Index

Abstract

Due to the emergence of the need for sustainable development, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the need to conduct business within the framework of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, businesses are facing a difficult environment in which they struggle to achieve and maintain competitiveness. To conduct business in today's globalized environment, innovation, behavior, and information are becoming increasingly important constructs to consider. This article investigates the effects of green innovation, green behavior, and information systems on the sustainable performance and competitiveness of businesses. The relationships between the constructs are discussed in terms of long-term development and post-pandemic business trends. Structural equation modeling is used to analyze data collected from 221 managers of small and medium-sized enterprises. All hypotheses are supported, and the results reveal the influence of green innovation, green behavior, and information systems on sustainable business performance and competitiveness. The findings are discussed, and managerial implications are highlighted, along with suggestions for future research.

Keywords:Competitiveness, Environment, Green behavior, Green innovation, Information system, Strategic integration Sustainability, Sustainable business performance.

Received: 24 December 2021 / Revised: 2 March 2022 / Accepted: 17 March 2022/ Published: 4 April 2022

Contribution/ Originality

Previous research on environmentally friendly operational strategies, such as green behavior, information systems, and green innovation, has all been conducted either prior to COVID-19 or in isolation as related to business performance. The current situation necessitates the widespread adoption of environmentally friendly strategies, and the literature has not yet addressed the combined effect of the variables (green innovation, green behavior, and information systems) on the long-term viability of businesses. This study bridges the literature gap and establishes the combined positive effects of green innovation and green behavior on the business sustainability and competitiveness of manufacturing companies in the post-pandemic era. 

1. INTRODUCTION

Environmental, ethical, legal, and social pressures have forced organizations to quickly embrace the environmental sustainability trend that has emerged in recent years. According to the World Resources Institute, global concerns about climate change, natural resource depletion, and environmental protection have put pressure on corporations to accelerate their transition toward adequate implementation and adaptation of environmental management systems and practices (Ashton, Russell, & Futch, 2017; Ganda, 2018; Longoni, Luzzini, & Guerci, 2018; Wu, Cheng, & Ai, 2018). In addition, the current business environment is witnessing the new forces of customer boycotts, preferences, and ethical values, all of which have the potential to positively or negatively impact an organization's efforts to gain a competitive advantage. Consumers these days are becoming more environmentally conscious, and their purchasing decisions are influenced by their perceptions of a company's brand image and commitment to environmentally sustainable operations (Ashton et al., 2017; Chung, 2020; Longoni et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2018).
Organizations have therefore already begun incorporating environmental goals into their strategies and policies (Chung, 2020), and as a result, they are devoting more attention to their operational systems, where service operations have been modified to a certain extent to comply with international environmental standards and legislation (Han, Yu, & Kim, 2019; Yu, Li, & Jai, 2017). Despite these efforts, pro-environmental behavior is complicated and necessitates the combination of a variety of interdisciplinary approaches (Jackson, Renwick, Jabbour, & Muller-Camen, 2011). Given this situation, it is difficult to assume that the simple inclusion of environmental objectives into a company's strategies and policies will result in the desired green behavior and outcomes. It follows that including sustainability objectives in a company's overall strategy and implementing a compliance-oriented approach in its operations may not ensure the complete and efficient achievement of those favorable objectives. Environmental behavior must be combined with innovation in order to achieve success. It should have pro-innovative connotations, including connotations of proactivity, voluntary behavior, enthusiasm, and dedication, among others (Ganda, 2018; Paillé, Boiral, & Chen, 2013). All of these characteristics refer to the human factor, which includes individuals' attitudes, perceptions, cognitive judgments, and social values. It is believed that these characteristics will help accelerate the implementation of ecological initiatives (Jabbour et al., 2019). Consequently, there have been calls for human resources management to be included in the environmental discourse by applying the organization's sustainability mantra to the development and implementation of human resources management practices and activities (Kim, Kim, & Han, 2019; Pham, Tučková, & Jabbour, 2019). In response to these calls, the concept of “green human resources management” has emerged, integrating environmental objectives into human resource management practices and activities and promising a positive influence on the environmental outcomes of individuals and organizations.

