Toward holistic corporate sustainability—Developing employees' action competence for sustainability in small and medium‐sized enterprises through training

Schröder, Sophia; Wiek, Arnim; Farny, Steffen; Luthardt, Philip Article — Published Version Toward holistic corporate sustainability—Developing employees' action competence for sustainability in small and medium‐sized enterprises through training Business Strategy and the Environment Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Schröder, Sophia; Wiek, Arnim; Farny, Steffen; Luthardt, Philip (2022) : Toward holistic corporate sustainability—Developing employees' action competence for sustainability in small and medium‐sized enterprises through training, Business Strategy and the Environment, ISSN 1099-0836, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 32, Iss. 4, pp. 1650-1669, https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3210 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/288036 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ RESEARCH ARTICLE Toward holistic corporate sustainability—Developing employees' action competence for sustainability in small and medium-sized enterprises through training Sophia Schröder 1,2 | Arnim Wiek 1,2 | Steffen Farny 3 | Philip Luthardt 4 1 Center for Global Sustainability and Cultural Transformation, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany 2 School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 3 Centre for Sustainability Management, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany 4 Bohlsener Mühle, Bohlsen, Gerdau, Germany Correspondence Sophia Schröder, Stresemannstrasse 7, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany. Email: [email protected] Funding information Belmont Forum and the Joint Programming Initiative Urban Europe, Grant/Award Number: 0000-0003-1599-2199; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Grant/Award Number: 50658-10029 Abstract To advance holistic corporate sustainability in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) requires employees to fully engage in sustainability efforts, which, in return, means to develop employees' action competence for sustainability. Little empirical evidence, however, exists on how to do this considering well-known constraints SMEs face (time, expertise, resources). We present a transdisciplinary project that developed, delivered, and evaluated a sustainability training for the workforce of the Bohlsener Mühle, an SME that has pioneered corporate sustainability in Germany. The training was piloted for the business' apprentices and combined different learning modes to build participants' sustainable action competence. The pre-post evaluation, supported by observations and qualitative interviews, revealed that employees' action competence for sustainability can be fostered through such trainings and is most effective if organizational factors that enable a corporate culture of sustainability are aligned. We conclude that a human-centered and action-oriented approach to training is needed to unleash the full potential of the workforce to advance corporate sustainability. KEYWORDS employee engagement, sustainability-oriented workforce, sustainable human resource management, sustainable workforce education, transdisciplinary case study 1|INTRODUCTION Businesses increasingly recognize that a holistic approach to corporate sustainability enables and empowers the entire workforce to adopt sustainable practices as opposed to delegating sustainability to a few experts (Süßbauer et al., 2019; Witjes et al., 2017). Such an approach positively influences businesses' sustainability and overall performance while enhancing employees' productivity, satisfaction, retention, and identification with the corporation, as well as the attraction of new employees (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Roscoe et al., 2019; Sánchez-Marín et al., 2021). Sustainable human resource management (SHRM) develops employees' sustainability competencies and fosters a corporate sustainability culture (Macke & Genari, 2019; Pellegrini et al., 2018). Sustainability trainings are key SHRM measures that positively influence employees' propensity to act sustainably at work, as Pellegrini et al.'s (2018) study in the retail sector, Roscoe et al.'s (2019) study in the manufacturing sector, and Cop et al.'s (2020) study in the hotel industry show. Abbreviations: HR, human resource; HRM, human resource management; SHRM, sustainable human resoure management; SME, small and medium‐sized enterprise. Received: 8 October 2021 Revised: 23 June 2022 Accepted: 7 July 2022 DOI: 10.1002/bse.3210 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2022 The Authors. Business Strategy and The Environment published by ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1650 Bus Strat Env. 2023;32:1650–1669. