A holistic approach to sustainability: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and corporate sustainability

Banelienė, Rūta; Strazdas, Rolandas Article A holistic approach to sustainability: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and corporate sustainability Contemporary Economics Provided in Cooperation with: VIZJA University, Warsaw Suggested Citation: Banelienė, Rūta; Strazdas, Rolandas (2025) : A holistic approach to sustainability: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and corporate sustainability, Contemporary Economics, ISSN 2300-8814, VIZJA University, Warsaw, Vol. 19, Iss. 2, pp. 186-207, https://doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.561 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/323490 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. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ www.ce.vizja.pl 186 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Human activities are having an increasingly negative impact on the environment at all scales. This situation creates an urgent need to shift human activities toward sustainable development at all levels—company, sector, country, region and global. However, national efforts to improve sustainability, as measured by national rankings on sustainable development goals (SDGs), may have a positive impact on the sustainability of one sector, including economic sustainability, while negatively affecting other sectors or even harming the social, economic, and environmental situation in other countries. Investing in a company's environmental sustainability may have a negative effect on its economic sustainability and overall environmental, social, and governance (ESG) score. This research focuses on the vertical dimension, from companies to global sustainability, and takes a holistic approach to fill a gap in the study of the link between a company's sustainability and the SDG scores at the national level. This study examines the impact of prioritizing sustainability at the national level on the profitability of Fortune 500 companies in Europe. Two comparable sectors, Industrials and Motor Vehicles & Parts, were selected to investigate the proposed hypotheses. The findings reveal that prioritizing sustainability can have a negative effect on the profitability of companies in sectors dependent on employee skills while benefiting companies in asset-dependent sectors. This study confirms that the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals may have varying impacts on different sectors within the same country and region. Modeling was conducted via the least squares method and EViews software. 1. Introduction1. Introduction Human activities are having increasingly negative impacts on the environment at all scales (Allan et al., 2021; Cirman et al., 2009). Therefore, there is an urgent need to shift human activity toward sustainable development. To achieve this goal, countries have adopted the Paris Agreement on climate change, with the goal of limiting global warming to well below 2 °C, preferably 1.5 °C, compared with preindustrial levels (European Commission, 2020; United Nations Environment Programme, 2024; United Nations Environment Programme, 2023). The European Union adopted its inaugural European Climate Law in 2021, which established the continent's objective of attaining climate neutrality by 2050 (Regulation (EU), 2021). As a pivotal component of the European Green Deal and the EU Biodiversity Strategy, the Regulation on Nature Restoration (Nature Restoration Law) was brought into force in 2024 (Regulation (EU), 2024). Current global environmental crises have not escaped the A Holistic Approach to Sustainability: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Corporate Sustainability ABSTRACT A10, C30, D04, D20, E17, F61, F63, L16, O30, O40. KEY WORDS: JEL Classification: SDG, holistic approach, vertical integration, Fortune 500 Europe. Rūta Banelienė, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Rūta Banelienė, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Plytinės str. 25, LT-10105, Vilnius, Lithuania. E-mail: [email protected] Rūta Banelienė and Rolandas Strazdas Primary submission: 17.11.2024 | Final acceptance: 08.03.2025 187 Adrian Peretz and Fred Strønen 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.561DOI: CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS Vol. 19 Issue 2 186-2072025 attention of business leaders (Bocken et al., 2020). Businesses are increasingly addressing sustainability issues for normative and instrumental reasons. Normative reasons include responding to global environmental degradation and social problems. Instrumental reasons include regulatory compliance, competitiveness, new revenue streams, cost savings, and talent attraction (Bernal-Torres, et al., 2023; Nidumolu et al., 2009). Despite this, the report published annually by the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD), in collaboration with over 50 international organizations, shows limited progress toward achieving the 17 sustainable development goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UNSD, 2023). The report and progress chart show that progress on nearly half (48%) of the 138 SDG targets that can be assessed is weak and insufficient, and 37% of the measurable SDG targets have either stalled or reversed, including key targets related to poverty, hunger, quality education, clean water and sanitation, decent work and economic growth, industry, innovation and infrastructure, inequalities, responsible consumption and production, climate action, life under water and on land, peace, justice and strong institutions (Ishida, 2023). These findings suggest that efforts by businesses, nation states, and international organizations, including financial investments, to promote global sustainability are not effective or may even have a negative impact. This suggests that the assumption that improving a company's sustainability will lead to an increase in national and global sustainability is not entirely accurate. Focusing on environmental issues, such as climate change, energy, water, biodiversity, and air pollution, can be challenging for companies that must also meet economic and social sustainability goals. Investing in a company's environmental sustainability may have a negative effect on its economic sustainability and overall environmental, social, and governance (ESG) score (UNSD, 2023). Increasing a company's sustainability in one sector may have adverse effects on another sector and the country's overall sustainability; the SDG ranking, which is based on an overall score, assesses a Figure 1 Visualization of the Research Gap: Linking National Sustainability to Company Sustainability www.ce.vizja.pl 188 A Holistic Approach to Sustainability: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Corporate Sustainability This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. cou ntry's overall progress toward the achievement of all 17 SDGs, which encompass 169 targets. Similarly, increasing the sustainability of one country may have negative impacts on the sustainability of other countries. For example, developed countries consume more