Submitted:
01 March 2023
Posted:
03 March 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Literature review and hypothesis development
2.1. Theoretical Background
2.2. Sustainability Performance
2.3. Hypothesis Development
2.3.1. Environmental Performance, Innovation Performance, and Sustainability performance
2.3.2. Social Performance, Innovation Performance and Sustainability performance:
2.3.3. Corporate Governance Performance, Innovation Performance and Sustainability Performance:
2.3.4. Innovation Performance and Sustainability Performance
2.3.4. The Mediating Role of Innovation on the Relationship Between ESG and Sustainability Performance

3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Sample and Data Collection Procedure
3.2. Measurement Instrument
3.3. Data Analysis Tools
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive Statistics
4.2. Reflective Measurement Model

4.3. Model Fit Statistics
4.4. SEM Hypotheses Testing

5. Discussion and Conclusion
6. Theoretical and Practical Implications of the Study
7. Limitations and Directions for Future Studies
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Informed Consent Statement
Availability of data and materials
Competing interests
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Appendix A
| Item code | Descriptions | Sources |
| Environmental Performance (ENP) | ||
| ENP1 | Reduction of air emissions. | [143] |
| ENP2 | Minimization of effluent/ solid waste. | |
| ENP3 | Less consumption of hazardous/harmful/toxic materials. | |
| ENP4 | Reduced the frequency of environmental accidents. | |
| Social Performance (SOP) | ||
| SOP5 | Training and development of employee | [25] |
| SOP6 | Promotion of employee occupational health and safety | |
| SOP7 | Employee job security and satisfaction | |
| SOP8 | Commitment to community and society satisfaction | |
| SOP9 | Supplier commitment and initiative | |
| Corporate governance performance (CGP) | ||
| CGP10 | Compliance with the set standards | [44] |
| CGP11 | Improvement of environmental compliance | |
| CGP12 | Improved the set of rules and regulations | |
| CGP13 | Enhancement of risk control mechanism | |
| CGP14 | Promotion of transparency and accountability | |
| Innovation performance (INP) | ||
| INP15 | Improvement of the level of customer satisfaction with product design and development. | [92] |
| INP16 | Development of products that are easy to recycle, reuse and decompose. | |
| INP17 | Improved continual introduction of new product ideas into the production process. | |
| INP18 | Improved market success of new products being tested. | |
| Sustainability performance (SUP) | ||
| SUP19 | Reduction of the rate of energy consumption and enhancement of economic development | [51,52] |
| SUP20 | Strengthening of the capacity for innovation in green technology and enhancement of competitiveness in the global arena | |
| SUP21 | Promotion of sustainable development and preservation of the environment for future generations | |
| SUP22 | Promotion of best practices and public awareness of the GP. | |
References
- Chin, T.A., H.H. Tat, and Z. Sulaiman, Green supply chain management, environmental collaboration and sustainability performance. Procedia Cirp, 2015. 26: p. 695-699. [CrossRef]
- Acciaro, M., et al., Environmental sustainability in seaports: a framework for successful innovation. Maritime Policy & Management, 2014. 41(5): p. 480-500. [CrossRef]
- Iqbal, Q., N.H. Ahmad, and H.A. Halim, Insights on entrepreneurial bricolage and frugal innovation for sustainable performance. Business Strategy & Development, 2021. 4(3): p. 237-245. [CrossRef]
- Niroumand, M., et al., Frugal innovation enablers: a comprehensive framework. International Journal of Innovation Science, 2020. [CrossRef]
- Iqbal, Q., N.H. Ahmad, and B. Ahmad, Enhancing sustainable performance through job characteristics via workplace spirituality: A study on SMEs. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 2018.
- Holden, E., et al., The imperatives of sustainable development: needs, justice, limits. 2017: Routledge.