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bse However, SMEs often struggle with building sustainability competence in their workforce due to limited time, expertise, and monetary resources (Bos-Brouwers, 2010; Davies, 2014). Although the workforce is an ideal leverage point for advancing corporate sustainability also in SMEs (Bikefe et al., 2020), there is a void of sustainability trainings that reflect the specific needs and constraints of SMEs (National Environmental Education Foundation [NEEF], 2009). Moreover, corporate sustainability training programs focus on conveying basic information about sustainability, often restricted to resource efficiency (Davies, 2014). Yet, they rarely enable and empower employees to engage with sustainability holistically and to act sustainably (Langwell & Heaton, 2016). Specific trainings are missing that foster action competence for sustainability, that is, the willingness, ability, and confidence to act sustainably in professional and private contexts (Piasentin & Roberts, 2018; Vermeulen & Witjes, 2016). There is a need for empirical research on how SMEs can develop action competence for sustainability in their workforce through training. We conducted a transdisciplinary study with the Bohlsener Mühle, a grain milling SME in Northern Germany that received the German Sustainability Award for SMEs in 2015 and has been a finalist in 2021. This case illustrates that even SMEs with a strong track record in sustainability, sometimes struggle to engage the workforce comprehensively in their sustainability efforts. In part, this is due to not fully seizing the potential of SHRM. At times, however, it is also due to rapid business success—the more employees need to get hired with little consideration of their sustainability orientation, the less they contribute to the enterprise's sustainability efforts, and the more important is training that builds a workforce capable of advancing the enterprise's sustainability performance. While committed to sustainable workforce development, the Bohlsener Mühle has struggled with these issues (like many other SMEs), and thus offers a suitable empirical setting to examine how to cope with them. Through a close collaboration between university researchers and the Bohlsener Mühle, we developed, delivered, and evaluated a training for developing action competence for sustainability in the workforce. The training was piloted with the business' apprentices (n=8) and facilitated different learning modes. Effects of the training were evaluated, and success and hindering factors were identified through pre-post surveys, observations, and semistructured interviews. Our study offers contributions to the literature on holistic corporate sustainability in SMEs, SHRM, and sustainability trainings. From a workforce-development perspective, we expand research on sustainability education and competence development in corporate contexts (Langwell & Heaton, 2016; Sass et al., 2020). Specifically, we provide insights into how sustainability training influences participants' action competence and the need for a comprehensive approach to such trainings. From an organizational perspective, we strengthen previous work on the importance of trainings for holistic corporate sustainability in SMEs (Roscoe et al., 2019; Witjes et al., 2017) by highlighting the need to not only develop employees' sustainability orientation but also their engagement in sustainable actions. We also illustrate the role of training as a key SHRM measure (Pellegrini et al., 2018)by shedding light on the organizational factors that influence the development and use of employees' action competence in day-to-day operations. As such, we assert the call to pay attention to comprehensive SHRM to achieve holistic corporate sustainability (Vermeulen & Witjes, 2016). 2|CASE SELECTION—THE BOHLSENER MÜHLE We used a case study approach to illustrate how SMEs can develop sustainable action competence in their workforce through training (Siggelkow, 2007). Applying a set of case sampling criteria to select a suitable case in need of this workforce development, we sampled the Bohlsener Mühle (see Table 1), located in Bohlsen, Lower Saxony, Germany. This SME sources, processes, and distributes organic grains, flours, and baked products. The company was founded in 1952 based on the homonymous mill which existed since 1265. Fierce TABLE 1 Key features of the Bohlsener Mühle selected for the case study Criterion Bohlsener Mühle 1. Is an SME 290 employees, €58m annual revenue (2020) 2. Strives for holistic corporate sustainability - Sustainability strategy (since 1979) and performance, including: •100% organic ingredients •Using renewable energy •Local sourcing and production (e.g., quinoa project) •Climate-positive strategy until 2025 - Office of Sustainability [1 manager, 1 trainee] since 2016 - Winner of the German Sustainability Award for SMEs in 2015 - Finalist of the German Sustainability Award for SMEs in 2021 - One of the first We Care certified companies worldwide in 2021 3. Recognizes the need for workforce development - Mostly focused on environmental aspects so far - Top-down management, limited workforce engagement - Recognized importance of workforce development - Initial sustainable workforce development project (2018) - Current challenges: •Workforce fluctuation of 12.8% in 2020 •60 new employees in 2020 •Limited sustainability orientation of new employees Sources: Bohlsener Mühle (2021a,2021b,2021c) and Wiek et al. (2018). SCHRÖDER ET AL.1651 competition from large high-performance mills led Volker Krause to focus on organic grain products when taking over the mill from his father in 1979. This focus and the comprehensive restructuring of the Bohlsener Mühle made the company become a sustainability pioneer in Germany. The Bohlsener Mühle strives to create a sustainable impact beyond the corporate borders. As an intermediary supply-chain actor, it has used its position to infuse sustainability upstream (organic farming) and downstream (retail of organic products). The company also contributes to the economic, social, and cultural development of the region. Internally, the company has recognized the importance of the workforce for advancing corporate sustainability (Wiek et al., 2018). Yet, progress on this approach has proven to be challenging due to different needs and working conditions of employees in administration vs. production, as well as the business growth, workforce fluctuation, and shortage of skilled labor. Meanwhile, further advancing environmental practices and regional engagement occupies the corporation's sustainability focus and resources. The case of Bohlsener Mühle represents a success story of a corporate sustainability transformation. Yet, it also illustrates continuous challenges in pursuing holistic corporate sustainability and sheds light on the importance of workforce development and SHRM. Relevant to many SMEs, the case of the Bohlsener Mühle offers both lessons of encouragement and caution. 