ABSTRACT

“Green environment” issues served as a crucial driving force for both industrial
practitioners and researchers. Academically, there has been a gradual shift in researchers'
focus from broad discussions to specific constructs such as Green HRM Practices
Mohammad et al. (2021), Green Bonds (Tolliver et al., 2020) & Green Innovation (El-
Kassar & Singh, 2019). This study aims to examine the impact of external factors on the
Environmental Performance of banking organizations in Vietnam, including Green
Finance (GF), Fintech Adoption (FA), and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
Additionally, this research also considers the role of Green Innovation (GI) as a
mediating factor in the existing relationship between CSR, GF, and EP. Based on the
theory of Corporate Social Responsibility, the "Green Finance" model, Environmental
Performance (Hernández et al., 2020), the adoption of fintech, and Green Innovation by
banking organizations, our research has constructed a structural model to test. This aims
to delve deep into the various aspects of each of these factors, in order to identify and fill
the gaps in previous research. This research was conducted using a quantitative survey
method through (PLS-SEM) analysis in SmartPLS 4.0 software. The research unit
consisted of individuals, with a sample size of 418 employees and relevant job positions
within banking organizations. Data were collected over a period of two months in
January and February 2024. Our study proposes eight hypotheses to understand and
clarify the impacts, emphasizing the importance of CSR (social, economic, and
environmental), FA, GF, and GI in reaching EP, as well as the urgent need to integrate
sustainability into banking strategies to aid in the long-term economic development of the
country. Hypothesis H1 states that GF significantly and positively impacts GI of banking
organizations. Hypothesis H2 clarifies that Fintech Adoption positively impacts Green
Innovation. Subsequently, the role and influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on
Green Innovation are examined through H3 in the model. Then, H4 emphasizes the
importance of GF on the Environmental Performance of banking organizations. H5
addresses the strong promotion of CSR to EP. The significant impact of GI on EP of
organizations is tested through H6. Finally, the moderating mediating role of GI in the
relationship between CSR and GF on the Environmental Performance of banking
organizations is explored through H7 and H8. The results obtained address important
policy implications in greater depth. The outputs and findings of this research will
contribute to promoting Green Finance development in the banking industry and
enhancing the awareness of bank employees about the importance of Green Finance and
external factors for the sustainable development of both the bank and society.
Additionally, this serves as a basis, a prerequisite for bank planners, managers, and
leaders to be able to formulate and implement an appropriate strategy, maximize
resources to maintain and enhance the effectiveness of an organization.

Keyword: CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility); Fintech Adoption (FA); Green

Finance (GF); Green Innovation (GI); Environmental Performance (EP); legitimacy
theory; banking institutions.

1. Reasons for choosing the topic

Sustainability and Environmental Performance have become essential topics among

researchers and practitioners in the financial industry (Lim, 2021). Over the past few
years, timely attention to “Green Finance” and “Environmental Performance” has been
considered a significant catalyst for industry experts and scholar (Dai et al., 2022). As a
result of the competitive business environment, global business leaders have been
developing eco-friendly sustainable solutions to gain a competitive advantage. To address
climate change and achieve environmental sustainability, banks play a crucial role in both
developed and developing countries (Dai et al., 2022). Besides, the banking industry has
implemented various measures, including the adoption of Fintech (FA), enhancing
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and promoting Green Innovation (GI) to sustain
their business operations and enhance Environmental Performance (EP). Therefore,
exploring how banking organizations can improve their EP is of utmost importance.
Currently, banking organizations not only face the pressure to enhance social
responsibility to maintain a positive image in the community but also confront the
challenge of implementing Green Finance (GF), Fintech Adoption (FA) and Green
Innovation (GI) to adapt to an increasingly dynamic environment. This opens up
opportunities & challenges for organizations when considering how to integrate green
policies, financial management and social responsibility to achieve sustainable
Environmental Performance.

While the challenges of social cohesiveness, environmental awareness, and economic

growth are not new, it is becoming more and more important to include all three in a one
study (Hernández et al., 2020). According to the Social Investment Forum (2014), in the
context of CSR, more than 8,000 businesses in more than 160 countries spend more than
$4 trillion. Furthermore, the importance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has
amplified the necessity of conducting business in a novel manner by deliberately
incorporating social, environmental, and economic concern into business activity and
strategy (Hernández et al., 2020).

In Vietnam, the Government has made numerous efforts to promote sustainable finance
development. In 2020, the Government issued the National Green Finance Strategy for
the period 2021-2030, with a vision to 2050. This strategy aims to achieve by 2030 a
target of 25% green credit in the total credit outstanding of financial institutions. To
achieve this goal, the involvement of various stakeholders is necessary, including
commercial banks.

Therefore, our research team chose the research direction “A model for enhancing green
innovation and environmental performance of the banking industry” .

2. Objectives and research questions

After researching relevant studies and recognizing the urgency of the issue, this study is
conducted to investigate how Green Finance (GF), Corporate Social Responsibility
(CSR), Fintech Adoption (FA) and Green Innovation (GI) impact the Environmental
Performance (EP) of banking organizations. Specifically, the detailed research objectives
include:

 Measure and assess the influence and impact of CSR, GF on EP through the
intermediate variable GI.
 Compare and analyze the correlation between CSR, FA,GI, GF, and EP.
 Determine the impact of FA on EP through the intermediate variable GI.
 Propose optimization strategies to enhance EP.

This research seeks to address the following three research questions:

 Is there any relationship between CSR, EP, and GF in the banking sector of an
emerging economy?
 Does FA have a direct impact on EP? If not, what does FA affect, is it GI?
 To what extent can GI mediate the link between EP and CSR, as well as between
GF and EP?

3. Object and scope of the research

3.1 Object of the research

This study focuses on the primary research subject, which is the “Environmental
Performance” of banking organizations, and the factors influencing the “Environmental
Performance” of banking organizations include GF, FA, and CSR in three aspects:
Social, economic and environment with GI as the mediating variable.
 3.2 Scope of the research

This study is surveyed based on the perspectives and opinions of individuals currently
serving as interns, employees, department heads, and other positions within banks in
Vietnam. As they are easily exposed to “Green Finance” knowledge, they are expected to
provide comprehensive insights. The research scope focuses on banks in Ho Chi Minh
City. The study was conducted from November 2023 to January 2024.

4. Research Methods

This research employs a quantitative method to enhance precision, with quantitative data
providing specific insights into the extent, frequency, and impact of the variables under
investigation. This method proves valuable in decision-making by leveraging accurate
knowledge and evidence. The authors drew demographic charts of the survey participants
using Excel software, seamlessly integrating quantitative data into widely used analytical
tools such as SmartPLS, SPSS, R, Python, Stata, and Excel. This facilitated robust and
user-friendly analysis. Therefore, the decision to opt for a quantitative method instead of
a qualitative one in this study was made.

The authors utilized SmartPLS 4.0, employing the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
method to evaluate the hypotheses presented in this research. SEM is a multivariate
statistical tool commonly used to confirm relationships between latent variables (Hair,
2009). According to Hair Jr et al. (2021), SEM is more suitable for both complex and
simple models. Furthermore, there is an argument that CB-SEM is superior to PLS-SEM
in estimating existing study variables (Hair Jr et al., 2021). Additionally, CB-based SEM
is used to test existing theories, while PLS-based SEM is ideal for theory formation and
prediction in the exploratory phase (Chen et al., 2022). Since the research framework is
built on existing studies, CB-SEM was used in this study to explore relationships between
variables. Consequently, the two-stage SEM technique, as proposed by Gerbing and
Anderson (1988), was employed to analyze the obtained primary data. Confirmatory
Factor Analysis (CFA) was initially used to assess the validity and reliability of the
measurement model, while SEM techniques were employed in the second stage to
determine existing structural links between latent constructs. The study's results will be
further discussed.

5. Meaning of research topic

5.1 Theoretical deliverables:

Research on the impact of Green Financial factors, Technology Application, CSR, and GI
on the EP of banking organizations is a worthy topic of study in both developed and
developing countries. It holds significant theoretical meaning and contributions. Firstly,
in research, we have demonstrated three fundamental theories: the Green Financial
model, the influence of “Green” factors on EP, and the sequential impact hypotheses of
each factor on the EP of banking organizations. Secondly, our study has tested research
hypotheses: the positive impact of Green Financial factors, Technology Application,
SCR, GI, and EP. Additionally, this research also conducted tests on two intermediate
regulation hypotheses, which are the relationships between GF, GI, EP and CSR, GI, EP.

Up to the present moment, research on the EP of banks in Vietnam is still limited and not
comprehensive. Therefore, this topic will help clarify the concepts and metrics for
measuring the EP of banking institutions. Consequently, the research will provide more
theoretical and objective information on this subject. It establishes a comprehensive
model of the various factors influencing the EP of banking institutions. Ultimately,
studying the relationship between these factors and the EP of banking institutions will
help understand the roles of these factors better. Furthermore, this research contributes
significantly to the intellectual repository of humanity in both contexts.
 5.2 Practical deliverables:

In the current industrialization and modernization 4.0, alongside the development and
optimization of everything, "Environmental Protection" is a very concerning and
worrying issue. Therefore, applying a green model to all aspects including finance,
technology, innovation, etc., greatly impacts the EP of an organization in general and the
banking industry in particular. However, this impact will involve two aspects: positive
and negative.

This research is extremely meaningful and contributes significantly to environmental

management planners in a broader sense, specifically to banking institutions. From the
accepted hypotheses after testing: these factors mostly have a positive impact on EP. The
research provides scientific evidence so that policy planners and government regulatory
agencies can develop appropriate policies and solutions. Ultimately, the aim is to use
these policies to encourage banks to implement environmental protection measures,
contributing to the sustainable development of the economy.

Banks should focus on emphasizing Green Financial factors, applying technology such as
financial technology applications to reduce costs. Additionally, creating a balance
between work and family life for employees, cooperating in charity and social projects,
improving the bank's compliance with environmental standards.

CHAPTER 1: RESEARCH OVERVIEW

1.1 Introduction
Title section presents the rationale for the study, research objectives, subjects, scope of
the study, research methods, research findings, and the structure of the research paper.
From successfully studying domestic and international research on the relationship
between CSR, FA, GF, GI, and EP, limitations in previous studies have been identified.
The content of Chapter 1 includes an overview of the study and comments on the
research findings. In the overall research section, the components of studies related to
topics are presented, such as by whom, published in which magazine? In which year?
How many survey samples? Respondents? About what? Drawing conclusions and
opinions, identifying the limitations of the study. Related research: The impact of
applying Fintech on GF and the environment, the effectiveness of bank operations in the
COVID-19 pandemic: the role of Green Innovation by Guang-Wen and Siddik (2023),
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Performance: The mediating role of
environmental strategy and Green Innovation by Kraus et al. (2020), Auditing the
environmental leadership role on Corporate Social Responsibility and Green Innovation
on the performance of small and medium-sized enterprises by Nsiah et al. (2023),
Unlocking Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Performance: The
mediating role of green strategy, innovation, and leadership by Bhat et al. (2024), Two-
stage SEM artificial neural network approach to analyze the impact of applying FinTech
on the sustainable performance of banks: The mediating effectiveness of Green Finance
and Green Innovation by Yan et al. (2022), Does the application of technology and green
transformation leadership improve Green Innovation and Environmental Performance of
businesses? SEM-ANN approach by Tian et al. (2023). We used the UEH search tool
library, Rabbit Research, Google Scholar, along with secondary data sets collected and
researched from reputable news sites with keywords including: Green Finance,
technology, Green Innovation, Corporate Social Responsibility, Environmental
Performance of banks. After finding relevant research papers before referencing
information in those studies, we check the reliability of the studies by checking the
ranking of journals that published each paper on the website:
https://www.scimagojr.com/. Finally, we synthesized reliable studies to better understand
the research topic, integrating them through qualitative integration methods.

1.2 Previous studies

Research by Guang-Wen and Siddik (2023)

The investigation conducted by Guang-Wen and Siddik (2023) was published in the
Journal of Environmental Science and Pollution Research in the year 2023. This
scholarly work empirically explores the correlation among EP, GF, and FA, concurrently
considering the mediating function of GI. Employing a meticulously designed
questionnaire, the study collected primary data from professionals in Private Commercial
Banks (PCBs) situated in Dhaka, the capital city of Bangladesh. The respondents,
selected through a convenience sampling method, were surveyed from July to November
2021. A total of 360 questionnaires were gathered, with 58 subsequently excluded due to
missing or incomplete values. Consequently, the final sample size for the study amounted
to 302. Prior to the main survey, a pilot test involving 25 randomly chosen PCB
employees was undertaken to assess the reliability and quality of the questionnaire items.

Through the utilization of the SEM methodology, this investigation has effectively
verified the influence of FA on GI, EP, and GF within the financial sector of developing
countries, exemplified by the case of Bangladesh during the pandemic. The present study
also confirmed the mediating role of GI in the relationship between EP, GI, and FA. The
empirical findings highlighted a significant positive impact of FA on EP, GF, and GI.
Additionally, GF was observed to positively affect EP and GI, while GI had a positive
impact on EP. Moreover, the outcomes indicated that GI partially mediates the
connection between EP, FA, and GF. In general, this research emphasizes the crucial role
of GI, FA, and GF in achieving enhanced EP. It also advocates for the banking industry
to prioritize the incorporation of Fintech and environmentally friendly financing into their
operations, contributing to the expeditious realization of the country’s sustainable
development goals.

Figure 1.1: Research model by Guang-Wen and Siddik (2023)

Research by Kraus et al. (2020)

The research of Kraus et al. (2020) focuses on studying the impact of CSR on EP. The
study was published in the journal Technological Forecasting and Social Change in 2020.
According to the natural RBV theory, the study determines the relationship between
CSR, GI, Environmental Strategy, and EP. This study uses data from 297 companies of
the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM) with a total survey of 661
manufacturing companies, reaching a response rate of 44.9%. The data collection method
was subject to common method bias (CMB). However, Sascha Kraus and his colleagues
have minimized this impact by preserving privacy and not disclosing information to any
third parties.

The results of the study indicate that CSR does not have a significant direct impact on
EP. There is a positive association between environmental strategy, CSR, and GI, but
with improved EP. This demonstrates that CSR acts as a mediating factor between CSR
and EP. The study provides implications for policymakers and managers at large
manufacturing companies to improve company profits. Thus, business professionals
understand how CSR, GI, and environmental strategy affect EP to make the right
decisions in their company's business operations.

Figure 1.2: Research model by Kraus et al. (2020)

Research by Nsiah et al. (2023)

The research of Nsiah et al. (2023) was published in the journal Proceedings of the
International Conference on Business Excellence in 2023. This research plays a
significant role in influencing the advancement of green theory and green performance by
elucidating the role of medium and small-scale enterprises in emerging economies,
particularly in Ghana, regarding CSR and green innovation processes (GRNI) in relation
to environmental efficiency (ENVP) and financial performance (FINP). The CSR
initiatives of medium and small enterprises "tend to be shaped by essential needs in
developing countries". Based on survey results and research findings, the study concludes
that CSR is a strategic resource that businesses can use to impact GI and environmental
efficiency.

In addition, the study proposes and develops green theory by recommending that
companies create and implement GI techniques to reduce waste, promote GI, and
improve environmental efficiency. Thus, in order to show why and how leaders and
GENI practices improve GI and company performance, the study combines green theory
with green performance. Additionally, the research finds that both approaches to GI and
environmental leadership impact the EP of businesses. The study indicates that the
operational effectiveness of medium-sized and small businesses depends not only on
environmental leadership, GI, or CSR, but also on the interaction of these traits.

