Triple Bottom Line (TBL) theory, suggested by John Elkington in the 1990s, has received a number of refinements to SP as suggested by practitioners and scholars Elkington 2021. The TBL theory allows SP to maintain an economic focus, while adding a social dimension and an ecological dimension as further constructs. TBL advocates that a successful firm must reach a balance of economic success, social success and ecological success ([26]; [1]). Advocating success across all three dimensions of TBL is emerging as the main consensus as to the meaning of long-term sustainability of firms ([8]; [11]).

Under TBL, economic sustainability is defined as an organization’s ability to create lasting financial value and positively impact an organization’s ability to positively impact economies. This means that an organization should focus on profitability & economic growth as this supports long-term resilience, equitable wealth creation, and shared value for stakeholders ([33]). TBL firms differ from other firms that prioritize short-term financial returns; they are innovators in the use of all types of resources and sustainable supply chains that create the greatest and most sustainable economic impact ([26]; [29]). Social sustainability focuses on ethical practices, community involvement, treated well employees, and justice. The companies engaged in this pillar of sustainability focus on labor rights, equity and inclusion, participation of all stakeholders, and value to society ([21]). The indicators of social sustainability are employees’ contentment, the community initiatives the support, the stakeholders in equity treatment, and they improve cohesion and the legitimacy in the market ([46]; [41]).

The environmental component of the TBL aims to minimize the negative impact on the ecosystem. It includes, inter alia, the reduction of carbon footprint, waste management, conservation of natural resources, and the use of renewables or cleaner technologies ([18]; [11]). Environmental sustainability also encompasses the reporting and accountability mechanisms through sustainability disclosures and external audits on the environmental performance ([15]; [21]). The adoption of eco-efficient practices in the way of doing business enables companies to reduce the exposure to risk and the increase of their reputation while contributing to the sustainability of the world, particularly the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ([45]). Importantly, the TBL theory suggests that sustainability performance is not additive, but rather, interactive, meaning that if one pillar is progressed strategically, it can reinforce the performance of the other pillars ([8]). Similarly, the interaction can also be applied to the overarching goals of sustainable development as a field, wherein economic success, social equity, and environmental protection synergistically strengthen one another ([1]).

The purpose of this study is to illustrate how the TBL framework can be used to develop a conceptual model of sustainability performance as a multidimensional construct influenced by firm specific strategic entrepreneurial orientations (EO) such as innovation, risk, and environmental proactivity, as well as the external environment in which the firm operates ([34]; [37]). From the TBL viewpoint, EO is positively linked to sustainability performance when a firm maintains equilibrium among economic, environmental, and social performance goals. However, this equilibrium is largely informed by the institutional context, such as the legal, social, and economic environment, as well as the “sustainability” expectations of the various stakeholders which can promote or hinder sustainable development ([50]; [2]). Therefore, the TBL focuses on the conceptualization, and measurement, of sustainability performance which in emerging economies like Kenya, underserves, or overlooks the role of external contextual factors that influence how entrepreneurial initiatives shape or influence balanced sustainability goals and objectives.

The Moderating Effect of Institutional Pressures

One example is the study conducted by [49], regarding the Institutional Pressures, Green Innovation, and Sustainable Performance: Examining the Mediated Moderation Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation. The authors conducted the survey of 483 listed companies in China to determine the effect of Institutional Pressures on Green Innovation and Sustainable Performance focusing specifically on the Entrepreneurial Orientation of the companies. The study revealed that the Institutional Pressures had a positive effect on the Green Innovation, while the Entrepreneurial Orientation, did in fact, mediate this relationship. However, the study shows that the Entrepreneurial Orientation had a negative moderating effect on the Green Innovation and Sustainable Performance, in a way that, within the companies that embedded a sub-standard Green Innovation, the Entrepreneurial Orientation was believed to worsen the Sustainable Performance as a result of the risk-taking.

Another study is by [24] in China on Institutional Pressures and Proactive Environmental Strategy: The Mediating Effect of Upper Managerial Environmental Attitude and the Moderating Effect of New Media Pressure. The authors focused on 345 top managers of Chinese companies and used the survey method to explain the effect of Institutional Pressures on Proactive Environmental Strategies, considering the mediation of Upper Managerial Environmental Attitude and the moderation of New Media Pressure. The study demonstrated that Upper Managerial Environmental Attitude serves as a mediator between Institutional Pressures and Proactive Environmental Strategies. The relationship between firm managers’ perceptions of environmental strategies and competitor and customer pressure is also influenced by the new media pressure, which acts as an intensifier in this case.

