Environmental Science and Pollution Research

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15919-7

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Multidimensional perspective of green financial innovation

between green intellectual capital on sustainable business:
the case of Pakistan
Hafeez Ullah 1 & Zhuquan Wang 1 & Muhammad Mohsin 2 & Weiying Jiang 1 & Hasnain Abbas 3

Received: 14 June 2021 / Accepted: 7 August 2021

# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
This study investigates the multifaceted role of green innovation among green intellectual capitals (GICs) on business sustain-
ability in Pakistan’s manufacturing sector. A quantitative method based on the SEM model on SmartPLS and Stata analysis was
used, which was supplemented by a survey of 800 Pakistani SME sector supply chain-associated participants. The findings
revealed a significant effect of green intellectual capital and green innovation on business sustainability, while structural capital
was found to have a significant moderating effect on the business sustainability of Pakistani firms. It has been determined that the
relationship between GIC and BS has a strong moderation of green innovation. Furthermore, the relationship and impact of GICs
on the business sustainability of Pakistani manufacturing companies were statistically significant, and green innovation played a
moderating role between GIC and business sustainability. Therefore, it has been suggested that Pakistani manufacturing com-
panies participate in eco-innovation to progress business sustainability.

Keywords Green financial innovation . Green intellectual capital . Business sustainability . SEMs Pakistan

Introduction

Green intellectual capital (GIC) research combines compa-

nies’ employee awareness, intellectual material, knowledge,
experience, intellectual property, and information that can be
Responsible Editor: Nicholas Apergis used to create long-term value. The primary stage encom-
passes studies that deal with human resources measurement,
* Hafeez Ullah reporting green human capital and green structural capital and
hafeezullah@stu.ouc.edu.cn; hafeez.2017@hotmail.com
demonstrating their impact on business sustainability and val-
Zhuquan Wang
ue creation (Minoja and Romano, 2021). According to Wang
zhuquanw@ouc.edu.cn et al. (2020a), green intellectual capital (GIC) can be called the
entirety of assets, relationships, knowledge, and intangible
Muhammad Mohsin
m.mohsin3801@yahoo.com capacities of an organization applied to maintain the
environment of the organization. Ullah et al. (2021a) proposed
Weiying Jiang
383482367@qq.com
a robust relationship between GIC and business sustainability,
and the results highlighted a significant relationship in emerg-
Hasnain Abbas ing economies. This study suggests that business sustainabil-
hasnainabbas354@yahoo.com
ity depends on GIC.
1
College of Management, Ocean University of China, Green intellectual capital encourages organizational trans-
Qingdao 266100, China formation, continuity, and achievement in consistently grow-
2
School of Finance and Economics and Jiangsu University, ing industries, and it is a significant measure of a company’s
Zhenjiang, China competitiveness for a knowledge-based economy (Rehman
3
School of Economics and Management, Southeast University, et al. 2021). While green intellectual capital is efficiently in-
Nanjing 210096, China corporated into the enterprise’s actions, it also points towards

advancing extremely innovative or rare services and products
or production methods and the affiliated firm’s strengths
(Zhou et al. 2020). These strengths build upon the firm’s hu-
man capital and other modes where knowledge is mutually
ingrained in the organization holistically. Therefore, indicated
by the improvement in unique innovations, intellectual capital
embodies a crucial foundation of profound innovation.
However, the evidence in Pakistani manufacturing compa-
nies is restricted. Abdal et al. (2018) stated that in future stud-
ies, green innovation could also be tested while their study is
also limited to SMEs; therefore, the researchers suggested
expanding the research to other countries and sectors. Since
the evidence on Chinese manufacturing companies is limited,
the study evaluated the moderating role of eco-innovation
capacity among GICs and business sustainability. Numerous
elements impact a company’s financial performance, includ-
ing intellectual capital, human capital structure, and intangible
assets (Rodgers, 2007). Intellectual capital is also considered
the difference between book value and market value (Ahmad
et al. 2020; Karami and Madlener 2021). In addition, if the
company cannot maintain business, it will soon be left out of
the industry due to increased competition and rapid develop-
ments. Therefore, the sustainability of the business is also
essential for the organization to assure the company’s long-
term existence. However, intellectual capital has a particular
impact on the company’s performance (Gallego-Álvarez and
Pucheta-Martínez 2019). On the other hand, Ullah et al.
(2021b) indicated a significant and robust influence of intel-
lectual capital on company performance; hence, there are con-
flicting findings.
In the context of green innovation’s moderating role, re-
searchers have contradictory ideas about the relationship be-
tween green intellectual capital and the company’s business
performance. Therefore, it is necessary to control the influence
of green intellectual capital on business sustainability. The fast
development of the technology sector has also generated the
requirement for organizations to assimilate technological ad-
vances throughout the business procedure (Heyes, 2018;
Raguseo, 2018). In this regard, this study estimates the re-
straint of green innovation among the relationship of green
intellectual capital and the business sustainability of
Pakistani manufacturing companies. This study will provide
Pakistani manufacturing companies with the improvement of
business sustainability through effective management of green
intellectual capital with the moderation of green innovation.
This research examines the moderating role of green inno-
vation among GICs (green human capital and green structural
capital) on business sustainability in Pakistani manufacturing
companies. The following three research questions have been
addressed.
Q1: Does green innovation (GI) have a significant direct
relationship with business sustainability?
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Q2: Does GI significantly moderate the relationship be-
tween green human capital (GHC) and business
sustainability?
Q3: Does GI significantly moderate the relationship be-
tween green structural capital (GSC) and business
sustainability?
Theoretical foundation and hypotheses
development
The institutional theory has been adopted (directing individ-
uals’ or companies’ social behavior with the establishment of
practice) as the underlying research determines the multidi-
mensional role of green innovation between green intellectual
capital and business sustainability. Green intellectual capital is
a multidimensional paradigm and has been evaluated and
researched in several theories. From the human resource per-
spective, green human capital and green structural capitals are
the most critical business sustainability elements. Researchers
explained that intellectual capital is the accumulated stocks
and flows of valuable skills and knowledge in an organization.
Green human capital concludes a vital role of organizations
that help develop new information in the economy (H. Wang
et al. 2021; Kousar et al. 2017). Yong Wang et al. (2019)
explained intellectual capital as the aggregate stocks and flows
of valuable skills and knowledge within an organization.
Green human capital declares an important component of or-
ganizations that encourage the development of new informa-
tion in the economy. Some researchers have argued that the
significant association between green intellectual capital and
its successor improved performance in firms dealing with
business issues.
This framework is derived from the organization perfor-
mance assessment by the international and organization as-
sessment model (Ullah et al. 2021a), and it consists of orga-
nization motivation, organization capacities, and external en-
vironment. There are four aspects of motivation (i.e., history,
mission, culture, and initiative). An exemplary individual with
a great business background, clear business goals and mission,
encouraging working culture, and a great initiative to change
will have great performance. Business sustainability in this
study is composed of innovativeness, reactiveness, and risk-
taking. The second part, organization capacity, is the enabling
factor that allows an organization to perform the actual work
towards its goals (Cao et al. 2021; Wall et al. 1998). In addi-
tion, the study mentioned above adopted resource-based the-
ory and capital theory, which means that it looks at the re-
sources inserted in one social network and how accessing and
using such resources benefits each individual’s actions. The
view considers that the social structure is pyramidal in terms
of the accessibility and control of such resources. The higher
Environ Sci Pollut Res