- Xu, J., F. Liu, and Y. Shang, R&D investment, ESG performance and green innovation performance: Evidence from China. Kybernetes, 2020. [CrossRef]
- Li, T.-T., et al., ESG: Research progress and future prospects. Sustainability, 2021. 13(21): p. 11663. [CrossRef]
- Broadstock, D.C., et al., The role of ESG performance during times of financial crisis: Evidence from COVID-19 in China. Finance research letters, 2021. 38: p. 101716. [CrossRef]
- Alsayegh, M.F., R. Abdul Rahman, and S. Homayoun, Corporate economic, environmental, and social sustainability performance transformation through ESG disclosure. Sustainability, 2020. 12(9): p. 3910. [CrossRef]
- Chouaibi, S., J. Chouaibi, and M. Rossi, ESG and corporate financial performance: the mediating role of green innovation: UK common law versus Germany civil law. EuroMed Journal of Business, 2021. [CrossRef]
- Hussain, N., U. Rigoni, and R.P. Orij, Corporate governance and sustainability performance: Analysis of triple bottom line performance. Journal of business ethics, 2018. 149(2): p. 411-432. [CrossRef]
- Deegan, C., Introduction: The legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures–a theoretical foundation. Accounting, auditing & accountability journal, 2002.
- Maali, K., R. Rakia, and M. Khaireddine, How corporate social responsibility mediates the relationship between corporate governance and sustainability performance in UK: a multiple mediator analysis. Society and Business Review, 2021. [CrossRef]
- Yang, Q., et al., How volatility in green financing, clean energy, and green economic practices derive sustainable performance through ESG indicators? A sectoral study of G7 countries. Resources Policy, 2022. 75: p. 102526. [CrossRef]
- Kocmanová, A. and I. Šimberová, Determination of environmental, social and corporate governance indicators: framework in the measurement of sustainable performance. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2014. 15(5): p. 1017-1033. [CrossRef]
- Ye, C., X. Song, and Y. Liang, Corporate sustainability performance, stock returns, and ESG indicators: fresh insights from EU member states. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2022. 29(58): p. 87680-87691. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X., X. Zhao, and Y. He, Does it pay to be responsible? The performance of ESG investing in China. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 2022: p. 1-28. [CrossRef]
- Niesten, E., et al., Sustainable collaboration: The impact of governance and institutions on sustainable performance. Journal of cleaner production, 2017. 155: p. 1-6. [CrossRef]
- Crisóstomo, V.L., F. de Souza Freire, and M.R.D.O. Freitas, Determinants of corporate sustainability performance–evidence from Brazilian panel data. Social Responsibility Journal, 2019. [CrossRef]
- Miralles-Quirós, M.M., J.L. Miralles-Quirós, and L.M. Valente Gonçalves, The value relevance of environmental, social, and governance performance: The Brazilian case. Sustainability, 2018. 10(3): p. 574. [CrossRef]
- Yoon, B., J.H. Lee, and R. Byun, Does ESG performance enhance firm value? Evidence from Korea. Sustainability, 2018. 10(10): p. 3635. [CrossRef]
- Garcia, A.S., W. Mendes-Da-Silva, and R.J. Orsato, Corporate sustainability, capital markets, and ESG performance, in Individual behaviors and technologies for financial innovations. 2019, Springer. p. 287-309.
- Rajesh, R., Exploring the sustainability performances of firms using environmental, social, and governance scores. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020. 247: p. 119600. [CrossRef]
- Sultana, S., N. Zulkifli, and D. Zainal, Environmental, social and governance (ESG) and investment decision in Bangladesh. Sustainability, 2018. 10(6): p. 1831. [CrossRef]
- Zheng, G.-W., et al., Factors affecting the sustainability performance of financial institutions in Bangladesh: the role of green finance. Sustainability, 2021. 13(18): p. 10165. [CrossRef]
- FAKIR, A. and R. JUSOH, Board gender diversity and corporate sustainability performance: Mediating role of enterprise risk management. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 2020. 7(6): p. 351-363. [CrossRef]
- Tribune, D., Is Bangladesh’s manufacturing sector fit to compete? 2022. https://www.dhakatribune.com/business/2022/10/11/is-bangladeshs-manufacturing-sector-fit-to-compete.
- Zaid, A.A., A.A. Jaaron, and A.T. Bon, The impact of green human resource management and green supply chain management practices on sustainable performance: An empirical study. Journal of cleaner production, 2018. 204: p. 965-979.
- Mohua, M.J. and W.F.W. Yusoff. Are Institutional Pressures Influencing on Sustainable Business Performance in the RMG Industries of Bangladesh? in Business Innovation and Engineering Conference 2020 (BIEC 2020). 2021. Atlantis Press.
- Rashid, M.H.U., et al., Factors influencing green performance in manufacturing industries. International Journal of Financial Research, 2019. 10(6): p. 159-173.