global energy and contribute more to global emissions than do developing countries, resulting in global inequalities in energy consumption. Additionally, climate change disproportionately affects developing countries compared with developed countries (Wijaya, 2014). National efforts to improve sustainability, as measured by national SDG rankings, may have a positive effect on one sector's sustainability, including economic sustainability, while negatively affecting other sectors or even harming the social, economic, and environmental situation in other countries (BernalTorres et al., 2023). It is important to consider the potential unintended consequences of national sustainability efforts. This may partly explain the weak or negative progress toward achieving the global SDGs. To address sustainability issues at the company, national, and global levels, a holistic approach to sustainable development is necessary. This approach has been utilized to address various aspects of sustainable development, including the assessment of corporate sustainability performance (Pecas et al., 2023); the adoption of sustainable long-term policies (Harik, 2015); the development of holistic sustainability assessment tools for manufacturing small and medium enterprises (SMEs) (Chen et al., 2014); the examination of the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Nguyen & Ngo, 2022); and the development of initiatives related to competitive advantage, performance, and the sustainability of microenterprises (Mamun et al., 2021). The holistic approach requires a clear understanding of the relationships between different actors at different levels of sustainability, especially between national and corporate sustainability, as shown in Figure 1. The research problem is that there is no clear relationship between national SDGs and corporate sustainability. The complexity of understanding these relationships lies in the interrelationships between the variables. For example, national initiatives aimed at achieving the SDGs may impact company performance, while simultaneously, company performance may also impact the national SDGs (Billedeau & Wilson, 2023). The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between national sustainability (SDGs) and corporate sustainability, which is one element of a complex global sustainability system. The research question is as follows: How do national sustainability goals affect corporate sustainability? Of particular interest is the impact of national sustainability goals on the performance of companies in different sectors. This study analyzes the performance of Fortune 500 companies in Europe and their relationships with national SDGs. The paper is divided into seven sections. The first section aims to define 'balanced sustainability' and uncover a holistic approach from the company to global sustainability. The second section presents empirical evidence by reviewing scientific studies and their insights into the field of the SDGs. The third section covers the methodology, providing graphical and mathematical expressions of the developed model and data analysis. The results and answers to the proposed hypotheses are presented in the fourth section. The last three sections provide the research findings in the discussion and conclusion sections, as well as limitations. 2. Theoretical Approach2. Theoretical Approach Over the past two decades, sustainability has become a prominent topic in business, politics, and academia. The global sustainability system is a complex research object and can be analyzed from different perspectives, including microindividual, mesocorporate and macronational, regional and global levels. ‘Sustainability science’ has emerged as a distinct field (Kajikawa et al., 2014; Kates, 2011; Kates et al., 2001; Komiyama & Takeuchi, 2006; Purvis et at., 2018) . However, the concept of sustainability remains unclear in various contexts. The phrase 'sustainable business' is often linked to environmentally friendly or green practices that address current environmental concerns in all processes, products, and manufacturing activities. 2.1. Concept of Balanced Sustainability At the mesocorporate level, the concept of sustainability includes three interrelated dimensions: social, economic, and environmental. These dimensions are represented by three 189 Adrian Peretz and Fred Strønen 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.561DOI: CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS Vol. 19 Issue 2 186-2072025 intersecting circles that center on overall sustainability (Purvis et al., 2018) (see Figure 2). This concept assumes that all three dimensions— economic, social, and environmental—are equally important for sustainability. According to this concept, the elimination of even one of these dimensions undermines sustainability. Therefore, a company that lacks any of these dimensions cannot be considered sustainable. Balanced sustainability is the ideal state when all dimensions are equally developed. This concept suggests that the dominance of one dimension can negatively impact the overall sustainability and long-term performance of a company. Figure 2 illustrates 'balanced sustainability', 'unbalanced sustainability', and 'no sustainability' as the intersection of the three main dimensions. 'Balanced sustainability' occurs when all dimensions (social, environmental and economic) are equally developed in a company; 'unbalanced sustainability' occurs when one or two dimensions are neglected in a company; and 'no sustainability' occurs when the social dimension is completely neglected in a company, and the focus is mainly on environmental issues. The concept of balanced sustainability is important not only at the company level but also at the national and global levels and is crucial for achieving a better understanding of the holistic approach to sustainability. 2.2. Holistic Approach to Sustainability Scholars use the term 'holistic sustainability' to define various aspects of sustainability. Holistic sustainability can be understood as a holistic approach to sustainability promotion and marketing that aims to integrate and involve key actors— national and local authorities, organizations and residents—in various sustainability actions (Rakic, & Rakic, 2015; Segarra-Moliner & Bel-Oms, 2023; Tacconi & Tisdell, 1993). The concept of 'holistic sustainability' is also used to emphasize the importance of focusing on all three dimensions of sustainability: social, economic and environmental. The concept could be applied to sustainable products, as demonstrated by Stoffels et al. (2018) and Wang et al. (2021), as well as sustainable business development. Pecas et al. (2023) and Harik et al. (2015) employed a holistic concept to develop Figure 2 Concept of Balanced Sustainability www.ce.vizja.pl 190 A Holistic Approach to Sustainability: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Corporate Sustainability This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. sustainability assessment tools and frameworks for industrial companies. Concurrently, Chen et al. (2014) focused their attention on the realm of sustainability development in manufacturing SMEs. Al Mamun et