Triple Bottom Line and Social Sustainability

The understanding of sustainability within industrial systems has expanded beyond economic growth to include environmental protection and social responsibility (De Almeida Barbosa Franco et al., 2024). This broader perspective is reflected in the TBL framework proposed by Elkington (1998), which conceptualises sustainability through the interconnected dimensions of profit, planet and people. While economic and environmental sustainability often receive greater institutional attention due to their measurable nature, the social dimension remains comparatively difficult to operationalise within organisational systems (Bentley, 2025).

Social sustainability within manufacturing environments includes issues relating to occupational safety, labour welfare, training, equitable treatment, working conditions and worker well-being (Firescu & Filip, 2025). Existing research suggests that industrial sustainability initiatives frequently prioritise environmental compliance and production efficiency while treating labour welfare primarily as a compliance obligation rather than an integrated organisational objective (Montesano et al., 2023). Scholars have therefore argued that meaningful social sustainability requires structured organisational systems capable of embedding labour protections and welfare practices into everyday workplace routines (Amrutha & Geetha, 2019).

The importance of social sustainability becomes particularly significant within labour-intensive manufacturing systems where worker welfare directly affects productivity, organisational stability and long-term operational resilience (Kumari & Singh, 2024). Studies have shown that safe working environments, structured training systems and stable labour practices contribute not only to worker well-being but also to improved operational efficiency and reduced workforce instability (Firmansyah et al., 2024).

MSMEs, Informality and Workplace Systems

The challenges associated with implementing social sustainability are especially pronounced within MSMEs, which operate under conditions of financial constraints, informal managerial systems and limited administrative capacity (Gonçalves et al., 2024). In developing economies such as India, MSMEs represent a major source of industrial employment but often rely on flexible labour arrangements and weakly formalised workplace systems (Hammer et al., 2022).

Research on MSMEs has consistently highlighted the prevalence of informal labour relations, discretionary management practices and inconsistent implementation of worker welfare systems (Au et al., 2023; De Carvalho et al., 2021). Many enterprises lack structured human resource systems, formal grievance mechanisms or standardised workplace policies relating to safety, working hours and employee welfare (Graham et al., 2020). Instead, workplace decisions frequently depend on owner discretion and operational pressures associated with fluctuating production demands.

The widespread use of contract labour further complicates accountability structures within MSMEs. Outsourced labour arrangements may reduce operational costs and increase flexibility for firms but often create fragmented responsibility for worker welfare and workplace protection (Singh et al., 2019). Such conditions can weaken the implementation of consistent social sustainability practices across workplaces.

Given these structural limitations, scholars have argued that external governance mechanisms such as sustainability certifications and reporting systems may play an important role in encouraging organisational formalisation and improved workplace governance within MSMEs (Nautiyal et al., 2025).

Sustainability Certifications and Social Sustainability Governance

Sustainability certifications increasingly function as governance mechanisms designed to shape organisational behaviour through standards, monitoring systems and compliance procedures (Martinez, 2025). In the context of social sustainability, certification frameworks attempt to translate broad ethical principles into operational workplace practices through measurable indicators and accountability mechanisms.

Research suggests that the effectiveness of certification systems depends significantly on the extent to which sustainability expectations are clearly operationalised within organisational processes (Rector et al., 2022). Frameworks incorporating measurable indicators, audits, reporting systems and worker accountability mechanisms are generally more effective in encouraging sustained organisational implementation of labour-related practices (Torres et al., 2023). In contrast, systems relying primarily on broad normative expectations may encourage symbolic compliance in which visible documentation improves without substantial transformation of workplace practices (Durand et al., 2017).

International frameworks such as SA 8000, ISO 26000, B Corp Certification and the ILO Better Work Programme operationalise social sustainability through structured standards relating to occupational safety, labour rights, welfare systems, training and worker participation (Chiarini & Vagnoni, 2017). Similarly, the Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) framework in India requires structured disclosure relating to employee welfare, workplace safety, contract labour and grievance mechanisms. These systems demonstrate the importance of measurable indicators and accountability structures in institutionalising workplace sustainability practices.

ZED and the Social Sustainability Gap

The ZED Certification Scheme was introduced by the Government of India to improve manufacturing quality, operational efficiency and environmental responsibility among MSMEs. The framework seeks to strengthen the competitiveness of Indian MSMEs through structured certification processes linked to manufacturing and sustainability performance.

Although the framework includes certain parameters relating to occupational safety, human resource management and workplace organisation, its social sustainability dimension remains comparatively broad and weakly operationalised. Unlike international social sustainability frameworks that rely on measurable labour indicators and structured accountability mechanisms, the social provisions within ZED provide limited guidance regarding implementation and performance evaluation.