Using a quantitative method through interviews with leaders of medium and small
companies, conducting an online survey among SMEs in various industries, a total of 480
questionnaires were distributed in 16 different regions in Ghana to key employees and
managers. Smart-PLS version 3 was used to test the developed conceptual model. The
results show that green process innovation has an impact on both ENVP and FINP.
Leadership capabilities have a moderating inverse relationship on the link between
GRNI and CSR. Thus, the study suggests that medium and small enterprises should
implement GRNI practices through environmentally friendly production processes.
Figure 1.3: Research model by Nsiah et al. (2023)

Research by Bhat et al. (2024)

The study by Bhat et al. (2024) published in the Journal of Innovation and Green
Development in 2024, addresses the lack of academic attention towards CSR in EP
management in Indian industrial enterprises. Distributing survey questionnaires and
collecting data from 500 people from 10 prominent Delhi industrial organizations. This
study's analysis of the quantitative data gathered from respondents using Partial Least
Squares (PLS) software produced significant results across variables. The study's results
validated the inference that CSR directly affects EP. CSR significantly affects a number
of factors, including Transformational Leadership (GTL), Green Capacity (GC),
Environmental Strategy (ES), Green and GI. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that
the ES, GC, GTL, and GI approaches can improve EP by reducing emissions, energy use,
water pollution, and the use of hazardous chemicals. Based on this finding, the concepts
ES, GC, GTL, and GI perform an intermediary function between CSR and EP.
Research aids in improving EP and decision-making for industry leaders and
stakeholders, enabling them to create internal plans for long-term profitability and
informed industrial governance. However, the study still has limitations, such as using a
cross-sectional method for research, which limits the ability to generalize over time.
Longer-term research is needed to ensure consistent results on the elements of CSR,
green capabilities, green strategy, green leadership, and GI. The research sample needs to
be larger and more diverse in terms of geography and industry, as well as being expanded
to other countries to observe changes across cultural contexts. At the same time, further
research can consider additional factors such as green human resource management and a
green climate.

Figure 1.4: Research model by Bhat et al. (2024)

Research by Yan et al. (2022)

This research of Yan et al. (2022), the study was published by the Multidisciplinary
Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) on September 8, 2022, endeavors to scrutinize the
impact of Financial Technology (FinTech) adoption on the SP of banking institutions in
an emerging economy like Bangladesh. Furthermore, the study delves into the mediating
roles of GI and GF in the connection between FA and sustainability performance (SP).
Primary data were gathered from staff members of commercial banks in Dhaka using a
structured questionnaire from January to March 2021, employing convenience sampling.
Of the initially collected 400 questionnaires, 49 were excluded due to inaccuracies or
missing data, resulting in a final sample size of 351. Prior to the main survey, a pilot test
involving 30 randomly selected commercial bank employees was conducted to validate
and refine the survey questions.

The study employed a two-staged approach, using structural equation modeling and an
Artificial Neural Network (SEM-ANN) for data analysis. In the first stage, the SEM
approach via SmartPLS 3 was utilized to investigate the impact of FA on the
sustainability performance of banking institutions in Bangladesh, considering the
mediating effects of GI and GF. The second stage involved an Artificial Neural Network
(ANN) analysis to rank the normalized importance of predictors based on the Partial
Least Squares (PLS) analysis, addressing nonlinear interactions between dependent and
independent variables. The IBM SPSS neural network module was utilized for this
analysis.

The empirical findings highlighted the significant influence of FA on the sustainability

performance of banking institutions, indicating the critical role of FA in facilitating
sustainability by incorporating eco-friendly practices like digital lending, electronic
payments, mobile banking, and internet customer support services. Notably, this study
contributes as one of the pioneering investigations in this area, lacking supporting
literature.
For comprehensive organizational sustainability, the study recommends the integration of
eco-friendly practices into daily banking operations. Mediation results suggested that GI
fully mediates the relationship between banking institutions' FA and Sustainability
Performance (SP), indicating that FA affects SP both directly and indirectly through GI.
In addition, empirical data revealed that GF acts as a significant mediator between FA
and SP, emphasizing the role of green activities such as online banking, green
technology, online customer service and green banking. In summary, FA enhances both
GF and GI, leading to an enhancement in organizational SP.

Figure 1.5: Research model by Yan et al. (2022)

Research by Tian et al. (2023)

Research by Tian et al. (2023) was to find out how GTL and fintech innovations affected
the Environmental Performance (ENP) of SMEs in Bangladesh's manufacturing sector.
This study is based on survey information from 286 managers of small and medium-sized
manufacturing enterprises (SME) in Bangladesh. The ability-motivation-opportunity
(AMO) viewpoint, modernization theory (EMT), and artificial neural network techniques
are all used in this research ecosystem. Two-stage hybrid structural equation modeling
(SEM-ANN) analysis shows that fintech and GTL positively influence firms' ENP. GI is
believed to be able to enhance ENP in SMEs in the manufacturing sector. ANN
Evaluation Sensitivity Analysis identifies FA as the most important predictor of a
company's ENP. The study also identified an important role for GI as a mediator between
ENP and FA as well as ENP and GTL. Furthermore, GTL also increases the company's
GI and, subsequently, its ENP.

The EMT and AMO hypotheses, two significant theories, have gained more ground
thanks to this investigation. A framework for further research on environmental
management, particularly that which looks at the functions of FA, GTL, and GI in the
industrial industry, was also suggested by the study. The study expands on the
investigation of fintech, ENP, GI, and GTL in Bangladesh's SME manufacturing market
and further reveals the noteworthy positive influence of FA on businesses' GI and ENP.
Not only that, the article also provides SME managers with a useful model to improve
performance and GI through the use of GTL by regulators and fintechs. Manufacturing
companies mitigate negative environmental concerns by integrating employees and
making technical advances. However, there are still certain limitations to the study. The
study mainly focuses on small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises in
Bangladesh, does not consider internal and external factors, and does not combine both
horizontal and vertical research methods to evaluate the impact. The long-term impact of
fintech and GTL on corporate ENP and GI.
Figure 1.6: Research model by Tian et al. (2023)

1.3 Gap research

There have been many domestic and foreign studies published in prestigious journals
researching the relationship between CSR, GF, FA, and EP. In particular, in the banking
sector, research on the impact of CSR, GF, and EP is increasingly popular using the
intermediate variable GI. However, according to the author's research in research articles
on this topic, there are still many limitations in the research process.

One of the common limitations is that the research has not been reported
comprehensively, some samples are still limited and not comprehensive like in the study
of Guang-Wen and Siddik (2023), which has some samples that cannot be applied to
developing countries or other economic areas; the study by Kraus et al. (2020) has a
sample that only considers data from large Malaysian manufacturing corporations and
ignores SMEs and data from other countries. Additionally, the research by (Nsiah et al.,
2023) has a sample that only focuses on SMEs in Ghana's manufacturing sector and does
not consider Ghana's non-manufacturing sector; the study by Bhat et al. (2024) has a
limited sample as data was collected from only 10 prominent industrial organizations in
Delhi. The author Bhat et al. (2024) should collect data from a larger sample size of
businesses, ideally more than 10 (e.g., 20–25 companies), and the companies selected
should be from multiple cities of India, focusing on SMEs and replicating this study in
different states; the study by Yan et al. (2022) has a limited sample because it only
considered data collected from Bangladeshi bank employees and does not consider data
from other countries or other industries, so it cannot be applied to other economies or
other emerging business fields.

In addition, the research method used by previous authors is cross-sectional (Bhat et al.,
2024; Kraus et al., 2020; Tian et al., 2023), so there is no information about longitudinal
links. Of course, this method has limitations in terms of its ability to generalize over time.
Therefore, consistent results over the long term cannot be guaranteed (Bhat et al., 2024;
Kraus et al., 2020).

Besides, in previous studies, the authors only considered GI as an intermediate variable in

the relationship between CSR, GF, FA, and EP without comprehensively considering
other intermediate variables. Specifically, the study by Guang-Wen and Siddik (2023)
only considered GI as a variable in examining how FA affects GF and EP without
studying other mediating factors such as technological expertise, the behavior of
employees who are conscious of the environment, and environmental strategies.
Therefore, it is possible to consider including green climate and green human resource
management (HRM) ideas in a moderating role in the context of EP and CSR (Bhat et al.,
2024), as well as considering green behavioral factors of employees, environmental
strategy, and technological capabilities (Yan et al., 2022).

The authors realize that research on the relationship between CSR, GF, FA, EP, and GI
has been a popular and necessary research topic. Research on CSR, GF, FA, EP, GI, and
the relationships between them in Vietnam is increasing, but basically only research in
general without paying attention to details and almost in Vietnam there are still few.
Therefore, in today's developed economic conditions, businesses as well as banks are
very interested in GF and EP, so leaders have been developing sustainable solutions such
as FA, CSR, and GI to maintain business operations, enhance competitiveness, and
improve the environment. Aware of the above problems, the authors find this research
very necessary.

Thus, combining the real situation and the lack of theory in research on the relationship
between CSR, GF, FA, EP, and GI, the current gap that exists is research on EP impacted
by GF, CSR (social, environmental, and economic), GI, and FA.

This study will measure and evaluate the impact and influence of GF, CSR, combined
with GI, and FA on EP and propose optimization strategies to improve EP to reduce the
research gap.

CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY

The author presents in this chapter an overview of domestic and international studies
categorized according to the stages of development of the theoretical framework on
Green Financial research models, applying technology, social responsibility, and Green
Innovation to measure the factors impacting the Environmental Performance of banking
organizations. This chapter also discusses another aspect of the topic, which is inherited
and validated from the study by Dai et al. (2022) on the importance of Green Innovation
and factors affecting Environmental Performance in the banking sector, and the research
gap is that this work does not address an extremely important factor in the era of
industrialization and modernization 4.0, which is the factor of Fintech Adoption. Using
primarily quantitative methods and to some extent qualitative methods to verify the
accuracy of the sentences will help ensure that the research is practically valuable and
highly reliable. Thus, the author formulates hypotheses and constructs a research model
based on the study by Dai et al. (2022). By combining the original model by Dai et al.
(2022) developed through several stages and inheriting the model by Liu et al. (2023)
along with taking the perspective of individual users, the author's research inherits and
validates based on the factors: Green Finance, Corporate Social Responsibility, Fintech
Adoption, Green Innovation and Environmental Performance.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

In the above section, the author provided an overview of studies including domestic and
international ones, research gaps. The structure of this chapter will present the following
sections: Background theory, research concepts, hypothesis development, and research
model.

2.2 Introduction to Green Finance

As of today, a precise and universally accepted definition of Green Finance remains

elusive for two main reasons. Firstly, numerous publications abstain from defining the
term; for instance, neither Corporation (2013) nor Spratt and Griffith-Jones (2013)
provide a definition of Green Finance. Secondly, the definitions put forth exhibit
significant variations. Among the sparse definitions available in literature are the
following:

According to Höhne et al. (2012), Green Finance encompasses a broad spectrum of

financial investments directed towards sustainable development projects, environmental
products, and policies aimed at fostering a more sustainable economy. This term not only
includes climate finance but also extends to a wider array of environmental objectives,
such as industrial pollution control, water sanitation, and biodiversity protection.
Specifically, mitigation and adaptation finance pertain to activities related to climate
change. Mitigation financial flows entail investments in projects and programs that aid in
reducing or preventing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), while adaptation financial
flows involve investments that enhance resilience to the impacts of climate change on
both goods and individuals (Höhne et al., 2012).

Zadek and Flynn (2013) point out that while "Green Finance" is frequently used
synonymously with "Green Investment," its scope extends beyond mere investments as
outlined by Bloomberg New Energy Finance and similar entities. Notably, Green Finance
encompasses operational expenses associated with Green Investments, which are not
covered within the definition of Green Investment. This notably includes expenses such
as project preparation and land acquisition costs, both of which are not only substantial
but can also present unique financing obstacles (Zadek & Flynn, 2013).

As defined by Coopers (2013), Green Finance within the banking sector involves the
provision of financial products and services that incorporate environmental
considerations throughout various stages, including lending decision-making, post-
lending monitoring, and risk management. The primary objective is to facilitate
environmentally responsible investments and support the growth of low-carbon
technologies, projects, industries, and businesses (Coopers, 2013).

As per the forthcoming work by Böhnke et al. (2015), "Green Finance" (GF)
encompasses all types of investment or lending that consider environmental effects and
contribute to environmental sustainability. Sustainable investment and banking play a
crucial role in GF, involving decisions based on environmental screening and risk
assessment to adhere to environmental sustainability standards (Böhnke et al., 2015).

Combining the above studies and similar secondary data, we can propose a definition of
Green Finance. Green finance involves:

 Providing funding for both public and private green initiatives, covering
preparation and capital expenses, in various sectors such as environmental goods
and services (e.g., water management, biodiversity protection) and efforts aimed at
preventing, minimizing, and compensating for environmental and climate-related
damages (e.g., energy efficiency projects, dam construction).
 Supporting public policies, including operational expenses, that promote the
execution of environmental projects and initiatives focused on mitigating or
 adapting to environmental damage. Examples include feed-in tariffs for renewable
energies.
 Engaging with specific components of the financial system dedicated to green
investments, such as the Green Climate Fund or financial instruments tailored for
green investments (e.g., green bonds, structured green funds), and considering
their distinct legal, economic, and institutional framework conditions.

2.3 Background theory

According to the legitimacy theory, society’s consent is considered a crucial factor

in promoting the sustainability of an organization, an entity. Businesses not only seek
legitimacy but also maintain it by integrating their values, innovations, and strategies
with community values to enhance adaptability to the social environment (Dowling &
Pfeffer, 1975). This necessitates businesses to choose activities aligned with social
perspectives and norms. Based on the legitimacy theory, CSR is understood as initiatives
that organizations implement to improve performance and sustainability, while also
benefiting both society and the environment (Chen et al., 2022). CSR can be described as
strategies that help businesses operate responsibly, ethically, and positively contribute to
community development (Mocan et al., 2015).

GF can be viewed as a strategy to attain and sustain legitimacy (Chariri et al.,

2018). GF assists companies in managing environmental impacts by reducing energy
consumption, lowering carbon emissions, and addressing other negative factors (Chen et
al., 2022; Minatti Ferreira et al., 2014). Additionally, GI refer to innovative initiatives by
organizations, such as green banking, online banking, remote deposits, and paper
reduction, aimed at improving global environmental sustainability (Kraus et al., 2020).
Therefore, from the perspective of legitimacy, businesses should integrate CSR
(including environmental, economic, and social aspects), GF, and GI into their strategies
to achieve, maintain, or restore legitimacy, thereby supporting them in achieving overall
environmental sustainability.

FA is one of the factors that increases the competitiveness and efficiency of a bank
or financial institution (Dwivedi et al., 2021). GI positively impacts EP, and GI mediates
the relationship between FA, GF, EP, and CSR of banks (Guang-Wen & Siddik, 2023).
In fact, some studies show a positive impact of GI and GF on the EP of banks or
businesses. There is very little research on the relationship between GF, FA, CSR, EP,
and GI from the perspective of banks and financial institutions during this period. Based
on this foundation, this study has developed a research framework to assess the
relationship between GF, FA, CSR, EP, and GI in the banking sector to ensure the
country's sustainable economic development.