In the general management literature, the majority of human resource management professionals and scholars have paid particular attention to the role of green human resource management practices in promoting environmentally friendly activities and behaviors in the workplace (Ababneh, 2021; Longoni et al., 2018; Renwick, Redman, & Maguire, 2013; Roscoe, Subramanian, Jabbour, & Chong, 2019). The direct relationship between employee participation and green human resources practices, including green recruitment and selection, green performance management, green training and development, green rewards and incentives, as well as green employee involvement, has been established in the literature. Despite the large amount of research that has been done in this area, most studies have concentrated solely on the performance of organizations as a result of these green activities. However, in light of the current challenges, most businesses are not only concerned with performance, but also with issues of sustainability and competitiveness. Therefore, there is a need for empirical research to prove the effect of green activities on sustainability, especially in the face of the current global COVID-19 pandemic, which provides an opportunity for businesses to focus on their effect on the environment to achieve an advantage in the midst of the challenges they face. This paper addresses that need. Previous research on environmentally friendly operational strategies, such as green behavior and innovation, was conducted either prior to COVID-19 or related solely to business performance. The current situation necessitates the widespread adoption of environmentally friendly behavior and innovation; hence the need for an empirical investigation of the effects of both green behavior and innovation in the current, post-COVID-19 era. Relatively few studies have discovered a positive relationship between environmentally conscious behavior and company performance (Asim & Li, 2019; Dumont, Shen, & Deng, 2017; Kim, Kim, Han, Jackson, & Ployhart, 2017; Kim, Kim, Choi, & Phetvaroon, 2019). Others have established that green innovation improves the overall performance of a company (Kraus, Rehman, & García, 2020; Mahto, Belousova, & Ahluwalia, 2020). However, the literature has not yet addressed the combined effect of these variables (green innovation and green behavior) on businesses’ long-term viability. Therefore, the current study bridges this gap as it establishes the positive effects of green innovation and green behavior on business sustainability and competitiveness. Another important issue that must be addressed in this context is the role that information systems play in bringing the ideal of green behavior and green innovation to fruition. Management and employees must be aware of their company's internal and external business environments in order to improve business performance in the long term. For this to be sustainable, it requires effective decision-making (Rahimnia & Molavi, 2020) and an adequate supporting information system (Elbashir, Sutton, Mahama, & Arnold, 2021). Some argue that the era of rigid, status-quo-oriented enterprises is over and that the new norms of conducting business are flexibility, rapid adaptation, and risk-taking. Managers must take into account changing market trends due to technological advances and, in the face of today's environmental challenges, must maintain a laser-like focus on satisfying customers to foster customer loyalty and increase customer retention, which, taken together, will have a positive impact on sustainable business practices (Popescu, Iancu, Avram, Avram, & Popescu, 2020). Regarding business metrics and factors, the current body of literature addresses them in a variety of contexts, although there seems to be an oversight when it comes to analyzing the impact of information systems on sustainable business performance and competitiveness (SBP&C), a gap that appears to be particularly relevant in the current transitional environment. This study fills that gap by examining the collective direct effect of green innovation, green behavior, and information systems on the long-term sustainable performance and competitiveness of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The study is important because it uses a structured approach to look at how businesses in transitional economies are dealing with the challenges of achieving long-term growth and competitiveness in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESIS

Business performance and competitiveness must be sustained over time for businesses to survive in a highly competitive environment (Haseeb, Hussain, Kot, Androniceanu, & Jermsittiparsert, 2019a). The synchronization of social and ecological value with economic value is an important component of sustainable business performance and competitiveness (Hair, Risher, Sarstedt, & Ringle, 2019). To achieve social, economic, and environmental objectives, sustainable business performance and competitiveness models must be used (Nosratabadi et al., 2019). Consequently, the concept of sustainable business performance and competitiveness can be thought of as a complex and integrated system of various business objectives that takes into account not only the economic aspects of conducting business but also the impact of doing business on social and environmental dimensions. Sustainable business performance must adapt to market changes and take into account customers’ values as well as the technological innovations that impact today's business environment in order to be successful. It has been noted that nowadays, the so-called Industry 4.0 has an impact on the market and how businesses conduct their operations (Haseeb, Hussain, Ślusarczyk, & Jermsittiparsert, 2019b). In this context, it is possible to argue that green innovation, green behavior, and information systems, as components of the broader set of factors that characterize Industry 4.0, could have a positive impact on companies’ long-term business performance and competitiveness. The following subsections demonstrate the development of this hypothesis in greater detail.

2.1. Green Innovation and Sustainable Business Performance & Competitiveness

Green innovations include extraction and exploration innovations, with the former focusing on improving but not radically altering existing products and processes to make them more environmentally friendly, and the latter focusing on introducing new products and processes into existing markets (Rehman, Kraus, Shah, Khanin, & Mahto, 2021). New products and processes developed as a result of green innovation have the potential to fundamentally alter existing business models, thereby significantly reducing their negative environmental impact (Ar, 2012). Green innovation that is based on exploratory research may also result in the development of novel products and processes that can aid in the cleaning and recovery of the environment (Saxena & Khandelwal, 2012). Overall, green innovation can help businesses grow and recover the costs of raw materials, which have been rising in recent years (Chen, 2008). It is thought to be linked to the overall success of a company (Kraus et al., 2020; Mahto et al., 2020). Furthermore, research has demonstrated that a company's environmental strategy, as well as specific proactive strategies aimed at developing environmentally friendly technologies, can have a positive impact on its financial outcome (Fousteris, Didaskalou, Tsogas, & Georgakellos, 2018; Walker, Ni, & Huo, 2014). On the other hand, an inefficient management culture could result in a company’s environmental strategy becoming reactive rather than proactive, potentially increasing the risk of disasters and damaging the company’s reputation (Zhang, Wang, & Zhao, 2019). The natural-resource-based theory considers pollution prevention, product stewardship, and sustainable development important environmental strategies that help firms gain competitive advantages over their competitors (Hart, 1995; Hart & Dowell, 2011). Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): green innovation is positively associated with sustainable business performance & competitiveness.

