Environmental Foe or Friend: The Impact of Intellectual Capital and Ambidextrous Innovation on Environmental Performance

Abstract

This study was conducted to address the question of whether the existence of green intellectual capital, ambidextrous green innovation, and pro-environmental behaviors promotes environmental performance in 320 enterprises in Vietnam. Evidence obtained from the partial least squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM) shows that: (i) Employees’ pro-environmental behavior positively contributes to improving enterprises’ environmental performance; (ii) The more extensive the green intellectual capital, the more efficient the environmental improvement through measures such as reducing hazardous waste and increasing the use of renewable inputs. As a result, environmental quality can be improved. In addition, as a moderator, green intellectual capital positively affects the relationship between ambidextrous green innovation and environmental performance. Based on the study’s findings, the authors suggest some governance implications for promoting sustainable environmental development in some Vietnamese enterprises.

Keywords

green intellectual capital ambidextrous green innovation pro-environmental behaviors environmental performance Vietnam

Introduction

In recent years, many consumers have placed their expectations on companies to be held accountable for their corporate social responsibility efforts. Under such circumstances, organizations have initiated new capabilities, for example, advanced management systems, ecological innovation, and the integration of stakeholder needs, to pave the way for environmentally sustainable economic activities (Alvino et al., 2020; Geng & Maimaituerxun, 2022). Many researchers have confirmed that green intellectual capital (GIC), the sum of intangible assets, knowledge and capabilities, is an essential determinant of innovation capacity in the organizational environment (Andreeva et al., 2021; Kianto et al., 2017). Intellectual capital also plays an important role in addressing the ecological challenges of society (Massaro et al., 2018).

In the fourth phase of intellectual capital research, environmental capabilities and green innovations are central to equipping businesses to minimize adverse environmental impacts when engaging in their routine activities and enhance environmental performance (EP) (Dameri & Ricciardi, 2015; Geng et al., 2022). Green intellectual capital is essential for forming two sides of innovations (exploitative and exploratory) (Andreeva et al., 2021; Kianto et al., 2017). Exploitative green innovation involves applying existing environmental knowledge, capabilities and processes to promote existing green products and green designs (Tu & Wu, 2021; J. Wang, Xue, Sun, & Yang, 2020), while exploratory green innovation involves new environmental information, knowledge and skills to create green markets and new green products (J. Wang, Xue, & Yang, 2020). At the same time, a policy-oriented company for ambidextrous green innovations (IA) also helps it create more intangible green assets in knowledge, structure and relationships. In addition to factors related to the company-owned assets, the pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) of employees are also emphasized when developing issues related to social responsibility.

Studying this topic in many contexts is necessary for the following reasons. First, the relationship between GIC, IA, and PEBs is a crucial issue to be studied as it profoundly impacts environmental performance and determines a company’s future growth. Although the importance of these factors is indisputable, previous studies are still limited in both space and time. Second, many companies still lack interest in doing business with the environment and are prone to brand scandals and lawsuits, especially in developing countries such as Vietnam. For example, in 2016, Formosa’ enterprise made headlines the world over for causing one of the biggest environmental disasters in Vietnamese history, killing tonnes of fish across the four coastal provinces of Ha Tinh, Quang Binh, Quang Tri and Thua Thien Hue. The company has already paid $500 million in compensation, distributed to local victims. More than 200,000 people were directly affected, including 41,000 fishermen.

This article will answer the following key questions to address these limitations: (1) What is the relationship between GIC, IA, PEBs and enterprise EP? (2) What is the relationship between IA and EP when GIC acts as a moderator variable? (3) Do gender differences in leaders result in differences in these relationships? The central premise of our theoretical framework is that effective coordination of different green organizational capacities and resources (e.g., GIC factors and IA) plays a vital role in promoting environmental activities in the enterprise. We test our research hypotheses with data from 320 firms in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and use partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM).

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section “Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses” presents the theoretical framework along with the development of hypotheses. Section “Methodology” provides a comprehensive overview of the methodology, followed by data analysis and a presentation of the results in Section “Empirical Result and Discussion.” Section “Conclusions and Implications” concludes the paper with an extensive discussion, presenting the main findings, implications, and limitations.

Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

Theoretical Framework

This study mainly draws upon resource orchestration theory (H. Liu et al., 2016; Sirmon et al., 2007) to develop the theoretical framework. Based on this theory, resources must be gathered, combined and used to their full potential to realize their potential for value creation (Asiaei, Bontis, et al., 2022). We propose the notion of “natural resource orchestration” according to which green resources and capabilities (e.g., GIC, IA, and employees’ PEBs) only influence performance when they are structured, bundled and leveraged in a way proper for a specific market. Resource orchestration theory’s central tenet is “resource mobilization,” which states that mobilized resources are integrated into an efficient framework to support improved alignment, synchronization and direction for a particular utilization (Asiaei et al., 2021). The paper applies the theory to understand the relationship between GIC, IA, and EP. EP can be enhanced through green workforce environmental behavior and by developing intellectual capital and ambidextrous green innovation strategies. Therefore, this investigation also explores the impact of employees’ PEBs on EP and a possible moderating effect of GIC on the relationship between IA and EP.

Hypotheses Development

Ambidextrous Green Innovation and Green Intellectual Capital

Previous studies only examined the impact of GIC on IA, while they ignored whether IA had an impact on GIC. A company having ambidextrous innovation means that they will be strong in both directions: exploitative and exploratory innovations (Lee et al., 2018; Lin & Ho, 2016). Exploitative is innovation refined by the application of existing knowledge and technologies, while exploratory innovation is the innovation that explores new knowledge, new innovation and develops new technologies (Jansen et al., 2006; Zang, 2018). IA will have positive effects on aspects of GIC, namely green human capital (GHC), green structural capital (GSC), and green relational capital (GRC) (Yong et al., 2019). They emphasized GIC as “the total stock of all kinds of intangible assets, knowledge, capabilities, and relationships, etc. about environmental protection or green innovation of both the individual and organization levels within a company.”

First, one of the main drivers of green innovation is an organization’s capacity for human resources, collectively known as GHC. In order to manage green innovation and the environment in the face of external demands, employees’ and managers’ environmental knowledge and skills are crucial (J. Wang, Xue, Sun, & Yang, 2020). Additionally, crucial sources of IA come from employees’ inventive mindsets (Yusliza et al., 2019). Natural environment advocates are more likely to explore and seize any opportunities related to sustainability and provide solutions to capitalize on those opportunities. Therefore, human resources with green knowledge, technology and creativity are essential to ambidextrous green innovation in the context of the green economy.