Despite the increasing policy importance of the ZED framework, limited research has examined how its social sustainability dimension functions within actual workplace settings. Existing discussions have largely focused on manufacturing quality, environmental performance and competitiveness, while comparatively little attention has been devoted to labour-related practices and workplace governance systems within certified MSMEs.

Accordingly, the present study examines how social sustainability practices are operationalised within ZED-certified and non-certified MSMEs and evaluates the extent to which the framework contributes to the institutionalisation of workplace sustainability practices. The study further benchmarks ZED against major international social sustainability frameworks in order to identify structural limitations and potential areas for policy reforms.

Building on these conceptual concerns, the study adopts a comparative field-based research design to examine how social sustainability practices are operationalised within ZED-certified and non-certified MSMEs.

Research Design

This study adopts a qualitative comparative research design to examine how the social sustainability dimension of the ZED Certification Scheme is operationalised within manufacturing MSMEs in Haryana. A qualitative approach was considered appropriate because the study seeks to understand workplace practices, organisational behaviour and labour-related experiences that cannot be adequately captured through quantitative indicators alone (Awasthy, 2015; Lall, 2023). Social sustainability within MSMEs often operates through informal managerial arrangements, undocumented practices and workplace routines that require direct field-level engagement to be examined meaningfully. Consequently, field-based qualitative inquiry provides greater insight into how social sustainability practices are interpreted, implemented and experienced within everyday workplace settings.

The study further adopts a matched comparative framework to enable systematic comparison between ZED-certified and non-certified MSMEs operating under relatively similar structural conditions. Comparative designs are particularly important in MSME research because firms often differ substantially in terms of size, industrial processes, managerial structures and operational complexity, all of which may influence workplace practices independently of certification status (Dewi et al., 2025; Sun & Cheng, 2002). Without appropriate matching, observed differences between certified and non-certified firms may reflect broader structural variation rather than the potential influence of certification systems. The matched comparative design, therefore, improves internal comparability by reducing observable differences between firms and allowing the analysis to focus more directly on variation in workplace practices and organisational routines associated with certification status.

The study is interpretive rather than causal in orientation. The objective is not to establish direct causal effects of certification but to critically examine how social sustainability practices are organised within workplace settings and whether certification appears associated with greater institutionalisation of such practices. Accordingly, the findings are interpreted as comparative and exploratory rather than causal.

Sampling Strategy and Matched Comparative Framework

The study draws upon field evidence collected from 92 manufacturing MSMEs located across five districts of Haryana: Faridabad, Gurugram, Panipat, Karnal and Sonipat. Haryana was selected as the study region because it contains a relatively high concentration of ZED-certified manufacturing MSMEs, particularly at higher certification levels, making it an appropriate empirical setting for examining certification-related workplace practices. The selected districts also represent important industrial clusters characterised by diverse manufacturing activities, including textiles, engineering products, food processing, machinery manufacturing, fabricated metal products and apparel production.

The final sample consisted of 46 ZED-certified MSMEs and 46 non-certified MSMEs. The study employed a structured one-to-one matching strategy designed to improve comparability between certified and non-certified firms. Matching was conducted sequentially using three criteria: (a) firm size category (micro, small and medium); (b) two-digit National Industrial Classification (NIC) sector classification; and (c) product-level similarity. The profile of the matched ZED-certified firms included in the study is presented in Table 3. This matching strategy was adopted to minimise structural variation across firms and ensure that comparisons were conducted between enterprises operating within relatively similar production environments.

The ZED-certified sample was restricted to firms holding Silver or Gold certification levels. Bronze-certified firms were excluded because Bronze certification relies primarily on self-assessment procedures without mandatory external verification. Since the study aims to evaluate whether certification contributes to the institutionalisation of workplace practices, the inclusion of externally verified Silver and Gold firms was considered methodologically more appropriate. In addition, only firms that had held certification for more than 1 year were included in the study. This criterion was introduced to reduce the likelihood of capturing temporary audit-driven adjustments immediately following certification and instead examine more established organisational practices.

The identification of certified firms was based on official government records relating to ZED-certified enterprises. Non-certified firms were subsequently selected through the matching framework to ensure comparability across sectoral and operational characteristics. During the fieldwork process, two initially identified ZED firms could not be visited due to non-participation, and their corresponding matched non-certified firms were also excluded in order to maintain balance within the comparative design.