2.2. Green Behavior and Sustainable Business Performance & Competitiveness

Through ecologically responsible work practices, it is possible to establish a long-term competitive edge. As a result of rising population numbers and new city growth, the environment is under three times as much stress as previously (Iqbal, Hassan, Akhtar, & Khan, 2018). According to the World Bank (Uwem, Oyedele, & Olubiyi, 2021), because the public is increasingly aware that economic growth leads to increased environmental degradation, business actors have a responsibility to decrease the detrimental impact of their operations on the environment. In addition, individuals are confronted with significant obstacles as a result of the overexploitation of human resources, environmental deterioration, and unsustainable living standards, among other factors (Uwem et al., 2021). Moreover, recent environmental disasters have been caused by excessive tree cutting, the burning of fossil fuels, and the production of carbon monoxide as a result of organizational and human activity (Fawehinmi, Yusliza, Mohamad, Faezah, & Muhammad, 2020). In short, the increase in the number of people and the production of industrial waste has serious ramifications for mankind and businesses (Iqbal et al., 2018). According to previous studies, green workplace conduct increases an organization’s overall success (Dumont et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2019). Consumers, particularly those of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), are increasingly concerned with cleanliness and environmental sustainability in this post-pandemic era, meaning that SMEs that care about the environment have a more positive image in the eyes of consumers. Employee understanding of the importance of environmental sustainability is critical to a firm’s long-term viability (Süßbauer & Schäfer, 2018). Dumont et al. (2017) emphasized that creating an ecologically friendly culture in the workplace will increase employee motivation and satisfaction. Additionally, Ababneh (2021) and Kim et al. (2017) found that encouraging green behavior in the workplace boosts employee happiness, which leads to improvements in the overall performance of the organization. Therefore, the following hypothesis was developed:
Hypothesis 2 (H2): green behavior is positively associated with sustainable business performance & competitiveness.

2.3. Information Systems and Sustainable Business Performance & Competitiveness

Because of the hyper-distributed nature of information in today's business world, organizations must adapt and implement information systems to successfully perform business activities, as well as to attain and maintain a solid competitive position in the market. The successful implementation of those information systems and their appropriate application in accordance with market demands and corporate objectives are two separate but related tasks (Sánchez-Hernández, Vázquez-Burguete, García-Miguélez, & Lanero-Carrizo, 2021). Technology-enabled information systems are at the heart of a modern and sustainable circular economy model, in which the use of digital platforms, data analysis, block-chain technologies, artificial systems, and other ICT solutions is increasingly becoming a must for business success (Roztocki, Strzelczyk, & Weistroffer, 2020). It is estimated that the number of organizations using some type of information system will increase in tandem with an increase in the fragmentation and segmentation of markets where information is the driving force of business. The fact that the analysis of market dynamics and business objectives is required when developing an information system solution further demonstrates that obtaining the optimal cost-benefit ratio from the implemented solution is essential. Taking the changes brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic into consideration, it becomes clear that businesses today, as Laudon and Laudon (2020) note, have become even more reliant on effective and efficient information systems than they were before the outbreak. In this context, it is clear that the use of information systems in various organizations will continue to spread rather than diminish.

Overall, the implementation and deployment of information systems are critical, as evidenced by the substantial majority of businesses that use some form of information system. Because of this, the use of information technology has become almost a requirement to "keep up" with competitors in the market (DeLone & McLean, 2016).

A well-implemented information system has a favorable impact on the performance of a variety of corporate activities, including, but not limited to, supply chains, decision making, and real-time data tracking (Peppard & Ward, 2016). The implementation of an information system can help an organization make long-term improvements in the areas of time management, cost overruns, safety, quality management, customer value management, safety issues, and other business metrics and procedures (Lu, Pishdad-Bozorgi, Wang, Xue, & Tan, 2019; Zeng, Lee, & Lo, 2020). As a result, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 3 (H3): information systems are positively associated with sustainable business performance & competitiveness.

3. METHOD

A quantitative research design follows a logical approach in which hypotheses are developed and tested. Therefore, a quantitative methodology based on the deductive technique is used in this study, and quantitative data is used to investigate the link between the study variables (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). The quantitative information was acquired through the use of survey instruments, such as questionnaires with closed-ended questions concerning the variables under investigation.

3.1. Population and Sample

According to a national study conducted by the Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency of Nigeria in 2017, Nigeria has 82,534 registered small and medium-sized manufacturing firms. This industry is well-known for producing significant amounts of air pollution, waste, and water pollution. It is also a significant contributor to climate change and the overconsumption of natural resources, among other things. Thus, these small and medium-sized manufacturing companies represent a relevant group for the present research. The sample size was determined using the sample size chart developed by Krejcie and Morgan (1970). The appropriate sample size was determined to be 384 enterprises. Questionnaires were issued to managers at each firm using a convenience sampling approach, and after a series of follow-ups, 221 questionnaires were returned, representing a response rate of 57%.

