Exploring The Influence of Knowledge Management Process On Corporate Sustainable Performance Through Green Innovation

Exploring the inﬂuence of knowledge
management process on corporate

sustainable performance through
green innovation
Mohsin Shahzad, Ying Qu, Abaid Ullah Zafar, Saif Ur Rehman and Tahir Islam
Abstract (Information about the

Purpose – Enhancing green innovation for corporate sustainability is one of the recent issues globally. authors can be found at the
Knowledge management has been determined as a core factor that hamstrings green innovation. The end of this article.)
existing literature was limited to expose the importance of the knowledge management process for
corporate sustainable performance. Thus, this paper aims to examine the role of the knowledge
management process for corporate sustainable performance with the integration of green innovation and
organizational agility following the resource-based view theory.
Design/methodology/approach – Cross-sectional design was used in this study. Data were gathered
through convenience sampling from 475 respondents of multinational manufacturing corporations of
Pakistan, analyzed by using structural equation modeling.
Findings – This study revealed that the knowledge management process and its all constructs
(acquisition, dissemination and application) lead toward green innovation; further, green innovation
influences corporate sustainable performance and its all constructs (environment, economic and social).
Green innovation partially mediates the association between the knowledge management process and
corporate sustainable performance. Besides, organizational agility has a positive effect on green
Received 12 November 2019
innovation and corporate sustainable performance but was not found moderating these relations. The
Revised 6 April 2020
study educates that organizations investing in innovative technologies and adopting greener strategies 2 July 2020
are not only adequate for achieving sustainable performance, soft issues such as knowledge Accepted 17 July 2020
management and organizational agility but also important factors in the current knowledge base
This study was funded by the
economy. National Natural Science
Originality/value – This study is an attempt to examine the previously undiscovered multi-dimensional Foundation of China Project
relationships among the knowledge management process, green innovation, organizational agility and (71974028), University
Innovative Talent Program of
corporate sustainable performance. The presence of a positive correlation among these constructs was
Liaoning Province
observed, proving the conceptual framework for this study. (WR2016004) and the
Keywords Knowledge management process, Corporate sustainable performance, Green innovation, Fundamental Research Funds
for the Central Universities
Organizational agility, Structural equation modeling
(DUT18RC(3)034).
Paper type Research paper Corrigendum: It has come to
the attention of the publisher
that the article Shahzad, M.,
Qu, Y., Zafar, A.U., Rehman, S.U.
1. Introduction and Islam, T. (2020), “Exploring
the influence of knowledge
In this era of globalization, the insistence for corporate sustainability has grown significantly management process on
(Hansen and Schaltegger, 2016). Organizations are currently concentrating on corporate sustainable
performance through green
environmental issues along with economic benefits (Svensson et al., 2010), though to innovation”, Journal of
sustain competitive edge has become a real challenge (Cancino et al., 2018). Dynamic and Knowledge Management,
contained errors in Figure 2 and
more agile organizations are focused on adopting various strategy mixes, such as the Table 5. These errors were
introduced in the production
knowledge management process (KMP) and organizational agility (OA), to support the key process and have now been
objectives of achieving corporate sustainable performance (CSP). Corporations have corrected online.
DOI 10.1108/JKM-11-2019-0624 VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020, pp. 2079-2106, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 2079
identified knowledge as an important tool necessary for organizational success (Ooi, 2014).
Knowledge is being acquired, shared and used for gaining advantages (Darroch, 2005) in
raising customer satisfaction and obtaining competitiveness (Kianto et al., 2014; Mothe
et al., 2018). KMP enables organizations to respond to changes (Cillo et al., 2019) and
improves the sustainability of operations (Abbas, 2020) and competitive edge (Del-Giudice
et al., 2017), which in turn bring shareholders’ reliability and customers’ trust (Albort-Morant
et al., 2018).
KMP has been recognized as a significant component in designing and developing new
services and products, managing the operational process in the current business world
(Mardani et al., 2018; Qasrawi et al., 2017). For this reason, organizations seek to espouse
new and effective knowledge management (KM) strategies to achieve sustainable
objectives (Chen et al., 2009). Conferring to Tseng (2014), modern economies are built
using innovative ideas from human intellectual capital, which are contributing to
sustainability and profitability. KMP assists organizations in building up the capabilities
necessary for green innovation (GI) (Schneider, 2015), which further enhances CSP
(Abbas, 2020). GI derived from KMP has contributed to the development of environment-
friendly products (Li et al., 2018). From this, it is evident that KMP can play a fundamental
role in attaining CSP. Knowledge resources and capabilities are the building blocks for
firms’ abilities to innovate sustainably (Mills and Smith, 2011; Shahzad et al., 2019). Within
the firms’ capability framework, OA is increasingly appealed as the organizational ability to
deal with uncertain environmental changes by sensing and responding rapidly to exterior
changes (Lin et al., 2006; Muduli, 2017). For acquiring such agility, organizations must hold
adequate knowledge resources and sufficient capabilities to process available information
and make timely decisions (Kale et al., 2019).
According to Global Innovation Index (GII) statistics, Pakistan is one of the least innovative
nations, and its ranking was 119 in 2017 and 113 in 2018 out of a total of 126 countries
(Global Innovation Index, 2018), although its population is 207 million with 14% GDP share
in the manufacturing sector (Economic Survey of Pakistan, 2017). As per GII, some of the
factors that hinder innovation and growth are institutional factors, human capital factors,
infrastructure and technology factors, market and business factors and, the most valuable
among all of these, the knowledge and creativity factors. As per Pakistan Council for
Science and Technology vision 2025, value addition through innovation and knowledge is
the most critical national development plan for the following decade. Ministry of Science
and Technology of Pakistan has decided to conduct the maiden Industrial National
Innovation Survey (Abrar Hamza, 2018). The thought behind this investigation is to bring
innovations that upgrade the development and sustainability of industrial products in the
global market (Secretary, 2018). These facts motivate the authors to study the KMP for CSP
with special consideration of the Pakistani manufacturing sector routinely with staunch
proposals for policy implications.
The previous researchers have placed KMP under the core consideration in the studies of
organizational performance and knowledge-based innovation (Darroch, 2005; Shujahat
et al., 2017). Relatively a very few studies have assessed the association between the KMP
and CSP despite having a lot of talk in the industrial circles (Gholami et al., 2013; Lim et al.,
2017; Tseng, 2014; Zwain et al., 2012). Recent research has acknowledged a positive
relationship between knowledge absorptive capacity and CSP (Shahzad et al., 2019).
Shahzad et al. (2020) identified that the environmental dimension of sustainable
development (SD) has a positive influence on GI. Abbas and Sagsan (2019) stressed the
positive role of KM in the accomplishment of corporate SD; there is, however, no work
available to establish the impact of OA and GI on the relationship between KMP and CSP.
Besides, Davenport et al. (2019) emphasized the importance of extending the limited
literature on KMP, GI and SD. Thus, the problems mentioned above and the gap in literature
PAGE 2080 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020

propelled this investigation following the below-mentioned research questions and
envisioned to reduce the uncertain situation surrounding these relationships.
RQ1. What is the impact of the knowledge management process on green innovation
and further on corporate sustainable performance?
RQ2a. Does green innovation mediates the relationship between the knowledge
management process and corporate sustainable performance?
RQ2b. Does organizational agility moderate the relationship between the knowledge
management process and corporate sustainable performance?
By responding to the above research questions, the present research makes numerous
contributions to the prevailing literature. First, this study fills the research gap by assessing
the relationship between KMP and CSP by using multivariate analysis through structural
equation modeling (SEM). Similarly, the outcome of this study empowers the experts and
managers to integrate KM strategies into organizational operations to ameliorate GI.
Second, this study throws light on an underexplored concept of GI and OA, which
enhances CSP. Third, this study centers around an industrially underdeveloped country
setting such as Pakistan, which has gotten less consideration in the literature (Hamann
et al., 2017). Considering that CSP has been identified by three leading practices such as
environment, economic and social sustainability (Tseng, 2014), there is ample incentive that
the questions regarding the impact of the KMP, GI and OA in an organization be explored.
2. Theoretical foundation and literature review

2.1 Resource-based view
The resource-based view (RBV) was initially developed in the strategic management field to
understand organizational internal strengths and weaknesses and their relationship with
competitiveness and performance, after a period in which several studies focused
exclusively on industry determinants of organizational performance (Barney et al., 2011).
The RBV sees the organization as a cluster of productive resources (Barney, 1991).
According to this theory, the competitiveness of the firm is generated from the unique
resources (intangible or tangible) that the firm owns (Peteraf, 1993; Wernerfelt, 1984).
Specifically, organizational resources encompass all assets, capabilities, organizational
processes, knowledge, firm attributes, information, etc. possessed by the organization that
empower it to “conceive of and implement strategies that improve its efficiency and
effectiveness” (Barney, 1991). Barney (1991) further provided the physiognomies of firm
resources to produce sustainable competitiveness. These physiognomies are valuable,
inimitable, rare and non-substitutable. These resources have significant impacts on the
strategies and business objectives. These unique and rare resources can be acquired
externally, contributing to attaining organizations’ performance (Barney et al., 2011).
Adopting an RBV perspective, environmentalists have argued that GI can make an
organization more competitive and improve its sustainable performance. Still, it also
depends on relevant and critical organizational resources (Sarkis et al., 2011). Following the
Gavronski et al. (2011), manufacturing firms’ resources such as top management
commitment and environmental investments play an essential role in the process of GI. The
RBV has also been extensively used as a practical tool for managers in the industry to
discover the relationship between a firm’s resources and its financial performance (Hansen
et al., 2004).
Likewise, the knowledge positioning as a driving force for economic development has
directed to the expansion of a knowledge-based view (KBV) of the business. It has been
considered as an outgrowth of the resource-based theory because knowledge is perceived
as the strategically more significant inimitable resource (Grant, 1997). It postulates that the
central role of an organization is the assimilation of specific knowledge that resides within
the individual and firms’ members, which form the basis of firms’ capabilities. Therefore,
VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 2081

competitiveness is subject to the ability of the firm to assimilate specific knowledge assets
that can create core competencies for enhancing sustainable performance (Pemberton and
Stonehouse, 2000). These knowledge resources are usually challenging to emulate as they
reside within specialized individuals. The diverse knowledge capabilities and resources are
the primary sources of the competitiveness that further enhance sustainable performance.
Recently, researchers found that GI is a newly developed concept based on green
philosophy, and resource capabilities aim to aid organizations to create and advance the
features of the environmentally friendly product so that CSP can be accomplished
(Dangelico et al., 2017).
For GI and CSP, focusing on the KMP is the best strategy in the current knowledge-based
economy. In today’s competitive world, with the consistent and rapid change in the
customers’ and stakeholders’ demands, firms need to get the unique and innovative
knowledge for the overall improvements in their existing products and create an
environmentally friendly product (Xie et al., 2019). KMP is distinguished as a planned and
organized effort to exploit knowledge enclosed by the organization to offer services to the
community and enhance performance (Syed-ikhsan and Rowland, 2004). It is a source of
acquisition, dissemination and effective use of corporate knowledge resources, which are
the primary determinant for innovation (Darroch, 2005). Following the prominent prior
studies, this research incorporated these three dimensions of KMP, such as knowledge
acquisition (KA), knowledge dissemination (KD) and knowledge application (KAP), as a
critical resource to enhance GI and CSP. Considering the changing dynamics of today’s
business environment, KA is a core component for GI, where organizations acquire new
knowledge from interactions with different stakeholders to ensure consistent improvement in
every department of the organization which provides a better understanding of customers’
preferences (Qasrawi et al., 2017; Yang, 2010). Besides, to ensure excellence, employees
must involve actively in the dissemination of knowledge (Yang, 2010).
Moreover, organizations apply the acquired knowledge to enhance the overall
organizational processes and their final product (Darroch, 2003). Knowledge-driven
organizations encourage staff participation in corporate matters and provide viable
solutions dynamically. Further, the environmentalist and social behavior scientists believed
that unsustainable product consumption is responsible for climate change, pollution and
poor air quality (Li et al., 2019). A RBV supports the conceptual framework that an
organization with higher KMP and agile capabilities has high chances and competence to
manufacture green and sustainable products. Further, current research argued that GI
through the KMP generates a sustainable product that has less influence on the ecological,
environmental and society at large, which ultimately enhances CSP.
2.2 Corporate sustainable performance