- Hossan, C.G., M.A.R. Sarker, and R. Afroze, Recent unrest in the RMG sector of Bangladesh: Is this an outcome of poor labour practices? International Journal of Business and Management, 2012. 7(3): p. 206.
- Ansary, M.A. and U. Barua, Workplace safety compliance of RMG industry in Bangladesh: Structural assessment of RMG factory buildings. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015. 14: p. 424-437. [CrossRef]
- Butler, S., Bangladeshi factory deaths spark action among high-street clothing chains. The Guardian, 2013. 23.
- Wang, C. and J. Li, The evaluation and promotion path of green innovation performance in Chinese pollution-intensive industry. Sustainability, 2020. 12(10): p. 4198. [CrossRef]
- Tariq, A., Y. Badir, and S. Chonglerttham, Green innovation and performance: moderation analyses from Thailand. European Journal of Innovation Management, 2019. [CrossRef]
- Flammer, C. and A. Kacperczyk, Corporate social responsibility as a defense against knowledge spillovers: Evidence from the inevitable disclosure doctrine. Strategic Management Journal, 2019. 40(8): p. 1243-1267. [CrossRef]
- Atan, R., et al., The impacts of environmental, social, and governance factors on firm performance: Panel study of Malaysian companies. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 2018.
- Ashrafi, M., et al., Understanding the conceptual evolutionary path and theoretical underpinnings of corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability. Sustainability, 2020. 12(3): p. 760. [CrossRef]
- Freeman, R.E. and S. Dmytriyev, Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder theory: Learning from each other. Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, 2017(1): p. 7-15. [CrossRef]
- Rezaee, Z., Business sustainability research: A theoretical and integrated perspective. Journal of Accounting literature, 2016. [CrossRef]
- Kramer, M.R. and M. Porter, Creating shared value. Vol. 17. 2011: FSG Boston, MA, USA.
- Guthrie, J. and L.D. Parker, Corporate social reporting: a rebuttal of legitimacy theory. Accounting and business research, 1989. 19(76): p. 343-352. [CrossRef]
- Masud, M.A.K., et al., Organizational strategy and corporate social responsibility: The mediating effect of triple bottom line. International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. 16(22): p. 4559.
- Michelon, G., S. Pilonato, and F. Ricceri, CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Critical perspectives on accounting, 2015. 33: p. 59-78. [CrossRef]
- Deegan, C., EBOOK: Financial Accounting Theory: European Edition. 2011: McGraw Hill.
- Deephouse, D.L., Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of management journal, 1996. 39(4): p. 1024-1039.
- Eliwa, Y., A. Aboud, and A. Saleh, ESG practices and the cost of debt: Evidence from EU countries. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 2021. 79: p. 102097. [CrossRef]
- Elkington, J., Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environmental quality management, 1998. 8(1): p. 37-51. [CrossRef]
- Khan, I.S., M.O. Ahmad, and J. Majava, Industry 4.0 and sustainable development: A systematic mapping of triple bottom line, Circular Economy and Sustainable Business Models perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2021. 297: p. 126655. [CrossRef]
- Kamble, S.S., A. Gunasekaran, and S.A. Gawankar, Achieving sustainable performance in a data-driven agriculture supply chain: A review for research and applications. International Journal of Production Economics, 2020. 219: p. 179-194. [CrossRef]
- Helleno, A.L., A.J.I. de Moraes, and A.T. Simon, Integrating sustainability indicators and Lean Manufacturing to assess manufacturing processes: Application case studies in Brazilian industry. Journal of cleaner production, 2017. 153: p. 405-416. [CrossRef]
- Moktadir, M.A., et al., Drivers to sustainable manufacturing practices and circular economy: A perspective of leather industries in Bangladesh. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018. 174: p. 1366-1380.
- Fernando, J., UN Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI). Investopedia, 2022. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/un-principles-responsible-investment-pri.asp.
- Zhu, D., Research from global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to sustainability science based on the object-subject-process framework. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment, 2017. 15(1): p. 8-20. [CrossRef]
- Mousa, S.K. and M. Othman, The impact of green human resource management practices on sustainable performance in healthcare organisations: A conceptual framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020. 243: p. 118595.
- Abdul-Rashid, S.H., et al., The impact of sustainable manufacturing practices on sustainability performance: Empirical evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 2017.
