsQCA provides valuable insights into the configurations of resources that shape sustainability performance, the use of additional methods—such as archival data, observational data, or secondary data from the MSME sector—could help strengthen the generalisability of the findings and enhance external validity. Future research may also explore the use of QCA as an inductive approach for empirical theory building in sustainability and supply chain management among small enterprises, potentially encouraging a re-examination of concepts that have long been used in sustainability research.
Second, while the study sample encompasses a diverse range of business sizes (micro, small, and medium) and sectors (agriculture, fisheries, livestock, and food processing), the current fsQCA analysis did not explicitly treat firm size or sector as distinct causal conditions. It is possible that certain configurations are more prevalent or effective within specific business scales or commodity types. For instance, micro-enterprises might rely more heavily on agility compared to medium-sized firms that have more established structures. Therefore, this study presents aggregate patterns; future research could benefit from a stratified analysis to determine if these firm characteristics act as boundary conditions that moderate the effectiveness of the identified pathways.
In addition, the data for this study were collected within the Indonesian business context, where firm characteristics, market structures, and the adoption of sustainability practices are strongly influenced by local socio-economic conditions. Therefore, future research should explore other geographical contexts, including developing countries with different industrial dynamics, to compare how variations in culture, regulation, and institutional pressures influence sustainability configurations and operational agility.
Furthermore, this study’s unit of analysis is the focal firm. This approach may overlook important dynamics in interactions with suppliers, customers, or third-party logistics partners, which can significantly influence sustainability practices. Future studies should consider dyadic or even multi-level data collection approaches to capture inter-organisational relationships more comprehensively, including internal factors such as leadership and organisational culture, as well as external factors such as digitalisation and technological integration.
Moreover, while the fsQCA method successfully identifies that substitutions occur—such as operational agility substituting for formal sustainability practices in Solution 3—it provides limited insight into the specific mechanisms or processes by which these substitutions are managed. To enhance mechanistic understanding, future research should conduct in-depth qualitative case studies on firms exemplifying these substitutive configurations. Such inquiries would help elucidate the specific managerial strategies and contextual factors that enable resource-constrained firms to effectively orchestrate these trade-offs in practice.
Finally, this study highlights the importance of developing more specific sustainability strategies to explore resource-management approaches that support more innovative sustainability practices. In line with this, future research should focus on the application of Resource Orchestration Theory (ROT) and Resource Advantage Theory (RAT), particularly in examining how firms manage, prioritise, and allocate different resources to generate varying sustainability outcomes across different operational environments.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Indonesian Nobel Research Institute. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
FL: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AF: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. DD: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. BI: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This research was funded by the Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi, Sains, dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. The author(s) verify and take full responsibility for the use of generative AI in the preparation of this manuscript. Generative AI was used only to support language refinement, grammar improvement, and stylistic editing. The conceptual development, research design, data analysis, theoretical arguments, and interpretation of findings were entirely prepared by the author(s). All content generated by AI was carefully reviewed, validated, and revised by the author(s) to ensure accuracy and intellectual integrity.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Andalib Ardakani, D., Soltanmohammadi, A., and Seuring, S. (2022). The impact of customer and supplier collaboration on green supply chain performance. Benchmarking Int. J. 30, 2248–2274. doi: 10.1108/BIJ-12-2020-0655
Arda, O. A., Montabon, F., Tatoglu, E., Golgeci, I., and Zaim, S. (2021). Toward a holistic understanding of sustainability in corporations: resource-based view of sustainable supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 28, 193–208. doi: 10.1108/SCM-08-2021-0385