Through the evolution of industrial expansion, the utilization of natural and green resources
by the industrial sector has improved enormously (Abbas and Sagsan, 2019). This situation
particularly formed a pull on the supply of natural resources prompting environmental
deprivation. The increasing demand has resulted in aggravating the issue even further
(Shahzad et al., 2020). The ecologist and naturalist have applauded the organizations for
assimilating advanced knowledge and green thinking into their production processes to
gain the advantages to enhance corporate sustainability (Sarkis et al., 2011). Similarly, in
the recent literature on environment management, these concerns have been addressed by
SD. Even though it is currently a hot issue, researchers and analysts are not agreed on the
concept and meanings yet (Hahn et al., 2015). The globally embraced definition of SD is by
the “World Commission on Environment and Development” (WCED, 1987), “Development
that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their needs.” In this definition, WCED includes economic, environmental and social
issues. These three fundamentals of CSP, known as the “triple bottom line” (TBL), affect the

current and forthcoming generations (Elkington, 1998). In this approach, each pillar
(environmental, economic and social) of sustainability is fairly significant; thus, it could be
regarded as an integrative theory of sustainability (Tseng et al., 2015). This TBL approach
was later adopted by the Global Reporting Initiative. Several aspects motivate an
organization to follow SD practices, such as legal, ethical and commercial (Abbas and
Sagsan, 2019).
In this study, the following three dimensions of CSP have been chosen: environment,
economic and social sustainability. First, environment sustainability (ENVS) mainly depends
on the handling of industrial waste responsibly, reduction in toxic waste and CO2 emission,
decreasing the likelihood of hazardous accidents in a production plant, production of eco-
friendly products, etc. (Shahzad et al., 2019, 2020; Tseng et al., 2016). According to the
International Energy Agency (2017), the manufacturing sector contributes around 24% of
CO2 emission globally. To avoid global warming and continuous weather change, we have
to control the industrial deterioration for eco-sustainability. Second, economic sustainability
(ECOS) is mainly related to cost-efficiency, revenue generation, energy efficiency, use of
waste for revenues, etc. (Cruz and Wakolbinger, 2008; Shahzad et al., 2019; Tseng et al.,
2016). Organizations that paid attention to enhancing environmental sustainability regarding
diminishing unfortunate outputs from manufacturing procedures will, in reality, also
strengthen their economic sustainability (Kemp and Pearson, 2008). Finally, social
sustainability (SOCS) is primarily related to fostering communication between the external
and internal communities, providing equal opportunity and ensuring and improving the
health and safety and well-being of society (Bansal, 2005; Shahzad et al., 2019; Tseng
et al., 2016). Recent studies identified the crucial role of CSP in achieving SD through
different strategic mixes such as GI, corporate social responsibility, total quality
management and absorptive capacity (Abbas, 2020; Shahzad et al., 2019, 2020). Thus,
summing it all up, the CSP can be comprehended as “an advancement that integrates
environmental, economic, and social dimensions.”
2.3 Green innovation

Theoretically, innovation not only guarantees a competitive edge but also ensures
ecological benefits along with social well-being (Cillo et al., 2019). Related principal terms
have been developed for innovation when assigned to various business sections, namely,
environmental innovation, eco-innovation, GI and sustainable innovation (Franceschini et al.,
2016; Schiederig et al., 2012). It is essential to recognize how these terms vary from one
another. Earlier researches suggested that ecological innovation, eco-innovation,
environmental innovation and GI are substitutable (Hojnik and Ruzzier, 2016; Schiederig
et al., 2012). Sustainable innovation incorporates social as well as eco dimensions.
However, according to Franceschini et al. (2016), eco-innovation tackles environmental and
economic aspects. In contrast, sustainable innovation clutches these with social and moral
dimensions and is firmly identified with the objective of management and rivalry. Chen et al.
(2006) recommended that eco-innovation can allude to both green processes and green
products.
Chen et al. (2006) defined GI as “hardware or software innovation that is related to green
products or processes, including the innovation in technologies that are involved in energy-
saving, pollution-prevention, waste recycling, green product designs, or corporate
environmental management.” Further, it is also described as “the accomplishment to
reduce nature degradation, acquire a significant market share, fiscal, and knowledge areas
at all phases of the execution of innovation” (Cancino et al., 2018; Li et al., 2019). The core
concerns of GI are technological advancement, reduction in environmental pollution,
recycling, eco-product design and ecological management (Li et al., 2017). GI is vital for
organizations to create value, competitive edge and improvement in performance. It is a
decisive element for SD (Ram Nidumolu and Prahalad, 2009) that plans to produce new

thoughts, goods and services, processes or administration frameworks which can be used
to manage environmental issues (Diba and Xie, 2019). Recently, several researchers have
identified the key factors that affect GI, such as stakeholders’ pressure, market and
customers’ demand, business ethics and environmental knowledge capabilities (Dangelico,
2017; Lai et al., 2014). The evaluation of GI and its aspects is viewed as imperative drivers
of corporate sustainability (Kemp and Pearson, 2008). Nowadays, GI is not just a vital mean
for a competitive edge, but an essential prerequisite to holding legitimacy (Li et al., 2017). In
summary, “innovation” tends to bring improvement with new products, materials,
procedures, administrations and authoritative structures to increase competitive edge
(Baregheh et al., 2009), “green innovation” doing the same with a perspective of
environment in focus.
2.4 Organizational agility

Agility is a composite function of attributes such as flexibility, high quality, reduced time of
delivery, adjustment and adaption to change, responding to innovation and reduced cost to
gain a competitive edge (Kale et al., 2019; Sherehiy et al., 2007). Several definitions have
been provided; Iacocca institute defines agility as a “production system with the capability
of software and hardware technology, trained human resources and information to meet the
needs which are changing rapidly” (Lin et al., 2006). Agility is the aptitude of the firm to
respond in a volatile environment and succeed by exploiting business opportunities
(Eckstein et al., 2015). It provides an organization a higher order dynamic capability
through which it can turn around and exploit opportunities while keeping the focus on
variabilities in the market, thereby rising in the right direction (Eckstein et al., 2015; Irfan
et al., 2019).
The speed of innovation (development of new product) has continuously been a crucial
component in the product design process. However, Smith (2007) points out that an
organization must be exceptionally adaptable in development and innovation processes. In
the current innovative era, agility relies on ones’ intelligence, and knowledge-based
flexibility is inevitable to winning every day. Agility in acquiring knowledge and bringing in
innovative products provides an organization with the ability to bring an increasing array of
new products to market swiftly. Such innovative products are fundamental to the future well-
being of both shareholders and employees (Smith, 2007).
Realizing the role of OA is a frontrunner in its ability parallel with the issues confronted by
the corporations, the ability to solve these issues, organizational learning, as well as the
management innovation which relies on continual improvement within the corporation
(Ganguly et al., 2009; Irfan et al., 2019; Kale et al., 2019). This research has gained a
significant scholarship to explore the role of agility on the KMP, which leads an organization
to develop innovative green products and the impact of the same on its sustainability and
performance.
3. Research model and hypotheses

The research model in Figure 1 depicts the impact of KMP and its all dimensions
(acquisition, dissemination and application) on GI. Further, it illustrates the effect of GI on
CSP and its all dimensions (environment, economic and social) following the RBV.
Furthermore, the mediating role of GI and the moderating role of OA are also examined.
3.1 Association between knowledge management process and green innovation

KMP is identified as a planned and organized exertion to use knowledge enclosed by the
organization to offer services to the community and enhance performance (Syed-ikhsan
and Rowland, 2004). According to Lim et al. (2017), “Knowledge is an intangible asset”; it is

Figure 1 Research model
a source of competitiveness for organizations and individuals being hard to imitate. Further,
KMP is a process for acquisition, dissemination and efficacious use of corporate knowledge
resources (Darroch, 2005). It is one of the core strategies and antecedents for organizations
to boost GI and also proficient at exploring new directions for sustainable performance (Lim
et al., 2017). To improve innovation and performance, firms could use already acquired
knowledge (Kianto et al., 2017; Kuo, 2011). The connection between KMP and GI emerges
when the top management invests in eco-friendly and green resources for development in
innovation using the knowledge and competencies of employees (Pérez-Luño et al., 2019).
In this context, organizational learning emphasizes joining corporate strategies with KM
strategies so that GI objectives can be achieved (Buenechea-Elberdin, 2017; Davenport
et al., 2019). The latest research highlighted that KA is primarily essential for achieving CSP
(Shahzad et al., 2019). Lin (2007) highlighted that sharing of knowledge improves
organizational knowledge resources, which is likely to engender novel ideas, and
consequently influence innovative organizational capabilities. Further, tacit knowledge
sharing also has a significant influence on innovative capabilities (Ganguly et al., 2019).
Wong (2013) also suggested that sharing of knowledge significantly impacts GI and
innovation success. Madhoushi et al. (2011) endorsed that KAP permits skills and
knowledge of an enterprise to be converted into product and process development.
Effective KAP enables the firms to produce sustainable products through innovative
production processing technologies. Further recent studies also identified that KM
practices positively impact GI (Abbas and Sagsan, 2019). From the literature, it is quite
evident researchers are paying more attention on how KM helps to attain GI. Therefore, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. Knowledge management process (KMP) has a positive and significant effect on
organizational green innovation (GI).
3.1.1 Knowledge acquisition. The term acquisition implies the aptitude to recognize and
attain new knowledge, which is crucial for effective organizational processes (Attia and
Salama, 2018). Primarily, employees acquire new knowledge from internal corporate
sources such as colleagues and team members (Qasrawi et al., 2017). KA is obtaining or