3.2. Measurement and Method of Analysis

All variables within the study were assessed using previously developed scales. The scales were well-developed and their reliability and validity have been strongly confirmed. The coefficient alphas reported in the original studies were above 0.70 for all scales, and a five-point Likert scale was used in the questionnaire. The measurement scale for green innovation, which comprises product and process innovation, was adapted from Singh, Del Giudice, Chierici, and Graziano (2020); the scale for green behavior from De Roeck and Farooq (2018); the scale for information systems from Djalic, Nikolic, Bakator, and Erceg (2021); and the scale for sustainable business performance and competitiveness, which comprises items on economic, environmental, and social welfare, was adapted from Khan, Wu, Saufi, Sabri, and Shah (2021). Tables 1 to 4 show the array of measurement scales used in the study.

Table 1. Concept and measurement scale – green innovation (GI).

Conceptualization Code Item
Green innovation is an invention that focuses on waste reduction, pollution prevention, and environmental management systems. Product Innovation
GI1 The enterprise uses materials that consume less energy and resources.
GI2 The enterprise uses materials that produce the least pollution.
GI3 The enterprise uses materials to design environmentally friendly products.
GI4 The enterprise uses materials that are easy to recycle, reuse, and decompose.
Process Innovation
GI5 The manufacturing processes of the enterprise effectively reduce hazardous substances or waste.
GI6 The manufacturing processes of the enterprise effectively reduce the use of raw materials.
GI7 The manufacturing processes of the enterprise effectively reduce the consumption of coal, oil, electricity, or water.

Table 2. Concept and measurement scale – green behavior (GB).

Conceptualization Code Item
Green behavior is a set of actions taken with the goal of reducing the negative environmental impact of operations and contributing to the long-term sustainability of the environment.  GB1 The enterprise insists on the adequate completion of duties in environmentally friendly practices.
GB2 Employees carry out the responsibilities outlined in their job description in an environmentally friendly manner.
GB3 Employees perform the job tasks that are expected of them in environmentally friendly ways.
GB4 Employees have a chance to get actively involved in environmental protection at work.
GB5 Employees take the initiative to act in environmentally friendly ways at work.
GB6 Employees do more for the environment at work than expected.

Table 3. Concept and measurement scale – information systems (IS).

Conceptualization Code Item
An information system (IS) refers to a collection of various pieces of equipment that are used in the gathering, processing, storage, and distribution of information.  IS1 The enterprise has modern information systems.
IS2 Modern information systems are widely used in the enterprise.
IS3 The enterprise applies information systems when hiring new employees.
IS4 Information systems are applied in a sustainable manner.
IS5 Employees have access to information systems.
IS6 Communication through information systems is widely used in the enterprise.
IS7 All employees are trained to work with information systems owned by the enterprise.
IS8 Information systems are applied in the quality section.
IS9 Information systems are applied in the human resources section.
IS10 Information systems are applied in the manufacturing section.
IS11 The enterprise invests in modern information systems so it can develop business processes in a sustainable manner
IS12 The enterprise seriously takes into consideration sustainable development through advanced information systems.
IS13 Information systems are applied by both managers and employees.

To follow the methods and recommendations of strategic and operations management studies, it was decided to use SmartPLS-SEM to evaluate the acquired data and test the study hypotheses (Adel, Mahrous, & Hammad, 2020; Bambale & Shamsudin, 2015; Hair, Sarstedt, Pieper, & Ringle, 2012). As stated in the introduction to this paper, the research integrates three environmentally significant variables and determines the combined influence of these variables on sustainable company performance and competitiveness in the global marketplace. SmartPLS was selected because it offers the ability to analyze complicated structural models in which the scores of the latent variables are employed in a successive analysis to analyze contemporary links (Hair et al., 2019; Raza, Rather, Iqbal, & Bhutta, 2019).

Table 4. Concept and measurement scale – sustainable business performance & competitiveness (SBP&C).

Conceptualization Code Item
Sustainable Business Performance & Competitiveness (SBP&C) is a complex and interconnected system of diverse business objectives that takes into account not only the economic aspects of doing business but also the impact on social and environmental components.  Economic performance
SBPC1 Return on investment (ROI) has increased above the industry average during the last 5 years.
SBPC2 Sales growth has increased above the industry average during the last 5 years.
SBPC3 Profit growth rate has increased above the industry average during the last 5 years.
SBPC4 Market share has increased during the last 5 years.
Environmental performance
SBPC5 The efficiency of the consumption of raw materials has improved during the last 5 years.
SBPC6 Resource consumption (thermal energy, electricity, water) has decreased (e.g., per unit of income, per unit of production) over the last 5 years.
SBPC7 The percentage of recycled materials has increased during the last 5 years.
SBPC8 The waste ratio (e.g., kg per unit of product, kg per employee per year) has decreased during the last 5 years.
Social performance
SBPC9 The turnover ratio has decreased during the last 5 years.
SBPC10 Employees’ satisfaction has increased during the last 5 years.
SBPC11 Employees’ motivation has increased during the last 5 years.
SBPC12 Health and safety performance has improved during the last 5 years.
SBPC13 Employee education and training (man-days per employee per year) have increased during the last 5 years.

4. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

4.1. Measurement Model

Initially, the measurement model was tested using the algorithm on SmartPLS; factor loadings, Cronbach's Alpha, and composite reliability were all calculated to determine the reliability and validity of the study measures. With the exception of two items (GI7 and IS4), which were later removed from consideration due to low loading, as shown in Table 5 and Figure 1, all items loaded above 0.5, as illustrated in Table 5.

4.2. Reliability and Validity Test

The results of the reliability and validity analyses are presented in Table 5. Cronbach's alpha was used to conduct a reliability analysis of the scales to assess their consistency. Ordinarily, the dependability coefficient of Cronbach's alpha is between 0 and 1, with a maximum of 1. The researchers determined that a good scale should have a coefficient greater than or equal to 0.80, an acceptable scale has a coefficient greater than 0.70, and an exploratory scale has a coefficient greater than or equal to 0.60. (Hair, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2013). The Cronbach's alpha results are GI (0.929), GB (0.883), IS (0.912), and SBP&C (0.946). These indicators thus met all the requirements. Because none of the scales scored below 0.80, it implies that they are good and reliable measures of the relevant structures.

4.3. Composite Reliability

As a convergent validity test in a reflective model, composite reliability has advantages over Cronbach's alpha. It may be preferred as a measure of reliability to Cronbach's alpha since Cronbach's alpha has the potential to overestimate or underestimate scale reliability. Composite dependability is a numeric value between 0 and 1, with 1 indicating complete estimated reliability. Composite reliabilities should be equal to or greater than 0.6 in an exploratory model (Chin, 1998; Hock, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2010); equal to or greater than 0.70 in a confirmatory model (Henseler, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2015); and equal to or greater than 0.80 in confirmatory research (Daskalakis & Mantas, 2008). As shown in Table 5, the composite reliability values for GI (0.944), GB (0.911), IS (0.925), and SBP&C (0.953) demonstrate that all reflective paradigms exhibit a high level of internal consistency reliability. When the composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha values are considered, it is clear that the adapted measurement scales are extremely trustworthy. 

4.4. Average Variance Extracted

The average variance extracted (AVE) can be used to test both convergent and divergent validity. In a reflective model, AVE represents the average communality for each latent factor. In an appropriate model, AVE should be greater than 0.5 (Chin, 1998) and greater than the cross-loadings, implying that the components should explain at least half the variance of their respective indicators. When the AVE is less than 0.50, it signifies that the error variance exceeds the explained variance. As shown in Table 5, the AVE values are GI (0.738), GB (0.631), IS (0.508), and SBP&C (0.612). This proves the validity of the constructs.

Table 5. Construct reliability and validity.

Constructs
LoadingsRange
Cronbach’s α
Composite Reliability
Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Green Innovation (GI)
0.779-0.900
0.929
0.944
0.738
Green Behaviour (GB)
0.717-0.869
0.883
0.911
0.631
Information System (IS)
0.588-0.778
0.912
0.925
0.508
Sustainable Business Performance & Competitiveness (SBP&C)
0.640-0.887
0.946
0.953
0.612

4.5. Structural Model

The structural model included several tests, such as estimating path coefficients and their significance by running bootstrapping. In this investigation, the bootstrapping option was employed to determine the statistical significance of the route coefficient and to compute the t-values. The bootstrapping had 500 subsamples. Green innovation (= 0.394, t = 4.329, p 0.001), green behavior (= 0.97, t = 2.439, p 0.05), and information systems (= 0.203, t = 2.366, p 0.05) are all positively associated with long-term business performance and competitiveness, as demonstrated in Table 6 and Figure 2. Hence, H1, H2, and H3 are supported.

The coefficient of determination (R2) was deemed satisfactory with a value of 0.313. Regarding the predictive relevance and effect size, as a guideline, Q2 values of 0.35 (high), 0.15 (medium), and 0.02 (small) have predictive relevance (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2013). Therefore, Table 7 and Figure 3 show that with Q2 = 0.179, sustainable business performance and competitiveness fall into the medium range of predictive relevance. According to Götz, Liehr-Gobbers, and Krafft (2010), f2 demonstrates whether exogenous variables have a significant impact on the endogenous variable. According to Cohen (1992) in Lorah (2018), the f2 value is comprised of various categories of smaller (f2=0.02), medium (f2=0.15), and higher effects (f2=0.35). Table 8 shows that green innovation has a medium effect on sustainable business performance and competitiveness, whereas green behavior and information systems have a smaller effect.

Figure 1. Smart PLS algorithm graph.

Table 6. Mean, STDEV, T-values, P-values.