the position, the fewer the occupants, and the better the view
of the building.
Intangible resources such as green human capital and green
structural capital generate competitive advantage because they
are rare and complex, so it is not easy to emulate (Khan et al.
2021). Firms gain a competitive advantage through plannings
that utilize their internal strengths while preventing external
threats and avoiding internal weaknesses. Strategic financial
services apply to all companies and are sustainable over time.
The resource-based view (RBV) model sees resources as the
key to robust performance. As such, resource-based theory
emphasizes the critical importance of internal resources for
competitive advantage. Iqbal et al. (2020) argued that corpo-
rate performance is a function of how well the financial man-
agers build their organizations with the resources available
that are important, rare, unpredictable, and ineffective (Fig. 1).
Green human capital
Yusoff et al. (2019) describe GHC as a skill set of a
company’s employees who strategically play a role in improv-
ing productivity. The GHC states the undertaking, creativity,
attitudes, experiences, and competencies of employees to-
wards environmental sustainability or green innovation.
Therefore, employees capable enough to ensure environmen-
tal sustainability in the company’s manufacturing operations
tend to promote the sustainability of the business. That is
because the employees’ enhanced skills and experience will
increase their productivity and contribute to its development.
Yousaf (2021) indicated that green human capital denotes the
ability and expertise of employees. An organization educating
its workers increases its human capital. In this way, the
organization will improve employees’ creativity with in-
creased human capital, contributing to its growth in innova-
tion. In this way, the study’s first hypothesis has been devel-
oped and tested in the context of manufacturing sectors in
emerging economies, especially in Pakistan (Zhang et al.,
2021). This hypothesis is provided below:
H1: Green human capital (GHC) significantly affects
business sustainability.
Green structural capital
In prior studies, GSC refers to trademarks, copyrights, patents,
company images, organizational culture, management philos-
ophies, company commitment, environmental protection, and
green innovation competencies. Some researchers argued that
green structural capital comprises the non-human assets of an
organization, such as intangible assets that include organiza-
tional charts, catalogues, technological characteristics, process
instruction, and approaches as intangible assets. This notion
provides the company with a focus on sustainable product
development along with green manufacturing practices. In this
way, the company manages to increase business performance
with the help of environmental sustainability (Yusliza et al.
2020; Fernando et al. 2019). In addition, the shortage of GSC
significantly negatively influences the company’s perfor-
mance because it restricts the adoption of environmentally
sustainable exercises. Yong et al. (2019) reported the positive
effect of GSC on business sustainability. Consequently, the
second hypothesis is established to observe the effect of green

Figure 1 Hypothesis details


structural capital on business sustainability in Pakistani
companies.
H2: Green structural capital (GHC) significantly affects
business sustainability.
Green innovation and business sustainability (BS)
Green innovation exists when a company introduces a new
product, service, or process to meet the needs of its stake-
holders. In the previous studies, Cao et al. (2021) and
Hilkenmeier et al. (2020) developed the dynamic capabilities
perspective as an extension of the resource-based view, stating
that a company’s unique capabilities and resources represent
the important assets to build and sustain its competitive ad-
vantage. Green innovation depends on technological practice
and the benefits of green technology (Hasan et al., 2020).
Green innovation can significantly lower costs and provide
the opportunity to improve business performance, while
recycling practices positively affect business performance
(Khan et al. 2021).
Sustainable development exists when a firm implements
proactive approaches to meet its stakeholders’ objectives and
wishes and simultaneously considers the future generation
(Barbieri and Santos 2020). The concept of sustainability
was defined previously as fulfilling economic and social needs
without harming the ecological environment (Zhou et al.
2020). In some prior studies, business sustainability focuses
on achieving three distinct goals (i.e., economic, environmen-
tal, and social performance). Huang et al. (2021) added that
the sustainability concept emphasizes meeting business objec-
tives and human wellbeing. The above sustainability defini-
tions indicate that firms should not merely concentrate on
increasing shareholders’ wealth, but they have to consider
the influence of their business operations on employees, soci-
ety, and the environment as well (Hossain 2021). The advan-
tages of sustainability practices will eventually be translated
through improved earnings, higher product quality, brand sat-
isfaction, organizational commitment, improved brand image,
government support, cost-saving from sustainable logistics,
supply chain, minimal environmental liability, and legislation
costs (Paiola et al. 2021; Belmonte-Ureña et al. 2021).
H3: The effect of green innovation (GI) on business sus-
tainability (BS) is significant and positive.
Some previous studies have suggested a significant effect
of green innovation, recycling efforts, and environmental pol-
icy management on corporate performance. Green innovation
within sustainable business models has become an exciting
area of research, but it is affected by a high failure rate due
to the lack of consistent and efficient approaches (Ortiz, 2020;
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Cao et al. 2021). Wang and Yang (2021) further illustrated
that dynamic capabilities help organizations increase the re-
sults of their business performance and strengthen their com-
petitiveness (Hussain et al. 2019; Malmi and Brown 2008)
and reported that companies could improve their business
growth through product and process innovations. Madsen
(2020) also considered marketing innovation a key capability
that positively affects business growth and survival. However,
this paper focuses on four different forms of innovation (i.e.,
product innovation, process innovation, service innovation,
and marketing innovation) to test their effects on business
sustainability. In general, the previous literature testified that
innovation represents a valuable strategy to improve company
performance and achieve business sustainability (Chien et al.
2021; Shang and Sun 2021).
Also, Yousaf (2021) and Borsatto and Bazani (2020) con-
firmed that innovative corporations tend to generate better
market positions. Product innovation is conceptualized in the
literature as the ability of a company to offer a new or im-
proved product or service that can meet the target market’s
needs (Ying Wang and Yang 2021). Chien et al. (2021) indi-
cated that successful SME entrepreneurs regularly analyze
their capabilities and customer perceptions of their products
and services and emphasize introducing new offerings from
time to time to meet market needs and ensure success. This
hypothesis is provided below:
H4: Green innovation (GI) moderates the relationship
between green human capital (GHC) and business sus-
tainability significantly and positively.
The GSC capital is the logo and copyright of the organiza-
tion that demonstrates the company’s support towards the sus-
tainability of the environment. It is because the appearance of
the company or the message conveyed by the company
through the logo aids to grow the perception of clients towards
the brand (Foroudi et al. 2021). In this manner, it generates the
requirement for the companies to assure a productive appear-
ance that could support and foster the sustainable practices of
manufacturing products. Therefore, there is a huge role of GI
on the GSC of the company. Because of this motive,
organizations with the support of GI can assure effective
GSC and its attitude and beliefs. The performance of the
company is increased in this regard while increasing the
sustainability of the business. It has been highlighted by
Ullah et al. (2021a) that the green innovation of the organiza-
tion moderates the corporation of GSC and the sustainability
of the business.
Consequently, the hypothesis has been developed for test-
ing the moderation of green innovation of the firms operating
in the manufacturing sector of Pakistan about the association
between GSC and business sustainability. However, GI plays
a crucial role in the company’s GSC. Hence, companies with
Environ Sci Pollut Res
the help of GI can guarantee an influential GSC and its attitude
and beliefs. The performance of the company increases in this
regard while increasing the sustainability of the business.
According to Ullah et al. (2021b), green innovation moderates
the GSC partnership and business sustainability. Therefore,
the hypothesis has been developed for testing the moderation
of green innovation of companies operating in Pakistan’s
manufacturing sector in partnership between GSC and busi-
ness sustainability. The hypothesis is presented below:
H5: Green innovation (GI) moderates the relationship
between green structural capital (GSC) and business sus-
tainability significantly and positively.
Theoretical model
Build on hypothesis formulation, and the following model has
been recommended in manufacturing companies operating in
Pakistan. As depicted in the conceptual model, GIC is the
independent variable. Two dimensions were considered inde-
pendently (i.e., GHC and GSC). Green innovation (GI) (the
moderating variable) was analyzed on business sustainability
(IG) (the dependent variable). GIC as an element has also been
encouraged in research (Fig. 2) (Ullah et al. 2021a).
Methodology
Research method and participants
This section outlines the various aspects of the researcher’s
methodology. A quantitative design is employed. Dai et al.
(2020) assumed that employing quantitative data offers sig-
nificant proof to the research, adding to its effectiveness.
Hence, an analytical approach has been used to gauge partic-
ular prevalent ideas, which have also been outlined in the prior
section’s hypotheses. Hsieh and Tsai ( 2007) and Carmona-
Figure 2 Conceptual model.
Source: (Yong et al. 2019; Ullah
et al. 2021b; Wang et al. 2020b)
Lavado et al. (2010) declared that already characterized ideas
are mostly examined in deductive studies. Hence, this study
will encourage employees and stakeholders, especially in the
emerging economy.
Moreover, the ideology adopted in this study is optimism,
so the study’s nature is founded on objectivism, a concept that
has already been outlined. The overall justification for
employing quantitative data is also encouraged by (Foroudi
et al. 2021; Sharma and Iyer 2012). On the other hand, Cantù
(2010) used the SEM model to determine the impact of IC and
IP on SMEs in Jordan. Other studies by Lascaux (2020) and
Huang et al. (2021) adopted a similar SEM technique to as-
certain the effect of intellectual capital on SMEs’ performance
in Pakistan. Data used for the present study was collected from
managers and employees of various SMEs in Pakistan. The
previous part contributes a thorough review of previous liter-
ature, based on which the researcher has also developed a
conceptual framework of the study. However, this section is
devoted to highlighting the key methods and techniques that
the researcher pursued to accomplish the primary goal, which
was to study the effect of moderating GI capacity on the rela-
tionship between intellectual corporate sustainability and
green capital (Ahmed et al. 2020).
The researcher used a quantitative approach to attain
the central study purposes. The main rationale for opting
for the quantitative research design is related to the nature
of the study, as it requires research on a larger audience or
a larger sample. This study also desires additional data or
numerical and factual proof to ascertain the relationship
between the determined variables. Therefore, a quantita-
tive method was considered more appropriate for this
study. On the other hand, the researcher used primary
sources to collect quantitative data. Since one of the key
objectives of this study was to make a valuable addition
to the existing literature, the researcher opted for the pri-
mary data collection method because it allows the re-
searcher to collect raw data. In this way, the researcher
collected the data via a survey questionnaire from