collecting further information from different authentic sources, which would help employees
to handle business-related issues and enhance individual and organizational productivity
(Mothe et al., 2018). From the previous literature, the association between KA and GI has
provided mixed outcomes in developing countries (Abbas and Sagsan, 2019). Various
researchers have found a significant positive linkage of KA from different stakeholders and
external markets with innovativeness (Abbas and Sagsan, 2019; Mothe et al., 2018; Zhang
et al., 2010). Although some studies discovered negative or no relationship among KA and
firm performance, these researchers suggested that investment in research and
development could help organizations conceive a new idea, which may lead to an
improvement in innovative performance (Capon et al., 1992). According to Darroch (2005),
KA was considered to be crucial for capacity building, innovative behaviors and
incremental performance enhancement.
Additionally, a study by Zhang et al. (2010) on German firms suggested that acquisition of
knowledge from collaborator stakeholders would influence the KAP process of organization,
which in return improves innovative organizational performance. Tseng (2014) analyzed the
association between KA, supplier relationship management (SRM) and enterprise
performance. He identified that KA has a strong positive effect on enterprise performance,
and SRM partially mediates the relationship. From the literature, it is apparent that
professionals and researchers around the globe are paying more attention to a query
regarding how knowledge acquisition may help to attain GI. Hence, the following hypothesis
is proposed:
H1a. Knowledge acquisition (KA) has a positive and significant effect on organizational
green innovation (GI).
3.1.2 Knowledge dissemination. KD is gathering, conveying and distributing the information
among the employees for making improvements (Lee et al., 2013). It has mainly two
aspects, such as knowledge sharing and knowledge collection. Sharing intends to offer
knowledge, whereas collection refers to a gathering of knowledge from employees (Attia
and Salama, 2018; Shujahat et al., 2017). These processes can be driven by meetings,
discussions, social networking and collaborations. Interactive and practical
correspondence gives opportunities for learning and sharing knowledge. It improves
organizational operations, financial forecasting, coordination with stakeholders and,
ultimately, corporate sustainability objectives (Qasrawi et al., 2017; Tseng, 2014).
Preceding literature identified mixed outcomes on the relation between KD and innovation.
In various studies, KD is proved to be an essential factor for a firm to influence on
innovation, as it enhances the knowledge accessibility (Abbas and Sagsan, 2019;
Hamdoun et al., 2018; Shahzad et al., 2019). Although Darroch (2005) found no relationship
between KD, organizational innovation and performance in New Zealand, another research
by Monica Hu et al. (2009) of the Taiwanese hotel industry found a positive connection
between sharing of knowledge and firm innovative performance. Further, Wong (2013)
contended that knowledge sharing pointedly impacts GI and innovation success in the
Chinese electronic industry. This study leans forward on the discussion and suggests that,
to achieve higher performance outcomes, organizations should develop employees’
knowledge-sharing behavior as it is the first thing they could begin within their journey for
improvement. The stream of knowledge around the firm expands the degree of knowledge
dissemination among the departments and different hierarchal levels of the firm; it will
increase the probability of innovation and performance enhancement. Thus, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H1b. Knowledge dissemination (KD) has a positive and significant effect on
organizational green innovation (GI).
3.1.3 Knowledge application. According to Darroch (2005), KAP is making information more
vigorous and appropriate for the organization in creating a competitive edge and satisfying

customers’ demands. It is also known as knowledge responsiveness (Lee et al., 2013),
which is demonstrated by an organization when it collects information about customer
needs and market trends and, based on it, reacts quickly to a problem or an opportunity
with the process and product innovation (Mothe et al., 2018). Resulting improvements in
quality and curtail response time represent an organization’s agility, which ultimately affects
customer satisfaction levels (Dove, 1999). To improve GI, firms would apply already
acquired knowledge (Kuo, 2011). From the study of previous literature, it is evident that the
association between KAP and GI has given different results. In this regard, Darroch (2005)
found that KAP is an essential factor for organizational innovation. In another study, Abbas
and Sagsan (2019) illustrated that KAP is very crucial for successful technological and
performance enhancement. The researcher found the positive relation of KAP with
innovative green performance (Abbas and Sagsan, 2019; Lin, 2007). It implies that KAP is a
strategic asset for businesses to sustain in the competitive environment of the modern
business era.
Findings of Madhoushi et al. (2011) suggested that KAP permits skills and knowledge of an
organization to be converted into product and process development. Further, considering
the shareholder’s interest, effective KAP enables the firms to produce sustainable products
through innovative production processing technologies (Albort-Morant et al., 2018). By the
above facts, it is quite apparent that the association between KAP and innovation is well
established; however, how KAP relates to GI could bring forth some interesting facts as
well. Thus, the next hypothesis is proposed as follows:
H1c. Knowledge application (KAP) has a positive and significant effect on organizational
3.2 Association between green innovation and corporate sustainable performance

GI is one of the core means through which organizations try to minimize or eliminate the
negative effect of their production and manufacturing operations on the natural environment
(Fernando et al., 2019). GI is the advancement in the process, products, technologies and
management structures that intent to keep the environment by reducing resource
consumption and minimizing waste and pollution (Li et al., 2017). Xie et al. (2019) separated
GI into the process and product innovation. It enhances present or invents new products or
processes and restraints the detrimental influence of business operations. It is also a crucial
success factor for CSP because it offers more flexibility and better performance through
employees’ knowledge resources (Lopes et al., 2017) and advanced technologies
(Schaltegger et al., 2012). Advanced technologies are incorporated to reduce energy
usage, prevent pollution, waste recycling and ecological management (Chen et al., 2006).
The utilization of eco-friendly and innovative technologies proposes two benefits for the
industries; first is commercial advantages for manufacturing eco-friendly products, and
second, economic gains that can improve competitiveness (Albort-Morant et al., 2016).
Moreover, it has been suggested as a vital persuader for businesses to produce green
products (Dangelico and Pujari, 2010). Past studies underlined that companies need to
give vigilant contemplation to GI and use eco-friendly technologies, which are demonstrate
the practical utilization of resources while evolving the environment practices (Galdeano-
Gomez et al., 2013). Following the above argument, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2. Green innovation (GI) has a positive and significant effect on corporate sustainable
performance (CSP).
3.2.1 Environment sustainability. Different organizations have a diverse stimulus for
embracing GI. Environment sustainability and GI both are a relatively new topic; research
on these emerging concepts is also escalating (Albort-Morant et al., 2018). The environment
sustainability means changes in production technologies that intend to lessen the adverse
impacts on the natural environment (Galdeano-Go mez et al., 2013). It is the leading strategy

for boosting GI, which fulfills the desires of customers (Albino et al., 2009). Corporations
require to give careful consideration toward GI and exploitation of eco-friendly technologies
that are pointing to the efficient use of resources while enhancing organizational
environment performance and efficiency (Galdeano-Go mez et al., 2013). Further, GI and
environmental responsibility are the most crucial factors that motivate organizations to make
environmentally friendly products that lead to environment sustainability (Dangelico et al.,
2017). Previous researchers suggested that organizations that have adopted sustainable
ecological strategies into their operations will probably deliver green products (Albino et al.,
2009), which enhances environment sustainability.
An eco-friendly and resource-efficient organization can quickly meet the goals and
requirements to avoid environment degradation (Fernando et al., 2019). Prior literature
identified that environment committed and eco-efficient organizations could lessen the
ecological degradation and stimulate GI performance (Lopes et al., 2017). According to
Saez-Martı́nez et al. (2014), in this era, environment awareness and motivation for
ecological activities are imperious for GI. Further, Chang (2016) suggested that
organizations that are more dedicated to environmental fortification impel GI. GI change the
organizational processes and production technologies that lessen their negative impact on
the environment, diminished industrial wastage, recycling and reduce the pollution and
ultimately enhance the corporate sustainability (Fernando et al., 2019). Furthermore, GI not
only reduces the adverse effect on the environment but also raises the competitive edge
(Huang and Li, 2017). Therefore, following the literature mentioned above and arguments,
the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2a. Green innovation (GI) has a positive and significant effect on corporate environment
sustainability (ENVS).
3.2.2 Economic sustainability. According to Sheth et al. (2011), economic sustainability has
two distinct views, first is related to financial performance, and the other is the economic
well-being of society. It is the most extensively studied dimension of CSP after the global
economic depression that brought consideration among businesses and communities
around the world because of the dread of insolvency, bankruptcy, dejobbing and other
fiscal risks to the organizations (Choi and Ng, 2011). Process eco-innovation, product eco-
innovation, management eco-innovation and investment in R&D on environmental concerns
are drivers for cost savings (Hojnik and Ruzzier, 2016). Reduction in cost, energy
consumption and usage of raw material are distinguished as supply-side factors that are
uniformly critical as drivers for environmental processes and firm performance (Triguero
et al., 2013). Besides, the reduction in the cost of production is most significant for GI and a
sustainable environment (Del-Rı́o et al., 2017; Hojnik and Ruzzier, 2016); nevertheless, the
organizations are not ascertained with regard to green product innovation. GI necessitates
organizations to reduce production costs and decrease the emission of various pollutants to
comply with regulatory requirements for enhancing economic performance (Saunila et al.,
2018). Further, organizations are investing in GI to increase productivity by minimizing
industrial production waste (Huang and Li, 2017). Furthermore, prior researchers identified
that it evokes positive economic development (Przychodzen and Przychodzen, 2015). The
literature review in this regard revealed that green product innovation is observed to be
positively significant to organizational profitability, albeit green process innovation is not
meaningful (Li et al., 2017). This uncertain situation triggers this study to investigate the
relationship. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2b. Green innovation (GI) has a positive and significant effect on Corporate Economic
Sustainability (ECOS).
3.2.3 Social sustainability. Social sustainability is recognized by firms’ economic efficiency
while considering the human development, promoting communication, job creation,
providing equal opportunities, development of well-being and solution for security problems
(Galdeano-Go mez et al., 2013). The inner expansion initiatives and organizational

competencies have been planted to assume a significant job in GI (Huang et al., 2016).
Advancement in human capital through training and development of the workforce could
help with urging employees and changing their conduct and attitude to more eco-friendly
actions (Huang et al., 2016). Notwithstanding the advancement of human development,
Del-Rı́o et al. (2017) recommended that organizational internal learning streams invigorate
the procedure of GI. Environmental knowledge and practices are found to influence the
profitability and well-being of the firm’s employees. This association is likewise helped by
peer support (Delmas and Pekovic, 2013). Prior literature identified, in this scenario, top
management commitment to human capital growth and knowledge stream can be used as
an imperative factor for GI, which enhances social sustainability (Huang et al., 2016).
Further, consumer’s preferences are changing, and they are willing to spend more for eco-
innovative and green products to improve environmental performance and process
innovation that are diminishing the energy consumption, waste and natural hazards
(Horbach et al., 2013). However, it is concluded that customer demands, human capital
and internal capabilities of firms affect social sustainability in a border context. Thus, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H2c. Green innovation (GI) has a positive and significant effect on corporate social
sustainability (SOCS).
3.3 Mediating effect of green innovation

This research also seeks to determine whether KMP affects CSP directly, and GI acts as a
mediator in this relationship. KM is one of the leading strategies to raise organizational
innovation performance (Darroch, 2005), also consummate in probing new directions for
CSP (Lim et al., 2017). Some researchers have offered the literature for the direct
relationship of the KMP on innovation performance (Abbas and Sagsan, 2019; Chen et al.,
2009; Kianto et al., 2014). As indicated by Darroch (2005), a distinctive type of innovation
requires diverse resources and henceforth a separate KM strategy. The association
between KMP and CSP appears when the organization’s management contributes to the
adoption and utilization of green resources for innovation through the knowledge and
capabilities of the workforce (De-Marchi and Grandinetti, 2013). The latest research
highlighted that KA is primarily essential for achieving corporate sustainability (Shahzad
et al., 2019). Recent studies also identified that KM has a direct and positive effect on
sustainable corporate performance (Abbas and Sagsan, 2019). Further, the environmental
dimension of SD also has a positive influence on GI (Shahzad et al., 2020). Moreover, GI is
also a critical success factor for corporate sustainability (Ram Nidumolu and Prahalad,
2009) because it offers more flexibility and better performance through advanced
technologies (Hansen and Schaltegger, 2016) and KM process (Lopes et al., 2017).
Advanced technologies are incorporated to reduce energy usage, prevent pollution, waste
recycling and environmental management (Chen et al., 2006). Further adoption of
advanced and digital manufacturing technologies impacts operational efficiency, which
further impacts organizational innovation (Gillani et al., 2020).
Noruzy et al. (2013) argued that KMP has a positive impact on firm performance through
firm innovation. Scholars have extensively discussed the direct relationship between
innovation and corporate sustainability (Chang, 2016; Hojnik and Ruzzier, 2016; Triguero
et al., 2013), whereas this research has tried to build an argument that KMP directly affects
the CSP. However, GI would be more influential in this relationship, and it may enhance the
impact of the KMP on CSP positively. Along these lines, the accompanying hypotheses are
proposed:
H3. Knowledge management process (KMP) has a positive and significant effect on
corporate sustainable performance (CSP).