[20] conducted a study in China, entitled Institutional Pressure and Open Innovation: The Moderating Effect of Digital Knowledge and Experience-Based Knowledge. This study used a sample size of 2126 from the World Bank Enterprise Survey. The study applied multivariate regression analyses to determine how institutional pressure affects open innovation while digital and experience-based knowledge acted as moderating variables. The institutional pressure affects open innovation positively. However, in this study, digital knowledge was found to have a negative impact, whereas experience-based knowledge had a positive impact, especially concerning the coercive pressure towards open innovation.

[36] conducted a study in Kenya on Effects of Institutional Pressures, Organizational Resources, and Capabilities on Environmental Management Accounting for Sustainability Competitive Advantage. 1162 employees from Kenyan manufacturing SMEs were surveyed on how institutional pressure affects the adoption of Environmental Management Accounting (EMA) while also assessing the moderating impact of environmental innovation capacity. The study found that, in this case, both coercive and normative pressures were found to have strong positive effects. Moreover, the study showed that the environmental innovation capacity positively moderates the impact of institutional pressure in this case on EMA adoption, leading to sustainable competitive advantage.

[24] conducted a study in China on Institutional Pressures and Firms’ Environmental Management Behavior: The Moderating Role of Slack Resources.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of institutional pressure on the environmental practices of the firms, factoring in slack resources as a moderating variable. This was conducted by analyzing data of 193 publicly listed firms from 2014 to 2018 in heavily polluting industries in China. Findings indicate that of the various forms of institutional pressure, coercive is the most significant in driving substantive forms of environmental management, whilst mimetic pressure drives only symbolic environmental management. Furthermore, slack resources positively moderate the relation institutional pressures and both forms of environmental management practices.

H1: Institutionalpressuresmoderatetheentrepreneurialorientation-sustainabilityperformancelink.

This will show the relationship between the study variables:

Research centered on the positivist philosophy of research. This means that there is a reality, to which the observer is independent, and this reality can be measured objectively. Knowledge is acquired through organized and systematic observation, measurement, and empirical verification. The researcher adopts a stance of neutrality, in an effort to minimize bias. Sustainability performance of youth enterprises was considered a measurable phenomenon and validated tools were used. The researcher reviewed existing theories, formulated hypotheses, and statistically analyzed the relationships of the variables. The reliance on closed-ended questions and the use of structured data led to the objective of this research being to sustain the reliability and wider applicability of the results among the youth enterprises in Taita Taveta County ([1]; [42]).

In accordance with positivism, a quantitative research method using deductive reasoning was applied. This meant going from the development of the theoretical framework to the formulation of hypotheses and then to empirical verification. For measuring entrepreneurial orientation, institutional pressures, and sustainability performance, numerical data was collected through structured questionnaires that used items from previous research. The relationships among the variables and the moderating role of institutional pressures on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and sustainability performance were assessed statistically ([49]; [24]; [36]). Such an approach provided objectivity, accuracy, and replicability, allowing the results to confirm or contradict the hypothesized relationships and to shed light on evidence-based determinants of sustainability performance among enterprises led by young people ([34]; [37]).

An explanatory research design which is cross-sectional in nature was adopted to study the effect of entrepreneurial orientation on sustainability performance with institutional pressures as a moderating variable. This design is suitable to help establish the cause-and-effect relationship of the predictor and outcome variables ([44]). The data was collected at one point in time, enabling the measurement of both the predictor and the outcome variables ([7]). The use of structured questionnaires, in this case, simplified the data collection and hypothesis testing processes, and on top of that, provided representation, time, and cost-effectiveness to the target population.

The target population included all the government-supported youth enterprises registered under the Youth Enterprise Development Fund in Taita Taveta County which constituted the unit of analysis. By April 2019, a total of 262 youth enterprise groups were registered. In each group, two members were selected to provide individual-level responses, thus determining the population at 524 youths. Time and budgetary constraints were considered in determining the sample size, utilizing [48] formula. Given a population (N) of 524, the sample size was 356 respondents at a 3% margin of error (e = 0.03). This margin of error provided a good balance between the optimum precision and the constraints of the study, typical of the standards of social science research ([1]).

Standardized questionnaires were used to obtain primary data regarding the study constructs. The use of systematic questionnaires is an appropriate approach given the need to collect data from sufficiently large numbers and the need for a data structure that permits a broad range of statistical analyses ([40]; [42]). The structure of the questionnaire contains a section for demographic questions and a number of items that were designed to capture the central variables. The closed questions were designed to collect data on a 5-point Likert scale from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. To enhance the response rate and the cut-off data, the data collection was carried out by drop and pick and supplemented by face-to-face interactions.