al. (2021) analyzed the impact of participation in development initiatives on the competitive advantage, performance, and sustainability of microenterprises. Nguyen and Ngo (2022) examined the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) along with renewable energy consumption, energy use and imports, and carbon emissions on sustainable economic development in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Aluchna and Kuszewski (2021) examined the impact of pyramidal ownership of nonfinancial companies listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange. A holistic understanding of corporate sustainability is important for our study, as efforts to improve sustainability (SDGs) at the national level can have a negative effect on the economic dimension (one of the three main dimensions) of holistic corporate sustainability. At the macro and global levels, the term 'holistic sustainability' is used as a comprehensive approach to implementing the 17 UN SDGs. These goals include 169 targets and 231 indicators and aim to bring about transformational change to increase global sustainability (UN General Assembly, 2015). The SDG framework was developed as a horizontal platform in which 17 global goals define the sustainable development aspirations of UN member states and their key stakeholders (Bierman et al., 2017). One of the key assumptions underlying the strategic engagement of multinational companies (MNCs) in the framework was the belief that they could be strategic actors for global sustainable development. MNCs are expected to integrate SDG missions into their business practices and support global sustainability (Van Tulder, 2021). These expectations have not been met, as the 2023 report shows that little progress has been made toward achieving the 17 sustainable development goals (UN Statistics Division, 2023). 2.3. Research Gap and Hypothesis The above analysis reveals that there is a lack of understanding from a global sustainability development perspective. Efforts to improve national sustainability (SDG) in one country can have a negative impact on sustainability in another country. Additionally, efforts to improve national sustainability can have a negative effect on corporate sustainability (ESG) in different sectors. The vast majority of existing studies have focused on mesocorporate or macronational sustainability analysis. Studies conducted by Pecas et al. (2023) and Harik et al. (2015) focused on holistic sustainability assessments of industrial companies. Chen et al. (2014) developed a holistic sustainability assessment tool for manufacturing SMEs. Al Mamun et al. (2021) focused their research on the sustainability of microenterprises. Nguyen and Ngo (2022) examined the impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) along with renewable energy consumption, energy consumption and imports, and carbon emissions on sustainable economic development. A holistic approach at the macronational level was used to identify the impact of green innovation on economic growth in an innovative environment and under digitalization conditions (Banelienė & Strazdas, 2023). Streimikiene (2022) analyzed the main drivers of greenhouse gas emissions in Visegrad Group (V4) countries and forecasted future greenhouse gas emissions. Bierman et al. (2017) and Van Tulder (2021) provide an analysis and assessment of the evolution, rationale, and future prospects of the SDGs. The concept of holistic mesocorporate or macronational analysis can be characterized as a horizontal approach, indicating that the analysis is conducted within a specific level of sustainability (micro, meso, or macro). There is a clear gap in the understanding of the relationships between the levels of sustainability. This approach could be called the vertical approach in sustainability studies (see Figure 3). Therefore, our research is focused on filling the gap in better understanding the relationships between the levels of sustainability (national sustainability and corporate sustainability (ESG)) and finding answers to the following hypotheses raised: Does focusing on sustainability at the national level have different impacts (negative/positive) on the profitability of companies within the same country? Could this effect depend on two factors of the production function – labor and capital? 191 Adrian Peretz and Fred Strønen 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.561DOI: CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS Vol. 19 Issue 2 186-2072025 3. Empirical Background: Fields of 3. Empirical Background: Fields of Study, Models Used, and Major FindingsStudy, Models Used, and Major Findings The relationships between the SDGs and economic growth as well as environmental protection have been widely analyzed (Akrofi et al., 2022; Fairbrass et al., 2024; Gupta & Vegelin, 2016; Meran, 2023; Santika et al., 2019; Spaiser et al., 2016; Streimikiene, 2024; Tiba & Omri, 2017; Van Vuuren et al., 2015; Von Stechow et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019). However, there is a lack of research on the relationship between the SDGs and company performance. Recent studies have focused mainly on broad SDG analysis. Van Vuuren et al. (2015) conducted a study on the contribution of technological measures and behavioral changes to achieving sustainability goals, considering their linkages. Their study revealed that significant transformations in energy and food systems are necessary to achieve the SDGs. The authors utilized the IMAGE integrated assessment model in conjunction with other models, including the Modular Applied GeNeral Equilibrium Tool (MAGNET). According to one of their modeling results in the area of climate change, the global mean temperature is projected to exceed the 2 °C target well before 2050 and to exceed 4 °C by the end of the 21st century. Santika et al. (2019) focused on the energy sector, emphasizing its central role in ending poverty and hunger; providing health care, education, and water; sustaining economic growth; and protecting the environment. Twenty-five SDG targets with direct links to energy were identified in this study with the help of the Google Scholar search engine, and a map of the multidimensional interaction between them was presented. Tiba and Omri (2017) investigated the relationships among energy, the environment, and economic growth. Their findings suggest that energy consumption can increase economic growth by increasing productivity, but it can also lead to environmental damage by increasing pollutant emissions. The authors used comparative literature analysis for their findings. Akrofi et al. (2022) conducted an analysis of the energy sector in relation to the SDGs and Paris Agreement goals. They used a systematic review method following the Preferred Report Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) procedure to identify emerging trends in energy debates and policy discourses in academic discussions. It was concluded that further research is needed on the progress of implementation, its impacts, and critical lessons from current policy efforts to achieve Figure 3 The Vertical Dimension of a Holistic Approach to Sustainability: From Company to Global