Aronow, P. M., and Samii, C. (2016). Does regression produce representative estimates of causal effects? Am. J. Polit. Sci. 60, 250–267. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12185
Asiaei, K., Rezaee, Z., Bontis, N., Barani, O., and Sapiei, N. S. (2021). Knowledge assets, capabilities and performance measurement systems: a resource orchestration theory approach. J. Knowl. Manag. 25, 1947–1976. doi: 10.1108/JKM-09-2020-0721
Baert, C., Meuleman, M., Debruyne, M., and Wright, M. (2016). Portfolio entrepreneurship and resource orchestration. Strateg. Entrep. J. 10, 346–370. doi: 10.1002/sej.1227
Badaruddin, B., Yusriadi, Y., and Fatmasari, F. (2025). Organizational dynamics of employee performance in Indonesian banking with reference to Islamic work values and workplace engagement. Discover Global Society, 3:180. doi: 10.1007/s44282-025-00328-9
Ban, I., Troelsen, A., and Kristensen, M. T. (2016). High inter-rater reliability, agreement, and convergent validity of constant score in patients with clavicle fractures. J. Shoulder Elb. Surg. 25, 1577–1582. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.02.022,
Baumgartner, M., and Ambühl, M. (2021). Optimizing consistency and coverage in configurational causal modeling. Sociol. Methods Res. 52, 1288–1320. doi: 10.1177/0049124121995554
Beckstead, J. W. (2012). Isolating and examining sources of suppression and multicollinearity in multiple linear regression. Multivar. Behav. Res. 47, 224–246. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2012.658331,
Biedenbach, G., and Manzhynski, S. (2016). Internal branding and sustainability: investigating perceptions of employees. J. Prod. Brand. Manag. 25, 296–306. doi: 10.1108/JPBM-06-2015-0913
Bollen, K. A. (2011). Evaluating effect, composite, and causal indicators in structural equation models. MIS Q. 35, 359–372. doi: 10.2307/23044047
Boström, M., Jönsson, A. M., Lockie, S., Mol, A. P. J., and Oosterveer, P. (2015). Sustainable and responsible supply chain governance: challenges and opportunities. J. Clean. Prod. 107, 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.050
Cantele, S., Russo, I., Kirchoff, J. F., and Valcozzena, S. (2023). Supply chain agility and sustainability performance: a configurational approach to sustainable supply chain management practices. J. Clean. Prod. 414:137493. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137493
Carnes, C. M., Chirico, F., Hitt, M. A., Huh, D. W., and Pisano, V. (2017). Resource orchestration for innovation: structuring and bundling resources in growth- and maturity-stage firms. Long Range Plan. 50, 472–486. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2016.07.003
Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., and Wang, L. C. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: a review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 41, 745–783. doi: 10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y
Chowhan, J. (2016). Unpacking the black box: understanding the relationship between strategy, HRM practices, innovation and organizational performance. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 26, 112–133. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12097
Cori, L., Bianchi, F., Sprovieri, M., Cuttitta, A., Ruggieri, S., Alessi, A. L., et al. (2019). Communication and community involvement to support risk governance. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16:4356. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16224356,
Costa, F., Frecassetti, S., Rossini, M., and Portioli-Staudacher, A. (2023). Industry 4.0 digital technologies enhancing sustainability: applications and barriers from the agricultural industry in an emerging economy. J. Clean. Prod. 408:137208. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137208
Dahlmann, F., and Roehrich, J. K. (2019). Sustainable supply chain management and partner engagement to manage climate change information. Bus. Strat. Environ. 28, 1632–1647. doi: 10.1002/bse.2392
Day, G. S., and Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2016). Adapting to fast-changing markets and technologies. Calif. Manag. Rev. 58, 59–77. doi: 10.1525/cmr.2016.58.4.59
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., and Samar Ali, S. (2015). Exploring the relationship between leadership, operational practices, institutional pressures and environmental performance: a framework for green supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 160, 120–132. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.10.001
Ebrahim, A., and Rangan, V. K. (2014). What impact? A framework for measuring the scale and scope of social performance. Calif. Manag. Rev. 56, 118–141. doi: 10.1525/cmr.2014.56.3.118
Evans, N. G. (2016). Sustainable competitive advantage in tourism organizations: a strategic model applying service dominant logic and tourism’s defining characteristics. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 18, 14–25. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2015.12.015
Franco, S. (2021). The influence of the external and internal environments of multinational enterprises on the sustainability commitment of their subsidiaries: a cluster analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 297:126654. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126654