[21] define sustainability performance using the Triple Bottom Line framework. This framework includes the: 1) economic; 2) social; and 3) environmental dimensions. This study adopted the index measure of sustainablilty performance; social, economic and envirnmental measures. [41] alongside the [46], define economic sustainability as financial viability and growth; social sustainability as community and employee engagement and social responsibility; and environmental sustainability as resource conservation and environmental protection. Entrepreneurial orientation takes an enterprise’s strategic bounce and behavioral posture and is measured through innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking, and competitive aggressiveness ([34]; [37]). [49], [23], and [36] show that institutional pressures can be seen as external, including coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures that help determine the strength and/or direction of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and sustainability performance. All the 3 measures of institutional pressures were used in this study.

Data preparation included an initial assessment of the potential impact of outliers, and variable recoding along with data cleansing to avoid issues related to inaccuracies ([42]; [40]). Responses that were deemed incomplete or inaccurate were removed. Frequency distributions and scatterplots were used to identify univariate outliers, and multivariate outliers were assessed using Mahalanobis Distance (D²) to ensure that the data set did not contain biased data ([22]). Data analysis was performed using the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) 23, with the Stepwise method. Analysis included the use of univariate and multivariate statistics; univariate analysis included means, frequencies, percentages and standard deviations; multivariate analysis included multiple regression and the PROCESS macro to assess the moderating role of institutional pressures ([49]; [24]). The results of the data set were presented using tables and graphs, which enhanced the comprehension and clarity of the evidence-based conclusions.

The study received 306 completed surveys from a sample of 356 youth enterprises in Taita Taveta County as inidcated in Table 1. Of these, 303 responses met the inclusion criteria, resulting in a response rate of approximately 85%, which is considered robust and above the average typically observed in entrepreneurial research ([4]). This high response rate provided sufficient data to reliably examine the relationships between entrepreneurial orientation, institutional pressures, and the sustainability performance of youth enterprises in the county ([35]).

Table 1. Response rate of youth entrepreneurs in Taita Taveta.

Source: Primary data (2026).

Statistical descriptions of the variables of the study: sustainability performance, entrepreneurial orientation and institutional pressures, show the spread of the data and the center of the data for the surveyed youth enterprises in Taita Taveta County as illustrated in Table 2. Sustainability performance registered a minimum of 3.48 and a maximum of 4.65, a mean of 3.96 and a standard division of 0.18. This means that youth enterprises reported moderately high sustainability practices in terms of the economic, social and environmental dimensions. With a low standard division, the responses are more of a consensus. This means that participants thought similarly about the sustainability performance. The entrepreneurial orientation, which included innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking, autonomy and competitive aggressiveness, had means of 4.12 and a standard division of 0.18, which means that the entrepreneurial orientation was highest among the youth enterprises and that the low standard division meant that the most enterprises displayed almost similar entrepreneurial orientation. The institutional pressures that encompass legal, normative, and mimetic influences on the behavior of enterprises ranged between 3.33 and 5.00 and had a mean of 4.17 and a standard division of 0.31. This shows that young enterprises have experienced moderately high institutional pressures, although with more variance than the other factors, showing differences in the impact of the regulatory, social, and relational pressures. Overall, the data shows generally high entrepreneurial orientation and sustainability performance, in part influenced by high institutional pressures.

Table 2. Summary of descriptive of research instruments.

4.3.1. Reliability of the Study Instruments

[19] notes that reliability in statistical research is used to evaluate the internal consistency or stability of an instrument when measuring specific constructs. Similarly, [28] defines reliability as the extent to which research results are consistent over time and accurately represent the broader population. Reliability coefficients are calculated to assess the internal consistency of scale items and determine whether they meet acceptable statistical standards. As shown in Table 3, all coefficients fell within the generally accepted threshold of 0.7 recommended by [16], indicating that the research instruments were reliable for use in this study. Specifically, the reliability for sustainability performance was 0.897, entrepreneurial orientation had a reliability of 0.705, and institutional pressures demonstrated a reliability of 0.702.

Table 3. Reliability of the research instruments.

Source: Researcher, 2026.

4.3.2. Validity of Research Instruments

Factor analysis was employed to assess the suitability of the dataset for examining the study’s constructs. As depicted in Table 4, for sustainability performance, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy was 0.684, indicating that the sample was adequate for factor extraction and that the items were appropriate for evaluating construct validity. Entrepreneurial orientation had a KMO value of 0.682, suggesting that the sample was sufficiently adequate for factor analysis and that the items reliably represented the construct. Institutional pressures had a KMO value of 0.701, indicating that the construct was appropriate for analysis and that the data were suitable for factor extraction with high relevance. Overall, most variables had KMO values above the 0.6 threshold, confirming that the sample provided a sound basis for factor analysis and that the collected data from youth enterprises were adequate for measuring the study constructs. These assessments ensured that subsequent statistical analyses were performed on valid and reliable sample items, supporting the robustness of the study’s findings regarding entrepreneurial orientation, institutional pressures, and sustainability performance.

Table 4. Factor analysis for entrepreneurial orientation.

Source: Research data, 2025.

Factor analysis was conducted for of the youth enterprises and institutional pressures and the results demonstrate that the dataset is highly suitable for factor extraction, as indicated in Table 5 by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy, which is 0.701. This value is well above the acceptable threshold of 0.6, suggesting that the sample is excellent for factor analysis. Most of the communalities are above 0.05 explaining better sustainability performance and hence suitable items for construct validity. Additionally, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity yields a highly significant result (χ² = 37.249, df = 28, p = 0.013) and the p value meets the threshold that is below 0.05, confirming that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix and that factor analysis is appropriate.

Table 5. Factor analysis for institutional pressures.

Source: Research data, 2025.

4.4.1. Test for Normality

For the study to make valid inferences from model estimation, the residuals of the regression should follow a normal distribution. To reliably derive conclusions from the model estimate, the regression’s residuals must have a normal distribution. The study used a histogram depicted in Figure 1 to test for normality, the histogram showed a bell-shaped curve symmetry suggesting that the data was perfectly normal ([13]).

Figure 1. Histrogram indicating normality of data.

4.4.2. Test for Multicollinearity

Multicollinearity is an excessive degree of inter-correlation between the independent variables, making it impossible to distinguish between the independent outcomes ([12]). This is essentially the presumption that the study predictors do not have a very high degree of correlation. Regression results for collinearity diagnostics were used to examine tolerance and VIF. According to [16], a VIF value above 10 or a tolerance value below 0.1 is generally considered indicative of serious multicollinearity.

From Table 6, the tolerance was substantially greater than 0.10 and VIF values were below 10, thus, it is acceptable. In line with suggestion of [16], these results show that multicollinearity does not exist in this study.

Table 6. Multicollinearity results.

Source: Researcher, 2026.

4.4.3. Test for Autocorrelation

This was tested using Durbin-Watson in which the value approximately equal to 2 or greater than 2 indicates no autocorrelation in the residuals, which is the ideal scenario in linear regression analysis as shown in Table 7.

Table 7. Autocorrelation results.

Source: Researcher, 2026.

Correlation analysis was conducted to examine both the direction and strength of the linear relationships among the study variables using the Pearson correlation coefficient ([38]). As noted by [14], correlation measures the degree and intensity of association between two or more quantitative variables, as well as the direction of the relationship. The correlation coefficient ranges from −1 to +1, indicating negative or positive associations. In this study, Pearson correlation was employed to assess the relationships among the key variables. Table 8 indicates a strong positive and statistically significant correlation between sustainability performance and entrepreneurial orientation (ρ = 0.815, p = 0.000). Sustainability performance also showed a significant positive correlation with institutional pressures, with a coefficient of ρ = 0.554 (p = 0.000). These results suggest that higher entrepreneurial orientation and stronger institutional pressures are associated with better sustainability performance among youth enterprises in Taita Taveta County.

Table 8. Pearson correlation coefficients.

Source: Research data, 2026. **There is a strong correlation.

Hypothesis H₁ states that institutional pressures moderate the Entrepreneurial Orientation - Sustainable performance link. The moderated regression shows an excellent model fit (R = 0.9093, R² = 0.8268, F (5,297) = 283.50, p < 0.001), meaning the predictors explain 82.68% of sustainability performance variance. Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has a positive main effect (B = 0.1086, p < 0.001) and institutional pressures (IP) also positively predict sustainability performance (B = 0.0067, p < 0.001). The EO × IP interaction is negative and significant (B = −0.0002, p = 0.0009; ΔR² = 0.0066), indicating that as IP increases, the positive effect of EO on sustainability performance diminishes (but remains significant at all tested IP levels). Specifically, EO’s conditional effect declines from B = 0.0587 at low IP to 0.0503 at median IP and 0.0383 at high IP, all p < 0.001. Practically, EO contributes most to sustainability when institutional pressures are lower; at higher institutional pressure levels, marginal gains from additional EO narrow, suggesting partial substitutability or diminishing returns between EO and IP in driving sustainability outcomes. Covariates EA (p = 0.884) is non-significant, while ES shows a small positive effect (B = 0.0022, p = 0.023) (Table 9).