3|LINKING SUSTAINABILITY TRAINING, ACTION COMPETENCE, AND SME PERFORMANCE A capable and valued workforce can engage in a broad arsenal of sustainable actions (Bacq & Alt, 2018) that positively influence an SME's sustainability performance (Figure 1, Arrow 3), including thoughtful innovation, proactive monitoring, sustainable practices/routines, compassionate communication, continuous learning, respectful advocacy, responsible decision making, purposeful community work, comprehensive self-care, and mutual support among employees (Wiek et al., 2018). It requires action competence for sustainability (Figure 1, Arrow 2) for a workforce to engage in sustainable actions, defined as the willingness, ability, and confidence of employees to advance sustainability at work and in private (Wiek, 2020). Action competence for sustainability offers employees specific thinking skills, that is, to be able to plan (assess the current state, set a goal, develop a sequence of actions), and application skills, that is, to be able to implement the plan (Brundiers et al., 2021; Redman & Wiek, 2021). Of the several SHRM measures suitable for advancing corporate sustainability, such as recruitment and internal communication, workforce training is the most direct because it targets action competence for sustainability (Pellegrini et al., 2018; Piasentin & Roberts, 2018) (Figure 1, Arrow 1). Previous studies have shown that sustainability trainings in SMEs had positive effects on employees' confidence and sustainable actions at work (Gray & Jones, 2016) as well as the financial success of SMEs (SánchezMarín et al., 2021). Finally, organizational factors affect the training process, employees' action competence, and the possible scope of action for sustainability (Figure 1, Arrows 4). Elements of the corporate sustainability culture, such as corporate commitment and organizational support, set the stage for sustainable workforce development (Cop et al., 2020; Roscoe et al., 2019). Figure 1summarizes the underlying theory of change that informs the design of the training program and the research design (see sections below): The sustainability training enhances employees' action competence for sustainability; which, in turn, enables employees to act sustainably in professional and private life; which, finally, positively affects corporate sustainability (and beyond); if supported by conducive organizational factors. This research focuses on evaluating the effects of the training on employees' action competence for sustainability and the role of organizational factors. Longitudinal effects on employees' sustainable FIGURE 1 Theoretical model for the research project 1652 SCHRÖDER ET AL. actions and overall corporate sustainability are outside the research scope. 4|RESEARCH DESIGN We adopted a transdisciplinary approach (Lang et al., 2012) to integrate scientific knowledge and professional experiences. This allowed to (1) design and deliver an effective sustainability training, suited to the needs of the enterprise and its employees; (2) evaluate the training program regarding parameters relevant to the enterprise; (3) gain an understanding of influential organizational factors; and (4) generate insights to offer guidance to other SMEs on sustainability trainings for their workforce. Figure 2summarizes the structure of this transdisciplinary project, highlighting the contributions of the Bohlsener Mühle and the scientific research team on the left side and specifying the research process on the right side. 4.1 |Training design and delivery The sustainability training was designed and delivered in a transdisciplinary cooperation between the researchers (offering insights from previous studies and the literature) and the sustainability manager and trainee from the Bohlsener Mühle (providing insights on the enterprise, the workforce, and relevant organizational factors). Due to the COVID-19 restrictions, all training sessions were delivered virtually (Zoom). To foster interactions, the training sessions made use of Miro, a virtual whiteboard that can be edited by all participants (Appendix A.1). The training consists of three training sessions and two practical application phases in-between. Table 2summarizes the training structure and utilized materials. All elements build upon each other, starting with a general familiarization with sustainability (Training session 1) and leading to practical ideas that could enhance sustainability at the Bohlsener Mühle, if implemented (Training session 3). Throughout the training, participants' role is intended to shift from reception to engagement to foster sustainable action competence (Wiek, 2020): a. Participants receive inputs on sustainable actions: Developing action competence best starts with conveying knowledge about sustainability problems as well as pathways to problem-solving and future visions (Jensen, 2004). Employees can get inspired by knowing the suite of sustainable actions as well as tangible and practical examples from other SMEs. b. Participants experience sustainable actions: Witnessing sustainable actions