Environment, Development and Sustainability

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00900-0

The impact of participative decision‑making

on eco‑innovation capability: the mediating role
of motivational eco‑innovation factors

Dhekra Ben Amara1 · Hong Chen1

Received: 15 February 2020 / Accepted: 20 July 2020

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Abstract
Given the environmental impact caused by the agricultural and agri-food sectors, eco-inno-
vation is exceptionally important in the context of food production. In this respect, this
study analyses the combined effect of motivational factors, participative decision-making
practices, and eco-innovation capabilities and examines the peculiarities of these effects on
Tunisian agricultural and agri-food sectors. Our results reveal several findings: (1) motiva-
tional factors are positively related to participative decision-making, and eco-innovation
capabilities; (2) economic and ethical motivations constitute the most critical factors for
offering innovative behaviour that would enhance participative decision-making and fur-
ther boost the capacity of both entrepreneurs and employees to generate eco-innovation
practices; and (3) motivational factors exert a mediating role on both participative deci-
sion-making and eco-innovation capabilities. Our findings further report that enterprises
could not ignore the vitality of environmental issues and motivational eco-innovation fac-
tors in order to attain sustained economic and environmental performance. Our study high-
lights the critical role played by participative decision-making in the process of shaping a
motivational and innovative work environment, while the enterprise’s goals were not only
the economic performance but also to attach great importance to achieving the environ-
mental targets. Our study, therefore, supports that the combined impacts of these relevant
constructs might overcome environmental, economic, and institutional barriers and gener-
ate further a better society that is sustainable in the long term.

Keywords Motivational factors · Entrepreneurship · Eco-innovation capability ·

Participative decision-making · Sustainable development

* Hong Chen
nefuchenhong@yeah.net
Dhekra Ben Amara
ben.amara@nefu.edu.cn
1
School of Agricultural Economics and Management, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin,
People’s Republic of China

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 D. Ben Amara, H. Chen

1 Introduction

The context of food production is the most critical sector that generates negative influ-
ences on the environment (FAO 2015). In this respect, eco-innovation could develop a
comprehensive response to the issues of food-related ecosystem degradation. This concept
provides enterprises with opportunities to avoid environmental risks, to gain competitive
advantages (Schaltegger 2011), and to achieve both enhanced economic and environmen-
tal performances (Porter and Van der Linde 1995; Ghisetti et al. 2015). The capability of
incorporating eco-innovation into this context depends on the capability of an enterprise
to offer new and sustainable entrepreneurial opportunities and to participate in a business
transformation into a sustainably oriented context (Carrillo-Hermosilla et al. 2010; Biten-
court et al. 2019). Eco-innovation capability is defined by the capability to convert knowl-
edge into new green products, services, and new business models that would yield gains
for the different actors (Lawson and Samson 2001). Many studies examine the critical role
of eco-innovation in different sectors. Nevertheless, there is a dearth of eco-innovation
research in the food sector, and therefore, this is an area that needs to be given further study
and debate (Bossle et al. 2016).
Furthermore, several studies in the field of participative management widely used the
capability to elucidate participative decisions (Joy et al. 2019). However, the current stud-
ies suggest that such understanding behaviour that is linked to capabilities is incomplete
without adding a motivation lens to it (Eggers and Kaul 2018; Dahlin et al. 2018). Entre-
preneurial motivation is designed as a significant driving approach to sustainable entrepre-
neurial behaviour (Nhemachena and Murimbika 2018). Many motivations drive enterprises
to integrate environmental management and eco-innovations in the business model, involv-
ing opportunities to save costs, to raise revenues, to increase productivity, and to facilitate
the reaction to external pressure (regulation, stakeholders). However, notwithstanding the
importance of entrepreneurial motivation to understanding the entrepreneurial behaviour
of entrepreneurs, studies on this concept have been ignored in the literature (Carsrud and
Brännback 2011). Also, several scholars demonstrated that environmental management
systems are based on improving and maintaining enterprises’ competencies and capabili-
ties (Biscotti et al. 2018). However, there is an important gap between employees’ motiva-
tion combined with the necessary organizational capabilities to treat environmental prob-
lems (Boiral et al. 2014; Singh et al. 2020). Consequently, these gaps should be addressed
in order to provide the necessary information to entrepreneurs or managers at all levels to
enhance the eco-innovation capability, which provides an exciting field of study.
At the juncture of the literature of participative management, applied psychology, and
environmental management, we combine participative decision-making and motivation
perspectives in studying capabilities in dealing with the integration of eco-innovation prac-
tices. Therefore, this article aims to propose a framework that can provide answers to two
research questions: The first question is: To what extent do participative decision-making
(PDM) and eco-innovation motivational (MOTIV) factors influence eco-innovation capa-
bility (EIC)? Recent research demonstrates that motivation can lead to superior levels of
innovation capability (Wu and Sivalogathasan 2013), which is the case of EIC. Also, PDM
promotes knowledge sharing inside the enterprises (Fernández-Mesa and Alegre 2015),
so that managers and employees could gather critical information to build up enterprises’
EIC. Therefore, this study extends the recent studies that elucidate motivation and capabil-
ity toward the enterprises’ behaviour (Eggers and Kaul 2018) by having a more in-depth
look at these effects as an input to managers, entrepreneurs, and employees’ decisions. The

13
The impact of participative decision-making on eco-innovation…

second question: To what extent do MOTIV factors mediate the relationship between PDM
and EIC? MOTIV factors are considered as an antecedent of EIC and the consequence of
PDM. Some scholars confirmed that the motivational model offers more opportunities to
participate to the decision-making process, which improves employees’ motivation (Huang
et al. 2010), further that could promote EIC. Therefore, the mediating role of MOTIV fac-
tors is then analysed. Thus, this study is assumed to fill the gap among these relevant con-
cepts, notably while the aim is to protect the environment and achieve both sustainable and
economic performance.
Theoretically, this paper contributes to the literature by illustrating new ways to cap-
ture evidence on enterprises capabilities to adopt eco-innovation. First, this article focusses
on Tunisia, a developing nation similar to many countries around the world with a young
population, with increasing domestic energy consumption and developing economies, that
needs to balance economic evolving and environmental issues. Also, this choice is encour-
aged by the social and political dynamic revolution of the Arab Spring itself. In these recent
years, Tunisia has been characterized by the implantation of environmental regulation, of
which the eco-innovation occupies a crucial position (Youssef and Dziri 2012). Therefore,
the present paper presents data from Tunisian agricultural and agri-food sectors. That fills
a significant gap in this area, which, until now, has been dominated by research based on
data from US enterprises. The second contribution of our study is focused on the combined
effects of motivation, capabilities, and empowerment that lead to generating green inspira-
tions. In this respect, rather than investigating the effects of MOTIV factors and PDM on
EIC separately, this research focuses on an instead abandoned aspect of EIC by examining
the combined impact of these constructs which have not before been conceived for small
and medium Tunisian enterprises.
This study is organized as follows: we present the theoretical background, in which our
research hypotheses are proposed. Then, we elucidate our methodology. Next, we report
our results and present the discussions. Finally, we conclude by some implications, limita-
tions, and future research.