- Ali, M.H., et al., Impacts of environmental factors on waste, energy, and resource management and sustainable performance. Sustainability, 2019. 11(8): p. 2443. [CrossRef]
- Ong, T.S., et al., Environmental innovation, environmental performance and financial performance: Evidence from Malaysian environmental proactive firms. Sustainability, 2019. 11(12): p. 3494. [CrossRef]
- Crossan, M.M. and M. Apaydin, A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of management studies, 2010. 47(6): p. 1154-1191. [CrossRef]
- Cohen, W.M. and D.A. Levinthal, Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 1990: p. 128-152. [CrossRef]
- Delmas, M.A. and V.C. Burbano, The drivers of greenwashing. California management review, 2011. 54(1): p. 64-87.
- Wagner, M., Innovation and competitive advantages from the integration of strategic aspects with social and environmental management in European firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2009. 18(5): p. 291-306. [CrossRef]
- Carrión-Flores, C.E. and R. Innes, Environmental innovation and environmental performance. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2010. 59(1): p. 27-42. [CrossRef]
- Chiou, T.-Y., et al., The influence of greening the suppliers and green innovation on environmental performance and competitive advantage in Taiwan. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2011. 47(6): p. 822-836. [CrossRef]
- Sezen, B. and S.Y. Cankaya, Effects of green manufacturing and eco-innovation on sustainability performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2013. 99: p. 154-163. [CrossRef]
- Taddese, G., S. Durieux, and E. Duc, Sustainability performance indicators for additive manufacturing: a literature review based on product life cycle studies. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 2020. 107(7): p. 3109-3134. [CrossRef]
- Chaim, O., et al., Insertion of sustainability performance indicators in an industry 4.0 virtual learning environment. Procedia Manufacturing, 2018. 21: p. 446-453. [CrossRef]
- Avery, G., Leadership for sustainable futures: Achieving success in a competitive world. 2005: Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Ketprapakorn, N. and S. Kantabutra, Sustainable social enterprise model: Relationships and consequences. Sustainability, 2019. 11(14): p. 3772. [CrossRef]
- Chams, N. and J. García-Blandón, On the importance of sustainable human resource management for the adoption of sustainable development goals. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2019. 141: p. 109-122. [CrossRef]
- Kim, J., Social dimension of sustainability: From community to social capital. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 2018. 28(2): p. 175-181. [CrossRef]
- Duque-Grisales, E. and J. Aguilera-Caracuel, Environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores and financial performance of multilatinas: Moderating effects of geographic international diversification and financial slack. Journal of Business Ethics, 2021. 168(2): p. 315-334. [CrossRef]
- Choi, J. and H. Wang, Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic management journal, 2009. 30(8): p. 895-907. [CrossRef]
- Costa, C., L.F. Lages, and P. Hortinha, The bright and dark side of CSR in export markets: Its impact on innovation and performance. International Business Review, 2015. 24(5): p. 749-757. [CrossRef]
- McWilliams, A. and D. Siegel, Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification? Strategic management journal, 2000. 21(5): p. 603-609.
- MacGregor, S.P., X. Espinach, and J. Fontrodona. Social innovation: Using design to generate business value through corporate social responsibility. in DS 42: Proceedings of ICED 2007, the 16th International Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, France, 28.-31.07. 2007. 2007.
- Mahlouji, H. and N.K. Anaraki, Corporate social responsibility towards social responsible innovation: A dynamic capability approach. International Review of Business Research Papers, 2009. 5(6): p. 185-194.
- Porter, M. and M. Kramer, Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review, 89 (1/2): 62-77. 2011.
- Bocquet, R., et al., Are firms with different CSR profiles equally innovative? Empirical analysis with survey data. European Management Journal, 2013. 31(6): p. 642-654. [CrossRef]
- Herrera, M.E.B., Creating competitive advantage by institutionalizing corporate social innovation. Journal of business research, 2015. 68(7): p. 1468-1474. [CrossRef]
- Li, D.-y. and J. Liu, Dynamic capabilities, environmental dynamism, and competitive advantage: Evidence from China. Journal of business research, 2014. 67(1): p. 2793-2799. [CrossRef]
- Broadstock, D.C., et al., Does corporate social responsibility impact firms’ innovation capacity? The indirect link between environmental & social governance implementation and innovation performance. Journal of Business Research, 2020. 119: p. 99-110. [CrossRef]
- Setini, M., et al., The passway of women entrepreneurship: Starting from social capital with open innovation, through to knowledge sharing and innovative performance. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 2020. 6(2): p. 25. [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q., L. Loh, and W. Wu, How do environmental, social and governance initiatives affect innovative performance for corporate sustainability? Sustainability, 2020. 12(8): p. 3380.