through field visits, “shadowing”professionals, and so forth can further develop sustainable action competence (Jensen & Schnack, 1997; Piasentin & Roberts, 2018). Experiencing sustainable actions enhances the understanding of required skills and resources, as well as barriers and impacts (Breiting et al., 2009). c. Participants experiment with sustainable actions: Finally, particularly for action competence, learning by doing is essential (Læssøe, 2010). Practical workshops, apprenticeships, and so forth support this mode of learning. It might even be beneficial to provide some of this training directly in the work environment where employees act. d. Providing opportunities for reflections through discussion and feedback allows participants to put the learned content into perspective and facilitates lasting learning effects (Piasentin & Roberts, 2018). The training structure incorporates all four modes of learning (Table 2). Inputs are given throughout all training elements in the form of personal talks, videos, or texts. Participants experience sustainability actions mainly in training sessions 1 and 2 through given practice FIGURE 2 Structure of the transdisciplinary research process (based on Lang et al., 2012) SCHRÖDER ET AL.1653 examples and guest speakers. Furthermore, the practical phase 1 focuses on creating opportunities for the participants to witness sustainable actions in their day-to-day life. The practical phases also allow participants to experiment with sustainable actions. While the training sessions mainly focus on collaborative reflection, the practical sessions encourage an individual reflective process within the work environment. 4.2 |Data collection Data on eight apprentices of the Bohlsener Mühle aged 18 and older was collected through a pre-training and a post-training questionnaire, as well as semi-structured interviews and observation notes. The research project draws on a single-case study design (Siggelkow, 2007) and a combination of qualitative and quantitative TABLE 2 Overview of elements, goals and content, and pedagogies of the sustainability training Training Element Goal and Content Methods and materials Training session 1: Sustainability understanding; 6.5 h Building a foundation for the training 1. Introduction of participants to each other, the utilized tools, and the training structure 2. Introduction to sustainability 3. Sustainability activities along Bohlsener Mühle's supply and value chain 4. Guest speakers: Contracted local farmer, Bohlsener Mühle's managing owner 5. Introduction to the task for the observational phase 6. Wrap-up and initial feedback Inputs, videos, exercises (participants only), guest speakers Practical phase 1: Observational phase; 10 working days Discovering sustainability aspects in daily life 1. Introduction of three focus topics: waste, mobility, organic agriculture 2. Focus on one sustainable action (proactive monitoring and evaluation): making it tangible at work 3. Challenges that encourage experimenting with sustainable actions (e.g., zero-waste day) 4. Impulses to think about solutions for experienced challenges 5. Reflection on encountered challenges Journal with texts and tasks (Appendix A.2) inspired by a sustainable vocational training in the food industry (Pranger & Hantke, 2020; Pranger, Heitzhausen, Loga, & Flohr-Spence, n.d.). Training session 2: Sustainability actions; 3.5 h Familiarizing with sustainability actions and their role for developing ideas for application 1. Check-in and reflections on the first training session 2. Presentation of the full suite of sustainable actions 3. Reflections on the experiences with sustainable actions in the observational phase 4. Focus on one sustainable action (creative and thoughtful innovation) based on a practice example 5. Developing an application idea for each of the three focus topics 6. Introduction to the task for the experimental phase 7. Wrap-up and interim feedback Inputs, videos, exercises (guided by one of the three trainers) Practical phase 2: Experimental phase; 9 working days Experimenting with sustainable actions to further develop the application ideas from training session 2 1. Information on the sustainable actions 2. Step-by-step guide through a canvas-inspired scheme for idea development (description of the problem and the idea, implementation plan, required resources, expected added value) 3. Impulses to utilize specific sustainable actions to advance the application ideas 4. Reflection on encountered challenges Journal with texts and tasks Training session 3: Sustainability ideas; 3.5 h Further development and exchange on the application ideas 1. Check-in and reflection on the second training session 2. Reviewing and revising the application ideas (checking their completeness, contribution to sustainability, and feasibility of implementation) 3. Pitch of the ideas (one per each group) and feedback round 4. Exchange and discussion with the sustainability manager 5. Concluding reflections and feedback Inputs, groupworks (guided by one of the three trainers), feedback and discussion rounds 1654 SCHRÖDER ET AL. analytical techniques. Following principles of case study research, we engaged with staff and leadership at the Bohlsener Mühle to develop trustful relationships and triangulated the findings via multiple data sources for increased validity (Gibbert & Ruigrok, 2010). The pre-training questionnaire (online or on paper) captured the different components of action competence for sustainability and collected basic demographic data on age, gender, educational background as well as year and type of apprenticeship. It adopted the scale for