2 Theoretical background

Previous researches demonstrated that ecological orientation enterprises are appropriated

to optimize natural resources exploitation, human technology, and business, to adopt an
eco-innovation strategy and to build up capabilities, where the aim is to obtain superior
performance and sustained competitive advantage (Gabler et al. 2015). The eco-innova-
tion has the capability to enhance the efficient implantation of a clean process and recy-
cling technique that increases cost savings and offers differentiated products in order to
gain a competitive advantage (Porter and Van der Linde 1995). Furthermore, eco-innova-
tion capability helps enterprises to discover a sustainable process that minimizes wastes
and pollution emissions while ameliorating their environmental leadership and reputa-
tion. Therefore, enterprises need to seek to improve their corporate reputation and image
by integrating environmental attributes (Kim et al. 2017) and shapes their perception and
judgments to promote EIC. However, the literature review claims that the active search
of a dynamic environmental strategy needs both capability and motivation (Sharma and
Sharma 2011; Keshminder and del Río 2019). In this respect, these two concepts provide
a valuable contribution to enterprises in promoting environmental integration by closing
the communication gap between managers and employees, because employee’s motivation

13
 D. Ben Amara, H. Chen

is qualified as a driving factor of proactive environmental strategies (Suarez-Perales et al.

2017) and eco-innovation strategies.
Furthermore, enterprises need to adopt innovative and dynamic environmental behav-
iour in their strategic decision-making to achieve enhanced competitive advantage
(Salunke et al. 2011). However, generating innovative behaviours require several leading
practices, such as empowerment. Several researchers argued that significant outcomes of
empowerment, among those, is PDM, which is designed as driving factors for innovation
in enterprises (Brunetto and Farr-Wharton 2007). Besides, PDM gives employees oppor-
tunities to create innovative ideas (Jyoti and Rani 2017). Therefore, managers or entrepre-
neurs should focus on PDM to promote the innovation capability of enterprises (Cakar and
Erturk 2010). Also, therefore, an entrepreneur who seeks knowledge from external sources
would be the centre factor toward openness at employees’ level (Bertoldi et al. 2018). In
return, this openness may lead to enhanced innovation processes and performance (Santoro
et al. 2018).
Following this development, this article seeks to offer a new perspective on psychol-
ogy, environment, and participative management that explore the direct and indirect effect
between PDM and enterprise’s EIC as well as how the mediating role of MOTIV factors
shapes the perception and judgments of entrepreneurs to adopt eco-innovation practices
(Fig. 1).

2.1 Motivational factors of eco‑innovation

Motivation is one of the most significant factors impacting human behaviour and attitudes
towards work. Motivation research focused on grasping the drivers and reasons behind a
personal choice of one attitude or another (Fayolle et al. 2014). Several scholars demon-
strated that there are four principal motivational factors to adopt eco-innovation practices:
regulation motivation, economic motivation, stakeholder pressure, and ethical motivation
(Bansal and Roth 2000).
First, environmental regulations are seen as an effective way to compel enterprises to
respect the environment (Bernauer et al. 2007; Choi and Han 2019). Environmental regu-
lations also may provide opportunities for a new venture (Gerstlberger et al. 2019) and
improve competitiveness (Porter and Van der Linde 1995) by creating a new green market.

Participative Eco-innovation
decision making capability (EIC)
H3

H1 H2

Regulation
motivation (RegM)

Economic movaon Stakeholder pressure

(EcoM) (StakM)
Ethical movaon
(EthicM)

Four components of motivational

factors of eco-innovation (MOTIV)

Fig. 1  Conceptual model

13
The impact of participative decision-making on eco-innovation…

The research developed by Youssef and Dziri (2012) in the case of Tunisia revealed that
the principal motivation of the adoption of eco-innovation practices is the pressure exerted
by the Tunisian government on the polluting enterprises. They suggested that environ-
mental regulations play an initiative role in adopting eco-innovation practices in Tunisia
(Youssef and Dziri 2012). Thus, regulation motivation (RegM) is a driving factor in adopt-
ing eco-innovation.
Second, the key objective of any business is to make benefits and to reduce costs, so
enterprises are stimulated by economic motivation (EcoM) when integrating eco-inno-
vation practices (Dangelico and Pujari 2010; Gerstlberger et al. 2019). Enterprises are
encouraged to adopt eco-innovation in order to exploit sustainable business opportunities.
Several researchers confirmed that the primary economic motivation factor to eco-innovate
is cost reduction, which is attained through environmental improvement and investment in
research and development (R&D) (Bossle et al. 2016).
Third, stakeholder pressure (StakM) encourages enterprises to engage in environmental
activities and adopt eco-innovation practices. The literature demonstrated that successful
eco-innovation practices depend on the critical involvement of stakeholders (Gunarathne
2019). The customers’ sensibility of green products (eco-label) is designed as an essential
MOTIV factor. In this regard, websites and social media can be used as strategic tools
by businesses to draw customers toward green products (Ottman 2017). Several studies
confirmed that eco-innovation strategy (such as new green label) attracts and meets green
customers’ preferences, so that leads both to economic performance (increasing product’s
sale) (Kammerer 2009) and sustainable performance (reducing pollution process and gen-
erating environmentally friendly product) (Abrassart and Aggeri 2007). Also, the desire
to use “green” is increasing among consumers, push enterprises to use eco-innovative
options. Therefore, enterprises can react to stakeholder pressure and overcome obstacles
while integrating environmental sustainability attributes in the innovation process.
Finally, the last MOTIV factor is associated with the social obligation and value, which
take into consideration the environmental dimension in the development of new products
and processes. Ethical motivation (ErhicM) is derived from an internal environmental ori-
entation of the enterprises and is jointed to the potential of market success and the personal
commitment of top management (Dangelico and Pujari 2010). Managerial environmental
concern can be an essential determinant of an eco-innovation strategy (Eiadat et al. 2008).
Also, some writers designed managerial environmental concern as an important driving
force of eco-innovation adoptions (Kumar and Samuel 2018). In this respect, entrepreneurs
should be aware that businesses need to obey moral code (moral principles and beliefs) that
everyone must respect it.