H4. Green innovation (GI) mediates the relationship between knowledge management
process (KMP) and corporate sustainable performance (CSP).
3.4 Moderating effect of organizational agility

OA is the aptitude of an organization to sense the environment changes rapidly, new
opportunities for innovation and respond promptly to them by aligning its resources and
designing processes and strategies to exploit market conditions (Kitchens et al., 2018). It
assists the organizations in developing and operating their KMP to compete in uncertain
environmental changes and creates opportunities for competitiveness successfully (Ashrafi
et al., 2019). In current research conducted by Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), 88% of
executives and administrators acknowledged OA is the key to global business success
(Mikalef and Pateli, 2017). It is a proactive and knowledge-based approach that proceeds
from reactivity-based production agility (Kale et al., 2019). Further, corporations need to
confront shifting circumstances to exploit production factors to attain corporate, employees’
and stakeholders’ objectives (Shahrabi, 2012). To resolve these issues, the organization’s
agility necessitates enterprises to briskly supervise their knowledge when reacting to a
sudden change in the market environment. Extant literature identifies two sorts of OA,
namely, market capitalizing agility (MCA) and operational adjustment agility (OAA) (Lu and
Ramamurthy, 2011). MCA is described as a capacity that promptly improves product and
service offerings in response to change in consumer needs and wants by continually
observing and exploiting the changes that emerge in the business environment (Mikalef and
Pateli, 2017). Also, OAA is mainly dealing with internal business processes, and they are
quick coping with because of market and other stimulators for GI (Mikalef and Pateli, 2017).
An agile organization offers advanced technology solutions to fulfill customers’ demand for
a higher level of customer satisfaction, which contributes toward innovation (Shahrabi,
2012). It also tries to minimize production costs and enhance market share by meeting
uncertain market demands. Further, GI is the most crucial factor in adapting the
environmental changes for sustainable outcomes (Rosenbusch et al., 2011). The result of
OA depicts that incorporating innovative and green thoughts in practice is the only way to
achieve CSP (Ashrafi et al., 2019). Accordingly, this study contended that OA has the
potential to influence green organizational strategies (e.g. GI and processes) to ensure SD.
Moreover, highly agile organizations might be more innovative compared to the lower ones.
Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H5a. Organizational agility (OA) has a positive and significant effect on organizational
H5b. Organizational agility moderates the relationship between knowledge management
process (KMP) and green innovation (GI).
Further, agile organizations have a better chance to adapt erratic deviations in an efficient,
effective and timely manner (Ganguly et al., 2009). The quality, delivery time, flexibility and
responding to innovation are represented by OA, which affects customer satisfaction (Dove,
1999; Sherehiy et al., 2007). Extant literature elaborates that response time, speed,
efficiency and effectiveness in managing the environmental changes can positively affect
the competitive performance of an organization (Mikalef and Pateli, 2017). Prior researchers
have established the relationship between OA and firm performance in various business
sectors (Gligor et al., 2015; Rosenbusch et al., 2011). Further, the researcher believes that
OA is not an outcome, but a way to improve and sustain performance which might vary
organization to organization, and hence the following hypotheses are proposed:
H5c. Organizational agility (OA) has a positive and significant effect on corporate
sustainable performance (CSP).
H5d. Organizational agility moderates the relationship between knowledge management
process (KMP) and corporate sustainable performance (CSP).

4. Research methods
4.1 Sample design and data collection
According to Creswell et al. (2003), a quantitative research approach is the best option
when the primary purpose of the research is to identify the influential relationship among the
variables. This research is based on a deductive research approach, as the emphasis of
this study is to test the hypotheses derived from the existing theory (Bryman, 2007). So, we
used the survey method to test our hypotheses. A cross-sectional approach is used to
collect the data through an online and offline self-administered survey questionnaire. The
target populace of this study consisted of manufacturing MNCs including cement, textile,
leather, fertilizer, wood and furniture, surgical instruments, tobacco, carpets, etc. which
have already obtained ISO 14001 and 9001 certifications and listed in National Stock
Exchange (PSX). The rationale in the selection of certified manufacturing MNCs was
because of the sector being a primary consumer of natural resources and a major source of
environmental pollution (Shahzad et al., 2019). Besides, Pakistan is considered among the
least innovative nation in GII. So, this study particularly intent to explore that how leading
certified organizations are considering the SD stems from KM and GI. Because the primary
source of innovation comes from acquiring and application of knowledge, which ultimately
leads to sustainable performance, it may assist in comprehending the particular situation of
green practices and giving policy implications in the context of Pakistan to other uncertified
organizations. These listed companies publish their annual production and revenue data
reports on their website, paper and social media. The current research used non-probability
convenience sampling to collect the data from the respondents who hold managerial
positions, as they are responsible for the strategic decision-making and considered more
appropriate respondents of this investigation. Besides, they had been better equipped with
relevant information, and, simultaneously, played an essential role in the dissemination of
knowledge among various departments (Ooi, 2014; Yusr et al., 2017). Following the prior
researcher, we approached the middle and senior managers with official permission and
requested them participants for data collection (Ooi, 2014). These respondents represent
the organization as a whole. Numerous means were used for data collection, such as online
surveys and self-administered methods. In the current research, the link of the online survey
was shared with the respondents, with a cover letter, which explains the main purpose of
this study and guarantees the respondents’ data confidentiality and followed them for their
response. More than 900 respondents were approached, out of which we received 539
responses. A total of 64 responses were removed because of judgmental errors as the
required respondents did not fill these questionnaires. Thus, these questionnaires were
deleted from the final data analysis file, and a total of 475 responses are included. Almost
46% of the respondents were managers and supervisors. The majority of the respondents
(42%) were holding a Master’s degree. The complete details of the target industries and
sample with respondent’s demography were provided in demographic Table 1. The data
were collected from March to June 2019 until achieving an adequate sample size. For
sample size, this study espoused ten times rule, which is endorsed by Hair et al. (2016),
that is “10 times the largest number of structural paths directed at a particular latent
construct in a structural model.”
4.2 Measures
The authors used a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 7 to 1 “strongly agree” to “strongly
disagree” to rate all the used constructs. This study has adopted the constructs from
available literature with some minor modifications to ensure contextual consistency. The
final questionnaire was checked by two experts to ensure consistency. A pilot study was
conducted to ensure the content validity from 52 organizations’ sample. Some small
adjustments were made in the survey to ensure validity and reliability; anyway, the complete
results established the formal data collection. KMP was measured using the 16 items from

Table 1 Demographic attributes
Respondent profile (n = 475)
Attributes Distribution Frequency (%)
Industry Auto part manufacturing 31 6.5

Carpet 28 5.9
Cement 21 4.4
Fertilizer 28 5.9
Food and beverages 26 5.5
Leather 26 5.5
Metal and engineering 28 5.9
Misc. manufacturing 14 2.9
Paper and printing 33 6.9
Petroleum and chemical 30 6.3
Pharmaceutical 40 8.4
Sports goods 19 4.0
Surgical instruments 15 3.2
Textile 60 12.6
Tobacco 30 6.3
Wood and furniture 46 9.7
Gender Male 254 53.5
Female 199 41.9
Prefer not to say 22 4.6
Age 20–29 years 151 31.8
30–39 years 220 46.3
40–49 years 78 16.4
More than 50 years 26 5.5
Education Bachelor’s degree 159 33.5
Master’s degree 196 41.3
Technical degree 69 14.5
Others 51 10.7
Job experience 0–5 years 111 23.4
6–10 years 198 41.7
11–15 years 104 21.9
More than 15 years 62 13.1
Job title Officer/Coordinator 166 34.9
Supervisor/Manager 217 45.7
Senior Manager/General Manager 70 14.7
Managing Director/CEO 22 4.6
Darroch (2003). Darroch (2003) distributed these items into three dimensions of KMP, i.e.
KA, KD and KAP. Where we measured the KA using six items from the Darroch (2003), “Our
organization is quick to detect change in customer preference and their adoption.”
Similarly, KD was measured by using the five items from Darroch (2003), “Our organization
actively arranges coaching and training sessions for knowledge transfer.” Additionally, KAP
was measured by using the five measures from Darroch (2003), “Our organization responds
quickly to changing technology.” CSP was measured by three dimensions: environment,
economic and social sustainability. It was adopted from the Bansal (2005) using various
items of the constructs. For instance, ENVS was measured by using the six items from
Bansal (2005), “Our organization reduced likelihood of environmental accidents through
process improvements.” Similarly, ECOS was measured by using the five items from Bansal
(2005), “Our organization created spin-off technologies that could be profitably applied to
other areas of the business.” In addition, SOCS was measured by using the four items from
Bansal (2005), “Our organization communicated the firm’s environmental impacts and risks
to the public on regular basis.” Furthermore, GI was measured by using the six items from
the Song and Yu (2018); for instance, “Our organization uses the fewest amounts of
materials to comprise the product for conducting the product development or design.”
Finally, OA was measured by using the six items adopted from Cegarra-

Navarro et al. (2016); for instance, “Our organization have the ability to rapidly adapt
production to demand fluctuations.”
5. Data analysis
We analyzed the data by using IBM SPSS version 24 and SmartPLS version 3.2.8, using
partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). This study used PLS-SEM
because of the following reasons. This technique is most recommended when the focus of
the research is to predict and explore the dependent variables to explain the maximum
variance. So, PLS-SEM is the best prediction-oriented approach (Rolda n and Sa nchez-
Franco, 2012). It can also handle both the measurement (outer) and structural (inner)
models simultaneously. Further, it is an appropriate approach for the analysis of complex
path models (Hair et al., 2016). Finally, the PLS-SEM can also cater to small sample size
and provide more accurate results. Hence, PLS-SEM seems to be an appropriate approach
for this study.
5.1 Common method variance bias test