Sustainability www.ce.vizja.pl 192 A Holistic Approach to Sustainability: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Corporate Sustainability This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. these global agendas, and country case studies can facilitate policy learning through cross-country comparisons. Von Stechow et al. (2015) conducted a comprehensive review and synthesis of literature on mitigation effects to inform climate policy choices at different governance levels. The authors emphasized the importance of reducing energy demand to achieve synergies across multiple sustainability objectives. The transportation sector has been extensively analyzed in terms of energy consumption and its impact on the environment. Zhang et al. (2019) validated the carbon Kuznets curve (CKC) hypothesis by presenting the changing status of CO2 emissions in the literature. They used data recording the CO2 emissions of the transportation sectors of 119 countries from 1995-2014. Spaiser et al. (2016) investigated the potential incompatibility between the SDGs in the areas of socioeconomic development and environmental sustainability. They used dynamic system models to demonstrate that the inconsistency arises from the emphasis on economic growth and consumption as a means of development (Spaiser et al., 2016). Gupta and Vegelin (2016) analyzed the SDGs in relation to economic growth, social well-being, and environmental viability. They reported that goals perform well in terms of social inclusiveness but fall short in terms of ecological and relational inclusiveness. This implies that the SDG implementation process may prioritize social inclusiveness over ecological and relational inclusiveness. The authors applied SDG text analysis for priority identification. Moyer and Bohl (2019) analyzed three policy pathways for achieving the SDGs: technology, lifestyle change, and decentralized governance. The authors used an integrated assessment platform to explore the achievability of nine human development-related SDGs by 2050, scaling alternative pathways in countries that have historically developed rapidly. Their study revealed that the global technology pathway is the most effective in improving human development, whereas the reduced consumption pathway is the least effective. Additionally, the authors provided evidence that the geographic level of analysis is crucial in assessing the achievability of the SDGs. While many SDGs seem achievable when assessed at the global population level, several small poor countries fail to meet the targets when assessed at the country level. Researchers have utilized the International Futures (IFs) model to analyze SDG human development targets on the basis of current trends and multiple policy scenarios (Moyer & Bohl, 2019). Scharlemann et al. (2020) reviewed previous assessments of interactions between SDGs. They applied an influence matrix to assess pairwise interactions between all the SDGs and reported that the environment and environment‒human linkages have the greatest influence on interactions among the SDGs. Pradhan et al. (2017), analyzing SDG data from 227 countries, reported that no poverty indicator has a significant positive correlation with most of the other SDGs, whereas responsible consumption and production are most commonly associated with a significant negative correlation. The authors used nonparametric Spearman’s rank correlation analysis to assess monotonic relationships between all possible combinations of unique indicator data pairs for each country. Thammaraksa et al. (2024) analyzed data from more than 8,500 enterprises from the London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG) and Analytics from 2019-2021. The authors used a three-step method: 1) descriptive and regression analysis for trends identification in the field of the SDGs reported by enterprises, 2) co-occurrence analysis for identifying the relationships among companies’ performance and SDGs, and 3) inferential statistics for identifying the relationships between ESGs and SDGs. This research identified the top 5 of the 17 SDGs most frequently reported by companies: decent work and economic growth; climate action; responsible consumption and production; good health and well-being; and gender equality, which are strongly interlinked with other SDG indicators, although other SDGs lack strong interrelations. There was no significant correlation between specific ESGs reported by enterprises and SDGs in 70% of the relationships. Fairbrass et al. (2024) used the UN’s SDG Indi- 193 Adrian Peretz and Fred Strønen 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.561DOI: CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS Vol. 19 Issue 2 186-2072025 cators Database and the generalized linear regression model (GLRM) to evaluate environmental and social impacts in relation to environmental factors such as environmental pressure, policy and state, the population and GDP. The authors found no evidence that environmental policies lead to wider social benefits. Schmidt-Traub et al. (2017) demonstrated the analytical usefulness of the SDG index by analyzing its correlation with other commonly used development indices and demonstrating how it explains cross-national variations in subjective well-being. The authors used correlation analysis for their findings. Sušnik and van der Zaag (2017) examined the relationship between the SDGs and the UN human development index (HDI). This research was based on comparative data from 193 countries and correlation analysis. They reported that the overall HDI is not correlated with national wealth or resource use totals but is strongly correlated with personal wealth and resource access. Meran (2023) emphasized that perpetual growth can be ensured by increasing resource efficiency and focusing on value creation. The results were derived from models using production functions that allow asymptotically complete decoupling of the economy from its resource base by substituting physical and knowledge capital for natural resources. The article presents a semiendogenous growth model utilizing a linear–exponential production function (Meran, 2023). Studies on the SDGs have also focused on individual countries, regions, or cities. Ross et al. (2022) analyzed the progress of individual countries toward environmental sustainability in relation to the SDGs, identifying the best and worst performers. Allen et al. (2024) proposed six transformation pathways for Australia to improve performance on the SDGs by 2030. The authors suggested maximizing transformation synergies through investments in energy decarbonization, resilience, social protection, and sustainable food systems. They also recommended managing trade-offs for income and employment, with the support of technological, social, and political enabling conditions. Regression analysis was applied for modeling scenarios (Allen et al., 2024). Wang et al. (2019) investigated the causal relationship between carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and economic factors in Chinese provinces and reported unidirectional causality between the variables. Researchers concluded that to reduce CO2 emissions, China should