**Table 1.** Profiles of participants.

The interviewees were representative of firms that mostly had a global or regional footprint (57%), as shown in Figure 5, had staff levels mostly from 1–25,000 (62%), and they were mostly at, or

The interviewees were representative of firms that mostly had a global or regional footprint (57%), as shown in Figure 5, had staff levels mostly from 1–25,000 (62%), and they were mostly at, or

36 Senior executive other Global 65 37 Board 5–10k Global 57 38 Head of sustainability 5–10k Global 57 39 CEO other National Written 40 CEO other Global Written Total 1820 Average 48

*Sustainability* **2019**, *11*, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 30

36 Senior executive other Global 65 37 Board 5–10k Global 57 38 Head of sustainability 5–10k Global 57 39 CEO other National Written 40 CEO other Global Written Total 1820 Average 48

**Figure 5***.* The attributes and values of the 40 interviewees. **Figure 5.** The attributes and values of the 40 interviewees. **Figure 5***.* The attributes and values of the 40 interviewees.

### *4.2. Development of the Twin-Track Analysis Protocols, Balancing Qualitative with Quantitative Data Collection 4.2. Development of the Twin-Track Analysis Protocols, Balancing Qualitative with Quantitative Data Collection 4.2. Development of the Twin-Track Analysis Protocols, Balancing Qualitative with Quantitative Data Collection*

at CEO or board level who reflected individuals who could represent their firm's views.

at CEO or board level who reflected individuals who could represent their firm's views.

As discussed in paragraph 3.3, the preferred approach was aligned to Frels and Onwuegbuzie [56], who had proposed that even within a specific method choice, such as interviews that are qualitative-dominant, it is appropriate to collect quantitative data during the qualitative interview process. The practical application of the "qualitative-dominant crossover" is shown below in Figure 6, which illustrates a twin track analysis method, which complemented the use of quantitative and qualitative data collection. As discussed in paragraph 3.3, the preferred approach was aligned to Frels and Onwuegbuzie [56], who had proposed that even within a specific method choice, such as interviews that are qualitative-dominant, it is appropriate to collect quantitative data during the qualitative interview process. The practical application of the "qualitative-dominant crossover" is shown below in Figure 6, which illustrates a twin track analysis method, which complemented the use of quantitative and qualitative data collection. As discussed in paragraph 3.3, the preferred approach was aligned to Frels and Onwuegbuzie [56], who had proposed that even within a specific method choice, such as interviews that are qualitative-dominant, it is appropriate to collect quantitative data during the qualitative interview process. The practical application of the "qualitative-dominant crossover" is shown below in Figure 6, which illustrates a twin track analysis method, which complemented the use of quantitative and qualitative data collection.

**Figure 6.** The twin-track analysis protocols approach: qualitative and quantitative. **Figure 6.** The twin-track analysis protocols approach: qualitative and quantitative.
