Sustainability communication in small and medium-sized enterprises as a driver of sustainable community development

Sustainability communication in small and medium-sized enterprises as a driver of sustainable community development | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Sustainability communication in small and medium-sized enterprises as a driver of sustainable community development Ilze Vike This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8749314/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract From a macro-level perspective, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) occupy a central position in the sustainable development trajectory, despite their comparatively smaller individual environmental impact than that of larger enterprises. Due to their widespread presence across sectors, SMEs are key actors in both sustainable development and the implementation of sustainability communication, as they are uniquely positioned to reach local communities. In this context, the aim of the study is to explore how small and medium-sized enterprises in Latvia understand and implement sustainability communication, and how these practices contribute to sustainable community development. To achieve the research objective, a mixed–methods research design was employed. As part of the study, a survey was conducted, involving 200 SME representatives in Latvia, along with four interviews with SME representatives and two in-depth interviews with sustainability experts. The study reveals that SMEs tend to focus on sustainability communication primarily to boost sales, strengthen branding, and enhance reputation. Only one-fifth of respondents reported using sustainability communication at its highest form, where the mode of implementation develops into sustainable community communication, facilitating dialogue with the broader public and stakeholder engagement. The current study's findings make a significant contribution to both theoretical and practical understanding of sustainability communication in the SME sector and serve as a foundation for further research and policy-making initiatives. Management Entrepreneurship sustainability communication small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) stakeholder management sustainable entrepreneurship community development Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1. Introduction In today’s globally linked ecosystem, sustainability communication (SC) has evolved from a simple reporting into an organisation’s authenticity tool. The rise of digitalization has made it difficult for companies to shield their internal actions from public scrutiny; consequently, the way an organisation communicates its impact is now a primary measure of its transparency and corporate responsibility. Rather than a mere marketing layer, this communication reflects a company’s everyday processes. It constitutes the company’s social existence [ 1 ]. Despite its critical role in contemporary entrepreneurship, SC remains a multifaceted and interdisciplinary concept, with various academic disciplines contributing distinct perspectives [ 2 ]. This theoretical diversity reflects a field in rapid development, struggling to keep pace with emerging global challenges. Current literature offers a wide array of proposals and recommendations for implementing SC, ranging from specific tactical tools and channels to overarching corporate strategies that define key sustainability dimensions. These approaches further emphasise the field's strong ties to persuasive communication, public relations, and educational discourse [ 2 – 8 ]. Beyond strategy, it is argued that by addressing diverse global issues—such as climate change, production, and mobility—SC actively contributes to improving environmental, economic, and social conditions across different social systems [ 9 ]. As a dynamic process, it involves integrating the complex interaction between humans and their environment into public discourse, while simultaneously re-evaluating the narratives that define sustainable and unsustainable behaviour [ 10 ]. The discipline's complexity is further intensified by the term's unclear nature. The concept of SC is frequently perceived as unclear or even misleading, making a precise definition difficult to establish [ 10 , 11 ]. Academic consensus remains elusive regarding its core: it is debated whether the term primarily refers to one-way information disclosure, two-way dialogue, public participation, or direct involvement in decision-making processes [ 9 ]. To address this ambiguity, scholars advocate an inclusive perspective; such an approach enables a more comprehensive understanding of how the public engages with sustainability-related issues [ 12 , 4 , 2 ]. Ultimately, SC is emerging as more than just a pillar of corporate reputation, it is a strategic source of competitive advantage that mobilises stakeholders into action [ 13 ]. Transparent and socially responsible practices influence consumer trust and behavioural intentions more profoundly than traditional marketing, fostering positive word-of-mouth communication in both offline and digital spheres [ 14 ]. Given the increasingly prominent sustainability trends in both society and the business world, there is a critical need for a deeper understanding of what SC entails and how its effective implementation can drive sustainable community development [ 10 , 15 ] Current research addresses a distinct gap in the literature: the lack of practical research on how SC is implemented within the enterprise sector. While large organizations are more proactive in adopting advanced sustainability practices, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) frequently lag in implementing sustainability measures, such as efficient resource management and the adoption of eco-friendly systems or solutions [ 16 , 17 ]. At the same time, SMEs are uniquely positioned to reach local society and thus communication in this context is linked to fostering relationships rooted in sustainability values that enterprises represent [ 2 , 18 ]. To achieve the objective of this study, the following research questions were formulated: RQ1.How do small and medium-sized enterprises understand sustainability communication? RQ2.How do enterprises implement sustainability communication? RQ3.What opportunities and key challenges do enterprises perceive in implementing sustainability communication? To investigate the core research questions, a mixed-methods research design was employed, integrating quantitative and qualitative data to provide a holistic view of the research problem [ 19 , 20 , 21 ]. This dual approach ensures that the study not only captures the broad statistical landscape of the general situation but also explores the nuanced, internal realities of how SMEs interpret and implement SC. 2. Theoretical framework 2.1. Understanding sustainability Even in today’s digital landscape, the fundamental blueprint for sustainability remains the 1987 Brundtland Report, which defines the concept as 'meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs' [ 22 , 4 ]. In the current political and corporate context, this is no longer just an abstract ideal but a strategic necessity to balance economic, social, and environmental dimensions [ 23 , 24 ]. Consequently, the understanding of sustainability is structured around these three core pillars [ 4 , 6 , 12 , 25 ]. In the context of sustainability, governance plays a significant role of corporate responsibility [ 26 ]. It provides the structural framework necessary for operationalizing environmental and social objectives through established paradigms, such as the Triple Bottom Line (3P model), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and the ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) framework, as well as the Shared Value model [ 26 – 29 ]. These concepts describe the evolution of business from a narrowly profit-oriented approach to a sustainable and socially responsible operating model. They form the foundation of corporate social responsibility, which encourages companies to voluntarily address social and environmental issues in cooperation with various stakeholders, and whose implementation is closely linked to the economic, social, and institutional context of each country, demonstrating that sustainable business is based on cooperation, responsibility, and the creation of long-term value for both companies and society [ 13 ]. Ultimately, organizations are no longer just market participants; they are increasingly expected to lead by example, setting the standard for sustainable practices on a global scale [ 25 ]. However, returning to the classically defined three dimensions—environmental, economic, and social—it becomes evident that such a structure can be inherently limiting [ 3 , 10 ]. Relying solely on these pillars tends to foster a static, segmented understanding of sustainability. In practice, sustainability within a business context is not a fixed equilibrium between these three pillars, but rather a dynamic process involving continuous risk assessment and the management of interconnected systems [ 25 ]. Within this framework, the interaction between stakeholders, core values, and operational processes plays a central role. Values act as the primary catalyst, guiding the organization’s focus toward proactive risk and process management [ 2 , 10 , 13 ]. Consequently, for contemporary enterprises, e.g. SMEs, sustainability is synonymous with the strategic management of risks and processes, ensuring organizational viability in both the present and the long term. This viability is inseparably linked to the resilience of natural ecosystems and societal well-being, reinforcing the premise that corporate sustainability cannot be achieved in isolation from the broader environmental and community context [ 4 , 12 ]. However, when sustainability is re-examined as a systemic phenomenon encompassing multiple societal layers, the individual level emerges as the fundamental link for transformation. This also includes every single enterprise. Instead of playing a passive role, the individual level is identified as a key driver of change toward sustainable development [ 27 ]. This suggests that for organizations—particularly SMEs—to succeed in their strategic risk and process management, they must find ways to bridge the gap between systemic goals and individual awareness. To pursue sustainability, organizations learn to continuously change and implement change [ 30 ]. Conversely, by forging connections with society through genuine sustainability initiatives, companies can cultivate meaningful relationships with their communities. This alignment fosters deep-seated trust and reinforces the social dimension of the organization [ 27 ]. Ultimately, authentic sustainability efforts become a strategic source of competitive advantage that drives innovation, refines market approaches, and optimises resource efficiency [ 31 ]. 2.2. Understanding SUSTAINABILITY COMMUNICATION Given the multidimensional nature of sustainability, communication must transcend traditional, unidirectional information transfer. Here, effective engagement is needed with establishing a profound emotional and personal connection between individual actions and their tangible positive outcomes [ 32 , 4 ]. This necessitates the utilisation of communication channels that facilitate direct and precise dissemination of information [ 15 ]. However, research focus on SC remains predominantly theoretical, often outlining normative assumptions about how it should function without offering concrete models for implementation [ 2 , 25 ]. Most studies remain at a descriptive level, highlighting general principles related to the “sunny perspective”, while failing to propose specific structures for practical application and reveal the inconvenient truth [ 18 ]. This gap indicates a critical need for strategic execution, as current communication practices often fail to effectively engage stakeholders or motivate sustainable behavioural change [ 34 ]. Sustainability is often framed as a political issue rather than as a catalyst for active engagement, thereby emphasizing the fulfilment of political processes and objectives over individual action [ 5 , 10 ]. Additional challenge arises from the confusion between the terms 'sustainability communication' and 'sustainable communication.' These are often used as synonyms in both research and media; however, using them interchangeably shows a lack of theoretical clarity [ 9 ]. This makes it harder to understand and implement these strategies in society. It is important to distinguish between the two: sustainable communication is about building long-term relationships [ 25 , 27 ]. On the other hand, but sustainability communication (SC) focuses on sharing values, risks, and process management with stakeholders [ 15 ]. Broadly, SC can be categorised into two primary directions: pragmatic and constitutive (engaging). The pragmatic approach focuses on an organization's requirement to inform the public, demonstrate its efforts, and report on specific sustainability indicators [ 7 , 9 , 10 ]. In practice, this pragmatic dimension is encapsulated within the ESG model, which integrates environmental, social, and governance ratings into corporate strategy. ESG frameworks stimulate sustainable corporate behaviour through structured mechanisms, such as mandatory sustainability reporting, tax measures on unsustainable activities, and subsidies for sustainable initiatives [ 26 ]. To implement engaging direction, the traditional top-down hierarchy must be replaced by active stakeholder involvement. This approach fosters communication tailored to a society’s unique values and local knowledge [ 27 ]. Strategically, this shifts the focus to the individual, prioritizing emotional resonance and value-based dialogue [ 15 ]. However, both these directions reveal a fundamental contradiction. While there is a mandate to protect resources for future generations, SC is often used to sustain a traditional economic model in which growth remains the primary goal [ 3 , 15 ]. Consequently, even when sustainability is integrated into strategy and ESG reporting, corporate messaging frequently fails to address the hard reality of resource limits and their impact on nature conservation [ 35 ]. Therefore, the key to explaining SC is unity. It covers complex issues and strives to explain them clearly, ensuring accessibility to diverse societal groups while remaining sensitive to specific cultural and social contexts. Such an approach also requires continuous feedback, re-evaluation of knowledge, and flexible responses to global changes, fostering an understanding of the world and the relationships between people and the environment, and encouraging critical awareness of these relationships [ 2 , 10 , 18 ]. 2.3. Sustainability Communication in a Contemporary Context Contemporary SC has evolved into a multidisciplinary, strategic tool designed to inspire stakeholder action rather than to deliver data [ 2 , 36 ]. As outlined by Grunig [ 37 ], strategy is closely related to enterprises communication. But stakeholder involvement is closely related to collaboration around values [ 13 ]. While CSR and similar models, like 3P remains relevant, sustainability has emerged as a truly systemic approach that embeds environmental and social impact into the core of business operations [ 35 ]. SC in business has developed into a holistic approach that integrates intergenerational and intra-generational values [ 25 ]. It focuses on the responsible transfer of resources to future generations while simultaneously ensuring their accessibility within contemporary society [ 32 , 38 ]. Consequently, increasing significance is attributed to communication strategies that enable the outward expression of an organization's internal values [ 4 , 27 ]. Given this shift toward value-driven and holistic engagement, the Brundtland Commission’s definition—while foundational—presents a complex challenge when communicating the multifaceted sustainability issues of contemporary enterprises. In recent decades, sustainability has also become a cornerstone of marketing, evolving into 'green marketing.' This practice integrates corporate activities and advertising centred on environmental sustainability, promoting products as eco-friendly to capture consumer attention [ 36 ]. It reshapes corporate operations across multiple levels: fostering more responsible consumer behaviour, demanding greater transparency in corporate processes, and significantly enhancing brand value [ 33 ]. Research identifies three primary motivational frameworks driving SMEs: market orientation (aligning consumer demand and societal expectations, maintaining competitiveness); entrepreneurial orientation (innovation, proactive risk-taking and development of new solutions); institutional influence (regulatory pressure, often perceived as forced compliance) [ 16 ]. However, inherent contradictions persist. Sustainability is not a total negation of consumption; it can only be fully understood through the dynamics of the consumer society [ 3 ]. This tension drives the search for innovative solutions, emerging as a contemporary alternative to traditional modernisation that seeks value beyond conventional growth models. A strong digital presence is a fundamental prerequisite for brand credibility and a strategic tool for customer acquisition. By integrating ecological problem-solving into the value proposition, organizations effectively commodify sustainability to align with market demands [ 3 , 15 ]. Here, communicating sustainability through the organizational image fosters brand growth rooted in a sustainable connection between employer and employees, aiming for collective social benefit [ 12 ]. From a stakeholder theory perspective, employees are a key stakeholder group for achieving the enterprise’s outcomes [ 39 ]. Ultimately, the essence of contemporary communication lies in its capacity to function as a meaningful value-creation process [ 4 , 40 ]. It transcends simple information exchange, transforming into a strategic framework where social, environmental, and corporate values converge to drive long-term success. The transition from fragmented information to a holistic strategy reflects a deeper understanding of sustainability’s multifaceted nature and the necessity of integrated corporate solutions [ 10 ]. According to sustainability experts interviewed within this study, this shift fundamentally redefines the role of communication: it is no longer a supplementary function but the primary mechanism for stakeholder engagement—becoming communication in its very essence. Experts emphasize that SC challenges standardization; it must remain flexible and adaptive to resonate with each stakeholder group within its unique context. Literature review emphasises that responsible SC remains rare, primarily due to management resistance rooted in value systems that prioritise short-term gains [ 10 , 25 ]. This traditional 'more is better' mindset directly contradicts sustainability’s focus on growth in the quality of life. To evolve, modern business must merge 'communication about sustainability' with 'sustainable communication.' [ 25 ]. While the former addresses content, the latter focuses on maintaining authentic dialogue and long-term stakeholder relationships. This integration transforms communication from a corporate reporting tool into the foundation of responsible business. The application of SC as a strategic instrument varies across different organisational scales. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) frequently encounter specific challenges in this domain, such as limited financial resources for sustainable investments, a lack of specialised knowledge, and intensifying market pressure [ 26 ]. Despite these hurdles, when SMEs begin to implement sustainable initiatives—even if initially prompted by external pressure—it can trigger profound organizational changes [ 4 ]. This process gradually strengthens the company's internal conviction and commitment to sustainability across all operational aspects. Ultimately, the success of SC within the SME sector depends on the organization’s intrinsic qualities: it is closely tied to the authenticity of the values communicated, internal transparency, and a genuine commitment to the core principles of sustainability [ 3 , 6 , 12 ]. Consequently, SC functions as a holistic approach, integrating these principles across all operational levels [ 27 ]. Here, internal communication serves as a vital instrument for employee engagement and the cultivation of loyalty toward the organization’s mission. Conversely, external communication acts as a strategic tool for corporate image building and societal involvement [ 6 ]. The effectiveness of these external practices is fundamentally predicated on internal alignment: if an organization successfully transmits its sustainability vision to its employees, it significantly enhances the likelihood that these principles will be consistently upheld in external discourse and practice [ 7 ]. This process is deeply rooted in the explicit and implicit attitudes of organisational leadership toward sustainability, which dictate how principles are interpreted and operationalised [ 27 ]. Implicit attitudes can profoundly influence decision-making and sustainability-oriented actions, even when they diverge from publicly declared explicit stances. Exploring the interplay between these conscious and subconscious attitudes is crucial, as it reveals the critical "gap" between conceptual understanding and actual organizational behaviour, particularly in the context of SMEs where leadership values often directly dictate corporate culture [ 15 , 26 ]. Practically, SC is an essential tool for achieving organizational objectives [ 12 , 25 ]. It serves as the primary instrument for demonstrating responsibility and fostering engagement. Since corporate interests are intrinsically linked to social responsibility, a comprehensive approach generates value for both partners and society, ultimately enhancing market competitiveness and ensuring long-term development [ 4 ]. Thus, SC is centred on what enterprises communicate, and, as communication is everything [ 1 ]. This means, namely, which sustainability measures and values they disclose to stakeholders. Therefore, the communication process reflects the enterprise's understanding of its accountability for environmental, social, and governance factors. 