 Relationship
Βeta
STDEV
T Statistics
P Value
H1: GI -> SBP&C
0.394
0.091
4.329
p≤0.001
H2: GB -> SBP&C
0.197
0.081
2.439
p≤0.050
H3: IS -> SBP&C
0.203
0.086
2.366
p≤0.050

Figure 2. Smart PLS bootstrap graph.

Table 7. Predictive relevance.

Constructs
SSO
SSE
Q2
Sustainable Business Performance & Competitiveness
1274.000
1045.575
0.179

Figure 3. Blindfolding graph.

Table 8. The effect size of a model.

Constructs
f2
Effect size based on Cohen (1992)
Green Innovation
0.202
Medium
Green Behavior
0.055
Small
Information System
0.054
Small

5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION

According to the existing theory of natural resource-based economics, businesses must employ pollution reduction measures, product stewardship, and sustainable development to attain competitiveness (Hart & Dowell, 2011). This research developed three hypotheses and investigated the effects of green innovation, green behavior, and information systems as independent variables on the dependent variable of sustainable business performance and competitiveness. All three proposed hypotheses (H1, H2, and H3) were supported, indicating that green innovation, green behavior, and information systems are all positively linked with long-term corporate success and competitiveness in the current “new normal” era of the COVID-19 pandemic. This bridged the literature gap by establishing the positive effects of green innovation and green behavior on business sustainability and competitiveness. The findings are consistent with previous studies in the area of green innovation (Kraus et al., 2020; Mahto et al., 2020); green behavior (Dumont et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2019), and information systems (DeLone & McLean, 2016; Lu et al., 2019; Peppard & Ward, 2016; Zeng et al., 2020), and above all, with the existing theory of natural resource-based economics (Hart, 1995).

The findings suggest that, with the challenge posed by the current COVID-19 pandemic, manufacturing enterprises should aim to effectively blend green behavior with green innovation and good information systems to achieve sustainable performance and competitiveness. Specifically, this study provides the managers of manufacturing enterprises with empirical evidence on the relative significance of green innovation practices in enhancing the firm’s successful and efficient implementation of environment-related policies and strategies. For example, manufacturing firms are among the largest contributors to environmental degradation. Hence, for long-term environmental sustainability, an ecosystem approach to manufacturing management must be adopted by manufacturing firms as well as the government and other regulatory agencies.

Additionally, this study confirms the findings of the literature and provides a clear understanding that having a green innovation strategy alone or concentrating on only information systems is not enough to achieve sustainable performance and competitiveness. Managers of manufacturing firms need to adopt a comprehensive approach by integrating green innovation, green behavior, and information systems so that the issue of environmental protection and management becomes the responsibility of all.

The findings of this study can also help managers of manufacturing enterprises gain insight into how to adopt environmentally friendly strategies that enable their organization to shift from focusing solely on making a profit margin to becoming socially innovative by presenting innovative solutions to social, economic, and environmental problems and challenges, thereby ensuring their long-term viability and sustainability. This can be achieved by integrating the following:

6. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The paper focuses on small and medium manufacturing enterprises and used a self-reporting approach in a cross-sectional design, which limits the ability to draw definitive conclusions on the causal order of the tested associations. Therefore, it is recommended that this study be replicated, first in service-oriented organizations, then in larger companies, also taking employees’ perceptions into account. Additionally, a longitudinal research approach should be adopted to confirm the findings of this study.

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.  

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study.

REFERENCES

Ababneh, O. M. A. (2021). How do green HRM practices affect employees’ green behaviours? The role of employee engagement and personality attributes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 64(7), 1204-1226.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1814708.

Adel, H. M., Mahrous, A. A., & Hammad, R. (2020). Entrepreneurial marketing strategy, institutional environment, and business performance of SMEs in Egypt. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies. , 12(5), 727-746.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-11-2019-0171.

Ar, I. M. (2012). The impact of green product innovation on firm performance and competitive capability: The moderating role of managerial environmental concern. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 62, 854-864.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.144.

Ashton, W., Russell, S., & Futch, E. (2017). The adoption of green business practices among small US Midwestern manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(2), 2133-2149.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1281107.

Asim, S., & Li, C. (2019). Role of top management advocacy in SME’s business sustainability: A mediation through technology opportunism. International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 8(4), 196-214.Available at: https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.11.2019.84.196.214.

Bambale, A. J. A., & Shamsudin, F. M. (2015). Effects of servant leader behaviors on organizational citizenship behaviors for the individual (OCB-I) in the Nigeria’s utility industry using partial least squares (PLS). International Journal of Management and Sustainability, 4(6), 130-144.Available at: https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.11/2015.4.6./11.6.130.144.

Chen, Y. S. (2008). The driver of green innovation and green image–green core competence. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(3), 531-543.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9522-1.

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295-336.

Chung, K. C. (2020). Green marketing orientation: Achieving sustainable development in green hotel management. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 29(6), 722-738.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2020.1693471.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Abingdon London: Routledge.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Daskalakis, S., & Mantas, J. (2008). Evaluating the impact of a service-oriented framework for healthcare interoperability. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 136, 285-290.