Second, organizations with a greener structural capital, as demonstrated by superior organizational capabilities, commitments, knowledge management systems, reward systems, information technology systems, databases, managerial operating processes, managerial philosophies, and organizational culture related to a company’s environmental protection behaviors, have the ability to excel in ambidextrous green innovation. Green structured capital can assist managers in implementing policies to reduce environmental pollution by redesigning their production processes and increasing their green productivity. Additionally, all factors in GSC bring incremental value and have positive effects on the exploitation and discovery of innovations (D. Liu et al., 2022).

Third, the remaining aspect of GIC is GRC, which involves the company’s green relationship with various stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, network members, and partners (Chen, 2008). Previous literature widely acknowledges that stakeholder concerns and attitudes towards the natural environment are among the key determinants that can inspire corporate environmentalism, for example, ecological innovation, within a company (Acebo et al., 2021).

From the above analysis, we determined that the relationship between GIC and IA was significantly positive and proceeded to fill the gap missing in the study, which was the opposite effect from IA on GIC. A scarce study from Rehman et al. (2021) highlighted that green innovation also enhances GIC for businesses. Indeed, organizations separate their new, exploratory units from their traditional, exploitative ones, allowing for different processes, structures and cultures; simultaneously, they maintain close links across units at the senior executive level. In other words, they manage organizational separation through a tightly integrated senior team. Exploratory innovations enable businesses to get knowledge and information from all sides of their environment, therefore, they include the development of new skills and pursuit of new knowledge (Jurksiene & Pundziene, 2016). Radical innovations are finally produced due to the collaboration and contact with several people, businesses and partners, which result in the acquisition of new information (Benitez et al., 2018). The firm can create new sources of competitive advantage thanks to these radical innovations because they can disrupt current business structures (Ireland & Webb, 2009). Meanwhile, exploitative innovation focuses on generating in-depth knowledge in a few areas, rather than establishing a broad set of knowledge in different fields and increasingly standardizing processes in the organization.

With all the above arguments, we developed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis H₁: Ambidextrous green innovation is positively associated with green intellectual capital.

Ambidextrous Green Innovation and Employees’ Pro-Environmental Behaviors

The move by a company towards the development of ambidextrous green innovation, including exploitative innovation and exploratory innovation, requires employees to take responsibility for the company’s activities related to environmental protection. To achieve successful implementation of environmental sustainability strategies in the corporate social responsibility development policy, the development of corporate green innovation policies must go hand in hand with the consistent involvement of the employees in PEBs (Cheema et al., 2020). According to Wesselink et al. (2017), PEBs are any quantifiable responsible environmental behaviors that help businesses become ecologically sustainable. They can also relate to employees’ propensity to engage in pro-environmental activities (Scherbaum et al., 2008).

The investment in green innovation positively impacts the PEBs of employees. Companies with IA emphasize the importance of employee initiatives in enhancing EP (Shehzad et al., 2023). The success of organizations with high and continuous green innovation has always stemmed from the support of PEBs in creating and implementing various corporate-level environmental initiatives (Robertson & Barling, 2013). Moreover, PEBs are considered significant contributors to the EP of enterprises by protecting the natural environment on the one hand and improving financial performance and employee satisfaction on the other hand (Yu et al., 2021). Referring to IA, the company always encourages employees to learn and discover new knowledge, develop new technologies and take advantage of existing resources. Thus, if employees want to be expressed and integrated into the company, they must also volunteer to participate in environmental protection activities organized by the company or perform individual acts for the environment. Consequently, we developed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis H₂: Ambidextrous green innovation positively affects employee pro-environmental behaviors.

Employees’ Pro-Environmental Behaviors and Environmental Performance

Employees’ PEBs are related to voluntary behavior that consciously reduces the adverse impact of companies’ activities on the natural environment (Afsar & Umrani, 2020). Previous researchers have shown that PEBs can be attributed to a number of individuals and environmental factors, such as motivation (Jain et al., 2020), benefits, perceived relative costs (J. Liu et al., 2020), perception and knowledge (Li et al., 2019), morality and attitude (Kaffashi & Shamsudin, 2019), and government regulations (Das et al., 2019). In addition, the fact that a company has a high social responsibility also has favorable effects on employee behavior in terms of the environment (Bouraoui et al., 2018). If employees see their organization as a socially responsible entity, they tend to develop a sense of responsibility towards society and the environment. As a result, they have the ability to practice environmentally friendly behavior on their own, leading to better performance in reducing the organization’s environmental impact. Ahmad et al. (2021) concluded that micro-level social responsibility initiatives, directly and indirectly, affect an organization’s EP through employees’ PEBs. According to social exchange theory (Zhao & Detlor, 2023), and the norm of reciprocity (Ahmad et al., 2021), the authors expect a positive reciprocal response from employees’ PEBs in the organization, helping to create an improved EP. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis H₃: Employees’ pro-environmental behavior positively impacts environmental performance.

Green Intellectual Capital and Environmental Performance

According to López-Gamero et al. (2011), a company’s entire green knowledge, which is referred to as GIC, contributes to the development of an environmental management system, which results in a competitive advantage. GIC consists of three aspects, namely GHC, GSC, GRC, and intangible assets will have a positive impact on EP. De Mendonca and Zhou (2019) defined EP as a company’s success in meeting and exceeding society’s expectations regarding activities that benefit the natural environment. We develop a fourth hypothesis about the influence of GIC on EP. Firstly, GHC is a tool to promote EP for companies with a high degree of environmental management (Song et al., 2021). The development of GHC enhances the positive interaction between corporate environmental ethics and green innovation performance. Huang and Kung (2011) argued that GHC paves the way for compliance with international environmental standards, creating value in line with the growing environmental needs of consumers.

Second, it is not only green human capital that yields good environmental results, but also the support of GSC, such as the necessary organizational structures, information systems and strategies (Jardon & Dasilva, 2017). Green structural capital involves the capabilities, organizational commitment, knowledge management system, reward system, information technology system, database, management mechanism, operating process, brand name… concerning environmental protection in a company. In fact, this outstanding capital creates an atmosphere that encourages, inspires and motivates the members of the organization to contribute to the protection of the environment, thereby improving EP. J. Wang, Xue, and Yang (2020) have shown that environmentally friendly companies are likely to develop an environmentally stable structure and organizational capacity to respond to climate calls.

Finally, GRC helps to foster cooperative relationships with various external agencies of an organization that advocates for environmental protection to improve a company’s image and reputation (Chuang & Huang, 2018). According to Dickel et al. (2018), green cooperation promotes environmental consciousness among partners to deliver superior eco-friendly behaviors. Green relationships among a company’s partners, such as customers, suppliers, network members and competitors, are today highly regarded as key determinants of environmental responsibility in an organizational context. Based on these discussions, we propose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis H₄: Green intellectual capital components, including (a) green human capital, (b) green structural capital and (c) green relational capital, are positively associated with environmental performance.