2.4. Conceptual Framework of Sustainability Communication To implement an effective SC strategy, it is essential to distinguish between the different dimensions and objectives of communication. The conceptual framework of SC is primarily structured around three core focal points: communication of sustainability, communication about sustainability, and communication for sustainability [ 2 , 10 , 25 ]. These focal points, as illustrated in Table 1 , define how an organization reports its performance, facilitates public discourse, and promotes transformative action toward sustainable community development. Beyond these functional roles, recent academic literature emphasises a fourth critical dimension: sustainable communication (Table 1 ). Thus, it is possible to distinguish 4 fundamental focuses. -- Table 1 Sustainability Communication focal points Sustainability communication focus Description References Communication about sustainability Defined precise communication channel selection and audience-centric messaging. This focus utilises a many-to-many communication model, fostering a non-hierarchical, democratic discourse focused on the core tenets of sustainability. Transcends communication’s traditional role of information dissemination to act as a facilitator for active engagement between organizations and their audiences. Communication in this context operates within "controversially structured fields of symbolic interaction," where stakeholders often possess divergent perspectives rooted in conflicting values. Success is defined by the ability to synthesise these competing arguments into a cohesive framework for action. [2, 3, 4, 32, 33, Communication of sustainability This focus is primarily defined by the reporting of specific organisational outputs, such as sustainability reports, certifications, and third-party endorsements. A distinction must be made: while "sustainability communication" is an expansive, holistic concept, "communication of sustainability " is a narrow, instrumental tool used by management to promote specific organisations or products. This approach is inherently monological, characterised by a linear, one-way flow of information from the sender to the receiver. Its primary function is often to justify organisational activities rather than to foster genuine public engagement. Consequently, critics argue that this method reinforces a rigid hierarchy between "experts" and the "general public." By failing to establish a feedback loop, it ignores whether the message has been accurately understood, if the values have been internalised, or if the information was even successfully received. [ 2 , 12 , 33 ] Communication for sustainability This focus represents the most radical shift in communication, moving beyond mere reporting to actively driving societal transformation. It is fundamentally rooted in the normative objectives of sustainable development. Within communication, this shifts at both the individual and institutional levels. While this approach may integrate elements of the "of" (instrumental) and "about" (discursive) dimensions, it is uniquely defined by its commitment to stakeholder collaboration and the co-creation of solutions. This communication aims to foster active engagement. Its primary objective is to fundamentally reshape social norms and institutional structures, empowering audiences to become partners in the transition toward a sustainable future. Unfortunately, this model is frequently criticised for its vulnerability to "greenwashing". Therefore, the ultimate success of "communication for sustainability" is not measured by the beauty of the narrative but by its tangible impact. [ 2 , 6 , 12 ] Sustainable communication This approach transcends the boundaries of formal information exchange, shifting the focus toward authentic, respectful, and value-based interactions. This fourth focal point prioritises cultivating long-term, resilient relationships. It suggests that the way an organisation communicates is just as important as the message itself. Here comes transparency and ethical engagement into every touchpoint, ensuring that the communication process is a direct reflection of the organization’s core sustainability values. [ 7 , 10 , 25 , 27 ] Within the presented SC focal points framework, corporate communication strategy reflects a multidimensional reality that surpasses traditional paradigms of business discourse. Primarily, corporate SC functions as an external mediator by disseminating information on specific initiatives and ethical practices, thereby fortifying organisational reputation and stakeholder trust. Simultaneously, the framework encompasses internal corporate communication as a strategic catalyst for deep organizational transformation. By embedding sustainability into the corporate culture and core values, it recalibrates employee perceptions and behaviours, positioning the organization as a primary driver of change within its immediate community. Based on a literature review, the current study offers a framework to bridge the gap between the theoretical and practical implementation of SC within enterprises (see Fig. 1 ). 3. METHODOLOGY 3.1. Research design In this paper, a mixed-methods research design was employed to evaluate how small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) perceive and implement SC. This approach enhanced data reliability through triangulation, combining a quantitative survey to identify general trends with qualitative semi-structured interviews and expert consultations [ 41 ]. The decision to interview two representatives from each company group was not intended for inter-group comparison but to identify shared patterns and commonalities, ensuring a comprehensive overview of the phenomenon [ 42 ]. For the quantitative phase, data were collected via an anonymous questionnaire utilising a four-point Likert scale. This forced-choice format intentionally omitted a neutral value to encourage specific responses and minimize indifference [ 43 ]. Overall, this multifaceted design aligned the study with real-world sustainability practices, providing a more holistic and significant research character [ 42 ]. 3.2. Data source and respondents The study participants comprise representatives from SMEs and two sustainability experts. The general selection of participants was conducted in accordance with the NACE Rev. 2 statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community, which provides a uniform standard for classifying economic activity across all EU Member States. This classification is widely utilised because it provides policymakers with essential data to develop industry-specific support measures, while also enabling enterprises to gain market insights and evaluate competitive opportunities within specific sectors. The socio-demographic selection of participants was determined by organizational structure, specifically the number of employees and annual turnover, adhering to the definition set forth in Annex I of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014. According to this regulation, micro-enterprises are defined as having fewer than 10 employees and an annual turnover below 2 million EUR, while small enterprises consist of 10 to 49 employees with an annual turnover between 2 million and 10 million EUR. Medium-sized enterprises are characterised by 50 to 249 employees and an annual turnover from 10 million to below 50 million EUR, whereas large enterprises involve 250 or more employees and a turnover exceeding 50 million EUR. To reach the target audience for the survey, a convenience sampling method was employed, allowing an open application period in which all interested companies could participate [ 19 ]. Analysis of 2023 data on the number of SMEs in Latvia revealed that the study population consisted of 33,035 enterprises. To extract data specifically for the target SME audience, the questionnaire included a classification section. Consequently, this study focuses specifically on the analysis of small enterprises (10–49 employees) and medium-sized enterprises (50–249 employees). A survey was initiated with 538 respondents and remained open until 200 valid responses were collected (N = 200). The valid sample consisted of 127 small enterprises (63.5%) and 73 medium-sized enterprises (36.5%). The remaining responses were classified as invalid as they did not meet the study's target group criteria. The data collection procedure involved the development of a questionnaire on the online survey platform. The survey was distributed to participants online between February 19 and March 25, 2025, utilizing various social media platforms, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. However, the highest respondent engagement was achieved through direct email communication. Contact information for the enterprises was obtained from business directories, as well as the entrepreneurship database. To maximize the reach within the target audience, a snowball sampling method was implemented by engaging various industry associations and organizations, municipal business development specialists, representatives from municipal business and tourism centres, sectoral associations, and various business support hubs [ 44 ]. To collect data, the questionnaire, the Likert scale designed to be both transparent and easy for respondents to understand. Measurements were arranged according to the degree of intensity, ranging from strongly negative to strongly positive. The Likert scale was constructed as a discriminatory four-point scale, intentionally omitting a neutral "zero" value. This forced-choice format was selected to encourage respondents to provide more specific answers and to minimize generalization or indifference toward the issues under consideration [ 43 ]. Furthermore, it should be noted that while 200 surveys were valid, 10 respondents indicated that they do not implement SC in any of their activities. Although these 10 enterprises belong to the target audience, they did not complete the full questionnaire; consequently, the sample size for various statistical tests is N = 190. A significant majority of the initial applicants (299 or 55.58% of the total number of enterprises) were micro-enterprises. 3.3. Data analysis Data processing and analysis were conducted in accordance with the research objective and the formulated questions. In the quantitative part of the study, a correlational design was used. This approach enabled the analysis of interrelationships among variables without intervention or manipulation. Correlational research is particularly suitable when the researcher aims to identify trends among specific indicators within one or more natural groups [ 19 ]. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS software. First, descriptive statistics were calculated to gain an overall overview of the dataset and key indicators. Initially, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to determine whether the data followed a normal distribution. The results indicated that the data were not normally distributed. This finding determined the subsequent choice of statistical tests and the approach to correlational analysis. Median values were used to determine the central tendency. The median is the middle value of a distribution, dividing the data into two equal parts [ 45 ]. Medians were determined for the overall SME (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises) target audience, as well as for small and medium enterprises separately. To determine the spread of the data around the median, the interquartile range (IQR) was calculated, which is applicable to asymmetrical data. To evaluate differences between groups, the Mann-Whitney U test was employed, which is suitable for nonparametric data [ 19 ]. For all Likert-scale questions, p-values (Sig.) were analysed. If p 0.05, no significant differences are found. For correlation calculations, Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used, which allows for determining the degree of relationship between two non-metric scales; this rank coefficient is considered an indicative correlation coefficient [ 45 ]. A correlation is considered moderately strong if the coefficient value is p 0.5 or higher [ 19 ]. In the qualitative part of the study, the processing of interview data was carried out as follows: interview transcripts were created. Subsequently, the text was analysed line by line using coding to identify themes and subthemes. Data processing utilised thematic analysis, which emphasises the meaning of the content (the "WHAT") rather than the mode of expression (the "HOW") [ 19 ]. The survey was conducted anonymously, and research ethics were strictly observed throughout all stages of the study, ensuring voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, and respectful treatment of all participants [ 19 ]. While the findings offer significant insights into dominant trends, they are not universally generalizable to all SMEs in Latvia. It must also be noted that reaching the target audience for the quantitative phase proved to be highly challenging; the sample size was primarily augmented through personalised email outreach. Despite these limitations, the study provides a timely and valuable perspective on the understanding and execution of SC within the SME sector, establishing a robust foundation for further, more granular research in this field. 4. RESULTS The analysis of the results is structured in alignment with the research questions. By analysing the research data, this study clarifies the Latvian SME approach to SC, evaluating challenges and opportunities that shape the practical achievement of sustainable community development.To address the research questions, descriptive statistical analysis was conducted, followed by an examination of correlations between variables in the second part of the subsection; this reveals prevailing trends in the SME approach to SC and identifies potential areas for development. Following the correlation coefficient analysis, the interview data from SME representatives were evaluated. This qualitative component provides a deeper understanding of how SMEs perceive and implement SC, thereby offering a more comprehensive overview of the situation within the SME environment. 4.1. Understanding of Sustainability Communication This subsection presents results that enable analysis and conclusions regarding understanding SC. Given that the foundation of SC understanding is formed by the company's stakeholder management practices, respondents were asked to evaluate three core approaches (see Table 1). Overall, the data indicate cautious, relatively balanced engagement with the stakeholder approach, as shown by the central tendency: 'partially agree' (Mdn = 3.00). Table 1. Evaluation of Stakeholder Management Approaches, N=190 Survey Statement Mdn IQR % Mdn U 1 2 3 4 Small ent. Medium ent. The company primarily focuses on financial results, placing less emphasis on sustainability with stakeholders. 3 1 12 23 46.5 13.5 3 3 4086.00 The company maintains a mutual dialogue with stakeholders, but it is not a strategic priority. 3 1 4 20.5 57.5 13 3 3 4035.50 The company actively engages stakeholders and adapts its strategy in line with sustainability principles. 3 1 8 20.5 54 12.5 3 3 4124.00 Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. The interquartile range (IQR = 1) indicates low dispersion in responses, suggesting consistent opinions among respondents. The highest combined positive rating (70.5%) was for the statement that dialogue with stakeholders exists but lacks strategic priority. Conversely, only 12.5% of respondents "strongly agree" that stakeholder engagement is integrated into their sustainability strategy. Regarding the focus on financial results over sustainability, 35% gave negative ratings, emphasising the importance of stakeholders. No statistically significant differences were found for any of the statements (p > 0.05). This indicates that SME stakeholder engagement remains reactive rather than strategically planned. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients reveal various interrelationships and interactions between variables, reflecting the understanding of SC within SMEs (see Table 2). Table 2. Correlation coefficients between the characteristics and importance of sustainability communication; Spearman’s rank correlation, N = 190 In your opinion, which best describes SC in your company? Our company prepares various sustainability reports and performance accounts. Our company interacts with customers and provides feedback. Our company communicates sustainable initiatives, values, and changes to stakeholders Our company communicates concern for the environment, climate change, and biodiversity conservation Sustainability communication opens a new market niche for our company, attracting additional customers. In sustainability communication, our company balances environmental, social, and good governance (ESG) dimensions. How important is SC to the company's operations? . 35** . 37** . 48** . 32** . 49** . 54** Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Evaluating the characteristics of SC, the results show that SC's importance is linked to the communication of sustainable initiatives, values, and changes, although this relationship is weak (r = .48, p < .01; see Table 1). Similar correlation was found between the importance of SC and its role in opening new market niches (r = .49, p < .01). A stronger, moderately close relationship was identified between the importance of SC and the balancing of the three sustainability dimensions (r = .54, p < .01). The correlation coefficients confirm that SMEs that value the significance of SC perceive it primarily as a tool for good governance, a means of ensuring competitiveness, and an opportunity to communicate sustainability initiatives, values, and changes to stakeholders. Interview results indicate that companies that have integrated sustainability into their operations demonstrate an understanding of the importance of SC. Consequently, they adapt their communication approach to stakeholders and include it in the implementation of their strategic business objectives. A representative of a medium-sized enterprise (V-1) describes a systemic approach where SC is already integrated into the company’s goals and subsequently communicated to all employees: " It (sustainability communication) is certainly clear to all employees. (..) And for us, it is actually a corporate goal, which then cascades down to the specific professionals who deal with it on a daily basis ." Similarly, the interview data highlight an SME approach that emphasises a deep dive into business fundamentals before implementing SC, thereby shaping a response to modern market demands. As noted by V-2: "(..) clients come who are buyers for large networks. When evaluating various partners—who they are, where they are located, what their sustainability indices are, and what actions are being taken to be 'greener' for the environment in the future—we can gain additional points by generating interest among international clients ." Companies that delve deeper into the essence of SC the need to first understand the foundation upon which it is built. As explained by V-1: " In order to carry out that communication, there must already be a foundation. That foundation is most likely the actual work we do ." Overall, the interview data reveal a tension between business priorities and sustainability investments; despite a willingness and readiness to invest in sustainability, preference is frequently given to core operational functions. While sustainability is strongly associated with financial investment, the findings suggest a need to rebalance this perspective. Specifically, the starting point for understanding SC should involve an evaluation of the company’s internal processes. This internal focus is crucial when assessing the overall understanding and implementation of SC within the SME sector. The qualitative findings reveal that SMEs recognise the growing relevance of SC and acknowledge its vital role in contemporary business operations. However, the data underscore a clear disparity between enterprise sizes: medium-sized enterprises demonstrate a significantly more mature approach, perceiving SC as a strategic asset rather than a peripheral activity. These larger organisations exhibit a more nuanced understanding of the triple-dimensional balance (environmental, social, and governance) and possess a firmer grasp of how regulatory frameworks drive sustainability motivation. In contrast, small enterprises tend to adopt a more moderate, fragmented approach, characterised by limited strategic integration of sustainability principles. While these trends provide critical insights into the current SME landscape, they should be viewed as indicative rather than universally generalizable. Ultimately, these varying levels of maturity highlight an urgent need to strengthen SC awareness and professional practice, specifically within the small business sector. 4.2. Implementation of Sustainability Communication At the beginning of the questionnaire, respondents were asked a direct question: 'Does your company implement sustainability communication?' The absolute negative response, 'not implemented in any activities,' served as a screening criterion to exclude respondents from completing the full version of the survey; this accounted for 5% of the respondents. A significant majority—86% of respondents in total—indicated that they 'partially implement' or 'fully implement' SC." See Table 3. Table 3. Implementation of Sustainability Communication (SC), N=190 Survey Question Mdn IQR % Mdn U 1 2 3 4 Small ent. Medium ent. Does your company implement SC? 3 0 5 9 68 18 3 3 4050.50 Note. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. The analysis of responses indicates a high level of consensus among respondents regarding the implementation of SC, as evidenced by a zero value in the interquartile range (IQR). This signifies a uniform perspective across SMEs: 'partially implemented' (Mdn = 3.00). To identify the most characteristic practices of SC implementation, the survey evaluated how SMEs promote and assess the execution of SC. The data reveal a more pronounced divergence of opinions when evaluating management involvement in sustainability, as evidenced by a higher interquartile range (IQR = 2), indicating greater dispersion from the central value. Overall, 24.5% of respondents provided negative ratings ('strongly disagree' and 'partially disagree'). This suggests a lack of consensus among respondents regarding management-led SC, or that attitudes toward management's role in SC vary significantly. See the table below. Table 4. Measures to Promote Sustainability Communication (SC) in SMEs, N=190 Survey Statement Mdn IQR % Mdn U 1 2 3 4 Small ent Medium ent Our company prepares various sustainability reports and accounts of its activities. 2 1 18.5 29.5 27.5 19.5 2 3 3457.00** Our company implements various sustainability efforts and initiatives aimed at informing and educating (customers, partners, investors). 3 1 9 24.5 39.5 22 3 3 3435.50** The company's management is involved in sustainability topics and communication. 3 2 6 18.5 34.5 36 3 3 3492.00** Note* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Different central tendencies were observed both within SMEs and across separate groups. When evaluating the implementation of reporting measures and the facilitation of discussions and opinion exchanges, a pronounced lack of consensus is evident in both groups. Specifically, the central tendency for small enterprises is 'rarely' (Mdn = 2.00), whereas for medium-sized enterprises, it is 'sometimes' (Mdn = 3.00). This indicates an uneven approach to implementing these practices across the SME sector. Overall, the data show that medium-sized enterprises promote SC more comprehensively and strategically. The data show that SMEs that promote and evaluate SC implementation build closer relationships with stakeholders and strengthen their brands. The results demonstrate a unified, strategic approach to SC implementation, integrated into the company’s sustainability and communication practices. The data indicate that SC is not an isolated function, but rather an integral part of SME operations. See the table below. Table 5. Correlation Coefficients between Sustainability Communication Promotion and Evaluation in SMEs Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, N=190 SC Evaluation Methods SC Promotion Measures Tracking awards, certificates, and ratings. Monitoring stakeholder feedback on social media (shares, likes, reviews). Recording various types of collaboration with stakeholders. Measuring the growth of new customers following the communication of specific sustainability-related products or services. Assessing increases in employee motivation and engagement levels. Evaluating growth in corporate brand awareness and market presence. Our company prepares various sustainability reports. . 