Table 1 Construct/items used in the research questionnaire
Construct Definition
Green The green innovation stands on the summation GHC1: The sustainability of the business
human of employees’ skills, capabilities, knowledge,
capital experience, wisdom, creativity, attitude, and
commitments
Green The stocks of a company’s interactive
structural relationships with customers, suppliers,
capital network members, and partners about
corporate environmental management and
green innovation enable it to create fortunes
and obtain a competitive advantage
Green This can be ensured with the green innovation GPI1: To carry out company operations, the
innova- capabilities of the company as to how the
tion company is well able to integrate the
shareholders in the business operations. We GPI1: Use of green innovation is helping
focus on green product innovation and green
process innovation
Business The advancement of technology had made it
sustain- essential for companies to ensure
ability technological advancement in the entire
process of business sustainability
employees working in Pakistan’s manufacturing sector.
This study allowed the researcher to collect more
appropriate and authentic data on the research subject.
The choice of sampling technique is considered another
vital part of the data collection method. Ullah et al. (2021a)
state that the notion of sampling technique can be considered a
particular procedure by which several sample organizations
are chosen. The sampling technique that was followed in this
study was convenience sampling to extract the sample from
the general study population. The convenience sampling
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Measurement item Adopted from
Fernando et al. 2019; Pringles et al.
environment depends on the intellectual skills 2020
enhancement is instrumental in increasing the
motivation of the employees
GHC2: Organization has mentoring programs
aimed towards developing work-related
green intellectual skills
GHC3: With respect to achieving sustainability
of the business, green human capital is
helpful
GSC1: The sustainable actions of the Yusliza et al. 2020 ; Wang et al.
organization are important for the positivity 2020a
and reputation of the company
GSC1: The green structural capital assumption
motivates to create a perception among the
minds of consumers
GSC2: The green structural capital tools used
for dense networks, or bonding ties, help
preserve or maintain resources
GSC3: The green structural capital is necessary
for business sustainability and performance
with respect to the company’s capabilities
Schivardi et al. 2017 ; Chien et al.
incorporation of technology is helpful related 2021 ; Du and Li 2019
to environmental sustainability
individuals gain accessibility
GPI2: Green innovation and green technologies
are helping individuals get and store
information digitally
GPI3: Individuals can access any supplier
through its web pages to have knowledge of
the green innovation
GPI4: Green innovation reduces business cost
and time-saving
BS1: Sustainability of business is essential for Hsieh and Tsai 2007;
the company to make certain long-term Carmona-Lavado et al. 2010; De
performance Silva et al. 2020; Ullah et al.
BS2: Sustainability of business supports the 2021a; Shahzad et al. 2021c
company to participate effectively in the
industry
BS3: Sustainability enlarges the revenue of the
company, as sustainable products largely
influence consumers
BS4: Sustainability increases the profitability
and reputation of the industry
technique is mostly used when the researcher determines all
the people in a sample who are readily available (Hou et al.
2019; Chege and Wang 2020). The fewer complications asso-
ciated with the convenience sampling method were the main
reason for choosing this technique. In this way, the sample
size or the number of respondents in this research was 800,
which allowed the researcher to collect complete data on the
various variables of the study, ultimately enabling the key
research objectives to be achieved. The survey questionnaire
finding aid includes different closed-ended questions on four
Environ Sci Pollut Res
important variables from this study, which were examined
applying the 5-point Likert scale between strongly disagree
and strongly agree.
Harman’s single element has been applied, taking the prin-
cipal component analysis on Stata to examine the CBM in the
data, clarifying the high or low variation of the data. Ullah
et al. (2021b) advised a 50% threshold for Harman’s test,
which suggests that if the value is above 50%, the CMB matter
is shown in the data and considered in the examination.
Harman’s single element assessment declared that the total
variance is evaluated to be 30.45%, which is below the thresh-
old of 50%, and consequently, the hypothesized items are
related to the element determined in this study. Therefore,
CBM was not found in the data.
Construct measurements
Table 1 shows the statements utilized for all the designated
items in the research questionnaire. As mentioned to
completely construct variables, all selected items were authen-
ticated by the prior studies.
Ethical consideration
Some critical ethical aspects have been considered in this
study. During the data collection process, it has been assured
that all the study respondents must have a complete under-
standing of the question and the primary purpose of
interviewing to receive informed consent. The anonymity
and confidentiality of research participants have also been
ensured by keeping the respondents anonymous and
confidential.
Data analysis and results
Table 2 describes the participants’ sociodemographic charac-
teristics; 447 (55.875%) were males, and 353 (444.125%)
were females. According to age, 130 (16.25%) were at the
age of 18 to 25; 553 (69.125%) was at the age of 26 to 40;
and 117 (14.625%) were at the age of 41 to 60. The work
experience declared that 86 (10.75%) had one year experi-
ence, 536 (67%) 37–72 have 5-year experience, and 177
(22.125%) over 5 years of experience. As it can be seen,
134 (36.41%) were from the textile industry; 43 (11.68%)
were from feed; 32 (8.695%) chemical products; 22
(5.978%) were from motor vehicles, oil, or energy industry;
10 (2.717%) were from information and communication ser-
vices; and 11 (2.989%) were from fuel and energy industry
(Tables 3 and 4).
Measurement model
It can be seen in Tables 5 and 6 to analyze the data collected,
and the researcher used the SEM method on SmartPLS.
According to the study by Z. Wang et al. (2020) and Karami
and Madlener (2021), the SEM approach is possibly one of
the key convenient and efficient procedures to measure the
most complex models involving different variables. SEM is
a frequently used approach to measure the structural relation-
ship between variables while examining confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) and regression. Apart from this, composite
reliability and Cronbach’s alpha is considered two further es-
sential factors of the AFC that measure the model’s reliability
by evaluating internal consistency.
On the other hand, the researcher also carried out a
measure of the mean extracted variance (AVE) to ensure
the latent constructs’ convergent validity. In order to ex-
amine the result, firstly, the reliability of each variable has
been examined by employing Cronbach’s alpha. A study
from Y. Wang and Yang (2021) and Abbasi et al. (2021)
outlines that the threshold level for the reliability or spec-
ificity of Cronbach’s alpha spreads between 0.6 and 0.7.
In this instance, the study variables can be acknowledged
as reliable, as all alphas are more than 0.6, such that GHC
has 0.773, GSC has 756, GI has .891, and BS has 0.854.
Concerning factor loadings, a study by Hair and Sarstedt
(2021) stated that the acceptable value is 0.7, whereas a
study by Yusoff et al. (2019) referred to an existing study
by Ullah et al. (2021a), where it is outlined that 0.5 is also
an acceptable value—this is also backed by Abbas et al.
(2021a). Factor loadings have been calculated to be higher
than 0.5, hence verifying the convergent validity. In light
of this, it is also essential to report the AVE of the model,
which should be higher than 0.5, as outlined by Anwar
et al. (2021).
HTMT ratio and Fornell-Larcker criterion value
HTMT ratio and Fornell-Larcker criterion value can be
seen in Tables 7 and 8; currently, it has been highlighted
by (Henseler, Ringle & Sarstedt, 2015) that the Heterotrait-
monotrait ratio of the correlations (HTMT) method to es-
timate discriminant validity. The absence of discriminant
validity has been considered if the value of the HTMT is
greater than this threshold. Several scholars highlight a
threshold of 0.85 (Kline 2011), besides some recommend
a value of 0.90 (Teo and Noyes 2010). HTMT values
smaller than 1 describe that the true relationship between
the two constructs should be changed. For analyzing the
distinctiveness among the latent constructs, discriminant
validity is considered applying the HTMT ratio. Wang
(2011) explained that the value of the HTMT ratio should
be less than 0.85; likewise, the performance might be
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 2 Demographics on
investigated statistics Item Characteristics Frequency Percent