Ambidextrous Green Innovation and Environmental Performance

Green innovation actually contributes to the achievement of organizations, including helping EP improvement (Kraus et al., 2020). Clearly, ambidextrous green innovation can be seen as a way in which enterprises incorporate environmental issues into their strategies while strengthening their competitive advantage through innovations that can have a constructive effect on EP (Calza et al., 2017). Based on the central premise of the ambidextrous theory, companies are “capable of simultaneously pursuing exploitation and exploration are more likely to achieve superior performance” instead of just taking care of a single aspect (Raisch & Birkinshaw, 2008). Primarily exploitative-oriented organizations tend to be proficient enough to successfully solve environmental problems by modifying their operations and procedures (Benner & Tushman, 2003). On the other hand, exploratory-oriented companies tend to strongly promote technology development by creating new products and services that can lead to better EP (Lin & Ho, 2016).

An ambidextrous organization can easily exploit and discover the best practices for the environment. An organization’s ability to achieve better EP depends on its ambidextrous ability because a company easily adapts well to any external conditions when it has the ability to “exploit existing competencies and explore new ones and, more importantly, that these two facets of organizational learning are inseparable” (Floyd & Lane, 2000). Therefore, based on the previous arguments, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis H₅: There is a positive association between ambidextrous green innovation and environmental performance.

The Moderating Effect of Green Intellectual Capital

Earlier, in H₅, we suggested that a firm’s ambidextrous green innovation is likely to improve its EP. However, we also argue that this relationship can be strengthened by all knowledge that an organization is able to leverage in the process of conducting environmental management to gain a competitive advantage, which is GIC. Therefore, this study also investigates the impact of IA on EP when GIC acts as a moderating variable. Aspects of GIC support the creation of ambidextrous green innovations in organizations (Asiaei, O’Connor, et al., 2022; Rehman et al., 2021). For example, human resources will contribute to creating improvements to reduce environmental pollution and promote favorable environmental policies. The processes within the company that help to accelerate innovations produce higher EP. Relationships with stakeholders such as customers and partners are also a great source of motivation for companies to continuously improve innovations to advertise their company’s image, thereby having a positive impact on the general environment.

Hypothesis H₆: Green intellectual capital positively moderates the relationship between ambidextrous green innovation and environmental performance.

Given the literature review and theory discussions presented in Section “Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses,” Figure 1 shows the proposed theoretical model of this study.

Figure 1.

The proposed research model.

Methodology

Sample and Data Collection

According to data from the business association, as of December 31st, 2021, Ho Chi Minh City has about 143,000 businesses. Ho Chi Minh City was selected as the sampling location because it is the largest economic center in the country, where many medium and large enterprises in Vietnam converge. The research team collected survey questionnaires from 320 enterprises using a convenient sampling sample. Descriptive statistics in the data sample included 19 private enterprises (accounting for 5.9%); 218 limited liability companies (68.1%); 68 joint stock companies (21.3%); and 15 other businesses (4.7%). By industry, there were 24 enterprises in the fields of agriculture, forestry, and fishery (accounting for 7.5%); 114 enterprises dealing in industry and construction (35.6%); the rest included 182 enterprises operating in the trade and service sector (56.9%). In terms of scale, there were 45 micro enterprises; 159 small-scale enterprises; 87 medium-sized enterprises; and 29 large-scale enterprises.

Measurements

This research used a measurement scale from published works. Specifically, the GIC scale consists of three components: green human capital, green structural capital and green relational capital, inherited from the research of Chang and Chen (2012) and Chen (2008). The IA scale was obtained from the study of J. Wang, Xue, Sun, and Yang (2020). The EP scale was extracted from the study of Guerci et al. (2016), Longoni et al. (2018), and Úbeda-García et al. (2022). Finally, the employee’s PEBs scale was inherited from the research of Ahmad et al. (2021) and Bissing-Olson et al. (2013). The scales were measured on a 5-point Likert scale with 1: completely disagree, 3: neutral, and 5: completely agree. Details of the questions are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Accuracy Analysis of Constructs and Indicators.

Items	Factor loadings	Alpha	CR	AVE
Green human capital (GHC)
GHC1: The productivity and contribution of employees concerning environmental protection in the company are better than those of its major competitors.	.753	.851	.894	.627
GHC2: The employees’ competence in environmental protection in the company is better than that of its major competitors.	.813
GHC3: The products and services of environmental protection provided by the employees of the company are better than those of its major competitors.	.831
GHC4: The cooperative degree of teamwork pertaining to environmental protection in the company is more than that of its major competitors.	.726
GHC5: Managers in the company can fully support their employees to achieve the goals of environmental protection.	.831
Green structural capital (GSC)
GSC1: The management system of environmental protection in the company is better than that of its major competitors.	.796	.888	.896	.640
GSC2: The company is more innovative in terms of environmental protection than its main competitors.	.807
GSC3: The company’s profit earned from environmental protection activities is more than that of its major competitors.	.818
GSC4: The company’s ratio of environmental protection investments in R&D to its sales is more than that of its major competitors.	.838
GSC5: More employees to total employees are involved in environmental management in the company than its main competitors.	.783
GSC6: Investments in environmental protection facilities in the company are more than those of its major competitors.	.785
GSC7: The company’s ability to develop green products is better than that of its main competitors.	.514*
GSC8: The overall environmental protection processes in the company operate more smoothly than its main competitors.	.675*
GSC9: The environmental knowledge management system in the company is favorable for the accumulation and sharing of environmental management knowledge.	.556*
Green relational capital (GRC)
GRC1: The company designs its products or services in compliance with the environmental desires of its customers.	.534*	.700	.856	.748
GRC2: The company’s environmental customer satisfaction is better than that of its main competitors.	.557*
GRC3: The company’s environmental protection cooperation relationship with its upstream suppliers is stable.	.827
GRC4: The company’s cooperative relationships concerning environmental protection with its downstream clients are stable.	.902
GRC5: The company has stable and cooperative relationships regarding environmental protection with its strategic partners.	.646*
Exploitative green innovation (EIGI)
EIGI1: The firm actively improves current green products, processes and services.	.793	.822	.882	.652
EIGI2: The firm actively adjusts current green products, processes and services.	.860
EIGI3: The firm actively strengthens the current green market.	.773
EIGI4: The firm actively strengthens current green technology.	.801
Exploratory green innovation (ERGI)
ERGI1: The firm actively adopts new green products, processes and services.	.730	.822	.840	.651
ERGI2: The firm actively exploits new green products, processes and services.	.824
ERGI3: The firm actively discovers new green markets.	.840
ERGI4: The firm actively enters new green technology.	.828
Employees’ pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs)
PEB1: Today, I have successfully completed my assigned tasks in eco-friendly ways.	.704	.701	.708	.522
PEB2: Today, I fulfilled the responsibilities outlined in my job description in eco-friendly ways.	.622*
PEB3: Today, I performed the tasks I expected in eco-friendly ways.	.743
Environmental performance (EP) The environmental protection actions developed within the company have had an impact on….
EP1: Reduce total direct and indirect harmful emissions.	.914	.906	.941	.841
EP2: Increase the volume of recycled materials.	.932
EP3: Increase the rate of renewable energy consumption.	.906

Source. Authors’ calculation.