Frostenson, M., and Prenkert, F. (2015). Sustainable supply chain management when focal firms are complex: a network perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 107, 85–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.034
Gani, A., Bhanot, N., Talib, F., and Asjad, M. (2022). An integrated DEMATEL-MMDE-ISM approach for analyzing environmental sustainability indicators in MSMEs. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29, 2035–2051. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-15194-6,
Geremew, Y. M., Huang, W.-J., and Hung, K. (2023). Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis as a mixed-method and analysis technique: a comprehensive systematic review. J. Travel Res. 63, 3–26. doi: 10.1177/00472875231168619
Hitchcock, J. H., and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2019). Developing mixed methods crossover analysis approaches. J. Mixed Methods Res. 14, 63–83. doi: 10.1177/1558689819841782
Hong, J., Zhang, Y., and Ding, M. (2018). Sustainable supply chain management practices, supply chain dynamic capabilities, and enterprise performance. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3508–3519. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.093
Hourneaux, F. Jr., Gabriel, M. L. d. S., and Gallardo-Vázquez, D. A. (2018). Triple bottom line and sustainable performance measurement in industrial companies. Rev. Gest. 25, 413–429. doi: 10.1108/REGE-04-2018-0065
Ingold, K., and Balsiger, J. (2015). Sustainability principles put into practice: case studies of network analysis in Swiss climate change adaptation. Reg. Environ. Chang. 15, 529–538. doi: 10.1007/s10113-013-0575-7
Jiang, H., He, B., Mubarik, M. S., and Shi, S. (2024). Role of supply chain digitalization and global supply chain in decarbonization of natural resources sector supply chain. J. Environ. Manag. 370:122689. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.122689,
Latif, F., Pérez, A., Alam, W., and Saqib, A. (2018). Development and validation of a multi-dimensional customer-based scale to measure perceptions of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Soc. Responsib. J. 15, 492–512. doi: 10.1108/SRJ-03-2018-0080
Lu, Y., Zhang, M. M., Yang, M. M., and Wang, Y. (2023). Sustainable human resource management practices, employee resilience, and employee outcomes: toward common good values. Hum. Resour. Manag. 62, 331–353. doi: 10.1002/hrm.22153
Maletič, M., Maletič, D., and Gomišček, B. (2018). The role of contingency factors on the relationship between sustainability practices and organizational performance. J. Clean. Prod. 171, 423–433. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.172
Mani, V., Agarwal, R., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., and Childe, S. J. (2016). Social sustainability in the supply chain: construct development and measurement validation. Ecol. Indic. 71, 270–279. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.007
Masood, T., Israr, A., Zubair, M., and Qazi, U. W. (2023). Assessing challenges to sustainability and resilience of energy supply chain in Pakistan: a developing economy from triple bottom line and UN SDGs’ perspective. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 42, 268–288. doi: 10.1080/14786451.2023.2189489
Miceli, A., Hagen, B., Riccardi, M. P., Sotti, F., and Settembre-Blundo, D. (2021). Thriving, not just surviving in changing times: how sustainability, agility and digitalization intertwine with organizational resilience. Sustainability 13:2052. doi: 10.3390/su13042052
Najjar, M., Yasin, M. M., Bell, M. Z., and Bell, D. (2024). Investigating social sustainability practices in global supply networks: a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 447:141590. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141590
Nicoletti Junior, A., de Oliveira, M. C., and Helleno, A. L. (2018). Sustainability evaluation model for manufacturing systems based on the correlation between triple bottom line dimensions and balanced scorecard perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 190, 84–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.136
Nogueira, E., Gomes, S., and Lopes, J. M. (2025). Unveiling triple bottom line’s influence on business performance. Discov. Sustain. 6:43. doi: 10.1007/s43621-025-00804-x
Panigrahi, R. R., Jena, D., Meher, J. R., and Shrivastava, A. K. (2022). Assessing the impact of supply chain agility on operational performances-a PLS-SEM approach. Meas. Bus. Excel. 27, 1–24. doi: 10.1108/MBE-06-2021-0073
Pellegrini, C., Rizzi, F., and Frey, M. (2018). The role of sustainable human resource practices in influencing employee behavior for corporate sustainability. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 27, 1221–1232. doi: 10.1002/bse.2064
Sarkis, J., Kouhizadeh, M., and Zhu, Q. S. (2020). Digitalization and the greening of supply chains. Ind. Manage. Data Syst. 121, 65–85. doi: 10.1108/IMDS-08-2020-0450
Schmidt, J. C. (2011). “Challenged by instability and complexity…: questioning classic stability assumptions and presuppositions in scientific methodology” in Philosophy of complex systems. ed. C. Hooker, vol. 10. (Amsterdam: North-Holland), 223–254.
