Publication activity
Articles grouped by publication year
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
2026 is year to date. 0 undated publications excluded.
Research across participating journals · All insights follow your collection filters.
Publication activity alongside incoming citations.
Articles grouped by publication year
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
2026 is year to date. 0 undated publications excluded.
OpenAlex · year of the citing work
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
2017–2026 annual-history window. 2026 is year to date. Unknown years have gaps.
Leading affiliations and themes in this collection.
Full distributions & methodology ↓Independent sources. Clear time scales.
Crossref and OpenAlex · separate totals for the same publication cohorts
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
Latest lifetime totals, grouped by the cited article’s year. These are not citations received in that year.
OpenAlex · incoming citation links grouped by citing-work year
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
2017–2026 annual-history window. 2026 is year to date. Unknown years have gaps.
Select journals to compare the same collection filters. Source totals stay separate. These measures describe research activity, not journal quality.
Articles by publication year
Latest lifetime totals · grouped by publication year
Latest lifetime totals · grouped by publication year
By year of the citing work · 2017–2026
2026 is year to date. Crossref and OpenAlex lifetime charts share a citation scale. Unknown observations appear as gaps; known zero stays zero. Annual receipts use available OpenAlex histories and may not sum to lifetime totals. 0 undated publications excluded from publication-year charts.
Crossref citation coverage: 4 / 4 publications (100.0%). Latest observation: 21 Oct 2026, 07:22 UTC. Means and percentages use records with known counts.
DOI-matched OpenAlex observations for the same selected publications. These counts are separate from Crossref and are never added together.
Observation range: 21 Oct 2026 07:23 UTC — 22 Oct 2026 03:39 UTC. Missing matches are not zero citations. Previous observations may remain if a refresh fails or a DOI no longer matches.
OpenAlex affiliations and primary-topic classification. Each publication counts once per institution or country; multi-affiliated publications appear in multiple groups, so percentages can sum above 100%. Countries describe author affiliations, not nationality. Topics use one primary topic per publication.
4 / 4 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 4 selected publications.
4 / 4 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 4 selected publications.
4 / 4 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 4 selected publications.
Citations are the latest recorded totals for articles published in each year, not citations received during that year. Crossref and OpenAlex remain separate and share the same citation scale. 2026 is incomplete; newer articles have had less time to receive citations.
0 undated publications excluded. Unknown citation counts are shown as —, never as zero. Partial coverage can understate totals; expand each table for known / total records.
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Publications | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | All selected publications | 4 | 4 | 4/4 | 4/4 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 4 | 4/4 | 4/4 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 4 | 4/4 | 4/4 |
Incoming citations to the selected publications, grouped by the year of the citing work. This is separate from lifetime citation totals grouped by the cited article’s publication year.
The publication filters above define which articles receive the citations. The citation-year range below only controls this chart and the incoming-citation comparison. Removing publication-year filters includes older articles’ incoming citations too.
Annual history available for 4 / 4 selected publications. Supported display window: 2017–2026; 2026 is incomplete. Within a successfully fetched ten-year window, omitted years mean zero. Missing histories and years beyond a saved observation’s window remain unknown (—); partial coverage can understate totals.
Annual-history observations (UTC): 2026-10-21T07:23:08.996235+00:00 — 2026-10-22T03:39:39.376741+00:00. Older observations may be retained after failed or incomplete refreshes.
| Citation year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex · Citations received by year | Publications | Annual history known |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 4 | 4/4 |
Counts represent citation links, not unique citing papers across a journal: one paper citing two selected articles contributes two links. Older citations outside this window are excluded, so annual sums need not equal lifetime totals. OpenAlex methodology ↗
Publications by publication year. 2026 is an incomplete year.
| Period | Publications |
|---|---|
| 2026 | 4 |
Latest Crossref totals for the selected publications; not citations received in the selected years.
Unknown counts are excluded from the mean, median and cited-publication rate.
Same filters, source and counting rules across journals. Descriptive statistics, not a quality ranking.