self-perceived action competence for sustainability developed by Olsson et al. (2020) and was supplemented by questions from other validated scales, such as items adapted from the New Environmental Paradigm scale (van Liere & Dunlap, 1981; other scales were adapted from, e.g., Craig & Allen, 2013; de Groot & Steg, 2008; Perrault & Clark, 2017). Considering the limitations of competence assessments based on self-perception (Redman et al., 2021), we also included questions to test participants' sustainability knowledge (various types). The post-training questionnaire consisted of the same questions with additional questions, e.g., about the satisfaction with and self-perceived impact of the overall training. Sections, sources, scales, and exemplary items used in the questionnaires are compiled in Appendix A.3. To validate survey data and gain deeper insights, short (30 min.) semistructured interviews were conducted with all participants (Zoom) the day after the training was completed. The interviews had a similar thematic structure as the questionnaires (Appendix A.4). Initial analysis of survey data informed the interviews. Additional data points stem from observations before, during, and after the training. While the project set-up and wrap-up notes are based on collaborative exchanges with the project partners from the Bohlsener Mühle, training notes reflect on interim evaluations, feedback rounds, and content from the journals. We obtained six complete data sets from participants. One data set includes an incomplete post-training questionnaire (due to participant's time constraints), and one data set misses the pre-training and post-training questionnaires. Even though the depth and validity of data differs within and across the participants, the combination of questionnaires, interviews, and observations in a mixed-methods design generated rich data providing in-depth insights into the participants' learning processes during the training as well as crucial organizational factors. 4.3 |Data analysis The training program was evaluated as a purposeful intervention toward an action-competent, sustainability-oriented workforce (Alvarez et al., 2004). We investigated changes in participants' action competence (training effects) and factors for the observed changes. Interviews were transcribed and coded with MAXQDA based on the theoretical model. Observation data were not systematically analyzed but used to complement the previous analyses. First, the effects of the training on the participants' action competence for sustainability were analyzed in three steps. Step 1, the data from the questionnaires was coded with numeric values and aggregated on the level of the overarching construct. For comparability, values were normalized (0-1). The delta between the normalized pretraining and post-training scores for each category was calculated and rated (significant change, if difference ≥1-point; slight change, if ≥0.5-point). Step 2, the additional post-training questions were analyzed similarly. Step 3, interview data and documented observations nuanced previous insights. Second, to identify the relevant training elements, the interviews were inductively coded for mentioned content and pedagogical approaches. To identify relevant individual traits/behavior a comparative analysis was conducted (pre-training vs. post-training scores). A heterogeneity analysis compared each participant's score to the mean value of all participants (lower/higher if difference >1-point). We also identified organizational factors of the enterprise (Bohlsener Mühle) that offered explanations for the identified training effects, based on pre-training and post-training comparison, additional post-training questions, and the interviews. Third, the training design was evaluated through post-training questions as well as participants' feedback and documented observations. Figure 3summarizes the steps of data collection (light grey boxes) and analysis (dark grey boxes) as well as provides information on how the analyzed data were triangulated. 5|EFFECTSONACTIONCOMPETENCE FOR SUSTAINABILITY While the analysis revealed that the sustainability training program had positive effects on participants' sustainable action competence, the effects were strong for six participants, but only minimal for two participants (Table 3, arrows). The changes in participants' action competence were evaluated based on the summative changes in their willingness,ability, and confidence to act. However, we deemed slight changes in only one of the three areas to be not sufficient for an overall increase of action competence, explaining the limited effect of the training on Participants 7 and 8. The positive change in all three measures offers strong evidence of the training effects on action competence, as experienced by most participants. Additionally, Table 3 shows the positive effect of the training on participants' engagement in sustainability actions. 