Gender Male 447 55.875

Female 353 44.125
Age 18–25 130 16.25
26–40 553 69.125
41–60 117 14.625
Education Matric 385 48.125
Bachelor 206 25.75
Master 141 17.625
PhD 67 8.375
Experience 2 years 86 10.75
5 years 536 67
Above 5 years 177 22.125
SMES Textile 134 36.41
Spinning, weaving, finishing of textile 119 32.33
Make-up textile articles 4 1.086
Other textiles 11 2.989
Sugar 29 7.88
Feed 16 4.347
Chemical, chemical products 43 11.68
Manufacturing 32 8.695
Mineral products 9 2.445
Cement 17 4.619
Motor vehicles 18 4.891
Fuel and energy 22 5.978
Information, communication, and transportation services 11 2.989
Coke and refined petroleum products 10 2.717
Paper, paperboards, and products 9 2.445
Electrical machinery and apparatus 7 1.902
Other sectors 10 2.717

affected by the cause of multicollinearity. Respectively,
the results presented in Table 5 highlight that nothing of
the values exceeds the prescribed threshold of 0.85.
Consequently, discriminant validity is found.
Researchers argue discriminant validity by two
benchmarks: Fornell-Larcker and HTMT ratio. Fornell-
Larcker is a traditional method, and outcomes reasoned
that the square root of AVE was higher than correlation
values between it and all other constructs (M. Shahzad
et al. 2020).

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and

correlation matrix N mean SD 1 2 3 4

Business sustainability 799 3.504 0.772 1

Green human capital 799 3.669 0.79 0.271*** 1
Green structural capital 799 3.561 0.902 0.296*** 0.0837* 1
Green innovation 799 6.469 1.911 0.515*** 0.0955** 0.262*** 1

t statistics in parentheses
*
p < 0.05
**
p < 0.01
***
p < 0.001
N number of observations, SD standard deviation
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 4 Full collinearity

estimates Full collinearity estimates Green innovation Green structure capital Green human capital

VIF 1.08 1.078 1.013

Score 0.926 0.928 0.987

Note this shows for all the latent variables; dummy latent variable criterion has been used. VIF equal to or greater
than 10 suggests collinearity

Structural model Additional robustness test

The study implemented by Vinzi et al. (2010) explained that
restarting could be considered an experimenting method.
Accordingly, the analyses have been highlighted in Table 9.
This trend is consistent in the present findings as the impact of
GHC is positive and statistically significant on the business sus-
tainability of manufacturing organizations of Pakistan [Coef.=
0.248; p-value= 0.000]. Moreover, the effect of GSC is also
statistically positive and significant [Coef.= 0.311; p-value=
0.000] Respectively, the moderator, GI, is seen to have a positive
and significant influence [Coef.= 0.248; p-value= 0.000] on the
sustainability of Pakistan manufacturing industries.
According to moderation, GI is declared to significantly
moderate the association between GSC and business sustain-
ability [Coef.= 0.152; p-value= 0.004] (Figs. 3 and 4).
Although, the significant relationship highlights that traditional
association management techniques would be better for
Pakistani manufacturing industries. The relationship between
GHC and the business sustainability of the manufacturing or-
ganizations working in Pakistan is insignificantly and positively
moderated by GI [Coef.= 0.152; p-value= 0.595]. The positive
effect explains that complete development in the green intellec-
tual capital would benefit the business’s high sustainability.
Although, the positive Moderation of GI between sustainability
and structural capital shows that the structure can be developed
with the help of integrating green financial innovation in the
networks for achieving long-run sustainability regarding
Pakistan's manufacturing industries (Table 10).
As shown in the robust outcome regression analysis in
Table 11, we found the same outcome in path assessment. In
robust analysis, there is a strong effect GHC is statistically
positive and significant about business sustainability of
manufacturing organizations of Pakistan p-value= 0.000<
0.01. The effect of GSC is also statistically positive and sig-
nificant; p-value= 0.000< 0.01, while GSC also has affect
business sustainability positively p-value= 0.000< 0.01. In
furtherance, the moderator, GI, is developed to have a positive
and significant influence and p-value= 0.000< 0.01 on the
sustainability of Pakistan manufacturing organizations.
According to moderation, GI is developed to significantly
moderate the relationship between GSC and business sustain-
ability significantly p-value= 0.000< 0.01, although the rela-
tionship is negative that shows that traditional association ad-
ministration techniques would be improved for Pakistan
manufacturing organizations. The positive moderation of
green innovation capability among GHC and sustainability
suggests as the formation could be redesigned with the help
of integrating GI in the systems for attaining long-run sustain-
ability concerning Pakistan manufacturing companies.
Testing moderation using Jeremy-Dawson model
The study has precisely applied bilateral cooperation’s where
the three independent variables have been served beside the
moderators separately, and accordingly, all depictions have