2.2 Participative decision‑making and motivational factors

PDM is described as shared influence and decision-making between a leader and employ-
ees (subordinates) (Somech 2010; Da’as 2020), which motivates employees to invest more
in their job and to promote innovation (Huang et al. 2010; Da’as 2020). PDM promotes
knowledge sharing inside the enterprises (Fernández-Mesa and Alegre 2015) so that man-
agers and employees could gather vital information to adopt eco-innovations. Furthermore,
several studies revealed that preserve the environment requires enhanced awareness and
motivation as well as reinforced sustainable environmental knowledge of managers and
employees. The managers have to motivate employees who are concerned about environ-
mental matters to participate in the adoption of eco-innovation practices (Dragomir 2020).

13
 D. Ben Amara, H. Chen

Additionally, PDM enhances an employee’s level of skills and knowledge (Sánchez

et al. 2015), while minimizing barriers to eco-innovate and stimulating the motivation of
the enterprise to adopt more eco-innovations. Some writers proposed that when the PDM
can be applied, the motivation to innovate will be enhanced, notably when it shared social
and environmental identity (De Dreu et al. 2011). This means that entrepreneurs, manag-
ers, or group leaders and employees can promote MOTIV factors and sharing sustainable
identity while stimulating PDM. At the juncture of the literature of applied psychology and
participative management, several scholars argued that PDM enhances the motivation of
workers and managers (Tian and Zhai 2019; Boxall et al. 2015). Also, PDM is still the pri-
mary object of research, policy, and practice in business (Chen and Tjosvold 2006), which
would yield profits from enhancing motivations (Scott-Ladd and Chan 2004; Ali et al.
2020). Thus, we propose that PDM has a positive impact on MOTIV factors. Therefore, the
following hypotheses are framed:

H1: Participative decision making has a positive impact on motivational factors:

H1a Participative decision making has a positive impact on regulatory motivation;
H1b Participative decision making has a positive impact on economic motivation;
H1c: Participative decision making has a positive impact on stakeholder pressure;
H1d: Participative decision making has a positive impact on ethical motivation.

2.3 Motivational factors and eco‑innovation capability

With the growth of competition in the business world, the capacity to create new products
and processes quickly becomes imperative (Sen et al. 2017). To corporate sustainability
and to achieve competitiveness, enterprises need to develop their innovation capabilities at
different levels of the process, products, and operation (Ghassim and Foss 2020). Regard-
ing this point, we conceptualize that eco-innovation capability (EIC) is equivalent to inno-
vation capability and is described as a range of processes and operations that improve an
enterprise’s ability to recognize and to harness resources in order to attain a sustainable
performance level (Cohen and Levinthal 1990; Arranz et al. 2020). Thus, with the feature
of the win–win solution of eco-innovation, EIC can achieve both economical and sustain-
able performance.
At the juncture of the literature of applied psychology and environmental management,
several scholars discovered that the motivation of enterprises is behind the development
of eco-innovation (Horbach et al. 2012; Triguero et al. 2013). Their principal goal is to
improve their competitiveness by achieving an enhanced performance of environmental
management (Bermúdez-Edo et al. 2017). However, eco-innovations are insufficient with-
out capabilities. Some authors suggested that EIC is seen as a source of competitive advan-
tage (Teece et al. 1997). Furthermore, several pieces of research demonstrated that motiva-
tion could lead to superior levels of innovation capability (Wu and Sivalogathasan 2013).
Also, other studies highlighted that innovation capability is most significant when motiva-
tions are high (Wu and Sivalogathasan 2013). In the same vein, several writers focused on
the importance of motivations toward green business ventures (Bosman 2013). Thus, given
a sustainable-oriented context, we suggest the MOTIV factors have a positive impact on
EIC. Therefore, the following hypotheses are framed:

H2 Motivational factors have a positive impact on eco-innovation capability:

H2a Regulation motivation has a positive impact on eco-innovation capability;

13
The impact of participative decision-making on eco-innovation…

H2b Economic motivation has a positive impact on eco-innovation capability;

H2c Stakeholders pressure has a positive impact on eco-innovation capability;
H2d Ethical motivation has a positive impact on eco-innovation capability.

2.4 The mediating role of motivational factors

As discussed above, motivational factors (MOTIV) are related to PDM (H1), which in turn
are linked to EIC (H2). Therefore, the mediation model can be analysed. In this respect,
motivation and capabilities, associated with the rapidity of decision-making, simplify the
process and business value creation (Pargar et al. 2019).
Several researchers demonstrated that PDM develops employees’ motivation (Witt et al.
2000), which improve employees’ involvement in generating eco-innovations. Other schol-
ars revealed that entrepreneur’s sustainable and green motivations positively influence eco-
innovation practices (Singh et al. 2020). Both entrepreneurs and employees need to cooper-
ate to stimulate motivation to build up EIC in order to achieve enhanced sustainable and
economic performance. More precisely, entrepreneurs must share power and decision-mak-
ing with employees to encourage motivation toward eco-innovation and to develop EIC. In
this respect, the combined effects of these practices provide more solutions to protect the
environment and to achieve enhanced performance. Thus, we suggest that MOTIV factors
are the antecedent of EIC and the consequence of PDM so that the mediating effects of
MOTIV factors can be analysed. Hence, we propose MOTIV factors mediate the relation-
ship between PDM and EIC. Hence, the following hypothesis is posited:

H3 Motivational factors mediate the relationship between participative decision making

and eco-innovation capability.

3 Methodology

3.1 Research approach

This study adopts a quantitative approach, which is appropriate for the subject matter. The
questionnaire was evolved in four steps. First, this questionnaire was reviewed by two uni-
versity professors. Second, we modified the initial questionnaire based on the professor’s
comments and suggestions. Third, the survey was pre-tested in four enterprises in order to
verify whether the questions were clear and to reduce measurement error in the question-
naire outputs (Mathews and Diamantopoulos 1995). The pilot test indicated that the survey
was relatively clear and that all questions were adequately understood. Fourth, we mailed
the final questionnaire to the participants.
The sample includes farmers, food enterprises, drink enterprises, as well as all food
transformation and services in Tunisia. The participants of the research involve owners,
managers, and founders. We have contacted many organizations responsible for environ-
mental protection and promotion of eco-innovation: the agency responsible of the Promo-
tion of Agricultural Investment (APAI), Technical Center of Organic Agriculture (TCOA),
The Technical Center for Agri-Food (TCAF), National Agency for Environmental Protec-
tion (NAEP), National Agency for Waste Management (NAFWM), National Agency for
Energy Monitoring (NAEM) and we have consulted Europages website (https​://www.
europ​ages.fr) to have the list of eco-innovate small and medium enterprises in Tunisian

13
 D. Ben Amara, H. Chen

agricultural and agri-food sectors. Our population totalled 7,400 organic agricultural and
agri-food enterprises (CHEBBI et al. 2019).
In the current study, we chose the Cochran (1977) sampling technique. This tool makes
sampling more influential (Cochran 1977). It contributes to select the sample, at the small-
est possible cost. Because, if data are gotten from only a small fraction of the total popula-
tion, the costs are lowest. Also, with large populations, precise results can be realized from
samples that represent only a small fraction of the population. The data can be gathered
more rapidly with a sample than with the whole population. Thus, according to Cochran
(1977) sampling technique, our sample is 365.