5.1 |Effects on the willingness to act sustainably The training had positive effects on the majority (6) of the participants' willingness to act sustainably. Willingness to act is expressed through motivation and commitment to act (Sass et al., 2020). This often means self-motivation, because sustainable actions are typically “not explicitly recognized by the formal reward system” (Boiral, 2009, p. 223). The analysis shows participants' increased SCHRÖDER ET AL.1655 personal interest, perceived importance of sustainability (in general), and motivation to engage in specific sustainable actions. At the same time, we neither found changes in motives (biocentric, altruistic, egocentric) nor in underlying attitudes toward sustainability. This is not surprising as motives and attitudes are mainly formed through socialization and linked to habitual components and personality traits (Plath, 2002). It is unlikely that such changes occur through a 4-week-training program. The personal interest in and perceived importance of sustainability (slightly) increased for almost all participants and helped them to realize “how important this topic is […] and that it is good for everyone to know about it”(Int. #5). The training served as a “nudge […] to think about it [sustainability] more actively and engage more” (Int. #3). This includes the continuity of the training. Having several sessions over four weeks fostered participants' awareness for and motivation to engage with sustainability as they “always [had] in the back of [their] mind that there will be another training soon”(Int. #1). Experiencing and experimenting impacted participants' willingness to act: First, getting authentic insights into “lived”sustainability (local farmer) motivated the participants (Doc., T1). Furthermore, the solution-orientation of the training increased participants' motivation: “having dealt with the problems more closely and finding solutions, I found that now I have more desire to pay […] attention and also to behave more sustainably”(Int. #1). FIGURE 3 Overview of the data collection and analysis process, within a transdisciplinary research setting TABLE 3 Summary of training effects on participants' action competence for sustainability, its subcomponents, and sustainability actions. Arrows indicate change based on overall interpretation of all data. The colored precells and postcells indicate levels before and after the training based on the pre-training and post-training questionnaires (score <0.2: low; 0.2 ≤score <0.4: rather low; 0.4 ≤score <0.6: medium; 0.6 ≤score <0.8: rather high; score >0.8: high) Note: 1 Overall change as indicated through arrow differs from pre-post-training questionnaire comparison. 2 Solely interview data available due to missing pre-training and post-training questionnaires. 3 Missing post-training questionnaire data. 1656 SCHRÖDER ET AL. As a sign of commitment to act, four participants demonstrated an increased willingness to engage in specific sustainable actions resulting from the training. Participants mainly referred to proactive monitoring and evaluation, “to be more aware in general, to keep your eyes open […], to see what you notice and what you can improve” (Int. #4), as well as sustainable practices/routines, “I want to try to pay more attention when shopping and […] ride my bike more frequently […], but maybe also save energy”(Int. #1). Five apprentices expressed their willingness to pursue the sustainability ideas that they developed during the training. 5.2 |Effects on the ability to act sustainably The training had positive effects on the majority (5) of the participants' ability to act sustainably, which requires employees to possess theoretical and practical knowledge about sustainability, resources, technologies, human behavior, cost, impacts on the environment, and public health, and so forth (Plath, 2002; Sass et al., 2020). The analysis of participants' self-perception and an overall ability assessment shows an increase in all knowledge dimensions. First, six of the eight participants perceived to have a better general sustainability understanding and an increase in their topic-specific sustainability knowledge after the training. For example, it was new to them “that sustainability is not just about the environment”(Doc., T1). Differences in employees' corporate sustainability understanding can be bridged by more awareness of the corporation's sustainability practices (Linnenluecke et al., 2009). As a result, participants are more likely to act sustainably if they are familiar with sustainability as a concept of interlinked aspects and know corresponding corporate practices, as conveyed in the training. Familiarizing participants with sustainability through “theory in the first training”provided participants with the necessary theoretical knowledge and “made it much clearer [what] to pay attention [to]”(Int. #2). Some participants experienced a slight increase in topic-specific sustainability knowledge through the inputs of the guest speakers (e.g., Int. # 3), informative video clips, and topic-specific group work on waste, mobility, and organic agriculture (e.g., Int. #4) as well as during the practical phases “because you see it every day at work”(Int. #6). For those participants who did not experience an improved understanding, one already had an in-depth understanding beforehand and the other struggled to grasp the basic concept, which may be indicative of a deeper challenge regarding competence acquisition (Oakes et al., 2001). Second, the analysis revealed a slight increase in their knowledge about sustainability at the Bohlsener Mühle and an increase in general sustainability competencies, which indicates the acquisition of necessary application skills. The interviews reveal an increased understanding of responsibilities in the domain of sustainability management at the Bohlsener Mühle due to engaging with the sustainability manager during the training. This enhanced participants' knowledge about sustainability measures and also understanding the challenges of implementing measures due to trade-offs (e.g., Int. #7). Moreover, participants' general sustainability competencies were fostered through opportunities to experiment with sustainability actions, in which participants “learned to incorporate sustainability into everyday life”(Int. #4). This was related to guidance provided on how to develop sustainability solutions and enhanced the overall ability to act as participants understood the sequence from planning to taking action to “getting a good result”(Int. #2). Similarly, the guidance to reflect on the sustainability of actions and processes was perceived as “an impetus to continue”and was “good for working through […] specific aspects”(Int. #3), which indicates basic assessment skills. Lastly, frequent opportunities to exchange with others were mentioned as a factor that allowed participants to acquire knowledge from various perspectives. This also includes learning from others' experiences and fostering participants' interpersonal competence. 