Table 5 Measurement criteria

Measurement criteria Recommended Source

Factor loading .70≥ Sharma and Iyer 2012

Composite reliability .60≥ Ahmad et al. 2020
Cronbach’s alpha .70≥ Wang et al. 2020b
Average variance extracted .50> Ma et al. 2018
HTMT ratio .85< M. Shahzad et al. 2020
VIF 5< Shahzad et al. 2021a
CBM .50<. Ullah et al. 2021b
Dimensionality 1.00> Mohammadi and Mahmoodi 2019
Fornell-Larcker criterion AVE=<
Likert scale 5 (Asadi et al. 2020) ; Ullah et al. 2021b
 Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 6 Measurement model

Variables Item Loadings AVE Cronbach’s alpha CR Dimensionality

Green human capital GHC1 0.758*** 0.691 0.773 0.87 1

GHC2 0.853***
GHC3 0.877***
Green structural capital GSC1 0.715** 0.675 0.756 0.861 1
GSC2 0.877***
GSC3 0.864***
Green innovation GPI1 0.859*** 0.753 0.891 0.924 1
GPI2 0.873***
GPI3 0.869***
GPI4 0.869***
Business sustainability BS1 0.794*** 0.696 0.854 0.901 1
BS2 0.846***
BS3 0.861***
BS4 0.834***

been presented (Wang et al. 2020a). Consequently, this has
been taken to explain the moderating influence of all the in-
dependent variables with the moderator. In the context of the
independent variable, which are GHC and GSC, the graphical
results have been presented as follows (Fig. 5):
Discussion
The findings above portray that each form of green intellectual
capital considered here acts differently. In this regard, it can be
noticed that green human capital does not reflect any differ-
entiating patterns in its association with green innovations;
hence, the relationship between green intellectual capital
(GIC), green innovation (GI), and business sustainability
(BS) tracks a linear pattern, whereas proportional increases
in business sustainability. Employees’ skills and experiences
were accessed regarding green intellectual capital, including
essential skill sets, creative ability, and relevant experience.
These three factors are mostly used in the literature when
scholars try to examine employees’ attributes. Degree of ex-
pertise is another significant element of green intellectual cap-
ital, which offers useful information to gain high-level intel-
lectual capital; the current research, in particular, employed
the element taken into account by Zhang et al. (2019).
Ultimately, employees’ creativity plays a vital contribution
towards a company’s green innovation process, and in this
way, one element pointing towards the advancement of novel
concepts and knowledge was added to the measurement scale.
Information on technological capital is linked to the knowl-
edge level for technology, utility, patent use, and R&D ex-
penses (Menéndez Blanco and Montes-Botella 2017). In re-
verse, to expectations, the association between this sort of
green intellectual capital and business sustainability signifies
that although employees’ idea generation, experience, and
creativity can be considered as hurdles in advancing towards
radical innovations, once a certain extent of green human cap-
ital is approached, the scientific evidence proposes that the
presence of this “critical” extent or “saturation point” of hu-
man capital is not so clear. A potential description is that
factors like employees’ idea generation, talent, creativity, abil-
ities, and previous experience contribute towards green inno-
vation instead of being hurdles and offer businesses the much-
needed diversity to modify their behaviors and become more
hands-on with innovation (Shahzad et al. 2021b).
Firms in the modern business atmosphere are more open to
green innovation and business sustainability. It holds that
competition is escalating, and organizations need more novel
products and services while enhancing processes and methods
to obtain optimal efficiency (Ullah et al. 2021a). The rising

Table 7 Fornell-Larcker criterion value Table 8 TMT ratio to

test discriminant validity GHC ↔ GSC 0.122
1 2 3 4
GHC ↔ GI 0.127
Green human capital (GHC) 0.831 GHC ↔ BS 0.344
Green structural capital (GSC) 0.084 0.822 GSC ↔ GI 0.331
Green innovation (GI) 0.108 0.272 0.868 GSC ↔ BS 0.376
Business sustainability ( BS) 0.273 0.313 0.542 0.834 GI ↔ BS 0.604
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 9 Hypothesis testing

without moderator Measurement item Coef. Std.Err. t-value p-value Sign

GHC→BS 0.248 0.042 5.85 0.000*** ***

GSC→BS 0.311 0.07 4.41 0.000*** ***
GI→BS 0.317 0.042 7.6 0.000*** ***
Log pseudo-likelihood −13525.3 R-squared 0.338 F-test 135.357
F-test 135.357 Prob > F 0.000***
AIC 1531.182 BIC 1549.916

***p<0.01, **p<0.05, *p<0.

competition, coupled with increasing complications in the
work atmosphere, has made it more important to build a dis-
tinct rank in the industry, and it has been observed that this
aim can be fulfilled well with innovation. At present, the larg-
est and most productive assets for companies are the intangi-
ble ones (Waseem et al. 2018; Abbas et al. 2021b). These
include human capital, brand value, and customer relation-
ships; these are crucial for companies in the modern environ-
ment, and great efforts are being employed to achieve im-
proved GIC, which would eventually be optimized for im-
proved effectiveness and performance. In terms of this GIC,
it is also clear that GHC and GSC are significant for busi-
nesses Sustainability, and they must pay close attention to
these prospects to guarantee growth and success (Umeair
et al., 2020; Li et al. 2021).
Theoretical contribution and managerial implication
The findings of this study also carry out huge theoretical im-
plications, as it makes a new contribution to the existing liter-
ature. The social exchange theory offers a valuable perspec-
tive for investigating the combined effects of global supply
chain management and green intellectual capital. This theory
posits that supply chain partners exchange resources through
relationship exchange, and the company’s behavior in a sup-
ply chain can be explained through social and business inter-
actions (Mohsin et al. 2021; Yao et al. 2020). The primary
findings of this study validated and further extended the con-
cept of social exchange theory by identifying the positive and
significant correlation between green relational capital (GRC)
and business sustainability, which implies a company through
developing a positive relationship with green suppliers. It can
achieve its goals of business sustainability. The researcher
argued a vital requirement to adopt a green approach like GI
and GIC to resolve the environmental and business issue. The
improvement of the implementation of GIC has been
appreciated by prior studies such as Ullah et al. (2021b) and
Huang et al. (2021). Hence, the association between GIC and
business sustainability (BS) has yet to be identified mainly in
Pakistan. Although, this research covers this gap by inspecting
the effect of GIC dimensions, namely GHC, GSC and GI, on
BS. Firstly, the findings showed that GHC and BS have a
robust significant correlation. This study contradicts past
research like those Rehman et al. (2021) and Zafar et al.
(2021). Other prior studies found that there is an important
contribution of GHC about different business sustainability
(Shahzad et al. 2021a).
Most prior studies emphasized which SME organizations
limited resources and had less motivation in environmental
management and business sustainability. Additionally, several
organizations, especially SMEs, tend to neglect the innovative
concept of GI and GIC on BS. Secondly, GSC was found to
have a significant and positive association with BS in the
perspective of without moderator. Thirdly GI also found a
robust and positive association BS. Finally, in the moderator
perspective, we found a positive and insignificant association
between GHC and BS, while on the other part, we found a
significant and negative association between GSC and BS.