2.4 Research concept

2.4.1 Green Finance (GF)

GF often known as green investment, is a term that has a lot of different meanings in
academia and business (Zhang et al., 2022), GF is synonymous with “sustainable
finance”, “environmental finance”, “climate finance” and “green investment” (Akomea-
Frimpong et al., 2022). In a narrow sense, Green (or environmental) Finance
encompasses all market-based instruments designed to deliver environmental quality and
to transfer environmental risk (Dörry & Schulz, 2018). Also, GF is a critical element in
achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations for the
year 2030. The global significance of GF is underscored by its role in achieving SDGs,
particularly goals 11, 12, and 13. Scholars have shown heightened interest in GF, and it
gained attention at the G-20 nations' eleventh conference in Hangzhou, China, in 2016
(Schäfer, 2018).
As defined by Lindenberg (2014), GF encompasses the policies and investments of
financial institutions that actively support a green economy (Rahman et al., 2022;
Soundarrajan & Vivek, 2016). GF is a new monetary phenomena (Wang & Zhi, 2016)
that integrates economic rewards with environmental protection, making it the greatest
alternative for supporting environmentally friendly initiatives and organizations that
promote environmental protection (Zheng, Siddik, Masukujjaman, Fatema, et al., 2021).
According to the European Commission, GF in financial services entails investment
decisions that incorporate environmental, social, and governance aspects to ensure
customer and societal satisfaction (Zheng, Siddik, Masukujjaman, & Fatema, 2021).

The International Finance Corporation (IFC) recognizes GF as an investment option that

safeguards the environment, ensures social equity, and promotes economic success (Liu
et al., 2019). As a result, in this study, GF is defined as the financing of various
environmentally friendly projects such as renewable energy, alternative energy, energy
efficiency, recycling and recyclable products, waste management, and green industry
development projects in order to achieve organizational sustainability (Zheng, Siddik,
Masukujjaman, & Fatema, 2021).

2.4.2 Green Innovation (GI)

The problem of global warming is considered a serious challenge facing the world (Li et
al., 2020). GI is defined as development that reduces waste, protects the environment,
reduces air pollution, reduces energy consumption, and limits the use of coal, oil, and
electricity while conserving energy quantity (Kraus et al., 2020). GI refers to advances in
technology applied to reduce waste, which affects global climate change. Improvements
in this area are often linked to the organization's environmental management plans and
are recommended to enhance EP (Adegbile et al., 2017).
Additionally, in the context of this study, GI can be defined as technological innovations
in the banking sector, such as green banking, internet banking, mobile banking, green
environmental strategies, and green banking strategies. green marketing strategy, aimed
at reducing environmental pollution and supporting banks in achieving environmental
sustainability. GI plays an important role in today's business to mitigate the effects of
climate change (Li et al., 2020; Zheng, Siddik, Masukujjaman, Fatema, et al., 2021).

Furthermore, GI represents an effort to minimize the negative impact of production and

operations on the environment, focusing on improving techniques, methods, structures,
products, and management practices (Asadi et al., 2020). Employing these advancements
enables organizations to efficiently advocate for sustainable development and tackle
issues concerning environmental conservation. GI has three main elements that can be
stated: organization process, and product (Lian et al., 2022). Therefore, GI is considered
an important predictor of business performance (Qiu et al., 2020).

2.4.3 Fintech Adoption (FA)

The banking sector has efficiently utilized FA to enhance the productivity of employees
and reduce costs, simultaneously fostering sustainability in the transition process
(Fleisch, 2010). The integration of Fintech contributes to the transparency of banks and
the analytical capability of stakeholders through digital technology (Rao et al., 2022).
The application process of FA is flexibly leveraged, benefiting from the unique
characteristics of disruptive innovation, as mentioned in the preliminary theory of
disruptive innovation (Rogers, 1995). The dissemination of these innovations occurs
within social systems, meaning they are widely spread through various communication
channels over time. Individuals participating in this process achieve consensus in sharing
and applying new ideas, leading to innovation (Rogers, 1995; Rogers, 2002). In contrast,
FA simply involves integrating modern technologies to revolutionize financial products
and services.

FA has garnered significant attention and research interest for its potential to reshape
financial services, providing a more comprehensive and personalized financial experience
(Xue et al., 2022; Zarrouk et al., 2021). FA brings innovation to financial products,
service models, and technological applications. Therefore, businesses and banks
recognize that the advantages of financial technology encompass the capability for
swift financial decision-making, creating favorable conditions for quick and immediate
payments (Farboodi & Veldkamp, 2020; Hommel & Bican, 2020).

2.4.4 Environmental Performance (EP)

EP was initially defined by Tyteca (1996) as the extent to which an organization takes
action to integrate environmental considerations into its operational decisions, adhering
to acceptable standards, self-interest & responding to stakeholders. There is a growing
concern among all stakeholders regarding environmental issues related to products,
manufacturing processes, packaging and distribution (Kohtala, 2015). This constitutes a
major driving force for organizations to incorporate environmental issues as a vital
element of strategic management (Joyce & Paquin, 2016; Saeidi et al., 2015).

EP encompasses the use of eco-friendly components in products, pollution reduction,

lowering carbon emissions and source waste, improving energy efficiency, resource
utilization effectiveness & avoiding the use of ecologically hazardous elements, along
with various other issues (Zhu et al., 2010). Conversely, both carbon taxes and emissions
serve to reduce the input, output, profitability and emissions of an organization (Nie et
al., 2022). While the EP of a company can be gauged through its activities and products
(Klassen & Whybark, 1999), the most effective way to evaluate the environmental
efficacy of businesses remains the efficient use of materials, as highlighted (Tung et al.,
2014). The continual improvement of EP not only enhances market share (Dangelico &
Pontrandolfo, 2015) but also assists organizations in retaining existing customers &
persuading potential customers (Hsu et al., 2016).

2.4.5 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

The notion of CSR is a popular concept in the business world, recognized as an important
aspect of business preparedness on a global scale (Xiang et al., 2021). According to the
legitimacy theory, CSR refers to actions taken by businesses to improve their
sustainability and overall performance while also helping the community and the
environment (Guang-Wen & Siddik, 2022). CSR is the term for the tactics used by
companies to make sure they are conducting their operations in a way that is moral,
socially conscious, and helpful to community development (Mocan et al., 2015). In
addition, businesses face challenges in CSR in order to survive and grow in a sustainable
fashion in the ever-changing business environment. The definition of CSR has changed
over time to incorporate social, environmental, and economic factors into corporate
strategy (Ikram et al., 2019; Le et al., 2021).

According to Singh and Misra (2021), the definition of CSR has evolved throughout time
in a more complex manner to balance its significance to sustainable development goals
while drawing attention from stakeholders and enterprises. Nonetheless, CSR is business,
suggesting that the company functions by emphasizing the social aspects of responsibly
exploiting capabilities. Community participation in CSR helps reduce emissions and
increase environmental awareness and sustainability (Gordon et al., 2012; Santoso et al.,
2022). Furthermore, CSR makes efficient use of resources and improves business
performance and reputation among stakeholders, clients, and suppliers (Orlitzky et al.,
2003). Consequently, implementing CSR improves government support for sustainable
business investments but requires readiness from senior management (Abbas, 2020;
Tarigan et al., 2020; Wongthongchai & Saenchaiyathon, 2019).

2.5 Hypothesis development and research models

2.5.1 Hypothesis development

Green Finance (GF) and Green Innovation (GI)

Financial institutions are expected to thoroughly assess the costs and benefits associated
with environmental factors during the capital allocation process, thereby fostering
sustainable social development (Liu & Wen, 2019). For enterprises contributing to
pollution, the development framework of Green Finance imposes certain limitations (Liu
et al., 2017). By elevating the loan interest rates for such enterprises to heighten debt
financing expenses, GF not only effectively curbs investments in pollution but also
compels enterprises to engage in Green Innovation (Yan et al., 2016).

Conversely, the development approach of GF provides environmental protection

enterprises with accessibility and convenience in securing financing. GF eases the
financial burdens on environmental protection enterprises by augmenting loan amounts
and reducing interest rates (Xu & Li, 2020). This, in turn, enhances the willingness of
environmental protection enterprises to undertake GI, thereby expediting the sustainable
development of the green industry (Xu & Cui, 2020; Yu et al., 2021). Consequently, this
study has the following hypotheses:
 H1: The GI of banking institutions experiences a substantial positive influence
from GF.

Fintech Adoption (FA) and Green Innovation (GI)

FA plays a crucial role in supporting businesses in implementing GI (Liu et al., 2022;

Rao et al., 2022). This technology has a positive impact on financial performance and
directs capital towards GI activities. It enhances the positive ripple effect of GI by
fostering collaboration among companies, financial institutions, banks, and stakeholders
(Liu et al., 2022). Simultaneously, it also creates favorable conditions for integrating GI
knowledge within businesses (Rao et al., 2022).

However, faced with the challenge of massive information asymmetry, financial

organizations and businesses may reduce their motivation to provide funding for GI
initiatives (Yuan et al., 2021). To maintain competitiveness, financial institutions and
banks are innovating in this field, minimizing inefficiencies and inadequate financial
resources (Laeven et al., 2015).

Previous studies have indicated that R&D investment in environmental innovation plays
a significant role in promoting Green Innovations (Lee & Min, 2015). Yu et al. (2020)
proposed that Fintech strongly encourages businesses and banks to adopt green control
technologies, thereby enhancing the GI index of the region (S. Feng et al., 2022).
Furthermore, Fintech can enhance both the quantity and quality of innovations within
green organizations (Rao et al., 2022). Blockchain technology, Fintech features can be
utilized to develop green systems and products that promote recycling, reuse, and circular
production (Rehman Khan & Yu, 2021; Saurabh & Dey, 2021). Additionally, Fintech can
boost GI by increasing investments in research and development (R&D) (Liu et al.,
2022). Therefore, this research proposes the following research hypothesis:

H2: FA has a significant positive impact on the GI.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Green Innovation (GI)

The relationship between CSR and GI involves the integration of advanced technology in
the corporate setting, aligning with both community needs and the company's
sustainability goals and strategy. CSR and GI have a significant dynamic influence, and
each benefits the other (Handayani et al., 2017; Shahzad et al., 2020). The consistent
practice of CSR significantly impacts the performance of GI, positioning the company
attractively in the market (Rehfeld et al., 2007). Government-endorsed CSR, particularly
for environmentally conscious companies, places a focus on ecological innovation and
GI. This entails corporate efforts to enhance processes, markets, and products by reducing
natural resource consumption and minimizing environmental impact (Barba-Sánchez &
Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2016; Leitão et al., 2019). Research suggests that the EP of
businesses plays a pivotal role in fostering ecological innovation, and GI especially
among the 3647 small and medium-sized enterprises operating in 38 countries (Sáez-
Martínez et al., 2016).

Companies possessing the necessary resources and capabilities can gain a competitive
edge by linking CSR performance with GI (Broadstock et al., 2020). Moreover,
companies have the capacity to disseminate and integrate knowledge related to CSR and
GI (Gras-Gil et al., 2016). The advantages of implementing CSR extend to enhanced staff
skills improvement, company image, customer satisfaction, environmental friendliness,
and an increased workforce (Gürlek & Tuna, 2018; Mazodier et al., 2021). Furthermore,
an investigation into the relationship between CSR and the performance of electricity
companies in the United States, conducted by Sidhoum and Serra, reveals a significant
correlation between economic, social, and EP, with Green Innovations identified as
catalysts for economic welfare and environmental system development (Sidhoum &
Serra, 2017).

Past studies by Kraus et al. (2020) and Hao and He (2022) have demonstrated the
substantial influence of CSR on GI. Partial validation of these findings can also be found
in previous research on environmental CSR and innovation (Zhou et al., 2019). From a
theoretical perspective, various researchers acknowledge the existence of an association
between CSR and innovation (McWilliams & Siegel, 2000). However, there is a scarcity
of literature specifically addressing environmental CSR and innovation (Zhou et al.,
2019). Therefore, research has proposed the following hypothesis:

H3: CSR has a positive effect on GI.

Green Finance (GF) and Environmental Performance (EP)

GF plays a crucial role in generating positive impacts on the EP of organizations,

particularly in the banking industry. GF helps businesses and organizations invest in
technologies and solutions that help minimize their impact on the environment. Simply
put, the greener a bank's finances, the better its EP. In Addition, as described by Zhang et
al. (2022), GF has been portrayed in this article as a source of funding for various
environmental protection initiatives such as clean energy, technology to ensure the
continuous improvement of a bank's EP. According to Indriastuti and Chariri (2021), GF
can enhance the sustainability of businesses within organizations through the support of
numerous environmentally friendly projects, which will significantly result in improved
EP (Chen et al., 2022).

GF and EP is increasingly prominent through support and financing of environmentally

friendly projects and initiatives. Moreover, Xu et al. (2020) also demonstrate the positive
impact of GF on businesses' environmental performance. Recent research has
demonstrated that GF significantly positively influences the EP of banking institutions
(Chen et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). Thus, it can be inferred that engaging in diverse
environmentally sustainable financial initiatives has the potential to enhance the
Environmental Performance (EP) of banking institutions. Consequently, the following
research hypothesis is proposed:

H4: The EP of banking institutions experiences a substantial positive influence

from GF.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Environmental Performance (EP)

The relationship between banking organizations & society is becoming increasingly

important and the CSR factor has proven its significant role in creating positive impacts
on EP. A review of the literature indicates that whereas some research has emphasized
the relationship between CSR and Financial Performance, very few have took a deep dive
into the relationship between CSR and EP (Suganthi, 2020). More recently, Ahmad,
Ullah, et al. (2021) found that CSR initiatives greatly increase the EP and that, by
promoting environmentally conscious behavior among employees in firms, they may aid
in lowering environmental footprints. In a further study, Suganthi (2020) found that the
performance of the market, costs, and the environment are all significantly enhanced by
CSR.
Moreover, there is numerous research on CSR that is available, yet the term itself lacks a
specific meaning. It was challenging for the researchers to carry out such an empirical
study (Orlitzky et al., 2011). Our study used three factors of CSR: social, environmental
and economic (Alvarado Herrera, 2008). Few studies have examined how CSR affects
organizational performance and found that CSR improves it (Long et al., 2020; Orazalin,
2020). Málovics et al. (2008) claimed that the importance of CSR in a business has
increased. Furthermore, Kraus et al. (2020) showed that GI mediates the link between
CSR & EP and that CSR has a major beneficial influence on GI. Consequently, it is
feasible to draw the conclusion that CSR practices significantly raise an organization's EP
in the banking industry. The following theories were then put forth:

H5: CSR greatly improves the EP of banking institutions.

Green Innovation (GI) and Environmental Performance (EP)

Faced with the challenges of climate change & the risk of depleting natural resources, the
banking industry is increasingly emphasizing the implementation of GI to improve EP.
On the other hand, climate change is a major challenge encountered in todays’ world (Li
et al., 2020; Zheng, Siddik, Masukujjaman, Fatema, et al., 2021) to mitigate its negative
effects, GI is critical (Kraus et al., 2020). GI is closely related to an organization’s
environmental management strategy & significantly enhances EP (Adegbile et al., 2017).
Additionally, through lowering costs and waste emissions, GI improves organizational
social and financial performance while lessening the detrimental effects of a company's
operations on the environment (Weng et al., 2015).
According to Ferreira et al. (2020), he transfer of technological advancement usually has
an adverse effect on the environment. On the other hand, the degree to which GI predicts
EP cannot be determined by the aforementioned investigations. The results of Chiou et al.
(2011) show that GI, on the other hand, has a significant impact on EP, whereas green
management innovation has no effect. Hence, GI can be illustrated in this study as the
technological advancements made by banks, including online banking, green banking,
remote deposit, and paperless transactions, with the goal of improving environmental
sustainability as a whole.

EP and GI still have a murky relationship (Kraus et al., 2020) and more study in the
context of banking establishments is necessary. Moreover, there is a dearth of empirical
studies on how GF affects GI. Previous studies have revealed a relationship between GI,
EP and CSR (Kraus et al., 2020), but none have examined the effects of GF on GI.
Therefore, we implement a more refined research model on the relationship between GI
& EP, leading to the development of the following research hypothesis:

H6: GI significantly impacts the EP of banking institutions.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Green Innovation (GI) and Environmental

Performance (EP)

According to the previous discussion on the relationship between GI, CSR, EP, and
environmental strategy recommended that CSR influences environmental strategy and GI
leads to improving EP (Kraus et al., 2020). Research has shown that CSR greatly
enhances business performance (Long et al., 2020; Orazalin, 2020). Hart (1995) suggests
that GI and environmental strategy explain the connection between competitive
advantage and environmental resources in light of the Natural RBV hypothesis. These
therefore turn into variables that act as mediators between CSR and EP.

Moreover, the earlier elucidations regarding the CSR-GI relationship underscore the
influence of CSR on GI, subsequently culminating in improved organizational EP. Extant
literature supports the notion that GI exerts a positive influence on EP (Ahmad, Scholz, et
al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021). Researchers also perceived CSR as having an impact on the
EP of large enterprises, with GI acting as a mediator (Y. Feng et al., 2022). Additionally,
research indicates that CSR not only significantly enhances organizational performance
(Long et al., 2020; Orazalin, 2020) but also influences cost and market performance
(Suganthi, 2020) and fosters sustainable financial performance (Y. Feng et al., 2022).

Recently, Kraus et al. (2020) uncovered that GI and environmental strategy play
significant mediating roles in the CSR-EP relationship within large manufacturing firms
in Malaysia. The study also posited that the uncertain nature of the CSR-organizational
performance relationship necessitates further exploration, emphasizing the inclusion of
mediating variables. Drawing from Natural RBV theory, GI and environmental practices
are deemed crucial in explicating the link between ecological resources and an
organization's competitive advantage (Kraus et al., 2020). Consequently, GI is employed
as a mediating variable in this study to elucidate the relationship between EP and CSR.
Therefore, following hypothesis were subsequently developed:

H7: GI acts as a mediator for the relationship between the CSR and EP of the
banking institution.

Green Finance (GF), Green Innovation (GI) and Environmental Performance (EP)
The prior elucidation of the connection among GF, GI, and EP demonstrated that GF
significantly enhances GI, leading to the improvement of organizations' EP. However,
there has been no prior investigation exploring the correlation between GF and EP with
the mediating factor of GI. Hence, the present study addresses this gap by assessing the
relationship among these variables within the financial sector of a developing market.
Moreover, scholars have illustrated that GI has a noteworthy impact on EP (Guang-Wen
& Siddik, 2023). Similarly, existing research has confirmed the positive influence of GF
on GI (L. Wang et al., 2022; Q.-J. Wang et al., 2022). Additionally, Kraus et al. (2020)
identified GI as a mediator in the EP relationship. Collectively, these findings suggest the
potential influence of GI on the connection between GF and the EP of the bank.
Therefore, the subsequent research hypotheses are put forth:

H8: GI mediates the relationship between the GF and EP of banking institutions.

2.5.2 Research models

We based on the original model of the study Dai et al. (2022), the research hypotheses
developed above and the situation in Vietnam to build our model to see about bank
employees' awareness on Green Finance (GF), Fintech Adoption (FA), Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) and Green Innovation (GI) to Environmental Performance (EP).
Figer....: Proposed research model

CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY

In this chapter, the author presents the theoretical background, key concepts, and some
common measurement scales used to measure factors influencing environmental
performance. The research model includes variables: Green Finance, Fintech Adoption,
Corporate Social Responsibility, Green Innovation, and Environmental Performance in
the banking sector. To maintain a continuous understanding of the model's development,
this study presents theories based on previous research by Dai et al. (2022) , consisting of
four factors: Green Finance, Corporate Social Responsibility, Green Innovation, and
Environmental Performance.

Based on research by Yan et al. (2022), Fintech Adoption has been found to influence
Green Finance, Green Innovation, and Sustainability Performance. Therefore, the study
inherits and validates the research model, constructing 8 hypotheses and including
factors: Green Finance, Fintech Adoption, Corporate Social Responsibility, Green
Innovation, and Environmental Performance. Additionally, the study constructs the
research model to reflect the current context in Vietnam, particularly within banks in Ho
Chi Minh City.

CHAPTER 3

3.1 Introduction

In Chapter 2, the author discussed the following sections: Background theory, research
concepts, hypothesis development, and research model. In this chapter, the author
addressed the following contents: Research process, conceptual framework, measurement
of concepts, and research design and methods. In the Research Design and Methods
section, it is divided into two parts: qualitative (preliminary) research and quantitative
research.

3.2 Research process

Our research process followed a systematic approach outlined in the procedure for
applying Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) as detailed by
Hair Jr et al. (2017). The process involved several distinct steps aimed at ensuring rigor
and comprehensiveness.

Step 1 involved specifying the structural model, where the relationships among the
variables under investigation were delineated.
In Step 2, we specified the measurement model, which entailed defining and
operationalizing the constructs of interest and their corresponding indicators.

Step 3 encompassed data collection and examination, wherein data relevant to the
research variables were gathered and scrutinized for quality and reliability.

In Step 4, the PLS path model was estimated, employing the collected data to analyze the
relationships between constructs.

Following this, in Step 5a, we assessed the PLS-SEM results of the reflective
measurement models, examining the goodness-of-fit indices and assessing the validity
and reliability of the measurement model.

Step 5b involved a similar assessment but for the reflective formative measurement
models, considering the unique characteristics of formative constructs.

In Step 6, we evaluated the PLS-SEM results of the structural models, focusing on the
significance and strength of the relationships hypothesized in the structural model.

Step 7 encompassed advanced PLS-SEM analysis, which may include additional analyses
such as mediation or moderation tests to further explore the relationships among
variables.
Finally, in Step 8, we interpreted the results obtained from the PLS-SEM analysis,
drawing conclusions based on the findings and discussing their implications for the
research objectives.

Step 1: Specify the structural model

Step 2: Specify the measurement model

Step 3: Data collection and examination

Step 4: PLS path model estimation

Step 5a: Assessing PLS-SEM results of the reflective measurement models

Step 5b: Assessing PLS-SEM results of the reflective formative measurement models

Step 6: Assessing PLS-SEM results of the structural models

Step 7: Advanced PLS-SEM analysis

Step 8: Interpretation of results and drawing conclusions

.
Figer ....: Systematic procedure for applying PLS-SEM (Hair Jr et al., 2017)

3.3 Scale

To test the hypotheses, a survey questionnaire was developed from the scales accepted in
previous studies. The final structured tool was used to collect data through a five-point
Likert scale. The research questionnaire was divided into seven information sections:
demography, GF, FA, EP, GI, and CSR. The demographic section enquires about the
fundamental characteristics of respondents such as their gender, age, job position and
educational qualifications.

The scale presented in Table ____ is inherited from the study of Dai et al. (2022)
published in the “Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute - MDPI”. This scale has
been synthesized by Dai et al. (2022) and checked the values of the scale from previous
studies, in addition, we also found the scale of other studies including:

Green Finance is a unidirectional scale inherited by our research from Chen et al.
(2022) because this study was to identify the impact of GB practices on banks’
Environmental Performance and sources of Green Financing of private commercial
banks.

Fintech Adoption is a unidirectional scale inherited by our research from Liu et al.
(2023) because this study focuses on the perceptions of bank employees and explores the
mediating role of Fintech Adoption (FA).

Corporate Social Responsibility were adapted from previously conducted studies

and inherited by our research from Dai et al. (2022). CSR is comprised of three
dimensions: Social Dimension of CSR; Environmental Dimension of CSR and Economic
Dimension of CSR.
 Green Innovation is a unidirectional scale inherited by our research from Dai et
al. (2022) because this study also examines the role of Green Innovation (GI) as a
mediator in the existent relationship between CSR, GF and EP.

Environmental Performance is a unidirectional scale inherited from the study of

Abuatwan, N. (2023) because this study examines the intricate interplay of the
environmental facets of Green Financing and their impact on sustainability performance.

Banks’ Environmental Performance is a unidirectional scale inherited from the

studies Chen et al. (2022) because this study was to identify the impact of green banking
practices on banks' Environmental Performance.

Variables Code Items Source

Allocating additional resources to recycling

GF1
and recyclable products.

Increase in investment on waste

GF2
management and green brick manufacturing.

Increase in the amount invested on energy Chen et al.

Green Finance GF3
efficiency projects. (2022)

Boosting investment in the development of

GF4
the green industry

Increase in the amount invested on green

GF5
marketing and others.

Fintech Adoption FA1 The adoption of fintech can reduce costs. Liu et al.
 The integration of financial technology not
only grants access to novel knowledge and
FA2 technology but also fosters self-directed
learning and augments information
technology literacy

Fintech adoption has the potential to

mitigate online fraud, mitigate information
FA3 security risks, and enhance the security of
financial transactions for both individuals
and society.
(2023)
Financial technology applications are well-
suited for individuals residing in remote
areas, those with disabilities, the elderly, and
FA4
those with limited educational backgrounds,
enabling them to access convenient financial
services.

Financial technology applications are

energy-efficient and are regarded as
FA5
environmentally conscious, thereby gaining
favor among consumers.

Social Dimension Our bank is striving to establish a Dai et al.

of CSR SD_CSR1 harmonious work-life balance for our (2022)
employees.

SD_CSR2 Our bank is evaluating the influence of our

 operations on the local community.

SD_CSR3 Our bank is prioritizing workplace safety.

Our bank is collaborating on charitable and

SD_CSR4
social initiatives.

Our bank is examining the ecological

END_CSR1
implications of its operations.

Environmental
Our bank is implementing renewable energy
Dimension of END_CSR2
sources.
CSR

Our bank is executing initiatives to foster

END_CSR3
environmental responsibility.

Our bank is providing a competitive salary

ED_CSR1
package.

Our bank holds equal respect for both

ED_CSR2
Economic customers and suppliers.
Dimension of
CSR Our bank is conducting cost-effective
ED_CSR3
operations.

Our bank is actively managing financial

ED_CSR4
risks.

Green GI1 Our bank is utilizing green technology. Dai et al.

Innovation (2022)
GI2 Our bank is engaging in green banking
 practices.

GI3 Our bank is enacting a green strategy.

Our bank is ensuring a sustainable work

GI4
environment.

Our bank is providing online customer

GI5
service.

Green financing significantly reduces paper

ESP1
usage and energy consumption in our bank.

Green financing significantly decreases the

ESP2
operational expenditure of our bank.
Environmental Abuatwan
Performance (2023)
Green financing significantly improves the
ESP3
revenue and market share of our bank.

Green financing improves banks’

ESP4
compliance with environmental standards.

Banks’ Reduction of energy consumption from Chen et al.

BEP1
Environmental banking activities. (2022)

Performance
Minimization of carbon emissions from
BEP2
banking activities.

BEP3 Improving banks’ compliance with

environmental standards.
 Provision of training on environmental
BEP4
protection and energy savings to the staff.

3.4 Research design and methods

This study aims to validate the research framework proposed by Dai et al. (2022); hence,
quantitative methodology is deemed most appropriate across two stages: preliminary
(qualitative) investigation and formal research.

3.4.1 Preliminary Research (qualitative)

In order to ensure linguistic equivalence in the measurement scales of the research

concepts, a preliminary qualitative study was conducted to test the clarity of meaning of
translated phrases from Vietnamese to English.

3.4.2 Quantitative Research

3.4.2.1 Data and data collection methods

Data

According to Comrey and Lee (1992) proposed sample sizes and corresponding
perspectives: 100 = poor, 200 = fair, 300 = good, 500 = very good, 1000 or more =
excellent.
According to Hair et al. (2016), when using PLS-SEM, the sample size should be at least
10 times the largest number of observed variables in the concept with the causal scale or
10 times the number of paths in the structural model. In this study, the authors
conceptualized the system quality of the causal scale with the largest number of observed
variables being 10, so a minimum of 100 samples would be required. However, to
increase the reliability of the data, the authors chose 418 samples from various banks in
Ho Chi Minh City.

Data collection methods

Primary data were collected by sending 418 survey questionnaires to bank employees and
related positions at banks in the Ho Chi Minh City area via Google Form. The study
utilized a 5-point Likert scale, which is a commonly used scale in sociological research.
The scale ranged from 1 to 5, corresponding to 1 - strongly disagree to 5 - strongly agree.
Additionally, the scale was used to measure variables such as experience, profession,
sector, capital, workforce size... and the authors also suggested that respondents who
completed the survey questionnaire could send the link to their friends working in the
banking industry.

3.4.2.2 Data analysis process

This study uses a two-stage approach to quadratic modeling (HCM) analysis.

Specifically, in this study, low-order components (LOCs) are identified as first-order
variables, while higher-order components (HOCs), including GF, FA, and CSR are
identified are second-order variables.

To represent the measurement model of HOC, researchers often allocate all observed
variables from LOCs to HOCs according to the rule of repeated observed variables. In
this setup, almost all of the variance of the second-order variables is explained by their
first-order variables, resulting in an R2 value close to 1. However, using repeated
variables can lead to bias overlap, and affect the discriminant value of level 2 variables.
To solve this problem, a two-stage analysis method is applied.

In stage 1, the first-order model was evaluated to obtain latent scores for the first-order
variables (LOC). Then, in stage 2, LOC scores were used as representative variables in
the measurement model of second-order variables (HOC). These LOC scores are
extracted from the output in SmartPLS.

Testing the measurement model includes collecting and cleaning data, then analyzing the
measurement model using reliability indicators, convergent validity, and discriminant
validity of the scale. The reliability of the scale is measured through Cronbach's alpha
coefficient, and composite reliability between 0.7 and 0.9 is good, and greater than 0.95
is not good (Hair Jr et al., 2017). Convergent validity is assessed through the outer
loading factor of the observed variables and the average variance extracted (AVE). The
discriminant value was assessed through the HTMT difference ratio coefficient, with the
best value being when the HTMT index < 0.9.

Structural model testing includes assessments of R-square, f2, the bootstrap test, the
variance inflation factor (VIF), Q2 and the method bias test. The R-square of the
structural model needs to achieve a value between 0 and 1, with levels of 0.25; 0.50; and
0.75 at the weak, moderate, and strong levels (Hair Jr et al., 2017). The f2 value is
evaluated as having a small impact when in the range 0.02 ≤ f 2 ≤ 0.15, a medium impact
when in the range 0.15 ≤ f 2 < 0.35, and a large impact when f 2 ≥ 0.35 (Hair Jr et al.,
2017).

Bootstrap testing is performed with exaggerated data from 5000 samples to test the
impact of the hypotheses, in which the t-value must be greater than 1.96 and the p-value
< 0.05 to achieve statistical significance (Hair Jr et al., 2017). The Q2 test is assessed at
weak, moderate, and strong levels, respectively. The VIF multicollinearity test needs to
reach a value below 2 to be considered good, can be accepted if below 5, and should be
considered to include observed variables if VIF > 5 (Hair Jr et al., 2017). Testing for
method bias is performed using the EFA index with the condition that the ratio is less
than 50% and the VIF index < 3.3 (Kock, 2015).

CHAPTER 3 SUMMARY

In this chapter, the research process and measurement of concepts are presented,
categorized into qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative methods are applied to
assess the clarity of sentences, while quantitative methods are used to analyze data in
SmartPLS software. The thesis is built upon 8 hypotheses within the model, involving
variables: (1) Green Finance, (2) Fintech Adoption, (3) Corporate Social Responsibility,
(4) Green Innovation, and (5) Environmental Performance.

Specifically, in the quantitative analysis, a two-stage approach is employed to address the

issue of multicollinearity among the second-order variables affected by overlap from the
first-order variables. The measurement of concepts is inherited from previous studies but
adjusted to suit the context of Vietnam. Additionally, the study presents criteria for each
measurement value to validate both the measurement and structural models.

The method and data collection procedures are outlined. Data is collected through
surveys distributed to employees at various positions in banks via Google Form, resulting
in 435 responses from 32 out of 49 banks in Vietnam. The collected data is cleaned and
subjected to descriptive and analytical statistics. The results section of the quantitative
study includes the analysis of the measurement model and structural model, elucidating
the impacts of factors and drawing conclusions for the research hypotheses as presented
in Chapter 4.

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction
In chapter 3, the author presented the research process, scale of research concepts,
research design and methods. In this chapter, the author presents descriptive statistics of
research data, tests the research model, tests the structural model and discusses the
research results. In the section Testing the research model, the author presents parts
including: Assessing scale reliability, assessing convergent validity, and assessing
discriminant validity. In the section Testing the structural model, the author presents the
following sections: Multicollinearity assessment, research hypothesis testing, assessment
of the adjusted coefficient of determination R2, assessment of the impact coefficient f2,
evaluation Q2 model prediction ability, testing for method bias.

4.2 Descriptive statistics

Data were collected by submitting survey questionnaires through the Google Form tool.
To collect data, 477 structured questionnaires were distributed, recording 435 responses,
achieving a response rate of 91.19%. Due to inaccurate data, 17 questionnaires were
eliminated, leaving a final sample of 418 questionnaires.

The survey questionnaire also includes qualitative, this study employed Microsoft Excel
software to analyze demographic factors, providing a more comprehensive overview of
the characteristics of the studied elements for the research. These factors encompassed (1)
Gender, (2) Age, (3) Educational Qualification, and (4) Job Position.

The survey received 435 responses from interns, employees, department heads and other
positions working at Banks in Vietnam. Survey results show that when asked about the
concept of "Green Finance", 396 people (94.70%) answered that they knew about GF and
the remaining 22 people (5.30%) answered that they did not know about GF.
Among the 418 accepted survey responses, the highest participation rate was observed
among females, with 263 individuals, accounting for 62.8%, while males constituted 155
individuals, representing 37.2%.

Figure…: Gender

(Source: Analysis of survey data of the research team)

The age group of 18 - 30 years constituted the largest proportion, with 314 individuals,
making up 75% of the total. Following this, the age group of 31-40 years had 68
individuals, accounting for 16.3%. Subsequently, there were 22 individuals, or 5.3%, in
the 41-50 age group. Finally, the age group of 50 years and above had the lowest number
of participants, with 14 individuals, representing 3.4%.
Figure…: Age

(Source: Analysis of survey data of the research team)

Among the respondents, there were 344 people with Bachelor's degrees accounting for
the highest percentage with 82.3%, followed by those with Master's degrees with 62
people with 14.9%, and the lowest percentage with 12 people having a doctorate (PhD)
with 2.9%.
Figure…: Educational qualification

(Source: Analysis of survey data of the research team)

Bank employee the highest proportion, with 203 individuals, accounting for the highest
rate at 48.60%. Following this, Intern at Bank totaled 38 individuals, representing
21.70%. Those currently working in other positions within the bank amounted to 32
individuals, making up 18.30%. The lowest participation rate was observed among Head
of Banking Department, with 18 individuals, representing 11.40%.
Figure…: Job Position

(Source: Analysis of survey data of the research team)

Size = 418
Feature
Frequency Percentage

Gender

Male 155 37.2%

Female 263 62.8%

Age
18 - 30 314 75%

31 - 40 68 16,30%

41 - 50 22 5.3%

Over 50 14 3.4%

Educational qualification

Bachelor 344 82.3%

Master 62 14.9%

PhD 12 2.9%

Job Position

Intern at bank 91 21,70%

Bank Employee 203 48,60%

Head of Banking Department 48 11,40%

Other Position 76 18,30%

Do you know “Green Finance”?

Yes 396 94,70%

No 22 5,30%
Table ...: Descriptive statistics of the survey participants' personal information
research sample

(Source: Author's own calculations using SPSS software)

4.3 Result research model

According to F. Hair Jr et al. (2014), the measurement model depends on whether it is a

formative or reflective model. The measurement model in this thesis is a combination of
both formative and reflective models. This combined model means that the relationship
between the observed variables and the first-order constructs is of a reflective nature,
while the relationship between the first-order constructs and the second-order constructs
is of a formative nature. According to Chin (2003), if the first-order constructs are
reflective and the second-order constructs are formative, the measurement model can be
transformed into direct effectst5 of the first-order constructs on other research concepts.

Specifically, in this study, SD_CSR, END_CSR, and ED_CSR are second-order

formative constructs, measured by first-order constructs CSR, each of which is measured
by observed variables in a reflective measurement model. Green Innovation is a second-
order formative construct, measured by first-order constructs including Green Finance,
Fintech Adoption, and CSR, each of which is measured by observed variables in a
reflective measurement model. The concept of EP is a second-order formative construct,
also measured by first-order constructs including Green Finance, Green Innovation, and
CSR, each of which is measured by observed variables in a reflective measurement
model.

Therefore, this study can perform a model transformation as conducted by Chin (2003).
Consequently, to evaluate the model results in this study, it is necessary to apply
techniques for assessing model measurement outcomes.
 Figure---: Adjustable measurement model

(Source: Author developed using SmartPLS software)

4.3.1 Reliability of the scale

The reliability of the scale is expressed through Cronbach's alpha coefficient and
composite reliability. The results of Table … show that all scales have reliability
coefficient > 0.7 and alpha coefficient ranges from 0.812 to 0.923.

According to Henseler & Sarstedt (2013), composite reliability equal to or greater than
0.7 for the model with the purpose of confirming the relationship between variables,
equal to or greater than 0.8 is considered good for validation research (Daskalakis &
Mantas, 2008). At the same time, according to Hair Jr et al. (2017) reliability from 0.6 to
0.7 is acceptable for exploratory research, from 0.7 to 0.9 is appropriate and if higher
than 0.95 is not appropriate. Besides, the analysis results show that the composite
reliability (CR) is in the range [0.882; 0.935], which meets the conditions. Thus, it can be
concluded that the scales built in the research model achieve the necessary reliability. The
observed variables of these scales will be further evaluated for convergence and
discrimination.

Composite Composite
Cronbach's reliability reliability Average variance
alpha (rho_a) (rho_c) extracted (AVE)

CSR 0,923 0,924 0,935 0,566

ED_CSR 0,812 0,813 0,889 0,727

END_CS
R 0,832 0,834 0,899 0,749

EP 0,895 0,896 0,916 0,577

FA 0,863 0,864 0,902 0,648

GF 0,911 0,912 0,934 0,739

GI 0,822 0,824 0,882 0,652

SD_CSR 0,857 0,858 0,903 0,700

Table.....: Reliability of the scale

(Source: Author's own calculation on Smart PLS software)

4.3.2 Convergence value assessment

The factor loadings of the observed variables and the average extracted variance are used
to evaluate the convergent validity of the outcome scale.

We will evaluate the convergent validity of the latent variables based on the outer factor
loading index and the extracted variance (AVE). The external factor loading of a variable
is considered ideal if it is greater than 0.7, while a range between 0.4 and 0.7 should be
considered before deletion (Reinartz et al., 2009).

The test results in Table "Evaluating the reliability of the scale" show that all factors have
good convergent validity and are reliable; The factors' total variance extracted coefficient
(AVE) and composite reliability coefficient (CR) are both greater than their respective
minimum values of AVE ≥ 0.5 and CR ≥ 0.7, respectively. Most of the external factor
loading factor values (outer loading) of all observed variables are considered ideal
because the values range from 0.702 to 0.879 (appendix2 danh gia gia tri hoi tu
(APPENDIX 2-bang ket qua data), which is greater than the minimum value of 0.7.
Except for the outer factor loading factor value of the BEP2 variable, which has a value
of 0.700, the authors believe that it is necessary to remove this observed variable because
removing the above-observed variable will help increase CR or AVE meets the
appropriate threshold. Therefore, we can conclude that the observed variables in the
factors in the research model mostly have convergent validity.

4.3.3 Evaluation of discriminant value

To evaluate the discriminant value when using PLS-SEM, the criterion HTMT
(Heterotrait - monotrait ratio) is the first criterion to consider, followed by other criteria.

Criteria for evaluating discriminant value include:

 HTMT criteria (Table 1*)

 Fornell-Larcker criteria (Table 2*)

Theo Garson (2016) demonstrated that discriminant validity between two related
variables is established when the Heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio is less than 1.
Additionally, Henseler et al. (2015) suggested that the HTMT value should be less than
0.9. Table 1* presents the HTMT values for each factor, all of which are below 0.9.
Specifically, the HTMT value for SD_CSR - EP is 0.899, which approaches but does not
exceed the threshold of 0.9 or 1. Thus, it can be concluded that all factors in this study
exhibit discriminant validity.

According to the results of Fornell-Larcker condition range from Table 2*, all square
roots of AVE have coefficients higher than 0.5 (ranging from 0.759 to 0.865), meeting
the requirements. The square root of AVE has a higher value than the correlation
coefficient of other factors in the same column for each factor. All factor thus attain
discriminant value.

ED_CS
R END_CSR EP FA GF GI SD_CSR

ED_CSR

END_CSR 0,810

EP 0,897 0,878

FA 0,750 0,833 0,842

0,65
GF 0,766 0,717 0,789 1
 0,77
GI 0,798 0,764 0,874 8 0,697

0,69
SD_CSR 0,876 0,755 0,899 0 0,681 0,711

Table 1*: HTMT criteria

(Source: Author's own calculation on Smart PLS software)

ED_CS
R END_CSR EP FA GF GI SD_CSR

ED_CSR 0,853

END_CSR 0,668 0,865

EP 0,767 0,758 0,759

0,80
FA 0,632 0,709 0,743 5

0,58
GF 0,661 0,624 0,713 1 0,859

0,65
GI 0,654 0,634 0,750 8 0,604 0,807

SD_CSR 0,732 0,640 0,790 0,59 0,603 0,600 0,837

 9

Table 2*: Fornel-Larcker criterion

(Source: Author's own calculation on Smart PLS software)

4.4 Checking the structural model

4.4.1 Testing of research hypothesis

The table summarizing the path coefficients and a figure showing the effects of the
variables of the structural model based on the results of the structural model testing. GF
has a positive effect on GI. GI has a positive effect on EP. Likewise, FA and CSR also
has a positive effect on GI. However, a bootstrapped test with a selection of 5000
magnified samples must be used to test the previously mentioned effects for statistical
significance.

Figure....: Structure model. Note ***p<.001; **p<0.01; *p<.05.

(Source: Author developed using SmartPLS software)

H1: GF has a positive impact on the GI of banking organizations. Specifically, the impact
of GF on the GI of banking institutions is 0,161 for the original sample size and 0,165 for
the sample mean. Coefficient T = 2,317 > 1.96 and p-value = 0,021 < 0.05 indicate
statistical significance. We can see that the impact of GF on GI is completely statistically
significant. Developing and promoting "Green Finance", "sustainable finance",
"environmental finance", "climate finance" and "green investment", the higher the GI and
vice versa. With this result, the author accepts hypothesis H1. (Table…)

H2: FA has a positive impact on the GI of banking organizations. Specifically, the impact
of FA on the GI of banking institutions is 0.270 for the original sample size and 0.273 for
the sample mean. The coefficient T = 4.697 > 1.96 and the p-value = 0.000 < 0.05
indicate statistical significance. The impact of FA on GI is completely statistically
significant. The more applications of financial technology with diverse products such as
e-wallets, distributed ledger technology on the blockchain platform, B2C online
commerce, and mPOS, the more impact it will have on GI. With the above results, the
authors accept hypothesis H2. (Table …)

H3: CSR has a positive impact on the GI of banking organizations. Specifically, the
impact level of CSR on the GI of banking organizations is 0.404 for the original sample
size and 0.398 for the Bootstrapping test result. The T coefficient = 5.526 > 1.96 and the
p-value = 0.000 < 0.05 indicate statistical significance. The result shows that CSR has a
significant role in advancing GI. The higher the level of CSR, the higher the GI, such as
by developing and improving environmentally friendly banking products and services or
changing business models towards sustainability and vice versa. The authors accept
hypothesis H3 in light of this outcome. (Table:...)

H4: GF has a positive impact on the EP of banking organizations. Specifically, the impact
level of GF on the EP of banking organizations is 0.176 for the original sample size and
0.178 for the Bootstrapping test result. The T coefficient = 3.659 > 1.96 and the p-value =
0.000 < 0.05 indicate statistical significance. We can see that the impact of GF on EP is
completely statistically significant. The more GF develops, the more it will impact EP
and vice versa. With the above results, the authors accept hypothesis H4. (Table …)

H5: CSR has a positive impact on the EP of banking organizations. Specifically, the
impact level of CSR on the EP of banking organizations is 0.708 for the original sample
size and 0.705 for the Sample mean. The T coefficient = 17.337 > 1.96 and the p-value =
0.000 < 0.05 indicate statistical significance. In this study, the results showed that the
impact of CSR is the highest among the path coefficients in the model, demonstrating
that social responsibility is a key factor in improving the EP of an organization. The
higher the level of social responsibility, the higher the EP, and vice versa. With these
results, the authors accept hypothesis H5. (Table …)

H6: GI has a positive impact on the EP of a banking organization. Specifically, the

impact level of GI on the EP of the banking organization is 0.224 for the original sample
size and 0.224 for the Sample Mean. The T coefficient = 4.595 > 1.96 and the p-value =
0.000 < 0.05 indicate statistical significance. Developing and innovating green banking
products and services, or changing the business model towards sustainability, increases
EP, and vice versa. Based on these results, the authors accept hypothesis H6. (Table …)

H7 and H8: As per the study by Bentler and Bonett (1980), the study used the Sobel test
for the mediation hypotheses. According to Allen (2017), the Sobel test establishes if a
variable mediates or carries the influence of an independent variable on the dependent
variable. It is possible to get the test statistics (T) for the Sobel test using the following
formula:
 ab
Sobel test statistic: z =
√( b SE )+(a SE )
2 2
a
2 2
b

where a is the regression coefficient representing the link between the mediating variable
and the independent variable, with 𝑆𝐸𝑎 being the standard error of the link between the
mediating variable and the independent variable; b is the regression coefficient
representing the association between the dependent variable and the mediator variable
with 𝑆𝐸𝑏 being the standard error of the association between the dependent variable and
the mediator variable. The Sobel test shows that complete mediation exists between the
dependent and independent variables with T values greater than 1.96.(Allen, 2017; Sobel,
1982). Therefore, according to Table… shows results from the mediation study indicate
that the relationship between the EP and CSR was strongly mediated by the GI, with a
0.091 coefficient for the original sample size and 0,090 for the Bootstrapping test result,
T coefficient = 3.298 > 1.96 and the p-value = 0.001 < 0.05. GF and EP have 0.036 for
the original sample size and 0.037 for the Bootstrapping test result, T coefficient = 2.104
> 1.96 and the p-value = 0.035 < 0.05), which validates hypothesis H7 and H8.

Original Sample Standard

T statistics (| P
Hypothesis Relationship sample mean deviation Result
O/STDEV|) values
(O) (M) (STDEV)

H1 GF -> GI 0,161 0,165 0,07 2,317 0,021 Accept

H2 FA -> GI 0,27 0,273 0,057 4,697 0,000 Accept

H3 CSR -> GI 0,404 0,398 0,073 5,526 0,000 Accept

H4 GF -> EP 0,176 0,178 0,048 3,659 0,000 Accept

H5 CSR -> EP 0,708 0,705 0,041 17,337 0,000 Accept

H6 GI -> EP 0,224 0,224 0,049 4,595 0,000 Accept

CSR -> GI -
H7 0,091 0,09 0,027 3,298 0,001 Accept
> EP

GF -> GI ->
H8 0,036 0,037 0,017 2,104 0,035 Accept
EP

Table----: Results of testing hypotheses

(Source: Author's own calculation on Smart PLS software)

4.4.2 Multicollinear evaluation

According to Hair Jr et al. (2017), VIF < 2 is good and there is no multicollinearity
phenomenon. If 2 < VIF < 5 is acceptable, it shows that there is a sufficient but not too
serious correlation. On the contrary, if VIF > 5, there is a high correlation.

The results of testing the VIF (Inner VIF Values) of the structural model show a range
from 1.464 to 2.73. It can be concluded that multicollinearity does not occur and does not
affect the hypothesis testing. Therefore, the results below are accepted.

VIF

BEP1 2,004

BEP2 1,712

BEP3 1,807
BEP4 1,881

ED_CSR1 1,848

ED_CSR1 2,144

ED_CSR2 1,691

ED_CSR2 2,118

ED_CSR3 2,313

ED_CSR3 1,835

ED_CSR4 2,031

END_CSR1 2,037

END_CSR1 1,894

END_CSR2 2,005

END_CSR2 2,344

END_CSR3 2,116

END_CSR3 1,868

EP1 2,016

EP2 2,086

EP3 2,213

EP4 1,905
FA1 2,302

FA2 2,294

FA3 2,404

FA4 1,813

FA5 1,464

GF1 2,476

GF2 2,642

GF3 2,737

GF4 2,523

GF5 2,296

GI2 1,737

GI3 1,753

GI4 1,698

GI5 1,703

SD_CSR1 2,632

SD_CSR1 2,423

SD_CSR2 1,912

SD_CSR2 2,128

SD_CSR3 2,065
SD_CSR3 1,750

SD_CSR4 2,080

SD_CSR4 2,314

Table ....: Multicollinear evaluation

(Source: Author's own calculation on Smart PLS software)

4.4.3 Evaluation of adjusted coefficient of determination R2

The R-squared (R2) coefficient is used to measure the overall variance explained to
interpret the internal structure. Based on Table 3*, it is evident that the endogenous
variable SD_CSR, with a high level of variability, is explained by exogenous variables,
with an adjusted R2 coefficient of 81.4%. This result indicates a significant predictive
capability of the model. Conversely, GI demonstrates low predictive ability, with an
adjusted R2 of 56.1%.

According to F. Hair Jr et al. (2014), the Coefficient of Determination R2 ranges from 0

to 1, with values of 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 corresponding to weak, moderate, and strong
predictions, respectively. From the results in Table 3*, the highest explained variance is
observed in SD_CSR at 81.4%, while the lowest is in GI at 56.4%.

R-square R-square adjusted

ED_CSR 0,801 0,800

END_CSR 0,726 0,726

EP 0,808 0,807

GI 0,564 0,561
SD_CSR 0,814 0,814

Table .....: Test results of coefficient of determination

(Source: Author's own calculation on Smart PLS software)

4.4.4 Evaluation of the impact factor f2

The influence of each exogenous latent structure on the endogenous latent structure is
evaluated using the ƒ2 coefficient. According to Cohen (1992), ƒ2 values of 0.35 (large
effect), 0.15 (medium effect), and 0.02 (small effect) are considered significant.
Furthermore, based on the ƒ2 values, 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 represent weak, moderate, and
strong effects, respectively (F. Hair Jr et al., 2014). The results are presented in Table...
and....

Summarizing the observations on the ƒ2 coefficients from the Table…

- CSR exerts strong influences on ED_CSR, END_CSR, EP, and SD_CSR with
significant ƒ2 coefficients, indicating a substantial impact of CSR on these variables.
Specifically, CSR has the strongest impact on the variable SD_CSR, achieving a result of
4.388, which surpasses the effects of the other variables.

- Conversely, the effects of CSR on GI and FA to GI are considered weak, with lower ƒ2
coefficients.

- GF demonstrates weak impacts on EP and GI, as evidenced by the relatively low ƒ2

coefficients.

- While GI's influence on EP is weak, reflected in the relatively small ƒ2 coefficient, it is

not the weakest effect. GF's influence on GI has the lowest ƒ2 coefficient, reaching
0.029.
These interpretations provide insights into the relative importance and strength of the
relationships between the exogenous and endogenous latent structures, aiding in the
understanding of the underlying mechanisms and dynamics within the structural model.

ED_CS
CSR R END_CSR EP FA GF GI SD_CSR

0,12
CSR 4,023 2,656 0,729 8 4,388

ED_CSR

END_CS
R

EP

0,07
FA 6

0,02
GF 0,048 9

GI 0,123

SD_CSR

Table .....: Result of impact factor f2

(Source: Author's own calculation on Smart PLS software)

 f-square Level of impact

CSR-> ED_CSR 4,023 Strong

CSR-> END_CSR 2,656 Strong

CSR-> EP 0,729 Strong

CSR-> GI 0,128 Weak

CSR-> SD_CSR 4,388 Strong

FA-> GI 0,076 Weak

GF-> EP 0,048 Weak

GF-> GI 0,029 Weak

GI-> EP 0,123 Weak

Table ....: Result of impact level f2

(Source: Author's own calculation on Smart PLS software)

4.4.5 Evaluate model forecasting ability Q2

According to Hair Jr et al. (2017), the predicted values for Q², which represent the
predictive relevance of the model, are categorized as weak, moderate, and strong
corresponding to 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35. Based on the provided data, it is clear that all
dependent variables, including ED_CSR, END_CSR, SD_CSR, GI, and EP, exhibit high
levels of predictive relevance, with Q² values exceeding 0.35.
A high Q² value implies that the model's predictions are highly accurate and reliable for
these variables. It indicates that a significant portion of the variance in the dependent
variables can be explained and predicted by the model.

Specifically, the Q² values for ED_CSR, END_CSR, SD_CSR, EP, and GI are reported
as 0.801, 0.725, 0.814, 0.792, and 0.550, respectively. These values surpass the threshold
of 0.35, indicating strong predictive relevance for each variable. Having high predictive
relevance is crucial in validating the effectiveness of the model. It implies that the model
has captured meaningful relationships between the independent and dependent variables,
thereby providing valuable insights and accurate predictions for future outcomes.

Therefore, based on the provided Q² values, it can be concluded that the model
demonstrates a high level of accuracy and predictive relevance, affirming its utility and
effectiveness in forecasting the dependent variables.

Q²predict RMSE MAE

ED_CSR 0.801 0.450 0.324

END_CSR 0.725 0.527 0.373

SD_CSR 0.814 0.435 0.320

EP 0.792 0.460 0.338

GI 0.550 0.675 0.472

 Table ...: Results of Q2 model forecasting ability

(Source: Author's own calculation on Smart PLS software)

4.4.6 Common Method Bias test

The study employed several methods to assess the robustness of the data. EFA results
revealed that the cumulative percentage of variance accounted for was only 48.992% of
the total variance, indicating that less than 50% of the total variance is explained by the
factors. This suggests that CMB did not significantly impact the data, as evidenced in the
appendix. Additionally, following Kock (2015) recommendations, in PLS analysis, the
collinearity could be examined using the VIF. As presented in the table… section, all VIF
values < 3.3, indicating the absence of CMB phenomenon in the structural model.
4.5 Discussing research results

Based on the results presented by the authors, all variables are correlated and have
significant relevance to the proposed hypotheses, while the findings are also consistent
with the study of (Hernández et al., 2020) on the relationship between the GF, CSR, FA
factors, and the mediating factor of GI regulation to the EP of banking organizations.
Specifically, the research results are further discussed for each hypothesis as follows:

The current evidence regarding the correlation between GI and GF remains

inconclusive, as suggested by L. Wang et al. (2022) GF is thought to encourage GI in
emerging economies and countries with limited GF penetration, while potentially
suppressing it in nations with more advanced technological practices. However,
according to hypothesis H1, the results of this study indicate a relatively low path
coefficient, suggesting that GF significantly and positively influences GI, particularly
within the banking sector. Consequently, bank managers should focus more on financing
environmentally friendly projects as it enhances their GI. This finding is supported by Li
and Yang (2022), who discovered that GI significantly enhances the GF of businesses.
Furthermore, Xiong and Sun (2023) assert that environmentally conscious insurance and
infrastructure will drive green investment and innovation. Thus, GF can be deemed
pivotal in improving GI activities, enabling organizations to implement environmentally
friendly initiatives.

Moreover, according to hypothesis H2, the findings of this study indicate that FA
has a positive impact on the GI index of banks. This suggests that the integration of
Fintech significantly contributes to the increased adoption of sustainable environmental
initiatives by commercial banks, particularly during the pandemic era, thereby assisting
them in achieving environmental sustainability (Adegbile et al., 2017). Several studies
have also revealed a correlation between these two factors across various contexts.
(Salampasis & Mention, 2018; Xiong & Sun, 2023; Xue et al., 2022).
 According to hypothesis H3, the study's findings reveal a significant positive
correlation between CSR and GI. These results are corroborated by previous studies
conducted by Kraus et al. (2020) and Hao and He (2022), which underscore the
substantial impact of CSR on GI. Moreover, earlier research on CSR and GI also lends
partial support to these findings (Zhou et al., 2019). Furthermore, this empirical
discovery aligns with legitimacy theory, which elucidates the involvement of banking
institutions in CSR expenditure and implementation. Social pressures and regulatory
standards have compelled businesses to partake in CSR endeavors to garner societal
acceptance and promote environmental sustainability (Guang-Wen & Siddik, 2022;
Suttipun et al., 2021; Wang & Zhi, 2016). Hence, managers and stakeholders are
encouraged to engage in CSR activities, as prior research highlights its pivotal role in
fostering the implementation of GI.

Moreover, the research outcomes related to hypothesis H4 reveal that GF

significantly influences the EP of banking institutions. This suggests that financing
diverse environmentally friendly projects, such as renewable energy, green industry
development, and waste management, rather than traditional projects, can contribute to
the improvement of banks' environmental sustainability. This finding is consistent with
studies conducted by Vidyakala (2020) and Guang-Wen and Siddik (2022), which
demonstrate the significant enhancement of EP due to GF. Hence, it can be deduced that
GF plays a pivotal role in enhancing the EP of banks.

The H5 hypothesis indicates that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has a

noteworthy impact on the Environmental Performance (EP) of banking institutions.
These findings align with studies conducted by Bacinello et al. (2020) and Orazalin
(2020), illustrating that CSR can substantially enhance organizational performance.
Additionally, the outcomes of this research are consistent with legitimacy theory, which
elucidates why banking institutions actively formulate strategic plans for social
responsibility, incorporate CSR into their operational frameworks, and assess and
disclose CSR effectiveness. This is because regulatory frameworks and societal pressures
necessitate businesses to adhere to these standards (Guang-Wen & Siddik, 2022;
Indriastuti & Chariri, 2021; Suttipun et al., 2021).

Moreover, Hernández et al. (2020) found that CSR dimensions (economic, social,
and environmental) notably enhance the economic efficiency of small and medium-sized
enterprises overall, particularly within the banking sector. The experimental outcomes of
the present study underscore that managers and owners should partake in CSR endeavors,
as research indicates that CSR plays a pivotal role in predicting organizational
performance.

The experimental study H6 indicates that GI significantly impacts the EP of

banking organizations; this implies that green initiatives such as green banking, online
banking, and online customer services help banking organizations improve their EP. A
similar finding cited by Indriastuti and Chariri (2021), which found that GI significantly
affects the EP of a large manufacturing organization. Therefore, bank managers should
focus more on enhancing GI because banking organizations receive funding for
environmentally friendly projects, thereby increasing their EP.

Based on the research findings, as hypothesized in H7, it is evident that Green

Innovation (GI) significantly acts as a mediator in the connection between Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) and Environmental Performance (EP). These results align
with the findings of Kraus et al. (2020), indicating that CSR not only directly influences
EP but also indirectly through intermediary factors like GI. These arguments are also
consistent with legitimacy theory, which proposes that GI validates the relationship
between CSR and EP (Indriastuti & Chariri, 2021). Additionally, considering CSR and
Green Finance (GF), it can be inferred that GI plays a vital intermediary role in
enhancing the EP of banking institutions by reducing carbon emissions and energy
consumption, alongside providing eco-friendly training for staff to promote energy
conservation and paper reduction. Ultimately, GI contributes significantly to both theory
and practice, benefiting society at large and the banking industry in particular.

Research hypothesis H8 indicates that Green Innovation (GI) serves as a

moderator in the relationship between Green Finance (GF) and Environmental
Performance (EP) within banking institutions. Furthermore, the findings suggest that GI
acts as a complete mediator and substantially moderates the relationship between these
variables. This shift in the relationship is due to GI being the most influential factor
impacting the level of environmental care practiced by banks. GI fosters the adoption of
GF within organizations and facilitates sustainable operations within the banking
industry.

In conclusion, the findings reveal that Green Innovation (GI) serves as a complete
mediator in the relationship between Green Finance (GF) and Environmental
Performance (EP). This indicates that GF directly influences EP and is indirectly
influenced by the intermediary role of GI. Moreover, empirical evidence highlights the
pivotal intermediary function of GI between GF and EP, underscoring the significance of
green initiatives, green banking, and GF in bolstering the association between GF and EP.
In a developing nation like Vietnam, there is limited literature exploring the relationship
among GF, GI, and EP, particularly from the perspective of banking sector employees,
especially when employing GI as a reconciling intermediary. This study addresses this
gap in the current literature. To summarize, GF, GI, and EP contribute to reducing carbon
emissions, conserving energy, reducing paper usage, and providing environmental
training for bank employees, thereby leading to substantial enhancements in EP.
Strengthening the overall efficacy of sustainable banking practices can support Vietnam's
green development. Bank managers should prioritize the adoption of financial technology
and the implementation of green processes to bolster the company's sustainable
endeavors.

CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY

This study was conducted with a sample size of 435 and analyzed using SmartPLS
Software. The validation process showed that the reliability, convergence value, and
discriminant validity of the measurement model were appropriate for the collected data
and consistent with previous research validations. The results of the structural model
indicated that the relationships between variables were appropriate, with high correlation
path coefficients.

In Chapter 4, the results demonstrated that all hypotheses were accepted, especially
regarding Green Finance (GF), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Fintech Adoption
(FA), Green Innovation (GI), and Environmental Performance (EP). Exploratory Factor
Analysis (EFA) showed that the cumulative variance percentage accounted for 48.992%
of the total variance. This indicated that the Common Method Bias (CMB) Test did not
affect the data. Additionally, in this chapter, the assessment of multicollinearity in the
structural model revealed that all Inner VIF values were less than 3.3, indicating the
absence of CMB phenomenon.

In summary, these results bolster the validity and reliability of the study, while providing
valuable information about the relationships between the aforementioned factors and
environmental performance in both the banking industry and enterprises.

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Conclusion

The study aims to examine and measure the factors influencing EP. By integrating
background theory and relevant studies to conduct measurement and hypothesis-testing
of the proposed model, the author accomplished this in Chapter 2.
In Chapter 3, the methods and research procedures are presented by the author. Following
the research of Dai et al. (2022), quantitative methods are deemed most appropriate.

From the research model presented in Chapter 2 and the inherited scale in Chapter 4, the
author conducts measurement and model testing, assessing the impact of factors by
collecting 435 survey samples and running a two-stage SmartPLS test. Stage 1 evaluates
the measurement model of first-order concepts using Cronbach's Alpha, rhoA, CR, AVE,
outer loading, HTMT, and Fornell-Larcker indices. Stage 2 assesses the structural model
of second-order concepts to determine R2 indices for measuring variance, f2 for
measuring the influence of each exogenous latent structure on endogenous latent
structures, bootstrapping for statistical significance testing, Q2 for evaluating model
predictability, and testing for method bias through EFA on SPSS and Inner VIF values on
SmartPLS. The results show that the model is highly correlated and statistically
significant, and all proposed hypotheses are accepted.

As predicted, the results show that GI significantly impacts the EP of banks, indicating
that green initiatives including Green Banking, Green Technology, Online Banking and
Online Customer Service support banks in enhancing their EP. Research by Kraus et al.
(2020)found that GI significantly affects the EP of a large manufacturing organization.

Furthermore, the findings indicate that GF has a significantly positive impact on GI,
showing that green finance significantly influences the environmental innovation of
businesses, including banks. Therefore, managers should focus more on financing
environmentally friendly projects, as it will help boost the GI of organizations. Research
by Li and Yang (2022) found that green finance enhances the technological innovation of
businesses significantly.
Moreover, GF plays a primary role in determining the EP of banking organizations,
meaning that financing environmentally friendly projects such as waste management,
green industrial development, and renewable energy alongside traditional projects
contributes to improving the environmental sustainability of organizations. Consistent
with research by Guang-Wen and Siddik (2022) and Vidyakala (2020), the findings show
that GF significantly increases EP. Thus, it can be concluded that GF is necessary to
enhance GI and the environmental efficiency of organizations, including banks.

The study's results demonstrate the relationship between CSR and EP with GI as a
mediator. These findings align with Kraus et al. (2020) research, showing that although
CSR does not directly impact EP, it indirectly influences EP through the presence of an
intermediate factor like GI. Additionally, FA added to the research model shows a
positive impact on banks' GI index, thereby supporting them in achieving environmental
sustainability.

Furthermore, the study's findings have shown that GI acts as a mediator for the
relationship between GF and EP, significantly moderated by GI in the context of banking
organizations. Beziehung has changed, as GI is a crucial factor influencing the
environment of banks, followed by CSR and green finance. Thus, it can be concluded
that GI significantly enhances the EP of banking organizations by reducing carbon
emissions and energy consumption, providing employees with energy-saving training
programs and paperless initiatives.

In Chapter 5, the study summarizes the content of the chapters, consolidates the results,
theoretical implications, managerial implications, and research limitations, and proposes
directions for future research.
5.2 Theoretical and managerial implications

5.2.1 Theoretical Implications

The outcomes of this study address the research gap in existing literature concerning the
correlation among Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Fintech Adoption (FA), Green
Finance (GF), Green Innovation (GI), and Environmental Performance (EP) within the
context of banking organizations in emerging economies, considering various
perspectives. Grounded in the conceptual framework of legal aspects, this study
represents one of the earliest endeavors to explore the relationship among GF, CSR, FA,
GI, and EP, marking a significant theoretical contribution by our research team. Previous
studies have drawn upon theories such as natural Resource-Based View (RBV),
stakeholder theory, dynamic-opportunity model, and contingency capabilities to analyze
FA, GF, GI, CSR, and EP factors across different organizational types, including large
corporations and small to medium-sized enterprises (Kraus et al., 2020; Rötzel et al.,
2019; Singh et al., 2020). The theoretical model developed in this study holds
applicability in novel scenarios or other developing nations due to the validation of scales
using statistical analysis techniques like Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Partial
Least Squares (PLS), recognized as a highly reliable model presently.

Furthermore, the findings of this research enrich the existing theoretical framework by
introducing two pivotal aspects. Firstly, the intermediary function of GI in the
relationship between CSR and EP, as well as GF and EP; secondly, the significance of
FA in the comprehensive array of factors influencing EP, a facet largely overlooked in
previous studies focusing on banking organizations. Previously, Kraus et al. (2020)
demonstrated that environmental strategy and GI significantly mediate the correlation
between CSR and EP in the context of large manufacturing companies. Finally, this
research reinforces and extends the theory of legitimacy by illustrating that organizations
integrating initiatives pertaining to CSR, GF, FA, and GI into their operational
frameworks not only aid in achieving, maintaining, and reinstating legality but also
facilitate overall environmental sustainability.
5.2.2 Management Implications

The findings of this study are particularly important for bank managers, business experts,
scholars, and policymakers in developing countries like Vietnam. The study aims to
guide banking institutions on the impact of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Green
Finance (GF) model development, Fintech Adoption (FA), and Green Innovation (GI) on
achieving sustainable development, promoting Environmental Performance (EP).
Because bank executives and policymakers are currently focusing on EP, they can easily
apply this research results on EP to reduce waste, emissions, and industrial pollution,
while safeguarding water, energy, and both renewable and non-renewable resources, all
to achieve better EP. The discoveries indicate that CSR and GF have significantly
positive impacts on EP through the intermediary effect of GI. Therefore, bank managers
should implement CSR and GF activities in EP assessment, as previous research has
shown that CSR activities successfully improve the organization's cost, market, and EP
(Suganthi, 2020). And so, the results of this study can also help bank managers enhance
the brand value and social welfare of enterprises by implementing various CSR activities
such as support and scholarships, livelihood development, remote healthcare, water
management, and emergency relief initiatives. Consequently, to evaluate EP, bank
managers and policymakers need to focus on CSR, GF, FA, and GI. Moreover,
experimental evidence shows that both CSR and EP of banks benefit greatly from GI. As
banks with GI focus more on CSR, their activities are more likely to positively impact
green innovation and the environment. The findings of this study can be useful not only
for Vietnam but also for other countries in achieving environmental sustainability of
organizations through the implementation of CSR, GF, FA, and GI activities.

5.2.3 Research limitations and future research directions

Despite the theoretical and administrative contributions, the study still has some
limitations that could undermine its effectiveness while giving future researchers a
potential topic idea as follows:
Experts are unsure whether GF, GI, FA, CSR, and EP in banking institutions yield similar
results over time because of this study using the cross-cutting method. Therefore, future
researchers can study vertically to observe whether the results change or stay the same
over time.

In addition, the study was limited in collecting survey samples since it was conducted
over a short period of about 2 month and the survey sample was focused only on banking
subjects. Therefore, the study should expand the sample by studying more subjects, such
as financial institutions and small and large enterprises that are accessing green finance,
as well as extending the survey time to get a better overview.

Moreover, since the current study was conducted in Vietnam, it is still very
comprehensive, so future researchers may conduct similar studies in other developing
countries to look more comprehensively.

In addition, future studies need to further investigate GF and employee green behavior to
complement the intermediate structure between CSR and EP.

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY

In Chapter 5, the author summarizes the research results, presents theoretical and
managerial implications, discusses the limitations of the study, and provides directions
for future research. Banking organizations should strive to enhance and augment their
social activities, engage in Green Innovation, integrate and maximize the use of current
advanced technologies, and incorporate them into the bank's operations and strategies to
maximize the environmental sustainability performance of the organization. Overall, the
hypotheses in the research are all consistent with previous studies, indicating that for a
banking organization to succeed, it is crucial not only to adopt an organizational
perspective but also to consider the specific viewpoint of individuals. Consumer
perceptions, employees' visions, and relevant positions within the banking sector are key
to increasing profits while maintaining a positive image through social and environmental
activities. However, the study has some limitations that future research needs to address,
notably in expanding the survey scope to gain a broader understanding of the factors and
the applicability of the model under different conditions.

REFERENCES

Abbas, J. (2020). Impact of total quality management on corporate green performance through the
mediating role of corporate social responsibility. Journal of cleaner production, 242, 118458.

Abuatwan, N. (2023). The Impact of Green Finance on the Sustainability Performance of the Banking
Sector in Palestine: The Moderating Role of Female Presence. Economies, 11(10), 247.

Adegbile, A., Sarpong, D., & Meissner, D. (2017). Strategic foresight for innovation management: A
review and research agenda. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management,
14(04), 1750019.

Ahmad, N., Scholz, M., AlDhaen, E., Ullah, Z., & Scholz, P. (2021). Improving firm’s economic and
environmental performance through the sustainable and innovative environment: evidence
from an emerging economy. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 651394.

Ahmad, N., Ullah, Z., Arshad, M. Z., waqas Kamran, H., Scholz, M., & Han, H. (2021). Relationship
between corporate social responsibility at the micro-level and environmental performance: The
mediating role of employee pro-environmental behavior and the moderating role of gender.
Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 1138-1148.

Akomea-Frimpong, I., Adeabah, D., Ofosu, D., & Tenakwah, E. J. (2022). A review of studies on green
finance of banks, research gaps and future directions. Journal of Sustainable Finance &
Investment, 12(4), 1241-1264.

Allen, M. (2017). The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods. SAGE publications.
Alvarado Herrera, A. (2008). Corporate social responsibility perceived from a sustainability perspective,
and its influence on the reputation of the company and on the behavior of the tourist. University
of Valencia.

Asadi, S., Pourhashemi, S. O., Nilashi, M., Abdullah, R., Samad, S., Yadegaridehkordi, E., Aljojo, N., &
Razali, N. S. (2020). Investigating influence of green innovation on sustainability performance: A
case on Malaysian hotel industry. Journal of cleaner production, 258, 120860.

Bacinello, E., Tontini, G., & Alberton, A. (2020). Influence of maturity on corporate social responsibility
and sustainable innovation in business performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 27(2), 749-759.

Barba-Sánchez, V., & Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. (2016). Environmental proactivity and environmental and
economic performance: Evidence from the winery sector. Sustainability, 8(10), 1014.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance
structures. Psychological bulletin, 88(3), 588.

Bhat, A. A., Mir, A. A., Allie, A. H., Lone, M. A., Al-Adwan, A. S., Jamali, D., & Riyaz, I. (2024). Unlocking
corporate social responsibility and environmental performance: Mediating role of green
strategy, innovation, and leadership. Innovation and Green Development, 3(2), 100112.

Böhnke, E., Knierim, R., & Röber, V. (2015). How to make green finance work–empirical evidence from
bank and company surveys. Bonn: DIE, forthcoming, 20, 56.10-66.40.

Broadstock, D. C., Matousek, R., Meyer, M., & Tzeremes, N. G. (2020). Does corporate social
responsibility impact firms' innovation capacity? The indirect link between environmental &
social governance implementation and innovation performance. Journal of business research,
119, 99-110.

Chariri, A., Bukit, G. R. S. B., Eklesia, O. B., Christi, B. U., & Tarigan, D. M. (2018). Does green investment
increase financial performance? Empirical evidence from Indonesian companies. E3S Web of
Conferences,

Chen, J., Siddik, A. B., Zheng, G.-W., Masukujjaman, M., & Bekhzod, S. (2022). The effect of green
banking practices on banks’ environmental performance and green financing: An empirical
study. Energies, 15(4), 1292.

Chin, W. W. (2003). Issues and opinions on structural equation modeling.

Chiou, T.-Y., Chan, H. K., Lettice, F., & Chung, S. H. (2011). The influence of greening the suppliers and
green innovation on environmental performance and competitive advantage in Taiwan.
Transportation research part E: logistics and transportation review, 47(6), 822-836.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer Psychological Bulletin 112: 155–159. IE and Dyadic Adjustment, 1.

Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erldbaum.

Coopers, P. W. (2013). Exploring green finance incentives in China. Final Report.

Corporation, I. F. (2013). Mobilizing Public and Private Funds for Inclusive Green Growth Investment in
Developing Countries: A Stocktaking Report Prepared for the G20 Development Working Group.
World Bank.

Dai, X., Siddik, A. B., & Tian, H. (2022). Corporate social responsibility, green finance and environmental
performance: Does green innovation matter? Sustainability, 14(20), 13607.

Dangelico, R. M., & Pontrandolfo, P. (2015). Being ‘green and competitive’: The impact of environmental
actions and collaborations on firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(6),
413-430.

Daskalakis, S., & Mantas, J. (2008). Evaluating the impact of a service-oriented framework for healthcare
interoperability. Studies in health technology and informatics, 136, 285.

Dörry, S., & Schulz, C. (2018). Green financing, interrupted. Potential directions for sustainable finance in
Luxembourg. Local Environment, 23(7), 717-733.

Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior.
Pacific sociological review, 18(1), 122-136.

Dwivedi, P., Alabdooli, J. I., & Dwivedi, R. (2021). Role of FinTech adoption for competitiveness and
performance of the bank: a study of banking industry in UAE. International Journal of Global
Business and Competitiveness, 16(2), 130-138.

El-Kassar, A.-N., & Singh, S. K. (2019). Green innovation and organizational performance: The influence
of big data and the moderating role of management commitment and HR practices.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 144, 483-498.
F. Hair Jr, J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & G. Kuppelwieser, V. (2014). Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. European business review,
26(2), 106-121.

Farboodi, M., & Veldkamp, L. (2020). Long-run growth of financial data technology. American Economic
Review, 110(8), 2485-2523.

Feng, S., Zhang, R., & Li, G. (2022). Environmental decentralization, digital finance and green technology
innovation. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 61, 70-83.

Feng, Y., Akram, R., Hieu, V. M., & Hoang Tien, N. (2022). The impact of corporate social responsibility on
the sustainable financial performance of Italian firms: Mediating role of firm reputation.
Economic research-Ekonomska istraživanja, 35(1), 4740-4758.

Ferreira, J. J., Fernandes, C. I., & Ferreira, F. A. (2020). Technology transfer, climate change mitigation,
and environmental patent impact on sustainability and economic growth: A comparison of
European countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150, 119770.