46** . 26** . 42** . 44** . 37** . 35** Our company implements initiatives to inform and educate (customers, partners). . 45** . 51** . 50** . 50** . 47** . 49** The company facilitates discussions and knowledge sharing. . 35** . 37** . 48** . 42** . 42** . 38** Management is involved in sustainability topics and SC. . 37** . 37** . 43** . 41** . 55** . 49** SC focus is on reputation and brand improvement. . 30** . 50** . 51** . 50** . 50** . 51** The company maintains long-term stakeholder relationships. . 30** . 33** . 39** . 37** . 42** . 36** Note *p < .05*, **p < .01**, ***p < .001** Interview data confirm that SC is implemented strategically, particularly within medium-sized enterprises. This strategic alignment is characterised by a balance between core business functions and sustainability goals. As respondent V-2 explains, SC effectiveness depends on how a company integrates these elements at the product level and ensures they remain 'in balance with other operations.' Furthermore, the data highlight a significant demographic shift, as SC increasingly targets the values of the younger generation. V-2 notes that younger employees value sustainability significantly more, making it a critical factor for employer attractiveness. This resonates with the niche strategies of smaller enterprises like M-1, whose communication is specifically tailored to a 'young, affluent, and knowledgeable' audience—consumers who actively seek sustainable alternatives over conventional products ." 4.3. Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing Sustainability Communication within SME To gain a deeper understanding of SME perspectives on SC, respondents' answers regarding SC challenges and opportunities were analysed as part of the empirical study. For both questions, respondents could select up to 3 options, including the option to provide their own response. The data were further analysed using cross-tabulation, which allowed identification of the most characteristic choices within the context of challenges and opportunities. The most prominent challenge in implementing SC, is a lack of time for stakeholder engagement, cited by 51.7% of respondents, which reflects a scarcity of resources as companies prioritise core operations over full engagement in sustainability initiatives (See Fig.2). This is closely followed by financial concerns, with 46.1% of respondents identifying sustainability efforts as too costly, thereby highlighting a persistent tension between environmental initiatives and business viability. Additionally, the conceptual complexity of SC remains a barrier for 35.6% of the sample, underscoring the need for clearer communication and broader education within the business sector. Finally, a smaller proportion of respondents (17.8%) point to a reliance on traditional development models as an obstacle, suggesting that existing practices may lack the flexibility adapt to alternative, sustainable solutions. In open-ended responses, respondents highlighted various obstacles and constraints, such as "basic bureaucratic obligations imposed by the state, which drain the time and energy needed to implement continuous and successful SC." Others characterised SC as an "encumbrance" or noted a "lack of sustainable alternatives." Overall, these findings point to a fundamental misunderstanding of SC, a perceived need for state support, and a lingering reliance on traditional development models. When evaluating the opportunities perceived by SMEs, the most prominent trend is conveying corporate values to employees to strengthen reputation (68.6%), which underscores employee engagement as a critical element of SC (See Fig.3). This is followed by communicating new business models and practices (41.5%) to emphasise market competitiveness. The least common application of SC (20%) is finding a unique sustainability definition to differentiate the company amid multiple explanations. Data gathered from both surveys and interviews identify the most characteristic challenges in the practical implementation of SC, specifically regarding its conceptual understanding and resource management, such as crafting messages in a competitive environment and managing the high costs associated with sustainability. Simultaneously, SC is perceived as an integral part of corporate internal culture, as evidenced by the high value placed on employee involvement. It also serves as a vital tool for enhancing competitiveness, identifying new market opportunities, and bolstering corporate reputation. 5. Discussion Analysis of the results identifies several themes characterising SME SC understanding, implementation, key challenges, and opportunities. Overall, SMEs perceive SC as a support function for internal information flow. However, medium-sized enterprises tend to associate SC more with a management function, evidenced by strongly positive responses regarding intangible resources, such as the importance of sustainability and internal communication. This approach aligns with Grunig’s conceptualisation of communication as a strategic management tool that strengthens two-way communication and trust between an organisation and its audiences [ 37 , 40 , 46 ]. Consequently, sustainability and SC are viewed as more significant within the medium-sized enterprise group than in small enterprises, recognising greater potential and a stronger link to practical implementation. While companies generally recognise that SC can enhance competitiveness and unlock new market niches, many SMEs still prioritise short-term profit as a fundamental necessity [ 6 , 16 ]. This often leads to a self-interested, one-sided view of sustainability. In contrast, integrating social and environmental efforts with economic growth—a practice more common among medium-sized enterprises—offers a more holistic value proposition [ 4 ]. A narrow perspective, however, suggests that companies undervalue their stakeholders, thereby hindering the collaboration and societal integration necessary for sustainable community development [ 47 , 48 ]. Although sustainability can reduce operational costs and build broader social connections [ 12 ], focusing only on isolated stages of the sustainability chain produces a fragmented narrative. This creates a persistent misconception that sustainability is merely an added expense rather than an integrated system. Such fragmentation aligns with Grunig’s [ 49 ] assertion that consumers form a "complex impression" rather than perceiving information in isolation; if communication is dominated by cost-related messaging, high cost becomes the defining characteristic of the brand’s sustainability in the consumer's eyes. The findings suggest that, in general, SMEs lack the ability, willingness, or capacity to engage interactively with their stakeholders. Academic literature indicates that companies with higher levels of interactivity achieve greater sales volumes by attracting more sustainability-conscious consumers, which is directly linked to two-way symmetrical communication [ 15 , 37 ]. Research further points out that the connection between society and corporate sustainability initiatives is often undervalued. Therefore, it is crucial to develop solutions and implement communication strategies that effectively balance the three core dimensions of sustainability: environment, society, and economy. Expert interviews and survey results indicate that approximately one-fifth of the responding companies combine various SC strategies when implementing sustainability within the organization. These companies perceive SC as a long-term, mutually beneficial success story that integrates sustainability management with active stakeholder engagement. This approach aligns with existing literature [ 12 , 25 ]. This understanding is further supported by weak to moderately high (borderline) correlations, indicating a link between the implementation of SC activities and changes in corporate brand and reputation. The results specifically confirm the importance of employee understanding of SC in fostering stakeholder engagement, which subsequently builds organizational trust [ 27 ]. It is also understandable why small enterprises place significantly greater emphasis on close ties with their stakeholders, particularly customers. These companies more closely control and adapt their strategies in direct response to market demand. However, implementing sustainability requires not only operational responsiveness but also general flexibility and a strategic approach [ 8 , 47 ]. As explained by Bittner-Fesseler & Weicht [ 25 ], effective SC is grounded in a comprehensive reflection on sustainability dimensions. It is precisely within this context that the differences in corporate communication strategies become apparent. Data from interviews with SME representatives and experts indicate that younger generations place greater value on SC. This trend strongly aligns with the core postulate of sustainability: ensuring well-being for future generations [ 4 ], demonstrating that younger generations are already demanding its implementation. This not only reveals the impact of generational shifts on SMEs but also signals to companies to review their internal systems and strategic communication if they wish to remain competitive in the labour market [ 26 ]. Consequently, the younger generation becomes an agent of sustainability, influencing both the corporate internal culture and its external reputation. This encourages companies to approach SC more systematically as part of their brand and reputation building. The study shows that this complex and strategic approach is more successfully implemented by medium-sized enterprises, where the dimension of SC implementation becomes a tool for image building. This further explains the SME focus on SC, identified in the survey, which can be characterised as "communication of sustainability" (narrow sense) and "communication about sustainability". This confirms that SC serves corporate interests: brand building, increasing sales figures, and enhancing reputation [ 4 , 33 ]. The literature review also corroborates this, indicating that the objective of SC is often not sustainable outcomes per se, but rather changing attitudes toward the party involved in the communication. In this context, the various activities implemented by SMEs identified in the empirical study can be understood as intermediate goals toward brand strengthening. This is confirmed by both the literature review and the results: audience engagement, attitude formation (employee motivation and involvement), dialogue, and customer acquisition [ 25 , 33 , 39 , 50 ]. Criticism highlighted by Freeman and Phillips [ 51 ] points toward the standardised approach companies take regarding their social impact, urging an expansion of the traditional economic dimension to include the social one and calling for an evaluation of the impact of corporate communication in its broadest sense. The results indicate that medium-sized enterprises better understand and implement SC as a transformative change process, in which stakeholders generally recognise the value of SC [ 40 ]. The narrow focus on customers and buyers emphasises communication; however, it tends to be one-way and results-oriented. From the perspectives of sustainability management and stakeholder theory, this indicates that sustainability goals are being disregarded [ 13 , 39 ]. In the context of sustainability, a company's values and scope are crucial: the broader and more inclusive the perspective, the greater the likelihood that its actions are directed toward genuine sustainability. A narrow view, based solely on profit interests, effectively neglects sustainability. On the other hand, relationships are indeed vital to implementing sustainability, but they must encompass all three dimensions—environmental, social, and economic. In this framework, communication becomes the central element for overcoming the mutual challenges of these dimensions, fostering understanding, participation, and responsible action [ 10 ]. The identified lack of time, as emphasised by the SME survey results, aligns with the literature: most companies are preoccupied with "busyness," failing to allocate enough time to sustainability, whereas SC requires in-depth engagement [ 3 ]. This suggests that in most companies, SC is not attributed any value at all. Research indicates that as the importance of communication grows, there is an increasing demand for internal corporate resources rather than external ones [ 9 , 40 ]. The study results emphasise the need to transform SME perceptions of sustainability by promoting a comprehensive approach to SC. It is essential to integrate environmental and social aspects into communication on equal terms with economic benefits. At a practical level, this requires a review of internal processes to ensure that achieving sustainability goals complements, rather than hinders, the company’s efficiency and market position. 6. Conclusions Overall, SMEs exhibit a notable lack of understanding regarding effective stakeholder engagement. Research identifies several distinct approaches to SC within these enterprises, where it is most commonly understood as a process for building customer relationships through two-way communication and feedback. Additionally, SC is conceptualised as sustainability governance, value-driven change communication, or pragmatic reporting and documentation. The study reveals that SC execution varies according to its level of integration within the company. At the highest level, it evolves into sustainable community communication, which facilitates dialogue with the broader public and diverse stakeholders. At the intermediate level, it functions primarily as brand communication and image enhancement, while the lowest level maintains a restricted, one-way focus on customers. Furthermore, findings indicate that medium-sized enterprises possess a superior understanding and implementation of SC compared to their smaller counterparts. These companies recognise their strategic benefits and value the opportunities it provides for stakeholder engagement, market competition, and navigating the regulatory framework. In contrast, small businesses do not view the pragmatic and strategic form of SC, such as formal reporting practices, as relevant to their daily operations, suggesting that for them, SC is a more practical and informal tool. However, when evaluating effectiveness, small businesses place a higher emphasis on certificates and awards as the most useful indicators of quality in SC implementation. The study finds that management involvement in implementing SC shapes the company's overall strategy and primary approach, while employees ensure its practical execution in daily operations, thereby highlighting SC as a collaborative team effort. Furthermore, the research indicates that medium-sized enterprises demonstrate a deeper understanding of the importance of employees in SC implementation, viewing it as an opportunity to convey corporate values and sustainability, thereby strengthening the company's reputation. This approach fosters a unified corporate culture and more sustainable development, while also providing a competitive advantage in the labour market, particularly in attracting the younger generation. The study reveals that SC within SMEs is implemented as both "communication of sustainability" and "communication about sustainability," reflecting its use to promote sales, strengthen branding, and enhance corporate reputation. 7. Implications For Industry: To transform SC from an external facade into a core cultural element, enterprises must first define sustainability within their specific operational context and supply chain. This foundational audit, though low-cost, is essential for initiating systemic change to drive sustainable community development. Central to this process is leadership commitment, which fosters employee engagement and ensures that corporate values are authentically tailored in external discourse. Furthermore, embedding SC into the employer brand serves as a strategic tool for attracting and retaining talent. For resource-constrained organizations, SC can be optimised by either empowering existing staff or engaging specialised consultants to ensure message clarity. Effective stakeholder engagement requires audience segmentation and customized messaging to enhance trust. However, external credibility is contingent upon internal alignment; thus, fostering a unified understanding across all organizational levels is paramount. Finally, the implementation of self-assessment tools is recommended to facilitate continuous improvement and the timely identification of practice gaps. For Industry Associations, Business Societies, and Regional Development Institutions: The study recommends that these institutions assume a mediator role by establishing collaboration platforms and initiatives where like-minded SMEs can share best practices in SC, engage in knowledge exchange, and collectively enhance their understanding of SC. Such initiatives would improve the transfer of responsible information among SMEs. Simultaneously, the study recommends that these platforms provide a foundation for SMEs to mutually agree on clear, industry-specific sustainability indicators and, where possible, further develop them into policy initiatives. For policymakers: The study recommends developing clearly defined sustainability criteria to guide companies. Furthermore, to improve SC across all stakeholders within the supply chain, the study recommends establishing unified, clear guidelines that serve as a common framework for sustainability and SC activities. Limitations: The research findings provide insights into dominant trends, however they are no generalizable to all Latvian SMEs or SMEs overall. This study opens an opportunities for future research. Further research could go into specific sectors, or provide more detailed analysis into defining cause of challenges or opportunities. Declarations Data Availability Statement The original data presented in the study are openly available in Mendeley Data at DOI: 10.17632/mwwz66nf5y.1 [57]. Competing interests: None to declare Clinical Trials: Not Applicable. Informed Consent: All participants involved in this research were informed about their consent their participation in this research. Funding: This research received no external funding. Ethical Procedure: The generally accepted standards of conduct have been followed in preparing this manuscript, and the following is hereby certified to be true. The paper has been submitted with full responsibility, following the due ethical procedures. There is no duplicate publication, fraud or concerns about animal or human experimentation. References Rasche, A., & Seidl, D. (2016). A Luhmannian Perspective on Strategy: Strategy as Paradox and Meta-Communication. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.cpa. 2017.03.004 Fischer, D., Ludescke, G., Godeman, J., Michelsen, G., Newig J., Rieckmann, M., & Schulz, D. (2016) In book: Sustainability Science. An Introduction (pp.139-148) Publisher: Springer. DOI:10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_12 Serttas, A., Sarikaya T., Esmanur, U. (2022). Sustainability as a communication policy created by the economic system. Journal of Ekonomi 8(2):74-81 https://doi.org/10.58251/ekonomi.1167505 Primoži, L., Kutnar, A. (2022). Sustainability Communication in a Global Consumer Brands. MDPI; Sustainability 2022, 14 (20), 13586; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013586 Parkikinenm M. & Vikstrom, S (2024). Alterntive policy narratives of the future of climate change: Analyzing Finland’s energy and climate strategy and news reports. Review of Policy Research. February 2024, 41 (4) 635-653. DOI:10.1111/ropr.12602 Nurlaela, Arief, N., Famiola, M., Pratama, P., A., Anggahegari, P., Putri, A., N., A. (2022) Sustainability Communication through Bio-based Experimental Learning. Sustainability 2022, 14 (9), 5204; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095204 Elving, W. (2020). Sustainable communication. November 2020 International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources 26(3) https://doi.org/10.19080/IJESNR.2020.26.556190 Shazalal, Md., Hassan, A. (2019). Communicating Sustainability: Using Community Media to Influence Rural People’s Intention to Adopt sustainable Behaviour. Sustainability 2019, 11 (3),812; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030812 Golob, U., Podnar, K., Žabkar, V. (2022). Sustainability communication. November 2022 42(2):1-10 https://DOI:10.1080/02650487.2022.2144035 Weder, F., Lemke, S., Tungarat, A. (2019). (Re)storying Sustainability: The Use of Story Cubes in Narrative Inquiries to Understand Individual Perceptions of Sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11 (19), 5264 https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195264 Rodel, J., Frisch, A., Damjanovic. D. (2023). The scientists’ responsibility in communicating the sustainability crisis. Springer Nature Link. Journal of Material Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-023-09031-z Genc, R. (2017). The Importance of Communication in Sustainability & Sustainable Strategies. Procedia Manufacturing. Vol.8, 2017, 511-516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.065 Horisch, J., Freeman. E., Schallteger, S. (2014). Applying Stakeholder Theory in Sustainability Management. Links, Similarities, Dissimilarities and Conceptual Framework. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614535 Kong, M., H., Witmaier, A., Ko, E. (2020). Sustainability and social media communication: How consumers respond to marketing efforts of luxury and non - luxury fashion brands. September 2020 Journal of Business Research 131(10. DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.021 Kumar Jha, A., Verm, N.K. (2022). Social Media Sustainability Communication: An Analysis of Firm Behaviour and Stakeholder Responses. 2023 , Information Systems Frontiers, № 1, p. 177-194 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10257-6 Jansson, J., Nilsson, J., Modig, F., Hed Vall, G. (2017). Commitment to Sustainability in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: The Influence of Strategic Orientations and Management Values. Business Strategy and the Environement. Febr. 2017, 26 (1) 69-83. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1901 Shields, J., Shelleman, M.J. (2015). Integrating Sustainability Into SME Strategy. Journal of Small Business Strategy Vol.25. No.2 (2015). from: https://libjournals.mtsu.edu Voci, D., Karmasin, M. (2023). Sustainability Communication: How to Communicate an Inconvinient Truth in an Era of Scientific Mistrust. ResearchGate. https:/doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-05-2022-0060 Mārtinsone, K., Pipere, A., Kamerāde, D. (2016). Pētniecība. Teorija un prakse. RaKa. Mahmood, Z., Kouserm R, Ali, W, Ahmad, Z, Salman, T (2018) Does Corporate Governance Affect Sustainability Disclosure. A Mixed Methods Study. MDPI Sustainability 2018 , 10 (1), 207 doi:10.3390/su10010207 Tölkes, C (2018) Sustainability communication in tourism – A literature review. Tourism Management Perspectives. Vol. 27, July 2018, 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2018.04.002 United Nations Academic Impact. Sustainability. Viewed on: 30.11.2024. Available on: https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/sustainability. Elkington, J. (2004). Enter The Triple Bottom Line. www.johnelkington.com Scarano, F. R. (2024). Regenerative Dialogues for Sustainable Futures. Integrating Science, Arts, Spirituality and Ancestral Knowledge for Planetary Wellbeing. Book. ISBN: 978-3-031-51840-9 https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51841-6 Bittner-Fesseler, A., Weicht J.F. (2020). Beyond Sustainability Communication: Sustainability-integrated Corporate Communications. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability. 15 (1). https://doi.org/10.33423/jsis.v15i1.2730 Radu, O.M., Dragomir, V., Ionescu-Feleaga, L. (2023). The Linke Between Corporate ESG Performance and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence 17 (1):776-790. https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2023-0072 Steiner, G., Geissler, B., Schreder L.Z. (2018). Living sustainability, or merely pretending? From explicit self-report measures to implicit cognition. Springer. Sustainability Science. Volume 13, 1001-10015, (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0561-6 Porter E. M., Kramer, R.M. (2011). Creating Shared Value. The Big Idea. Reprint R1101C, January-February 2011. from: https://environz.wordpress.com Fenwick, M., Joubert, T., Van Wuk, S., Vermeulen, P.M. E. (2022). ESG as a Business model for SMEs. ECGI Working Paper Series in Law. European Corporate Governance Institute – Law Working paper No. 642/2022 Tilburg Law School Research paper. from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4098644 Gaile, A., Zaumane, I., Stibe, A., Kivipold, K. (2026). Expanding the success factors of change management by incorporating crisis preparedness in the emerging AI world. Review of managerial Science, Jan. 2026. DOI:10.1007/s11846-026-00979-1 Jacobs, K., Petersen, L., Horisch, J., Battenfeld, D. (2018). Green thinking but thoughtless buying? An empirical extension of the value- attitude – behaviour hierarchy in sustainable clothing. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol.203, 1 December 2018, 1155-1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.320 Vega-Zamora, M., Torres-Ruiz, F.J., Parrasa-Rosa, M. (2018). Towards sustainable consumption: Keys to communication for improving trust in organic foods. Journal of Cleaner Production. Volume 216, 10 April 2019, 511-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.129 Slutskiy, P., Itdhiamornkulchai, C., Road, P., Mai, W. (2024). TOWARDS the Evaluation of Sustainability Communication Based on the Intended Goals. Sustainable Communities. April 2024. 40(04):1559-1570 Moura, T. F., Huber, B. (2023). Sounds of Change: Musicians as Sustainability Communication Agents. Sustainable Communities. December 2023. Conference: ANZMAC – Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference. Downloaded from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377118099_Sounds_of_Change_Musicians_as_Sustainability_Communication_Agents Bjørn, A., Richardson, K., Hauschild, Z. M. (2018). A Framework for Development and Communication of Absolute Environmental Sustainability Assessment Methods. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 07 November 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12820 Civero, G., Rusciano, V., Scarpato, D., Simeone, M. (2021). Food: Not Only Safety, but Also Sustainability. The Emerging Tren of New Social Consumers. Sustainabiliy 2021, 13 (230, 12967; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312967 Grunig, E. J. (2011). Public Relations and strategic management: Institutionalizing organization – public relationships in contemporary society. ISSN 1899-5101. Downloaded from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267686016_Public_relations_and_strategic_management_Institutionalizing_organization-public_relationships_incontemporary_society Agarwal, D. N., Kumar, R. V.V., Gunasekaran, A. (2024). Leveraging social media to examine sustainability communication of home appliance brands. Technology in Science. Vol. 77, June, 2024, 102550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102550 Freeman, R.E., McVea, J. (2001). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Strategic Management. January 2021 SSRN Electronic Journal. https://DOI:10.2139/ssrn.263511 Johansson, C., Grandien, C., Strandh, K. (2018). Roadmap for a communication maturity index for organizations-Theorizing, analysing and developing communication value. Public Relations Review.45 (4): 101791, June 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.05.012 Donkoh, S., Mensah, J. (2023). Application of triangulation in qualitative research. Journal of Applied Biotechnology and Bioengeneering. Volume 109 Issue 1-2023. DOI: 10.15406/jabb.2023.10.00319 Nielsen, A. E., Thomsen, C. (2009) CSR communication in small and medium sized enterprises. Corporate Communications an International Journal 14(2): 176-189 DOI:10.1108/13563280910953852 Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., Pal, K.D. (2015). Likert Scale: Explored and Explained. Brittish Journal of Applied Science & Technology. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975 Valerio, M, 1.,Rodriguez, N., Winkler, P., Lopez, J., Dennison, M., , Liang, Y., Turmer, B., J. Barbara J. (2016). Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting. BMC Medical Research Methodology. DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0242-z Kristapsone, S. (2020). Zinātniskā pētniecība studiju procesā. Turība. Biznesa augstskola. Rīga. Szekely, F., Knirsch, M. (2005). Responsible Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility: Metrics for Sustainable Performance. European management Journal. Vol. 23, Issue 6, December 2005, 628-647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2005.10.009 Morsing, M., Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review. 15(4): 323-338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x Freeman R.E., de Abreu, M.C. (2015). Stakeholder Approach as an Ethical Approach to Effective Management: applying the theory to multiple contexts. Revista Brasileira de Gestao de Negocious 17(55): 858-869. https://DOI: 10.7819/rbgn.v17i55.2647 Grunig, J. (2023). Public Relations, Social Inclusion, and Social Exclusion. Journalism & Communication Monograpghs. Vol. 25, Issue 2. https://DOI: 10.1177/15226379231167120 Grunig, J. (2009). Paradigms of global relations in an age of digiatlisation. Prism 6(2): 1-Downloaded from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303153523_Paradigms_of_global_public_relations_in_an_age_of_digitalisation Freeman, R.E., Phillips. R.A. (2023). Stakeholder Theory: A Libertarian Defense. Business Ethics Quaterly 12(3). https://DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-04564-6_7 Vike, I. (2026) Survey data on the Understanding and Implementation of Sustainability Communication in SME; Mendeley Data, DOI: 10.17632/mwwz66nf5y.1 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8749314","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":583486048,"identity":"f84b08db-1565-4012-99b7-ca9335596b4b","order_by":0,"name":"Ilze Vike","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2640-5777","institution":"Riga Stradins University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ilze","middleName":"","lastName":"Vike","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-31 11:13:19","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":true,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8749314/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8749314/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":101764275,"identity":"320d6b5b-c962-4d75-a0e1-4b5af03a8918","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-03 11:48:07","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":236212,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSC structural framework for the current study\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8749314/v1/4682baea5c8c7b0504ece6d6.png"},{"id":101764273,"identity":"8c7d882a-2fae-4eef-bc3e-4a0235cc2541","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-03 11:48:07","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":79153,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eChallenges implementing SC\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8749314/v1/1ce03a743c4b640f4a46ddda.png"},{"id":101943030,"identity":"ec7f8482-2fdc-44bf-96aa-cb72f4d04ab1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-05 09:39:45","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":76651,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eOpportunities implementing SC\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8749314/v1/c1df5ea4044b2c1749d62d11.png"},{"id":104779070,"identity":"c45cd2d1-358c-4436-9071-e603723d57c2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-17 07:33:45","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1198775,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8749314/v1/2efbd365-6733-45c2-b5ec-ba105b2359a4.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eSustainability communication in small and medium-sized enterprises as a driver of sustainable community development\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn today\u0026rsquo;s globally linked ecosystem, sustainability communication (SC) has evolved from a simple reporting into an organisation\u0026rsquo;s authenticity tool. The rise of digitalization has made it difficult for companies to shield their internal actions from public scrutiny; consequently, the way an organisation communicates its impact is now a primary measure of its transparency and corporate responsibility. Rather than a mere marketing layer, this communication reflects a company\u0026rsquo;s everyday processes. It constitutes the company\u0026rsquo;s social existence [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite its critical role in contemporary entrepreneurship, SC remains a multifaceted and interdisciplinary concept, with various academic disciplines contributing distinct perspectives [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. This theoretical diversity reflects a field in rapid development, struggling to keep pace with emerging global challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent literature offers a wide array of proposals and recommendations for implementing SC, ranging from specific tactical tools and channels to overarching corporate strategies that define key sustainability dimensions. These approaches further emphasise the field's strong ties to persuasive communication, public relations, and educational discourse [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR3 CR4 CR5 CR6 CR7\" citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Beyond strategy, it is argued that by addressing diverse global issues\u0026mdash;such as climate change, production, and mobility\u0026mdash;SC actively contributes to improving environmental, economic, and social conditions across different social systems [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. As a dynamic process, it involves integrating the complex interaction between humans and their environment into public discourse, while simultaneously re-evaluating the narratives that define sustainable and unsustainable behaviour [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe discipline's complexity is further intensified by the term's unclear nature. The concept of SC is frequently perceived as unclear or even misleading, making a precise definition difficult to establish [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Academic consensus remains elusive regarding its core: it is debated whether the term primarily refers to one-way information disclosure, two-way dialogue, public participation, or direct involvement in decision-making processes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. To address this ambiguity, scholars advocate an inclusive perspective; such an approach enables a more comprehensive understanding of how the public engages with sustainability-related issues [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Ultimately, SC is emerging as more than just a pillar of corporate reputation, it is a strategic source of competitive advantage that mobilises stakeholders into action [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Transparent and socially responsible practices influence consumer trust and behavioural intentions more profoundly than traditional marketing, fostering positive word-of-mouth communication in both offline and digital spheres [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the increasingly prominent sustainability trends in both society and the business world, there is a critical need for a deeper understanding of what SC entails and how its effective implementation can drive sustainable community development [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] Current research addresses a distinct gap in the literature: the lack of practical research on how SC is implemented within the enterprise sector. While large organizations are more proactive in adopting advanced sustainability practices, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) frequently lag in implementing sustainability measures, such as efficient resource management and the adoption of eco-friendly systems or solutions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. At the same time, SMEs are uniquely positioned to reach local society and thus communication in this context is linked to fostering relationships rooted in sustainability values that enterprises represent [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo achieve the objective of this study, the following research questions were formulated:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ1.How do small and medium-sized enterprises understand sustainability communication?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ2.How do enterprises implement sustainability communication?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRQ3.What opportunities and key challenges do enterprises perceive in implementing sustainability communication?\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo investigate the core research questions, a mixed-methods research design was employed, integrating quantitative and qualitative data to provide a holistic view of the research problem [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. This dual approach ensures that the study not only captures the broad statistical landscape of the general situation but also explores the nuanced, internal realities of how SMEs interpret and implement SC.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Theoretical framework","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Understanding sustainability\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEven in today\u0026rsquo;s digital landscape, the fundamental blueprint for sustainability remains the 1987 Brundtland Report, which defines the concept as 'meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs' [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. In the current political and corporate context, this is no longer just an abstract ideal but a strategic necessity to balance economic, social, and environmental dimensions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. Consequently, the understanding of sustainability is structured around these three core pillars [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the context of sustainability, governance plays a significant role of corporate responsibility [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. It provides the structural framework necessary for operationalizing environmental and social objectives through established paradigms, such as the Triple Bottom Line (3P model), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and the ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) framework, as well as the Shared Value model [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR27 CR28\" citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. These concepts describe the evolution of business from a narrowly profit-oriented approach to a sustainable and socially responsible operating model. They form the foundation of corporate social responsibility, which encourages companies to voluntarily address social and environmental issues in cooperation with various stakeholders, and whose implementation is closely linked to the economic, social, and institutional context of each country, demonstrating that sustainable business is based on cooperation, responsibility, and the creation of long-term value for both companies and society [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Ultimately, organizations are no longer just market participants; they are increasingly expected to lead by example, setting the standard for sustainable practices on a global scale [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, returning to the classically defined three dimensions\u0026mdash;environmental, economic, and social\u0026mdash;it becomes evident that such a structure can be inherently limiting [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. Relying solely on these pillars tends to foster a static, segmented understanding of sustainability. In practice, sustainability within a business context is not a fixed equilibrium between these three pillars, but rather a dynamic process involving continuous risk assessment and the management of interconnected systems [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. Within this framework, the interaction between stakeholders, core values, and operational processes plays a central role. Values act as the primary catalyst, guiding the organization\u0026rsquo;s focus toward proactive risk and process management [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Consequently, for contemporary enterprises, e.g. SMEs, sustainability is synonymous with the strategic management of risks and processes, ensuring organizational viability in both the present and the long term. This viability is inseparably linked to the resilience of natural ecosystems and societal well-being, reinforcing the premise that corporate sustainability cannot be achieved in isolation from the broader environmental and community context [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, when sustainability is re-examined as a systemic phenomenon encompassing multiple societal layers, the individual level emerges as the fundamental link for transformation. This also includes every single enterprise. Instead of playing a passive role, the individual level is identified as a key driver of change toward sustainable development [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. This suggests that for organizations\u0026mdash;particularly SMEs\u0026mdash;to succeed in their strategic risk and process management, they must find ways to bridge the gap between systemic goals and individual awareness. To pursue sustainability, organizations learn to continuously change and implement change [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConversely, by forging connections with society through genuine sustainability initiatives, companies can cultivate meaningful relationships with their communities. This alignment fosters deep-seated trust and reinforces the social dimension of the organization [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Ultimately, authentic sustainability efforts become a strategic source of competitive advantage that drives innovation, refines market approaches, and optimises resource efficiency [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Understanding SUSTAINABILITY COMMUNICATION\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the multidimensional nature of sustainability, communication must transcend traditional, unidirectional information transfer. Here, effective engagement is needed with establishing a profound emotional and personal connection between individual actions and their tangible positive outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. This necessitates the utilisation of communication channels that facilitate direct and precise dissemination of information [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, research focus on SC remains predominantly theoretical, often outlining normative assumptions about how it should function without offering concrete models for implementation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. Most studies remain at a descriptive level, highlighting general principles related to the \u0026ldquo;sunny perspective\u0026rdquo;, while failing to propose specific structures for practical application and reveal the inconvenient truth [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. This gap indicates a critical need for strategic execution, as current communication practices often fail to effectively engage stakeholders or motivate sustainable behavioural change [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. Sustainability is often framed as a political issue rather than as a catalyst for active engagement, thereby emphasizing the fulfilment of political processes and objectives over individual action [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditional challenge arises from the confusion between the terms 'sustainability communication' and 'sustainable communication.' These are often used as synonyms in both research and media; however, using them interchangeably shows a lack of theoretical clarity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. This makes it harder to understand and implement these strategies in society. It is important to distinguish between the two: sustainable communication is about building long-term relationships [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. On the other hand, but sustainability communication (SC) focuses on sharing values, risks, and process management with stakeholders [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBroadly, SC can be categorised into two primary directions: pragmatic and constitutive (engaging). The pragmatic approach focuses on an organization's requirement to inform the public, demonstrate its efforts, and report on specific sustainability indicators [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn practice, this pragmatic dimension is encapsulated within the ESG model, which integrates environmental, social, and governance ratings into corporate strategy. ESG frameworks stimulate sustainable corporate behaviour through structured mechanisms, such as mandatory sustainability reporting, tax measures on unsustainable activities, and subsidies for sustainable initiatives [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo implement engaging direction, the traditional top-down hierarchy must be replaced by active stakeholder involvement. This approach fosters communication tailored to a society\u0026rsquo;s unique values and local knowledge [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Strategically, this shifts the focus to the individual, prioritizing emotional resonance and value-based dialogue [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, both these directions reveal a fundamental contradiction. While there is a mandate to protect resources for future generations, SC is often used to sustain a traditional economic model in which growth remains the primary goal [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Consequently, even when sustainability is integrated into strategy and ESG reporting, corporate messaging frequently fails to address the hard reality of resource limits and their impact on nature conservation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, the key to explaining SC is unity. It covers complex issues and strives to explain them clearly, ensuring accessibility to diverse societal groups while remaining sensitive to specific cultural and social contexts. Such an approach also requires continuous feedback, re-evaluation of knowledge, and flexible responses to global changes, fostering an understanding of the world and the relationships between people and the environment, and encouraging critical awareness of these relationships [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Sustainability Communication in a Contemporary Context\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eContemporary SC has evolved into a multidisciplinary, strategic tool designed to inspire stakeholder action rather than to deliver data [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. As outlined by Grunig [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e], strategy is closely related to enterprises communication. But stakeholder involvement is closely related to collaboration around values [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. While CSR and similar models, like 3P remains relevant, sustainability has emerged as a truly systemic approach that embeds environmental and social impact into the core of business operations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSC in business has developed into a holistic approach that integrates intergenerational and intra-generational values [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. It focuses on the responsible transfer of resources to future generations while simultaneously ensuring their accessibility within contemporary society [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. Consequently, increasing significance is attributed to communication strategies that enable the outward expression of an organization's internal values [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Given this shift toward value-driven and holistic engagement, the Brundtland Commission\u0026rsquo;s definition\u0026mdash;while foundational\u0026mdash;presents a complex challenge when communicating the multifaceted sustainability issues of contemporary enterprises.