Common method variance (CMV) bias is an important apprehension in a survey study. This
issue took place when data were collected from a single source (Podsakoff et al., 2003). For
determining the presence of CMV among variables, a single-factor test was performed, as
suggested by Harman (1976). The result extricated that all the items in the model were
categorized into eight constructs, and the first construct explained 30.163% of the total
variance, which is lower than the 40% (Hair et al., 2016). Further, we executed a full
collinearity assessment test in SmartPLS. It is a modern and more reliable approach, as
suggested by Kock (2015) and recommended by various social science researchers (Zafar
et al., 2019, 2020). All VIF values are less than the threshold value 3.3, which indicated that
in our model, common method bias is not an issue (Kock, 2015).
5.2 Analysis of measurement model

The measurement or outer model was used to test the reliability, internal consistency,
convergence and discriminant validity of all the constructs (Sarstedt et al., 2017). The
results showed that the values of CR and CA were above 0.70 critical value level as
suggested by Cohen (1988). The standardized factor loading value of all the items of the
constructs is above 0.70, and the average variance extracted (AVE) of all constructs was
also above 0.50, which is impartially adequate. The complete results of validity and
reliability are shown in Table 2. We also tested the VIF to figure out multicollinearity for all the
measurement items, which is less than 3.0. As suggested by Hair et al. (2016), the cut-off
Table 2 Reliability and validity of all constructs

Latent constructs AVE Composite reliability Cronbach’s alpha
Corporate sustainable performance (CSP)

Environment sustainability (ENVS) 0.695 0.932 0.913
Economic sustainability (ECOS) 0.666 0.909 0.875
Social sustainability (SOCS) 0.757 0.926 0.894
Knowledge management process (KMP)
Knowledge acquisition (KA) 0.694 0.931 0.912
Knowledge dissemination (KD) 0.662 0.907 0.873
Knowledge application (KAP) 0.713 0.925 0.900
Green innovation (GI) 0.682 0.928 0.907
Organizational agility (OA) 0.614 0.905 0.875

value of VIF must be lesser than 5.0 to avoid multicollinearity, whereas higher value is
considered as ominous of multicollinearity.
Discriminant validity means each construct is divergent from other constructs that were
used in the model (Sarstedt et al., 2017). In this study, we primarily used two methods to
evaluate the discriminant validity; first, Fornell and Larcker criterion and, second,
heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio. In Fornell and Larcker, the square root value of AVE must
be larger than the correlation values of that constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). HTMT
ratio of all correlations was also calculated as suggested by Henseler et al. (2015), the
modern tool for evaluating DV. The values of the HTMT ratio below 0.85 depict no
discriminant validity issue, whereas values above 0.85 depict discriminant validity issues
(Sarstedt et al., 2017). The detailed results are given in Tables 3 and 4.
5.3 Analysis of structural model

The structural or inner model displays a causal association between exogenous and
endogenous constructs (Hair et al., 2016). It was assessed for explanatory power (R2),
predictive relevance (Q2) and path coefficient ( b -values). The R2 value of GI was 0.395,
ENVS was 0.193, ECOS was 0.191 and SOCS was 0.157, which favor the predictive power
of the model (Hair et al., 2016). Further, the results of the blindfolding procedure for Q2
values were 0.354 for GI, 0.188 for ENVS, 0. 184 for ECOS and 0.147 for SOCS. All values of
Q2 are larger than zero. Henceforth, this model has decent predictive relevance for
dependent constructs (Sarstedt et al., 2017). Furthermore, the value of “standardized root
means square residual” is 0.055, which is under the threshold value of 0.080. Therefore, it is
the affirmation of the overall fitness of the PLS path model (Sarstedt et al., 2017). As per
Table 3 Discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker criterion)

Constructs OA ECOS ENVS GI KA KAP KD SOCS
OA 0.783
ECOS 0.131 0.816
ENVS 0.180 0.673 0.834
GI 0.198 0.437 0.439 0.826
KA 0.064 0.444 0.405 0.351 0.833
KAP 0.088 0.422 0.407 0.576 0.331 0.844
KD 0.029 0.427 0.443 0.363 0.464 0.348 0.814
SOCS 0.099 0.401 0.490 0.396 0.216 0.371 0.261 0.870
Notes: OA = organizational agility; ECOS = economic sustainability; ENVS = environment
sustainability; SOCS = social sustainability; GI = green innovation; KA = knowledge acquisition; KD =
knowledge dissemination; KAP = knowledge application
Table 4 Discriminant validity (HTMT ratio)

Constructs OA ECOS ENVS GI KA KAP KD SOCS
OA
ECOS 0.152
ENVS 0.198 0.749
GI 0.221 0.484 0.472
KA 0.074 0.491 0.436 0.377
KAP 0.102 0.469 0.436 0.628 0.353
KD 0.066 0.479 0.483 0.398 0.499 0.382
SOCS 0.111 0.441 0.528 0.427 0.224 0.403 0.281
Notes: OA = organizational agility; ECOS = economic sustainability; ENVS = environment
sustainability; SOCS = social sustainability; GI = green innovation; KA = knowledge acquisition; KD =
knowledge dissemination; KAP = knowledge application

formula GoF = H(AVE R2), we have also computed the value of GoF, which is 0.457
showing a large model fit (Wetzels et al., 2009). The significance of all the hypotheses was
tested through a bootstrapping approach with 5,000 resamples. The results are presented
in Table 5, which represent that all direct hypothesized paths (H1 = 0.562, H1a = 0.127,
H1b = 0.134, H1c = 0.487, H2 = 0.215, H2a = 0.440, H2b = 0.437, H2c = 0.396 and H3 =
0.476) of KMP to GI and further for CSP were significant. Further, Model 2 represents that
the direct relationship of OA with GI and CSP (H5a = 0.151 and H5c = 0.091) was
significant. It implies that KMP and its all dimensions have a positive effect on GI, and
further, it has a positive effect on CSP and its all dimensions. OA also has a positive
relationship with GI and CSP. Detailed results are shown in Figure 2. All the control variables
were insignificant with b values (Gender = 0.007, Age = 0.017, Education = 0.007, Job
experience = 0.076 and Job title = 0.051).
5.4 Mediation analysis

The mediating effect of the GI was analyzed by following the two-step procedure, which is
proposed by Hair et al. (2016). In the first step, this study assessed the indirect effect of
KMP to CSP through GI. These results were significant of KMP indirect effect, b = 0.121
(details are given in Table 5). Further, in the second step, we evaluated the direct impact of
KMP on CSP without the removal of the mediator (GI) and found a significant positive effect of
KMP, b = 0.476. These results lead to partial mediation. Moreover, we observed the positive
sign of these indirect and direct effects; it might be concluded that GI has complementary
partial mediation. Thus, H4 is supported by complementary partial mediation.
5.5 Moderation analysis

The moderating effect of OA was also analyzed in two steps. Initially, we assessed the
significance of OA in the research model as an independent variable without any interaction
effect. The results stated that OA has positive significant impact on GI, b = 0.151, and CSP,
b = 0.091 with R2 = 0.353 (GI) and R2 = 0.263 (CSP) (Model 2). Second, the interaction of
KMP and OA was evaluated toward GI and CSP. The results stated that KMP OA has an
insignificant moderating impact on GI, b = 0.0323, and CSP, b = 0.0004 (Model 2) with
improved R2 = 0.354 (GI) and R2 = 0.414 (CSP). Results are given in Table 5. Hence, H5b
and H5d are insignificant and not supported.
Table 5 Hypotheses assessment

Model 1 Model 2
Hypotheses Paths b t b t Decision
H1 KMP ! GI – – 0.562 11.544 Supported

H1a KA ! GI 0.127 2.827 – – Supported
H1b KD ! GI 0.134 2.856 – – Supported
H1c KAP ! GI 0.487 8.885 – – Supported
H2 GI ! CSP – – 0.215 4.517 Supported
H2a GI ! ENVS 0.440 8.995 – – Supported
H2b GI ! ECOS 0.437 9.253 – – Supported
H2c GI ! SOCS 0.396 8.409 – – Supported
H3 KMP ! CSP – – 0.476 10.203 Supported
H4 KMP ! GI ! CSP – – 0.121 3.683 Supported partial mediation
H5a OA ! GI – – 0.151 3.015 Supported
H5b KMP OA ! GI – – 0.0323 0.589 Unsupported
H5c OA ! CSP – – 0.091 2.428 Supported
H5d KMP OA ! CSP – – 0.0004 0.993 Unsupported
Notes: KMP = knowledge management process, KA = knowledge acquisition, KD = knowledge dissemination, KAP = knowledge
application, GI = green innovation, CSP = corporate sustainable performance, ENVS = environment sustainability, ECOS = economic
sustainability, SOCS = social sustainability, OA= organizational agility; significant at: p < 0.05; p < 0.01

Figure 2 Structural model results
6. Conclusion and implications

6.1 Discussion
This research endeavored to examine how KMP is operative in improving GI and to elucidate
the role of GI in achieving CSP following RBV in manufacturing industries as these are
struggling to remain competitive amidst changing innovative processes. The results of the
present research exposed that KMP has a positive impact on GI; further, GI also has a positive
effect on CSP. Further, our study results found that all dimensions of KMP (KA, KD and KAP
with b values 0.127, 0.134 and 0.487, respectively) have a positive relationship toward the GI,
which supports the previous studies in a broader context (Abbas and Sagsan, 2019; Darroch,
2005; Shujahat et al., 2017; Yusr et al., 2017). Advanced knowledge offers a better
understanding of every matter such as financial, skill development of employees and
customer’s preferences (Darroch, 2003). According to the study by Tseng (2014), KA is a
pivotal tool for employees to collaborate and ensure consistent improvement in all
departments of the organization to enhance performance. This study contradicts prior study
by Lee et al. (2013), as they found no association of KA with firm performance.
KD has a positive relationship with GI, and the results are congruent with prior studies
(Abbas and Sagsan, 2019; Hamdoun et al., 2018; Tamer Cavusgil et al., 2003; Tseng, 2014;
Zhang et al., 2019). If organizations can successfully share knowledge among all
employees of the organization, it will enhance the firm’s operational, economic and non-
economic performance, and coordination among different stakeholders, which leads
toward eco-innovation (Tseng, 2014). KD is very important; it can liven up the aptitude and
abilities of workers, which will lead to innovation and performance. Our results contradict the
result of the prior research by Darroch (2005), as the researcher could not find any positive
relation of KD with firm performance in New Zealand. Introvert employees might be the
cause behind less dissemination of knowledge while communicating. However, recent
researches found results as of our study (Monica Hu et al., 2009; Tamer Cavusgil et al.,
2003). Further, KAP has shown a positive relationship with GI. To improve performance,
organizations need to apply already acquired knowledge effectively and quickly so that
they can achieve the highest level of customer satisfaction (Kuo, 2011). According to