De Roeck, K., & Farooq, O. (2018). Corporate social responsibility and ethical leadership: Investigating their interactive effect on employees’ socially responsible behaviours. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 923-939.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3656-6.

DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2016). Information systems success measurement. Foundations and Trends® in Information Systems, 2(1), 1-116.Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/2900000005 .

Djalic, N., Nikolic, M., Bakator, M., & Erceg, Z. (2021). Modeling the influence of information systems on sustainable business performance and competitiveness. Sustainability, 13(17), 1-24.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179619.

Dumont, J., Shen, J., & Deng, X. (2017). Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role of psychological green climate and employee green values. Human Resource Management, 56(4), 613-627.Available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/hrm.21792.

Elbashir, M. Z., Sutton, S. G., Mahama, H., & Arnold, V. (2021). Unravelling the integrated information systems and management control paradox: Enhancing dynamic capability through business intelligence. Accounting & Finance, 61, 1775-1814.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12644.

Fawehinmi, O., Yusliza, M. Y., Mohamad, Z., Faezah, J. N., & Muhammad, Z. (2020). Assessing the green behaviour of academics: The role of green human resource management and environmental knowledge. International Journal of Manpower, 41(7), 879-900.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-07-2019-0347.

Fousteris, A. E., Didaskalou, E. A., Tsogas, M. M. H., & Georgakellos, D. A. (2018). The environmental strategy of businesses as an option under recession in Greece. Sustainability, 10(12), 4399.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124399.

Ganda, F. (2018). Green research and development (R&D) investment and its impact on the market value of firms: Evidence from South African mining firms. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(3), 515-534.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1319345.

Götz, O., Liehr-Gobbers, K., & Krafft, M. (2010). Evaluation of structural equation models using the partial least squares (PLS) approach. In Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 691-711). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Pieper, T. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2012). The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in strategic management research: A review of past practices and recommendations for future applications. Long Range Planning, 45(5-6), 320-340.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.09.008.

Hair, J. J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). PLS applications in strategic management: Partial least squares modeling in strategy research. Long Range Planning, 46(1-2), 1-194.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001.

Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.

Han, H., Yu, J., & Kim, W. (2019). Environmental corporate social responsibility and the strategy to boost the airline’s image and customer loyalty intentions. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(3), 371-383.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2018.1557580.

Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986-1014.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9512280033.

Hart, S. L., & Dowell, G. (2011). Invited editorial: A natural-resource-based view of the firm: Fifteen years after. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1464-1479.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310390219

Haseeb, M., Hussain, H. I., Kot, S., Androniceanu, A., & Jermsittiparsert, K. (2019a). Role of social and technological challenges in achieving a sustainable competitive advantage and sustainable business performance. Sustainability, 11(14), 1-23.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143811.

Haseeb, M., Hussain, H. I., Ślusarczyk, B., & Jermsittiparsert, K. (2019b). Industry 4.0: A solution towards technology challenges of sustainable business performance. Social Sciences, 8(5), 154.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8050154.

Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (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.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.

Hock, C., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2010). Management of multi-purpose stadiums: Importance and performance measurement of service interfaces. International Journal of Services Technology and Management, 14(2-3), 188-207.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1504/ijstm.2010.034327.

Iqbal, Q., Hassan, S. H., Akhtar, S., & Khan, S. (2018). Employee’s green behavior for environmental sustainability: A case of banking sector in Pakistan. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 15(2), 118-130.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-08-2017-0025.

Jabbour, C. J. C., Sarkis, J., De Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Renwick, D. W. S., Singh, S. K., Grebinevych, O., . . . Godinho Filho, M. (2019). Who is in charge? A review and a research agenda on the ‘human side’of the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 222, 793-801.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.038.

Jackson, S. E., Renwick, D. W., Jabbour, C. J., & Muller-Camen, M. (2011). State-of-the-art and future directions for green human resource management: Introduction to the special issue. German Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(2), (2), 99-116.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/239700221102500203.

Khan, N. U., Wu, W., Saufi, R. B. A., Sabri, N. A. A., & Shah, A. A. (2021). Antecedents of sustainable performance in manufacturing organizations: A structural equation modeling approach. Sustainability, 13(2), 1-23.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020897.

Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S. E., & Ployhart, R. E. (2017). Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior: Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1335-1358.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314547386.

Kim, A., Kim, Y., & Han, K. (2019). A cross level investigation on the linkage between job satisfaction and voluntary workplace green behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(4), 1199-1214.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3776-7.

Kim, Y. J., Kim, W. G., Choi, H.-M., & Phetvaroon, K. (2019). The effect of green human resource management on hotel employees’ Eco-friendly behaviour and environmental performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 76, 83–93.Available at: https://doi.org/10.101.

Kraus, S., 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.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120262.

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308.

Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2020). Management information systems: Managing the digital firm (16th ed.). Hoboken, NJ, USA: Pearson.

Longoni, A., Luzzini, D., & Guerci, M. (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.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551.