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn recent decades, sustainability has also become a cornerstone of marketing, evolving into 'green marketing.' This practice integrates corporate activities and advertising centred on environmental sustainability, promoting products as eco-friendly to capture consumer attention [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. It reshapes corporate operations across multiple levels: fostering more responsible consumer behaviour, demanding greater transparency in corporate processes, and significantly enhancing brand value [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. Research identifies three primary motivational frameworks driving SMEs: market orientation (aligning consumer demand and societal expectations, maintaining competitiveness); entrepreneurial orientation (innovation, proactive risk-taking and development of new solutions); institutional influence (regulatory pressure, often perceived as forced compliance) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, inherent contradictions persist. Sustainability is not a total negation of consumption; it can only be fully understood through the dynamics of the consumer society [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. This tension drives the search for innovative solutions, emerging as a contemporary alternative to traditional modernisation that seeks value beyond conventional growth models.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA strong digital presence is a fundamental prerequisite for brand credibility and a strategic tool for customer acquisition. By integrating ecological problem-solving into the value proposition, organizations effectively commodify sustainability to align with market demands [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Here, communicating sustainability through the organizational image fosters brand growth rooted in a sustainable connection between employer and employees, aiming for collective social benefit [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. From a stakeholder theory perspective, employees are a key stakeholder group for achieving the enterprise\u0026rsquo;s outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. Ultimately, the essence of contemporary communication lies in its capacity to function as a meaningful value-creation process [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. It transcends simple information exchange, transforming into a strategic framework where social, environmental, and corporate values converge to drive long-term success.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe transition from fragmented information to a holistic strategy reflects a deeper understanding of sustainability\u0026rsquo;s multifaceted nature and the necessity of integrated corporate solutions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. According to sustainability experts interviewed within this study, this shift fundamentally redefines the role of communication: it is no longer a supplementary function but the primary mechanism for stakeholder engagement\u0026mdash;becoming communication in its very essence. Experts emphasize that SC challenges standardization; it must remain flexible and adaptive to resonate with each stakeholder group within its unique context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLiterature review emphasises that responsible SC remains rare, primarily due to management resistance rooted in value systems that prioritise short-term gains [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. This traditional 'more is better' mindset directly contradicts sustainability\u0026rsquo;s focus on growth in the quality of life. To evolve, modern business must merge 'communication about sustainability' with 'sustainable communication.' [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. While the former addresses content, the latter focuses on maintaining authentic dialogue and long-term stakeholder relationships. This integration transforms communication from a corporate reporting tool into the foundation of responsible business.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe application of SC as a strategic instrument varies across different organisational scales. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) frequently encounter specific challenges in this domain, such as limited financial resources for sustainable investments, a lack of specialised knowledge, and intensifying market pressure [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Despite these hurdles, when SMEs begin to implement sustainable initiatives\u0026mdash;even if initially prompted by external pressure\u0026mdash;it can trigger profound organizational changes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. This process gradually strengthens the company's internal conviction and commitment to sustainability across all operational aspects. Ultimately, the success of SC within the SME sector depends on the organization\u0026rsquo;s intrinsic qualities: it is closely tied to the authenticity of the values communicated, internal transparency, and a genuine commitment to the core principles of sustainability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsequently, SC functions as a holistic approach, integrating these principles across all operational levels [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Here, internal communication serves as a vital instrument for employee engagement and the cultivation of loyalty toward the organization\u0026rsquo;s mission. Conversely, external communication acts as a strategic tool for corporate image building and societal involvement [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. The effectiveness of these external practices is fundamentally predicated on internal alignment: if an organization successfully transmits its sustainability vision to its employees, it significantly enhances the likelihood that these principles will be consistently upheld in external discourse and practice [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis process is deeply rooted in the explicit and implicit attitudes of organisational leadership toward sustainability, which dictate how principles are interpreted and operationalised [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. Implicit attitudes can profoundly influence decision-making and sustainability-oriented actions, even when they diverge from publicly declared explicit stances. Exploring the interplay between these conscious and subconscious attitudes is crucial, as it reveals the critical \"gap\" between conceptual understanding and actual organizational behaviour, particularly in the context of SMEs where leadership values often directly dictate corporate culture [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePractically, SC is an essential tool for achieving organizational objectives [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. It serves as the primary instrument for demonstrating responsibility and fostering engagement. Since corporate interests are intrinsically linked to social responsibility, a comprehensive approach generates value for both partners and society, ultimately enhancing market competitiveness and ensuring long-term development [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, SC is centred on what enterprises communicate, and, as communication is everything [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. This means, namely, which sustainability measures and values they disclose to stakeholders. Therefore, the communication process reflects the enterprise's understanding of its accountability for environmental, social, and governance factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Conceptual Framework of Sustainability Communication\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo implement an effective SC strategy, it is essential to distinguish between the different dimensions and objectives of communication. The conceptual framework of SC is primarily structured around three core focal points: communication of sustainability, communication about sustainability, and communication for sustainability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. These focal points, as illustrated in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, define how an organization reports its performance, facilitates public discourse, and promotes transformative action toward sustainable community development. Beyond these functional roles, recent academic literature emphasises a fourth critical dimension: sustainable communication (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Thus, it is possible to distinguish 4 fundamental focuses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSustainability Communication focal points\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSustainability communication focus\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDescription\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReferences\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunication about sustainability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDefined precise communication channel selection and audience-centric messaging.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis focus utilises a many-to-many communication model, fostering a non-hierarchical, democratic discourse focused on the core tenets of sustainability. Transcends communication\u0026rsquo;s traditional role of information dissemination to act as a facilitator for active engagement between organizations and their audiences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunication in this context operates within \"controversially structured fields of symbolic interaction,\" where stakeholders often possess divergent perspectives rooted in conflicting values. Success is defined by the ability to synthesise these competing arguments into a cohesive framework for action.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[2, 3, 4, 32, 33,\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunication of sustainability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis focus is primarily defined by the reporting of specific organisational outputs, such as sustainability reports, certifications, and third-party endorsements. A distinction must be made: while \"sustainability communication\" is an expansive, holistic concept, \"communication of sustainability\u003cb\u003e\"\u003c/b\u003e is a narrow, instrumental tool used by management to promote specific organisations or products.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis approach is inherently monological, characterised by a linear, one-way flow of information from the sender to the receiver. Its primary function is often to justify organisational activities rather than to foster genuine public engagement. Consequently, critics argue that this method reinforces a rigid hierarchy between \"experts\" and the \"general public.\" By failing to establish a feedback loop, it ignores whether the message has been accurately understood, if the values have been internalised, or if the information was even successfully received.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCommunication for sustainability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis focus represents the most radical shift in communication, moving beyond mere reporting to actively driving societal transformation. It is fundamentally rooted in the normative objectives of sustainable development. Within communication, this shifts at both the individual and institutional levels. While this approach may integrate elements of the \"of\" (instrumental) and \"about\" (discursive) dimensions, it is uniquely defined by its commitment to stakeholder collaboration and the co-creation of solutions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis communication aims to foster active engagement. Its primary objective is to fundamentally reshape social norms and institutional structures, empowering audiences to become partners in the transition toward a sustainable future.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnfortunately, this model is frequently criticised for its vulnerability to \"greenwashing\". Therefore, the ultimate success of \"communication \u003cem\u003efor\u003c/em\u003e sustainability\" is not measured by the beauty of the narrative but by its tangible impact.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSustainable communication\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis approach transcends the boundaries of formal information exchange, shifting the focus toward authentic, respectful, and value-based interactions. This fourth focal point prioritises cultivating long-term, resilient relationships. It suggests that the \u003cem\u003eway\u003c/em\u003e an organisation communicates is just as important as the message itself. Here comes transparency and ethical engagement into every touchpoint, ensuring that the communication process is a direct reflection of the organization\u0026rsquo;s core sustainability values.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin the presented SC focal points framework, corporate communication strategy reflects a multidimensional reality that surpasses traditional paradigms of business discourse. Primarily, corporate SC functions as an external mediator by disseminating information on specific initiatives and ethical practices, thereby fortifying organisational reputation and stakeholder trust. Simultaneously, the framework encompasses internal corporate communication as a strategic catalyst for deep organizational transformation. By embedding sustainability into the corporate culture and core values, it recalibrates employee perceptions and behaviours, positioning the organization as a primary driver of change within its immediate community.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on a literature review, the current study offers a framework to bridge the gap between the theoretical and practical implementation of SC within enterprises (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. METHODOLOGY","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Research design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this paper, a mixed-methods research design was employed to evaluate how small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) perceive and implement SC. This approach enhanced data reliability through triangulation, combining a quantitative survey to identify general trends with qualitative semi-structured interviews and expert consultations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe decision to interview two representatives from each company group was not intended for inter-group comparison but to identify shared patterns and commonalities, ensuring a comprehensive overview of the phenomenon [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]. For the quantitative phase, data were collected via an anonymous questionnaire utilising a four-point Likert scale. This forced-choice format intentionally omitted a neutral value to encourage specific responses and minimize indifference [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. Overall, this multifaceted design aligned the study with real-world sustainability practices, providing a more holistic and significant research character [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Data source and respondents\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study participants comprise representatives from SMEs and two sustainability experts. The general selection of participants was conducted in accordance with the NACE Rev. 2 statistical classification of economic activities in the European Community, which provides a uniform standard for classifying economic activity across all EU Member States. This classification is widely utilised because it provides policymakers with essential data to develop industry-specific support measures, while also enabling enterprises to gain market insights and evaluate competitive opportunities within specific sectors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe socio-demographic selection of participants was determined by organizational structure, specifically the number of employees and annual turnover, adhering to the definition set forth in Annex I of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014. According to this regulation, micro-enterprises are defined as having fewer than 10 employees and an annual turnover below 2\u0026nbsp;million EUR, while small enterprises consist of 10 to 49 employees with an annual turnover between 2\u0026nbsp;million and 10\u0026nbsp;million EUR. Medium-sized enterprises are characterised by 50 to 249 employees and an annual turnover from 10\u0026nbsp;million to below 50\u0026nbsp;million EUR, whereas large enterprises involve 250 or more employees and a turnover exceeding 50\u0026nbsp;million EUR.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo reach the target audience for the survey, a convenience sampling method was employed, allowing an open application period in which all interested companies could participate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Analysis of 2023 data on the number of SMEs in Latvia revealed that the study population consisted of 33,035 enterprises. To extract data specifically for the target SME audience, the questionnaire included a classification section. Consequently, this study focuses specifically on the analysis of small enterprises (10\u0026ndash;49 employees) and medium-sized enterprises (50\u0026ndash;249 employees).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA survey was initiated with 538 respondents and remained open until 200 valid responses were collected (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;200). The valid sample consisted of 127 small enterprises (63.5%) and 73 medium-sized enterprises (36.5%). The remaining responses were classified as invalid as they did not meet the study's target group criteria.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data collection procedure involved the development of a questionnaire on the online survey platform. The survey was distributed to participants online between February 19 and March 25, 2025, utilizing various social media platforms, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. However, the highest respondent engagement was achieved through direct email communication. Contact information for the enterprises was obtained from business directories, as well as the entrepreneurship database. To maximize the reach within the target audience, a snowball sampling method was implemented by engaging various industry associations and organizations, municipal business development specialists, representatives from municipal business and tourism centres, sectoral associations, and various business support hubs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo collect data, the questionnaire, the Likert scale designed to be both transparent and easy for respondents to understand. Measurements were arranged according to the degree of intensity, ranging from strongly negative to strongly positive. The Likert scale was constructed as a discriminatory four-point scale, intentionally omitting a neutral \"zero\" value. This forced-choice format was selected to encourage respondents to provide more specific answers and to minimize generalization or indifference toward the issues under consideration [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, it should be noted that while 200 surveys were valid, 10 respondents indicated that they do not implement SC in any of their activities. Although these 10 enterprises belong to the target audience, they did not complete the full questionnaire; consequently, the sample size for various statistical tests is N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;190. A significant majority of the initial applicants (299 or 55.58% of the total number of enterprises) were micro-enterprises.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Data analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData processing and analysis were conducted in accordance with the research objective and the formulated questions. In the quantitative part of the study, a correlational design was used. This approach enabled the analysis of interrelationships among variables without intervention or manipulation. Correlational research is particularly suitable when the researcher aims to identify trends among specific indicators within one or more natural groups [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS software.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, descriptive statistics were calculated to gain an overall overview of the dataset and key indicators. Initially, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to determine whether the data followed a normal distribution. The results indicated that the data were not normally distributed. This finding determined the subsequent choice of statistical tests and the approach to correlational analysis. Median values were used to determine the central tendency. The median is the middle value of a distribution, dividing the data into two equal parts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]. Medians were determined for the overall SME (Small and Medium-sized Enterprises) target audience, as well as for small and medium enterprises separately.