Although the matched framework improves internal comparability, it does not eliminate the possibility of selection bias arising from unobserved organisational characteristics such as managerial orientation, internal leadership quality or prior commitment to formalisation practices. Consequently, the findings should be interpreted cautiously as comparative associations rather than definitive evidence of certification effects.

Data Collection Procedures

Data collection was conducted between January and May 2025 through field visits to participating MSMEs. A field-based approach was considered particularly important because social sustainability practices within MSMEs are frequently informal, partially undocumented and embedded within day-to-day workplace interactions. Direct observation and workplace engagement, therefore, provided important contextual insights that would have been difficult to capture through structured surveys alone.

Data were collected primarily through open-ended unstructured interviews and workplace observations. The use of open-ended interactions allowed respondents to discuss operational realities, workplace challenges, labour practices and organisational routines in greater depth than would have been possible through highly structured interview formats. This approach was especially useful given the diversity of MSME organisational structures and the highly informal nature of many workplace practices.

Interviews were conducted with multiple categories of respondents, including firm owners, plant heads, supervisors, managers and workers. In several micro enterprises where managerial and operational roles overlapped, interviews were conducted with individuals directly responsible for day-to-day operational activities. Each field interaction lasted approximately 1 hour on average, allowing sufficient time for workplace observation and discussion regarding labour practices, safety systems, working conditions, welfare arrangements and organisational procedures.

The interviews focused on themes relating to occupational safety, working hours, human resource practices, leave systems, wages, welfare benefits, training arrangements, contract labour management and workplace organisation. In addition to interviews, workplace observations were conducted to examine visible operational practices such as the use of protective equipment, safety signage, workplace organisation, employee interactions and evidence of formalised management systems. Observational methods were particularly important because they allowed the study to compare formal organisational claims with observable workplace conditions.

Due to concerns regarding confidentiality and organisational sensitivity, many respondents were unwilling to participate in audio-recorded interviews. Consequently, detailed handwritten field notes were taken during and immediately after field interactions. A structured field diary was also maintained throughout the fieldwork process to document recurring observations, workplace conditions and comparative reflections across firms. The absence of audio recording may have limited verbatim documentation; however, reliance on field notes facilitated more open discussion among respondents regarding sensitive labour-related issues.

A pilot field exercise conducted in Bangalore Urban prior to the primary fieldwork helped refine the observational approach, interview structure and thematic focus areas used during the Haryana field visits.

Analytical Approach

The study employed a manual inductive thematic analysis approach based on an iterative review of field notes and observational records. An inductive analytical strategy was considered appropriate because the study aimed to identify recurring workplace patterns and organisational practices emerging from field observations rather than test predetermined hypotheses through rigid coding categories (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Pearson et al., 2025).

Following field visits, handwritten notes and observational records were reviewed repeatedly to identify recurring themes and comparative patterns across firms. The analysis specifically focused on differences and similarities between ZED-certified and non-certified MSMEs in relation to workplace organisation and social sustainability practices. During this process, recurring issues relating to occupational safety, informal human resource systems, welfare practices, working hours, contract labour management and organisational formalisation emerged consistently across field observations.

The analytical process involved manually grouping recurring observations and interview insights into broader thematic categories. Themes were refined iteratively through repeated comparison across field records and between certified and non-certified firms. This comparative review process helped identify patterns relating not only to the presence of workplace practices but also to the degree of organisational institutionalisation underlying such practices.

The use of thematic interpretation enabled the study to move beyond isolated workplace observations and identify broader structural patterns relating to social sustainability practices within MSMEs. The analysis further incorporated selected respondent quotations to strengthen contextual interpretation and illustrate recurring workplace experiences identified during fieldwork.

Ethical Considerations

Given the sensitivity associated with workplace practices, labour conditions and organisational disclosure, ethical safeguards formed an important component of the research process. Participating firms were provided with informed consent information sheets, consent forms and signed non-disclosure agreements clearly stating that neither firms’ nor respondents’ identities would be disclosed in any form. These measures were introduced to encourage candid discussion regarding workplace practices and organisational challenges.

To maintain confidentiality, firm identities were anonymised following data collection and replaced with numerical identifiers within field records. Respondents were also assured that the findings would be presented in an aggregated form without identifying individual firms or participants. Wherever possible, organisational claims relating to workplace systems and operational practices were cross-checked through workplace observations and available organisational records in order to improve data reliability and reduce reporting inconsistencies.

The study remained attentive to issues of respondent comfort and voluntary participation throughout the fieldwork process. Participation was entirely voluntary, and respondents retained the right to decline the discussion of sensitive organisational matters during interviews.