3.2 Instruments

This research adopts 20-items, which consist of MOTIV (eight items), EIC (eight items),
PDM (three items). In the line of the previous literature (Rennings and Zwick 2002;
Youssef and Dziri 2012), we attempted to develop a new scale to measure MOTIV.
MOTIV factors scale includes RegM (two items), EcoM (two items), StakM (two items),
and EthicM (two items). The scale used to measure EIC is developed by Wang and Ahmed
(2007) (Wang and Ahmed 2007), while it adapted to a sustainable-oriented context and
involved eco-product innovation capabilities (4 items), and eco-process innovation capa-
bilities (4 items). Building on the prior researches (Chiva et al. 2007; Pedler et al. 1989;
Goh and Richards 1997), we attempted to develop a new scale to measure PDM. A 6-point
Likert scale was used to measure the items and evaluated from “strongly disagreed” (1) to
“strongly agreed” (6) (Ben Amara 2019).

3.3 Data analysis

This paper applied the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to explore the hypothesized
relationships. IBM SPSS statistics software (version 25) and IBM SPSS AMOS (version
23) were utilized to evaluate the data gathered from the questionnaire survey. We applied
the two-step method approved by Anderson and Gerbing (1988); we analysed the measure-
ment and structural equation model in distinct stages (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). First,
we have used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to
examine the factorial structure of all items of the questionnaire and to test the befitting of
the hypothesized factor structure for all variables. The EFA was applied in this research
to investigate the relationships and correlations between the variables (Hair Jr et al. 2010)
required to reach the parsimony while lowering the number of statistical constructs (Hair
Jr et al. 2010; Andy 2009). Further, we have harnessed CFA to verify the final structure of
our variables (constructs) and to investigate in-deeper the relationships between the con-
structs. CFA was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation and covariance matrix
to evaluate the discriminant validity of the essential variables or constructs assessed in
our research. The Harman’s one-factor test was implemented on all items to examine the
impendence of common method bias. Six distinct factors were extracted from Harman’s
one-factor test, with eigenvalues superior to 1.0 (Podsakoff et al. 2003). The un-rotated
principal components factor analysis outcomes certify that the first factor only holds
46.07% of the variance, and no specific factor described the majority of the variance (Pod-
sakoff et al. 2003), which insured, we do not have problems with common method biases.
Second, we assessed the relationship between latent and measured variables through an
SEM (Byrne 2001).

13
The impact of participative decision-making on eco-innovation…

4 Result

4.1 Descriptive analysis, correlations, reliability, and fit

Table 1 reports all the measurement items, factor loading, average variance extracted
(AVE), composite reliability (CR), and the values of Cronbach’s alpha. The loading factors
of all included items extended from 0.631 to 0.931. All factor loadings were greater than
0.5. Therefore, we found support for convergent validity. The AVE extended from 0.509 to
0.850, which exceeded the recommended value of 0.50 (Wong 2016). The Cronbach values
extended from 0.866 to 0.925. These values are higher than the recommended value of 0.7
(Hair et al. 2011). The composite reliability of each scale extended from 0.882 to 0.919,
which provides evidence supporting the reliability of our data. Also, the whole of the cor-
relation coefficients is different from one and a smaller than the square root of the AVE for
each construct (Fornell and Larcker 1981). The convergent validity is supported (Table 2).
Hence, the measures applied in the current paper explain that our data illustrate good reli-
ability and internal consistency, as well as the convergence validity and unidimensional of
the scales, are supported.
The measurement of the model demonstrates a good model fit (χ2 = 370.121; df = 144;
2
χ /df = 2,5; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.08).

4.2 Structural model estimation and fit

The following step was applied to test the structural model to prove the mediating role of
MOTIV. Model 1, our guideline model (see Fig. 3), represents a full mediating model.
We specified paths from PDM to MOTIV, and from MOTIV to EIC. The guideline model
had a good fit (χ2 = 392.509, df = 145; χ2/df = 2.7; CFI = 0.92; TLI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.08).
Thus, Model 1 was accepted. In Model 2, we inserted a direct path from PDM to EIC. The
guideline model is consequently nested within Models 2 (see Fig. 4).
Table 3 reveals the outcomes of the SME method to test the critical effects of the varia-
bles proposed from the hypothesis. The finding showed that PDM has a significant positive
effect on RegM, EcoM, StakM, and EthicM (tRegM = 4.397, tEcoM = 5.069, tStakM = 3.900,
tEthicM = 4.148, p < 0.01). Hence, hypotheses H1a, H1b, H1c, and H1d were accepted. The
finding also demonstrated that RegM, EcoM, StakM, and EthicM have a significant posi-
tive effect on EIC (tRegM = 2.071, tEcoM = 4.660, tStakM = 2.178, and tEthicM = 4.270, p < 0.01).
Hence, hypotheses H2a, H2b, H2c, and H2d were supported (see Fig. 2).
As described in Table 4, the difference between χ2 value (Δχ2 = 22.38) was not sig-
nificant for Model 1 in comparison with Models 2. Therefore, our results indicated that
our hypothesized partial mediation model (model 2) with all possible direct and indirect
paths fitted the data better compared to that of the full mediation model (model 1). We pro-
posed, consequently, that MOTIV factors mediate the relationship between the PDM and
EIC. Hence, hypotheses H3 were accepted. Thus, we could see the emergence of MOTIV
(mediating variable) thoroughly increasing the impact of PDM (independent variables) on
EIC (dependent variable).
Findings of the SEM mentioned above analysis revealed a mediating effect of
MOTIV on the relationship between PDM and EIC for our samples. Thus, in order
to approve and confirm this result, we used the automated Sobel test, available on
the Internet (Preacher and Leonardelli 2019). The Sobel test aims to explain whether