- Rodrigue, M., M. Magnan, and C.H. Cho, Is environmental governance substantive or symbolic? An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 2013. 114(1): p. 107-129. [CrossRef]
- Ricart, J.E., M.Á. Rodríguez, and P. Sanchez, Sustainability in the boardroom: An empirical examination of Dow Jones Sustainability World Index leaders. Corporate Governance: the international journal of business in society, 2005. 5(3): p. 24-41.
- Spitzeck, H., The development of governance structures for corporate responsibility. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 2009.
- Liao, L., L. Luo, and Q. Tang, Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British accounting review, 2015. 47(4): p. 409-424. [CrossRef]
- Amran, A., S.P. Lee, and S.S. Devi, The influence of governance structure and strategic corporate social responsibility toward sustainability reporting quality. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2014. 23(4): p. 217-235. [CrossRef]
- Arena, C., S. Bozzolan, and G. Michelon, Environmental reporting: Transparency to stakeholders or stakeholder manipulation? An analysis of disclosure tone and the role of the board of directors. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2015. 22(6): p. 346-361. [CrossRef]
- Rashid, M.H.U. and M.A. Hamid, Measurement of CSR Performance in Manufacturing Industries: A SEM Approach. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development (IJSESD), 2022. 13(6): p. 1-18.
- Michelon, G. and A. Parbonetti, The effect of corporate governance on sustainability disclosure. Journal of management & governance, 2012. 16(3): p. 477-509. [CrossRef]
- Arora, P. and R. Dharwadkar, Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR): The moderating roles of attainment discrepancy and organization slack. Corporate governance: an international review, 2011. 19(2): p. 136-152. [CrossRef]
- Al-Shaer, H. and M. Zaman, Board gender diversity and sustainability reporting quality. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 2016. 12(3): p. 210-222. [CrossRef]
- Bravo, F. and N. Reguera-Alvarado, Sustainable development disclosure: Environmental, social, and governance reporting and gender diversity in the audit committee. Business Strategy and the Environment, 2019. 28(2): p. 418-429. [CrossRef]
- Cruz, C. and C. Tolentino, Gender, social recognition, and political influence. 2019, Working Paper.
- Carter, D.A., et al., The gender and ethnic diversity of US boards and board committees and firm financial performance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 2010. 18(5): p. 396-414. [CrossRef]
- Rao, K. and C. Tilt, Board composition and corporate social responsibility: The role of diversity, gender, strategy and decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 2016. 138(2): p. 327-347. [CrossRef]
- García Martín, C.J. and B. Herrero, Do board characteristics affect environmental performance? A study of EU firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 2020. 27(1): p. 74-94. [CrossRef]
- Shahrier, N.A., J.S.Y. Ho, and S.S. Gaur, Ownership concentration, board characteristics and firm performance among Shariah-compliant companies. Journal of Management and Governance, 2020. 24(2): p. 365-388. [CrossRef]
- Sahar, E., N. Zulkifli, and Z. Zakaria, Corporate governance integration with sustainability: a systematic literature review. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 2018. [CrossRef]
- Kusi, B.A., et al., Does corporate governance structures promote shareholders or stakeholders value maximization? Evidence from African banks. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 2018. [CrossRef]
- Merendino, A. and R. Melville, The board of directors and firm performance: empirical evidence from listed companies. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 2019. [CrossRef]
- Gutiérrez-Martínez, I. and F. Duhamel, Translating sustainability into competitive advantage: the case of Mexico’s hospitality industry. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 2019. [CrossRef]
- Rodriguez-Fernandez, M., Social responsibility and financial performance: The role of good corporate governance. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 2016. 19(2): p. 137-151. [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y., et al., Corporate governance mechanisms and firm performance: evidence from the emerging market following the revised CG code. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, 2019. [CrossRef]
- Suman, S. and S. Singh, Corporate governance mechanisms and corporate investments: evidence from India. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 2020. 70(3): p. 635-656. [CrossRef]
- AlHares, A., Corporate governance mechanisms and R&D intensity in OECD courtiers. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 2020. 20(5): p. 863-885.