implement strict laws and regulations and advocate for green investment, technological innovation, circular economy development, and sustainable development. This study is based on a comparative analysis of the eastern, central, and western provinces via a vector autoregressive model and panel data for 1997–2015 (Wang et al., 2019). Hossain et al. (2023) evaluated the impact of regulatory and reputational pressures on corporate environmental performance in China, where financial penalties for environmental violations are low. Their study revealed a significant negative stock price reaction to news about corporate environmental violations. Additionally, it was concluded that the negative stock market reaction is lessened for companies with strong voluntary environmental commitments. A multivariate regression model was used for these findings (Hossain et al., 2023). Bo et al. (2024) investigated the nonlinear relationship between environmental technology and green entrepreneurship in China from 1995 to 2021. Their study revealed that environmental technology promotes both shortand long-term green entrepreneurship. The authors applied an autoregressive distributed lag stationarity (ARDL) model and nonlinear autoregressive distributed lag (NARDL) estimation to capture the nonlinear dynamics between variables (Bo et al., 2024). Cheng et al. (2023) researched the relationships among the government subsidies, green innovation, and sustainable development performance of 142 listed companies in China's highly polluting industry. The results revealed a significant correlation between subsidies and the improved financial, environmental, and social performance of these companies. The authors applied ordinary least squares (OLS) regression as a modeling method (Cheng et al., 2023). Neier (2023) conducted a spatial analysis of segregation-based environmental inequality in Vienna. The research applied two innovative segregation-based inequality indices to measure www.ce.vizja.pl 200 A Holistic Approach to Sustainability: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Corporate Sustainability This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. denced by this research. In light of these findings, it can be concluded that a vertical approach, encompassing both mesoand macrolevels, is a crucial element in the field of sustainability studies and policy implementation. Moreover, the need for a comprehensive, holistic perspective on global sustainable development is substantiated. 6. Discussion6. Discussion Empirical studies suggest that many researchers have focused primarily on macrolevel analyses of the SDGs in relation to economic growth and environmental impact, with a particular emphasis on the energy, food, and transportation sectors (Akrofi et al., 2022; Santika et al., 2019; Tiba & Omri, 2017; Von Stechow et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2019). Researchers have analyzed the compatibility of SDGs and their relationships with other global indices, such as the HDI (Sušnik & van der Zaag, 2017). Furthermore, numerous studies have been conducted on SDGs for specific countries, geographical areas, or cities (Ross et al., 2022; Allen et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2019; Cheng et al.; Neier, 2023). At the company level, several studies have focused on literature reviews, stakeholder attitudes, and companies' philanthropic expenditures, as well as their behavior with respect to foreign direct investment (De Souza Barbosa et al., 2023; Ferro-Soto et al., 2018; Billedeau & Wilson, 2023; Wiessner et al., 2023). However, our research revealed a lack of analysis of corporate profit maximization in the context of SDG implementation. Therefore, our research helps fill this gap in understanding the impact of the SDGs on corporate performance. Our study proves that national efforts to improve sustainability, as measured by national SDG rankings, may have a positive impact on the sustainability of one industry, including economic sustainability, while negatively affecting other industries—the same was found in other studies, such as Billedeau, & Wilson (2023) and Biermann et al. (2017). Our study also supports the statement that a holistic approach to sustainable development is needed to address sustainability issues at the corporate, national, and global levels, as shown by Thammaraksa et al. (2024) and Allen et al. (2024). This approach requires a clear understanding of the relationships between different actors at different levels of sustainability. Therefore, it is important to focus on the vertical dimensions, from the company to global sustainability levels. 7. Conclusion7. Conclusion This research fills a gap in the research on the interconnection between a company's sustainability and its SDG scores at the national level. This study applies a novel vertical approach (from the mesoto the macrolevel) to holistic sustainability research focused on Fortune 500 European companies. 7.1. Implications The modeling results are based on two simulations for selected industries: Industrials and Motor Vehicles & Parts. The estimation results show the relationship between national sustainability (SDGs) and corporate sustainability and answer the research question of how national sustainability goals affect corporate sustainability in different industries. The estimation results for the Industrial sector, which is highly dependent on employee skills, indicate the negative impact of sustainability factors on company profits, whereas the estimation results for the Motor Vehicles & Parts sector, which is highly dependent on assets, indicate the positive impact of sustainability factors on company profits. The results of our study confirm both hypotheses that focusing on sustainability at the national level can negatively affect the profitability of companies in industries that rely heavily on labor factors while positively affecting the profitability of companies operating in capital-dependent industries. Additionally, this research revealed that national SDG progress has a positive effect on more profitable companies but a negative effect on less profitable companies despite the nature of successful multinational corporations. 7.2. Theoretical and Practical Contributions The findings improve the understanding of the impact of national sustainability (SDG) on corporate sustainability (ESG) and demonstrate the importance of a holistic approach to global sustainability development. Moreover, more attention needs to be given to the vertical dimension of a holistic approach to sustainability by policy-makers, academics and experts. Further research is necessary to explain these outcomes. However, the findings emphasize that efforts 201 Adrian Peretz and Fred Strønen 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.561DOI: CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS Vol. 19 Issue 2 186-2072025 to increase national sustainability could have negative impacts on certain companies. This underscores the importance of considering the vertical dimension of a holistic approach to sustainability. It is crucial to ensure that SDG implementation programs and measures are well-coordinated with each other. Additionally, it is important to analyze the sustainability impacts vertically. The national sustainability development programs and measures should be analyzed at three levels: impact on other national sectors, impact on the region (e.g., the European Union), and global impact (e.g., impact on developing countries). The incorporation of vertical impact coordination and impact assessment of sustainable development into SDG monitoring systems can help conserve resources to achieve global sustainability. 