| Journal / publisher | Publications | Crossref citations | OpenAlex citations | OpenAlex coverage | Crossref mean | Crossref median | Crossref cited %* | Crossref coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| International Journal of Business Ecosystem & Strategy Bussecon International Academy | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3/3 | 0.33 | 0 | 33.3 | 3/3 · 100.0% |
| International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science SSBFNET | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1/1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1/1 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
Amid growing consumer and societal expectations for environmental responsibility, this study examines how retailers’ sustainability practices drive customer loyalty through the mediating role of retailer legitimacy and the moderating role of consumer scepticism. Drawing on legitimacy theory, the objective of this study is to develop and test a conceptual model linking sustainability practices, corporate reputation, retailer legitimacy, consumer scepticism, and customer loyalty. Data from a cross-sectional survey of South African retail consumers were analysed using structural equation modelling. The results show that sustainability practices enhance both retailer legitimacy and customer loyalty, with legitimacy significantly mediating the effects of sustainability and corporate reputation on loyalty. Corporate reputation also strongly predicts retailer legitimacy. The study’s novelty lies in being the first to empirically test retailer legitimacy as a mediator in the sustainability–loyalty relationship within retailing, and to reveal the moderating influence of consumer scepticism. From a managerial perspective, the findings underscore the importance of transparent and credible communication of sustainability initiatives in strengthening legitimacy and fostering enduring customer loyalty, particularly in emerging markets where scepticism may be heightened.
Research on organizational sustainability (OS) remains a global debate. Consequently, organizations have become increasingly interested in adopting leadership styles to drive sustainability goals. Thus, in the present study we examined the impact of green transformation leadership (GTL) on OS and its dimensions (environmental, social, and economic), focusing on the mediating role of green talent management (GTM). We employed a quantitative methodology, using questionnaires for data collection and SPSS (version 25) and AMOS (version 23) for data analysis. The sample consisted of lower-level leadership, including executive management and department heads from Egypt’s renewable energy organizations. We gathered 250 valid responses. The findings indicate that GTL has a positive impact on OS both directly and indirectly through GTM. Also, we found that GTM mediates the relationship between GTL and OS. These findings strengthen the view that the effectiveness of GTL is fundamentally reflected in the adoption of sustainable strategies and is the cornerstone for enabling an organization to achieve OS. Our research addresses a gap in the literature by examining the impact of GTL on OS while considering the impact of GTM, which previous researchers did not consider. In addition, we provide managerial implications for renewable energy organizations as well as limitations and directions for future research.
This study investigates the structural impact of greenwashing perceptions on green purchase intentions through the dual mediating mechanisms of green skepticism and green confusion within the local skincare brand context in Indonesia. Grounded in the Stimulus–Organism–Response (S-O-R) framework, a quantitative research design was executed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) on a purposive sample of 105 Generation Z consumers in Sleman Regency, Special Region of Yogyakarta. The findings demonstrate that greenwashing perceptions directly suppress green purchase intention (β=−0.460,p=0.014) while significantly driving both green skepticism (β=0.660,p=0.005) and green confusion (β=0.741,p<0.001). Furthermore, green skepticism (β=−0.244,p<0.001) and green confusion (β=−0.252,p<0.001) exert negative effects on green purchase intention. Specific indirect effect testing confirms that both green skepticism (VAF=25.9%) and green confusion (VAF=28.9%) function as partial complementary mediators. This study advances sustainable business ecosystem strategy by illustrating how deceptive environmental communications trigger parallel psychological barriers that diminish consumer engagement. Managerial recommendations prioritize transparent sustainability disclosures, verifiable third-party eco-certifications, and educational branding to build long-term stakeholder trust.
Sustainability has emerged as a strategic imperative for small manufacturing enterprises, particularly in light of increasing expectations to operate responsibly across economic, social, and environmental domains. This study investigates the interconnectedness of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) elements and their collective influence on sustainable business practices. Rather than examining these dimensions in isolation, the research adopts a holistic lens to explore how their interplay shapes organisational behaviour and long-term viability within the small manufacturing sector in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Drawing on both theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence, the study offers insights into how enterprises can integrate TBL principles into their strategic orientation to foster resilience and sustained growth. The findings reveal that a balanced and synergistic approach to economic performance, social responsibility, and environmental stewardship enhances the capacity of firms to adapt, innovate, and thrive in complex operating environments. A structured questionnaire was administered to a stratified sample of 450 small manufacturing enterprises, and the resulting data were analysed using correlation techniques to uncover patterns and relationships among key variables. The study contributes practical guidance for business leaders and policymakers seeking to leverage the TBL framework not merely as a reporting mechanism, but as a transformative tool for embedding sustainability into core organisational processes.