- Fu, Y., Independent directors, CEO career concerns, and firm innovation: Evidence from China. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 2019. 50: p. 101037.
- Lu, J. and W. Wang, Managerial conservatism, board independence and corporate innovation. Journal of Corporate Finance, 2018. 48: p. 1-16.
- Omri, W., A. Becuwe, and J.-C. Mathe, Ownership structure and innovative behavior: Testing the mediatory role of board composition. Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies, 2014.
- Asni, N. and D. Agustia, Does corporate governance induce green innovation? An emerging market evidence. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 2022(ahead-of-print). [CrossRef]
- Nidumolu, R., C.K. Prahalad, and M.R. Rangaswami, Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard business review, 2009. 87(9): p. 56-64.
- Knowles, C.D., Measuring innovativeness in the North American softwood sawmilling industry. 2007: Oregon State University.
- Varis, M. and H. Littunen, Types of innovation, sources of information and performance in entrepreneurial SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management, 2010. [CrossRef]
- Chen, J., Z.-C. Liu, and N.-Q. Wu. Relationships between organizational learning, innovation and performance: an empirical examination. in 2009 International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering. 2009. IEEE.
- Bakar, L.J.A. and H. Ahmad, Assessing the relationship between firm resources and product innovation performance: A resource-based view. Business Process Management Journal, 2010.
- Bakhtina, V.A., Innovation and its potential in the context of the ecological component of sustainable development. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 2011. [CrossRef]
- Weihong, X., S. Caitao, and Y. Dan. A study on the relationships between organizational culture, organizational learning, technological innovation and sustainable competitive advantage. in 2008 international conference on computer science and software engineering. 2008. IEEE.
- Ivanaj, S., et al., Multinational Enterprises’ strategic dynamics and climate change: drivers, barriers and impacts of necessary organisational change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2015. 30: p. 1e4. [CrossRef]
- Faulkner, W. and F. Badurdeen, Sustainable Value Stream Mapping (Sus-VSM): methodology to visualize and assess manufacturing sustainability performance. Journal of cleaner production, 2014. 85: p. 8-18. [CrossRef]
- Commerce, T., The US Department of The International Trade Administration and The US Department of Commerce’s definition for Sustainable Manufacturing. The US Department of Commerce, 2010.
- Kanashiro, P. and J. Rivera, Do chief sustainability officers make companies greener? The moderating role of regulatory pressures. Journal of Business Ethics, 2019. 155(3): p. 687-701. [CrossRef]
- Wong, W.P., M.-L. Tseng, and K.H. Tan, A business process management capabilities perspective on organisation performance. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 2014. 25(5-6): p. 602-617. [CrossRef]
- Albort-Morant, G., A. Leal-Millán, and G. Cepeda-Carrión, The antecedents of green innovation performance: A model of learning and capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 2016. 69(11): p. 4912-4917. [CrossRef]
- Huang, X.-x., et al., The relationships between regulatory and customer pressure, green organizational responses, and green innovation performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016. 112: p. 3423-3433. [CrossRef]
- Tang, K., Y. Qiu, and D. Zhou, Does command-and-control regulation promote green innovation performance? Evidence from China’s industrial enterprises. Science of the Total Environment, 2020. 712: p. 136362.
- Dicuonzo, G., et al., The effect of innovation on environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices. Meditari Accountancy Research, 2022(ahead-of-print). [CrossRef]
- De Santis, F. and C. Presti, The relationship between intellectual capital and big data: A review. Meditari Accountancy Research, 2018. 26(3): p. 361-380.
- Carayannis, E.G., S. Sindakis, and C. Walter, Business model innovation as lever of organizational sustainability. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 2015. 40(1): p. 85-104. [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, M. and Y. Wu, Combined role of green productivity growth, economic globalization, and eco-innovation in achieving ecological sustainability for OECD economies. Journal of Environmental Management, 2022. 302: p. 113980. [CrossRef]
- Du, K. and J. Li, Towards a green world: How do green technology innovations affect total-factor carbon productivity. Energy Policy, 2019. 131: p. 240-250. [CrossRef]
- Marsat, S. and B. Williams, Does the market value social pillar? SSRN Electronic Journal. 2014.