13
 Table 1  Measurement items and factor loadings
Constructs and items Loading AVE CR Cronbach’s alpha

13
Motivational factors of eco-innovation (MOTIV) 0.605 0.924 0.925
Regulation motivation (RegM) 0.850 0.919 0.919
RegM1. Environment regulatory compliance 0.931
RegM2. Financial assistance of the government (i.e. subvention) 0.913
Economic motivation (EcoM) 0.813 0.898 0.897
EcoM1. Cost-saving through effective use of material/energy in the process 0.883
EcoM2. Adoption of certification, improvement in the corporate image, and creation of new business oppor- 0.920
tunities
Stakeholder’s motivation (StakM) 0.764 0.866 0.866
StakM1. Increasing the environmental awareness of the customer toward environmentally friendly products 0.873
StakM2. Satisfy the demand for the green customer 0.875
Ethical motivation (EthicM) 0.789 0.882 0.881
EthicM1. Adoption of the environmental management system 0.909
EthicM2. Protection of the environment 0.867
Participative decision-making (PDM) 0.769 0.909 0.909
DM1. Managers or entrepreneurs in this enterprise recurrently involve employees or workers in critical deci- 0.885
sions to adopt eco-innovation practices
DM2. Enterprise’ policies are considerably affected by the view of employees about eco-innovation 0.851
DM3. Employees or workers realize that they are involved in crucial enterprise’s decisions to adopt eco- 0.894
innovation practices
Eco-innovation capability
Product innovativeness or product innovation capability 0.509 0.892 0.892
PDIC1. In comparison with competitors, our enterprise is faster in bringing new products or services into the 0.699
market
PDIC2. In comparison with competitors, our enterprise has introduced more innovative products and services 0.700
during the past 5 years
D. Ben Amara, H. Chen
 Table 1  (continued)
Constructs and items Loading AVE CR Cronbach’s alpha

PDIC3. New products and services in our enterprise often put us up against new competitors 0.735
PDIC4. Our new products and services are often perceived as innovative by customers 0.631
Process innovation capability
PCIC1. Our company changes production methods at high speed in comparison with our competitors 0.744
PCIC2. We are continually improving our business process 0.766
PCIC3. The nature of the process in our enterprise is new compared with that of our primary competitors 0.712
PCIC4. Our future investments in new methods of production are significant compared with our annual 0.700
turnover.
The impact of participative decision-making on eco-innovation…

13
 D. Ben Amara, H. Chen

Table 2  Correlation between constructs and the square root of the AVE
Research Construct Mean SD EcoM EIC EthicM PDM RegM StakM

EcoM 4.875 1.084 0.902

EIC 4.159 0.953 0.688** 0.713
EthicM 4.662 1.043 0.671** 0.664** 0.888
PDM 4.679 1.100 0.249** 0.474** 0.315** 0.877
RegM 4.884 1.040 0.819** 0.608** 0.510** 0.219** 0.922
StokM 5.002 1.054 0.825** 0.663** 0.647** 0.256** 0.808** 0.874

Diagonal is the square root of the AVE

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 3  Model parameters and t values

Relationship Estimate t values p value Hypothesis Results

PDM → RegM 0.282** 4.379 0.000 H1a Supported

PDM → EcoM 0.326** 5.069 0.000 H1b Supported
PDM → StakM 0.245** 3.900 0.000 H1c Supported
PDM → EthicM 0.258** 4.148 0.000 H1d Supported
RegM → EIC 0.107** 2.071 0.038 H2a Supported
EcoM → EIC 0.264** 4.660 0.000 H2b Supported
StakM → EIC 0.109** 2.178 0.029 H2c Supported
EthicM → EIC 0.238** 4.270 0.000 H2d Supported
PDM → EIC 0.223** 4.619 0.000
PDM → MOTIV 0.261** 3.914 0.000
MOTIV → EIC 0.615** 8.905 0.000
RRegM 0.048
REcoM 0.062
RStakM 0.066
REthicM 0.099
RMOTIV 0.090
REIC 0.629

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 4  The result of structural Model χ2 Df Δχ2 RMSEA TLI CFI

model comparisons
Model 1 392.509 145 – 0.08 0.91 0.92
Model 2 370.121 144 22.388 0.08 0.91 0.93

the mediator transmits the impact of an independent variable to a dependent variable

(Sobel 1982). The Sobel’s t value must be tolerably large (p value < 0.05). The out-
comes of the Sobel test also confirmed that the mediating effect of MOTIV is signifi-
cant (t = 3.58) (see Fig. 5). Therefore, the direct effect between independent variables
(PDM) and the dependent variable (EIC) was significantly decreased by the presence

13
The impact of participative decision-making on eco-innovation…

of the mediating variable (MOTIV). In other words, this also implies that MOTIV fully
mediates the relationship between PDM and EIC in small and medium agricultural and
agri-food enterprises.

5 Discussion

In the present paper, SEM analyses were performed on a sample of Tunisian agricultural
and agri-food enterprises in order to empirically test direct and indirect effects between
PDM and EIC as well as how the MOTIV factors shape the perception and judgments of
entrepreneurs to adopt eco-innovation practices.
The key findings of the SEM contribute to the literature as follows. First, our struc-
tural model shows the positive relationship between PDM and the four components of
MOTIV factors (RegM, EcoM, StakM, and EthicM), which is supported by Scott-Ladd
and Chan (2004). They demonstrated the share of power and decision-making between
managers and employees often plays an enhanced role in stimulating the motivation
effects (Scott-Ladd and Chan 2004). So, PDM may be designed as a pertinent tool to
generate more eco-innovations. Also, we identified a significant positive relationship
between the four components of MOTIV factors and EIC. This conclusion is supported
by the finding of Wu and Sivalogathasan (2013). They highlighted that motivation could
lead to superior levels of innovation capability (Wu and Sivalogathasan 2013), obvi-
ously is the case for a sustainable-oriented context. Therefore, what enterprises require
is motivation to strengthen the ability to eco-innovate while reducing costs and raising
profitability.
Second, our structural model indicates that the EcoM and EthicM factors are more
likely to enhance EIC than the other MOTIV factors. In other words, the EcoM and
EthicM offer innovative behaviour and boost more the capacity of both entrepreneurs
and employees to generate eco-innovation strategies and practices. This result is sup-
ported by the studies of Buysse and Verbeke (2003). They confirmed that these fac-
tors explicate enterprises’ commitment to environmental matters (Buysse and Verbeke
2003). Additionally, several pieces of research indicated that enhanced employee’s
sustainable motivations improve the opportunity and the capability to eco-innovate
and achieve environmental protection and performance (Singh et al. 2020). Therefore,
these motivational factors were linked to the EIC in order to meet the enterprises’ desire
to minimize hazardous wastes, optimize energy use and to decrease overall business
costs. Hence, small and medium Tunisian agricultural and agri-food enterprises seek to
improve EIC and to achieve both sustainable and economic performance, that improving
quality of life, saving time of management practices, minimizing stress on the environ-
ment, and seizing new sustainable business opportunities as well as reducing the pro-
duction cost.
Third, we demonstrate that MOTIV is an antecedent of EIC and the consequence of
PDM. Our finding showed PDM has an indirect and significant effect on EIC, through the
effect of MOTIV (mediating variable). We, therefore, prove that enhanced MOTIV factors
could help to stimulate the effect of PDM on EIC. This relation supports the research of
Pargar et al. (2019). They suggest that motivations and capabilities, associated with the
rapidity of decision-making, simplify the process and business value creation (Pargar et al.
2019).