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo determine the spread of the data around the median, the interquartile range (IQR) was calculated, which is applicable to asymmetrical data. To evaluate differences between groups, the Mann-Whitney U test was employed, which is suitable for nonparametric data [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. For all Likert-scale questions, p-values (Sig.) were analysed. If p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, significant differences exist among SMEs' responses; if p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05, no significant differences are found.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor correlation calculations, Spearman\u0026rsquo;s rank correlation coefficient was used, which allows for determining the degree of relationship between two non-metric scales; this rank coefficient is considered an indicative correlation coefficient [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]. A correlation is considered moderately strong if the coefficient value is p 0.5 or higher [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the qualitative part of the study, the processing of interview data was carried out as follows: interview transcripts were created. Subsequently, the text was analysed line by line using coding to identify themes and subthemes. Data processing utilised thematic analysis, which emphasises the meaning of the content (the \"WHAT\") rather than the mode of expression (the \"HOW\") [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe survey was conducted anonymously, and research ethics were strictly observed throughout all stages of the study, ensuring voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, and respectful treatment of all participants [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile the findings offer significant insights into dominant trends, they are not universally generalizable to all SMEs in Latvia. It must also be noted that reaching the target audience for the quantitative phase proved to be highly challenging; the sample size was primarily augmented through personalised email outreach. Despite these limitations, the study provides a timely and valuable perspective on the understanding and execution of SC within the SME sector, establishing a robust foundation for further, more granular research in this field.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of the results is structured in alignment with the research questions. By analysing the research data, this study clarifies the Latvian SME approach to SC, evaluating challenges and opportunities that shape the practical achievement of sustainable community development.To address the research questions, descriptive statistical analysis was conducted, followed by an examination of correlations between variables in the second part of the subsection; this reveals prevailing trends in the SME approach to SC and identifies potential areas for development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing the correlation coefficient analysis, the interview data from SME representatives were evaluated. This qualitative component provides a deeper understanding of how SMEs perceive and implement SC, thereby offering a more comprehensive overview of the situation within the SME environment.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1. Understanding of Sustainability Communication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis subsection presents results that enable analysis and conclusions regarding understanding SC. Given that the foundation of SC understanding is formed by the company\u0026apos;s stakeholder management practices, respondents were asked to evaluate three core approaches (see Table 1). Overall, the data indicate cautious, relatively balanced engagement with the stakeholder approach, as shown by the central tendency: \u0026apos;partially agree\u0026apos; (Mdn = 3.00). \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;Table 1. Evaluation of Stakeholder Management Approaches, N=190\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20.6675%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSurvey Statement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6136%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMdn\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.2462%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIQR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 24.8928%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 3.1066%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMdn\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.0729%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eU\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20.6675%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6136%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.2462%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 4.9602%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6136%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6136%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6136%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.8077%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmall ent.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10.196%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedium ent.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.316%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20.6675%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe company primarily focuses on financial results, placing less emphasis on sustainability with stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6136%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.2462%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 4.9602%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6136%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6136%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6136%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.8077%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10.196%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.316%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4086.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20.6675%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe company maintains a mutual dialogue with stakeholders, but it is not a strategic priority.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6136%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.2462%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 4.9602%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6136%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6136%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6136%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.8077%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10.196%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.316%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4035.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 20.6675%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe company actively engages stakeholders and adapts its strategy in line with sustainability principles.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6136%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.2462%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 4.9602%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6136%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6136%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6136%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.8077%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10.196%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.316%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4124.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote. * p \u0026lt; 0.05, ** p \u0026lt; 0.01, *** p \u0026lt; 0.001.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe interquartile range (IQR = 1) indicates low dispersion in responses, suggesting consistent opinions among respondents. The highest combined positive rating (70.5%) was for the statement that dialogue with stakeholders exists but lacks strategic priority. Conversely, only 12.5% of respondents \u0026quot;strongly agree\u0026quot; that stakeholder engagement is integrated into their sustainability strategy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the focus on financial results over sustainability, 35% gave negative ratings, emphasising the importance of stakeholders. No statistically significant differences were found for any of the statements (p \u0026gt; 0.05). This indicates that SME stakeholder engagement remains reactive rather than strategically planned.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpearman\u0026rsquo;s rank correlation coefficients reveal various interrelationships and interactions between variables, reflecting the understanding of SC within SMEs (see Table 2).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2. Correlation coefficients between the characteristics and importance of sustainability communication; Spearman\u0026rsquo;s rank correlation,\u0026nbsp;N = 190\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"605\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.7803%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 41.8497%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn your opinion, which best describes SC in your company?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.7803%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6281%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOur company prepares various sustainability reports and performance accounts.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.0867%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOur company interacts with customers and provides feedback.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.1676%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOur company communicates sustainable initiatives, values, and changes to stakeholders\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.1676%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOur company communicates concern for the environment, climate change, and biodiversity conservation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.7071%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSustainability communication opens a new market niche for our company, attracting additional customers.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.0154%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn sustainability communication, our company balances environmental, social, and good governance (ESG) dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.7803%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHow important is SC to the company\u0026apos;s operations?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.6281%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 35**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.0867%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 37**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.1676%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 48**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.1676%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 32**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.7071%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 49**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.4778%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 54**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote. * p \u0026lt; 0.05, ** p \u0026lt; 0.01, *** p \u0026lt; 0.001.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEvaluating the characteristics of SC, the results show that SC\u0026apos;s importance is linked to the communication of sustainable initiatives, values, and changes, although this relationship is weak (r = .48, p \u0026lt; .01; see Table 1). Similar correlation was found between the importance of SC and its role in opening new market niches (r = .49, p \u0026lt; .01). A stronger, moderately close relationship was identified between the importance of SC and the balancing of the three sustainability dimensions (r = .54, p \u0026lt; .01).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe correlation coefficients confirm that SMEs that value the significance of SC perceive it primarily as a tool for good governance, a means of ensuring competitiveness, and an opportunity to communicate sustainability initiatives, values, and changes to stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterview results indicate that companies that have integrated sustainability into their operations demonstrate an understanding of the importance of SC. Consequently, they adapt their communication approach to stakeholders and include it in the implementation of their strategic business objectives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA representative of a medium-sized enterprise (V-1) describes a systemic approach where SC is already integrated into the company\u0026rsquo;s goals and subsequently communicated to all employees:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;\u003cem\u003eIt (sustainability communication) is certainly clear to all employees. (..) And for us, it is actually a corporate goal, which then cascades down to the specific professionals who deal with it on a daily basis\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimilarly, the interview data highlight an SME approach that emphasises a deep dive into business fundamentals before implementing SC, thereby shaping a response to modern market demands. As noted by V-2:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;(..) \u003cem\u003eclients come who are buyers for large networks. When evaluating various partners\u0026mdash;who they are, where they are located, what their sustainability indices are, and what actions are being taken to be \u0026apos;greener\u0026apos; for the environment in the future\u0026mdash;we can gain additional points by generating interest among international clients\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompanies that delve deeper into the essence of SC the need to first understand the foundation upon which it is built. As explained by V-1: \u0026quot;\u003cem\u003eIn order to carry out that communication, there must already be a foundation. That foundation is most likely the actual work we do\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026quot; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, the interview data reveal a tension between business priorities and sustainability investments; despite a willingness and readiness to invest in sustainability, preference is frequently given to core operational functions. While sustainability is strongly associated with financial investment, the findings suggest a need to rebalance this perspective. Specifically, the starting point for understanding SC should involve an evaluation of the company\u0026rsquo;s internal processes. This internal focus is crucial when assessing the overall understanding and implementation of SC within the SME sector.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe qualitative findings reveal that SMEs recognise the growing relevance of SC and acknowledge its vital role in contemporary business operations. However, the data underscore a clear disparity between enterprise sizes: medium-sized enterprises demonstrate a significantly more mature approach, perceiving SC as a strategic asset rather than a peripheral activity. These larger organisations exhibit a more nuanced understanding of the triple-dimensional balance (environmental, social, and governance) and possess a firmer grasp of how regulatory frameworks drive sustainability motivation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, small enterprises tend to adopt a more moderate, fragmented approach, characterised by limited strategic integration of sustainability principles. While these trends provide critical insights into the current SME landscape, they should be viewed as indicative rather than universally generalizable. Ultimately, these varying levels of maturity highlight an urgent need to strengthen SC awareness and professional practice, specifically within the small business sector.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImplementation of Sustainability Communication\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the beginning of the questionnaire, respondents were asked a direct question: \u0026apos;Does your company implement sustainability communication?\u0026apos; The absolute negative response, \u0026apos;not implemented in any activities,\u0026apos; served as a screening criterion to exclude respondents from completing the full version of the survey; this accounted for 5% of the respondents. A significant majority\u0026mdash;86% of respondents in total\u0026mdash;indicated that they \u0026apos;partially implement\u0026apos; or \u0026apos;fully implement\u0026apos; SC.\u0026quot; See Table 3.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3. Implementation of Sustainability Communication (SC), N=190\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.5074%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSurvey Question\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.7904%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMdn\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.4228%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIQR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 18.0147%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 17.3713%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMdn\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 12.74%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eU\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.5074%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.7904%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.4228%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 4.3199%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 4.3199%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 4.6875%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 4.6875%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.8125%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmall ent.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9.5588%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedium ent.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1434%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 21.5074%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDoes your company implement SC?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.7904%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.4228%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 4.3199%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 4.3199%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 4.6875%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 4.6875%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.8125%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9.5588%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.1434%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4050.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote. * p \u0026lt; 0.05, ** p \u0026lt; 0.01, *** p \u0026lt; 0.001.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of responses indicates a high level of consensus among respondents regarding the implementation of SC, as evidenced by a zero value in the interquartile range (IQR). This signifies a uniform perspective across SMEs: \u0026apos;partially implemented\u0026apos; (Mdn = 3.00).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo identify the most characteristic practices of SC implementation, the survey evaluated how SMEs promote and assess the execution of SC.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data reveal a more pronounced divergence of opinions when evaluating management involvement in sustainability, as evidenced by a higher interquartile range (IQR = 2), indicating greater dispersion from the central value. Overall, 24.5% of respondents provided negative ratings (\u0026apos;strongly disagree\u0026apos; and \u0026apos;partially disagree\u0026apos;). This suggests a lack of consensus among respondents regarding management-led SC, or that attitudes toward management\u0026apos;s role in SC vary significantly. See the table below.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4. Measures to Promote Sustainability Communication (SC) in SMEs, N=190\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.3889%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSurvey Statement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMdn\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.3205%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIQR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"4\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 22.8687%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 2.6584%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMdn\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 10.3609%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eU\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.3889%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.3205%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.7206%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSmall ent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.7741%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMedium ent\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.0151%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.3889%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOur company prepares various sustainability reports and accounts of its activities.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.3205%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.7206%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.7741%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.0151%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3457.00**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.3889%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOur company implements various sustainability efforts and initiatives aimed at informing and educating (customers, partners, investors).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.3205%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.7206%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.7741%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.0151%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3435.50**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 25.3889%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe company\u0026apos;s management is involved in sustainability topics and communication.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.3205%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 5.6938%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.7206%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.7741%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 13.0151%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3492.00**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote* p \u0026lt; 0.05, ** p \u0026lt; 0.01, *** p \u0026lt; 0.001.