5.3 |Effects on the confidence to act sustainably The training had positive effects on all participants' confidence to act sustainably, which was assessed on the overarching level. Higher confidence in employees' ability to take action (i.e., self-efficacy) and their ability to reach the desired outcome (i.e., outcome expectancy) increase the ability of a workforce to engage in sustainability actions (Sass et al., 2020). Even though there still is a conflict between thinking “if you do it alone, it is useless”and “if you don't start, no one will do it”among participants, the training strengthened the conviction that everyone “can contribute something”(Int. #7). First, participants' confidence to act increased through gaining a more realistic perspective on the magnitude of their impact. Managing their expectation and realizing that “you can't go from 0 to 100, you have to develop step by step”(Int. #5) made advancing sustainability appear more manageable. For this participant, it was connected to focusing on the process and letting go of the aspiration to get solutions instantly: “If you do not start somewhere, then you will not get anywhere. Even if the starting point is not perfect, it doesn't mean that you have to give up, but you look for another entry point”(Int. #5). Furthermore, through the exchanges with others in groups, personal interactions in the practical phases, and insights into sustainable actions of others, the training strengthened participants' compassion and created a sense of cooperation. This includes exchanging directly with the sustainability manager, which made participants feel “being heard”. That the sustainability manager “got insights into things they didn't know and just listened to our [the participants] opinion about it”(Int. #5), helped participants feel more confident in their influence. Lastly, we discovered participants' success with engaging in actions during the practical phases contributed to their confidence to act. Besides developing ideas during the training, this also includes successfully motivating colleagues to behave sustainably. One participant concluded that “you have to make a start and motivate others”(Int. #1). SCHRÖDER ET AL.1657 Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work. Journal of Career Assessment,20(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1069072711436160 Süßbauer, E., Maas-Deipenbrock, R. M., Friedrich, S., Kreß-Ludwig, M., Langen, N., & Muster, V. (2019). Employee roles in sustainability transformation processes: A move away from expertise and towards experience-driven sustainability management. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society,28(1), 210–217. PMID: 10.14512/ gaia.28.S1.7. Tariq, S., Jan, F. A., & Ahmad, M. S. (2016). Green employee empowerment: A systematic literature review on state-of-art in green human resource management. Quality & Quantity,50(1), 237–269. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11135-014-0146-0 Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1981). Environmental concern. Environment and Behavior,13(6), 651–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0013916581136001 Vermeulen, W. J., & Witjes, S. (2016). On addressing the dual and embedded nature of business and the route towards corporate sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production,112, 2822–2832. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.132 Wiek, A. (2020). Building Capacity in SMEs to Adopt Sustainable Business Practices and Models. Working Paper. Wiek, A., Forrest, N., Femuko, R., Hagmaier, B., Tress Molina, N., Wollesen, G., & Lang, D. J. (2018). Die Bedeutung der Belegschaft für die Nachhaltigkeitsperformance von Unternehmen: Mit Anwendung auf die Bohlsener Mühle. Project Report. Witjes, S., Vermeulen, W. J., & Cramer, J. M. (2017). Exploring corporate sustainability integration into business activities. Experiences from 18 small and medium sized enterprises in the Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production,153, 528–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2016.02.027 Xie, X., & Zhu, Q. (2020). Exploring an innovative pivot: How green training can spur corporate sustainability performance. Business Strategy and the Environment,29(6), 2432–2449. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse. 2512 How to cite this article: Schröder, S., Wiek, A., Farny, S., & Luthardt, P. (2023). Toward holistic corporate sustainability—Developing employees' action competence for sustainability in small and medium-sized enterprises through training. Business Strategy and the Environment,32(4), 1650–1669. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3210 APPENDIX A A.1 |Structure of the Miro white board for training session T1 1664 SCHRÖDER ET AL. A.2 |Journal with texts and tasks for observational phase P1 (Exemplary pages) SCHRÖDER ET AL.1665 1666 SCHRÖDER ET AL. A.3 |Sections, sources, scales, and exemplary items in the pre-training and post-training questionnaires Section Sub-Section Source Items Type of Scale Exemplary Item Ability to act Overarching assessment Olsson et al., 2020 3 4-point Likert scale I know how one should take action at work to contribute to sustainability. General sustainability understanding—perception Craig & Allen, 2013 1 5-point Likert scale How would you rate your overall knowledge about sustainability? General sustainability understanding—test Chulián, 2011; Perrault & Clark, 2017; Pranger & Hantke, 2020 2 5-point scale (instructor) What is sustainability? What does sustainability encompass? Topic-specific sustainability knowledge—perception Rodriguez-Andara et al., 2018 16 5-point Likert scale To what extent are you familiar with the following topics?— Climate change Topic-specific sustainability knowledge—test Self-developed, based on Mau, 2020 20 3 2 Statements (r/w) Open questions (rated) Sorting questions (r/w) Currently, it is not possible to dispose of compostable packaging as organic waste. [right] Knowledge about sustainability at Bohlsener Mühle— perception Craig & Allen, 2013 1 5-point Likert scale How would you rate your overall knowledge about sustainability at Bohlsener Mühle? Knowledge about sustainability at Bohlsener Mühle—test Self-developed 2 4-point scale (instructor) Which sustainability activities of Bohlsener Mühle do you know? Please indicate for each activity how familiar you are with it. Key competencies for sustainability Savage et al., 2015 10 4-point Likert scale I am able to motivate positive change in others. Willingness to act Overarching assessment Olsson et al., 2020 4 4-point Likert scale I want to engage in changing society towards sustainability. Personal interest in and importance of sustainability Self-developed 2 4-point Likert scale How important is sustainability to you personally? Attitudes toward sustainability Murray, 2011; van Liere & Dunlap, 1981 12 4-point Likert scale The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources. Altruistic, biospheric, egoistic motives de Groot & Steg, 2008 9 4-point Likert scale It is important to the person to live in harmony with nature and to fit in with nature. Confidence to act Overarching assessment Olsson et al., 2020 4 4-point Likert scale I believe I can influence global sustainability through my actions. Sustainable actions Overarching assessment Self-developed, based on Wiek et al., 2018 12 4-point Likert scale I contribute suggestions on how work processes at Bohlsener Mühle can be made more sustainable. (Continues) SCHRÖDER ET AL.1667 Section Sub-Section Source Items Type of Scale Exemplary Item Contextual factors Importance of sustainability for Bohlsener Mühle Craig & Allen, 2013 2 3-point Likert scale How important do you perceive sustainability is to the longterm success of Bohlsener Mühle Importance of sustainability at the workplace Pranger & Hantke, 2020 8 4-point Likert scale How important is the knowledge of various certifications and labels for organic products for your work? Organizational support toward sustainability Lamm et al., 2015 5 4-point Likert scale My commitment to sustainability is valued by Bohlsener Mühle. Job satisfaction Oshagbemi, 1999 5 4-point Likert scale In general, how satisfied are you with your salary? Organizational commitment Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2000 6 4-point Likert scale I feel a strong sense of belonging to Bohlsener Mühle. Meaningful work Steger et al., 2012 3 4-point Likert scale I know that my work at Bohlsener Mühle has a positive impact on the world. Intention to stay at Bohlsener Mühle Self-developed 1 3-point Likert scale Can you imagine staying at Bohlsener Mühle after your apprenticeship? Additional postquestions Perception of training quality Ritzmann et al., 2014 10 4-point Likert scale Overall, I liked the sustainability training. Impact of the training on action competence Ritzmann et al., 2014 9 4-point Likert scale I have the impression that my knowledge has expanded on a long-term basis. Perception of the quality of the practical phases and journals Self-developed 7 per phase 4-point Likert scale Through the explanation in the first training and the instructions in the journal, I knew what to do in the observation phase. Impact of the practical phases on action competence Self-developed 7 per phase 4-point Likert scale During the observation phase, I was able to acquire knowledge with the help of the journal. Assessing the training structure Self-developed 3 Select. training elements Which part of the sustainability training did you like best? Contextual factors Self-developed 5 4-point Likert scale I have time to engage with sustainability in my day-today work. 1668 SCHRÖDER ET AL. A.4 |Interview structure 1. Welcome and thank you 2. Information on the interview logistics 3. Personal codeword 4. Questions from interviewees 5. Information on the interview aim 6. Reflecting on the training and its effects Ability to act •Sustainability knowledge: General sustainability understanding, topic-specific sustainability knowledge, knowledge about sustainability at Bohlsener Mühle •Competencies Willingness to act •Attitudes toward sustainability •Personal interest in sustainability Confidence to act Sustainability actions Including the transfer of training contents to the workday and the usefulness of the training in doing so 7. Reflecting on the practical phases and perceived contextual factors •Working with the journals •Experiences from practical phases •Contextual factors, particularly time and support •Further contextual factors 8. General training feedback 9. Additional comments SCHRÖDER ET AL.1669