This study investigates the structural impact of greenwashing perceptions on green purchase intentions through the dual mediating mechanisms of green skepticism and green confusion within the local skincare brand context in Indonesia. Grounded in the Stimulus–Organism–Response (S-O-R) framework, a quantitative research design was executed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) on a purposive sample of 105 Generation Z consumers in Sleman Regency, Special Region of Yogyakarta. The findings demonstrate that greenwashing perceptions directly suppress green purchase intention (β=−0.460,p=0.014) while significantly driving both green skepticism (β=0.660,p=0.005) and green confusion (β=0.741,p<0.001). Furthermore, green skepticism (β=−0.244,p<0.001) and green confusion (β=−0.252,p<0.001) exert negative effects on green purchase intention. Specific indirect effect testing confirms that both green skepticism (VAF=25.9%) and green confusion (VAF=28.9%) function as partial complementary mediators. This study advances sustainable business ecosystem strategy by illustrating how deceptive environmental communications trigger parallel psychological barriers that diminish consumer engagement. Managerial recommendations prioritize transparent sustainability disclosures, verifiable third-party eco-certifications, and educational branding to build long-term stakeholder trust.
Research on organizational sustainability (OS) remains a global debate. Consequently, organizations have become increasingly interested in adopting leadership styles to drive sustainability goals. Thus, in the present study we examined the impact of green transformation leadership (GTL) on OS and its dimensions (environmental, social, and economic), focusing on the mediating role of green talent management (GTM). We employed a quantitative methodology, using questionnaires for data collection and SPSS (version 25) and AMOS (version 23) for data analysis. The sample consisted of lower-level leadership, including executive management and department heads from Egypt’s renewable energy organizations. We gathered 250 valid responses. The findings indicate that GTL has a positive impact on OS both directly and indirectly through GTM. Also, we found that GTM mediates the relationship between GTL and OS. These findings strengthen the view that the effectiveness of GTL is fundamentally reflected in the adoption of sustainable strategies and is the cornerstone for enabling an organization to achieve OS. Our research addresses a gap in the literature by examining the impact of GTL on OS while considering the impact of GTM, which previous researchers did not consider. In addition, we provide managerial implications for renewable energy organizations as well as limitations and directions for future research.
Sustainability has emerged as a strategic imperative for small manufacturing enterprises, particularly in light of increasing expectations to operate responsibly across economic, social, and environmental domains. This study investigates the interconnectedness of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) elements and their collective influence on sustainable business practices. Rather than examining these dimensions in isolation, the research adopts a holistic lens to explore how their interplay shapes organisational behaviour and long-term viability within the small manufacturing sector in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Drawing on both theoretical frameworks and empirical evidence, the study offers insights into how enterprises can integrate TBL principles into their strategic orientation to foster resilience and sustained growth. The findings reveal that a balanced and synergistic approach to economic performance, social responsibility, and environmental stewardship enhances the capacity of firms to adapt, innovate, and thrive in complex operating environments. A structured questionnaire was administered to a stratified sample of 450 small manufacturing enterprises, and the resulting data were analysed using correlation techniques to uncover patterns and relationships among key variables. The study contributes practical guidance for business leaders and policymakers seeking to leverage the TBL framework not merely as a reporting mechanism, but as a transformative tool for embedding sustainability into core organisational processes.
Amid growing consumer and societal expectations for environmental responsibility, this study examines how retailers’ sustainability practices drive customer loyalty through the mediating role of retailer legitimacy and the moderating role of consumer scepticism. Drawing on legitimacy theory, the objective of this study is to develop and test a conceptual model linking sustainability practices, corporate reputation, retailer legitimacy, consumer scepticism, and customer loyalty. Data from a cross-sectional survey of South African retail consumers were analysed using structural equation modelling. The results show that sustainability practices enhance both retailer legitimacy and customer loyalty, with legitimacy significantly mediating the effects of sustainability and corporate reputation on loyalty. Corporate reputation also strongly predicts retailer legitimacy. The study’s novelty lies in being the first to empirically test retailer legitimacy as a mediator in the sustainability–loyalty relationship within retailing, and to reveal the moderating influence of consumer scepticism. From a managerial perspective, the findings underscore the importance of transparent and credible communication of sustainability initiatives in strengthening legitimacy and fostering enduring customer loyalty, particularly in emerging markets where scepticism may be heightened.
Source coverage refers to this result set; a publication may occur in several sources. Sync times refer to contributing journals.
Missing abstracts: 0 · Missing authors: 0 · Missing publication dates: 0 · Dates without day precision: 0
| Source | Most recent successful journal sync | Latest attempt |
|---|---|---|
| crossref | 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC · ijrbs | complete · ijrbs · 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC |
| ojs-rest | 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC · ijrbs | complete · ijrbs · 21 Oct 2026 06:46 UTC |
| oai-pmh | 20 Oct 2026 19:55 UTC · ijrbs | complete · ijrbs · 20 Oct 2026 19:50 UTC |
| openalex-enrichment | 21 Oct 2026 07:23 UTC · ijrbs | complete · ijrbs · 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC |