Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100155

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner and Responsible Consumption

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/cleaner-and-responsible-consumption

Do environmental CSR practices promote corporate social performance?

The mediating role of green innovation and corporate image
Edward Fosu a, *, Francis Fosu a, Noah Akyina b, Deborah Asiedu a
a
Akenten Appiah-Menka University of Skills Training and Entrepreneurial Development, Kumasi, Ghana
b
University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This article examined how Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility (ECSR) activities directed through
Environmental CSR green innovation influence corporate image and corporate social performance. The stakeholder theory was used
Green innovation to examine how stakeholders’ expectations affected environmental CSR, green innovation activities and how
Corporate image
corporate innovation initiatives affected corporate image and corporate social performance. Corporate envi­
Corporate social performance
ronmental practices refer to the entire process of adopting technologies and product designs for protecting and
sustaining natural resources. Selected companies in Ghana were used for this study. The study employed a cross-
sectional quantitative approach where data from employees were collected across six months. This study used
structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the effects of environmental CSR on social performance through
mediators: green innovation and corporate image. The empirical findings demonstrate that corporate environ­
mental CSR practices have an impact on the development of green innovations that promote companies’ social
performance. Additionally, evidence from the findings supports that corporate image influences companies’
social performance in Ghana. Furthermore, the findings from the study demonstrate that corporate environ­
mental CSR enhances corporate social performance through green innovation and corporate image. The study
recommends green innovation adoption to improve CSR practices, corporate image and corporate social
performance.

1. Introduction performance (Fraj-Andrés et al., 2009) (see Figs. 1 and 2).

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) plays an increasingly impor­
tant role in today’s business world, and CSR activities are driven
worldwide by economic, environmental and social factors (Baughn
et al., 2007). CSR represents organizations’ obligation to their stake­
holders, society and sustainable development, which emerges as
corporate actions that proactively concentrate on social and environ­
mental issues (Marrewijk, 2017). The sustainability of the environment
is perceived as the pillar of CSR because of increasing economic, envi­
ronmental and social concerns (Montiel, 2008). Building a reputable
corporate image, green innovation capabilities and corporate social
performance have become the focus of discussions in business studies
worldwide. Environmental CSR provides a good image and community
acceptance. In this sense, the development of new eco-friendly products
and business processes can improve market value, better corporate
image, and increase green innovation technology and social
Companies’ commitments to stakeholders, society and the environ­
ment manifest in business strategies and behaviors that affect a busi­
ness’s social and environmental position (Kunnaala et al., 2013).
Stakeholders are exerting huge pressure on manufacturing companies to
adopt sustainable environmental practices as a result of the destructive
nature of their products and processes. These have caused companies to
actively espouse and implement environmentally friendly measures.
Therefore, CSR initiatives directed toward green innovation are seen as a
remedy for achieving sustainable development and preventing envi­
ronmental damage. From an innovation perspective, CSR improves a
company’s trust with external stakeholders, thus, helping companies
gain access to resources for corporate innovation and improve corporate
image.
Previously, the need for environmental protection, pollution reduc­
tion and green innovation were overridden by the economic develop­
ment needs of society, but devastating problems have changed the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: edward.fosu@griffithuni.edu.au (E. Fosu), francisfosuplies@gmail.com (F. Fosu), nakyina@st.ug.edu.gh (N. Akyina), akosuapomaa26@gmail.
com (D. Asiedu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clrc.2023.100155
Received 26 January 2023; Received in revised form 15 November 2023; Accepted 21 November 2023
Available online 28 November 2023
2666-7843/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
E. Fosu et al.
Fig. 1. Research model. Authors Source.
Fig. 2. Structural equation model. Authors Source.
trends. Pressure from stakeholders such as the community, govern­
ments, customers and corporates’ internal factors are the driving force
behind corporate green innovation (Lim, 2010). Therefore, corporate
strategies that execute socially responsible practices to attain environ­
mental development are emphasized (Berrone et al., 2013). Green
innovation helps companies learn and adopt new CSR strategies to
enhance services that suit community interests and customers’ demands
for the protection of society and the environment (Roh et al., 2021).
Existing research studies focus on factors such as customer demands
and environmental policy perspectives that affect corporate green
innovation initiatives (Chen et al., 2006). However, few studies have
explored the effect of environmental CSR on social performance let
alone mediated by green innovation and corporate image in developing
countries. In contrast to the companies in developed economies, the
willingness of the companies in Ghana to minimize the effects of their
operations on the environment has not yet been realized. Therefore, this
study seeks to explore how Environmental CSR affects the corporate
social performance of companies in Ghana. This study contributes to
understanding managerial defects in developing a green innovative
process and product. It is anticipated that management would adopt
ESCR practices, which would not only increase revenue but also improve
their relationship with society thereby improving the overall image. This
research is expected to also provide significant insight into existing
knowledge of environmental CSR, green innovation, corporate image
standpoints, sustainability and academic interest.
Although the merits of building corporate image have become a
major motive for managers to consider environmental CSR, much less
attention has been paid to the in-depth study of the effects of environ­
mental CSR and corporate image on social performance in managerial
literature (Bansal, 2005). Previous studies have attempted to disclose
the concept of environmental CSR, green management, corporate image
and environmental performance to the best of our knowledge, but there
has been no integrative approach in the environmental management
2
Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100155
field that encompasses environmental CSR, green innovation corporate
image, and corporate social performance (Chang et al., 2020; Chuang
and Huang, 2018). This study provides novelty in the study of ECSR,
green innovative process and product and corporate social performance
from a linear economic perspective in developing countries such as
Ghana. To answer the mentioned research gap, this study addresses
these research questions: to what extent do environmental CSR practices
influence green innovation, corporate image and social performance?
How does green innovation affect a firm’s image? How does corporate
image improve social performance?
Employees and the community at large are the most influential
stakeholders in terms of CSR. Andersson et al. (2007) posit that em­
ployees with higher levels of hope and gratitude showed a greater sense
of responsibility towards societal issues (Andersson et al., 2007). Studies
from Hartmann & Vachon (2018) show that workers prefer to work for
companies believed to have eco-innovative practices; this helps them
build positive sentiments, preferences and perceptions of the company’s
performance (Hartmann and Vachon, 2018). Furthermore, integrating
green innovation into workforce development programs can improve
employee skills, such as supporting teams in reducing waste, optimizing
the use of resources, developing environmentally friendly products or
participating in ecologically sustainable social programs and projects
(Gupta and Barua, 2017; Khan et al., 2021). Employees that are satisfied
and motivated can also give the greatest and most reliable good word of
mouth for the firm, helping to develop the company’s positive CSR
image (Cho and Kim, 2012). Therefore, we consider it prudent to select
employees for this study in that they are the best group of stakeholders
that can give explanations of the green innovation activities of the or­
ganization and describe the image of the organization since they serve as
a communication channel between the firm and society.
The structure of the study is as follows: literature review which
provides the theoretical basis for the research, a series of hypotheses
grounded on the theoretical paradigm, research methodology, and
analysis of empirical results. Finally, the presentation and discussion of
results, managerial and theoretical implications are elaborated and
future research prospects are presented.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Environmental CSR
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has recently raised the
awareness of researchers, policymakers and corporations (Kraus et al.,
2020a). Companies not only manage the interest of employees and
shareholders but are also responsible for the social and environmental
dimensions in their operations (Van Marrewijk, 2003). The CSR concept
can be perceived as a new, effective and incorporated business model
that meets the demands of stakeholders, shareholders, social needs,
environmental production and economic benefits (Sánchez-Infante
Hernández et al., 2020). CSR reflects the discretionary actions of firms
toward social and environmental interests (Song et al., 2019). Envi­
ronmental CSR strategies and ecologically friendly processes directly
influence corporate performance and image. Environmental CSR not
only creates new business models, and advance processes but also saves
costs and adds value to services and products (Reverte et al., 2016).
Environmental CSR and green innovation affect all the dimensions of
CSR and their impact varies and also promotes disruptive innovation
which is termed technology turbulence (Wang et al., 2021). Environ­
mental CSR improves a company’s ratings which helps in stock perfor­
mance, credit advantage and potential risk control (Bannier et al.,
2022). Promoting green environment practices is a triple-bottom win for
organizations, government and society. For instance, organizations
improve their legitimacy, good performance and image in society and
the government spends less on pollution of natural resources such as
water and air, the society benefits from a healthy environment and green
products. To further explain, green innovation increases market value
E. Fosu et al.
through customer satisfaction with green products and loyalty (Xie
et al., 2017). In addition, green products promote consumer patronage
which improves financial performance (Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006).
Although ECSR through green innovation comes with additional
expenditure, short-term and long-term social, environmental and
financial performance can be improved through innovative practices
(Bofinger et al., 2022; Liu et al., 2021). Adopting green innovation helps
corporations to improve social performance through stakeholder coop­
eration and good environmental practices (Suganthi, 2019).
2.2. Stakeholder theory
In 1963, the stakeholder terminology was framed and defined by the
Stanford Research Institute as the people and/or institutions on who an
organization or a company’s survival depends (Friedman and Miles,
2006). Freeman in 1984, was the pioneer to relate stakeholder construct
to strategic discipline (Pierick et al., 2004). Freeman distinguished
shareholders from stakeholders and explained the impact of the latter on
corporations’ decision-making processes. Freeman categorized the
community and government as external stakeholders whereas em­
ployees, suppliers, and customers form part of the internal stakeholders
(Freeman, 2015). Based on this tangent, the community or society is
seen as a major stakeholder in this study. Therefore, the demands for
environmental CSR innovation are viewed from a social dimension,
although it has positive effects on a company’s economic advantage.
From organizational perspective, stakeholder theory explains that or­
ganizations relate with different stakeholders and their actions influence
organizations’ decisions (Freeman, 2015). In this sense, environmental
protection becomes a shared responsibility for the organization and the
stakeholders. Indeed, each stakeholder’s interest and the organization’s
interest do not override the other; hence, all parties’ interests must be
considered in decision-making. Stakeholder theory has been useful in
corporate environmental strategies and their responsiveness; however,
the impacts or the results have been erratic. For instance, Kassinis and
Vafeas argue that big firms make environmental decisions and policies
through the executive board, whereas owners of family businesses make
ecological decisions by themselves (Kassinis and Vafeas, 2002). In short,
society’s environmental concerns innovatively managed enhance the
company’s social performance.
3. Hypotheses development
3.1. Environmental CSR practices and green innovation
Neoclassic economists argue that the main objective of companies is
to maximize profits for shareholders, however, institutional theory
buttresses its argument on the effects of external stakeholders on
corporate strategies (Friedman, 1970; Hart and Hoffman, 1998; Xia
et al., 2019). Specifically, corporates’ social aim is not always profit
making motivated but also to mitigate social pressures. In this case, to
obtain credible social trust and good corporate image from external
stakeholders. A company that allocates resources toward the develop­
ment of green innovation can build barriers to competitors (Chen et al.,
2006). Corporate green environmental practices can pave way for
companies to set the pace for green innovation and green technology.
Therefore, companies can enjoy a competitive advantage and special
incentives such as tax reduction, social support and social appraisal
(Peattie and Ratnayaka, 1992).
Before the awareness of environmental devastation, most companies
perceived environmental CSR as an unrealistic and needless investment.
However, recent managerial studies have shown a positive relationship
between environmental CSR, green innovation and social performance
(Porter & Van Der Linde, 2017). Therefore, it is needful for companies to
change and adapt strategies to comply with environmentalism concepts.
Environmental CSR practices include pollution reduction, material
recycling, waste disposal management and effective use of energy
3
Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100155
(Backer, 2007). Research studies prove that the quantum of pollution is
evidence of companies’ negligence and ineffective management of re­
sources (Chen, 2011). However, studies show that advancing production
processes increase a firm’s environmental performance (Montabon
et al., 2007). Advanced environmental practices are capable of
increasing production via green innovation to defray environmental
costs. Green innovation improves companies’ social performance
through consumer preferences, social reputation and competitive
advantage (Porter & Van Der Linde, 2017). Arguably, well-structured
environmental CSR policies motivate and provide opportunities for
companies to initiate and produce green products through green pro­
cesses (Chen and Huang, 2009). Thus, environmental CSR practices
enable companies to incorporate green initiatives into their operations.
Based on the above, we propose this hypothesis:
H1. Environmental CSR practices are positively associated with green
innovation.
3.2. Environmental corporate social responsibility and corporate image
The general idea of the CSR construct is normally related to a firm’s
image, and financial or social performance (Gardberg and Fombrun,
2006). Accordingly, CSR is perceived as a potential factor to improve a
company’s image with its stakeholders. Fombrun and Shanley (1990)
contribute to the earlier works and the result from their discussion
showed that social activities improve corporate image (Fombrun and
Shanley, 1990). Brammer and Pavelin (2006) suggest that different
types of social responsibility affect corporate image across various
stakeholders and sectors through managers’ evaluation analysis
(Brammer and Pavelin, 2006). Emphasizing the need for CSR as a
strategy, Rettab et al. (2009), posit that CSR has a substantial effect on
corporate image even in developing markets where stakeholder
communication and skills were lacking (Rettab et al., 2009). Indeed, we
can postulate from the above discussion that CSR enhances a firm’s
image through stakeholders’ engagement.
Evidence shows that large companies in the oil and energy industry
have negative impacts on the environment, therefore such companies
take highly intensive and comprehensive CSR initiatives to compensate
the community and build good reputation (Singh et al., 2008). Thus,
CSR can be used as a preventive tool to control the risk of image damage
(Jacob, 2012). Taking into consideration the work of Khojastehpour and
Johns (2014), that is, the influence of environmental CSR on reputation,
they argued that there is an interconnection between these variables:
climate responsibility, natural resource utilization and corporate image
that contribute to a firm’s sustainable development and competitive
advantage (Khojastehpour and Johns, 2014). On the other hand, envi­
ronmental CSR practices can easily damage the image of a company with
increasing pressure from stakeholders. To curb the situation, Hart
(1995) suggests that innovative strategies for a company’s environ­
mental initiatives could provide better social performance, image, firm
growth and competencies (Hart, 1995). All these imply that a company
that invests in environmental CSR through green innovative products
and services promotes customer and community trust and improve its
company’s image activities specify environmental concerns that society
worries about. This leads to our second hypothesis.
H2. Environmental CSR practices affect corporate’s image.
3.3. Green innovation and corporate image
Green innovation can be explained as undertaking environmentally
friendly processes to develop products of less energy and water con­
sumption, prevent pollution and reduce carbon emissions, with minimal
usage of natural resources, green materials and adhering to ecological
policies and principles (Albort-Morant et al., 2016). For this study, we
refer to green innovation as the consumption of less energy and water,
reducing carbon emissions, treatment of wastewater, reasonable use of
E. Fosu et al.
natural resources and the use of other appropriate measures taken in the
production processes (Kivimaa and Kautto, 2010). Studies usually group
green innovation into two categories. The first group explains green
innovation as a firm’s capabilities, whereas the other group defines
green innovation as a firm’s environmental practices. From the side of
environmental practices, green innovation involves corporate techno­
logical or technical advancement and new administrative management
practices that enhance the environmental, economic and social perfor­
mance of the company. Thus, green innovation can be any hardware or
software that improves green products and green processes and adds
socioeconomic benefits.
The green innovation strategy employed to solve complex environ­
mental problems is addressing social concerns using multiple strategies
(Yin et al., 2018). Generally, process innovations are an additional
challenging strategy for the firms than product innovation that the
customers acknowledged. The firm’s target is to make good use of nat­
ural resources, and new technological processes to reduce the impacts
on the environment. Green technological processes pave the way for
firms to achieve their environmental targets such as waste management,
pollution reduction and production efficiency (Shrivastava, 1995).
Achieving green innovative processes transforms into product
innovation. Technological use of the natural resource, R&D, recycling
processes and well-resourced human capacity provides innovative
products and services through innovative processes. Environmental-
friendly products are very crucial in a firm’s decision-making pro­
cesses and competitiveness (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). Green
product innovations are the ones that reduce toxic composition in
consumable products, low energy consumption products, and recycling
products, which can be a firm’s differentiation strategy to improve its
image and social performance.
Corporate image is considered as what stakeholders perceive a
company’s activities as a social organization (Amores-Salvadó et al.,
2014). The company’s operational and product characteristics create
impressions about the company. Corporate image in this study refers to
the social perceptions of the relationship between companies, customers
and society concerning a firm’s environmental commitments. (Chen,
2008). To impress stakeholders companies spend resources on green
innovation to build a reputable corporate image (Poon Teng Fatt et al.,
2000).
Accordingly, green innovation as a mediating variable influences
operational efficiency on environmental CSR management for corporate
image (Amores-Salvadó et al., 2014). Green innovation can provide
economic, environmental and image enhancements to the companies
(Xie et al., 2019). Green process uses resources effectively and improves
the company’s social performance and image with stakeholders, cus­
tomers and suppliers (Orlitzky et al., 2003). Therefore, companies can
attain a reputable image and social performance by adaptation of green
innovation in their operations. We hypothesize that:
H3. Green innovation positively affects corporate image.
H4. Green innovation mediates the relationship between environ­
mental CSR and corporate image.
3.4. Green innovation and corporate social performance
Stefan and Paul support that green innovation enhances corporate
social position in society and can attract customers and investors who
are environmentally conscious (Stefan and Paul, 2008). These substan­
tial number of clients increase the market share of the companies.
Companies that target green products stand a chance of winning the
trust of society. Thus, green product innovation communicates the
image of the company to society about its operations. In effect, com­
panies should set up their environmental values and behaviors in line
with the green innovative expectations of society. Indeed, the re­
sponsibility rests on companies to discover and decide the best practices
for the interest of the environment and society. Ettlie and Reza (1992)
4
Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100155
recommended several innovative processes such as redefining manage­
rial tasks, installation of modern technological equipment and
up-to-date information that could expedite a firm’s product develop­
ment (Ettlie and Reza, 1992). This supports the capabilities that process
innovative initiatives provide to existing processes with new techniques
to enhance new features that society demands. According to Klepper
(1996), successful green innovation requires product innovation to
precede process innovation (Klepper, 1996). Green product innovation
and green process innovation complement each other, therefore, com­
panies must concurrently pursue both innovations for better environ­
mental and social performance (Damanpour and Aravind, 2006).
The company’s product creates an impression of how it cares about
the environmental interest of its stakeholders, the company’s green
image and society’s well-being. Some research demonstrates a positive
relationship between corporate image consumer green satisfaction and
social performance (Amores-Salvadó et al., 2014; Nair and Menon,
2008) Moreover, the importance of green innovation is that it supports
green environmental practices which enhance social performance
(Chen, 2008). Based on the above we hypothesize that:
H5. Green innovation has a positive relationship with corporate social
performance.
H6. Green innovation mediates the relationship between environ­
mental CSR and corporate performance.
3.5. Corporate image and social performance
Most studies proved that environmental innovative practices not
only enhance profitability and competitive advantage but also improve
corporate social image and incentives from governments (Huong et al.,
2021). Therefore, corporate performance can be financial or
non-financial (Gounaris et al., 2003). Environmental CSR practices can
help companies to obtain social acceptance because of their reputable
image (Rueda-Manzanares et al., 2008). Environmental CSR can reduce
marketing costs and improve internal processes and make a firm’s op­
erations legitimate in the eyes of employees and society (Aragón-Correa
and Sharma, 2003). From the above dimension, companies improve
their image, social trust and customer loyalty when they build strong
community relationships by contributing to sustainable environmental
practices (Alam and Islam, 2021a). Furthermore, customer patronage
increases when they perceive a remarkable image of a company that
contributes to environmental sustainability (Lee et al., 2018). Thus,
environmental practices, image and products provide credentials for
customer-firm identification, and loyalty and a catalyst for building
corporate image and social performance. A substantial influence of so­
cial engagement creates a positive corporate image when activities are
reputation oriented. There is an assumption that society supports and
attests to the company’s interactive initiatives toward society building.
In this sense, companies are more likely to identify social needs and
undertake an innovative approach to improve their community-firm
identification and products and services that suit their environmental
interest (Fonseca and Ferro, 2015). The importance of pursuing envi­
ronmental CSR initiatives provides competencies for corporate image,
competitiveness and social performance. Companies can reap the
financial returns to defray production costs through environmental CSR
(de Burgos-Jiménez et al., 2013). New markets and greater market share
are to the advantage of companies that implement environmental
practices (Berry and Rondinelli, 1998). From the non-financial perfor­
mance dimension, companies can improve their social performance
when building social reputation or image through customers’ trust.
Chen argues that companies gain market opportunities, improve social
performance and set prices for the first innovative products when they
invest in a reputable corporate image (Chen, 2008). Therefore, we
propose that for companies to achieve better social performance,
corporate image plays a crucial role. Hence, we hypothesize that:
E. Fosu et al. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100155

H7. Corporate image is associated with corporate social performance. their willingness to share information for this study, their interest in
sustainability from their reports and their greater interest in CSR ac­
H8. Corporate image mediates environmental CSR and corporate so­
tivities and disclosures. In total 24 companies in Accra were contacted
cial performance.
and agreed to participate in the study. These companies cover the
following industries: Computer, software, communications equipment
4. Method
and technology services, farm machinery and equipment, infrastructure
construction, mineral mining, real estate, construction, textile
The study employed a cross-sectional technique in data collection
manufacturing, trade, retail, transportation, construction, infrastructure
from June 2022 to November 2022. The researchers aimed to collect a
and industrial services. We purposely selected the employees from the
larger sample of data to describe the prevalent situation. This approach
companies, typically the HR manager, CSR manager or director, green
is suitable for this empirical study at the organizational level. Four
manager, employees and environmental officer familiar with the firm’s
components make up the survey questionnaire used; the demographics
green innovation strategies. After reaching a consensus, 853 question­
of the companies selected (for example, age, industry type, ownership),
naires were randomly sent to the employees of the companies through
green innovation, corporate image, and corporate social performance.
emails, calls, and QR codes. Each questionnaire contained a brief
We structured our questionnaire on established scales that suited the
introduction outlining the study’s goal and assuring participants of their
environment of our research to assure its validity and reliability. Items
anonymity. The respondents were also notified that if they submitted a
for environmental practices measurement were reexamined and modi­
full questionnaire, they would be able to get the final findings. Follow-
fied to make them clear. We adopted four items from a scale developed
up calls and emails were performed every two weeks following the
by Steg et al. to measure corporate social performance (Steg and Vlek,
original mailing to boost the effective response rate. The completed
2009). We constructed the items used to measure corporate image based
surveys were delivered directly to the researchers to ensure the re­
on previous studies from Aaron Spector (1961) (Spector, 1961). Mea­
spondents’ confidentiality. Out of the 853 questionnaires received, 443
surements items for green innovation were adopted from previous
were completely answered and accepted, representing 51.9% before the
studies by Li et al. (2017)(D. Li et al., 2017). The survey was piloted
final analysis. Table 2 represents the descriptive statistics of partici­
before data collection. The pilot survey included 35 postgraduate stu­
pating companies and respondents. We conducted a t-test to assess
dents from the University of Ghana’s business school to ensure the
response bias but the result proved insignificant. We run common
measures were concise, clear and understandable by the respondents.
method bias using Harman’s one-factor test and all the measures
No serious concern was raised after the outcome of the pilot survey. As
explained 15.11% of the variance, which is less than the 50% maximum
summarized in Table 1, all the construct measurements used a 5-point-
threshold, therefore the responses are free from biases. We checked for
Likert scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
any potential problem of multicollinearity in the dataset, and the results
indicate that multicollinearity has no influence with (VIF = 1.045 for
4.1. Data collection green innovation, 1.202 for corporate image and1.184 for environ­
mental CSR).
The data were collected from some selected companies in Ghana. The
companies were selected because of the large market shares in Ghana, 4.2. Analytical strategy

Table 1 The proposed model for the study was assessed using structural
Measurements. equation modelling (SEM) in IBM-AMOS 23.0 to validate the structural
Measurements Indicators and measurement model. The rationale behind using SEM in AMOS is
that it is a data analysis software that can run factor analysis and
Environmental CSR Practices (ECSR)
The company has specific environmental protection policies. ECSR1 regression analysis simultaneously. It is more suitable for established
The company includes environmental protection budget/investment in ECSR2 theory testing (e.g., stakeholder theory, RBV) and works better with
its planning. larger sample sizes as used in this study. Furthermore, AMOS is capable
The company incorporates environmental programs into its ECSR3
of dealing with complicated relationships such as moderation and
organizational culture.
The company increases shares of renewable resources such as water, ECSR4
mediation.
energy, substances and materials
Green Innovation (GIN)
The company selects environmentally friendly materials that produce a GIN1
lower amount of pollution and consume low energy. Table 2
The company’s products are easy to recycle and decompose. GIN2 Sample demographics (n = 443).
The company’s production process is operationalized to reduce GIN3
Characteristics Classification Frequencies
emissions and the negative effects on ecology.
%
The production process treats waste before discharging it and uses GIN4
water and electricity judiciously. Sex Male 23.5
Corporate Image (CIM) Female 76.5
Our firm possesses a very favourable reputation for its quality of CIM1 Firm age <20 years 30.1
products/services. <50years 31.3
Our firm possesses a very favourable reputation for its community and CIM2 >50 39.6
environmental responsibility. Industrial Computer, software, communications 13.8
Our firm possesses a favourable reputation for being innovative. CIM3 Type equipment and technology services
Corporate Social Performance (CSP) Farm machinery and equipment 5.0
Our company establishes and maintains strong relationships and open CSP1 Infrastructure construction 9.2
communication with social stakeholders (chiefs, community leaders, Mineral mining 24.8
and religious leaders). Real estate, construction 20.0
Our company encourages or initiates community programs and CSP2 Textile manufacturing 9.8
involvement such as (Tree planting day, and nature preservation Trade and retail 5.1
awareness) Transportation, construction, infrastructure and 12.3
Our company encourages employee voluntary community CSP3 industrial services
participation, such as (Communal work/labor eg. Communal Firm size 500> 10.1
fundraising for environmental projects) 1000–5000 42.1
Our company is committed to social norms and values of decency. CSP4 >5000 47.8

5
E. Fosu et al. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100155

Table 3
The items loadings and the constructs’ Cronbach’s α, Composite reliability and AVEs.
Constructs Items Loadings Composite Reliability (CR) AVE MSV Cronbach Alpha

Environmental CSR (ECSR) ECSR1 0.79 0.838 0.564 0.211 0.842

ECSR2 0.70
ECSR3 0.73
ECSR4 0.78
Green Innovation (GIN) GIN1 0.70 0.826 0.542 0.042 0.826
GIN2 0.75
GIN3 0.76
GIN4 0.73
Corporate Image (CIM) CIM1 0.80 0.838 0.564 0.211 0.842
CIM2 0.70
CIM3 0.73
CIM4 0.77
Corporate Social CSP1 0.70 0.826 0.543 0.033 0.827
Performance (CSP) CSP2 0.75
CSP3 0.75
CSP4 0.74

4.3. Control variables 4.6. Descriptive analysis

The study also used a number of control variables. We used the age,
industrial type and size of the companies to control Environmental CSR
practices because companies environmental impact can be assess
depending on their product type, organization operational duration and
these variables have been extensively recognised as control variables in
previous studies (Li and Liao, 2017; Yánez Morales et al., 2020). How­
ever, their impact on the model was insignificant in this study.
Table 5 presents the correlations, mean and standard deviation of the
constructs. It revealed that environmental CSR significantly correlated
with green innovation (r = 0.150, p < 0.001), corporate image (r =
0.387, p < 0.001) and corporate social performance (r = 0.174, p <
0.001). Corporate image correlated positively with green innovation (r
= 0.191, p < 0.001) and corporate social performance (r = 0.150, p <
0.001). Furthermore, corporate social performance did not correlate
with green innovation (r = 0.015, p < 0.001).

4.4. Empirical results

4.7. Hypotheses testing
4.4.1. Construct reliability and validity
As part of the measurement model evaluation, the study adopted To test for the effects of our hypothesis, a bootstrap mediation
Cronbach Alpha (α), Average Variance extracted (AVE), and composite analysis was performed to confirm the mediating role of Green Inno­
reliability (CR) to test for the constructs’ reliability and validity. The vation in the relationship between Environmental Practices (ECSR) and
reliability values of the constructs exceeded the required thresholds Corporate Social Performance (CSP) using Amos 23. The results in
except. The convergent validity was accepted because all the AVEs are Table 6 revealed no indirect relationship between Environmental CSR
above (0.5). Practices (ECSR) and Corporate Social Performance (CSP) through
Green Innovation (GIN) (β = .002, SE = 0.008, p = 0.700). However,
corporate image mediated the relationship between green innovation
4.5. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and corporate social performance (β = .021, SE = 0.010, p = 0.003). The
results revealed that Environmental CSR Practices (ECSR) has a signif­
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to evaluate the icant indirect effect on Corporate Social Performance through Corporate
measurement model of the proposed conceptual model in SPSS-AMOS Image (CIM) (β = 0.062, SE = 0.025, p = 0.003). Likewise, it was found
23.0 (see Table 3). The CFA analysis confirmed a significant accept­ that the total effect of Environmental Practices (ECSR) on Corporate
able fit and the data met all required conditions for acceptance with (χ2 Social Performance (CSP) was significant (β = 0.060, SE = 0.025, p =
= 217.859, DF = 98, χ2/df = 2.223, p < 0.001, NFI = 0.924, IFI = 0.957, 0.005). Therefore, there is a partial mediation between environmental
TLI = 947, CFI = 957, RMSEA = 0.053, SRMR = 0.06, GFI = 0.941) in practices and corporate social performance through corporate image.
Table 4. From the results, Environmental CSR Practices (ECSR) has an indirect
effect on corporate image through green innovation (β = 0.020, SE =
Table 4 0.010, p = 0.005).
Measurement model. To test our hypotheses, we assess the path or the direct effects with
Fitness Measurement Cut-off the inclusion of the mediators between all the constructs. We hypothe­
Indices Model Criteria sized that environmental practices (ECSR) have direct effects on green
CMIN 217.859 innovation (GIN), and corporate image (CIM) respectively. The results
DF 98
CMIN/DF 2.223 Between 1 Wheaton et al. (1977)
Table 5
and 3
CFI .957 >.90 Hu and Bentler (1999)
Mean, standard deviation, and correlations.
RMSEA .053 <.06 MacCallum et al. (1996) Variables Mean SD ECSR GIN CIM CSP
PCLOSE .312 >.05 Hu and Bentler (1999)
SRMR 0.06 <.08 Diamantopoulos and Siguaw 1. ECSR 2.1298 .77253 1
(2000) 2. GIN 1.9323 .82071 .150** 1
NFI .924 >.90 Bollen (1989) 3. CIM 2.1298 .77253 .387** .191** 1
RFI .907 >.90 Hu and Bentler (1999) 4. CSP 1.9317 .82093 .174** .015 .150** 1
IFI .957 >.95 Bollen (1989) Note: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is
GFI .941 Hu and Bentler (1999)
significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Environmental CSR practices: ECSR,
≥0.90
TLI .947 ≥0.90 Bentler and Bonett (1980)
Green Innovation, Corporate Image: CIM, Corporate Social Performance: CSP.

6
E. Fosu et al. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100155

Table 6
Indirect effects.
Relationships Estimate S.E. Lower Bounds (BC) Upper Bounds (BC) P Decisions

ECSR→ GIN →CIM .020 .010 .007 .041 .005 Supported

GIN →CIM→CSP .021 .010 .008 .044 .003 Supported
ECSR→ GIN →CSP .002 .008 − .009 .019 .700 Not supported
ECSR→ CIM →CSP .062 .025 .025 .106 .003 Supported
Total effects
ECSR → CSP .060 .025 .022 .105 .005

Note: Bootstrapping sample = 5000, **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Environmental CSR
practices: ECSR, Green Innovation, Corporate Image: CIM, Corporate Social Performance: CSP.

revealed that environmental practices (ECSR) promote green innovation
(β = 0.159, t = 3.188, p < 0.001) and positively enhance corporate
image (CIM) (β = 0.366, t = 8.349, p < 0.001) as shown in Table 7.
Green innovation significantly promotes corporate image (β ¼ 0.128, t
= 3.099, p = 0.002). However, green innovation did not affect corporate
social performance (β = − 0.014, t = -0.296, p = 0.767). From the re­
sults, corporate image has significant direct effects on corporate social
performance (β = 0.162, t = 3.183, p < 0.001).
4.8. Conclusion and discussions
The study tests a theoretical model connecting environmental CSR
practices to corporate social performance through green innovation and
corporate image perceptions of firms in Ghana. Drawing literature from
stakeholder theory, we examined how environmental practices promote
corporate social performance and then tested the mediating effects of
green innovation and corporate image. The findings show that green
innovation and corporate image significantly mediated the relationship
between environmental practices and corporate social performance.
Thus, this study filled this gap by indicating the importance of corporate
image and green innovation in improving firm social performance. The
research analyzes the mechanism of environmental CSR and social
performance from the strategic point of view of corporate image, look­
ing at it from the green innovation aspects, the study finds that ECSR
promotes corporate image through green innovation; adding to the
current CSR and green innovation literature, which supports the find­
ings of research work from Chang (2011), that formalizes environmental
protection practices and behavior allowing businesses to incorporate
environmental management into their production technologies and
business operations (Chang, 2011). The study found that environmental
CSR enhances green innovation initiatives, which in turn promotes so­
cial performance. This finding is consistent with environmental theory
and the study from Guo et al. (2020) in that when firms possess strong
green innovative capabilities, they are better able to leverage existing
resources to update and enhance their green innovativeness to meet
societal demand (Guo et al., 2020).
In summary, our survey found that ECSR not only has a significant
effect on green innovation, but it also has an indirect impact on corpo­
rate image. The study shows that ECSR provides a strong company
image through socially responsible activities such as green innovation,
which eventually creates a favourable impression among stakeholders
and improves corporate social performance (Galbreath and Shum,
2012). The findings support the stakeholder theory, which states that
when organizations are under pressure from consumers, customers, and
the community regarding environmental expectations, the green inno­
vative capability may successfully assist organizations in obtaining
green innovation opportunities (Edward Freeman, 2010). Thus, stake­
holders’ pressure and demand for environment protection promote
corporate green initiatives. Simultaneously, corporations may obtain
green innovation resources by establishing excellent cooperation re­
lationships with external stakeholders who support green innovation
efforts. Therefore, the study provides insights into the link between
ECSR, green innovation, corporate image and corporate social
performance.
4.9. Theoretical implications
The findings of this study make three significant theoretical
contributions:
First, this study presents a theoretical framework contributing to the
growing ecological literature incorporating environmental CSR prac­
tices, green innovation and corporate social performance from the
standpoint of stakeholder theory. Some authors have examined the
relationship between RBV and environmental practices using CSR stra­
tegies (Kraus et al., 2020b). Yáñez-Araque et al. (2021) investigated
ECSR and economic performance from a stakeholder perspective
(Yáñez-Araque et al., 2021). However, this study provides additional
knowledge from the stakeholder theory perspective between environ­
mental CSR, green innovation and social performance. Thus, it con­
tributes to the understanding of the interplay between stakeholder green
demands and corporate social performance in the context of today’s
serious concern for protecting the environment. In this sense, companies
must try to fulfill the environmental requirements and demands of all
stakeholders (Yoon and Chung, 2018). Firms can address stakeholders’
green demands through environmental CSR practices by adopting green
process innovation and manufacturing green products.
Second, the study sought to draw attention to how environmental
practice affects corporate social performance via green innovation ca­
pabilities and contributes to the growing body of literature on green
innovation and corporate social performance. Some researchers exam­
ined the elements that drive green innovation from the standpoint of
stakeholders such as consumer wants, government environmental
legislation, community, and shareholders (Rueda-Manzanares et al.,
2008). Indeed, from the perspective of this study, the finding indicated

Table 7
Direct path.
Relationships Estimate S.E. C.R. Lower Bounds (BC) Upper Bounds (BC) P Decisions

ECSR→ GIN .159 .050 3.188 .069 .251 .001 Supported

ECSR→ CIM .366 .044 8.349 .274 .452 .001 Supported
GIN →CIM .128 .041 3.099 .057 .203 .002 Supported
GIN→ CSP − .014 .048 − .296 − .091 .074 .767 Not Supported
CIM →CSP .162 .051 3.183 .072 .256 .001 Supported

Note: Bootstrapping sample = 5000, **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Environmental CSR
practices: ECSR, Green Innovation, Corporate Image: CIM, Corporate Social Performance: CSP.

7
E. Fosu et al.
that society’s demand for ecologically-friendly innovation pushes com­
panies to opt for green innovative processes, likewise customers’ de­
mand for green products. Therefore, the direction of this work enriches
the literature on corporate social performance from a green innovation
perspective.
Third, the study extends corporate environmental practices by inte­
grating corporate image as a mediator between green innovation and
corporate social performance. With the growing economic prospects of
Ghana’s developing market, environmental protection becomes highly
complex to explain the mechanisms of corporate green innovation and
corporate image from a static perspective. This study regards environ­
mental CSR as a framework for green innovation and corporate image,
which help the social performance of companies in Ghana. According to
the findings of this study, environmental CSR is a crucial aspect that
boosts organizations’ green innovation potential and gives a path for
them to grow and build corporate image and perform better in society.
In effect, fulfilling social duties is rewarded with a strong corporate
image or reputation and relationships with external stakeholders, which
assist businesses in accessing tangible and intangible resources required
for green innovation.
4.10. Managerial implications
The following are indeed the implications of our results. First, the
results indicate that environmental CSR greatly improves green inno­
vation and company social performance. Consequently, companies
should emphasize the value of environmental CSR practices and invest
resources in establishing and sustaining good environmental initiatives.
The impact of the ECSR aspects on the corporate image and green
innovation would propose a new business development aiming for new
green strategies to address the environmental challenges (Kumar, 2014).
Furthermore, building a corporate image and green innovation requires
proactive green strategies related to ECSR (Walker and Wan, 2012).
Management plays a critical role in ensuring environmental green
innovation (Alam and Islam, 2021b). Therefore, management are
encouraged to conduct practical activities, construct a set of environ­
mental policies, or incorporate environmental policies into organiza­
tions’ day-to-day business functions. In short, companies may enhance
green innovation by incorporating environmental issues into managerial
procedures, hence achieving better social performance.
Furthermore, the results showed that green innovation acts as a link
between environmental CSR and corporate social performance. There­
fore, companies should consider green innovation as a means to improve
corporate image and social performance. Management must realize that
green innovation may not reduce company earnings, but rather may
assist businesses in achieving strong social performance or social
acceptance. In this regard, management must recognize the benefits of
green innovation in overall corporate strategy and maintain attitudes
toward green innovation. Thus, management should devise initiatives to
promote their businesses to embrace sustainable green initiatives. Green
innovation initiatives include practical actions that decrease pollution,
conserve energy, and improve waste recycling should be encouraged.
Moreover, companies should direct their resources and investments in
green infrastructure and create an environment for the development of
sustainable product and process innovations.
Third, Corporate image mediated the relationship between green
innovation and corporate social performance. Companies should prior­
itize the relationship with external stakeholders, and the community to
maximize profits from their green innovation investment. Corporate
image perception describes the interplay between companies and their
stakeholders and society as a whole, which ultimately creates the ability
to position the company in the minds of the stakeholders. Therefore, it is
recommended that companies build and maintain a reputable image
through green innovative products and processes that promote better
social performance.
8
Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100155
4.11. Limitations
There are various limitations to our study. First, the data used were
restricted only to companies operating in Ghana a with high market
share. Further research should be conducted to ascertain how the find­
ings apply to other countries, other multinational companies, or areas
with diverse institutional contexts such as the agricultural and
manufacturing sectors. Additionally, our measurement of social per­
formance was subjective-based rather than objective-oriented. Our
sampled companies used were highly reputable companies, some of the
small and medium-sized enterprises were not considered. We suggest
future studies to consider small and medium-sized enterprises to present
the holistic effect of ECSR on corporate social performance. Although
cross-sectional methodology was used, future research could substanti­
ate the model with longitudinal data if conditions allow. We suggest
further studies to use meta-analysis to determine how the concept of
ECSR and its impact on corporate social performance to strengthen
existing knowledge and literature. Lastly, this study was restricted to the
employee’s perspective of ECSR effect on corporate social performance,
we recommend further studies to consider the customer’s perspective of
ECSR, green innovation and corporate social performance.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
References
Alam, S.M.S., Islam, K.M.Z., 2021a. Examining the role of environmental corporate social
responsibility in building green corporate image and green competitive advantage.
International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 6 (1). https://doi.org/
10.1186/s40991-021-00062-w.
Alam, S.M.S., Islam, K.M.Z., 2021b. Examining the role of environmental corporate
social responsibility in building green corporate image and green competitive
advantage. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 6 (1), 8. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s40991-021-00062-w.
Albort-Morant, G., Leal-Millán, A., Cepeda-Carrión, G., 2016. The antecedents of green
innovation performance: a model of learning and capabilities. J. Bus. Res. 69 (11),
4912–4917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.052.
Amores-Salvadó, J., Castro, G.M., Navas-López, J.E., 2014. Green corporate image:
moderating the connection between environmental product innovation and firm
performance. J. Clean. Prod. 83, 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2014.07.059.
Andersson, L.M., Giacalone, R.A., Jurkiewicz, C.L., 2007. On the relationship of hope and
gratitude to corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 70 (4), 401–409. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9118-1.
Aragón-Correa, J.A., Sharma, S., 2003. A contingent resource- ased view of proactive
corporate environmental strategy. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28 (1), 71–88. https://doi.org/
10.5465/amr.2003.8925233.
Backer, L., 2007. Engaging stakeholders in corporate environmental governance. Bus.
Soc. Rev. 112 (1), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8594.2007.00285.x.
Bannier, C.E., Bofinger, Y., Rock, B., 2022. Corporate social responsibility and credit risk.
Finance Res. Lett. 44 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2021.102052.
Bansal, P., 2005. Evolving sustainably: a longitudinal study of corporate sustainable
development. Strat. Manag. J. 26 (3), 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.441.
Baughn, C.C., Dusty, Bodie, N.L., McIntosh, J.C., 2007. Corporate social and
environmental responsibility in Asian countries and other geographical regions.
Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 14 (4), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/
csr.160.
Bentler, P.M., Bonett, D.G., 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 88 (3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0033-2909.88.3.588.
Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., Gomez-Mejia, L.R., 2013. Necessity as the mother of
“green” inventions: institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strat.
Manag. J. 34 (8), 891–909. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2041.
Berry, M.A., Rondinelli, D.A., 1998. Proactive corporate environmental management: a
new industrial revolution. Acad. Manag. Exec. 12 (2), 38–50. https://doi.org/
10.5465/ame.1998.650515.
Bofinger, Y., Heyden, K.J., Rock, B., 2022. Corporate social responsibility and market
efficiency: evidence from ESG and misvaluation measures. J. Bank. Finance 134.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2021.106322.
E. Fosu et al.
Bollen, K.A., 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118619179.
Brammer, S.J., Pavelin, S., 2006. Corporate reputation and social performance: the
importance of fit. J. Manag. Stud. 43 (3), 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2006.00597.x.
Chang, C.-H., 2011. The influence of corporate environmental ethics on competitive
advantage: the mediation role of green innovation. J. Bus. Ethics 104 (3), 361–370.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0914-x.
Chang, T.-W., Yeh, Y.-L., Li, H.-X., 2020. How to shape an organization’s sustainable
green management performance: the mediation effect of environmental corporate
social responsibility. Sustainability 12 (21), 9198. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su12219198.
Chen, C.-J., Huang, J.-W., 2009. Strategic human resource practices and innovation
performance — the mediating role of knowledge management capacity. J. Bus. Res.
62 (1), 104–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.11.016.
Chen, Y.-S., 2008. The driver of green innovation and green image – green core
competence. J. Bus. Ethics 81 (3), 531–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-
9522-1.
Chen, Y., 2011. Green organizational identity: sources and consequence. Manag. Decis.
49 (3), 384–404. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741111120761.
Chen, Y.S., Lai, S.B., Wen, C.T., 2006. The influence of green innovation performance on
corporate advantage in Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics 67 (4), 331–339. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10551-006-9025-5.
Cho, S., Kim, Y.-C., 2012. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a halo effect in issue
management: public response to negative news about pro-social local private
companies. Asian J. Commun. 22 (4), 372–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01292986.2012.681666.
Chuang, S.-P., Huang, S.-J., 2018. The effect of environmental corporate social
responsibility on environmental performance and business competitiveness: the
mediation of green information technology capital. J. Bus. Ethics 150 (4), 991–1009.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3167-x.
Damanpour, F., Aravind, D., 2006. Product and process innovations: a review of
organizational and environmental determinants. In: Innovation, Science, and
Institutional Change: A Research Handbook, p. 573.
de Burgos-Jiménez, J., Vázquez-Brust, D., Plaza-Úbeda, J.A., Dijkshoorn, J., 2013.
Environmental protection and financial performance: an empirical analysis in Wales.
Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 33 (8), 981–1018. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-11-
2010-0374.
Diamantopoulos, A., Siguaw, J., 2000. Introducing LISREL. SAGE Publications, Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209359.
Edward Freeman, R., 2010. Managing for stakeholders: trade-offs or value creation.
J. Bus. Ethics 96, 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0935-5.
Ettlie, J.E., Reza, E.M., 1992. Organizational integration and process innovation. Acad.
Manag. J. 35 (4), 795–827. https://doi.org/10.5465/256316.
Fombrun, C., Shanley, M., 1990. WHAT’S IN a name? Reputation building and corporate
strategy. Acad. Manag. J. 33 (2), 233–258. https://doi.org/10.2307/256324.
Fonseca, L., Ferro, R., 2015. Influence of firms’ environmental management and
community involvement programs in their employees and in the community. FME
Trans. 43 (4), 370–376. https://doi.org/10.5937/fmet1504370F.
Fraj-Andrés, E., Martinez-Salinas, E., Matute-Vallejo, J., 2009. A multidimensional
approach to the influence of environmental marketing and orientation on the firm’s
organizational performance. J. Bus. Ethics 88 (2), 263–286. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10551-008-9962-2.
Freeman, R.E., 2015. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. In: Strategic
Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/
10.1017/CBO9781139192675.
Friedman, M., 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits the New
York times magazine. N. Y. Times Mag. 1–6.
Friedman, A.L., Miles, S., 2006. Stakeholders: Theory and practice. OUP oxford.
Galbreath, J., Shum, P., 2012. Do customer satisfaction and reputation mediate the
CSR–FP link? Evidence from Australia. Aust. J. Manag. 37 (2), 211–229. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0312896211432941.
Gardberg, N.A., Fombrun, C.J., 2006. Corporate citizenship: creating intangible assets
across institutional environments. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31 (2), 329–346. https://doi.