8. Limitations8. Limitations The present study is subject to certain limitations. It examines only the impact of European countries' national sustainability goals on the profitability of Fortune 500 Europe companies. The objective of this examination is to underscore the importance of vertical sustainability impact assessment and coordination. However, further detailed sectoral and intersectoral sustainability analyses are needed to comprehensively understand vertical sustainability relationships. The SDG annual report (UNSD, 2023) corroborates the lack of comprehension regarding vertical sustainability linkages, as evidenced by the report's demonstration of inadequate progress in achieving the SDGs. ReferencesReferences Akrofi, M. M., Okitasari, M., & Kandpal, R. (2022, October 10). Recent trends on the linkages between energy, SDGs and the Paris Agreement: a review of policy-based studies. Discover Sustainability, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-022-00100-y Allan, J. I., Roger, C. B., Hale, T. N., Bernstein, S., Tiberghien, Y., & Balme, R. (2021, October 6). Making the Paris Agreement: Historical processes and the drivers of institutional design. Political Studies, 71(3), 914–934. https://doi. org/10.1177/00323217211049294 Allen, C., Biddulph, A., Wiedmann, T., Pedercini, M., & Malekpour, S. (2024, January 18). Modelling six sustainable development transformations in Australia and their accelerators, impediments, enablers, and interlinkages. Nature Communications, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-44655-4 Aluchna, M., & Kuszewski, T. (2021). Pyramidal Ownership and Company Value: Evidence from Polish Listed Companies. Contemporary Economics, 15(4), 479–498. https://doi.org/10.5709/ ce.1897-9254.462 Banelienė, R., & Strazdas, R. (2023). Green Innovation for Competitiveness: Impact on GDP growth in the European Union. Contemporary Economics, 17(1), 92–108. https://doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.501 Bernal-Torres, C. A., Torres-Guevara, L. E., AldanaBernal, J. C., Nicolás-Rojas, Y. W., & Pando-Ezcurra, T. T. (2023, October). The moderating role of innovation in the relationship between business sustainability and organizational performance in companies of an emerging economy. SAGE Open, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231217870 Biermann, F., Kanie, N., & Kim, R. E. (2017, June). Global governance by goal-setting: the novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.010 Billedeau, D. B., & Wilson, J. (2023, November 6). Assessing the impact of the sustainable development goals on corporate philanthropy: A study of Canada’s leading private sector companies. Business Strategy & Development, 7(1). https://doi. org/10.1002/bsd2.315 Bo, L., Chao, T., Chengbo, D., Haobo, T., & Yunbao, X. (2024, January 23). Environmental innovation and green entrepreneurship in China: a non-linear perspective. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01695-x Bocken, N. M. P., Niessen, L., & Short, S. W. (2022, May 3). The sufficiency-based circular economy—an analysis of 150 companies. Frontiers in Sustainability, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.899289 Chen, D., Thiede, S., Schudeleit, T., & Herrmann, C. (2014). A holistic and rapid sustainability assessment tool for manufacturing SMEs. CIRP Annals, 63(1), 437–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cirp.2014.03.113 Cheng, H., Yu, Y., & Zhang, S. (2023, November 6). Subsidies, green innovation, and the sustainable performance: evidence from heavy-polluting enterprises in China. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 14(1), 102–116. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13412-023-00875-0 Cirman, A., Domadenik, P., Koman, M., & Redek, T. (2009, December 31). The Kyoto protocol in a www.ce.vizja.pl 202 A Holistic Approach to Sustainability: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Corporate Sustainability This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. global perspective. Economic and Business Review, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.15458/2335-4216.1259 de Souza Barbosa, A., da Silva, M. C. B. C., da Silva, L. B., Morioka, S. N., & de Souza, V. F. (2023, July 13). Integration of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria: their impacts on corporate sustainability performance. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1). https://doi. org/10.1057/s41599-023-01919-0 EViews  . (2024). EViews  14. Innovative solutions for econometric analysis, forecasting & simulation. https://www.eviews.com/home.html Fairbrass, A. J., O’Sullivan, A., Campbell, J., & Ekins, P. (2024). The SDGs provide limited evidence that environmental policies are delivering multiple ecological and social benefits. Earth’s Future, 12(5). https://doi.org/10.1029/2024ef004451 Ferro-Soto, C., Macías-Quintana, L., & Vázquez-Rodríguez, P. (2018, December 11). Effect of stakeholders-oriented behavior on the performance of sustainable business. Sustainability, 10(12), 4724. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124724 Fortune 500 Europe. (2023, December 18). Fortune. https://fortune.com/europe/ranking/fortune500europe/search/ Gupta, J., & Vegelin, C. (2016, April 18). Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(3), 433–448. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10784-016-9323-z Harik, R., EL Hachem, W., Medini, K., & Bernard, A. (2015, January 2). Towards a holistic sustainability index for measuring sustainability of manufacturing companies. International Journal of Production Research, 53(13), 4117–4139. https://doi.org/10.10 80/00207543.2014.993773 Hossain, M. M., Wang, L., & Yu, J. (2023, August 9). The reputational costs of corporate environmental underperformance: evidence from China. Business Strategy and the Environment. https://doi. org/10.1002/bse.3528 Ishida, Y. (2023). The Sustainable Development Goals progress chart 2023. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/ report/2023/progress-chart/Progress-Chart-2023. pdf Kajikawa, Y., Tacoa, F., & Yamaguchi, K. (2014, April 6). Sustainability science: the changing landscape of sustainability research. Sustainability Science. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0244-x Kates, R. W. (2011, November 23). What kind of a science is sustainability science? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(49), 19449–19450. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1116097108 Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J. J., Schellnhuber, H. J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N. M., Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G. C., Grübler, A., Huntley, B., Jäger, J., Jodha, N. S., Kasperson, R. E., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., & Svedin, U. (2001, April 27). Sustainability Science. Science, 292(5517), 641–642. https://doi.org/10.1126/ science.1059386 Komiyama, H., & Takeuchi, K. (2006, August 24). Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625006-0007-4 Mamun, A. A., Muniady, R., & Nasir, N. a. B. M. (2021). Effect of participation in development initiatives on competitive advantages, performance, and sustainability of Micro-Enterprises in Malaysia. Contemporary Economics, 15(2), 122–137. https://doi. org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.439 Meran, G. (2023, November). Is green growth possible and even desirable in a spaceship economy? Ecological Economics, 213, 107947. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107947 Moyer, J. D., & Bohl, D. K. (2019, January). Alternative pathways to human development: Assessing tradeoffs and synergies in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Futures, 105, 199–210. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2018.10.007 Neier, T. (2023, November). The green divide: A spatial analysis of segregation-based environmental inequality in Vienna. Ecological Economics, 213, 107949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107949 Nguyen, T., & Ngo, Q. (2022). The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility, Energy Consumption, Energy Import and Usages and Carbon Emission on Sustainable Economic Development: Evidence from ASEAN countries. Contemporary Economics, 16(2), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.5709/ ce.1897-9254.480 Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C., & Rangaswami, M. (2013). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 41(2), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1109/emr.2013.6601104 Peças, P., John, L., Ribeiro, I., Baptista, A. J., Pinto, S. M., Dias, R., Henriques, J., Estrela, M., Pilastri, A., & Cunha, F. (2023, February 15). Holistic framework to data-driven sustainability assessment. Sustainability, 15(4), 3562. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su15043562 Peretz, A., & Strønen, F. (2024). Corporate social re- 203 Adrian Peretz and Fred Strønen 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.561DOI: CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS Vol. 19 Issue 2 186-2072025 sponsibility as a source of competitive advantage – strategic contradictions in the food industry. Contemporary Economics,18(2), 171–191.https:// doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.532 Pradhan, P., Costa, L., Rybski, D., Lucht, W., & Kropp, J. P. (2017). A Systematic study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) interactions. Earth’s Future, 5(11), 1169–1179. https://doi. org/10.1002/2017ef000632 Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2018, September 3). Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5 Rakic, B., & Rakic, M. (2015). Holistic management of marketing sustainability in the process of sustainable development. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 14(4), 887–900. https://doi. org/10.30638/eemj.2015.100 Ross, J., Ramzan, S., & Nkeih, E. (2022, November 9). A glimpse into environmental sustainability measures worldwide. Climate and Energy, 39(5), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/gas.22320 Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 2021 establishing the framework for achieving climate neutrality and amending Regulations (EC) No 401/2009 and (EU) 2018/1999 (‘European Climate Law’). https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/1119/oj Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1991/oj Santika, W. G., Anisuzzaman, M., Bahri, P. A., Shafiullah, G., Rupf, G. V., & Urmee, T. (2019, April). From goals to joules: A quantitative approach of interlinkages between energy and the Sustainable Development Goals. Energy Research & Social Science, 50, 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. erss.2018.11.016 Scharlemann, J. P. W., Brock, R. C., Balfour, N., Brown, C., Burgess, N. D., Guth, M. K., Ingram, D. J., Lane, R., Martin, J. G. C., Wicander, S., & Kapos, V. (2020, April 1). Towards understanding interactions between Sustainable Development Goals: the role of environment–human linkages. Sustainability Science, 15(6), 1573–1584. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11625-020-00799-6 Scheyvens, R., Banks, G., & Hughes, E. (2016, March 30). The private sector and the SDGs: The need to move beyond ‘business as usual.’ Sustainable Development, 24(6), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/ sd.1623 Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Teksoz, K., DurandDelacre, D., & Sachs, J. D. (2017, July 17). National baselines for the Sustainable Development Goals assessed in the SDG index and dashboards. Nature Geoscience, 10(8), 547–555. https://doi. org/10.1038/ngeo2985 Segarra-Moliner, J. R., & Bel-Oms, I. (2023, April 19). How does each ESG dimension predict customer lifetime value by segments? Evidence from U.S. industrial and technological industries. Sustainability, 15(8), 6907. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086907 Spaiser, V., Ranganathan, S., Swain, R. B., & Sumpter, D. J. T. (2016, September 23). The sustainable development oxymoron: quantifying and modelling the incompatibility of sustainable development goals. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 24(6), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1 080/13504509.2016.1235624 Stoffels, P., Kaspar, J., Bähre, D., & Vielhaber, M. (2018). Integrated product and production engineering approach – a tool-based method for a holistic sustainable design, process and material selection. Procedia Manufacturing, 21, 790–797. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.02.185 Streimikiene, D. (2022). Analysis of the main drivers of GHG emissions in Visegrad Countries: Kaya Identity Approach. Contemporary Economics, 16(4), 387–489. https://doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.489 Streimikiene, D. (2024). Assessment of green growth in the Baltic States. Contemporary Economics, 18(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.527 Sušnik, J., & van der Zaag, P. (2017, January). Correlation and causation between the UN Human Development Index and national and personal wealth and resource exploitation. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 30(1), 1705–1723. https://doi. org/10.1080/1331677x.2017.1383175 Sustainable Development Report 2023. (n.d.). https:// dashboards.sdgindex.org/rankings Tacconi, L., & Tisdell, C. (1993, November). Holistic sustainable development: implications for planning processes, foreign aid and support for research. Third World Planning Review, 15(4), 411. https:// doi.org/10.3828/twpr.15.4.n020t7281k1221m0 Thammaraksa, C., Gebara, C. H., Hauschild, M. Z., Pontoppidan, C. A., & Laurent, A. (2024). Business reporting of Sustainable Development Goals: Global trends and implications. Business Strategy and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3760 Tiba, S., & Omri, A. (2017, March). Literature survey on the relationships between energy, environment and economic growth. Renewable and Sustain- www.ce.vizja.pl 204 A Holistic Approach to Sustainability: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Corporate Sustainability This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. able Energy Reviews, 69, 1129–1146. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.113 UN General Assembly. (2015, October 21). Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://www.refworld.org/ docid/57b6e3e44.html United Nations Environment Programme. (2024). Emissions gap report 2024: No more hot air … please! With a massive gap between rhetoric and reality, countries draft new climate commitments. Nairobi. https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/46404 United Nations Environment Programme. (2023). Emissions gap report 2023: Broken record – temperatures hit new highs, yet world fails to cut emissions (again). Nairobi. https://doi. org/10.59117/20.500.11822/43922 United Nations Statistics Division. (2023). The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2023: Special Edition. New York. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/ report/2023 van Tulder, R., Rodrigues, S. B., Mirza, H., & Sexsmith, K. (2021, February 16). The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals: can multinational enterprises lead the decade of action? Journal of International Business Policy, 4(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1057/ s42214-020-00095-1 van Vuuren, D. P., Kok, M., Lucas, P. L., Prins, A. G., Alkemade, R., van den Berg, M., Bouwman, L., van der Esch, S., Jeuken, M., Kram, T., & Stehfest, E. (2015, September). Pathways to achieve a set of ambitious global sustainability objectives by 2050: Explorations using the IMAGE integrated assessment model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 98, 303–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2015.03.005 von Stechow, C., McCollum, D., Riahi, K., Minx, J. C., Kriegler, E., van Vuuren, D. P., Jewell, J., RobledoAbad, C., Hertwich, E., Tavoni, M., Mirasgedis, S., Lah, O., Roy, J., Mulugetta, Y., Dubash, N. K., Bollen, J., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., & Edenhofer, O. (2015, November 4). Integrating global climate change mitigation goals with other sustainability objectives: A synthesis. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 40(1), 363–394. https://doi. org/10.1146/annurev-environ-021113-095626 Wang, M. L., Wang, W., Du, S. Y., Li, C. F., & He, Z. (2019, June 10). Causal relationships between carbon dioxide emissions and economic factors: Evidence from China. Sustainable Development, 28(1), 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1966 Wang, S., Su, D., Ma, M., & Kuang, W. (2021, July). Sustainable product development and service approach for application in industrial lighting products. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 1808–1821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. spc.2021.04.003 Wiessner, Y. T., Giuliani, E., Wijen, F., & Doh, J. (2023, August 8). Towards a more comprehensive assessment of FDI’s societal impact. Journal of International Business Studies, 55(1), 50–70. https://doi. org/10.1057/s41267-023-00636-9 Wijaya, A. S. (2014, March 10). Climate change, global warming and global inequity in developed and developing countries (analytical perspective, issue, problem and solution). IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 19, 012008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/19/1/012008 Zhang, Y., Chen, X., Wu, Y., Shuai, C., Shen, L., & Ye, G. (2019, November 25). Peaks of transportation CO2 emissions of 119 countries for sustainable development: Results from carbon Kuznets curve. Sustainable Development, 28(4), 550–571. https:// doi.org/10.1002/sd.2008 205 Adrian Peretz and Fred Strønen 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.561DOI: CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS Vol. 19 Issue 2 186-2072025 Appendix A Table A.1 Data Used for Modeling: Fortune 500 Europe Profitable Companies in Industrials Sector Fortune 500 Europe rank Company Country of origin Profits ($M) Revenues ($M) Assets ($M) Employees (in thousands) SDG score 35 Siemens Germany 4027 77860 148184 311.0 83.36 98 Schneider Electric France 3657 35945 62279 135.0 82.05 128 ABB Switzerland 2475 29446 39148 105.1 80.54 150 Johnson Controls International Ireland 1532 25299 42158 102.0 80.15 187 Eaton Corporation Ireland 2462 20752 35014 91.9 80.15 223 Prysmian Italy 530 16941 136107 30.0 78.79 234 TE Connectivity Switzerland 2428 16281 20782 92.0 80.54 260 Atlas Copco Sweden 2322 13977 16535 45.8 85.98 283 Freudenberg Group Germany 659 12361 14032 51.5 83.36 288 Sandvik Sweden 1109 12210 16955 42.3 85.98 296 Schindler Holding Switzerland 639 11888 12768 70.0 80.54 301 KION Group Germany 103 11712 17636 41.1 83.36 308 Kone Finland 815 11471 9700 63.3 86.76 330 Danfoss Denmark 665 10787 12514 41.9 85.68 350 SKF Sweden 442 9587 10645 42.1 85.98 378 Nexans France 258 8802 6831 26.9 82.05 380 Legrand France 1051 8771 15381 37.5 82.05 393 Groupe SEB France 333 8372 9739 31.6 82.05 400 Andritz Austria 431 8085 9061 29.1 82.28 405 Signify Netherlands 550 7903 8841 35.3 79.42 Source: Fortune 500 Europe (2023, December 18), Sustainable Development Report 2023, (n.d.). Table A.2 Data Used for Modeling: Fortune 500 Europe Profitable Companies in Motor Vehicles & Parts Sector Fortune 500 Europe rank Company Country of origin Profits ($M) Revenues ($M) Assets ($M) Employees (in thousands) SDG score 2 Volkswagen Germany 15223 293685 602612 675.8 83.36 7Stellantis Netherlands 17669 188888 198629 272.4 79.42 9 Mercedes-Benz Group Germany 15252 157782 277436 168.8 83.36 12 BMW Group Germany 18870 149991 263470 149.5 83.36 23 Bosch Group Germany 1367 92766 106964 421.3 83.36 56 Daimler Truck Holding Germany 2803 53582 68255 102.9 83.36 67 Volvo Sweden 3236 46828 60369 94.9 85.98 70 ZF Friedrichshafen Germany 239 46068 41553 161.9 83.36 87 Continental Germany 70 41449 40468 199.0 83.36 123 Michelin France 2105 30070 37714 124.9 82.05 184 Valeo France 242 21074 23505 104.0 82.05 214 Aptiv Ireland 594 17489 21884 181.0 80.15 229 Schaeffler Germany 586 16627 15241 82.8 83.36 313 Gestamp Automocion Spain 273 11282 10714 42.7 80.43 338 Ford Otosan Turkey 1124 10376 5133 20.9 70.78 353 Vitesco Technologies Group Germany 25 9540 8113 38.0 83.36 373 Burelle France 133 8991 8290 30.2 82.05 412 Knorr-Bremse Germany 513 7662 8549 31.6 83.36 426 Pirelli Italy 439 7306 14829 31.2 78.79 Source: Fortune 500 Europe (2023, December 18), Sustainable Development Report 2023, (n.d.). www.ce.vizja.pl 206 A Holistic Approach to Sustainability: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Corporate Sustainability This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Appendix B Figure B.1 Actual, Fitted and Residuals: Industrials Sector Figure B.2 Actual, Fitted and Residuals: Motor Vehicles & Parts Sector 207 Adrian Peretz and Fred Strønen 10.5709/ce.1897-9254.561DOI: CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICS Vol. 19 Issue 2 186-2072025 Appendix C Figure C.1 Normality Test: Industrials Sector Figure C.2 Normality Test: Motor Vehicles & Parts Sector