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDifferent central tendencies were observed both within SMEs and across separate groups. When evaluating the implementation of reporting measures and the facilitation of discussions and opinion exchanges, a pronounced lack of consensus is evident in both groups. Specifically, the central tendency for small enterprises is \u0026apos;rarely\u0026apos; (Mdn = 2.00), whereas for medium-sized enterprises, it is \u0026apos;sometimes\u0026apos; (Mdn = 3.00). This indicates an uneven approach to implementing these practices across the SME sector.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, the data show that medium-sized enterprises promote SC more comprehensively and strategically.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data show that SMEs that promote and evaluate SC implementation build closer relationships with stakeholders and strengthen their brands. The results demonstrate a unified, strategic approach to SC implementation, integrated into the company\u0026rsquo;s sustainability and communication practices. The data indicate that SC is not an isolated function, but rather an integral part of SME operations. See the table below.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 5. Correlation Coefficients between Sustainability Communication Promotion and Evaluation in SMEs Spearman\u0026apos;s rank correlation coefficient, N=190\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"589\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.7894%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"7\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 48.3907%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSC Evaluation Methods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9.3854%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSC Promotion Measures\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.688%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTracking awards, certificates, and ratings.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.4884%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMonitoring stakeholder feedback on social media (shares, likes, reviews).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.4868%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRecording various types of collaboration with stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9.9845%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeasuring the growth of new customers following the communication of specific sustainability-related products or services.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.9876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAssessing increases in employee motivation and engagement levels.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.9891%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEvaluating growth in corporate brand awareness and market presence.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9.3854%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOur company prepares various sustainability reports.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.688%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 46**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.4884%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 26**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.4868%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 42**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9.9845%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 44**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.9876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 37**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.9891%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 35**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9.3854%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOur company implements initiatives to inform and educate (customers, partners).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.688%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 45**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.4884%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 51**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.4868%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 50**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9.9845%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 50**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.9876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 47**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.9891%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 49**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9.3854%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe company facilitates discussions and knowledge sharing.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.688%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 35**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.4884%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 37**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.4868%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 48**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9.9845%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 42**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.9876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 42**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.9891%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 38**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9.3854%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eManagement is involved in sustainability topics and SC.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.688%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 37**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.4884%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 37**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.4868%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 43**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9.9845%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 41**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.9876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 55**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.9891%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 49**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9.3854%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSC focus is on reputation and brand improvement.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.688%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 30**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.4884%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 50**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.4868%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 51**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9.9845%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 50**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.9876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 50**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.9891%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 51**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9.3854%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe company maintains long-term stakeholder relationships.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.688%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 30**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.4884%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 33**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 8.4868%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 39**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 9.9845%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 37**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 7.9876%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 42**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 6.9891%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e. 36**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNote *p \u0026lt; .05*, **p \u0026lt; .01**, ***p \u0026lt; .001**\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterview data confirm that SC is implemented strategically, particularly within medium-sized enterprises. This strategic alignment is characterised by a balance between core business functions and sustainability goals. As respondent V-2 explains, SC effectiveness depends on how a company integrates these elements at the product level and ensures they remain \u0026apos;in balance with other operations.\u0026apos; Furthermore, the data highlight a significant demographic shift, as SC increasingly targets the values of the younger generation. V-2 notes that younger employees value sustainability significantly more, making it a critical factor for employer attractiveness. This resonates with the niche strategies of smaller enterprises like M-1, whose communication is specifically tailored to a \u003cem\u003e\u0026apos;young, affluent, and knowledgeable\u0026apos; audience\u0026mdash;consumers who actively seek sustainable alternatives over conventional products\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026quot;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.3. Challenges and Opportunities in Implementing Sustainability Communication within SME\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo gain a deeper understanding of SME perspectives on SC, respondents\u0026apos; answers regarding SC challenges and opportunities were analysed as part of the empirical study. For both questions, respondents could select up to 3 options, including the option to provide their own response. The data were further analysed using cross-tabulation, which allowed identification of the most characteristic choices within the context of challenges and opportunities. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most prominent challenge in implementing SC, is a lack of time for stakeholder engagement, cited by 51.7% of respondents, which reflects a scarcity of resources as companies prioritise core operations over full engagement in sustainability initiatives (See Fig.2). This is closely followed by financial concerns, with 46.1% of respondents identifying sustainability efforts as too costly, thereby highlighting a persistent tension between environmental initiatives and business viability. Additionally, the conceptual complexity of SC remains a barrier for 35.6% of the sample, underscoring the need for clearer communication and broader education within the business sector. Finally, a smaller proportion of respondents (17.8%) point to a reliance on traditional development models as an obstacle, suggesting that existing practices may lack the flexibility adapt to alternative, sustainable solutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn open-ended responses, respondents highlighted various obstacles and constraints, such as \u0026quot;basic bureaucratic obligations imposed by the state, which drain the time and energy needed to implement continuous and successful SC.\u0026quot; Others characterised SC as an \u0026quot;encumbrance\u0026quot; or noted a \u0026quot;lack of sustainable alternatives.\u0026quot; Overall, these findings point to a fundamental misunderstanding of SC, a perceived need for state support, and a lingering reliance on traditional development models.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen evaluating the opportunities perceived by SMEs, the most prominent trend is conveying corporate values to employees to strengthen reputation (68.6%), which underscores employee engagement as a critical element of SC (See Fig.3). This is followed by communicating new business models and practices (41.5%) to emphasise market competitiveness. The least common application of SC (20%) is finding a unique sustainability definition to differentiate the company amid multiple explanations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData gathered from both surveys and interviews identify the most characteristic challenges in the practical implementation of SC, specifically regarding its conceptual understanding and resource management, such as crafting messages in a competitive environment and managing the high costs associated with sustainability. Simultaneously, SC is perceived as an integral part of corporate internal culture, as evidenced by the high value placed on employee involvement. It also serves as a vital tool for enhancing competitiveness, identifying new market opportunities, and bolstering corporate reputation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of the results identifies several themes characterising SME SC understanding, implementation, key challenges, and opportunities. Overall, SMEs perceive SC as a support function for internal information flow. However, medium-sized enterprises tend to associate SC more with a management function, evidenced by strongly positive responses regarding intangible resources, such as the importance of sustainability and internal communication. This approach aligns with Grunig\u0026rsquo;s conceptualisation of communication as a strategic management tool that strengthens two-way communication and trust between an organisation and its audiences [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]. Consequently, sustainability and SC are viewed as more significant within the medium-sized enterprise group than in small enterprises, recognising greater potential and a stronger link to practical implementation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile companies generally recognise that SC can enhance competitiveness and unlock new market niches, many SMEs still prioritise short-term profit as a fundamental necessity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. This often leads to a self-interested, one-sided view of sustainability. In contrast, integrating social and environmental efforts with economic growth\u0026mdash;a practice more common among medium-sized enterprises\u0026mdash;offers a more holistic value proposition [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. A narrow perspective, however, suggests that companies undervalue their stakeholders, thereby hindering the collaboration and societal integration necessary for sustainable community development [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]. Although sustainability can reduce operational costs and build broader social connections [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e], focusing only on isolated stages of the sustainability chain produces a fragmented narrative. This creates a persistent misconception that sustainability is merely an added expense rather than an integrated system. Such fragmentation aligns with Grunig\u0026rsquo;s [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e] assertion that consumers form a \"complex impression\" rather than perceiving information in isolation; if communication is dominated by cost-related messaging, high cost becomes the defining characteristic of the brand\u0026rsquo;s sustainability in the consumer's eyes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings suggest that, in general, SMEs lack the ability, willingness, or capacity to engage interactively with their stakeholders. Academic literature indicates that companies with higher levels of interactivity achieve greater sales volumes by attracting more sustainability-conscious consumers, which is directly linked to two-way symmetrical communication [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. Research further points out that the connection between society and corporate sustainability initiatives is often undervalued. Therefore, it is crucial to develop solutions and implement communication strategies that effectively balance the three core dimensions of sustainability: environment, society, and economy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpert interviews and survey results indicate that approximately one-fifth of the responding companies combine various SC strategies when implementing sustainability within the organization. These companies perceive SC as a long-term, mutually beneficial success story that integrates sustainability management with active stakeholder engagement. This approach aligns with existing literature [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. This understanding is further supported by weak to moderately high (borderline) correlations, indicating a link between the implementation of SC activities and changes in corporate brand and reputation. The results specifically confirm the importance of employee understanding of SC in fostering stakeholder engagement, which subsequently builds organizational trust [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is also understandable why small enterprises place significantly greater emphasis on close ties with their stakeholders, particularly customers. These companies more closely control and adapt their strategies in direct response to market demand. However, implementing sustainability requires not only operational responsiveness but also general flexibility and a strategic approach [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e]. As explained by Bittner-Fesseler \u0026amp; Weicht [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e], effective SC is grounded in a comprehensive reflection on sustainability dimensions. It is precisely within this context that the differences in corporate communication strategies become apparent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData from interviews with SME representatives and experts indicate that younger generations place greater value on SC. This trend strongly aligns with the core postulate of sustainability: ensuring well-being for future generations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e], demonstrating that younger generations are already demanding its implementation. This not only reveals the impact of generational shifts on SMEs but also signals to companies to review their internal systems and strategic communication if they wish to remain competitive in the labour market [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Consequently, the younger generation becomes an agent of sustainability, influencing both the corporate internal culture and its external reputation. This encourages companies to approach SC more systematically as part of their brand and reputation building.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study shows that this complex and strategic approach is more successfully implemented by medium-sized enterprises, where the dimension of SC implementation becomes a tool for image building.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis further explains the SME focus on SC, identified in the survey, which can be characterised as \"communication of sustainability\" (narrow sense) and \"communication about sustainability\". This confirms that SC serves corporate interests: brand building, increasing sales figures, and enhancing reputation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. The literature review also corroborates this, indicating that the objective of SC is often not sustainable outcomes per se, but rather changing attitudes toward the party involved in the communication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this context, the various activities implemented by SMEs identified in the empirical study can be understood as intermediate goals toward brand strengthening. This is confirmed by both the literature review and the results: audience engagement, attitude formation (employee motivation and involvement), dialogue, and customer acquisition [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e]. Criticism highlighted by Freeman and Phillips [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e] points toward the standardised approach companies take regarding their social impact, urging an expansion of the traditional economic dimension to include the social one and calling for an evaluation of the impact of corporate communication in its broadest sense. The results indicate that medium-sized enterprises better understand and implement SC as a transformative change process, in which stakeholders generally recognise the value of SC [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe narrow focus on customers and buyers emphasises communication; however, it tends to be one-way and results-oriented. From the perspectives of sustainability management and stakeholder theory, this indicates that sustainability goals are being disregarded [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. In the context of sustainability, a company's values and scope are crucial: the broader and more inclusive the perspective, the greater the likelihood that its actions are directed toward genuine sustainability. A narrow view, based solely on profit interests, effectively neglects sustainability. On the other hand, relationships are indeed vital to implementing sustainability, but they must encompass all three dimensions\u0026mdash;environmental, social, and economic. In this framework, communication becomes the central element for overcoming the mutual challenges of these dimensions, fostering understanding, participation, and responsible action [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe identified lack of time, as emphasised by the SME survey results, aligns with the literature: most companies are preoccupied with \"busyness,\" failing to allocate enough time to sustainability, whereas SC requires in-depth engagement [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. This suggests that in most companies, SC is not attributed any value at all. Research indicates that as the importance of communication grows, there is an increasing demand for internal corporate resources rather than external ones [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study results emphasise the need to transform SME perceptions of sustainability by promoting a comprehensive approach to SC. It is essential to integrate environmental and social aspects into communication on equal terms with economic benefits. At a practical level, this requires a review of internal processes to ensure that achieving sustainability goals complements, rather than hinders, the company\u0026rsquo;s efficiency and market position.