13
 D. Ben Amara, H. Chen

Additionally, mediating analysis is eminent in research and psychological theory.

The process of mediation has been applied to understand how a third variable affects the
relationship between two other constructs (MacKinnon et al. 2007). In other words, the
mediating variable (MOTIV) conveys the effect of an independent variable (PDM) on a
dependent variable (EIC). Therefore, the mediating role of MOTIV factors generates evi-
dence for how a PDM achieved its effects on EIC. The full mediation effect of MOTIV
factors reinforces the viability of our model, considering the strong impact and relevance
that PDM has on the enhancement of EIC related to the achievement of economic and sus-
tainable performance. Obviously, the mediating effect reveals that entrepreneurs (manag-
ers) and employees (subordinates) who are readily showing high levels of eco-innovation
motivation stimulate better EIC in agricultural and agri-food sectors. In this regard, several
authors demonstrated that employees have to be harmonized with business strategies and
innovation, and, especially the satisfied employees are more disposed to take responsibili-
ties and improve the innovation process (Santoro et al. 2020). Given the sustainable-ori-
ented context, the implication or the participation of the employees in the decision-making
process improve their motivation and enhance the enterprise’s EIC, where the importance
of mediating role of MOTIV. Hence, our model addresses the relationship between PDM
and EIC by assuming that the behaviours of entrepreneurs and employees are mediated by
their motivational beliefes to eco-innovate and to protect the environment.
Finally, small and medium agricultural and agri-food enterprises must focus on how
PDM could be more fruitful to develop their motivational behaviour toward eco-innovation
so that to boost EIC as well as achieve both sustainable and economic performance. There-
fore, the combined impacts of PDM, MOTIV, and EIC make a relevant contribution to the
literature.

6 Conclusion

The main objective of this study was to identify the combined and specific effects of
PDM, MOTIV factors, and EIC of small and medium agricultural and agri-food enter-
prises. The results of this paper lead to several conclusions. First, the results demon-
strated the significant positive relationship between the four MOTIV factors (RegM,
EcoM, StakM, and EthicM) and (1) PDM and (2) EIC. Second, the results have shown
that the impact of EcoM and EthicM factors is more significant determinants of EIC
than RegM and StakM factors. In this respect, this paper indicates that Tunisian man-
agers and employees, whose objectives were not only economic performance but also
attached as much importance to achieving environmental targets, that makes them think
deeply about the environmental issues. Third, the findings of the SEM analysis revealed
a mediating effect of MOTIV on the relationship between PDM and EIC for our sam-
ples, which are approved and confirmed by the automated Sobel test. Hence, the direct
effect between independent variables (PDM) and the dependent variable (EIC) was sig-
nificantly decreased by the presence of the mediating variable (MOTIV). In line with

13
The impact of participative decision-making on eco-innovation…

the previous literature and the findings of this study, we support that enterprises could
not ignore the vitality of environmental issues and MOTIV in order to attain sustained
economic and environmental performance. Our conceptual model addresses, therefore,
the relationship between PDM and EIC by assuming that the behaviours of entrepre-
neurs and employees are mediated by their motivational believes to eco-innovate and
protect the environment. Thus, the combined impacts of PDM, MOTIV, and EIC might
overcome environmental, economic, and institutional barriers and generate further a
better society that is sustainable in the long term.
However, some limitations have been recognized in this present research. First, per-
forming in the agricultural and agri-food sectors, characterized by a particular dynamic
linked to a deeper concentration on reducing uncertainty and the necessity to react
quickly to new market demands. Given those circumstances, the ability of the enterprise
to stimulate PDM and MOTIV is the key to build up an enhanced EIC. However, such
combination effects need to be further investigated in another context. Second, partici-
pants were probably influenced by emotions once the survey was completed. Third, we
have suggested several MOTIV factors to investigate the relationship between PDM and
EIC. Therefore, future research could focus on getting more MOTIV factors to grasp the
relationship between empowerment, motivation, and capabilities.
In conclusion, these findings provide important implications for policymakers and
managers/employees. First, we suggest that engagements on environmental concerns
with customers may promote brand image and business performance. Consequently, a
big part of the customers will have great loyalty to enterprises’ products and services.
Second, to build up sustainable performance, managers and employees have to be will-
ing to educate, monitor, commit, review, and participate in activities that motivate and
reveal the eco-innovation practices because transforming agricultural and agri-food
enterprises practices need personal transformations. This could be done by ensuring
adequate training toward environmental management as well as supporting networks
and relationships with green partners. Third, we suggest that government grants or sub-
sidies appear substantial, especially for reducing uncertainty and providing more infor-
mation because the lack of information and financial support reduce enterprises’ moti-
vation and create barriers for their green aspirations.

Acknowledgements The research was carried out with the help of the School of Agricultural Economics
and Management, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, China, Agency for the Promotion of Agricultural
investment and Institution of Agricultural Research and Higher Education in Tunisia.

Appendix

See Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 5.