- Mithani, M.A., Innovation and CSR—Do they go well together? Long Range Planning, 2017. 50(6): p. 699-711.
- Xu, X., et al., The Mediating Role of Green Technology Innovation with Corporate Social Responsibility, Firm Financial, and Environmental Performance: The Case of Chinese Manufacturing Industries. Sustainability, 2022. 14(24): p. 16951. [CrossRef]
- Ge, G., et al., Does ESG Performance Promote High-Quality Development of Enterprises in China? The Mediating Role of Innovation Input. Sustainability, 2022. 14(7): p. 3843. [CrossRef]
- Yoo, C., J. Yeon, and S. Lee, Beyond “good company”: The mediating role of innovation in the corporate social responsibility and corporate firm performance relationship. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 2022(ahead-of-print). [CrossRef]
- Shih, T.-Y., Exploring the effects of prospective corporate social responsibility on firm performance: the mediating role of innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2022: p. 1-13. [CrossRef]
- Wang, M., et al., Evaluating the Effect of Chinese Environmental Regulation on Corporate Sustainability Performance: The Mediating Role of Green Technology Innovation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2022. 19(11): p. 6882. [CrossRef]
- Javed, M., et al., Responsible leadership and triple-bottom-line performance—do corporate reputation and innovation mediate this relationship? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 2020.
- Anderson, J.C. and D.W. Gerbing, The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 1984. 49(2): p. 155-173. [CrossRef]
- Tan, K., et al., Do Environmental Strategy and Awareness Improve Firms’ Environmental and Financial Performance? The Role of Competitive Advantage. Sustainability, 2022. 14(17): p. 10600. [CrossRef]
- Van Riel, A.C., et al., Estimating hierarchical constructs using consistent partial least squares: The case of second-order composites of common factors. Industrial management & data systems, 2017.
- Hair Jr, J.F., et al., A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 2021: Sage publications.
- Ringle, C.M., S. Wende, and J.-M. Becker, SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt, Germany: SmartPLS GmbH. 2015.
- Hair, J.F., et al., Multivariate data analysis with readings, 1995. Tulsa, OK: Petroleum Publishing, 1984.
- Hair, J., et al., An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 2017. 117(3): p. 442-458. [CrossRef]
- Hair Jr, J., et al., SEM: An introduction. Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective, 2010: p. 629-686.
- Henseler, J., C.M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 2015. 43(1): p. 115-135. [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J., Statistical power analysis forthe behavioural sciences. Baskı, Hillsdale NJ, 1988.
- Steiger, J.H., Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual differences, 2007. 42(5): p. 893-898. [CrossRef]
- Aslam, S., et al., The impact of corporate governance and intellectual capital on firm’s performance and corporate social responsibility disclosure. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 2018. 12(1): p. 283-308.
| Items | Categories | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Types of companies | Steel Cement Glass Textile |
65 64 70 51 |
26.0 25.6 28.0 20.4 |
| Number of employees | Below 100 More than 100 |
57 189 |
22.8 77.2 |
| Employee position | Top level Middle and lower level |
81 193 |
32.4 67.6 |
| Firm age | Less than 20 years More than 20 years |