The following section presents the findings emerging from a comparative field analysis of ZED-certified and non-certified MSMEs.

Occupational Safety and Workplace Compliance

Occupational safety was one of the few areas where visible differences emerged between certified and non-certified firms. ZED-certified MSMEs were generally more likely to display safety signage, maintain basic protective equipment and demonstrate awareness of workplace safety requirements. However, implementation often remained inconsistent.

In several certified firms, protective equipment was available but not regularly used during production activities. Safety compliance frequently depended on supervisory monitoring rather than embedded workplace behaviour. A supervisor from a certified fabrication unit stated:

Similarly, while fire extinguishers and emergency signage were commonly present in certified firms, workers in smaller enterprises often demonstrated limited awareness regarding emergency procedures. Non-certified firms generally displayed weaker safety systems with minimal visible safety arrangements beyond basic legal compliance.

These observations suggest that certification may improve visible safety compliance without necessarily producing deeper behavioural integration of workplace safety practices.

Informal Labour Systems and Uneven Welfare Practices

Human resource systems across many MSMEs remained weakly formalised. Although certified firms often maintained better attendance records and workplace documentation, labour management practices continued to rely heavily on informal decision-making processes.

In several firms, leave approval, work allocation and wage-related decisions were handled directly by owners or supervisors without formal written procedures. A worker from a non-certified textile unit explained:

Even within certified enterprises, documentation did not always translate into consistent workplace implementation. Some firms appeared to maintain records primarily for compliance purposes, while operational practices remained flexible and informally managed. An owner from a certified manufacturing unit remarked:

The use of contract labour further fragmented workplace accountability. In many firms, outsourced workers received weaker welfare support and limited integration into workplace systems compared to permanent employees. A supervisor from a certified textile unit stated:

Training practices also remained largely informal across both certified and non-certified firms. Most workers learned operational tasks through observation and direct supervision rather than structured training programmes. Similarly, formal inclusion or diversity initiatives were largely absent across the surveyed enterprises.

Overall, the findings suggest that although certification may encourage procedural formalisation, workplace welfare systems and labour protections remain unevenly institutionalised within MSMEs.

Documentation Without Deep Institutionalisation

One of the most consistent patterns emerging from the field evidence was the distinction between procedural documentation and substantive workplace transformation. Certified firms generally demonstrated stronger documentation systems, greater compliance visibility and improved workplace organisation compared to non-certified firms. However, many underlying labour practices remained informal and inconsistently implemented.

Several respondents acknowledged that certification encouraged firms to improve record-keeping and procedural organisation. A manager from a certified manufacturing unit stated:

At the same time, the findings provide limited evidence that certification consistently transformed deeper organisational practices relating to labour welfare, working conditions or workplace accountability. Informal labour management, uneven welfare systems and flexible enforcement of workplace rules remained common even among certified firms. A comparative summary of the observed workplace patterns across certified and non-certified firms is presented in Table 4.

These findings suggest that the current structure of the ZED framework may strengthen procedural compliance and documentation practices more effectively than the institutionalisation of substantive social sustainability practices within workplace environments.

To further contextualise these findings, the following section benchmarks the ZED framework against selected international social sustainability frameworks and reporting systems.

Introducing a Structured Social Sustainability Index

One of the major limitations identified in the study is the absence of measurable social sustainability indicators within the current ZED framework. Broad and weakly specified provisions allow inconsistent interpretation across firms, contributing to uneven implementation of workplace practices.

To address this gap, the framework could introduce a simplified Social Sustainability Index for MSMEs focusing on core indicators such as occupational safety practices, working hours, welfare provisions, training systems and grievance mechanisms. A phased structure could allow firms to gradually strengthen workplace systems across certification levels rather than imposing highly complex compliance requirements from the outset.

Such a system would provide a clearer operational direction for firms while improving consistency in certification assessment and workplace evaluation.

Strengthening Accountability for Contract Labour

The findings also highlight significant gaps in accountability relating to outsourced and contract labour systems. In several firms, contract workers operated under weaker welfare and safety arrangements than permanent employees, while responsibility for labour conditions was often shifted toward contractors.

The ZED framework could therefore incorporate clearer accountability provisions requiring firms to demonstrate minimum welfare and safety protections for all workers operating within production facilities, irrespective of employment classification. Even limited accountability requirements relating to safety access, welfare coverage and workplace monitoring could strengthen worker protection within labour-intensive MSME environments.

Together, these measures may help shift the social sustainability dimension of the ZED framework from broad procedural expectations towards more consistent workplace-level implementation practices.