13
 D. Ben Amara, H. Chen

Fig. 2  Paths model

Fig. 3  Guideline model (model 1)

13
The impact of participative decision-making on eco-innovation…

Fig. 4  Model 2

Fig. 5  Calculation for the Sobel Test

13
 D. Ben Amara, H. Chen

References
Abrassart, C., & Aggeri, F. (2007). Quelles capacités dynamiques pour les stratégies de développement
durable des entreprises? Le cas du management de l’éco-conception. In: XVIe conférence internation-
ale de management stratégique (AIMS).
Ali, M., Sheikh, A. Z., Ali, I., Jinji, I., & Sumbal, M. S. (2020). The moderating effect of supervisor–sub-
ordinate Guanxi on the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational effective-
ness. Journal of East-West Business, 26, 161–192.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recom-
mended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411.
Andy, P. (2009). Field. 2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.
Arranz, N., Arroyabe, M., Li, J., & Fernandez de Arroyabe, J. C. (2020). Innovation as a driver of eco-
innovation in the firm: An approach from the dynamic capabilities theory. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 29, 1494–1503.
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 717–736.
Ben Amara, D. (2019). Questionnaire MOTIV_EIC_PDM. Harvard Dataverse
Bermúdez-Edo, M., Hurtado-Torres, N. E., & Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N. (2017). The influence of interna-
tional scope on the relationship between patented environmental innovations and firm performance.
Business and Society, 56, 357–387.
Bernauer, T., Engel, S., Kammerer, D., & Nogareda, J. S. (2007). Explaining green innovation: ten years
after Porter’s win–win proposition: How to study the effects of regulation on corporate environmental
innovation? Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 39, 323–341.
Bertoldi, B., Giachino, C., Rossotto, C., & Bitbol-Saba, N. (2018). The role of a knowledge leader in a
changing organizational environment. A conceptual framework drawn by an analysis of four large
companies. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22, 587–602.
Biscotti, A. M., Mafrolla, E., Del Giudice, M., & D’Amico, E. (2018). CEO turnover and the new leader
propensity to open innovation: Agency-resource dependence view and social identity perspective.
Management Decision, 56, 1348–1364.
Bitencourt, C. C., de Oliveira, F., Santini, G. Z., Froehlich, C., & Ladeira, W. J. (2019). Empirical gener-
alizations in eco-innovation: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 245, 118721.
Boiral, O., Baron, C., & Gunnlaugson, O. (2014). Environmental leadership and consciousness develop-
ment: A case study among Canadian SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 123, 363–383.
Bosman, N. J. (2013). Motivational drivers of South African ecopreneurs. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.
Bossle, M. B., Dutra, M., de Barcellos, L., Vieira, M., & Sauvée, L. (2016). The drivers for adoption of eco-
innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 861–872.
Boxall, P., Hutchison, A., & Wassenaar, B. (2015). How do high-involvement work processes influence
employee outcomes? An examination of the mediating roles of skill utilisation and intrinsic motiva-
tion. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26, 1737–1752.
Brunetto, Y., & Farr-Wharton, R. (2007). The moderating role of trust in SME owner/managers’ decision-
making about collaboration. Journal of Small Business Management, 45, 362–387.
Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspec-
tive. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 453–470.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum
Associates.
Cakar, N. D., & Erturk, A. (2010). Comparing innovation capability of small and medium-sized enterprises:
Examining the effects of organizational culture and empowerment. Journal of Small Business Manage-
ment, 48, 325–359.
Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., Del Río, P., & Könnölä, T. (2010). Diversity of eco-innovations: Reflections
from selected case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 1073–1083.
Carsrud, A., & Brännback, M. (2011). Entrepreneurial motivations: What do we still need to know?
Journal of Small Business Management, 49, 9–26.
Chebbi, H.E., Pellissier, J.-P., Rolland, J.-P., & Khechimi, W. (2019). Rapport de synthèse sur
l’agriculture en Tunisie. [Rapport de recherche] CIHEAMIAMM, pp. 99. 〈hal-02137636〉.
Chen, Y. F., & Tjosvold, D. (2006). Participative leadership by American and Chinese managers in
China: The role of relationships. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1727–1752.
Chiva, R., Alegre, J., & Lapiedra, R. (2007). Measuring organisational learning capability among the
workforce. International Journal of Manpower, 28, 224–242.
Choi, D., & Han, T.-I. (2019). Green practices among fashion manufacturers: Relationship with cultural
innovativeness and perceived benefits. Social Sciences, 8, 138.

13
The impact of participative decision-making on eco-innovation…

Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling techniques-3.

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and inno-
vation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
Da’as, R. (2020). Participation in decision making and affective trust among the teaching staff: A 2-year
cross-lagged structural equation modeling during implementation reform. International Journal of
Educational Reform, 29, 77–97.
Dahlin, K. B., Chuang, Y.-T., & Roulet, T. J. (2018). Opportunity, motivation, and ability to learn from
failures and errors: Review, synthesis, and ways to move forward. Academy of Management Annals,
12, 252–277.
Dangelico, R. M., & Pujari, D. (2010). Mainstreaming green product innovation: Why and how compa-
nies integrate environmental sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 471–486.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., Bechtoldt, M. N., & Baas, M. (2011). Group creativity and innova-
tion: A motivated information processing perspective. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the
Arts, 5, 81.
Dragomir, V. D. (2020). Theoretical aspects of environmental strategy. In V. D. Dragomir (Ed.), Corpo-
rate environmental strategy: Theoretical, practical, and ethical aspects. Cham: Springer.
Eggers, J. P., & Kaul, A. (2018). Motivation and ability? A behavioral perspective on the pursuit of radi-
cal invention in multi-technology incumbents. Academy of Management Journal, 61, 67–93.
Eiadat, Y., Kelly, A., Roche, F., & Eyadat, H. (2008). Green and competitive? An empirical test of the
mediating role of environmental innovation strategy. Journal of World Business, 43, 131–145.
FAO. (2015). Sustainable food consumption and production. Retrieved from.
Fayolle, A., Liñán, F., & Moriano, J. A. (2014). Beyond entrepreneurial intentions: values and motiva-
tions in entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10, 679–689.
Fernández-Mesa, A., & Alegre, J. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation and export intensity: Examin-
ing the interplay of organizational learning and innovation. International Business Review, 24,
148–156.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Gabler, C. B., Richey, R. G., Jr., & Rapp, A. (2015). Developing an eco-capability through environmen-
tal orientation and organizational innovativeness. Industrial Marketing Management, 45, 151–161.
Gerstlberger, W., da da Mota Pedrosa, A., & Atlason, R. S. (2019). How firms’ strategic environmental
goals influence product innovation. In N. Bocken, P. Ritala, L. Albareda, & R. Verburg (Eds.),
Innovation for sustainability. Berlin: Springer.
Ghassim, B., & Foss, L. (2020). How do leaders embrace stakeholder engagement for sustainability-oriented
innovation? In N. Pfeffermann (Ed.), New leadership in strategy and communication. Berlin: Springer.
Ghisetti, C., Marzucchi, A., & Montresor, S. (2015). The open eco-innovation mode. An empirical
investigation of eleven European countries. Research Policy, 44, 1080–1093.
Goh, S., & Richards, G. (1997). Benchmarking the learning capability of organizations. European Man-
agement Journal, 15, 575–583.
Gunarathne, N. (2019). Sustainable innovation measurement: Approaches and challenges. In N. Bocken,
P. Ritala, L. Albareda, & R. Verburg (Eds.), Innovation for sustainability. Berlin: Springer.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis vectors
(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, 19, 139–152.
Horbach, J., Rammer, C., & Rennings, K. (2012). Determinants of eco-innovations by type of envi-
ronmental impact—The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecological
Economics, 78, 112–122.
Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A., & Gong, Y. (2010). ‘Does participative leadership enhance work performance by
inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial and non-managerial subordi-
nates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 122–143.
Joy, E., Ndubuisi, U., & Enyinnaya, I. (2019). Participative decision making and organisational perfor-
mance. Ilorin Journal of Human Resource Management, 3, 13–28.
Jyoti, J., & Rani, A. (2017). High performance work system and organisational performance: Role of knowl-
edge management. Personnel Review, 46, 1770–1795.
Kammerer, D. (2009). The effects of customer benefit and regulation on environmental product innovation:
Empirical evidence from appliance manufacturers in Germany. Ecological Economics, 68, 2285–2295.
Keshminder, J. S., & del Río, P. (2019). The missing links? The indirect impacts of drivers on eco-innova-
tion. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26, 1100–1118.