Darroch (2005), KAP is a critical factor that empowers the organization to produce green
products through innovative products and digital manufacturing technologies. The result of
this study strengthens the result of previous studies by Abbas and Sagsan (2019), Lin
(2007), Madhoushi et al. (2011) and Mills and Smith (2011). Furthermore, GI is considered
as a crucial driver of corporate sustainability, and this will contribute to CSP. This study
shows that GI has a positive and significant impact on all dimensions of CSP (ENVS, ECOS
and SOCS with b values 0.440, 0.437 and 0.396, respectively).
First, GI came up as the most influential driver for ENVS. The businesses which are well aware
of the adverse outcome of their operations on the environment are easily moved toward
environmental sustainability. The results confirm that there still exists a need to encourage
knowledge of the environment (Sa ez-Martı́nez et al., 2014). It must be recognized by using the
environment management system (EMS), manufacturing execution systems (MES) or quality
management system (QMS) (Hojnik and Ruzzier, 2016). These systems were deemed to
improve and encourage the reception of ENVS. These results are consistent with previous
researches by Abbas and Sagsan (2019) and Sa ez-Martı́nez et al. (2014). GI is also positively
significant toward ECOS and consistent with prior studies (Hojnik and Ruzzier, 2016; Li et al.,
2017). The inspiration for economic sustainability is associated with the economic benefits such
as a reduction in production cost, minimizing the waste (Albort-Morant et al., 2018), which has
evolved as the most influential driver of ECOS that ultimately affects the performance (Del-Rı́o
et al., 2017). The cost of production can only be minimized by reducing energy consumption,
raw material usage, process and product eco-design (Triguero et al., 2013).
GI also has a positive effect on SOCS and supports prior research (Galdeano-Go mez et al.,
2013; Saunila et al., 2018). Nowadays, socially responsible businesses are more active and
concerned in fulfilling the consumer’s eco-friendly demands to lessen the environmental
damages (Albort-Morant et al., 2018). It recognized and explicated the firm economic
efficiency with regard to the environment with a focus on human resources and social well-
being (Galdeano-Go mez et al., 2013). Development in human resources through
environmental knowledge training could help the employees to change their conduct, which
influences the eco-innovation (Huang et al., 2016). Thus, GI proves as a catalyst to invest in
new advanced technologies, products and processes that enable corporations to become
more eco-friendly, which helps to attain CSP.
The research finding on the mediation analysis revealed that GI partially mediates the
relationship between KMP and CSP ( b = 0.121). Past research suggested that further
examination is needed to better understand the critical mediating role of GI between the
KMP and CSP (Abbas and Sagsan, 2019; Shahzad et al., 2019). Thus, the present study
underpinned the mediating role of GI and established that it can partially mediate the
relationship between KMP and CSP. Furthermore, the present study also examined the
moderated relationship of OA and found that it has a direct and positive effect on GI ( b =
0.151) and CSP ( b = 0.091). Still, unexpectedly, the results of interaction with KMP to GI
and CSP were insignificant. The results are unique and add a valued contribution to the
literature in the emerging context. In the present research, OA is defined as the capability of
a firm to react instantly to the changes to the external and internal organizational
environment and to respond aggressively to the changes to capture potential opportunities
that evolve because of change. Pakistan is an emerging economy, and most of the
businesses belong to the family groups, and they are reluctant to make decisions that
involve the extra financial cost. SD and GI are luxuries for a company where they are not
legally bound to do it. Thus, the potential reason behind irrelevant moderation results is
because employees are not inclined to expose the negative cognitive aspects of an
organization. It is a developing countries organization culture that management is only
taking quick decisions where they are sure about the high return on the assets. As a result,
the findings provide the guideline to the policymakers and related government ministries to
push firms to adopt the green operations and, in return, give some rebate on it.

6.2 Theoretical contribution
This research has several theoretical implications. First, this research extends the existing
knowledge by examining and validating a conceptual framework that incorporates the KMP
dimensions to measure the CSP through GI in the organizational context. From a theoretical
aspect, KMP is currently a hot area of research; however, still there is a lack of studies in the
field of exploring the relationship between each construct of the KMP to GI and further on
each construct of CSP with the moderation of OA in an encompassing model (Lim et al.,
2017; Tseng, 2014). This study explored the unexplored area and tried to minimalize the
research gap by empirically examining the importance of KMP and its dimensions in
improving GI and further on CSP and its dimensions, which provides support to RBV theory.
This study posits that KMP could help to manage and use knowledge resources effectively
and to smooth the operations to enhance GI for CSP.
Second, the extant literature on CSP has been focused on the direct influence of various factors
and organizational strategies. This research identified GI as a key mediator between the KMP
and CSP, which is previously limited (Adams and Graham, 2016; Brix, 2017). The examination
of the mediating role of GI in the proposed model provides a novel theoretical point of view in
the context of emerging economies. This is because just a very few studies have explored an
intervening role of GI in various cultures (Hamann et al., 2017). Third, this study revealed that GI
is an important determinant of CSP and its all dimensions that keep the environment clean and
enhance the SD; however, GI has a strong effect on the environmental dimension of CSP.
Consequently, this research contributes to the RBV in the developing country context that GI
remains a significant factor in the context of CSP. Finally, the research advances a better
understanding that KMP is important for CSP. Finally, this study advances the knowledge of
how OA can improve for accomplishing CSP by communicating and applying the knowledge
into corporate strategies and operations. This empirical research, however, is the first to test the
moderation of OA among KMP, GI and CSP. Accordingly, these results provide supplements
for literature about CSP. Wong (2013) highlighted the significant role of KMP in influencing the
GI because GI can enhance the CSP to fulfill the requirement of SD. The current research
extends the findings of Wong (2013) by exhibiting that KMP facets impact CSP through GI in
the developing country context. In a nutshell, results revealed that all dimensions of CSP are the
most persuasive drivers, which offer solutions to environmental degradation and cost-efficiency
that provide support to SD. Thus, organizations can perform effectively and efficiently.
6.3 Practical implications

First, the outcome of this research is a helpful manual for manufacturing practitioners and
experts. It assists in comprehending the significance of KM into their administrative actions
in transforming to be an eco-innovative organization in terms of ecological, economic and
social aspects. Hereafter, it is recommended for the top management to dedicate additional
time and consideration regarding workforce development through KMP (acquisition,
dissemination and application) as an essential instrument to enhance OA, GI and CSP. The
highest spending of MNCs on KMP was just $13m, which was very less as compared to
spending on new and innovative technologies.
Second, this study highlighted the importance of the KMP to the policymakers and civil
bureaucracy and suggested that various departments working for the government must
realize the value of knowledge in promoting GI to enhance SD. For this, they may launch a
specific program for the managers to educate and try to develop a sustainable
organization. Consequently, in emerging countries where organizations are not as
resourceful as their counter-developed countries, KM is a key determinant for GI.
Furthermore, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the present study is the first to
empirically validate that KM is equally important for Pakistani managers and an essential
step for the GI and sustainable economy.

Third, manufacturing businesses should put more accentuation on KA, dissemination and
application, as it is a device to accomplish GI inside and outside the organization in view to
achieve SD goals. The managers should provide a platform to employees where they can
share their knowledge and communicate (i.e. enterprise social media) with others to
enhance their capabilities in handling the work for improved OA and outcomes. For this
purpose, organizations should arrange seminars, workshops and training for the
socialization of employees. This study provides the necessary guidance and knowledge to
advance OA, which is essential to enhance the competitive edge and to ensure their
survival in uncertain environmental conditions.
Finally, keeping in view environmental issues and SD goals put forward by United Nations,
multinational corporations operating in developing nations are also committed to take valued
measures and spend a considerable investment on promoting worker’s education and green
processes by advancing eco-friendly technologies in this sector by collaborating with
developed nations. This research recommended techno-driven corporations that are only
concentrating on innovative technologies, and investing in the greener environment are not
adequate for achieving sustainability; soft issues such as KM and OA are a more reliant factor
in the current knowledge-based economy. Thus, KM, OA and GI ought to consider in parallel
for CSP as it is practiced in Taiwan. Taiwan is the fastest-growing economy by “knowledge-
intensive industry,” and KM playing a critical role in the economic transformation of the
country. It is at the sixth number, according to EIU GII (2009–2013), following the USA and
Japan (Lazar and Kekic, 2009). Further, the results of this research are also helpful for the
development of training and educational material for manufacturing industries. Furthermore, in
the context where the study on GI and CSP is limited, these empirical results may provide
valuable guidelines to the emerging country policymakers and scholars. For instance, it
proposed the underlying mechanism through which the KMP influences CSP with the
integration of GI. As a result, companies based on GI are facilitated to generate
environmentally friendly and produced goods or services that favor the green economy.
6.4 Limitation and future research

Because of restricted time and resources, this research has several limitations that may
facilitate future researchers. First, this research was restricted to the manufacturing
sector in one country only. It is suggested that the boundaries of this research be
extended to diverse regions with the end goal to have a more thorough investigation. The
result attained from the other countries could also compare with this study. It can also be
tested in another business sector; this may enhance the generalizability of this model.
Notably, data were collected from individuals of ISO-certified MNCs working in Pakistan
to establish the importance of KM and GI in sustainable performance. Being part of an
ISO-certified organization, it was posited that they are at a similar level of understanding
of targeted constructs; therefore, instead of going for the organizational level, we opted
for individual-level study. We did not find much variability among the responses when
analyzed in terms of their respective industries or organizations. Though this study
provides a road map for uncertified organizations, future studies may consider these
uncertified organizations for organizational-level study, which may provide concrete
insights at organizational and industry level. Second, the cross-sectional approach was
another shortcoming of this research. This approach contains confinement to test the
causal connection because a solid conclusion cannot be drawn. Hence, a longitudinal or
experimental study is recommended for the future to get more conclusive outcomes.
Furthermore, it is suggested to incorporate any other moderating variables such as
dynamic and absorptive capabilities of employees and personality traits of employees
because absorptive capacity and personality traits (extravert/introvert) are very
significant for the acquisition and sharing of knowledge, which is ultimately helpful for an
effective KM process.

References
Abbas, J. (2020), “Impact of total quality management on corporate sustainability through the mediating
effect of knowledge management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 244, pp. 1-11.
Abbas, J. and Sagsan, M. (2019), “Impact of knowledge management practices on green innovation and
corporate sustainable development: a structural analysis”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 229.
Abrar Hamza (2018), “Pakistan’s first industrial innovation survey on the cards”, Daily Times, August,
Islamabad.
Adams, F.G. and Graham, K.W. (2016), “Integration, knowledge creation and B2B governance: the role
of resource hierarchies in financial performance”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 63,
pp. 179-191.
Albino, V., Balice, A. and Dangelico, R.M. (2009), “Environmental strategies and green product
development: an overview on sustainability-driven companies”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 83-96.
n, A. and Cepeda-Carrio
Albort-Morant, G., Leal-Milla n, G. (2016), “The antecedents of green innovation
performance: a model of learning and capabilities”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 11,
pp. 4912-4917.
Albort-Morant, G., Leal-Rodrı́guez, A.L. and De Marchi, V. (2018), “Absorptive capacity and relationship
learning mechanisms as complementary drivers of green innovation performance”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 432-452.
Ashrafi, A., Zare Ravasan, A., Trkman, P. and Afshari, S. (2019), “The role of business analytics
capabilities in bolstering firms’ agility and performance”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 47, pp. 1-15.
Attia, A. and Salama, I. (2018), “Knowledge management capability and supply chain management
practices in the saudi food industry”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 459-477.
Bansal, P. (2005), “Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 197-218.
Baregheh, A., Rowley, J. and Sambrook, S. (2009), “Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation”,
Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 1323-1339.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Barney, J.B., Ketchen, D.J. and Wright, M. (2011), “The future of resource-based theory: revitalization or
decline?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 1299-1315.
Brix, J. (2017), “Exploring knowledge creation processes as a source of organizational learning: a
longitudinal case study of a public innovation project”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 113-127.
Bryman, A. (2007), “Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research”, Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 8-22.
Buenechea-Elberdin, M. (2017), “Structured literature review about intellectual capital and innovation”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 262-285.
Cancino, C.A., La Paz, A.I., Ramaprasad, A. and Syn, T. (2018), “Technological innovation for sustainable
growth: an ontological perspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 179, pp. 31-41.
Capon, N., Farley, J.U., Lehmann, D.R. and Hulbert, J.M. (1992), “Profiles of product innovators among
large U.S”, Management Science, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 157-169.
Cegarra-Navarro, J.G., Soto-Acosta, P. and Wensley, A.K.P. (2016), “Structured knowledge processes
and firm performance: the role of organizational agility”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 5,
pp. 1544-1549.
Chang, C.H. (2016), “The determinants of green product innovation performance”, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 65-76.
Chen, Y.S., Lai, S.B. and Wen, C.T. (2006), “The influence of green innovation performance on corporate
advantage in Taiwan”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 331-339.