Note. CR is the composite reliability and AVE is the extracted variance.

is the item that will be removed in the following process.

Research Methods

To achieve the purpose of the study, the team conducted a survey of businesses that were headquartered in Ho Chi Minh City. After screening the appropriate answer sheets, the data were analyzed according to the following steps: (i) descriptive statistics; (ii) test the reliability of each scale; (iii) check the validity of the scale (including convergent and discriminant validity); (iv) test the research hypotheses using a partial least squares structural equation model, PLS-SEM; and (v) the last was used to test the difference in mean values between groups in the study. These techniques were introduced by Hair et al. (2014). They have commonly used estimation techniques in business administration and marketing. The results will be presented in more detail in Section “Empirical Result and Discussion.”

Empirical Result and Discussion

Convergent and Discriminant Validity Test

According to Hair et al. (2014) and Edeh et al. (2022), a good scale is one that must have convergent and discriminant validity. Therefore, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and the composite reliability index (CR) to evaluate convergent validity for each scale were determined. In the proposed model, GIC and IA were second-order constructs. Specifically, GIC was composed of three factors: GHC, GSC, and GRC. Similarly, green ambidextrous innovation consisted of two components: (i) exploitative green innovation (EIGI) and (ii) exploratory green innovation (ERGI). The results of testing the reliability of the scale using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and the CR are shown in Table 1. Accordingly, the GSC scale had three items removed, the GRC scale also had three items excluded and the employees’ PEBs scale had one item rejected (due to factor loading < .7). All retained items had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient > .7, CR > .7, and average extracted variance (AVE) > .5. The above results allowed the conclusion that the scales in the proposed research model had convergent validity.

To test the discriminant validity of the scales, the HTMT matrix was used. According to Henseler et al. (2015), if the correlation values between the scales are all ≤.85, the scale achieves discriminant validity between the two latent variables. The results in Table 2 show that the values were <.85, so the scales used all achieved discriminant validity (Richter et al., 2022).

Table 2.

Correlation Index of Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio of Correlations (HTMT) Between the Scales.

Scale	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Exploitative green innovation (EIGI)
2. Environmental performance (EP)	.74
3. Exploratory green innovation (ERGI)	.64	.51
4. Green human capital (GHC)	.76	.86	.52
5. Green relational capital (GRC)	.69	.77	.49	.70
6. Green structural capital (GSC)	.61	.54	.64	.50	.47
7. Employees’ pro-environmental behaviors (PEB)	.86	.78	.64	.76	.81	.66

Source. Authors’ calculation.

Testing the Research Hypotheses

Once the two conditions that the scale has convergent validity and discriminant validity were satisfied, the proposed research hypotheses were tested. For the GIC variable (second-order structural variable), the factor analysis results showed that all three component scales (GHC, GRC, and GSC) had a positive relationship and were statistically significant. Similarly, two-component scales, including EIGI and ERGI, were significant in representing the second-order structural variable as ambidextrous green innovation. With six initial hypotheses, empirical results using the PLS-SEM analysis technique showed that four hypotheses were supported, and two hypotheses were not supported by the data. In more detail, the study found that GIC (β = .516; p = .000) and employees’ PEBs (β = .249; p = .00) had a positive impact on EP. Employees are often the key drivers of environmental practices and sustainability initiatives within organizations. If employees engage in PEBs, they are more likely to support and promote environmental initiatives within the organization, which can lead to increased adoption of sustainable practices and a greater commitment to EP. However, the direct impact of IA on EP (β = .108; p = .157) and on GIC (β = .001; p = .284) was unclear. Regarding the moderating effect, the results in Table 3 provide exciting information that although IA had no direct impact on EP when applied to enterprises with GIC, it played a role in increasing EP. GIC can help organizations identify and evaluate new environmentally friendly technologies and processes that can improve EP. It can help organizations effectively implement and integrate these new technologies and processes into their operations, leading to improved EP.

Table 3.

Hypotheses Testing.

Path analysis results	Hypotheses	Research model			Conclusion
Path analysis results	Hypotheses	β	p-Value	Bootstrap	Conclusion
Direct effect
Exploitative green innovation → IA		.663	.000	[0.61, 0.73]
Exploratory green innovation → IA		.450	.000	[0.40, 0.49]
Green human capital → GIC		.514	.000	[0.47, 0.57]
Green relational capital → GIC		.191	.000	[0.17, 0.22]
Green structural capital → GIC		.527	.000	[0.48, 0.57]
IA → GIC	H₁	.001	.298	[−0.001, 0.004]	Unsupported
IA → PEB	H₂	.564	.000	[0.45, 0.64]	Supported
PEB → EP	H₃	.249	.000	[0.14, 0.36]	Supported
GIC → EP	H₄	.516	.000	[0.38, 0.66]	Supported
IA → EP	H₅	.108	.154	[−0.052, 0.253]	Unsupported
Indirect effect
GIC → IA → EP	H₆	.077	.003	[0.033, 0.139]	Supported
R ²	R² _(GIC) = 1; R² _(IA) = .96; R² _(PEB) = .318; R² _(EP) = .639.
Effect size (f²)	f²_(GIC) = .255; f²_(IA) = .013; f²_(PEB) = .118
Stone-Geisser’s Q²	Q²_(GIC) = .420; Q²_(IA) = .450; Q²_(PEB) = .221; Q²_(EP) = .526

Furthermore, GIC can facilitate communication and collaboration among employees, stakeholders, and partners, which can help organizations share knowledge and ideas, build partnerships, and promote innovation. This collaboration can lead to a more robust innovation pipeline, better environmental performance, and increased competitive advantage. Overall, GIC plays a moderating role in the relationship between IA and EP because it provides the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to implement and integrate environmentally friendly technologies and processes effectively and fosters collaboration and communication that can lead to ongoing innovation and improvement.

In addition, additional testing results also showed the impact of GIC, IA, and PEBs of employees on EP. Specifically, index f² provides information that the GIC variable had the most substantial impact (f² = .255), followed by the employees’ PEBs variable (f² = .118). In contrast, the impact of ambidextrous green innovation on EP was minimal (f² = .013). The Stone–Geisser’s Q² index of all four variables was >0, indicating that the research model was suitable to explain these variables. Finally, the R² index showed that three variables, GIC, IA, and employees’ PEBs, explain 63.9% of the variation of the EP variable. The empirical results of the study are illustrated in Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 2.

Path analysis results.

Figure 3.

Empirical results

Finally, with 246 business leaders in the sample being male and 74 female, the paper explored the difference in the mean values of these two groups for EP. The results of the test’s differences are shown in Table 4. Based on socialization theory, several scholars have realized that gender differences among leaders will have a significant impact on environmental policies and performance (Ahmad et al., 2021). There are still a very small number of studies on this subject, and more importantly, the conclusions are not definitive (Birindelli et al., 2019). Understanding gender roles is crucial to understanding the various degrees of employee environmental protection, depending on the person’s cultural background (Folberg & Kaboli-Nejad, 2020).

Table 4.

Differences Between Males and Females in Environmental Performance

Path analysis results	Male		Female
	β	p-Value	β	p-Value
Exploitative green innovation → IA	,674	,000	,616	,000
Exploratory green innovation → IA	,441	,000	,476	,000
Green human capital → GIC	,495	,000	,562	,000
Green relational capital → GIC	,192	,000	,193	,000
Green structural capital → GIC	,545	,000	,445	,000
IA → GIC	,001	,612	,003	,648
IA → PEB	,584	,000	,605	,000
PEB → EP	,290	,000	,090	,486
GIC → EP	,495	,000	,626	,000
IA → EP	,077	,341	,177	,135
GIC → IA → EP	,072	,016	,102	,131

Source. Authors’ calculation.

Accordingly, the results of the difference analysis showed that there was a distinction in the impact of employees’ PEBs on EP between companies with male leaders (β = .290, p-value = .000) and enterprises with female leaders (β = .090, p-value = .486). Interestingly, the moderating effect of GIC on the impact of ambidextrous green innovation on EP occurred only in male-led firms. These findings will be discussed in more detail in the section that follows.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between GIC, IA, and EP in 320 companies in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. We also attempted to examine whether GIC plays a moderating role in the relationship between IA and EP. Similar to the results of Shehzad et al. (2022), we also found a positive relationship between GIC and EP. This is in contrast to what was found in the study of Asiaei, O’Connor, et al. (2022), where a direct impact of GIC on EP in the context of Iranian companies was not discovered. This result forces businesses to improve their intangible green assets to attain and sustain EP (C. H. Wang & Juo, 2021).

However, the article does not support the hypothesis that there is a positive association between IA and EP within the research context in Vietnam, in contrast to other previous studies by Lin and Ho (2016) and Úbeda-García et al. (2022). Interestingly, when the GIC moderator was present, the above relationship was accepted. First, having a higher level of GIC can enhance the effectiveness of IA (Farzaneh et al., 2022). If a firm has a strong understanding of environmental regulations and policies, it may be able to more effectively explore new environmental practices, technologies and refine existing practices to improve EP. Second, GIC can also moderate the relationship by reducing the potential risks associated with IA. Exploring new environmental practices and technologies can be costly and risky, and firms with higher levels of GIC may be better equipped to manage these risks (Vale et al., 2022). Third, GIC can also act as a buffer against external factors influencing the relationship between IA and EP. For example, changes in environmental regulations or the emergence of new environmental technologies could impact the effectiveness of IA. Nevertheless, firms with higher levels of GIC may be more adaptable and able to adjust their strategies accordingly.

Furthermore, considering previous studies, academics have been more interested in how environmental management affects organizational performance than how PEBs affect organizational EP (Suganthi, 2019). Another empirical result of the article recognizes that employees have pro-environmental behaviors in the company’s development stages that help to increase EP, agreeing with Naz et al. (2022). Employees’ pro-environmental behaviors can also enhance the organization’s reputation and brand image (Peng et al., 2020; Yang & Gao, 2023), leading to increased customer loyalty and market share. As consumers become increasingly environmentally conscious, organizations that demonstrate a strong commitment to sustainability are more likely to be perceived positively and attract environmentally conscious customers. Employees who engage in PEBs may also be more likely to identify and report environmental risks and opportunities within the organization. Hence, employees aware of and knowledgeable about environmental issues are more likely to adopt PEBs, which may substantially impact the firm’s EP (Kim & Seock, 2019).

Conclusions and Implications

Conclusions

The adverse effects of climate change and environmental pollution have been threatening the health and existence of mankind. To contribute to the protection and improvement of environmental quality, it is necessary to participate and join hands with the whole community, including enterprises. Therefore, this study was conducted to explore the impact of green intellectual capital, ambidextrous green innovation, and employees’ pro-environmental behaviors on the environmental performance of 320 enterprises in Ho Chi Minh City. The analytical sequence included testing the reliability of the scale, testing the hypotheses by the method of PLS-SEM and testing the differences. This study draws the following conclusions:

Employees’ pro-environmental behaviors have a positive contribution to the improvement of environmental performance in enterprises.

The more significant the green intellectual capital of enterprises, the more efficient they are in improving the environment through measures such as reducing hazardous waste, increasing the use of recycled input materials, and using more environmentally friendly types of renewable energy. Therefore, the quality of the environment is improved.

The direct effect of ambidextrous green innovation on environmental performance is unclear. However, green intellectual capital will contribute moderately to the above relationship, and this effect will gradually turn positive (more environmentally friendly).

Theoretical Implications

This research provides several important contributions that will be useful for academic scholars and professionals in the field. The paper is mainly developed based on the theory of “natural resource orchestration” (Asiaei et al., 2021; McDougall et al., 2019) with the recognition that green resources and capabilities, such as GIC, IA, and PEBs, only influence performance when they are structured, bundled, and leveraged in a way that is appropriate for a specific market. This framework highlights the importance of considering the context in which green resources and capabilities are deployed and utilized.

First, the article gives a new perspective on improving the quality of green resources of organizations in developing countries, rather than in developed countries (C. H. Wang & Juo, 2021). Among the economies in Southeast Asia, Vietnam is experiencing rapid growth and is ranked as one of the fastest-growing (Hoang et al., 2019). At the same time, Vietnam is facing significant environmental challenges, including pollution, deforestation, and climate change. Understanding how green resources and capabilities can be leveraged to improve environmental performance in Vietnam can help support sustainable economic growth. Besides, Vietnam is undergoing significant social and economic transformation, with a rapidly growing middle class and increasing environmental awareness (Hansen, 2022). As a result, there is growing demand for environmentally friendly products and services. Understanding how green resources and capabilities can meet this demand can help organizations capitalize on new market opportunities. Additionally, it is home to a diverse range of industries, from agriculture and manufacturing to services and tourism (Hampton et al., 2018). By studying green resources and capabilities across different industries, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of how these resources and capabilities can be leveraged to improve environmental performance in diverse contexts.

Second, the study can contribute to the existing literature on the relationship between GIC and EP (Haldorai et al., 2022; Mansoor et al., 2021) by identifying the role of GIC in promoting EP in Vietnam. The findings suggest that having knowledge, skills, and abilities in environmental sustainability can enable organizations to better identify, evaluate, and implement environmentally friendly technologies and processes, leading to improved environmental performance. GIC is not just about individual knowledge and skills but also about the processes and systems that enable knowledge creation and sharing within organizations.

Third, there is limited attention on the connection between GIC, IA, and EP factors. While some studies suggest that IA acts as a mediator between GIC and EP (Shehzad et al., 2022), our research examines the role of IA on EP when GIC is a moderator variable. This novel approach provides valuable insights for businesses seeking to enhance both IA and EP simultaneously. In this case, the research is looking at how GIC may influence the relationship between IA and EP. The study is trying to understand the complex interactions between these variables to gain a better understanding of how to improve EP through innovation and intellectual capital. We underscores the importance of strengthening GIC, encompassing the three key aspects of green human capital, green structural capital, and green relational capital, to automatically increase both IA and EP.

Finally, this research is the inaugural endeavor to broaden the scope of the literature on organizational behavior in the context of environmental studies. It advances the investigation of sustainable performance by exploring the positive relationship between IA and PEBs of employees. By investing in green innovation, organizations communicate to their employees that they take sustainability seriously. This can motivate employees to engage in pro-environmental behaviors and align their actions with the organization’s sustainability goals. At the same time, employees who are involved in the development and implementation of green innovation can gain new knowledge and skills related to sustainability (Song et al., 2021). This can inspire them to develop and adopt pro-environmental behaviors in their own work and personal lives. Green ambidextrous innovation can create a culture of innovation and sustainability that encourages pro-environmental behaviors. This culture can encourage employees to think creatively about how to reduce environmental impacts and develop new pro-environmental behaviors.

Overall, the study can contribute to the theoretical understanding of the relationship between green intellectual capital, ambidextrous green innovation, pro-environmental behaviors, and environmental performance in organizations, and can inform future research on the topic.

Managerial Implications

This study provides valuable practical implications for leaders of organizations and policymakers to ensure increased effectiveness of corporate social responsibility policies. First, the authors assert that green intellectual capital is one of the critical elements of high EP practices. GIC—as a less expensive resource—can facilitate managers to encourage and promote the environmental protection activities of enterprises. Enterprises need the policy to maintain and develop aspects of GIC, namely GHC, GSC, and GRC. For example, The Coca-Cola company in Vietnam has implemented various sustainability initiatives to promote green intellectual capital development. Coca-Cola can invest in sustainable infrastructure and technologies, such as renewable energy sources, waste reduction systems, and water-saving technologies. The company can also implement environmental management systems to monitor and measure its environmental impact and set targets for improvement. Moreover, it provides training and education programs to employees on sustainability practices, environmental management systems, and green technologies. In addition, it partners with organizations and government agencies to promote sustainability policies and share best practices. The company also engages with customers, suppliers, and stakeholders to promote sustainable practices and environmental awareness. By adopting these strategies, Coca-Cola in Vietnam helps promote the development of green intellectual capital, which can lead to a more sustainable business model, increased competitiveness, and positive impacts on the environment and society. Second, this study encourages business managers to develop exploitative and exploratory green innovation development policies to help employees actively and consciously implement environmentally friendly behaviors, thereby, improving EP at the organizational level. Typically, VinGroup, a leading real estate and retail conglomerate in Vietnam, has also launched its “Green City” project, which aims to develop sustainable urban areas that promote environmental sustainability and social inclusion. Or Nestlé Vietnam has also launched its “Nestlé Cares” program, which aims to reduce the environmental impact of its products and operations while promoting sustainable consumption. Between 2015 and 2019, over 37,000 tonnes of waste and by-products produced during the manufacturing process were sorted, recycled, and reused. Additionally, all of the excess heat generated during the process was recovered through cooperation with partners to promote the circular economy. These efforts led to a 34% reduction in carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions per unit of product compared to 2015. Recently, Nestlé Group has announced a detailed plan to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2030, with the ultimate goal of completely eliminating emissions by 2050. Furthermore, in order to evaluate and improve EP, corporate environmental strategies should be improved within the enterprise by establishing specific employee performance goals and targets through the green performance management system and compensation. Monetary as well as non-monetary rewards for employees also motivate them to engage in environmental behavior. For instance, the Pan Pacific Hanoi Resort, a hotel in Vietnam, has adopted an “Eco Warriors” program that rewards employees for their participation in sustainability initiatives such as reducing energy and water consumption, promoting local sourcing for food and materials, and using eco-friendly cleaning products. The implementation of these activities then increases the employee’s interest in the implementation of environmental behaviors. Thus, we can conclude that a company will have outstanding EP when it knows how to utilize and develop GIC, update breakthrough innovations, and continuously have policies to encourage PEBs of employees in the company.

Limitations of the Study

Although some findings of the article have certain contributions to the theoretical basis and help to suggest solutions for environmental management agencies, this study also has some limitations, such as: (i) The study deals with the current regulations on environmental standards in force. In fact, before expecting business leaders to actively protect the environment, it is necessary to have strict and timely sanctions for acts of environmental destruction. This is also considered a strong measure to improve the awareness of environmental protection for businesses themselves; (ii) Some differences between domestic enterprises and joint venture enterprises; or between enterprises operating in the field of production and the field of trade and service have not been analyzed. The authors acknowledge that this is a limitation of the study, as well as a suggestive direction for further studies.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Editor-in-Chief, Senior Editor, and anonymous reviewers for very useful comments and suggestions. All remaining errors are ours.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study is funded by Ho Chi Minh City Open University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

ORCID iDs

Nguyen Huynh Mai Tram

Bui Hoang Ngoc

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

References

Acebo

Miguel-Dávila

J. Á.

Nieto

(2021). External stakeholder engagement: Complementary and substitutive effects on firms’ eco-innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(5), 2671–2687.

Afsar

Umrani

W. A.

(2020). Corporate social responsibility and pro-environmental behavior at workplace: The role of moral reflectiveness, coworker advocacy, and environmental commitment. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 109–125.

Ahmad

Ullah

Arshad

M. Z.

Kamran

H. W.

Scholz

Han

(2021). Relationship between corporate social responsibility at the micro-level and environmental performance: The mediating role of employee pro-environmental behavior and the moderating role of gender. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 1138–1148. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.034

Alvino

Di Vaio

Hassan

Palladino

(2020). Intellectual capital and sustainable development: A systematic literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(1), 76–94.

Andreeva

Garanina

Sáenz

Aramburu

Kianto

(2021). Does country environment matter in the relationship between intellectual capital and innovation performance? Journal of Business Research, 136, 263–273.

Asiaei

Bontis

Alizadeh

Yaghoubi

(2022). Green intellectual capital and environmental management accounting: Natural resource orchestration in favor of environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1), 76–93.

Asiaei

O’Connor

N. G.

Barani

Joshi

(2022). Green intellectual capital and ambidextrous green innovation: The impact on environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(1), 369–386.

Asiaei

Rezaee

Bontis

Barani

Sapiei

N. S.

(2021). Knowledge assets, capabilities and performance measurement systems: A resource orchestration theory approach. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(8), 1947–1976. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-09-2020-0721

Benitez

Castillo

Llorens

Braojos

(2018). IT-enabled knowledge ambidexterity and innovation performance in small US firms: The moderator role of social media capability. Information & Management, 55(1), 131–143.

10.

Benner

M. J.

Tushman

M. L.

(2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.

11.

Birindelli

Iannuzzi

A. P.

Savioli

(2019). The impact of women leaders on environmental performance: Evidence on gender diversity in banks. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), 1485–1499.

12.

Bissing-Olson

M. J.

Iyer

Fielding

K. S.

Zacher

(2013). Relationships between daily affect and pro-environmental behavior at work: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitude. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 156–175.

13.

Bouraoui

Bensemmane

Ohana

Russo

M. J. M. D.

(2018). Corporate social responsibility and employees’ affective commitment: A multiple mediation model. Management Decision, 57(1), 152–167.

14.

Calza

Parmentola

Tutore

(2017). Types of green innovations: Ways of implementation in a non-green industry. Sustainability, 9(8), 1301.

15.

Chang

C. H.

Chen

Y. S.

(2012). The determinants of green intellectual capital. Management Decision, 50(1), 74–94.

16.

Cheema

Afsar

Javed

(2020). Employees’ corporate social responsibility perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors for the environment: The mediating roles of organizational identification and environmental orientation fit. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 9–21.

17.

Chen

Y.-S.

(2008). The positive effect of green intellectual capital on competitive advantages of firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(3), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9349-1

18.

Chuang

S.-P.

Huang

S.-J.

(2018). The effect of environmental corporate social responsibility on environmental performance and business competitiveness: The mediation of green information technology capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(4), 991–1009.

19.

Dameri

R. P.

Ricciardi

(2015). Smart city intellectual capital: An emerging view of territorial systems innovation management. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(4), 860–887.

20.

Das

Lee

S.-H.

Kumar

Kim

K.-H.

Lee

S. S.

Bhattacharya

S. S.

(2019). Solid waste management: Scope and the challenge of sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 228, 658–678.

21.

De Mendonca

T. R.

Zhou

(2019). Environmental performance, customer satisfaction, and profitability: A study among large US companies. Sustainability, 11(19), 5418.

22.

Dickel

Hörisch

Ritter

(2018). Networking for the environment: The impact of environmental orientation on start-ups’ networking frequency and network size. Journal of Cleaner Production, 179, 308–316.

23.

Edeh

W.-J.

Khojasteh

(2022). Review of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 30(1), 165–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2022.2108813

24.

Farzaneh

Wilden

Afshari

Mehralian

(2022). Dynamic capabilities and innovation ambidexterity: The roles of intellectual capital and innovation orientation. Journal of Business Research, 148, 47–59. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.030

25.

Floyd

S. W.

Lane

P. J.

(2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 154–177.

26.

Folberg

A. M.

Kaboli-Nejad

(2020). A mixed method examination of gender differences in perceptions of STEM among Iranian Americans. Journal of Social Issues, 76(3), 543–576.

27.

Geng

Maimaituerxun

(2022). Research progress of green marketing in sustainable consumption based on CiteSpace analysis. SAGE Open, 12(3), 215824402211198. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221119835

28.

Geng

Zhu

Maimaituerxun

(2022). Bibliometric review of carbon neutrality with CiteSpace: Evolution, trends, and framework. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 29(51), 76668–76686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23283-3

29.

Guerci

Longoni

Luzzini

(2016). Translating stakeholder pressures into environmental performance—The mediating role of green HRM practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(2), 262–289.

30.

Hair

Sarstedt

Hopkins

Kuppelwieser

(2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128

31.

Haldorai

Kim

W. G.

Garcia

R. L. F.

(2022). Top management green commitment and green intellectual capital as enablers of hotel environmental performance: The mediating role of green human resource management. Tourism Management, 88, 104431. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104431

32.

Hampton

M. P.

Jeyacheya

Long

P. H.

(2018). Can tourism promote inclusive growth? Supply chains, ownership and employment in Ha Long Bay, Vietnam. The Journal of Development Studies, 54(2), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2017.1296572

33.

Hansen

(2022). Negotiating unsustainable food transformations: Development, middle classes and everyday food practices in Vietnam. The European Journal of Development Research, 34(3), 1441–1459. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-021-00429-6

34.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135.

35.

Hoang

T. C.

Black

M. C.

Knuteson

S. L.

Roberts

A. P.

(2019). Environmental pollution, management, and sustainable development: Strategies for Vietnam and other developing countries. Environmental Management, 63(4), 433–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01144-z

36.

Huang

C. L.

Kung

F. H.

(2011). Environmental consciousness and intellectual capital management: Evidence from Taiwan’s manufacturing industry. Management Decision, 49(9), 1405–1425.

37.

Ireland

R. D.

Webb

J. W.

(2009). Crossing the great divide of strategic entrepreneurship: Transitioning between exploration and exploitation. Business Horizons, 52(5), 469–479. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.05.002

38.

Jain

Singhal

Jain

N. K.

Bhaskar

(2020). Construction and demolition waste recycling: Investigating the role of theory of planned behavior, institutional pressures and environmental consciousness. Journal of Cleaner Production, 263, 121405.

39.

Jansen

J. J.

Van Den Bosch

F. A.

Volberda

H. W.

(2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.

40.

Jardon

C. M.

Dasilva

(2017). Intellectual capital and environmental concern in subsistence small businesses. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 28(2), 214–230.

41.

Jurksiene

Pundziene

(2016). The relationship between dynamic capabilities and firm competitive advantage: The mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. European Business Review, 28(4), 431–448. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-09-2015-0088

42.

Kaffashi

Shamsudin

M. N.

(2019). Transforming to a low carbon society: An extended theory of planned behaviour of Malaysian citizens. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 1255–1264.

43.

Kianto

Sáenz

Aramburu

(2017). Knowledge-based human resource management practices, intellectual capital and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 81, 11–20.

44.

Kim

S. H.

Seock

Y.-K.

(2019). The roles of values and social norm on personal norms and pro-environmentally friendly apparel product purchasing behavior: The mediating role of personal norms. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 83–90.

45.

Kraus

Rehman

S. U.

García

F. J. S.

(2020). Corporate social responsibility and environmental performance: The mediating role of environmental strategy and green innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 160, 120262.

46.

Lee

S. U.

Park

Kang

(2018). The double-edged effects of the corporate venture capital unit’s structural autonomy on corporate investors’ explorative and exploitative innovation. Journal of Business Research, 88, 141–149.

47.

Zhao

Shao

Zhang

(2019). What influences an individual’s pro-environmental behavior? A literature review. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 146, 28–34.

48.

Lin

L.-H.

Y.-L.

(2016). Institutional pressures and environmental performance in the global automotive industry: The mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Long Range Planning, 49(6), 764–775.

49.

Liu

Huang

Yang

Isa

S. M.

(2022). The effects of green intellectual capital on green innovation: A green supply chain integration perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 830716–830716.

50.

Liu

Wei

K. K.

Hua

(2016). The configuration between supply chain integration and information technology competency: A resource orchestration perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 44, 13–29.

51.

Liu

Nie

Yuan

(2020). Interactive decisions of the waste producer and the recycler in construction waste recycling. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120403. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120403

52.

Longoni

Luzzini

Guerci

(2018). Deploying environmental management across functions: The relationship between green human resource management and green supply chain management. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 1081–1095.

53.

López-Gamero

M. D.

Zaragoza-Sáez

Claver-Cortés

Molina-Azorín

J. F.

(2011). Sustainable development and intangibles: Building sustainable intellectual capital. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(1), 18–37. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1002/bse.666

54.

Mansoor

Jahan

Riaz

(2021). Does green intellectual capital spur corporate environmental performance through green workforce? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 22(5), 823–839. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-06-2020-0181

55.

Massaro

Dumay

Garlatti

Dal Mas

(2018). Practitioners’ views on intellectual capital and sustainability: From a performance-based to a worth-based perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(2), 367–386.

56.

McDougall

Wagner

MacBryde

(2019). An empirical explanation of the natural-resource-based view of the firm. Production Planning & Control, 30(16), 1366–1382. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1620361

57.

Naz

Jamshed

Nisar

Q. A.

Nasir

(2022). Green HRM, psychological green climate and pro-environmental behaviors: An efficacious drive towards environmental performance in China. Current Psychology, 42(2), 1346–1361.

58.

Peng

Lee

(2020). Employees’ perceived job performance, organizational identification, and pro-environmental behaviors in the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 90, 102632. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102632

59.

Raisch

Birkinshaw

(2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.

60.

Rehman

S. U.

Kraus

Shah

S. A.

Khanin

Mahto

R. V.

(2021). Analyzing the relationship between green innovation and environmental performance in large manufacturing firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 120481.

61.

Richter

N. F.

Hauff

Ringle

C. M.

Gudergan

S. P.

(2022). The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling and complementary methods in international management research. Management International Review, 62(4), 449–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-022-00475-0

62.

Robertson

J. L.

Barling

(2013). Greening organizations through leaders’ influence on employees’ pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(2), 176–194.

63.

Scherbaum

C. A.

Popovich

P. M.

Finlinson

(2008). Exploring individual-level factors related to employee energy-conservation behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(3), 818–835.

64.

Shehzad

M. U.

Zhang

Dost

Ahmad

M. S.

Alam

(2022). Linking green intellectual capital, ambidextrous green innovation and firms green performance: Evidence from Pakistani manufacturing firms. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 24(4), 974–1001. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-02-2022-0032

65.

Shehzad

M. U.

Zhang

Latif

K. F.

Jamil

Waseel

A. H.

(2023). Do green entrepreneurial orientation and green knowledge management matter in the pursuit of ambidextrous green innovation: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 388, 135971.

66.

Sirmon

D. G.

Hitt

M. A.

Ireland

R. D.

(2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273–292.

67.

Song

(2021). Effects of green human resource management and managerial environmental concern on green innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(3), 951–967. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-11-2019-0315

68.

Suganthi

(2019). Examining the relationship between corporate social responsibility, performance, employees’ pro-environmental behavior at work with green practices as mediator. Journal of Cleaner Production, 232, 739–750. https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0959652619318311

69.

(2021). How does green innovation improve enterprises’ competitive advantage? The role of organizational learning. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26, 504–516.

70.

Úbeda-García

Marco-Lajara

Zaragoza-Sáez

P. C.

Manresa-Marhuenda

Poveda-Pareja

(2022). Green ambidexterity and environmental performance: The role of green human resources. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(1), 32–45.

71.

Vale

Miranda

Azevedo

Tavares

M. C.

(2022). The impact of sustainable intellectual capital on sustainable performance: A case study. Sustainability, 14(8), 4382. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/8/4382

72.

Wang

C. H.

Juo

W.-J.

(2021). An environmental policy of green intellectual capital: Green innovation strategy for performance sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(7), 3241–3254. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2800

73.

Wang

Xue

Sun

Yang

(2020). Green learning orientation, green knowledge acquisition and ambidextrous green innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 250, 119475.

74.

Wang

Xue

Yang

(2020). Boundary-spanning search and firms’ green innovation: The moderating role of resource orchestration capability. Business Strategy and the Environment 29(2), 361–374.

75.

Wesselink

Blok

Ringersma

(2017). Pro-environmental behaviour in the workplace and the role of managers and organisation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 1679–1687. https://www-sciencedirect-com-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/science/article/pii/S0959652617319558

76.

Yang

Gao

(2023). Corporate environmental responsibility and employees’ pro-environmental behaviors at work: Insights from organizational identification and workplace spirituality perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 66(2), 400–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1989673

77.

Yong

J. Y.

Yusliza

M. Y.

Ramayah

Fawehinmi

(2019). Nexus between green intellectual capital and green human resource management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 215, 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.306

78.

Shabbir

M. S.

Ahmad

Ariza-Montes

Vega-Muñoz

Han

Scholz

Sial

M. S.

(2021). A contemporary issue of micro-foundation of CSR, employee pro-environmental behavior, and environmental performance toward energy saving, carbon emission reduction, and recycling. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(10), 5380. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/10/5380

79.

Yusliza

M. Y.

Norazmi

N. A.

Jabbour

C. J. C.

Fernando

Fawehinmi

Seles

B. M. R. P.

(2019). Top management commitment, corporate social responsibility and green human resource management. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 26(6), 2051–2078. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-09-2018-0283

80.

Zang

(2018). Structural holes, exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation. Management Decision, 56(8), 1682–1695. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0485

81.

Zhao

Detlor

(2023). Towards a contingency model of knowledge sharing: Interaction between social capital and social exchange theories. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 21(1), 197–209.