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eOverall, SMEs exhibit a notable lack of understanding regarding effective stakeholder engagement. Research identifies several distinct approaches to SC within these enterprises, where it is most commonly understood as a process for building customer relationships through two-way communication and feedback. Additionally, SC is conceptualised as sustainability governance, value-driven change communication, or pragmatic reporting and documentation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study reveals that SC execution varies according to its level of integration within the company. At the highest level, it evolves into sustainable community communication, which facilitates dialogue with the broader public and diverse stakeholders. At the intermediate level, it functions primarily as brand communication and image enhancement, while the lowest level maintains a restricted, one-way focus on customers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, findings indicate that medium-sized enterprises possess a superior understanding and implementation of SC compared to their smaller counterparts. These companies recognise their strategic benefits and value the opportunities it provides for stakeholder engagement, market competition, and navigating the regulatory framework. In contrast, small businesses do not view the pragmatic and strategic form of SC, such as formal reporting practices, as relevant to their daily operations, suggesting that for them, SC is a more practical and informal tool. However, when evaluating effectiveness, small businesses place a higher emphasis on certificates and awards as the most useful indicators of quality in SC implementation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study finds that management involvement in implementing SC shapes the company's overall strategy and primary approach, while employees ensure its practical execution in daily operations, thereby highlighting SC as a collaborative team effort. Furthermore, the research indicates that medium-sized enterprises demonstrate a deeper understanding of the importance of employees in SC implementation, viewing it as an opportunity to convey corporate values and sustainability, thereby strengthening the company's reputation. This approach fosters a unified corporate culture and more sustainable development, while also providing a competitive advantage in the labour market, particularly in attracting the younger generation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study reveals that SC within SMEs is implemented as both \"communication of sustainability\" and \"communication about sustainability,\" reflecting its use to promote sales, strengthen branding, and enhance corporate reputation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7. Implications","content":"\u003cp\u003eFor Industry: To transform SC from an external facade into a core cultural element, enterprises must first define sustainability within their specific operational context and supply chain. This foundational audit, though low-cost, is essential for initiating systemic change to drive sustainable community development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCentral to this process is leadership commitment, which fosters employee engagement and ensures that corporate values are authentically tailored in external discourse. Furthermore, embedding SC into the employer brand serves as a strategic tool for attracting and retaining talent. For resource-constrained organizations, SC can be optimised by either empowering existing staff or engaging specialised consultants to ensure message clarity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffective stakeholder engagement requires audience segmentation and customized messaging to enhance trust. However, external credibility is contingent upon internal alignment; thus, fostering a unified understanding across all organizational levels is paramount. Finally, the implementation of self-assessment tools is recommended to facilitate continuous improvement and the timely identification of practice gaps.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor Industry Associations, Business Societies, and Regional Development Institutions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study recommends that these institutions assume a mediator role by establishing collaboration platforms and initiatives where like-minded SMEs can share best practices in SC, engage in knowledge exchange, and collectively enhance their understanding of SC. Such initiatives would improve the transfer of responsible information among SMEs. Simultaneously, the study recommends that these platforms provide a foundation for SMEs to mutually agree on clear, industry-specific sustainability indicators and, where possible, further develop them into policy initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor policymakers: The study recommends developing clearly defined sustainability criteria to guide companies. Furthermore, to improve SC across all stakeholders within the supply chain, the study recommends establishing unified, clear guidelines that serve as a common framework for sustainability and SC activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimitations: The research findings provide insights into dominant trends, however they are no generalizable to all Latvian SMEs or SMEs overall. This study opens an opportunities for future research. Further research could go into specific sectors, or provide more detailed analysis into defining cause of challenges or opportunities.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe original data presented in the study are openly available in Mendeley Data at DOI:\u0026nbsp;10.17632/mwwz66nf5y.1 [57].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests:\u003c/strong\u003e None to declare\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical Trials:\u003c/strong\u003e Not Applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent:\u003c/strong\u003e All participants involved in this research were informed about their consent their participation in this research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003e This research received no external funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Procedure:\u003c/strong\u003e The generally accepted standards of conduct have been followed in preparing this manuscript, and the following is hereby certified to be true. The paper has been submitted with full responsibility, following the due ethical procedures. There is no duplicate publication, fraud or concerns about animal or human experimentation. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRasche, A., \u0026amp; Seidl, D. (2016). A Luhmannian Perspective on Strategy: Strategy as Paradox and Meta-Communication. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.cpa. 2017.03.004\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFischer, D., Ludescke, G., Godeman, J., Michelsen, G., Newig J., Rieckmann, M., \u0026amp; Schulz, D. (2016) In book: Sustainability Science. An Introduction (pp.139-148) Publisher: Springer. \u0026nbsp;DOI:10.1007/978-94-017-7242-6_12\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSerttas, A., Sarikaya T., Esmanur, U. (2022). Sustainability as a communication policy created by the economic system. \u0026nbsp; Journal of Ekonomi 8(2):74-81 https://doi.org/10.58251/ekonomi.1167505\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003col start=\"4\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePrimoži, L., Kutnar, A. (2022). Sustainability Communication in a Global Consumer Brands. MDPI; \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e 2022, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(20), 13586; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142013586\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eParkikinenm M. \u0026amp; Vikstrom, S (2024). Alterntive policy narratives of the future of climate change: Analyzing Finland\u0026rsquo;s energy and climate strategy and news reports. Review of Policy Research. February 2024, 41 (4) 635-653. DOI:10.1111/ropr.12602\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNurlaela, Arief, N., Famiola, M., Pratama, P., A., Anggahegari, P., Putri, A., N., A. (2022) Sustainability Communication through Bio-based Experimental Learning. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e 2022, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(9), 5204; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095204\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eElving, W. (2020). Sustainable communication. \u0026nbsp;November 2020 International Journal of Environmental Sciences \u0026amp; Natural Resources 26(3)\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.19080/IJESNR.2020.26.556190\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShazalal, Md., Hassan, A. (2019). Communicating Sustainability: Using Community Media to Influence Rural People\u0026rsquo;s Intention to Adopt sustainable Behaviour.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e 2019, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(3),812;\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030812\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGolob, U., Podnar, K., Žabkar, V. (2022). Sustainability communication. November 2022 42(2):1-10\u0026nbsp;https://DOI:10.1080/02650487.2022.2144035\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWeder, F., Lemke, S., Tungarat, A. (2019). (Re)storying Sustainability: The Use of Story Cubes in Narrative Inquiries to Understand Individual Perceptions of Sustainability.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e 2019, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(19), 5264\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195264\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRodel, J., Frisch, A., Damjanovic. D. (2023). The scientists\u0026rsquo; responsibility in communicating the sustainability crisis. Springer Nature Link. Journal of Material Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-023-09031-z\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGenc, R. (2017). The Importance of Communication in Sustainability \u0026amp; Sustainable Strategies. Procedia Manufacturing. Vol.8, 2017, 511-516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.02.065\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHorisch, J., Freeman. E., Schallteger, S. (2014). Applying Stakeholder Theory in Sustainability Management. Links, Similarities, Dissimilarities and Conceptual Framework. ResearchGate.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026614535\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKong, M., H., Witmaier, A., Ko, E. (2020). Sustainability and social media communication: How consumers respond to marketing efforts of luxury and non - luxury fashion brands. September 2020 Journal of Business Research 131(10. DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.021\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKumar Jha, A., Verm, N.K. (2022). Social Media Sustainability Communication: An Analysis of Firm Behaviour and Stakeholder Responses. \u003cstrong\u003e2023\u003c/strong\u003e, Information Systems Frontiers, № 1, p. 177-194 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10257-6\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJansson, J., Nilsson, J., Modig, F., Hed Vall, G. (2017). Commitment to Sustainability in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: The Influence of Strategic Orientations and Management Values. Business Strategy and the Environement. Febr. 2017, 26 (1) 69-83. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1901\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShields, J., Shelleman, M.J. (2015). Integrating Sustainability Into SME Strategy. Journal of Small Business Strategy Vol.25. No.2 (2015). from: https://libjournals.mtsu.edu\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVoci, D., Karmasin, M. (2023). Sustainability Communication: How to Communicate an Inconvinient Truth in an Era of Scientific Mistrust. ResearchGate. https:/doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-05-2022-0060\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMārtinsone, K., Pipere, A., Kamerāde, D. (2016). Pētniecība. Teorija un prakse. RaKa.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMahmood, Z., Kouserm R, Ali, W, Ahmad, Z, Salman, T (2018) Does Corporate Governance Affect Sustainability Disclosure. A Mixed Methods Study. MDPI \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;2018\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 207\u0026nbsp;doi:10.3390/su10010207\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eT\u0026ouml;lkes, C (2018) Sustainability communication in tourism \u0026ndash; A literature review. Tourism Management Perspectives. Vol. 27, July 2018, 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2018.04.002\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUnited Nations Academic Impact. Sustainability. Viewed on: 30.11.2024. Available on: https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/sustainability.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eElkington, J. (2004). Enter The Triple Bottom Line. \u0026nbsp; www.johnelkington.com\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eScarano, F. R. (2024). Regenerative Dialogues for Sustainable Futures. Integrating Science, Arts, Spirituality and Ancestral Knowledge for Planetary Wellbeing. Book.\u0026nbsp;ISBN: 978-3-031-51840-9\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51841-6\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBittner-Fesseler, A., Weicht J.F. (2020). Beyond Sustainability Communication: Sustainability-integrated Corporate Communications. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.33423/jsis.v15i1.2730\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRadu, O.M., Dragomir, V., Ionescu-Feleaga, L. (2023). The Linke Between Corporate ESG Performance and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence 17 (1):776-790. https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2023-0072\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSteiner, G., Geissler, B., Schreder L.Z. (2018). Living sustainability, or merely pretending? From explicit self-report measures to implicit cognition. Springer. Sustainability Science. Volume 13, 1001-10015, (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0561-6\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePorter E. M., Kramer, R.M. (2011). Creating Shared Value. The Big Idea. Reprint R1101C, January-February 2011. from: https://environz.wordpress.com\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFenwick, M., Joubert, T., Van Wuk, S., Vermeulen, P.M. E. (2022). ESG as a Business model for SMEs. ECGI Working Paper Series in Law.\u0026nbsp;European Corporate Governance Institute \u0026ndash; Law Working paper No. 642/2022 Tilburg Law School Research paper. \u0026nbsp;from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4098644\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGaile, A., Zaumane, I., Stibe, A., Kivipold, K. (2026). Expanding the success factors of change management by incorporating crisis preparedness in the emerging AI world. Review of managerial Science, Jan. 2026. DOI:10.1007/s11846-026-00979-1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJacobs, K., Petersen, L., Horisch, J., Battenfeld, D. (2018). Green thinking but thoughtless buying? An empirical extension of the value- attitude \u0026ndash; behaviour hierarchy in sustainable clothing. Journal of Cleaner Production. Vol.203, 1 December 2018, 1155-1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.320\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVega-Zamora, M., Torres-Ruiz, F.J., Parrasa-Rosa, M. (2018). Towards sustainable consumption: Keys to communication for improving trust in organic foods. Journal of Cleaner Production. Volume 216, 10 April 2019, 511-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.129\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSlutskiy, P., Itdhiamornkulchai, C., Road, P., Mai, W. (2024). TOWARDS the Evaluation of Sustainability Communication Based on the Intended Goals. Sustainable Communities. April 2024. 40(04):1559-1570\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp; Moura, T. F., Huber, B. (2023). Sounds of Change: Musicians as Sustainability Communication Agents. Sustainable Communities. December 2023. Conference: ANZMAC \u0026ndash; Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference. Downloaded from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377118099_Sounds_of_Change_Musicians_as_Sustainability_Communication_Agents \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBj\u0026oslash;rn, A., Richardson, K., Hauschild, Z. M. (2018). A Framework for Development and Communication of Absolute Environmental Sustainability Assessment Methods. Journal of Industrial Ecology. 07 November 2018. \u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12820\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCivero, G., Rusciano, V., Scarpato, D., Simeone, M. (2021). Food: Not Only Safety, but Also Sustainability. The Emerging Tren of New Social Consumers. Sustainabiliy 2021, 13 (230, 12967; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132312967\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGrunig, E. J. (2011). Public Relations and strategic management: Institutionalizing organization \u0026ndash; public relationships in contemporary society. ISSN 1899-5101. Downloaded from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267686016_Public_relations_and_strategic_management_Institutionalizing_organization-public_relationships_incontemporary_society\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAgarwal, D. N., Kumar, R. V.V., Gunasekaran, A. (2024). Leveraging social media to examine sustainability communication of home appliance brands. Technology in Science. Vol. 77, June, 2024, 102550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102550\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFreeman, R.E., McVea, J. (2001). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Strategic Management. January 2021 SSRN Electronic Journal. https://DOI:10.2139/ssrn.263511\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJohansson, C., Grandien, C., Strandh, K. (2018). Roadmap for a communication maturity index for organizations-Theorizing, analysing and developing communication value. Public Relations Review.45 (4): 101791, June 2019. \u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.05.012\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDonkoh, S., Mensah, J. (2023). Application of triangulation in qualitative research. Journal of Applied Biotechnology and Bioengeneering. Volume 109 Issue 1-2023. DOI: 10.15406/jabb.2023.10.00319\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNielsen, A. E., Thomsen, C. (2009) CSR communication in small and medium sized enterprises. Corporate Communications an International Journal 14(2): 176-189 DOI:10.1108/13563280910953852\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJoshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., Pal, K.D. (2015). Likert Scale: Explored and Explained. Brittish Journal of Applied Science \u0026amp; Technology. \u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eValerio,\u0026nbsp;M, 1.,Rodriguez, N., Winkler, P., Lopez, J., Dennison, M., , Liang, Y., Turmer, B., J. Barbara J. (2016). Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting. BMC Medical Research Methodology. DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0242-z\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKristapsone, S. (2020). Zinātniskā pētniecība studiju procesā. Turība. Biznesa augstskola. Rīga. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSzekely, F., Knirsch, M. (2005). Responsible Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility: Metrics for Sustainable Performance. European management Journal. Vol. 23, Issue 6, December 2005, 628-647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2005.10.009\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMorsing, M., Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. \u0026nbsp;Business Ethics: A European Review. 15(4): 323-338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFreeman R.E., de Abreu, M.C. (2015). Stakeholder Approach as an Ethical Approach to Effective Management: applying the theory to multiple contexts. Revista Brasileira de Gestao de Negocious 17(55): 858-869. https://DOI: 10.7819/rbgn.v17i55.2647\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGrunig, J. (2023). Public Relations, Social Inclusion, and Social Exclusion. Journalism \u0026amp; Communication Monograpghs. Vol. 25, Issue 2. https://DOI: 10.1177/15226379231167120\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGrunig, J. (2009). Paradigms of global relations in an age of digiatlisation. Prism 6(2): 1-Downloaded from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303153523_Paradigms_of_global_public_relations_in_an_age_of_digitalisation\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFreeman, R.E., Phillips. R.A. (2023). Stakeholder Theory: A Libertarian Defense. Business Ethics Quaterly 12(3). https://DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-04564-6_7\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVike, I. (2026) Survey data on the Understanding and Implementation of Sustainability Communication in SME; Mendeley Data, DOI: 10.17632/mwwz66nf5y.1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"Riga Stradins University","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"sustainability communication, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), stakeholder management, sustainable entrepreneurship, community development","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8749314/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8749314/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eFrom a macro-level perspective, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) occupy a central position in the sustainable development trajectory, despite their comparatively smaller individual environmental impact than that of larger enterprises. Due to their widespread presence across sectors, SMEs are key actors in both sustainable development and the implementation of sustainability communication, as they are uniquely positioned to reach local communities. In this context, the aim of the study is to explore how small and medium-sized enterprises in Latvia understand and implement sustainability communication, and how these practices contribute to sustainable community development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo achieve the research objective, a mixed–methods research design was employed. As part of the study, a survey was conducted, involving 200 SME representatives in Latvia, along with four interviews with SME representatives and two in-depth interviews with sustainability experts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study reveals that SMEs tend to focus on sustainability communication primarily to boost sales, strengthen branding, and enhance reputation. Only one-fifth of respondents reported using sustainability communication at its highest form, where the mode of implementation develops into sustainable community communication, facilitating dialogue with the broader public and stakeholder engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe current study's findings make a significant contribution to both theoretical and practical understanding of sustainability communication in the SME sector and serve as a foundation for further research and policy-making initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Sustainability communication in small and medium-sized enterprises as a driver of sustainable community development","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-03 11:48:02","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8749314/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"3f53ac44-dab0-40a5-bbe8-f655e44e1845","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 3rd, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":62235439,"name":"Management"},{"id":62235440,"name":"Entrepreneurship"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-03T11:48:02+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-03 11:48:02","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8749314","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8749314","identity":"rs-8749314","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}