org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208684.
Gounaris, S.P., Papastathopoulou, P.G., Avlonitis, G.J., 2003. Assessing the importance
of the development activities for successful new services: does innovativeness
matter? Int. J. Bank Market. 21 (5), 266–279. https://doi.org/10.1108/
02652320310488448.
Guo, Y., Wang, L., Yang, Q., 2020. Do corporate environmental ethics influence firms’
green practice? The mediating role of green innovation and the moderating role of
personal ties. J. Clean. Prod. 266, 122054 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.122054.
Gupta, H., Barua, M.K., 2017. Supplier selection among SMEs on the basis of their green
innovation ability using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS. J. Clean. Prod. 152, 242–258.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.125.
Hart, S.L., 1995. A natural-resource-based the firm. Academy of Management 20 (4),
986–1014.
Hart, S.L., Hoffman, A., 1998. From heresy to dogma: an institutional history of
corporate environmentalism. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23 (2), 354. https://doi.org/
10.2307/259380.
Hartmann, J., Vachon, S., 2018. Linking environmental management to environmental
performance: the interactive role of industry context. Bus. Strat. Environ. 27 (3),
359–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2003.
9
Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100155
Hu, L., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model.: A Multidiscip. J. 6
(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Huong, P.T., Cherian, J., Hien, N.T., Sial, M.S., Samad, S., Tuan, B.A., 2021.
Environmental management, green innovation, and social–open innovation. Journal
of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 7 (1). https://doi.org/
10.3390/JOITMC7010089.
Jacob, C.K., 2012. The impact of financial crisis on corporate social responsibility and its
implications for reputation risk management. J. Manag. Sustain. 2 (2) https://doi.
org/10.5539/jms.v2n2p259.
Kassinis, G., Vafeas, N., 2002. Corporate boards and outside stakeholders as determinants
of environmental litigation. Strat. Manag. J. 23 (5), 399–415. https://doi.org/
10.1002/smj.230.
Khan, S.J., Dhir, A., Parida, V., Papa, A., 2021. Past, present, and future of green product
innovation. Bus. Strat. Environ. 30 (8), 4081–4106. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bse.2858.
Khojastehpour, M., Johns, R., 2014. The effect of environmental CSR issues on
corporate/brand reputation and corporate profitability. Eur. Bus. Rev. 26 (4),
330–339. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-03-2014-0029.
Kivimaa, P., Kautto, P., 2010. Making or breaking environmental innovation?:
technological change and innovation markets in the pulp and paper industry.
Management Research Review 33 (4), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1108/
01409171011030426.
Klepper, S., 1996. Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. Am.
Econ. Rev. 86 (3), 562–583.
Kraus, S., Rehman, S.U., García, F.J.S., 2020a. Corporate social responsibility and
environmental performance: the mediating role of environmental strategy and green
innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2020.120262.
Kraus, S., Rehman, S.U., García, F.J.S., 2020b. Corporate social responsibility and
environmental performance: the mediating role of environmental strategy and green
innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 160, 120262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2020.120262.
Kumar, L., 2014. The impact of corporate social responsibility on sustainable
development. SSRN Electron. J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2426049.
Kunnaala, V., Rasi, M., Storgård, J., 2013. Corporate Social Responsibility and Shipping
Views of Baltic Sea Shipping Companies on the Benefits of Responsibility.
Publication of the Centre for Maritime Studies, Springer Netherlands. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-94-007-6167-4_427-1.
Lee, S.Y., Lee, J.Y., Cho, Y.S., 2018. Framing corporate social responsibility for a
controversial product. J. Trav. Tourism Market. 35 (8), 988–999. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10548408.2018.1468852.
Li, D., Zheng, M., Cao, C., Chen, X., Ren, S., Huang, M., 2017. The impact of legitimacy
pressure and corporate profitability on green innovation: evidence from China top
100. J. Clean. Prod. 141, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.123.
Li, S., Liao, S., 2017. Help others and yourself eventually: exploring the relationship
between help-giving and employee creativity under the model of perspective taking.
Front. Psychol. 8 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01030.
Lim, T., 2010. MEASURING THE VALUE OF CORPORATE PHILANTHROPY: SOCIAL
IMPACT, BUSINESS BENEFITS, AND INVESTOR RETURNS, vol. 58. U. Miami L.
Rev.. http://www.corporatephilanthropy.org/pdfs/resources/MVCP_report_singles.
pdf
Liu, Y., Saleem, S., Shabbir, R., Shabbir, M.S., Irshad, A., Khan, S., 2021. The relationship
between corporate social responsibility and financial performance: a moderate role
of fintech technology. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 28 (16), 20174–20187.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11822-9.
Luo, X., Bhattacharya, C.B., 2006. Corporate social responsibility, customer Satisfaction,
and market value. J. Market. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.4.1.
MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., Sugawara, H.M., 1996. Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol. Methods 1
(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130.
Marrewijk, M. Van, 2017. Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability:
between agency and communion. Corporate Social Responsibility 245–255. https://
doi.org/10.1023/A:1023331212247.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., 2001. Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm
perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26 (1), 117–127. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amr.2001.4011987.
Montabon, F., Sroufe, R., Narasimhan, R., 2007. An examination of corporate reporting,
environmental management practices and firm performance. J. Oper. Manag. 25 (5),
998–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.10.003.
Montiel, I., 2008. Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability. Organ.
Environ. 21 (3), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026608321329.
Nair, S.R., Menon, C.G., 2008. An environmental marketing system - a proposed model
based on Indian experience. Bus. Strat. Environ. 17 (8), 467–479. https://doi.org/
10.1002/bse.586.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L., Rynes, S.L., 2003. Corporate social and financial
performance: a meta-analysis. Organ. Stud. 24 (3), 403–441. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0170840603024003910.
Peattie, K., Ratnayaka, M., 1992. Responding to the green movement. Ind. Market.
Manag. 21 (2), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-8501(92)90004-D.
Pierick, E.T., Beekman, V., Van Der Weele, C.N., Meeusen, M.J.G., De Graaff, R.P.M.,
2004. A framework for analysing corporate social performance. Beyond the Wood
model. In: Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI) (Issue October).
https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/29081/1/rp040503.pdf.
E. Fosu et al.
Poon Teng Fatt, J., Wei, M., Yuen, S., Suan, W., 2000. Enhancing corporate image in
organisations. Manag. Res. News 23 (5/6), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/
01409170010782037.
Porter, M.E., Van Der Linde, C., 2017. Green and competitive: ending the stalemate.
Corporate Environmental Responsibility 28 (6), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0024-6301(95)99997-e.
Rettab, B., Brik, A. Ben, Mellahi, K., 2009. A study of management perceptions of the
impact of corporate social responsibility on organisational performance in emerging
economies: the case of dubai. J. Bus. Ethics 89 (3), 371–390. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10551-008-0005-9.
Reverte, C., Gómez-Melero, E., Cegarra-Navarro, J.G., 2016. The influence of corporate
social responsibility practices on organizational performance: evidence from Eco-
Responsible Spanish firms. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 2870–2884. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.128.
Roh, T., Lee, K., Yang, J.Y., 2021. How do intellectual property rights and government
support drive a firm’s green innovation? The mediating role of open innovation.
J. Clean. Prod. 317 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128422.
Rueda-Manzanares, A., Aragón-Correa, J.A., Sharma, S., 2008. The influence of
stakeholders on the environmental strategy of service firms: the moderating effects
of complexity, uncertainty and munificence. Br. J. Manag. 19 (2), 185–203. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00538.x.
Sánchez-Infante Hernández, J.P., Yañez-Araque, B., Moreno-García, J., 2020. Moderating
effect of firm size on the influence of corporate social responsibility in the economic
performance of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119774.
Shrivastava, P., 1995. Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strat.
Manag. J. 16 (1), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160923.
Singh, J., De Los Salmones Sanchez, M.D.M.G., Del Bosque, I.R., 2008. Understanding
corporate social responsibility and product perceptions in consumer markets: a
cross-cultural evaluation. J. Bus. Ethics 80 (3), 597–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-007-9457-6.
Song, W., Ren, S., Yu, J., 2019. Bridging the gap between corporate social responsibility
and new green product success: the role of green organizational identity. Bus. Strat.
Environ. 28 (1), 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2205.
Spector, A.J., 1961. Basic dimensions of the corporate image. J. Market. 25 (6), 47–51.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224296102500608.
Stefan, A., Paul, L., 2008. Does it pay to Be green? A systematic overview. Acad. Manag.
Perspect. 22 (4), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2008.35590353.
Steg, L., Vlek, C., 2009. Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review
and research agenda. J. Environ. Psychol. 29 (3), 309–317. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004.
10
Cleaner and Responsible Consumption 12 (2024) 100155
Suganthi, L., 2019. Examining the relationship between corporate social responsibility,
performance, employees’ pro-environmental behavior at work with green practices
as mediator. J. Clean. Prod. 232, 739–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.05.295.
Van Marrewijk, M., 2003. Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability:
between agency and communion. J. Bus. Ethics 44 (2–3), 95–105. https://doi.org/
10.1023/A:1023331212247.
Walker, K., Wan, F., 2012. The harm of symbolic actions and green-washing: corporate
actions and communications on environmental performance and their financial
implications. J. Bus. Ethics 109 (2), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-
1122-4.
Wang, M., Li, Y., Li, J., Wang, Z., 2021. Green process innovation, green product
innovation and its economic performance improvement paths: a survey and
structural model. J. Environ. Manag. 297 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2021.113282.
Wheaton, B., Muthen, B., Alwin, D.F., Summers, G.F., 1977. Assessing reliability and
stability in panel models. Socio. Methodol. 8, 84. https://doi.org/10.2307/270754.
Xia, X., Teng, F., Gu, X., 2019. Reputation repair and corporate donations: an
investigation of responses to regulatory penalties. China Journal of Accounting
Research 12 (3), 293–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjar.2019.06.001.
Xie, X., Huo, J., Zou, H., 2019. Green process innovation, green product innovation, and
corporate financial performance: a content analysis method. J. Bus. Res. 101,
697–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.010.
Xie, X., Jia, Y., Meng, X., Li, C., 2017. Corporate social responsibility, customer
satisfaction, and financial performance: the moderating effect of the institutional
environment in two transition economies. J. Clean. Prod. 150, 26–39. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.192.
Yáñez-Araque, B., Sánchez-Infante Hernández, J.P., Gutiérrez-Broncano, S., Jiménez-
Estévez, P., 2021. Corporate social responsibility in micro-, small- and medium-sized
enterprises: multigroup analysis of family vs. nonfamily firms. J. Bus. Res. 124,
581–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.023.
Yánez Morales, V.P., Pan, A., Ali, U., 2020. How helping behaviours at work stimulate
innovation in the organization: evidence from a moderated-mediation model.
Innovation 22 (1), 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2019.1632712.
Yin, J., Gong, L., Wang, S., 2018. Large-scale assessment of global green innovation
research trends from 1981 to 2016: a bibliometric study. J. Clean. Prod. 197,
827–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.169.
Yoon, B., Chung, Y., 2018. The effects of corporate social responsibility on firm
performance: a stakeholder approach. J. Hospit. Tourism Manag. 37, 89–96. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2018.10.005.