Sharma, R., Fantin, A.-R., Prabhu, N., Guan, C., and Dattakumar, A. (2016). Digital literacy and knowledge societies: a grounded theory investigation of sustainable development. Telecommun. Policy 40, 628–643. doi: 10.1016/j.telpol.2016.05.003
Shi, Z., and Fan, D. (2025). Dual mechanisms of digital transformation in sustaining green innovation: a supply chain perspective on capability–motivation dynamics. Sustainability 17:9005. doi: 10.3390/su17209005
Siems, E., Seuring, S., and Schilling, L. (2023). Stakeholder roles in sustainable supply chain management: a literature review. J. Bus. Econ. 93, 747–775. doi: 10.1007/s11573-022-01117-5
Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., and Gilbert, B. A. (2010). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: breadth, depth, and life cycle effects. J. Manage. 37, 1390–1412. doi: 10.1177/0149206310385695
Sun, F., Qu, Z., Wu, B., and Bold, S. (2024). Enhancing global supply chain distribution resilience through digitalization: insights from natural resource sector of China. Resour. Policy 95:105169. doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2024.105169
Tamsah, H., Yusriadi, Y., and Ilyas, G. B. (2022). Supply chain of agriculture extension agent quality. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Proj. Manag. 13, 1–13. doi: 10.4018/ijitpm.311849
Turner, J. R., and Baker, R. M. (2019). Complexity theory: an overview with potential applications for the social sciences. Systems 7:4. doi: 10.3390/systems7010004
Weber, Z., Badia, G., and Girard, P. (2016). What is an inconsistent truth table? Australas. J. Philos. 94, 533–548. doi: 10.1080/00048402.2015.1093010
Weber, E., and Leuridan, B. (2008). Counterfactual causality, empirical research, and the role of theory in the social sciences. Hist. Methods 41, 197–201. doi: 10.3200/HTMS.41.4.197-201
Wu, K.-J., Tseng, M.-L., Chiu, A. S. F., and Lim, M. K. (2017). Achieving competitive advantage through supply chain agility under uncertainty: a novel multi-criteria decision-making structure. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 190, 96–107. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.027
Xu, Y., Chin, W., Liu, Y., and He, K. (2022). Do institutional pressures promote green innovation? The effects of cross-functional coopetition in green supply chain management. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 53, 743–761. doi: 10.1108/IJPDLM-03-2022-0104
Yusriadi, Y. (2025). Building rural resilience: food security through tourism and agricultural development in Indonesia. Discover Applied Sciences, 7:1272. doi: 10.1007/s42452-025-07763-y
Yusriadi, Y., Awaluddin, M., Firman, H., and Asrijal, A. (2022). Implementation of e-commerce in supply chain management. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 10, 1279–1288. doi: 10.5267/j.uscm.2022.7.012
Keywords: adaptive business models, digital capability, resource-based sectors, supply chain agility, sustainable supply chains
Citation: Latief F, Firman A, Dirwan D and Ilham BU (2026) Sustainable and adaptive agile supply chains for resource-based business actors in Indonesia. Front. Sustain. 7:1750248. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2026.1750248
Edited by:
Aditi Khanna, University of Delhi, IndiaReviewed by:
Adarsh Anand, University of Delhi, IndiaDewan Nabil, University of Warwick, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2026 Latief, Firman, Dirwan and Ilham. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Fitriani Latief, Zml0cmlhbmlsYXRpZWYyQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==