Table 10 Hypothesis
measurement with the help of Measurement item Coef. Std.Err. t- p>z Hypotheses Exp. sign
moderator value

H1 :GHC→BS 0.134 0.101 1.33 0.183 Not supported +

H2: GSC→BS 0.404 0.1 4.03 0.000*** Supported +
H3: GI→BS 0.607 0.071 8.56 0.000*** Supported +
H4: GHC*GI→BS 0.152 0.286 0.53 0.595 Not supported +
H5: GSC*GI→BS −0.85 0.293 −2.9 0.004*** Supported +

Figure 3 Without moderator measurement model
Respectively, previous researchers have identified the contri-
bution of GHC, GSC, and GI on business sustainability. This
conclusion is associated with the results of a previous study
(Yusoff et al. 2019; Yusliza et al. 2020; Ullah and Wang
2021).
Therefore, it is vital for the company’s top management to
emphasize developing GHC to accomplish their desired re-
sults related to business sustainability. For that purpose, com-
panies can consider offering green training activities to their
employees to increase their awareness and develop more
green human capital. Apart from that, the study’s finding re-
garding the significant impact of GHC and GSC on business
sustainability also carries out huge managerial implications.
As per these findings, companies must develop relational
Figure 4 With moderator
measurement model
Environ Sci Pollut Res
capital with their suppliers to achieve business sustainability
goals. For that purpose, employees must provide training to
create a culture of respect in supplier management.
In addition, it is also challenging to encourage society to
participate in green innovation and green intellectual capital
and improve business and environmental sustainability.
Experience has shown that the results of implementing such
reforms are uncertain, and it may be difficult for policymakers
and enterprises to obtain public consent. It is necessary to
formulate relevant policies to support scientific research to
obtain and maintain public support for change. Legislation
and investment will encourage more people to invest in green
innovation technology for business sustainability. However,
to obtain and maintain government support, changes are made
Environ Sci Pollut Res

Table 11 Robustness analysis

Business sustainability Model 1 Model 2
Without Interaction With interaction

Green human capital 0.215 0.0869

−0.0281 −0.1
Green structural capital 0.125 0.399
−0.0254 −0.0997
Green innovation 0.179 0.281
−0.012 −0.0353
Interaction effect Yes
Green innovation × green human capital 0.318
−0.285
Green innovation × green structural capital −0.887
−0.292
Constant 1.141 1.297
−0.139 −0.145
Observations 799 799
R-squared 0.333 0.346
F-test 132.29 83.87

to achieve business sustainability. It should not make the lives
of socially and economically disadvantaged people more dif-
ficult or expensive. It takes time to prove and build confidence
in these issues, but there is also an urgent need for intense
action to leading business sustainability in Pakistan.
Conclusion and policy implications
This work assessed the association between GIC and busi-
ness sustainability and the moderating effect of GI over
this association. A quantitative research design was