115 135 |
54.0 46.0 |
| Total | 250 | 100 |
| Variables | Items | Mean | Standard Deviation | Kurtosis | Skewness | Factor Loadings | VIF |
| Corporate Governance Performance (CGP) | CGP10 | 5.812 | 0.67 | -0.799 | 0.24 | 0.853 | 2.784 |
| CGP11 | 5.836 | 0.646 | -0.656 | 0.17 | 0.909 | 3.761 | |
| CGP12 | 5.836 | 0.627 | -0.541 | 0.138 | 0.899 | 3.581 | |
| CGP13 | 5.84 | 0.637 | -0.603 | 0.152 | 0.899 | 3.825 | |
| CGP14 | 5.828 | 0.631 | -0.575 | 0.155 | 0.904 | 4.128 | |
| Environmental Performance (EP) | ENP1 | 5.88 | 0.64 | -0.367 | 0.02 | 0.918 | 3.696 |
| ENP2 | 5.852 | 0.656 | -0.334 | -0.006 | 0.93 | 4.233 | |
| ENP3 | 5.876 | 0.617 | -0.174 | -0.019 | 0.928 | 4.109 | |
| ENP4 | 5.852 | 0.656 | -0.521 | 0.079 | 0.897 | 3.067 | |
| Innovation Performance (IP) | INP15 | 5.924 | 0.592 | -0.166 | 0.021 | 0.855 | 2.087 |
| INP16 | 5.88 | 0.595 | -0.249 | 0.043 | 0.825 | 1.931 | |
| INP17 | 5.876 | 0.636 | -0.565 | 0.111 | 0.848 | 2.156 | |
| INP18 | 5.916 | 0.584 | -0.102 | 0.013 | 0.811 | 1.87 | |
| Social Performance (SP) | SOP5 | 5.908 | 0.61 | -0.337 | 0.05 | 0.853 | 2.306 |
| SOP6 | 5.916 | 0.604 | -0.283 | 0.039 | 0.867 | 2.658 | |
| SOP7 | 5.928 | 0.609 | -0.314 | 0.038 | 0.86 | 2.664 | |
| SOP8 | 5.896 | 0.637 | -0.554 | 0.092 | 0.868 | 2.761 | |
| SOP9 | 5.912 | 0.633 | -0.516 | 0.073 | 0.823 | 2.161 | |
| Sustainability Performance (SUP) | SUP19 | 5.9 | 0.64 | -0.579 | 0.092 | 0.847 | 2.159 |
| SUP20 | 5.864 | 0.649 | -0.66 | 0.141 | 0.898 | 2.95 | |
| SUP21 | 5.9 | 0.647 | -0.623 | 0.098 | 0.893 | 2.781 | |
| SUP22 | 5.892 | 0.645 | -0.618 | 0.105 | 0.848 | 2.302 |
| Variables | Cronbach’s Alpha | rho_A | Composite Reliability | AVE | R2 |
| Corporate Governance Performance | 0.937 | 0.937 | 0.952 | 0.798 | - |
| Environmental Performance | 0.938 | 0.938 | 0.956 | 0.843 | - |
| Innovation Performance | 0.855 | 0.86 | 0.902 | 0.697 | 0.789 |
| Social Performance | 0.907 | 0.91 | 0.931 | 0.73 | - |
| Sustainability Performance | 0.895 | 0.896 | 0.927 | 0.76 | 0.464 |
| Fornell-Larcker Approach | |||||
| Variables | CGP | EP | IP | SOP | SUP |
| Corporate Governance Performance | 0.893 | ||||
| Environmental Performance | 0.769 | 0.918 | |||
| Innovation Performance | 0.616 | 0.592 | 0.835 | ||
| Social Performance | 0.642 | 0.606 | 0.596 | 0.854 | |
| Sustainability Performance | 0.804 | 0.819 | 0.67 | 0.707 | 0.872 |
| HTMT Approach | |||||
| Corporate Governance Performance | |||||
| Environmental Performance | 0.82 | ||||
| Innovation Performance | 0.684 | 0.658 | |||
| Social Performance | 0.691 | 0.654 | 0.672 | ||
| Sustainability Performance | 0.877 | 0.893 | 0.762 | 0.779 | |
| Hypothesis | Paths | Beta value | T Statistics | P Values | Remarks |
| H1 | EP -> SUP | 0.393 | 6.097 | 0.000*** | Supported |
| H2 | EP -> IP | 0.208 | 2.704 | 0.007*** | Supported |
| H3 | SOP -> SUP | 0.201 | 4.228 | 0.000*** | Supported |
| H4 | SOP -> IP | 0.302 | 4.265 | 0.000*** | Supported |
| H5 | CGP -> SUP | 0.286 | 4.966 | 0.000*** | Supported |
| H6 | CGP –> IP | 0.262 | 3.169 | 0.002*** | Supported |
| H7 | IP -> SUP | 0.141 | 3.157 | 0.002*** | Supported |
| Mediation analysis | |||||
| H8 | EP→IP→SUP | 0.029 | 2.053 | 0.040** | Full mediation |
| H9 | SOP→IP→SUP | 0.043 | 2.537 | 0.011** | Full mediation |
| H10 | CGP→IP→SUP | 0.037 | 2.236 | 0.025** | Full mediation |
| Note: significant at 1% (***) and 5 % (**); r2 for IP=0.789 and r2 for SP=0.464. | |||||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