Chen, Y.S., Lin, M.J.J. and Chang, C.H. (2009), “The positive effects of relationship learning and
absorptive capacity on innovation performance and competitive advantage in industrial markets”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 152-158.
Choi, S. and Ng, A. (2011), “Environmental and economic dimensions of sustainability and price effects
on consumer responses”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 104 No. 2, pp. 269-282.
Cillo, V., Petruzzelli, A.M., Ardito, L. and Del Giudice, M. (2019), “Understanding sustainable innovation: a
systematic literature review”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 26
No. 5, pp. 1012-1025.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers NJ.
Creswell, J.W., Clark, V.L.P., Gutmann, M. and Hanson, W.E. (2003), Advanced Mixed Methods
Research Designs, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Cruz, J.M. and Wakolbinger, T. (2008), “Multiperiod effects of corporate social responsibility on supply
chain networks, transaction costs, emissions, and risk”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 61-74.
Dangelico, R.M. (2017), “What drives green product development and how do different antecedents
affect market performance? a survey of italian companies with Eco-Labels”, Business Strategy and the
Environment, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 1144-1161.
Dangelico, R.M. and Pujari, D. (2010), “Mainstreaming green product innovation: why and how
companies integrate environmental sustainability”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 95 No. 3,
pp. 471-486.
Dangelico, R.M., Pujari, D. and Pontrandolfo, P. (2017), “Green product innovation in manufacturing
firms: a Sustainability-Oriented dynamic capability perspective”, Business Strategy and the Environment,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 490-506.
Darroch, J. (2003), “Developing a measure of knowledge management behaviors and practices”, Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 41-54.
Darroch, J. (2005), “Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 101-115.
Davenport, M., Delport, M., Blignaut, J.N., Hichert, T. and van der Burgh, G. (2019), “Combining theory
and wisdom in pragmatic, scenario-based decision support for sustainable development”, Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 692-716.
De-Marchi, V. and Grandinetti, R. (2013), “Knowledge strategies for environmental innovations:
the case of italian manufacturing firms”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 569-582.
Del-Giudice, M., Khan, Z., De Silva, M., Scuotto, V., Caputo, F. and Carayannis, E. (2017), “The microlevel
actions undertaken by owner-managers in improving the sustainability practices of cultural and creative
small and medium enterprises: a United Kingdom–Italy comparison”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 38 No. 9, pp. 1396-1414.
n, D. and Peñasco, C. (2017), “Analysing firm-specific and type-specific
Del-Rı́o, P., Romero-Jorda
determinants of eco-innovation”, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 270-295.
Delmas, M.A. and Pekovic, S. (2013), “Environmental standards and labor productivity: understanding
the mechanisms that sustain sustainability”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 230-252.
Diba, S. and Xie, N. (2019), “Sustainable supplier selection for satrec vitalait milk company in Senegal using
novel grey relational analysis method”, Grey Systems: Theory and Application, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 262-294.
Dove, R. (1999), “Knowledge management, response ability, and the agile enterprise”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 18-35.
Eckstein, D., Goellner, M., Blome, C. and Henke, M. (2015), “The performance impact of supply chain
agility and supply chain adaptability: the moderating effect of product complexity”, International Journal
of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 10, pp. 3028-3046.
Economic Survey of Pakistan (2017), “Pakistan economic survey, 2016-17”, Pakistan Economic Survey,
2016-17, pp. 19-40.

Elkington, J. (1998), “Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21 st century
business”, Environmental Quality Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 37-51.
Fernando, Y., Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J. and Wah, W.X. (2019), “Pursuing green growth in technology
firms through the connections between environmental innovation and sustainable business performance:
does service capability matter?”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 141, pp. 8-20.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurements error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Franceschini, S., Faria, L.G.D. and Jurowetzki, R. (2016), “Unveiling scientific communities about
sustainability and innovation. A bibliometric journey around sustainable terms”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 127, pp. 72-83.
Galdeano-Go mez, E., Aznar-Sa nchez, J.A. and Pérez-Mesa, J.C. (2013), “Sustainability dimensions
related to agricultural-based development: the experience of 50 years of intensive farming in almerı́a
(Spain)”, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 125-143.
Ganguly, A., Nilchiani, R. and Farr, J.V. (2009), “Evaluating agility in corporate enterprises”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 118 No. 2, pp. 410-423.
Ganguly, A., Talukdar, A. and Chatterjee, D. (2019), “Evaluating the role of social capital, tacit knowledge
sharing, knowledge quality and reciprocity in determining innovation capability of an organization”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1105-1135.
Gavronski, I., Klassen, R.D., Vachon, S. and Nascimento, LFM D. (2011), “A resource-based view of
green supply management”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 872-885.
Gholami, M., Asli, M., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S. and Noruzy, A. (2013), “Investigating the influence of
knowledge management practices on organizational performance: an empirical study”, Acta
Polytechnica Hungarica, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 205-216.
Gillani, F., Chatha, K.A., Sadiq Jajja, M.S. and Farooq, S. (2020), “Implementation of digital
manufacturing technologies: antecedents and consequences”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 229, p. 107748.
Gligor, D.M., Esmark, C.L. and Holcomb, M.C. (2015), “Performance outcomes of supply chain agility:
when should you be agile?”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 33-34 No. 1, pp. 71-82.
Global Innovation Index (2018), “Key findings report”, available at: www.globalinnovationindex.org/
about-gii#keyfindings.
Grant, R.M. (1997), “The knowledge-based view of the firm: implications for management practice”, Long
Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 450-454.
Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L. and Figge, F. (2015), “Tensions in corporate sustainability: towards an
integrative framework”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 127 No. 2, pp. 297-316.
Hair, J.F.J., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed., SAGE Publications New York, NY.
Hamann, R., Smith, J., Tashman, P. and Marshall, R.S. (2017), “Why do SMEs go green? An analysis of
wine firms in South Africa”, Business & Society, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 23-56.
Hamdoun, M., Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J. and Ben Othman, H. (2018), “Knowledge transfer and
organizational innovation: impacts of quality and environmental management”, Journal of Cleaner
Hansen, E.G. and Schaltegger, S. (2016), “The sustainability balanced scorecard: a systematic review of
architectures”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 133 No. 2, pp. 193-221.
Hansen, M.H., Perry, L.T. and Reese, C.S. (2004), “A bayesian operationalization of the resource-based
view”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 13, pp. 1279-1295.
Harman, H.H. (1976), Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in
variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43
No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Hojnik, J. and Ruzzier, M. (2016), “What drives eco-innovation? A review of an emerging literature”,
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Vol. 19, pp. 31-41.

Horbach, J., Oltra, V. and Belin, J. (2013), “Determinants and specificities of Eco – innovations compared
to other innovations-an econometric analysis for the french and german industry based on the community
innovation survey”, Industry & Innovation, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 523-543.
Huang, J.W. and Li, Y.H. (2017), “Green innovation and performance: the view of organizational
capability and social reciprocity”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 145 No. 2, pp. 309-324.
Huang, X.X., Hu, Z.P., Liu, C.S., Yu, D.J. and Yu, L.F. (2016), “The relationships between regulatory and
customer pressure, green organizational responses, and green innovation performance”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 112, pp. 3423-3433.
Irfan, M., Wang, M. and Akhtar, N. (2019), “Impact of IT capabilities on supply chain capabilities and
organizational agility: a dynamic capability view”, Operations Management Research, Vol. 12 Nos 3/4,
pp. 113-128.
Kale, E., Aknar, A. and Bas ar, Ö. (2019), “Absorptive capacity and firm performance: the mediating role
of strategic agility”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 78, pp. 276-283.
Kemp, R. and Pearson, P. (2008), “Final report MEI project about measuring eco-innovation”, UM Merit,
Maastricht, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 121-124.
Kianto, A., Sa enz, J. and Aramburu, N. (2017), “Knowledge-based human resource management
practices, intellectual Capital and innovation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 81, pp. 11-20.
Kianto, A., Ritala, P., Spender, J.C. and Vanhala, M. (2014), “The interaction of intellectual capital assets
and knowledge management practices in organizational value creation”, Journal of Intellectual Capital,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 362-375.
Kitchens, B., Dobolyi, D., Li, J. and Abbasi, A. (2018), “Advanced customer analytics: strategic value
through integration of relationship-oriented big data”, Journal of Management Information Systems,
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 540-574.
Kock, N. (2015), “Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach”,
International Journal of e-Collaboration, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Kuo, T. (2011), “How to improve organizational performance through learning and knowledge?”,
International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 32 No. 5/6, pp. 581-603.
Lai, Y.L., Hsu, M.S., Lin, F.J., Chen, Y.M. and Lin, Y.H. (2014), “The effects of industry cluster knowledge
management on innovation performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 734-739.
Lazar, J. and Kekic, L. (2009), “A new ranking of the world’s most innovative countries”, Economist Intelligence
Unit.
Lee, V.H., Leong, L.Y., Hew, T.S. and Ooi, K.B. (2013), “Knowledge management: a key determinant in
advancing technological innovation?”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 848-872.
Li, J., Li, Y., Yu, Y. and Yuan, L. (2019), “Search broadly or search narrowly? Role of knowledge
search strategy in innovation performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 23 No. 5,
pp. 809-835.
Li, D., Zhao, Y., Zhang, L., Chen, X. and Cao, C. (2018), “Impact of quality management on green
innovation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 170, pp. 462-470.
Li, D., Zheng, M., Cao, C., Chen, X., Ren, S. and Huang, M. (2017), “The impact of legitimacy pressure
and corporate profitability on green innovation: evidence from China top 100”, Journal of Cleaner
Lim, M.K., Tseng, M.L., Tan, K.H. and Bui, T.D. (2017), “Knowledge management in sustainable supply
chain management: improving performance through an interpretive structural modelling approach”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 162, pp. 806-816.
Lin, H.F. (2007), “Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an empirical study”, International
Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28 No. 3/4, pp. 315-332.
Lin, C.T., Chiu, H. and Tseng, Y.H. (2006), “Agility evaluation using fuzzy logic”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 353-368.
Lopes, C.M., Scavarda, A., Hofmeister, L.F., Thomé, A.M.T. and Vaccaro, G.L.R. (2017), “An analysis of
the interplay between organizational sustainability, knowledge management, and open innovation”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 142, pp. 476-488.
Lu, Y. and Ramamurthy, K. (2011), “Understanding the link between information technology capability and
organizational agility: an empirical examination”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 931-954.