Figure 5 Moderating effect of GHC and GSC


followed, where the primary data was gathered through a
survey questionnaire, which was then analyzed through an
SEM technique based on CFA analysis—to ensure the
validity and reliability of the model—and path evaluation,
to verify the model. All latent constructs were definitive,
such as Cronbach’s alpha’s value and composite reliabil-
ity, which was determined higher than 0.7. In addition,
the outcomes of AVE also determined the validity of ev-
ery latent construct, as all the variables were found below
0.5. The considerable literature has permitted us to deter-
mine some important factors of green intellectual capital
that can influence business sustainability. Additionally,
some significant GIC elements declared in this study in-
clude green human capital and green structural capital.
The elements were also described in the conceptual
framework, which has been analyzed on business
sustainability.
Following the finding of this study, all the variables,
including green human capital and green structural capi-
tal, are found to have a significant impact on business
sustainability, as the p-value of all of these variables is
considered less than 0.005. It is a great need for busi-
nesses to begin investing in their green intellectual capital
through training sessions, skill improvement, and career
advancement chances.
& Additionally, green intellectual capital ought to be a suit-
able distribution of resources since it can be a hurdle and
lead to growth and success.
& A business’s ability to innovate is exceptionally crucial
and can be considered an essential factor in SME growth
and business sustainability
& The companies working in the manufacturing sector of
Pakistan are also advised to increase awareness among
their employees to align their goals with the organization’s
goals to achieve sustainability. In addition, it is also the
government’s responsibility to initiate the programs in
which employees are provided with the training.
Accordingly, businesses can develop more awareness
among their employees and increase overall business
sustainability.
& Considering these contributions, SMEs and owners
should enhance and build a direction to enhance business
performance. Owners of SMEs can aid the innovation
process by offering a technologically improved working
atmosphere
This framework can be applied to small and medium busi-
nesses with various manufacturing, trading, or service activi-
ties. Also, it can be employed in various countries under vary-
ing scenarios. Elaborate reading of existing research can point
Environ Sci Pollut Res
towards additional strategic resources, contributing signifi-
cantly to SME performance.
Author contribution Hafeez Ullah: conceptualization, data curation,
methodology, and writing—original draft. Wang Zhuquan: data curation
and supervision. Muhammad Mohsin: visualization and editing proof-
reading. Hasnain Abbas: review and editing. Weiying Jiang: review and
editing.
Data availability The data that support the findings of this work are
available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate We declared that we do not
have human participants, human data, or human tissue.
Consent for publication We do not have any individual person’s data in
any form.
Competing interest The authors declare no competing interests.
References
Abbas A, Khan IA, Yahya M, Akram MW, Sanwal AK, Ullah H (2021a)
Impact of advertising on brand image evidence from Southern
Punjab Pakistan. J Int Bus Manag Stud 2(1):33–43
Abbas MG, Wang Z, Bashir S, Iqbal W, Ullah H (2021b) Nexus between
energy policy and environmental performance in China: the moder-
ating role of green finance adopted firms. Environ Sci Pollut Res.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15195-5
Abbasi KR, Shahbaz M, Jiao Z, Tufail M (2021) How energy consump-
tion, industrial growth, urbanization, and CO2 emissions affect eco-
nomic growth in Pakistan? A novel dynamic ARDL simulations
approach. Energy 221:119793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.
2021.119793
Abdal rahman Abdallah Abdal Rahman Al-Omri, AR (2018) Social di-
mensions of adolescents' use of social media: A descriptive study on
a sample of secondary school students in Jeddah. J King Abdulaziz
Univ: Arts and Humanit 26(3):139-171. https://doi.org/10.4197/art.
26-3.6
Ahmad N, Zhu Y, Shao J, Lin H (2020) Stakeholders’ perspective on
strategies to promote contaminated site remediation and brownfield
redevelopment in developing countries: empirical evidence from
Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(13):14614–14633. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11356-020-07990-3
Ahmed Z, Asghar MM, Malik MN, Nawaz K (2020) Moving towards a
sustainable environment: the dynamic linkage between natural re-
sources, human capital, urbanization, economic growth, and ecolog-
ical footprint in China. Res Policy 67(April):101677. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101677
Anwar MN, Shabbir M, Tahir E, Iftikhar M, Saif H, Tahir A, Murtaza
MA, Khokhar MF, Rehan M, Aghbashlo M, Tabatabaei M, Nizami
A-S (2021) Emerging challenges of air pollution and particulate
matter in China, India, and Pakistan and mitigating solutions. J
Hazard Mater 416 (August 2020):125851. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhazmat.2021.125851
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Asadi S, OmSalameh Pourhashemi S, Nilashi M, Abdullah R, Samad S,
Yadegaridehkordi E, Aljojo N, Razali NS (2020) Investigating in-
fluence of green innovation on sustainability performance: a case on
Malaysian hotel industry. J Clean Prod 258:120860. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120860
Barbieri R, Santos DFL (2020) Sustainable business models and eco-
innovation: a life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 266:121954.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121954
Belmonte-Ureña LJ, Plaza-Úbeda JA, Vazquez-Brust D, Yakovleva N
(2021) Circular economy, degrowth and green growth as pathways
for research on sustainable development goals: a global analysis and
future agenda. Ecol Econ 185(April):107050. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107050
Borsatto JMLS, Bazani CL (2020) Green innovation and environmental
regulations: a systematic review of international academic works.
Environ Sci Pollut Res, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-
11379-7
Cantù C (2010) Exploring the role of spatial relationships to transform
knowledge in a business idea - beyond a geographic proximity. Ind
Mark Manag 39(6):887–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.
2010.06.008
Cao J, Law SH, RahimA, Abdul B, Norhidayah W, Mohamad BW,
Wang J, Yang X (2021). Impact of financial development and tech-
nological innovation on the volatility of green growth — evidence
from China.
Carmona-Lavado A, Cuevas-Rodríguez G, Cabello-Medina C (2010)
Social and organizational capital: building the context for innova-
tion. Ind Mark Manag 39(4):681–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2009.09.003
Chege SM, Wang D (2020) The influence of technology innovation on
SME performance through environmental sustainability practices in
Kenya. Technol Soc 60:101210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.
2019.101210
Chien F, Chau KY, Ady SU, Zhang YQ, Tran QH, Aldeehani TM (2021)
Does the combining effects of energy and consideration of financial
development lead to environmental burden: social perspective of
energy finance? Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:40957–40970. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13423-6
Dai J, Che W, Lim JJ, Shou Y (2020) Service innovation of cold chain
logistics service providers: a multiple-case study in China. Ind Mark
Manag 89(December 2018):143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2019.08.002
De Silva M, Khan Z, Vorley T, Zeng J (2020) Transcending the pyramid:
opportunity co-creation for social innovation. Ind Mark Manag
89(December 2019):471–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2019.12.001
Du K, Li J (2019) Towards a green world: How do green technology
innovations affect total-factor carbon productivity. Energy Policy
131(December 2018):240–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2019.04.033
Fernando Y, Chiappetta Jabbour CJ, Wah WX (2019) Pursuing green
growth in technology firms through the connections between envi-
ronmental innovation and sustainable business performance: does
service capability matter? Resources. Conserv Recycl
141(July 2018):8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.
031
Foroudi P, Akarsu TN, Marvi R, Balakrishnan J (2021) Intellectual evo-
lution of social innovation: a bibliometric analysis and avenues for
future research trends. Ind Mark Manag 93(April 2020):446–465.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.03.026
Gallego‐Álvarez I, Pucheta‐Martínez MC (2019) Corporate social re-
sponsibility reporting and corporate governance mechanisms: An
international outlook from emerging countries. Bus Strategy Dev
3(1):77–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.80
Hair JF, Sarstedt M (2021) Data, measurement, and causal inferences in
machine learning: Opportunities and challenges for marketing. J
Mark Theory Pract 29(1):65–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10696679.2020.1860683
Hasan MM, Yajuan L, Mahmud A (2020) Regional development of
China’s inclusive finance through financial technology. SAGE
Open 10(1):215824401990125. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2158244019901252
Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2015) A new criterion for assessing
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation model-
ing. J Acad Mark Sci 43(1):115–135
Heyes AG (2018) Lender penalty for environmental damage and the
equilibrium cost of capital. Econ Liab Environ Probl 231–243.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315188133-14
Hilkenmeier F, Bohndick C, Bohndick T, Hilkenmeier J (2020)
Assessing distinctiveness in multidimensional instruments without
access to raw data – a manifest Fornell-Larcker criterion. Front
Psychol 11(March):1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00223
Hossain M (2021) Frugal innovation and sustainable business models.
Technol Soc 64(January):101508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.
2020.101508
Hou X, Liu J, Zhang D (2019) Regional sustainable development: The
relationship between natural capital utilization and economic devel-
opment. Sustain Dev 27(1):183–195
Hsieh MH, Tsai KH (2007) Technological capability, social capital and
the launch strategy for innovative products. Ind Mark Manag 36(4):
493–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.01.002
Huang H, Wang F, Song M, Balezentis T, Streimikiene D (2021)
Technology in society green innovations for sustainable develop-
ment of China : Analysis based on the nested spatial panel models.
Technol Soc 65(April):101593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.
2021.101593
Hussain K, He Z, Ahmad N, Iqbal M, Taskheer Mumtaz SM (2019)
Green, lean, six sigma barriers at a glance: a case from the construc-
tion sector of Pakistan. Build Environ 161(March):106225. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106225
Iqbal N, Khan A, Gill AS, Abbas Q (2020) Nexus between sustainable
entrepreneurship and environmental pollution: evidence from devel-
oping economy. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27(29):36242–36253.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09642-y
Karami M, Madlener R (2021) Business model innovation for the energy
market: Joint value creation for electricity retailers and their cus-
tomers. Energy Res Soc Sci 73(December 2020):101878. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101878
Khan NU, Anwar M, Li S, Khattak MS (2021) Intellectual capital, finan-
cial resources, and green supply chain management as predictors of
financial and environmental performance. Environ Sci Pollut Res
28:19755–19767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-12243-4
Kline S (2011) Globesity, food marketing and family lifestyles. https://
doi.org/10.1057/978023030474
Kousar S, Sabri P, Zafar M, Akhtar A (2017) Technological factors and
adoption of green innovation: moderating role of government inter-
vention: a case of SMEs in Pakistan. Pakistan J Commerce Soc Sci
(PJCSS) 11(3):833–861
Lascaux A (2020) Coopetition and trust: What we know, where to go
next. Ind Mark Manag 84(March 2018):2–18. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.indmarman.2019.05.015
Li W, Chien F, Hsu C, Zhang Y, Nawaz MA, Iqbal S, Mohsin M (2021)
Nexus between energy poverty and energy efficiency: estimating the
long-run dynamics. Res Policy 72:102063. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.resourpol.2021.10206
Ma Y, Rong K, Mangalagiu D, Thornton TF, Zhu D (2018) Co-evolution
between urban sustainability and business ecosystem innovation:
evidence from the sharing mobility sector in Shanghai. J Clean
Prod 188:942–953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.323
Madsen R (2020) Morality and power in a Chinese village. University of
California Press