Table 9. Hayes model 1 moderation analysis results.

The impact of institutional pressure for moderation analyses, substantially changes the degree of impact of the relationship between youth enterprises entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and sustainability performance in Taita Taveta County. Although there is a robust positive impact of EO on sustainability performance, the interaction with institutional pressure (EO × IP) is negative and substantial, demonstrating that the positive effects of EO are less effective with increasing institutional pressure. This confirms the theory of partial substitutability, where institutional pressure, regulatory, normative, or mimetic, hinders the entrepreneurial and, or sustainable initiatives. In practical terms, youth enterprises with a high EO and, consequently, higher sustainability performance, will only do so when institutional pressure is moderate or low, however, high EO efforts within high institutional pressure environments will not perform well. This confirms [50]’s study. The result of the study is a confirmation of most studies of external pressure focusing on the facilitation and constraining effect on the entrepreneurial efforts to achieve sustainability performance ([50]). The research result demands appropriate context when trying to achieve the entrepreneurial performance at a sustainable level; proper policy and support structures need to be implemented to reduce possible regulatory pressure and provide room for innovative, and risk-based entrepreneurship. The results suggest that internal strategic orientations, alongside external institutional contexts, coalesce to influence sustainability performance within youth-led enterprises.

The study substantiates that the entrepreneurial orientation is a positive predictor of the sustainability performance, demonstrated by the substantial main effect (B = 0.1086, p < 0.001). As for the institutional pressures, they also unambiguously increase sustainability outcomes (B = 0.0067, p < 0.001), showing that regulations, along with normative and mimetic, push for the adoption of sustainable practices. Besides, EO and institutional pressures’ interaction (B = −0.0002, p = 0.0009; ΔR² = 0.0066) presents a decreasing effect: with the increase of institutional pressures, the more positive EO influence on the sustainability performance is reduced, although such influence EO remains statistically significant despite the moderator’s levels. In particular, the EO influence drops from 0.0587 at low institutional pressure to 0.0503 at mid and 0.0383 at high pressure. This shows that potential of entrepreneurial behaviours for sustainability has, to a degree, been constrained by the institutional pressures. In other words, what is needed is positive institutional pressures.

Covariate analysis indicated that enterprise age did not have any significant impact on sustainability performance (p = 0.884), whereas enterprise size positively impacted sustainability performance (B = 0.0022, p = 0.023), although the impact was small. Overall, this means that entrepreneurial orientation and the institution’s context are key components defining sustainability performance, with institutional pressure acting as a moderator to determine the magnitude of impact of EO.

The application of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework in the specific field of African youth enterprises adds to the existing academic body of work around sustainability performance in youth enterprises. These findings show that entrepreneurial orientation (EO) has a positive effect on sustainability performance and the importance of having an innovative and an economically positive, socially positive, and environmentally positive “proactive” approach to risk-taking. Furthermore, the moderating impact of institutional pressures emphasizes the significance of the context in which the EO-sustainability performance nexus is located. This research builds upon the prior theorizations that the institutional (coercive, normative, and mimetic) framework can both promote and limit the entrepreneurial behaviour sustainability outcome paradox ([50]; [2]). In the context of integrating EO and institutional pressures within the TBL framework, the understanding of sustainability performance in the context of emerging economies, as a cumulative result of the inherent strategic focus and the resultant external strategic focus on entrepreneurship, is particularly enhanced in the context of the youth enterprises sector, which is crucial for the overall socio-economic progress of the nation.

This study provides youth enterprises, policymakers, and support institutions with guidance on potential strategies that will be of benefit to the Taita Taveta County, and others like it. Results indicated that the sustainability performance of youth enterprises can be improved with an increase in entrepreneurial orientation, while an increase in institutional pressure will reduce said performance. For this, policymakers and regulatory actors must find a middle ground when providing feedback on control and balance, providing the legislative support, so the entrepreneurial spirit can be supportive of sustainability. Youth development enterprises need to develop the business model alongside the knowledge of the system and its regulatory/institutional framework. Youth enterprises can, and should, pursue the operational integration of economic, social, and environmental objectives. In this regard, they should control the relevant institutional, regulatory, and community integration. Understanding the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and institutional pressure will help practitioners to design interventions for the best sustainability performance, enduring resilience, and advancement of the socio-economic development of a country in line with the objectives of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs).