International Journal of

Environmental Research
and Public Health

Article
The Nexus between Environmental Corporate Social
Responsibility, Green Intellectual Capital and Green
Innovation towards Business Sustainability: An Empirical
Analysis of Chinese Automobile Manufacturing Firms
Wenjie Li 1 , Muhammad Yaseen Bhutto 2, * , Idrees Waris 3 and Tianyang Hu 4

1 School of Business Administration, Shandong University of Finance and Economics, Jinan 250014, China
2 Business School, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250014, China
3 Department of Management Sciences, University of Turbat, Turbat 92600, Pakistan
4 Business School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]

Abstract: Manufacturing organizations have a pivotal role in reducing the adverse impact of global
warming by adopting sustainable practices and producing environmentally-friendly products. Orga-
nizations are engaged in environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR) and emphasize green
intellectual capital (GIC), green innovative products and support for business sustainability (BUS).
The current study aims to analyze the impact of organizational ECSR and GIC on green innovation
(GIN) and BUS. The data for 237 participants from the manufacturing firms were analyzed via partial
least square structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). The study results revealed that ECSR and GIC
are crucial for GIN and BUS. The study’s findings revealed that ECSR positively and significantly
impacts green relational capital (GRC) and green structural capital (GSC). However, ECSR’s positive
impact on green human capital (GHC) was insignificant. Further, the results of the mediation analysis
Citation: Li, W.; Bhutto, M.Y.; Waris,
I.; Hu, T. The Nexus between
show that GIN serves as a full mediator between GIC’s two components, GRC and GSC and a partial
Environmental Corporate Social mediator between GHC and BUS. This study extends the environmental management literature
Responsibility, Green Intellectual and suggests measures for practitioners to enhance organizational capabilities in order to address
Capital and Green Innovation environmental issues through innovative green initiatives.
towards Business Sustainability: An
Empirical Analysis of Chinese Keywords: environmental corporate social responsibility; green intellectual capital; green innovation;
Automobile Manufacturing Firms. environmental sustainability; business sustainability
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023,
20, 1851. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph20031851

Academic Editor: Paul 1. Introduction

B. Tchounwou The debate on sustainable development is shifting toward the firm’s environmental
Received: 20 December 2022
management [1,2]. Managers today are fully aware of the development of environmental is-
Revised: 14 January 2023
sues as well as how they relate to business processes [3]. As a part of business strategy, firms
Accepted: 15 January 2023
are taking protective and preservation measures to ensure the environment’s safety [4].
Published: 19 January 2023 The change in business strategies has been influenced by a variety of factors, including
customers’ environmental awareness [5], environmental regulation [6], environmental com-
mitment to society [7] and corporate environmental practices [8]. These developments have
encouraged businesses to introduce innovative products with a minimal environmental
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. impact and to enhance business performance [9,10].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. ECSR advocates for an organization’s efforts to consider the environmental effects
This article is an open access article of its activities and to mitigate such impacts [11]. It can have a positive environmental
distributed under the terms and impact by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, saving resources, eliminating waste and
conditions of the Creative Commons preserving ecosystems [12]. However, it is important to note that the impact of ECSR can
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
vary widely depending on the specific initiatives and practices a company adopts [13,14].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
Previous studies have focused on how ECSR practices facilitates the retrieval of valuable
4.0/).

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031851 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 2 of 20

resources [15] and improves stakeholder relationships and reactions [16]. When a company
integrates sustainability into its business operations, it demonstrates a commitment to
being a responsible corporate citizen [17]. The nexus between ECSR and GIC in business
operations can increase green innovation by aligning the company’s values and actions
with environmental and social concerns, attracting and retaining customers and fostering
business sustainability [18,19].
According to Mehmood and Hanaysha [19], companies with strong commitment to
ECSR tend to have higher levels of green intellectual capital. They concluded that ECSR
activities can act as a catalyst for the development of green intellectual capital. Chen and
Chang [20] emphasized that companies that engage in ECSR are more likely to invest in
training and development programs, which can help to build green intellectual capital.
Another study suggests that companies that prioritize environmental sustainability are
more likely to invest in research and development related to eco-friendly products and
practices, leading to an increase in GIC [21]. In addition, companies that emphasize envi-
ronmental sustainability tend to have higher levels of GIC, which can lead to improved
business sustainability [22]. Ali et al. [23] examined the relationship between green intel-
lectual capital and green innovation in the manufacturing SMEs of Pakistan. The study
result shows that GICs significantly increase green innovation adoption in manufacturing
industry. Ullah et al. [24] highlighted the importance of the antecedents of green intellec-
tual capital that could affect business sustainability. They indicated that green intellectual
capital positively influences business sustainability. However, they have failed to explore
the relationship between ECSR, GIC and GIN regarding BUS, and mainly in the context of
automobile manufacturing companies. Therefore, the present study uses a comprehensive
empirical framework to discuss how the relationship between ECSR and green intellec-
tual capital affects green product innovation and business sustainability in automobile
manufacturing companies in China.
One of the energy-intensive sectors that has the potential to significantly increase
environmental carbon dioxide emissions is industrial manufacturing [25]. In order to re-
duce emissions, this industry must focus on developing policies that help the environment.
Researchers have claimed that technological advancement could encourage green innova-
tion and improve business performance while preventing environmental pollution [26,27].
In this regard, manufacturing companies can concentrate on ECSR and GIC to achieve
environmental sustainability. The current study aims to test the connection between ECSR,
GIC, GIN and BUS, previously ignored by researchers [28].
This study addresses three research questions. First, how does ECSR affect green
intellectual capital (GIC)? Second, does GIC lead to green innovation and business sustain-
ability? Third, does green innovation mediate the relationship between GIC and business
sustainability? The current study will contribute to the existing environmental manage-
ment literature by evaluating the connections between ECSR, GIC, GIN and BUS. Past
studies were based on resource-based view (RBV) theory [29], institutional theory [22]
and social exchange theory [24]. This study is based on the premise of the intellectual
Capital-based view theory that emphasizes specific organizational elements closely related
to competitive advantage and business performance. Understanding how ECSR affects an
organization’s intellectual capital is crucial for promoting green innovation and business
sustainability [22,30].

2. Literature Review
2.1. Environmental Corporate Responsibility and Green Intellectual Capital
Environmental management and CSR concepts served as the foundation for ECSR.
A crucial and unique component of CSR is CER [31]. According to Mazurkiewicz’s re-
search [32], corporate environmental responsibility (CER) also takes into account the
environmental impact of a company’s operations, products and facilities. Companies
advocating ECSR reduce resource utilization and carbon dioxide emissions, implementing
eco-friendly processes that have minimal negative impact on future generations [33,34].
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 3 of 20

ECSRs are also defined as environmentally responsible business practices that go above
and beyond regulatory obligations and accept responsibility for any adverse external ef-
fects of their operations [35]. Green intellectual capital, on the other hand, refers to the
knowledge, expertise and innovation within a company that is related to environmental
sustainability [36]. This can include factors like research and development of new green
technologies, as well as the skills and knowledge of employees with regards to environ-
mental sustainability [37]. Past studies have established positive links between ECSR and
GIC [35–37]. Researchers have argued that companies that are committed to environmental
responsibility are likely to invest in green intellectual capital, as this can help them to iden-
tify and implement more sustainable practices [38,39]. At the same time, green intellectual
capital can help a company to be more effective in its efforts to reduce its environmental
impact, as it can provide the knowledge and expertise needed to identify and implement
the most effective sustainability measures. In a nutshell, ECSR and the support of the
GIC can help businesses to introduce green innovation and achieve business sustainability.
Table 1 shows the key findings of related studies.

Table 1. Key findings of related studies.

Author(s) Year Methodology Organization Type Key Findings

Padilla-Lozano and Manufacturing CSR and green innovation significantly influence
2022 Quantitative
Collazzo [40] industry competitiveness.
GIC has a positive significant impact on GIN
Marco-Lajara,
2022 Quantitative Wine industry performances. CSR and knowledge management
et al. [18]
mediates the relationship between GIC and GIN.
Study developed a research model involving the
antecedent and consequences of the GIC. CSR
Mehmood and Systematic literature
2022 Qualitative was identified as main antecedent of GIC and
Hanaysha [19] review
GIN. GIN was also identified the consequence
of GIC.
GHC and GSC have positive significant impact
Manufacturing
Shiekh [41] 2022 Quantitative on social innovation. GRC has insignificant
companies
impact on social innovation.
GHC and GSC increases GIN. GRC has
Ali et al. [23] 2021 Quantitative Manufacturing SMEs
insignificant impact on GIN.
GHC and GRC were positively related to the
perception of CSR. Moreover, the perception of
Liao et al. [36] 2021 Quantitative High-tech industries CSR mediated the associations between GHC,
GRC and employees’ pro-environmental
behavior.
Service industry GHC, GRC and GSC have positive significant
Shah et al. [42] 2021 Quantitative
(hotels) impact on environmental responsibility.
GHC, GRC and GSC have positive significant
impact on business sustainability. Information
Manufacturing
Ullah et al. [24] 2021 Quantitative technology (IT) capability moderates the
companies
relationship between GIC and business
sustainability.
GIN fully mediates the relationships
GHC–conomic performance and GSC–green
Wang and Juo [22] 2021 Quantitative High-tech firms performance and partially mediates the
relationship between GRC–economic
performance and GRC–green performance.
CSR has no direct significant influence on
Manufacturing
Kraus et al. [34] 2020 Quantitative environmental performance, but it has positive
companies
significant on GIN and environmental strategy.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 4 of 20

Table 1. Cont.

Author(s) Year Methodology Organization Type Key Findings

Manufacturing GIN has significant impact on business
Li et al. [25] 2020 Quantitative
companies Sustainability.
CSR has a positive impact on three components
Sudibyi and Manufacturing of GIC (GHC, GRC, GSC). Environmental
2020 Quantitative
Sutanto [43] companies consciousness has positive impact on GHC and
GSC but not on GRC.
Analyzed the impact of green HRM on business
Manufacturing
Yong et al. [21] 2020 Quantitative sustainability. Green recruitment and green
companies
training have positive effects on sustainability.
GHC has insignificant impact on organizational
learning while GRC and GSC have positive
Omar et al. [44] 2019 Quantitative Manufacturing SMEs significant impact on organizational learning.
Organizational learning has a positive significant
impact on business sustainability.
The results show that GSC and GRC have
Yusoff et al. [45] 2019 Quantitative Manufacturing SMEs positive relationship with business sustainability,
while GHC did not.
ECSR has significant positive impact on GIC
Chuang and Huang Manufacturing components. GSC and GRC have positive impact
2018 Quantitative
[35] companies on EP and business competitiveness (BC). EP has
positive impact on BC.
Green organizational capital has no direct effect
on environmental product innovation. Social
capital has positive significant impact on
Delgado-Verde Manufacturing
2014 Quantitative environmental product innovation. Green social
et al. [46] industry
capital mediates the relationship between green
organizational capital and environmental product
innovation.
Corporate environmental ethics has positive
impact on green relationship learning and green
Chen and Chang Manufacturing
2013 Quantitative innovation performance. GHC mediates between
[20] industry
corporate environmental ethics and green
relationship performance.
Note: CSR = corporate social responsibility; GIC = green intellectual capital; GHC = green human capital;
GRC = green relational capital; GSC = green structural capital; GIN = green innovation; EP = environmental
performance.

2.2. Intellectual Capital-Based View Theory

The current research is based on the intellectual capital-based view (ICV) theory. ICV
theory has been widely used by researchers as the theoretical underpinning to evaluate
organizational performance [31–33]. This theory focuses on the specific intangible aspect of
the business’s function that is vital for organizational performance [34]. Based on ICV, ECSR
enhances businesses in achieving their environmental goals. Past studies have empirically
established that an organization’s ability to maintain a competitive advantage depends on
the effectiveness of its intellectual resources [35,36]. Despite the fact that ECSR and GIC are
important for driving green innovation, little research has been conducted to demonstrate
empirically how they affect green innovation and business sustainability. Therefore, the
current study extends the discussion of the relationship between ECSR and GIC leading
to green innovation and business sustainability. The conceptual framework is shown in
Figure 1.
 pirically established that an organization’s ability to maintain a competitive advantage
depends on the effectiveness of its intellectual resources [35,36]. Despite the fact that ECSR
and GIC are important for driving green innovation, little research has been conducted to
demonstrate empirically how they affect green innovation and business sustainability.
Therefore, the current study extends the discussion of the relationship between ECSR and
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 5 of 20
GIC leading to green innovation and business sustainability. The conceptual framework
is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual
Conceptual Model.
Model.

Past studies
Past studies have
have indicated
indicatedthat thatbusinesses
businessesdevoted
devotedtotoenvironmental
environmental responsibility
responsibility
are likely
are likely to
to invest
invest in
in green
green intellectual
intellectualcapital
capitalsince
sincethis
thismay
mayassist
assistthem
them ininidentifying
identifying
and implementing
and implementing moremore sustainable
sustainablepractices
practices[22,43].
[22,43].InInaddition,
addition,ECSR
ECSR refers to to
refers a com-
a com-
pany’s responsibilities
pany’s responsibilities toto its
its internal
internal shareholders,
shareholders, top
top management,
management, employees,
employees, customers,
custom-
ers, suppliers,
suppliers, business
business partners,
partners, communities
communities andand interest
interest groups
groups [11,15].
[11,15]. Companies
Companies that
that place
place a higha high
valuevalue on external
on external stakeholders,
stakeholders, suchsuch as environmentally
as environmentally conscious
conscious cus-
customers,
tomers,
will will usually
usually investmoney
invest more more money in environmentally
in environmentally friendly
friendly initiatives,
initiatives, including
including GIC
GIC green
and and green innovation
innovation [19,35].
[19,35]. Additionally,
Additionally, as corporate
as corporate sustainability
sustainability initiatives
initiatives in-
increase,
crease, organizations
organizations will invest
will invest more more in green
in green humanhuman capital
capital andand green
green relational
relational capital
capital [28].
[28].
To To ensure
ensure business
business sustainability,
sustainability, ECSRECSR includes
includes the the incorporation
incorporation of of plans
plans andand pol-
policies,
icies, as
such such as employee
employee development
development program
program andand innovative
innovative product
product design.Hence,
design. Hence, it
it is
is proposed
proposed that:
that:
H
H1a . ECSR has a positive influence on green human capital.
1a. ECSR has a positive influence on green human capital.

1b.. ECSR
H1b
H ECSRhas
hasaapositive
positiveinfluence
influenceonongreen
greenrelational
relationalcapital.
capital.
1c.. ECSR
H1c
H ECSRhas
hasaapositive
positiveinfluence
influenceon
ongreen
greenstructural
structuralcapital.
capital.

2.3. Green Intellectual Capital (GIC)

2.3. Green Intellectual Capital (GIC)
Green intellectual capital is crucial for business sustainability as it encompasses the
Green intellectual capital is crucial for business sustainability as it encompasses the
knowledge, skills and expertise that organizations possess related to environmental and
knowledge, skills and expertise that organizations possess related to environmental and
social issues [47]. However, since its introduction in 2008, green IC has not received much
social issues [47]. However, since its introduction in 2008, green IC has not received
academic attention [25]. Businesses can produce superior performance and gain a com-
much academic attention [25]. Businesses can produce superior performance and gain a
petitive advantage as a result of rare intangible assets [47,48]. Researchers believe that
competitive advantage as a result of rare intangible assets [47,48]. Researchers believe that
green IC refers to company’s overall expertise that helps the environment and gives the
company a competitive edge [49]. GIC also assesses customers’ environmental awareness
and ensures strict compliance with international environmental regulations [47]. It is the
intangible assets that have an impact on the sustainability of the company [48]. Researchers
have assessed the effects of GIC on the sustainability of the business. Notably, Omar
et al. [44] examined the link between GIC and business sustainability and the findings of
the study suggested a significant relationship between GIC and business sustainability.
Similarly, Ullah et al. [24] confirmed the positive relationship between GIC and business
sustainability of Chinese manufacturing firms. These results indicate the importance of GIC
in business sustainability. In this study, GIC has been divided into three categories: green
relational capital (GRC), green structural capital (GSC) and green human capital (GHC).

2.3.1. Green Human Capital (GHC)

Human capital is crucial for a company’s success and competitive advantage [47,49,50].
According to Chen and Chang [20], GHC is the individual and collective knowledge,
attitude, skills, experience, creativity and commitment to green innovation possessed by
employees. The impact of green human capital on business sustainability can be significant,
as it can help a business to reduce its environmental impact, lower its costs and improve its
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 6 of 20

reputation [23]. In addition, employees with knowledge of sustainable practices can help
a business to implement more efficient processes that use fewer resources, reduce waste
and minimize pollution [44]. Therefore, employees are likely to be motivated to apply
their environmental knowledge to green innovation [51]. Researchers have argued that the
skills and the knowledge of environmental issues possessed by employees determine the
continuity of environmental practices in businesses [51–53]. The novelty introduced by the
demand for GHC investment could significantly promote green innovation [53]. According
to previous research, an organization’s success in green innovation will be greatly enhanced
if it has a higher level of GHC [53–55]. Research has shown that GIC is positively related
to business performance in Chinese manufacturing firms. Companies with a higher level
of green human capital tend to have higher levels of environmental performance, which
in turn leads to improved business performance [52,56,57]. Therefore, it is asserted that,
by investing in the knowledge, skills and abilities of its employees, a business can reduce
its environmental impact, lower its costs and improve its reputation, all of which can
contribute to its green innovation and long-term sustainability. Hence, it is proposed that:
H2a . GHC has a positive influence on business sustainability.
H2b . GHC has a positive influence on green innovation.

2.3.2. Green Relational Capital (GRC)

GRC refers to the interactive relationships between a company and its key stakehold-
ers in managing the corporate environment and green innovation in order to generate
value and gain a competitive advantage [57]. Chen [47] used the term “green relational
capital” to describe the intangible assets that a company can acquire through its relation-
ships with customers, suppliers and partners to improve business sustainability. GRC
creates strong relationships with suppliers, regulatory agencies and other stakeholders;
a company can better understand the needs and preferences of these groups, which can
help them to develop new products or services that meet these needs [58–60]. This can also
lead to the development of new partnerships and collaborations, which can provide new
opportunities for growth and expansion [45]. GRC can promote the sharing of innovative
knowledge and contribute to the success of environmentally friendly innovations [44].
Thus, businesses with GRC can collaborate to develop new environmental technologies,
ideas and opportunities [24]. Furthermore, GRC makes it easier to communicate and
disseminate environmental policies throughout the organization in order to foster green
innovation [56,60]. Recently, researchers have confirmed the positive relationship between
GRC and firm GIN [24,61]. Hence, it is proposed that:
H3a . GRC has a positive influence of business sustainability.
H3b . GRC has a positive influence on green innovation.

2.3.3. Green Structural Capital (GSC)

The term “green structural capital” (GSC) refers to a company’s trademarks, intellec-
tual properties, management philosophy, organizational culture and ability to incorporate
green innovation into its business operations [45]. It also refers to the company’s image and
organizational culture toward environmental protection [55]. Structural capital improves
a company’s processes and systems, allowing it to gain technical expertise and develop
organizational capabilities [26]. Green structural capital can help businesses meet regula-
tory requirements, improve their reputation and public image and attract environmentally
conscious customers and investors [43]. However, the impact of green structural capital
on business sustainability can also be negative if it is not properly managed. If a business
over-invests in green resources that do not provide a sufficient return on investment, it
can negatively impact their financial performance [59]. Researchers have posited that
companies with strong green structural capital are more likely to adopt and invest in new
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 7 of 20

technologies and practices that reduce their environmental footprint [45]. This can include
activities such as adopting renewable energy sources, implementing waste reduction strate-
gies and developing eco-friendly products and services [55]. GSC benefits organizations
by assisting them in becoming more environmentally conscious, sustainable businesses,
providing the business with a strategy for environmentally friendly manufacturing and
product development [59]. It is asserted that GSC in manufacturing organizations positively
impacts green innovation. Hence, it is proposed that:
H4a . GSC has a positive influence on business sustainability.
H4b . GSC has a positive influence on green innovation.

2.4. Mediating Effect of Green Innovation (GINV)

The adoption of GIN may provide businesses with a competitive advantage over their
rivals [24]. GIN makes it easier for organizations to implement timely policies that support
their environmental strategy [18,61]. Researchers have noted that GIN strategies in business
increase material efficiency and reduce disposal and waste costs [22]. Successful GIN
strategy can improve business performance by reducing costs, increasing competitiveness,
improving reputation, retaining talent and complying with regulations [22,24]. Hence, it is
proposed that:
H3 . Green innovation has a positive influence on business sustainability.
GHC is important for businesses because it includes knowledge, skills and abilities to
innovate and develop new green technologies and products and implement best practices
for reducing environmental impact [60]. By investing in GHC, businesses can improve
their overall sustainability and reduce their environmental footprint, which can lead to cost
savings and increased competitiveness [40]. GHC helps businesses identify and implement
green innovation to meet new environmental demands and sustain green performance [62].
Hence, it is proposed that:
H4a . Green innovation will mediate the relationship between GHC and business sustainability.
GRC encourages collaboration with external partners to stimulate new ideas and
creativity toward green innovation [62]. GRC promotes GIN by lowering the cost of
search, information and transaction [61]. Organizations that use GRC strategies in their
environmental practices are better able to create green innovations to reduce environmental
impacts and attract customers that are looking for businesses with better environmental
performance [52]. Organizations need to integrate the environmental knowledge produced
and shared by GRC to increase the importance and use of green knowledge in order to
promote green innovation [23]. Then, through green innovation, GRC can produce more
sustainable business performance [23,24]. Hence, it is proposed that:
H4b . Green innovation will mediate the relationship between GRC and business sustainability.
GSC is crucial in implementing green innovation [63]. Organizations can enhance their
business performance by utilizing their managerial capabilities, organizational culture and
integration of environmental issues [62]. GSC constitutes unique environmental knowledge
that promotes the production of innovative green products [64]. Green innovation often
requires raw material improvements that positively impact the environment. Therefore,
businesses implement the GSC strategy to incorporate green innovation that reduces ad-
verse environmental impacts [65] and has a positive impact on economic performance [30].
Hence, it is proposed that:
H4c . Green innovation will mediate the relationship between GSC and business sustainability.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 8 of 20

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Sampling
The automobile manufacturing industry in China has been chosen for the data collec-
tion because it is one of the largest contributors to environmental pollution. In addition,
automobile companies are adopting innovative and diverse technologies to compete in the
market [66]. In light of the growing concern for environmental damage, Chinese auto man-
ufacturers can make significant contributions to environmental management. Past studies
have also discussed the nexus between automobile manufacturing and environmental
pollution [66,67]. The currently employed purposive sampling technique to select the auto-
mobile manufacturing firms and online questionnaires were sent to the HR managers to
disseminate to the senior managers working in the relevant departments (Top Management,
Research & Development, Marketing and other relevant departments). Managers with at
least 3 years of relevant experience in automobile manufacturing firms were contacted to
improve the data quality because they have higher knowledge regarding business opera-
tions. The sample size was calculated following Hair et al. [68], who recommended 5 to 10
responses per item. There were 24 finalized items, making the required sample size 240.
Before data collection, a questionnaire pre-test was implemented on 6 automobile industry
managers to assess the validity of the questionnaire. After ensuring the content and face
validity, the questionnaire was formally distributed to the managers of automobile firms.
The data collection took around eight months starting from 7 March 2022 to 21 October
2022. Researchers contacted 61 firms from different cities, but only 27 responded, with
a response rate of 44.26%. The five academic experts evaluated the language, constructs’
item, questionnaire layout and suggested changes. The details of the study’s participants
are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Participants’ profile.

Frequency Percentage
Male 141 50.5%
Gender
Female 96 40.5%
Under 30 years 51 21.5%
Age 30 to 40 years 68 28.7%
More than 40 years 118 49.8%
Diploma 31 13.1%
Graduate 59 24.9%
Qualification
Postgraduate 107 45.1%
Others 40 16.9%
Chief executive officer 4 1.7%
Managing director 17 7.2%
Title R & D Manager 55 23.2%
Marketing manager 74 31.2%
Others 87 36.7%
3 to 7 years 58 24.5%
8 to 12 years 44 18.6%
Experience 13 to 17 years 74 31.2%
18 to 22 years 59 24.9%
More than 22 years 2 0.8%

3.2. Research Instrument

The current study uses a closed-ended questionnaire to collect participants’ data. The
questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first part of the questionnaire described the
purpose of the study and the participants informed consent to answer the questions. The
second and third parts of the questionnaire were related to demographic information and
construct items, which were marked as compulsory to avoid missing values. The constructs
items were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to
5 = strongly agree. The scales of the instrument were adapted from past studies. The scale
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 9 of 20

items and their sources are provided in Table 3. The items of the scales measurement are
given in Appendix A.

Table 3. Constructs’ measurement sources.

Constructs Items Sources

Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility 5 Bacinello et al. [33]
Green Human Capital 3 Yong et al. [21]; Chen [47]
Green Relational Capital 3 Ullah et al. [57]; Chen [47]
Green Structural Capital 5 Wang and Juo [22]
Green Innovation 4 Wang and Juo [22]
Business Sustainability 4 Ullah et al. [57]

4. Results and Analysis

This study analysed the data through Partial Least Squares (PLS)-based Structural
Equation Modelling (SEM). Due to the small sample size and the possibility of non-normal
data, PLS-SEM was employed to assess the measurement and structural models. Hair
et al. [68] suggested that PLS-SEM is a nonparametric test and does not require data
normality assumption.

4.1. Data Examination

This research applied several data examination techniques to determine the suitability
of the data. First, the Mahalanobis distance technique was applied to identify the outliers.
Through this method, we identified three outliers and removed them from final analysis.
Secondly, the study applies Harman’s single-factor test to test common method variance. It
is essential to assess common method bias (CMB) because the data was collected through
a self-reported scale; therefore, it could lead to inflation in the relationships of the study
constructs, although Miller and Cardinal [69] recommended that participants’ anonymity
will reflect the actual results under study. The results of the CMB indicated that a single
factor had only explained 24% variance in the data, confirming that no bias exists in
the data.

4.2. Assessment of Convergent Validity

Evaluating internal consistency is the first criterion for measuring the quality of data.
This study used Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values to measure the data’s
internal consistency. All of the constructs’ Cronbach’s alpha values exceeded the threshold
value of 0.70. The more accurate criterion to evaluate the data’s internal consistency is
composite reliability (CR) [70]. Therefore, CR values were also assessed to confirm the
data’s internal consistency, confirming that all construct values were greater than 0.70. We
then evaluated convergent validity, which measures how much one construct relates to
another. This study establishes convergent validity when constructs’ average variance
extracted (AVE) are greater than 0.50 and outer loadings are greater than or equal to 0.70 [71].
Table 4 shows the details of the reliability analysis and convergent validity. Table 3 shows
the results of the convergent validity.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 10 of 20

Table 4. Descriptive Analysis and Measurement Model.

Constructs Items Loading α CR AVE

ECSR1 0.835
ECSR2 0.855
Environmental corporate
ECSR3 0.901 0.913 0.935 0.742
social responsibility
ECSR4 0.858
ECSR5 0.856
GHC1 0.783
Green human capital GHC2 0.849 0.760 0.860 0.673
GHC3 0.827
GRC1 0.881
Green relational capital GRC2 0.801 0.829 0.898 0.747
GRC3 0.907
GSC1 0.947
GSC2 0.945
Green structural capital GSC3 0.961 0.963 0.971 0.871
GSC4 0.887
GSC5 0.926
GINV1 0.849
GINV2 0.914
Green innovation 0.901 0.931 0.772
GINV3 0.848
GINV4 0.930
BUS1 0.942
BUS2 0.917
Business sustainability 0.947 0.962 0.862
BUS3 0.919
BUS4 0.936
Note: ECSR = Environmental corporate social responsibility, GHC = Green human capital, GRC = Green relational
capital, GSC = Green structural capital, GINV = Green innovation, BUS = Business sustainability.

4.3. Discriminant Validity

The degree to which one construct is unrelated to another is referred to as discriminant
validity [72]. Three criteria were used in this study to evaluate the discriminant validity.
According to Fornell and Larcker [73], criterion, discriminant validity establishes when the
square of AVEs values must be greater than the corresponding correlations. As shown in
Table 5, the Fornell and Larcker [73] criterion was used in this study to confirm discriminant
validity. The second method is Hetero-trait–Mono-trait Ratio (HTMT). The construct values
for HTMT must be less than 0.85 to establish discriminant validity [74]. Table 6 illustrates
that all construct values are less than 0.85. The third method is that of cross-loading values.
This method also confirms discriminant validity as each of its construct’s items has greater
cross-loading values than other constructs [70], as shown in Table 7.

Table 5. Discriminant Validity (Fornell and Larcker criterion).

Latent Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
Environmental corporate
0.861
responsibility
Green human capital 0.103 0.820
Green relational capital 0.229 0.125 0.864
Green structural capital 0.173 0.063 0.257 0.933
Green innovation 0.094 0.509 0.365 0.243 0.879
Business sustainability 0.142 0.490 0.056 0.066 0.321 0.929
Note: The diagonals (in bolds) represent the square root of AVE and off-diagonal values represent the correlations
of each construct with other constructs. All correlations are statistically significant (p < 0.01).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 11 of 20

Table 6. Discriminant Validity Hetero-trait–Mono-trait Ratio (HTMT).

Latent Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
Business sustainability
Environmental corporate
0.152
responsibility
Green human capital 0.566 0.120
Green innovation 0.346 0.114 0.606
Green relational capital 0.064 0.261 0.156 0.419
Green structural capital 0.069 0.177 0.083 0.260 0.289

Table 7. Cross-loading.

BUS ECSR GHC GINV GRC GSC

BUS1 0.942 0.122 0.449 0.288 0.044 0.063
BUS2 0.917 0.140 0.468 0.325 0.033 0.041
BUS3 0.919 0.141 0.464 0.277 0.065 0.092
BUS4 0.936 0.125 0.440 0.299 0.067 0.054
ECSR1 0.109 0.835 0.047 0.041 0.210 0.073
ECSR2 0.114 0.855 0.092 0.026 0.179 0.099
ECSR3 0.091 0.901 0.082 0.099 0.246 0.144
ECSR4 0.161 0.858 0.105 0.137 0.196 0.175
ECSR5 0.135 0.856 0.110 0.082 0.152 0.228
GHC1 0.338 0.063 0.783 0.335 0.114 0.074
GHC2 0.533 0.077 0.849 0.477 0.142 0.055
GHC3 0.313 0.111 0.827 0.423 0.051 0.033
GINV1 0.316 0.090 0.430 0.903 0.375 0.171
GINV2 0.210 −0.014 0.424 0.848 0.368 0.249
GINV3 0.312 0.121 0.475 0.914 0.329 0.234
GINV4 0.288 0.131 0.463 0.849 0.204 0.203
GRC1 0.050 0.188 0.124 0.330 0.881 0.249
GRC2 0.044 0.232 0.107 0.303 0.801 0.134
GRC3 0.050 0.169 0.091 0.309 0.907 0.288
GSC1 0.085 0.189 0.068 0.234 0.268 0.947
GSC2 0.039 0.147 0.036 0.223 0.249 0.945
GSC3 0.089 0.188 0.078 0.234 0.238 0.961
GSC4 0.051 0.153 0.027 0.179 0.205 0.887
GSC5 0.039 0.128 0.079 0.258 0.237 0.926

4.4. Predictive Power of the Inner Model

The value of cross-validated redundancy, which determines the predictive relevance
of the model (Q2), and the coefficient of determination (R2) are the two methods used to
evaluate the criterion for inner model fit [70,75]. R2 value is the variation in endogenous
constructs that is explained by exogenous constructs. The value of R2 for the endogenous
constructs green innovation and business sustainability are 37.1% and 10.3%, respectively.
The blindfolding method assessed the predictive relevance of the model (Q2). Model
predictive relevance is indicated by a value of (Q2) greater than zero. The results show that
(Q2) for the endogenous constructs have a value of 28.1% and 8.6% for the endogenous
constructs green innovation and business sustainability, respectively, which are significantly
predictive of relevance for the study’s suggested model.

4.5. Out of the Sample, Predict Power

In order to evaluate the PLS model’s prediction, we ran PLSpredict with 10 folds and
10 repetitions [76]. Due to asymmetric error distribution, we based our predictive evaluation
on mean absolute error (MAE). Then, we compared the PLS-MAE endogenous constructs’
items with the linear model MAE (LM-MAE) endogenous constructs’ items. Most PLS-SEM
indicators (endogenous items) have lower values than LM-MAE, representing medium to
high predictive power. In addition, the higher values of PLS-Q2_predict for the endogenous
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 12 of 20

items are desirable for PLS-SEM over LM. The results indicate that PLS-Q2_predict has
higher values than LM-Q2_predict values, confirming the dominance of the PLS-SEM
model. Table 8 shows the results of the assessment of PLSpredict power.

Table 8. Assessment of PLSpredict power.

PLS
PLS- LM- PLS- LM- PLS-Q2 _Predict-
Items (MAE)-LM
MAE MAE Q2 _Predict Q2 _Predict LM-Q2 _Predict
(MAE)
BUS1 0.755 0.760 −0.005 0.007 −0.020 0.027
BUS4 0.750 0.755 −0.005 0.007 −0.016 0.023
BUS3 0.723 0.728 −0.005 0.009 −0.013 0.022
BUS2 0.701 0.701 0.00 0.008 −0.010 0.018
GHC3 0.724 0.725 −0.001 0.001 −0.024 0.025
GHC2 0.512 0.520 −0.007 −0.004 −0.031 0.027
GHC1 0.711 0.703 0.007 −0.004 −0.007 0.003
GINV2 0.559 0.567 −0.009 −0.019 −0.023 0.004
GINV1 0.512 0.527 −0.015 0.002 −0.019 0.021
GINV3 0.497 0.516 −0.019 0.008 −0.011 0.019
GINV4 0.577 0.602 −0.025 0.012 −0.007 0.019
GRC2 0.624 0.634 −0.011 0.043 0.011 0.032
GRC3 0.619 0.634 −0.015 0.015 −0.016 0.031
GRC1 0.547 0.561 −0.014 0.023 −0.009 0.032
GSC1 0.513 0.507 0.006 0.020 0.012 0.008
GSC2 0.515 0.507 0.007 0.006 −0.002 0.008
GSC5 0.500 0.496 0.004 0.001 −0.006 0.007
GSC3 0.510 0.504 0.006 0.019 0.009 0.01
GSC4 0.524 0.529 −0.005 0.009 −0.027 0.036
Note: The bold values are the difference between PLS and LM model indicating that PLSpredict model has better
prediction power than LM.

4.6. Hypotheses Testing

The PLS-SEM has been used with the 2000 bootstrapping sampling method to test the
proposed hypotheses [77]. The proposed hypotheses’ findings showed that H1a positive
impact of ECSR on GHC was insignificant (β = 0.103; t = 1.379; p > 0.05). H1b and H1c
proposed positive impact ECSR on GRC and GSC was supported (β = 0.229; t = 3.387;
p < 0.05) and (β = 0.173; t = 2.138; p < 0.05), respectively. H2a, H2b, H2c proposed positive
impact of GHC, GRC and GSC on GIN were supported (β = 0.467; t = 8.469; p < 0.05),
(β = 0.269; t = 4.052; p < 0.05) and (β = 0.145; t = 2.225; p < 0.05), respectively. H3 proposed
a positive impact of GIN on BUS was supported (β = 0.321; t = 4.760; p > 0.05). The results
of the direct path analysis show that GHC and GRC have the strongest impact on GIN.
Similarly, GIN has a strong effect on BUS. Table 9 shows the hypotheses assessment results.

Table 9. Hypotheses Assessment Summary.

Hypotheses Beta p-Values t-Values Decision

H1a: ECSR → GHC 0.103 0.168 1.379 Not supported
H1b: ECSR → GRC 0.229 0.001 3.387 Supported
H1c: ECSR → GSC 0.173 0.033 2.138 Supported
H2a: GHC → BUS 0.451 0.000 6.012 Supported
H2b: GHC → GIN 0.467 0.000 8.469 Supported
H3a: GRC → BUS −0.045 0.520 0.643 Not supported
H3b: GRC → GIN 0.467 0.000 8.469 Supported
H4a: GSC → BUS 0.025 0.668 0.429 Not supported
H4b: GSC → GIN 0.145 0.026 2.225 Supported
H5: GIN → BUS 0.321 0.000 4.760 Supported
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 13 of 20

4.7. Mediation Analysis

The mediation analysis was carried out using the methodology proposed by Preacher
and Hayes [78], in which 2000 bootstrapping was performed to determine the indirect
relationships. The criteria for accepting and rejecting hypotheses were based on t-values
(>1.96) and the absence of “0” in the confidence interval. According to the study’s findings,
GIN partially mediates between GHC and BUS as the direct effect between GHC and BUS
was significant. However, GIN fully mediates between GRC and BUS and GSC and BUS
relationships. Table 10 shows the mediation results.

Table 10. Mediation results.

Hypotheses Beta p-Values t-Values C.I Decision

H6a: GHC → GIN → BUS 0.150 0.000 3.529 0.072, 0.237 Partial Mediation
H6b: GRC → GIN → BUS 0.086 0.001 3.212 0.039, 0.145 Full Mediation
H6c: GSC → GIN → BUS 0.046 0.029 2.192 0.010, 0.095 Full Mediation
Note: Path coefficients (Beta); significant at p < 0.05.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The current study aims to analyze the impact of ECSR and GIC on organizations’
green innovation and business sustainability in the automobile manufacturing industry
in China. In order to combat global warming, Chinese businesses have begun putting
more emphasis on corporate environmental responsibility practices [79] and developing
GIC to foster green innovation. Past studies indicate that manufacturing industries are
one of China’s major sources of carbon emissions [79,80]. Therefore, this study proposes a
strategy that focuses on ECSR to increase the investment in green intellectual capital and
the consequent improvement of green innovation and business sustainability. The findings
of the study results are summarized in Tables 8 and 9.
The study findings revealed that ECSR significantly influences two components of
GIC (GRC and GSC) in manufacturing industry in China. These findings corroborate with
the previous study that ECSR significantly impacts GRC and GSC [37]. This shows that
automobile manufacturers in China will invest more in GRC and GSC when its ECSR
practices are higher. Concerning this, researchers argued that businesses that focus more on
environment protection would allocate more resources to green management activities [79].
However, the impact of ECSR on GHC was insignificant and contradicted the findings of
the previous studies [43]. The study’s findings further confirm the positive influence of
the components of green intellectual capital (GHC, GRC and GSC) on green innovation.
The findings of this study are consistent with previous studies that confirmed the positive
influence of GIC components of GIN [35,59]. These results show that green intellectual
capital has a significant role in the promotion of green innovation strategies. Therefore,
companies should place more emphasis on investments in green intellectual capital to meet
market demands. The positive and significant impact of green innovation on business
sustainability are consistent with previous studies [24,62]. The findings of the study also
confirm the positive and significant influence of GHC on business sustainability and
matches the findings of the previous researchers [24]. However, the direct impacts of GRC
and GSC on business sustainability were insignificant. One of the main reasons for the
insignificant impact of relational and green structural capital on business sustainability may
be that automobile manufacturers in China may not be able to effectively communicate
the value of their green initiatives to stakeholders. If stakeholders are not aware of the
business’s efforts to be more environmentally friendly, they may not be willing to pay a
premium for its products.
Further, our results on the mediating role of green innovation are significant, since this
mediation has been largely neglected by previous researchers, who focused on the direct
impact of GIC on BUS. The findings reveal the partial mediating effect of GIN between
GHC and BUS. This shows that GHC might have direct or indirect impact on BUS. The
direct impact of GHC on BUS has been explored by previous researchers [24], but our
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 14 of 20

findings also support the partial mediating effect of GIN in the automobile manufacturing
industry. In addition, our study findings revealed that GIN fully mediates between GRC
and BUS and GSC and BUS relationships. GIN as a full mediator signifies the key link to
leverage green relational and green structural capital in order to achieve better business
outcomes. It shows that, by adopting green practices, manufacturing organizations not
only benefit the environment, but also increase their efficiency and profitability.
The current study has comprehensively focused on green management practices in
the automobile manufacturing industry in China. This study incorporated the firm’s
ECSR, GIC, GIN and business sustainability. The relationship between ECSR and GIC
from the perspective of manufacturing firms has rarely been studied. This study presents
a new aspect in evaluating manufacturing firms’ innovation and business sustainability.
The automobile industry has been selected because this industry is one of the industries
highly contributing to environmental pollution. To combat this and promote business
sustainability, businesses’ green intellectual capital (GIC) and green innovation play a
significant role. Therefore, the study analyzed the causal relationship between ECSR,
GIC, GIN and BUS. The data for automobile manufacturing managers was collected and
analyzed via PLS-SEM. This study also measured the predictive power of the PLS-SEM
using PLSpredict. The findings of the PLSpredict revealed that PLS has better predictive
power than LM. The results of the structural model supported the proposed hypotheses.
However, the study found that ECSR has an insignificant impact on GHC. The study
findings also confirm the mediating impact of green innovation, which has been ignored
by previous researchers [24]. The significant impact of green innovation on business
sustainability implies that green innovation is one of the important strategic decisions for
the operations of manufacturing firms. Finally, to realize the goals of ECSR, firms need to
invest more in green intellectual capital (GIC) and foster green innovation, which ultimately
leads to business sustainability and competitive edge.

6. Implications
This study theoretically contributes to the environmental management literature and
offers useful practical implications. The theoretical framework for this study broadens
our knowledge of environmental management through a novel theoretical relationship
between ECSR and GIC and its impact on outcomes (green innovation and business
sustainability). The study findings demonstrate the importance of GIC for green innovation
and business sustainability. There are several specific contributions of the current study.
First, it emphasizes the importance of ECSR in management practices [59]; the current
study clearly explains the role of ECSR in improving GRC and GSC. This signifies the
importance of ECSR as an integrating mechanism when implementing firms’ environmental
strategy. Second, the study reveals the significance of GIC in green innovation and business
sustainability, extending the GIC body of knowledge. These results reinforce that GIC
components (GHC, GRC, GSC) are vital in adopting green practices and prompting business
sustainability. Previous researchers have emphasized the importance of mediating the
effect of green innovation on business performance, but it has received little attention in
previous studies [81]. The current research verified the significance of mediating the impact
of green innovation.
Practically, this study has numerous implications for the managers of manufacturing
firms. China’s automobile manufacturing industry plays a vital role in the development
process and growth that cannot be ignored [82]. Despite significant environmental pollution
and resource depletion increases, China’s economy has grown rapidly in the past several
years [83]. Many Chinese companies have realized the critical need to adopt a green
innovation strategy to deal with urgent environmental challenges and the country’s strict
environmental regulations [47]. Businesses have started implementing environmental
protection policies as ECSR has become crucial. This study depicts that firms’ ECSR
policies are essential for developing GRC and GSC. However, the impact of ECSR on GHC
was insignificant. To develop GHC, firms need to incorporate environmental thinking in
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 15 of 20

their policies because environmental knowledge is crucial for the firms to promote green
innovation.
Additionally, firms must ensure that every element of their operations complies with
environmental laws and that the idea of sustainable development is ingrained in their
corporate culture. The significant impact of GIC on GIN suggests that green innovation
strategies are likely to be a valuable strategic choice for the operations of manufacturing
firms. Therefore, it is suggested that managers should communicate with the key stake-
holders to facilitate the exchange of environmental knowledge and promote firms’ green
innovation. The positive influence of the components of GIC (GHC, GRC and GSC) on
business sustainability signifies that green intellectual capital has a vital role in manu-
facturing firms’ development and growth. Therefore, policy-makers must develop green
intellectual capital to accelerate the organization’s growth and contribute to environmental
sustainability. It is also necessary to position environmental concern as an integrated part
of firms’ strategy. In this way, businesses can encourage green innovation to achieve better
business performance by prioritizing the environment.
Based on the study findings, the following recommendations are put forward for
promoting environmental sustainability in China. Specifically, it includes these major
aspects: first, from the perspective of green innovation, to encourage firms that have a high
impact on environmental sustainability to comply with sustainable practices in the search
for higher economic growth in China. Previous researchers posited that adopting green
innovation helps reduce carbon emissions through less energy consumption and promotes
waste recycling that ultimately improves environmental health [84–86]. Secondly, the Chi-
nese government should encourage the development of a culture within organizations that
reduces environmental effects. Manufacturing firms must concentrate on environmental
regulations and put in place a green innovation strategy that might aid an organization’s
sustainable growth. To achieve the goals of economic benefits and environmental sus-
tainability goals, measures to reduce the consumption of natural resources such as soil,
water and energy may be taken at the organization’s executive level. Finally, the current
study’s findings provide a novel approach to driving environmental conservation via policy
implementations. Managers should focus on creative concepts for green processes since
our findings indicate that ECSR affects GRC and GSC and increases green innovation.
Therefore, manufacturing firms may develop and practice innovative ideas to improve
their green innovation. As a result of green innovation, firms may enhance their ability to
compete and maintain business sustainability.

7. Limitations and Future Research

Despite the significant contributions made by this study, there are several limitations
that should be considered in further research. The fact that our sample was only comprised
of employees working in China’s automotive industry may restrict the results’ general-
izability to other regions. To overcome this limitation, future studies may include larger
sample sizes from different countries. Third, we did not take R&D spending into account
when examining the impact of green innovation. Since R&D spending has been seen as
essential to green innovation Wang and Juo 2021 [22], future studies may control for the
R&D spending to better predict the degree to which innovation contributes to an organiza-
tion’s business sustainability. Fourth, past researchers have argued that the organization’s
performance depends upon its size [87]. Future studies may focus on whether small orga-
nizations perform better with less investment in GIC and green innovation. Lastly, other
factors such as environmental uncertainty, learning directed toward innovation and market
size may also affect organizations’ innovation and performance and should be considered
in future studies.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, W.L. and M.Y.B.; Methodology, I.W.; Software, I.W.;
Formal analysis, M.Y.B.; Investigation, M.Y.B. and T.H.; Resources, T.H.; Data curation, W.L.; Writing—
original draft, M.Y.B. and I.W.; Writing—review & editing, W.L., I.W. and T.H.; Funding acquisition,
W.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 16 of 20

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement: The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the
corresponding author on reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
• Environmental Corporate social responsibility
ECSR1: Our firm compliance with environmental legislation.
ECSR2: Our firm uses clean technologies.
ECSR3: Our firm ensures sustainable use of natural resources.
ECSR4: Our firm has a waste management policy.
ECSR5: Our firm conforms requirements of environmental management.
• Green human Capital
GHC1: The sustainability of our firm environment is dependent on the competencies
and skills of the organization’s employees.
GHC2: To enhance the long-term sustainability, our firm include green human capital
into their working environments.
GHC3: Green human capital contributes to the sustainability of the firm.
• Green Relational Capital
GRC1: Our firm designs products and/or services in compliance with the environ-
mentalism desires of our customers.
GRC2: Customer satisfaction concerning the environmental protection of our firm is
better than that of our major competitors.
GRC3: The cooperative relationships concerning the environmental protection of our
firm with our upstream suppliers are stable.
• Green structural Capital
GSC1: The management system for environmental protection in our firm is superior
to that of our major competitors.
GSC2: Investments in environmental protection facilities in our firm are more than
those of our major competitors.
GSC3: Competence in developing green products in our firm is better than that of our
major competitors.
GSC4: The overall operational processes for environmental protection in our firm
work smoothly.
GSC5: The knowledge management system for environmental management in our
firm is favorable for the accumulation of the knowledge of environmental management.
• Green Innovation
GINV1: Our firm uses less or nonpolluting/toxic materials.
GINV2: Our firm uses eco-labeling.
GINV3: Our firm uses recycle, reuse and remanufacture material.
GINV4: Our firm uses cleaner technology to make savings and prevent pollution (such
as energy, water and waste).
• Business Sustainability
BUS1: Business sustainability is necessary for our firm to ensure long-term growth.
BUS2: Business sustainability helps our firm to compete well in the industry.
BUS3: Sustainability increases the sales of our firm as consumers are more attracted to
sustainable products.
BUS4: Sustainability helps our firm to develop long-term strategies.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 17 of 20

References
1. Silvestre, B.S.; Ţîrcă, D.M. Innovations for sustainable development: Moving toward a sustainable future. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208,
325–332. [CrossRef]
2. Young, W.; Tilley, F. Can businesses move beyond efficiency? The shift toward effectiveness and equity in the corporate
sustainability debate. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2006, 15, 402–415. [CrossRef]
3. Wong, W.P.; Sinnandavar, C.M.; Soh, K.-L. The relationship between supply environment, supply chain integration and operational
performance: The role of business process in curbing opportunistic behaviour. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 232, 107966. [CrossRef]
4. Moktadir, M.A.; Kumar, A.; Ali, S.M.; Paul, S.K.; Sultana, R.; Rezaei, J. Critical success factors for a circular economy: Implications
for business strategy and the environment. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 3611–3635. [CrossRef]
5. Panda, T.K.; Kumar, A.; Jakhar, S.; Luthra, S.; Garza-Reyes, J.A.; Kazancoglu, I.; Nayak, S.S. Social and environmental sustainability
model on consumers’ altruism, green purchase intention, green brand loyalty and evangelism. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 243, 118575.
[CrossRef]
6. Borsatto, J.M.L.S.; Bazani, C.L. Green innovation and environmental regulations: A systematic review of international academic
works. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 63751–63768. [CrossRef]
7. Afsar, B.; Umrani, W.A. Corporate social responsibility and pro-environmental behavior at workplace: The role of moral
reflectiveness, coworker advocacy, and environmental commitment. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 109–125.
[CrossRef]
8. Martín-de Castro, G.; González-Masip, J.J.; Fernández-Menéndez, J. The role of corporate environmental commitment and STP on
technological talent recruitment in service firms. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 2020, 1–14. [CrossRef]
9. Awan, U.; Arnold, M.G.; Gölgeci, I. Enhancing green product and process innovation: Towards an integrative framework of
knowledge acquisition and environmental investment. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 1283–1295. [CrossRef]
10. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J. The moderating effects of institutional pressures on emergent green supply chain practices and performance.
Int. J. Prod. Res. 2007, 45, 4333–4355. [CrossRef]
11. Du, S.; Bhattacharya, C.B.; Sen, S. Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR
communication. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2010, 12, 8–19. [CrossRef]
12. Suska, M. Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR) on the Example of Polish Champion Oil, Gas and Mining
Companies. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6179. [CrossRef]
13. Bager, S.L.; Lambin, E.F. Sustainability strategies by companies in the global coffee sector. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29,
3555–3570. [CrossRef]
14. Zhou, H.; Wang, Q.; Zhao, X. Corporate social responsibility and innovation: A comparative study. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2020,
120, 863–882. [CrossRef]
15. Reverte, C.; Gomez-Melero, E.; Cegarra-Navarro, J.G. The influence of corporate social responsibility practices on organizational
performance: Evidence from Eco-Responsible Spanish firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2870–2884. [CrossRef]
16. Flammer, C. Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors. Acad. Manag. J.
2013, 56, 758–781. [CrossRef]
17. Dahlsrud, A. How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.
2008, 15, 1–13. [CrossRef]
18. Marco-Lajara, B.; Zaragoza-Sáez, P.C.; Martínez-Falcó, J.; Sánchez-García, E. Does green intellectual capital affect green innovation
performance? Evidence from the Spanish wine industry. Br. Food J. 2022, ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
19. Mehmood, K.K.; Hanaysha, J.R. Impact of corporate social responsibility, green intellectual capital, and green innovation on
competitive advantage: Building contingency model. Int. J. Hum. Cap. Inf. Technol. Prof. 2022, 13, 1–14. [CrossRef]
20. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H. Utilize structural equation modeling (SEM) to explore the influence of corporate environmental ethics:
The mediation effect of green human capital. Qual. Quant. 2013, 47, 79–95. [CrossRef]
21. Yong, J.Y.; Yusliza, M.Y.; Ramayah, T.; Farooq, K.; Tanveer, M.I. Accentuating the interconnection between green intellectual
capital, green human resource management and sustainability. Benchmarking Int. J. 2022, ahead-of-print. [CrossRef]
22. Wang, C.H.; Juo, W.-J. An environmental policy of green intellectual capital: Green innovation strategy for performance
sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 3241–3254. [CrossRef]
23. Ali, W.; Wen, J.; Hussain, H.; Khan, N.A.; Younas, M.W.; Jamil, I. Does green intellectual capital matter for green innovation
adoption? Evidence from the manufacturing SMEs of Pakistan. J. Intellect. Cap. 2021, 22, 868–888. [CrossRef]
24. Ullah, H.; Wang, Z.; Mohsin, M.; Jiang, W.; Abbas, H. Multidimensional perspective of green financial innovation between green
intellectual capital on sustainable business: The case of Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 5552–5568. [CrossRef]
25. Li, L.; Msaad, H.; Sun, H.; Tan, M.X.; Lu, Y.; Lau, A.K.W. Green Innovation and Business Sustainability: New Evidence from
Energy Intensive Industry in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7826. [CrossRef]
26. Lee, K.-H.; Min, B. Green R&D for eco-innovation and its impact on carbon emissions and firm performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,
108, 534–542.
27. Yusliza, M.Y.; Norazmi, N.A.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Fernando, Y.; Fawehinmi, O.; Seles, B.M.R.P. Top management commitment,
corporate social responsibility and green human resource management. Benchmark. Int. J. 2019, 26, 2051–2078. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 18 of 20

28. Malik, S.Y.; Cao, Y.; Mughal, Y.H.; Kundi, G.M.; Mughal, M.H.; Ramayah, T. Pathways towards Sustainability in Organizations:
Empirical Evidence on the Role of Green Human Resource Management Practices and Green Intellectual Capital. Sustainability
2020, 12, 3228. [CrossRef]
29. Fernando, Y.; Wah, W.X. The impact of eco-innovation drivers on environmental performance: Empirical results from the green
technology sector in Malaysia. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2017, 12, 27–43. [CrossRef]
30. Bahta, D.; Yun, J.; Islam, M.R.; Ashfaq, M. Corporate social responsibility, innovation capability and firm performance: Evidence
from SME. Soc. Responsib. J. 2021, 17, 840–860. [CrossRef]
31. Rahman, N.; Post, C. Measurement Issues in Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR): Toward a Transparent,
Reliable, and Construct Valid Instrument. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 105, 307–319. [CrossRef]
32. Mazurkiewicz, P. Corporate environmental responsibility: Is a common CSR framework possible. World Bank 2004, 2, 1–18.
33. Bacinello, E.; Tontini, G.; Alberton, A. Influence of corporate social responsibility on sustainable practices of small and medium-
sized enterprises: Implications on business performance. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 28, 776–785. [CrossRef]
34. Kraus, S.; Rehman, S.U.; García, F.J.S. Corporate social responsibility and environmental performance: The mediating role of
environmental strategy and green innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 160, 120262. [CrossRef]
35. Chuang, S.-P.; Huang, S.-J. The Effect of Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility on Environmental Performance and
Business Competitiveness: The Mediation of Green Information Technology Capital. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 150, 991–1009. [CrossRef]
36. Dangelico, R.M.; Pujari, D. Mainstreaming green product innovation: Why and how companies integrate environmental
sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 95, 471–486. [CrossRef]
37. Baima, G.; Forliano, C.; Santoro, G.; Vrontis, D. Intellectual capital and business model: A systematic literature review to explore
their linkages. J. Intellect. Cap. 2021, 22, 653–679. [CrossRef]
38. Hsu, Y.-H.; Fang, W. Intellectual capital and new product development performance: The mediating role of organizational
learning capability. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2009, 76, 664–677. [CrossRef]
39. Bhattacharyya, S.S.; Verma, S. The intellectual contours of corporate social responsibility literature: Co-citation analysis study. Int.
J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 2020, 40, 1551–1583. [CrossRef]
40. Padilla-Lozano, C.P.; Collazzo, P. Corporate social responsibility, green innovation and competitiveness–causality in manufactur-
ing. Compet. Rev. Int. Bus. J. 2022, 32, 21–39. [CrossRef]
41. Sheikh, A.M. Green intellectual capital and social innovation: The nexus. J. Intellect. Cap. 2022, 23, 1199–1220. [CrossRef]
42. Shah, S.M.M.; Ahmed, U.; Ismail, A.I.; Mozammel, S. Going intellectually green: Exploring the nexus between green intellectual
capital, environmental responsibility, and environmental concern towards environmental performance. Sustainability 2021, 13,
6257. [CrossRef]
43. Sudibyi, Y.; Sutanto, K. Environmental consciousness and corporate social responsibility as drivers of green intellectual capital.
Int. J. Innov. Creat. Chang. 2020, 13, 716–726.
44. Omar, M.K.; Mohd Yusoff, Y.; Kamarul Zaman, M.D. The effect of organizational learning capability as a mediating variable in
the relationship between green intellectual capital and business sustainability: Evidence from the manufacturing sector. Int. J.
Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2019, 9, 337–352. [CrossRef]
45. Yusoff, Y.M.; Omar, M.K.; Zaman, M.D.K.; Samad, S. Do all elements of green intellectual capital contribute toward business
sustainability? Evidence from the Malaysian context using the Partial Least Squares method. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 234, 626–637.
[CrossRef]
46. Delgado-Verde, M.; Amores-Salvadó, J.; Martín-de Castro, G.; Emilio Navas-López, J. Erratum: Green intellectual capital and
environmental product innovation: The mediating role of green social capital. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 2014, 12, 350. [CrossRef]
47. Chen, Y.-S. The Positive Effect of Green Intellectual Capital on Competitive Advantages of Firms. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 77, 271–286.
[CrossRef]
48. Flatt, S.J.; Kowalczyk, S.J. Creating Competitive Advantage through Intangible Assets: The Direct and Indirect Effects of Corporate
Culture and Reputation. Adv. Compet. Res. 2008, 16, 13.
49. Benevene, P.; Buonomo, I.; Kong, E.; Pansini, M.; Farnese, M.L. Management of Green Intellectual Capital: Evidence-Based
Literature Review and Future Directions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8349. [CrossRef]
50. Kamukama, N.; Sulait, T. Intellectual capital and competitive advantage in Uganda’s microfinance industry. Afr. J. Econ. Manag
2017, 8, 498–514. [CrossRef]
51. Baeshen, Y.; Soomro, Y.A.; Bhutto, M.Y. Determinants of Green Innovation to Achieve Sustainable Business Performance: Evidence
From SMEs. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 767968. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Aftab JAbid NCucari, N.; Savastano, M. Green human resource management and environmental performance: The role of green
innovation and environmental strategy in a developing country. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022. [CrossRef]
53. Buhl, A.; Blazejewski, S.; Dittmer, F. The More, the Merrier: Why and How Employee-Driven Eco-Innovation Enhances
Environmental and Competitive Advantage. Sustainability 2016, 8, 946. [CrossRef]
54. De Vos, A.; Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. Current thinking on contemporary careers: The key roles of sustainable HRM and
sustainability of careers. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 28, 41–50. [CrossRef]
55. Astuti, P.D.; Datrini, L. Green competitive advantage: Examining the role of environmental consciousness and green intellectual
capital. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2021, 11, 1141–1152. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 19 of 20

56. Singh, S.K.; Giudice, M.D.; Chierici, R.; Graziano, D. Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of green
transformational leadership and green human resource management. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 150, 119762. [CrossRef]
57. Ullah, H.; Wang, Z.; Bashir, S.; Khan, A.R.; Riaz, M.; Syed, N. Nexus between IT capability and green intellectual capital on
sustainable businesses: Evidence from emerging economies. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 27825–27843. [CrossRef]
58. Maignan, I.; Ferrell, O.C.; Ferrell, L. A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. Eur. J. Mark. 2005,
39, 956–977. [CrossRef]
59. Liao, H.Y.; Hsu, C.T.; Chiang, H.C. How does green intellectual capital influence employee pro-environmental behavior? The
mediating role of corporate social responsibility. Int. J. Manag. Stud. 2021, 28, 27–47. [CrossRef]
60. Fan, F.; Lian, H.; Liu, X.; Wang, X. Can environmental regulation promote urban green innovation Efficiency? An empirical study
based on Chinese cities. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 287, 125060. [CrossRef]
61. Jirakraisiri, J.; Badir, Y.F.; Frank, B. Translating green strategic intent into green process innovation performance: The role of green
intellectual capital. J. Intellect. Cap. 2021, 22, 43–67. [CrossRef]
62. Tang, M.; Walsh, G.; Lerner, D.; Fitza, M.A.; Li, Q. Green innovation, managerial concern and firm performance: An empirical
study. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 39–51. [CrossRef]
63. Fitri, A.; Diamastuti, E.; Romadhon, F.; Maharani, H. The Effect of Green Intellectual Capital on SMEs’ Business Sustainability. J.
Bisnis Dan Manaj. 2022, 9, 55–64. [CrossRef]
64. Asiaei, K.; Bontis, N.; Alizadeh, R.; Yaghoubi, M. Green intellectual capital and environmental management accounting: Natural
resource orchestration in favor of environmental performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 76–93. [CrossRef]
65. Gürlek, M.; Tuna, M. Reinforcing competitive advantage through green organizational culture and green innovation. Serv. Ind. J.
2018, 38, 467–491. [CrossRef]
66. Guo, C.; Jiang, C.X.; Yang, Q. The Development of Organizational Capabilities and Corporate Entrepreneurial Processes: The
Case of Chinese Automobile Firms. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2014, 56, 483–500. [CrossRef]
67. Huang, C.L.; Kung, F.H. Environmental consciousness and intellectual capital management. Manag. Decis. 2011, 49, 1405–1425.
[CrossRef]
68. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [CrossRef]
69. Miller, C.C.; Cardinal, L.B. Strategic Planning and Firm Performance: A Synthesis of More than Two Decades of Research. Acad.
Manag. J. 1994, 37, 1649–1665. [CrossRef]
70. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V.G. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Eur. Bus.
Rev. 2014, 26, 106–121. [CrossRef]
71. Hair, J.J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Matthews, L.M.; Ringle, C.M. Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: Part
I–method. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2016, 28, 63–76. [CrossRef]
72. Alarcón, D.; Sánchez, J.A.; De Olavide, U. Assessing Convergent and Discriminant Validity in the ADHD-R IV Rating Scale:
User-written Commands for Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Composite Reliability (CR), and Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio of
Correlations (HTMT). In Proceedings of the Spanish STATA Meeting, Madrid, Spain, 22 October 2015.
73. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark.
Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
74. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation
modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [CrossRef]
75. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New
Challenges to International Marketing; Sinkovics, R.R., Ghauri, P.N., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bentley, UK, 2009;
Volume 20, pp. 277–319.
76. Shmueli, G.; Sarstedt, M.; Hair, J.F.; Cheah, J.-H.; Ting, H.; Vaithilingam, S.; Ringle, C.M. Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM:
Guidelines for using PLSpredict. Eur. J. Mark. 2019, 53, 2322–2347. [CrossRef]
77. Haenlein, M.; Kaplan, A.M. A Beginner’s Guide to Partial Least Squares Analysis. Underst. Stat. 2004, 3, 283–297. [CrossRef]
78. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator
models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [CrossRef]
79. Elliot, S. A Transdisciplinary Exploratory Model of Corporate Responses to the Challenges of Environmental Sustainability. Bus.
Strategy Environ. 2013, 22, 269–282. [CrossRef]
80. Xu, R.; Lin, B. Why are there large regional differences in CO2 emissions? Evidence from China’s manufacturing industry. J.
Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 1330–1343. [CrossRef]
81. Buysse, K.; Verbeke, A. Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strateg. Manag. J. 2003, 24,
453–470. [CrossRef]
82. Xia, X.; Govindan, K.; Zhu, Q. Analyzing internal barriers for automotive parts remanufacturers in China using grey-DEMATEL
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 87, 811–825. [CrossRef]
83. Song, W.; Yu, H. Green Innovation Strategy and Green Innovation: The Roles of Green Creativity and Green Organizational
Identity. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 135–150. [CrossRef]
84. Yin, K.; Liu, L.; Gu, H. Green paradox or forced emission reduction—The dual effects of environmental regulation on carbon
emissions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11058. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 1851 20 of 20

85. Song, M.; Fisher, R.; Kwoh, Y. Technological challenges of green innovation and sustainable resource management with large
scale data. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 144, 361–368. [CrossRef]
86. Li, D.; Huang, M.; Ren, S.; Chen, X.; Ning, L. Environmental Legitimacy, Green Innovation, and Corporate Carbon Disclosure:
Evidence from CDP China 100. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 150, 1089–1104. [CrossRef]
87. Martínez-Ros, E.; Kunapatarawong, R. Green innovation and knowledge: The role of size. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28,
1045–1059. [CrossRef]

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.