| Annotation: | Methods. The methodological basis of the study comprises systemic, stakeholder, strategic, and dynamic approaches. These enabled the analysis of enterprise development amidst the socialization of society as a process of aligning economic viability, value orientations, stakeholder interests, and the capacity for strategic renewal. To construct the model, the authors employed methods of theoretical generalization, structural-logical and comparative analysis, grouping, normalization and aggregation of indicators, as well as matrix and scenario modeling. The methodological framework entails assessing the enterprise's strategic potential and its level of social integration, evaluating the balance between these components, and formulating a strategic development profile. Results. The article develops a model for enterprise development strategy in the context of the socialization of society. This model integrates the diagnosis of external socialization drivers, the assessment of strategic potential and the enterprise's socialization level, the determination of a balance coefficient, matrix positioning, and the formation of a portfolio of strategic initiatives. A system of indicators is proposed for calculating the integral indices I_SP and I_SOC, alongside four basic strategic profiles: adaptation-stabilization, social partnership, responsible reorientation, and proactive shared value creation. Novelty. The scientific novelty lies in the refinement of the methodological approach to modeling an enterprise's development strategy by simultaneously accounting for its strategic capability and the degree to which societal values are integrated into its management system. Unlike approaches that treat social responsibility as a separate functional area, the proposed model incorporates socialization into the logic of strategy selection, links it to the structure of strategic potential, and introduces a balance coefficient between the economic-strategic and socio-stakeholder components. Practical value. The practical significance of the results lies in the model's applicability for diagnosing an enterprise's strategic position, substantiating the type of development strategy, formulating a portfolio of socially and economically aligned management decisions, and constructing a system of key performance indicators. The proposed approach can be adopted by enterprises across various industries, provided the set of indicators and weighting coefficients is adapted to their specific operational activities and institutional environment. |
| Literature: | - 1. Menghwar, P.S., & Daood A. (2021). Creating shared value: A systematic review, synthesis and integrative perspective. International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 23, (4),. 466-485. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12252
- 2. Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J.W. (2022). Stakeholder Governance: Solving the Collective Action Problems in Joint Value Creation. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 47, (2), 214-236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2019.0441
- 3. Ocasio, W., Kraatz, M., & Chandler, D. (2023). Making Sense of Corporate Purpose. Strategy Science, Vol. 8, (2), 123-138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0054
- 4. Gulatim R., & Wohlgezogenm F. (2023). Can Purpose Foster Stakeholder Trust in Corporations? Strategy Science, Vol. 8, (2), 270-287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0196
- 5. McGahan, A. (2023). The New Stakeholder Theory on Organizational Purpose. Strategy Science, Vol. 8, (2), 245-255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0184
- 6. Kaplan, S. (2023). The Promises and Perils of Corporate Purpose. Strategy Science, Vol. 8, (20), 288-301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0187
- 7. Karman, A., & Savanevičienė, A. (2021). Enhancing dynamic capabilities to improve sustainable competitiveness: insights from research on organisations of the Baltic region. Baltic Journal of Management, Vol.16, (2), 318-341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-08-2020-0287
- 8. Buzzao, G., & Rizzi, F. (2021). On the conceptualization and measurement of dynamic capabilities for sustainability: Building theory through a systematic literature review. Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 30, (1), 135-175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2614
- 9. Sinkovics, N., Gunaratne, D., Sinkovics, R.R., & Molina-Castillo, F. -J. (2021). Sustainable Business Model Innovation: An Umbrella Review. Sustainability, Vol. 13, (13), Art. 7266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137266
- 10. Beusch, P., Frisk, J.E., Rosén, M., & Dilla, W. (2022). Management control for sustainability: Towards integrated systems. Management Accounting Research, Vol. 54, Art. 100777. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2021.100777
- 11. Wang, N., Pan, H., Feng, Y., & Du, S. (2024). How do ESG practices create value for businesses? Research review and prospects. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 15, (5), 1155-1177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2021-0515
- 12. Wobst, J., Tanikulova, P., & Lueg, R. (2025). Value-based management: a review of its conceptualizations and a research agenda toward sustainable governance. Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 47, (1), 150-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JAL-11-2022-0123
- 13. Albuquerque, R., & Cabral, L. (2025). Strategic Corporate Purpose. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 34, (3), 743_758. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12619
- 14. Steller, N., & Björck, A. (2025). Dynamic Strategifying: How do Chief Purpose Officers make purpose strategic and strategy purposeful? Long Range Planning, Vol. 58, (3), Art. 102532. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2025.102532
- 15. Kim, R.C., Saito, A., & Avvari V.M. (2020). Interpretation and integration of «creating shared value» in Asia: implications for strategy research and practice. Asian Business & Management, Vol. 19, (4), 379-406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-019-00064-4
- 16. Ivanova, M.I., Shvets, V.Ya., Sannikova, S.F., Varianychenko, O.V., & Bardas, A.V. (2023). Sotsialna vidpovidalnist yak kliuchova kompetentsiia zabezpechennia staloho rozvytku pidpryiemstv. Biznes Inform, (3), 176-186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32983/2222-4459-2023-3-176-186
- 17. Linhur, L.M. (2023). Rol korporatyvnoi sotsialnoi vidpovidalnosti u formuvanni stratehii rozvytku pidpryiemstva: suchasnyi pidkhid. Ekonomika ta suspilstvo,. Vyp. 49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0072/2023-49-11
- 18. Serikova, O.M. (2022). Korporatyvna sotsialna vidpovidalnist biznesu v umovakh viiny v Ukraini: natsionalnyi i hlobalnyi vymiry. Biznes Inform, (6), 94-100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32983/2222-4459-2022-6-94-100
- 19. Yermakov, M.A., & Karpenko, I.O. (2024). Mekhanizm aktyvizatsii sotsialno vidpovidalnoi diialnosti pidpryiemstv v Ukraini. Biznes Inform, (4), 290-299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32983/2222-4459-2024-4-290-299
- 20. Hrachova, Ya. (2024). Sotsialna vidpovidalnist ukrainskykh pryvatnykh pidpryiemstv: suchasni pidkhody. Herald of Khmelnytskyi National University. Economic Sciences, Vol. 334, (5), 275-281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31891/2307-5740-2024-334-40
- 21. Vasiutkina, N., & Babych, B. (2025). Corporate Social Responsibility as a Factor in Adapting to Ensure the Development of an Enterprise in the Context of Business Innovation. Ekonomika ta suspilstvo, Vyp. 77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0072/2025-77-61
|
Archive