Madhoushi, M., Sadati, A., Delavari, H., Mehdivand, M. and Mihandost, R. (2011), “Entrepreneurial
orientation and innovation performance: the mediating role of knowledge management”, Asian Journal of
Business Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 310-316.
Mardani, A., Nikoosokhan, S., Moradi, M. and Doustar, M. (2018), “The relationship between knowledge
management and innovation performance”, The Journal of High Technology Management Research,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 12-26.
Mikalef, P. and Pateli, A. (2017), “Information technology-enabled dynamic capabilities and their indirect
effect on competitive performance: findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 70, pp. 1-16.
Mills, A.M. and Smith, T.A. (2011), “Knowledge management and organizational performance: a
decomposed view”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 156-171.
Monica Hu, M.L., Horng, J.S. and Christine Sun, Y.H. (2009), “Hospitality teams: knowledge sharing and
service innovation performance”, Tourism Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 41-50.
Mothe, C., Nguyen-Thi, U.T. and Triguero, Á. (2018), “Innovative products and services with
environmental benefits: design of search strategies for external knowledge and absorptive capacity”,
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 61 No. 11, pp. 1934-1954.
Muduli, A. (2017), “Workforce agility: examining the role of organizational practices and psychological
empowerment”, Global Business and Organizational Excellence, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 46-56.
Noruzy, A., Dalfard, V.M., Azhdari, B., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S. and Rezazadeh, A. (2013), “Relations
between transformational leadership, organizational learning, knowledge management, organizational
innovation, and organizational performance: an empirical investigation of manufacturing firms”, The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 64 No. 5-8, pp. 1073-1085.
Ooi, K.B. (2014), “TQM: a facilitator to enhance knowledge management? a structural analysis”, Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 41 No. 11, pp. 5167-5179.
Pemberton, J.D. and Stonehouse, G.H. (2000), “Organisational learning and knowledge assets – an
essential partnership”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 184-194.
Pérez-Luño, A., Alegre, J. and Valle-Cabrera, R. (2019), “The role of tacit knowledge in connecting
knowledge exchange and combination with innovation”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,
Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 186-198.
Peteraf, M.A. (1993), “The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 179-191.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Przychodzen, J. and Przychodzen, W. (2015), “Relationships between eco-innovation and financial
performance – evidence from publicly traded companies in Poland and Hungary”, Journal of Cleaner
Qasrawi, B.T., Almahamid, S.M. and Qasrawi, S.T. (2017), “The impact of TQM practices and KM
processes on organisational performance: an empirical investigation”, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 1034-1055.
Ram Nidumolu, C.K. and Prahalad, M.R.R. (2009), “Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 1.
n, J.L. and Sa
Rolda nchez-Franco, M.J. (2012), “Variance-Based structural equation modeling:
Guidelines for using partial least squares in information systems research”, Research
methodologies, Innovations and Philosophies in Software Systems Engineering and Information
Systems, pp. 193-221.
Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J. and Bausch, A. (2011), “Is innovation always beneficial? A Meta-
analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 441-457.
Saez-Martı́nez, F.J., Gonza

lez-Moreno, Á. and Hogan, T. (2014), “The role of university in Eco-
Entrepreneurship: evidence from the eurobarometer survey on attitudes of european entrepreneurs
towards Eco-Innovation”, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 10,
pp. 2541-2549.

Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q. and Lai, K.H. (2011), “An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain
management literature”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Hair, J.F. (2017), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling”,
Handbook of Market Research.
Saunila, M., Ukko, J. and Rantala, T. (2018), “Sustainability as a driver of green innovation investment and
exploitation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 179, pp. 631-641.
Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F. and Hansen, E.G. (2012), “Business cases for sustainability: the role
of business model innovation for corporate sustainability”, International Journal of Innovation and
Sustainable Development, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 95-119.
Schiederig, T., Tietze, F. and Herstatt, C. (2012), “Green innovation in technology and innovation
management - an exploratory literature review”, R&D Management, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 180-192.
Schneider, A. (2015), “Reflexivity in sustainability accounting and management: transcending the

economic focus of corporate sustainability”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 127 No. 3, pp. 525-536.
Secretary, A. (2018), “Science and technology division (S & T division)”, Islamabad.
Shahrabi, B. (2012), “The role of organizational learning and agility in change management in state
enterprises: a Customer-Oriented approach”, International Research Journal of Applied and Basic
Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 12, pp. 2540-2547.
Shahzad, M., Qu, Y., Javed, S., Zafar, A. and Rehman, S. (2020), “Relation of environment sustainability
to CSR and green innovation: a case of pakistani manufacturing industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 253, p. 119938.
Shahzad, M., Qu, Y., Rehman, S., Zafar, A., Ding, X. and Abbas, J. (2019), “Impact of knowledge
absorptive capacity on corporate sustainability with mediating role of CSR: analysis from the asian
context”, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 148-174.
Sherehiy, B., Karwowski, W. and Layer, J.K. (2007), “A review of enterprise agility: concepts, frameworks,
and attributes”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 445-460.
Sheth, J.N., Sethia, N.K. and Srinivas, S. (2011), “Mindful consumption: a customer-centric approach to
sustainability”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 21-39.
Shujahat, M., Sousa, M.J., Hussain, S., Nawaz, F., Wang, M. and Umer, M. (2017), “Translating the
impact of knowledge management processes into knowledge-based innovation: the neglected and
mediating role of knowledge-worker productivity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 94, pp. 442-450.
Smith, P.G. (2007), Flexible Product Development: Building Agility for Changing Markets, 1st ed., Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco.
Song, W. and Yu, H. (2018), “Green innovation strategy and green innovation: the roles of green creativity
and green organizational identity”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 135-150.
Svensson, G., Wood, G. and Callaghan, M. (2010), “A corporate model of sustainable business
practices: an ethical perspective”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 336-345.
Syed-Ikhsan, S.O.S. and Rowland, F. (2004), “Knowledge management in a public organization: a study
on the relationship between organizational elements and the performance of knowledge transfer”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 95-111.
Tamer Cavusgil, S., Calantone, R.J. and Zhao, Y. (2003), “Tacit knowledge transfer and firm innovation
capability”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 6-21.
Triguero, A., Moreno-Mondéjar, L. and Davia, M.A. (2013), “Drivers of different types of eco-innovation in
European SMEs”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 92, pp. 25-33.
Tseng, S.M. (2014), “The impact of knowledge management capabilities and supplier relationship
management on corporate performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 154,
pp. 39-47.
Tseng, M.L., Lim, M. and Wong, W.P. (2015), “Sustainable supply chain management: a closed-loop
network hierarchical approach”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 115 No. 3, pp. 436-461.
Tseng, M.L., Tan, K. and Chiu, A.S.F. (2016), “Identifying the competitive determinants of firms’ green
supply chain capabilities under uncertainty”, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, Vol. 18
No. 5, pp. 1247-1262.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 171-180.
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and van Oppen, C. (2009), “Using PLS path modeling for
assessing hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33
No. 1, p. 177.
Wong, S.K. (2013), “Environmental requirements, knowledge sharing and green innovation: empirical
evidence from the electronics industry in China”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 22 No. 5,
pp. 321-338.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford
University Press Oxford.
Xie, X., Huo, J. and Zou, H. (2019), “Green process innovation, green product innovation, and corporate
financial performance: a content analysis method”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 101, pp. 697-706.
Yang, J. (2010), “The knowledge management strategy and its effect on firm performance: a contingency
analysis”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 125 No. 2, pp. 215-223.
Yusr, M.M., Mokhtar, S.S.M., Othman, A.R. and Sulaiman, Y. (2017), “Does interaction between TQM
practices and knowledge management processes enhance the innovation performance?”, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 955-974.
Zafar, A.U., Qiu, J. and Shahzad, M. (2020), “Do digital celebrities’ relationships and social climate
matter? Impulse buying in f-commerce”, Internet Research, doi: 10.1108/INTR-04-2019-0142.
Zafar, A.U., Qiu, J., Li, Y. Wang, J. and Shahzad, M. (2019), “The impact of social media celebrities’ posts
and contextual interactions on impulse buying in social commerce”, Computers in Human Behavior, doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2019.106178.
Zhang, D., Rong, Z. and Ji, Q. (2019), “Green innovation and firm performance: evidence from listed
companies in China”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 144, pp. 48-55.
Zhang, H., Shu, C., Jiang, X. and Malter, A.J. (2010), “Managing knowledge for innovation: the role of
cooperation, competition, and alliance nationality”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 74-94.
Zwain, A.A., Teong, L.K. and Othman, S.N. (2012), “Knowledge management processes and academic
performance in iraqi HEIs: an empirical investigation”, International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 6, pp. 273-293.
Author affiliations
Mohsin Shahzad, Ying Qu, and Abaid Ullah Zafar are all based at the School of Economics
and Management, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China.
Saif Ur Rehman is based at the Department of Management Sciences, Lahore Garrison
University, Lahore, Pakistan.
Tahir Islam is based at the School of Economics and Management, Tongji University,
Shanghai, China and Faculty of Business Administration and Social Sciences, Mohammad
Ali Jinnah University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Corresponding author
Ying Qu can be contacted at: quying@dlut.edu.cn
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Exploring The Influence of Knowledge Management Process On Corporate Sustainable Performance Through Green Innovation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring The Influence of Knowledge Management Process On Corporate Sustainable Performance Through Green Innovation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring the inﬂuence of knowledge

management process on corporate

Abstract (Information about the

PAGE 2080 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020

2. Theoretical foundation and literature review

VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 2081

2.2 Corporate sustainable performance

PAGE 2082 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020

2.3 Green innovation

VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 2083

2.4 Organizational agility

3. Research model and hypotheses

3.1 Association between knowledge management process and green innovation

PAGE 2084 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020

VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 2085

PAGE 2086 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020

3.2 Association between green innovation and corporate sustainable performance

VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 2087

PAGE 2088 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020

3.3 Mediating effect of green innovation

VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 2089

3.4 Moderating effect of organizational agility

PAGE 2090 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020

VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 2091

Industry Auto part manufacturing 31 6.5

PAGE 2092 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020

5.1 Common method variance bias test

5.2 Analysis of measurement model

Table 2 Reliability and validity of all constructs

Corporate sustainable performance (CSP)

VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 2093

5.3 Analysis of structural model

Table 3 Discriminant validity (Fornell–Larcker criterion)

Table 4 Discriminant validity (HTMT ratio)

PAGE 2094 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020

5.4 Mediation analysis

5.5 Moderation analysis

Table 5 Hypotheses assessment

H1 KMP ! GI – – 0.562 11.544 Supported

VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 2095

6. Conclusion and implications

PAGE 2096 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020

VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 2097

6.3 Practical implications

PAGE 2098 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020

6.4 Limitation and future research

VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 2099

PAGE 2100 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020

VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 2101

PAGE 2102 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020

VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 2103

Saez-Martı́nez, F.J., Gonza

PAGE 2104 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020

Schneider, A. (2015), “Reflexivity in sustainability accounting and management: transcending the

VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j PAGE 2105

PAGE 2106 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j VOL. 24 NO. 9 2020

You might also like

Saez-Martı́nez, F.J., Gonza