13
 D. Ben Amara, H. Chen

Kim, J., Fairclough, S., & Dibrell, C. (2017). Attention, action, and greenwash in family-influenced firms?
Evidence from polluting industries. Organization & Environment, 30, 304–323.
Kumar, M., & Samuel, C. (2018). Green practices with renewable distributed generation technology in
India. International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering, 16(10), 1–11.
Lawson, B., & Samson, D. (2001). Developing innovation capability in organisations: A dynamic capabili-
ties approach. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5, 377–400.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology,
58, 593–614.
Mathews, B. P., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1995). An analysis of response bias in executives’ self-reports.
Journal of Marketing Management, 11(8), 835–846.
Nhemachena, C., & Murimbika, M. (2018). Motivations of sustainable entrepreneurship and their impact
of enterprise performance in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Business Strategy & Development, 1,
115–127.
Ottman, J. (2017). The new rules of green marketing: Strategies, tools, and inspiration for sustainable
branding. Abingdon: Routledge.
Pargar, F., Kujala, J., Aaltonen, K., & Ruutu, S. (2019). Value creation dynamics in a project alliance. Inter-
national Journal of Project Management, 37, 716–730.
Pedler, M., Boydell, T., & Burgoyne, J. (1989). The learning company. Studies in Continuing Education, 11,
91–101.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behav-
ioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 88, 879.
Porter, M., & Van der Linde, C. (1995).Green and competitive: ending the stalemate. The Dynamics of the
eco-efficient economy: environmental regulation and competitive advantage, 33.
Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, J. (2019). Calculation for the Sobel Test, An interactive calculation tool for
mediation tests. Retrieved October 2, 2019 from http://quant​psy.org/sobel​/sobel​.htm.
Rennings, K., & Zwick, T. (2002). Employment impact of cleaner production on the firm level: empirical
evidence from a survey in five European countries. International Journal of Innovation Management,
6, 319–342.
Salunke, S., Weerawardena, J., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2011). Towards a model of dynamic capabilities
in innovation-based competitive strategy: Insights from project-oriented service firms. Industrial Mar-
keting Management, 40, 1251–1263.
Sánchez, A. A., Marín, G. S., & Morales, A. M. (2015). The mediating effect of strategic human resource
practices on knowledge management and firm performance. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía
de la Empresa, 24, 138–148.
Santoro, G., Bresciani, S., & Papa, A. (2018). Collaborative modes with cultural and creative industries and
innovation performance: The moderating role of heterogeneous sources of knowledge and absorptive
capacity. Technovation, 92–93, 102040.
Santoro, G., Quaglia, R., Pellicelli, A. C., & De Bernardi, P. (2020). The interplay among entrepreneur,
employees, and firm level factors in explaining SMEs openness: A qualitative micro-foundational
approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 119820.
Schaltegger, S. (2011). Sustainability as a driver for corporate economic success: Consequences for the
development of sustainability management control. Society and Economy, 33, 15–28.
Scott-Ladd, B., & Chan, C. C. (2004). Emotional intelligence and participation in decision-making: Strate-
gies for promoting organizational learning and change. Strategic Change, 13, 95–105.
Sen, D., Bingol, S., & Vayvay, O. (2017). Strategic enterprise management for innovative companies: The
last decade of the balanced scorecard. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 7, 97–109.
Sharma, P., & Sharma, S. (2011). Drivers of proactive environmental strategy in family firms. Business Eth-
ics Quarterly, 21, 309–334.
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.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Soci-
ological Methodology, 13, 290–312.
Somech, A. (2010). Participative decision making in schools: A mediating-moderating analytical framework
for understanding school and teacher outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 174–209.
Suarez-Perales, I., Garces-Ayerbe, C., Rivera-Torres, P., & Suarez-Galvez, C. (2017). Is strategic proactiv-
ity a driver of an environmental strategy? Effects of innovation and internationalization leadership.
Sustainability, 9, 1870.

13
The impact of participative decision-making on eco-innovation…

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic
Management Journal, 18, 509–533.
Tian, X. W., & Zhai, X. X. (2019). Employee involvement in decision-making: The more the better? Inter-
national Journal of Manpower, 40, 768–782.
Triguero, A., Moreno-Mondéjar, L., & Davia, M. A. (2013). Drivers of different types of eco-innovation in
European SMEs. Ecological Economics, 92, 25–33.
Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 9, 31–51.
Witt, L. A., Andrews, M. C., & Kacmar, K. M. (2000). The role of participation in decision-making in the
organizational politics-job satisfaction relationship. Human Relations, 53, 341–358.
Wong, K. K. K. (2016). Mediation analysis, categorical moderation analysis, and higher-order constructs
modeling in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM): A B2B Example using
SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 26, 1–22.
Wu, X., & Sivalogathasan, V. (2013). ‘Intellectual capital for innovation capability: A conceptual model for
innovation’, International Journal of Trade. Economics and Finance, 4, 139.
Youssef, A. B. H., & Dziri, M. (2012). L’entrepreneuriat vert: mécanismes de mise en œuvre et motivations
en Tunisie (cas d’un pays émergent). Vie sciences de l’entreprise, 2, 59–77.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13