Lorah, J. (2018). Effect size measures for multilevel models: Definition, interpretation, and TIMSS example. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 6(1), 1-11.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-018-0061-2.

Lu, H., Pishdad-Bozorgi, P., Wang, G., Xue, Y., & Tan, D. (2019). ICT implementation of small-and medium-sized construction enterprises: Organizational characteristics, driving forces, and value perceptions. Sustainability, 11(12), 1-20.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123441.

Mahto, R. V., Belousova, O., & Ahluwalia, S. (2020). Abundance–a new window on how disruptive innovation occurs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 155, 119064.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.008.

Nosratabadi, S., Mosavi, A., Shamshirband, S., Kazimieras, Z. E., Rakotonirainy, A., & Chau, K. W. (2019). Sustainable business models: A review. Sustainability, 11(6), 1663.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061663.

Paillé, P., Boiral, O., & Chen, Y. (2013). Linking environmental management practices and organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: A social exchange perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(18), 3552-3575.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.777934.

Peppard, J., & Ward, J. (2016). The strategic management of information systems: Building a digital strategy (4th ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey, U.S: John Wiley & Sons.

Pham, N. T., Tučková, Z., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2019). Greening the hospitality industry: How do green human resource management practices influence organizational citizenship behaviour in hotels? A mixed-methods study. Tourism Management, 72, 386-399.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.12.008.

Popescu, L., Iancu, A., Avram, M., Avram, D., & Popescu, V. (2020). The role of managerial skills in the sustainable development of SMEs in Mehedinti County, Romania. Sustainability, 12(3), 1119.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12031119.

Rahimnia, F., & Molavi, H. (2020). A model for examining the effects of communication on innovation performance: Emphasis on the intermediary role of strategic decision-making speed. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(3), 1035-1056.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-10-2019-0293.

Raza, A., Rather, R. A., Iqbal, M. K., & Bhutta, U. S. (2019). An assessment of corporate social responsibility on customer company identification and loyalty in banking industry: A PLS-SEM analysis. Management Research Review.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-08-2019-0341.

Rehman, S. U., Kraus, S., Shah, S. A., Khanin, D., & Mahto, R. V. (2021). Analyzing the relationship between green innovation and environmental performance in large manufacturing firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 120481.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120481.

Renwick, D. W., Redman, T., & Maguire, S. (2013). Green human resource management: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(1), 1-14.Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-2370.2011.00328.x .

Roscoe, S., Subramanian, N., Jabbour, C. J., & Chong, T. (2019). Green human resource management and the enablers of green organisational culture: Enhancing a firm's environmental performance for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(5), 737-749.Available at: http://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2277 .

Roztocki, N., Strzelczyk, W., & Weistroffer, H. R. (2020). Sustaining organizational operations during an outbreak: Problems, needs, and opportunities for information systems. Information Systems Management, 37(4), 348-356.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2020.1821133.

Sánchez-Hernández, M. I., Vázquez-Burguete, J. L., García-Miguélez, M. P., & Lanero-Carrizo, A. (2021). Internal corporate social responsibility for sustainability. Sustainability, 13(14), 7920.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147920.

Saxena, R. P., & Khandelwal, P. K. (2012). Greening of industries for sustainable growth: An exploratory study on durable, non-durable and services industries. International Journal of Social Economics, 39(8), 551-586.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/03068291211238437.

Singh, S. K., Del Giudice, M., Chierici, R., & Graziano, D. (2020). Green innovation and environmental performance: The role of green transformational leadership and green human resource management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150, 119762.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119762.

Süßbauer, E., & Schäfer, M. (2018). Greening the workplace: Conceptualising workplaces as settings for enabling sustainable consumption. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 12(3), 327-349.Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.14279/depositonce-8355 .

Uwem, E. I., Oyedele, O. O., & Olubiyi, O. T. (2021). Workplace green behaviour for sustainable competitive advantage. In Human Resource Management Practices for Promoting Sustainability (pp. 248-263). Pennsylvania, United States: IGI Global.

Walker, K., Ni, N., & Huo, W. (2014). Is the red dragon green? An examination of the antecedents and consequences of environmental proactivity in China. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(1), 27-43.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1903-z.

Wu, H. C., Cheng, C. C., & Ai, C. H. (2018). An empirical analysis of green switching intentions in the airline industry. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(8), 1438-1468.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1352495.

Yu, Y., Li, X., & Jai, T. M. C. (2017). The impact of green experience on customer satisfaction: Evidence from TripAdvisor. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29(5), 1340-1361.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-07-2015-0371.

Zeng, F., Lee, S. H. N., & Lo, C. K. Y. (2020). The role of information systems in the sustainable development of enterprises: A systematic literature network analysis. Sustainability, 12(8), 3337.Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083337.

Zhang, S., Wang, Z., & Zhao, X. (2019). Effects of proactive environmental strategy on environmental performance: Mediation and moderation analyses. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 1438-1449.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.220.

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), International Journal of Management and Sustainability shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content.