Malmi T, Brown DA (2008) Management control systems as a package-
opportunities, challenges and research directions. Manag Account
Res 19(4):287–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2008.09.003
Menéndez Blanco, JM Montes-Botella J (2017) Exploring nurtured com-
pany resilience through human capital and human resource devel-
opment. Int J Manpow 38(5):661–674. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijm-
11-2015-0196
Minoja M, Romano G (2021) Managing intellectual capital for sustain-
ability: Evidence from a re-municipalized, publicly owned waste
management firm. J Clean Prod 279:123213. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2020.123213
Mohammadi F, & Mahmoodi F (2019). Factors affecting acceptance and
use of educational Wikis: using technology acceptance model (3).
Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences,
In. (In Press). https://doi.org/10.5812/ijvlms.87484
Mohsin M, Bashir S, Baloch ZA, Hafeez M (2021) Assessment of sus-
tainability and uncertainties of oil markets: mediating determinants
of energy use and CO2 emissions. Environ Sci Pollut Res. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15098-5
Ortiz H (2020) A political anthropology of finance: Studying the distri-
bution of money in the financial industry as a political process.
Anthropol Theory 21(1):3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1463499620951374
Paiola M, Schiavone F, Grandinetti R, Chen J (2021) Digital servitization
and sustainability through networking : some evidences from IoT-
based business models. J Bus Res 132(May):507–516. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.047
Pringles R, Olsina F, Penizzotto F (2020) Valuation of defer and reloca-
tion options in photovoltaic generation investments by a stochastic
simulation-based method. Renew Energy 151:846–864. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.11.082
Raguseo E (2018) Big data technologies: An empirical investigation on
their adoption, benefits and risks for companies. Int J Inf Manage
38(1):187–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.07.008
Rehman SU, Kraus S, Shah SA, Khanin D, Mahto RV (2021) Analyzing
the relationship between green innovation and environmental per-
formance in large manufacturing firms. Technol Forecast Soc Chang
163:120481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120481
Rodgers W (2007) Problems and resolutions to future knowledge‐based
assets reporting. J Intellect Cap 8(2):205–215. https://doi.org/10.
1108/14691930710742808
Schivardi F, Sette E, Tabellini G (2017) Credit misallocation during the
European financial crisis. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.3051189
Shahzad M, Qu Y, Javed SA, Zafar AU, Rehman SU (2020) Relation of
environment sustainability to CSR and green innovation: a case of
Pakistani manufacturing industry. J Clean Prod 253:119938. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119938
Shahzad U, Liu J, Mahmood F, Luo F (2021a) Corporate innovation and
trade credit demand: evidence from China. Manag Decis Econ 42:
1591–1606. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3329
Shahzad U, Liu J, Pang T, Luo F (2021b). Institutional investors and the
moral hazards of technology investment: evidence from China.
Econ Innov New Technol 0(0), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10438599.2021.1908896
Shahzad U, Luo F, Pang T, Liu J, Nawaz T (2021c) Managerial equity
incentives portfolio and the moral hazard of technology investment.
Tech Anal Strat Manag:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.
2021.1876223
Shang R, Sun Y (2021) Undefined. Comput Hum Behav 120:106615.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106615
Sharma A, Iyer GR (2012) Resource-constrained product development:
implications for green marketing and green supply chains. Ind Mark
Environ Sci Pollut Res
Manag 41(4):599–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.
04.007
Teo T, Noyes J (2010) Exploring attitudes towards computer use among
pre-service teachers from Singapore and the United Kingdom: A
multi-group invariance test of the technology acceptance model
(TAM). METJ 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/17504971080000458
Ullah H, Wang Z (2021) Does the leader influence employee perfor-
mance? Evidence from Researcher Opinion. JBME 1(1):1–2
Ullah H, Wang Z, Abbas MG, Zhang F, Shahzad U, Mahmood MR
(2021a) Association of financial distress and predicted bankruptcy:
the case of Pakistani Banking Sector*. J Asian Finance Econ Bus
8(1):573–585. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no1.573
Ullah H, Wang Z, Bashir S, Khan AR, Riaz M, Syed N (2021b) Nexus
between IT capability and green intellectual capital on sustainable
businesses: evidence from emerging economies. Environ Sci Pollut
Res 28:27825–27843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-12245-2
Vinzi VE, Chin WW, Henseler J Wang H (2010) Perspectives on partial
least squares. In Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 1-20).
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Wall E, Ferrazzi G, Schryer F (1998) Getting the goods on social capital.
Rural Sociol 63(2):300–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1549-0831.
1998.tb00676.x
Wang H (2011) Managerial entrenchment, equity payout and capital
structure. J Bank Financ 35(1):36–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbankfin.2010.07.018
Wang H, Khan MAS, Anwar F, Shahzad F, Adu D, Murad M (2021)
Green innovation practices and its impacts on environmental and
organizational performance. Front Psychol 11(January):1–15.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.553625
Wang X, Zhao Y, Hou L (2020a) How does green innovation affect
supplier-customer relationships? A study on customer and relation-
ship contingencies. Ind Mark Manag 90(October 2019):170–180.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.07.008
Wang Y, Yang Y (2021) Analyzing the green innovation practices based
on sustainability performance indicators: a Chinese manufacturing
industry case. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(1):1181–1203. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11356-020-10531-7
Wang Y, Tsai CH, Lin DD, Enkhbuyant O, Cai J (2019) Effects of
human, relational, and psychological capitals on new venture per-
formance. Front Psychol 10(JUN):1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.01071
Wang Z, Rafait Mahmood M, Ullah H, Hanif I, Abbas Q, Mohsin M
(2020b) Multidimensional perspective of firms’ IT capability be-
tween digital business strategy and firms’ efficiency: a case of
Chinese SMEs. SAGE Open 10(4):215824402097056. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2158244020970564
Waseem B, Loo-See B, Adeel A, Riaz A (2018) Impact of intellectual
capital on innovation capability and organizational performance: An
empirical investigation. Serbian Journal of Management 13(2):365–
379. https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm13-16997
Yao W, Zhang L, Hu J (2020) Does having a semimandatory dividend
policy enhance investor confidence? Res Dividend-Financ Behav
Economic Systems 44:100812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.
2020.100812
Yong JY, Yusliza MY, Ramayah T, Fawehinmi O (2019) Nexus between
green intellectual capital and green human resource management. J
Clean Prod 215:364–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.
306
Yousaf Z (2021). Go for green : green innovation through green dynamic
capabilities : accessing the mediating role of green practices and
green value. Chen 2008
Yusliza MY, Yong JY, Tanveer MI, Ramayah T, Noor Faezah J,
Muhammad Z (2020) A structural model of the impact of green
Environ Sci Pollut Res
intellectual capital on sustainable performance. J Clean Prod 249:
119334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119334
Yusoff YM, Omar MK, Kamarul Zaman MD, Samad S (2019) 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 234:626–637. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.153
Zafar AU, Qiu J, Shahzad M, Shen J, Bhutto TA, Irfan M (2021) Impulse
buying in social commerce: bundle offer, top reviews, and emotion-
al intelligence. Asia Pac J Mark Logist 33(4):945–973. https://doi.
org/10.1108/APJML-08-2019-0495
Zhang D, Mohsin M, Rasheed AK, Chang Y, Taghizadeh-Hesary F
(2021) Public spending and green economic growth in BRI region:
Mediating role of green finance. Energy Policy 153:112256. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.11225
Zhang D, Zhang Z, Managi S (2019) A bibliometric analysis on green
finance: Current status, development, and future directions. Finance
Res Lett 29:425–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2019.02.003
Zhou M, Govindan K, Xie X (2020) How fairness perceptions,
embeddedness, and knowledge sharing drive green innovation in
sustainable supply chains: an equity theory and network perspective
to achieve sustainable development goals. J Clean Prod 260:120950.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120950
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.