Fleisch, E. (2010). What is the internet of things? An economic perspective. Economics, Management,
and financial markets, 5(2), 125-157.

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating
unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of marketing research, 25(2), 186-192.

Gordon, M., Lockwood, M., Vanclay, F., Hanson, D., & Schirmer, J. (2012). Divergent stakeholder views of
corporate social responsibility in the Australian forest plantation sector. Journal of
environmental management, 113, 390-398.

Gras-Gil, E., Manzano, M. P., & Fernández, J. H. (2016). Investigating the relationship between corporate
social responsibility and earnings management: Evidence from Spain. BRQ Business Research
Quarterly, 19(4), 289-299.

Guang-Wen, Z., & Siddik, A. B. (2022). Do corporate social responsibility practices and green finance
dimensions determine environmental performance? An Empirical Study on Bangladeshi Banking
Institutions. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10, 890096.

Guang-Wen, Z., & Siddik, A. B. (2023). The effect of Fintech adoption on green finance and
environmental performance of banking institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of
green innovation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(10), 25959-25971.
Gürlek, M., & Tuna, M. (2018). Reinforcing competitive advantage through green organizational culture
and green innovation. The service industries journal, 38(7-8), 467-491.

Hair, J., Joe F, Sarstedt, M., Matthews, L. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2016). Identifying and treating unobserved
heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: part I–method. European business review, 28(1), 63-76.

Hair, J. F. (2009). Multivariate data analysis.

Hair Jr, J., Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.

Hair Jr, J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated
guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2),
107-123.

Handayani, R., Wahyudi, S., & Suharnomo, S. (2017). The effects of corporate social responsibility on
manufacturing industry performance: The mediating role of social collaboration and green
innovation. Business: Theory and Practice, 18, 152-159.

Hao, J., & He, F. (2022). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance and green innovation:
Evidence from China. Finance Research Letters, 48, 102889.

Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of management review, 20(4),
986-1014.

Hernández, J. P. S.-I., 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. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 119774.

Höhne, N., Khosla, S., Fekete, H., & Gilbert, A. (2012). Mapping of green finance delivered by IDFC
members in 2011. Cologne: Ecofys.

Hommel, K., & Bican, P. M. (2020). Digital entrepreneurship in finance: Fintechs and funding decision
criteria. Sustainability, 12(19), 8035.

Hsu, C.-C., Tan, K.-C., & Mohamad Zailani, S. H. (2016). Strategic orientations, sustainable supply chain
initiatives, and reverse logistics: Empirical evidence from an emerging market. International
journal of operations & production management, 36(1), 86-110.
Ikram, M., Zhou, P., Shah, S., & Liu, G. (2019). Do environmental management systems help improve
corporate sustainable development? Evidence from manufacturing companies in Pakistan.
Journal of cleaner production, 226, 628-641.

Indriastuti, M., & Chariri, A. (2021). The role of green investment and corporate social responsibility
investment on sustainable performance. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), 1960120.

Joyce, A., & Paquin, R. L. (2016). The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more
sustainable business models. Journal of cleaner production, 135, 1474-1486.

Klassen, R. D., & Whybark, D. C. (1999). The impact of environmental technologies on manufacturing
performance. Academy of Management journal, 42(6), 599-615.

Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International
Journal of e-Collaboration (ijec), 11(4), 1-10.

Kohtala, C. (2015). Addressing sustainability in research on distributed production: an integrated

literature review. Journal of cleaner production, 106, 654-668.

Kraus, S., Rehman, S. U., & García, F. J. S. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and environmental
performance: The mediating role of environmental strategy and green innovation. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 160, 120262.

Laeven, L., Levine, R., & Michalopoulos, S. (2015). Financial innovation and endogenous growth. Journal
of Financial Intermediation, 24(1), 1-24.

Le, T. T., Huan, N. Q., Hong, T. T. T., & Tran, D. K. (2021). The contribution of corporate social
responsibility on SMEs performance in emerging country. Journal of cleaner production, 322,
129103.

Lee, K.-H., & Min, B. (2015). Green R&D for eco-innovation and its impact on carbon emissions and firm
performance. Journal of cleaner production, 108, 534-542.

Leitão, J., de Brito, S., & Cubico, S. (2019). Eco-innovation influencers: Unveiling the role of lean
management principles adoption. Sustainability, 11(8), 2225.

Li, X., & Yang, Y. (2022). Does green finance contribute to corporate technological innovation? The
moderating role of corporate social responsibility. Sustainability, 14(9), 5648.
Li, Z., Deng, X., & Peng, L. (2020). Uncovering trajectories and impact factors of CO2 emissions: a sectoral
and spatially disaggregated revisit in Beijing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 158,
120124.

Lian, G., Xu, A., & Zhu, Y. (2022). Substantive green innovation or symbolic green innovation? The impact
of ER on enterprise green innovation based on the dual moderating effects. Journal of
Innovation & Knowledge, 7(3), 100203.

Lim, R. (2021). Blending green finance with technology to be a force for good. The Business Times.

Lindenberg, N. (2014). Definition of green finance.

Liu, J.-Y., Xia, Y., Fan, Y., Lin, S.-M., & Wu, J. (2017). Assessment of a green credit policy aimed at energy-
intensive industries in China based on a financial CGE model. Journal of cleaner production, 163,
293-302.

Liu, J., Jiang, Y., Gan, S., He, L., & Zhang, Q. (2022). Can digital finance promote corporate green
innovation? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(24), 35828-35840.

Liu, R., Wang, D., Zhang, L., & Zhang, L. (2019). Can green financial development promote regional
ecological efficiency? A case study of China. Natural Hazards, 95, 325-341.

Liu, T.-L., Lin, T. T., & Hsu, S.-Y. (2023). Exploring the Perspective of Bank Employees on the Impact of
Green Process Innovation and Perceived Environmental Responsibilities on the Sustainable
Performance of the Banking Industry. Sustainability, 15(22), 15925.

Liu, X., & Wen, S. (2019). Should financial institutions be environmentally responsible in China? Facts,
theory and evidence. Econ. Res. J, 54, 38-54.

Long, W., Li, S., Wu, H., & Song, X. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: The
roles of government intervention and market competition. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 27(2), 525-541.

Málovics, G., Csigéné, N. N., & Kraus, S. (2008). The role of corporate social responsibility in strong
sustainability. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(3), 907-918.

Mazodier, M., Carrillat, F. A., Sherman, C., & Plewa, C. (2021). Can donations be too little or too much?
European Journal of Marketing, 55(1), 271-296.
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance:
correlation or misspecification? Strategic management journal, 21(5), 603-609.

Minatti Ferreira, D. D., Borba, J. A., Rover, S., & Dal‐Ri Murcia, F. (2014). Explaining environmental
investments: a study of Brazilian companies. Environmental Quality Management, 23(4), 71-86.

Mocan, M., Rus, S., Draghici, A., Ivascu, L., & Turi, A. (2015). Impact of corporate social responsibility
practices on the banking industry in Romania. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 712-716.

Mohammad, T., Darwish, T. K., Singh, S., & Khassawneh, O. (2021). Human resource management and
organisational performance: The mediating role of social exchange. European Management
Review, 18(1), 125-136.

Nie, P.-Y., Wang, C., & Wen, H.-X. (2022). Optimal tax selection under monopoly: emission tax vs carbon
tax. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-7.

Nsiah, T. K., Chovancová, M., Cleophas, A., & Asamoah, C. A. (2023). Moderating Environmental
Leadership on Corporate Social Responsibility and Green Innovation of SMEs Performance.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence,

Orazalin, N. (2020). Do board sustainability committees contribute to corporate environmental and

social performance? The mediating role of corporate social responsibility strategy. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 29(1), 140-153.

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-
analysis. Organization studies, 24(3), 403-441.

Orlitzky, M., Siegel, D. S., & Waldman, D. A. (2011). Strategic corporate social responsibility and
environmental sustainability. Business & society, 50(1), 6-27.

Qiu, L., Jie, X., Wang, Y., & Zhao, M. (2020). Green product innovation, green dynamic capability, and
competitive advantage: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(1), 146-165.

Rahman, S., Moral, I. H., Hassan, M., Hossain, G. S., & Perveen, R. (2022). A systematic review of green
finance in the banking industry: perspectives from a developing country. Green Financ, 4, 347-
363.

Rao, S., Pan, Y., He, J., & Shangguan, X. (2022). Digital finance and corporate green innovation: quantity
or quality? Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(37), 56772-56791.
Rehfeld, K.-M., Rennings, K., & Ziegler, A. (2007). Integrated product policy and environmental product
innovations: An empirical analysis. Ecological economics, 61(1), 91-100.

Rehman Khan, S. A., & Yu, Z. (2021). Assessing the eco-environmental performance: an PLS-SEM
approach with practice-based view. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications,
24(3), 303-321.

Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-
based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of research in Marketing, 26(4), 332-344.

Rogers, E. (1995). Die Diffusion von Innovationen in der Telekommunikation. Springer.

Rogers, E. M. (2002). Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addictive behaviors, 27(6), 989-993.

Rötzel, P. G., Stehle, A., Pedell, B., & Hummel, K. (2019). Integrating environmental management control
systems to translate environmental strategy into managerial performance. Journal of Accounting
& Organizational Change, 15(4), 626-653.

Saeidi, S. P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S. P., & Saaeidi, S. A. (2015). How does corporate social
responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive
advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction. Journal of business research, 68(2), 341-350.

Sáez-Martínez, F. J., Díaz-García, C., & González-Moreno, Á. (2016). Factors promoting environmental
responsibility in European SMEs: The effect on performance. Sustainability, 8(9), 898.

Salampasis, D., & Mention, A.-L. (2018). FinTech: Harnessing innovation for financial inclusion. In
Handbook of Blockchain, Digital Finance, and Inclusion, Volume 2 (pp. 451-461). Elsevier.

Santoso, R. W., Siagian, H., Tarigan, Z. J. H., & Jie, F. (2022). Assessing the benefit of adopting ERP
technology and practicing green supply chain management toward operational performance: An
evidence from Indonesia. Sustainability, 14(9), 4944.

Saurabh, S., & Dey, K. (2021). Blockchain technology adoption, architecture, and sustainable agri-food
supply chains. Journal of cleaner production, 284, 124731.

Schäfer, H. (2018). Germany: the ‘greenhorn’in the green finance revolution. Environment: Science and
Policy for Sustainable Development, 60(1), 18-27.
Shahzad, M., Qu, Y., Zafar, A. U., Rehman, S. U., & Islam, T. (2020). Exploring the influence of knowledge
management process on corporate sustainable performance through green innovation. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 24(9), 2079-2106.

Sidhoum, A. A., & Serra, T. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and dimensions of performance: An
application to US electric utilities. Utilities Policy, 48, 1-11.

Singh, K., & Misra, M. (2021). The evolving path of CSR: toward business and society relationship.
Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 38(2), 304-332.

Singh, S. K., Del Giudice, M., Chierici, R., & Graziano, D. (2020). Green innovation and environmental
performance: The role of green transformational leadership and green human resource
management. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150, 119762.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models.
Sociological methodology, 13, 290-312.

Soundarrajan, P., & Vivek, N. (2016). Green finance for sustainable green economic growth in India.
Agricultural Economics/Zemedelska Ekonomika, 62(1).

Spratt, S., & Griffith-Jones, S. (2013). Mobilising investment for inclusive green growth in low-income
countries. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.

Suganthi, L. (2020). Investigating the relationship between corporate social responsibility and market,
cost and environmental performance for sustainable business. South African Journal of Business
Management, 51(1), 1-13.

Suttipun, M., Lakkanawanit, P., Swatdikun, T., & Dungtripop, W. (2021). The impact of corporate social
responsibility on the financial performance of listed companies in Thailand. Sustainability,
13(16), 8920.

Tarigan, Z. J. H., Tanuwijaya, N. C., & Siagian, H. (2020). Does top management attentiveness affect green
performance through green purchasing and supplier collaboration Petra Christian University].

Tian, H., Siddik, A. B., Pertheban, T. R., & Rahman, M. N. (2023). Does fintech innovation and green
transformational leadership improve green innovation and corporate environmental
performance? A hybrid SEM–ANN approach. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 8(3), 100396.

Tolliver, C., Keeley, A. R., & Managi, S. (2020). Policy targets behind green bonds for renewable energy:
do climate commitments matter? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 157, 120051.
Tung, A., Baird, K., & Schoch, H. (2014). The relationship between organisational factors and the
effectiveness of environmental management. Journal of environmental management, 144, 186-
196.

Tyteca, D. (1996). On the measurement of the environmental performance of firms—a literature review
and a productive efficiency perspective. Journal of environmental management, 46(3), 281-308.

Vidyakala, K. (2020). A study on the impact of green banking practices on bank’s environmental
performance with special reference to Coimbatore city. African Journal of Business and
Economic Research, 15(3).

Wang, H., Khan, M. A. S., Anwar, F., Shahzad, F., Adu, D., & Murad, M. (2021). Green innovation
practices and its impacts on environmental and organizational performance. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 553625.

Wang, L., Wang, Y., Sun, Y., Han, K., & Chen, Y. (2022). Financial inclusion and green economic efficiency:
evidence from China. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 65(2), 240-271.

Wang, Q.-J., Wang, H.-J., & Chang, C.-P. (2022). Environmental performance, green finance and green
innovation: What's the long-run relationships among variables? Energy Economics, 110, 106004.

Wang, Y., & Zhi, Q. (2016). The role of green finance in environmental protection: Two aspects of market
mechanism and policies. Energy Procedia, 104, 311-316.

Weng, H.-H., Chen, J.-S., & Chen, P.-C. (2015). Effects of green innovation on environmental and
corporate performance: A stakeholder perspective. Sustainability, 7(5), 4997-5026.

Wongthongchai, J., & Saenchaiyathon, K. (2019). The key role of institution pressure on green supply
chain practice and the firm's performance. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management
(JIEM), 12(3), 432-446.

Xiang, C., Chen, F., Jones, P., & Xia, S. (2021). The effect of institutional investors’ distraction on firms’
corporate social responsibility engagement: evidence from China. Review of Managerial Science,
15, 1645-1681.

Xiong, Q., & Sun, D. (2023). Influence analysis of green finance development impact on carbon
emissions: an exploratory study based on fsQCA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research,
30(22), 61369-61380.
Xu, H., Mei, Q., Shahzad, F., Liu, S., Long, X., & Zhang, J. (2020). Untangling the impact of green finance
on the enterprise green performance: a meta-analytic approach. Sustainability, 12(21), 9085.

Xu, J., & Cui, J. (2020). Low-carbon cities and firms’ green technological innovation. China Ind. Econ, 12,
178-196.

Xu, X., & Li, J. (2020). Asymmetric impacts of the policy and development of green credit on the debt
financing cost and maturity of different types of enterprises in China. Journal of cleaner
production, 264, 121574.

Xue, Q., Bai, C., & Xiao, W. (2022). Fintech and corporate green technology innovation: Impacts and
mechanisms. Managerial and Decision Economics, 43(8), 3898-3914.

Yan, C., Li, T., & Lan, W. (2016). Financial development, innovation and carbon emission. J. Financ. Res,
1, 14-30.

Yan, C., Siddik, A. B., Yong, L., Dong, Q., Zheng, G.-W., & Rahman, M. N. (2022). A two-staged SEM-
artificial neural network approach to analyze the impact of FinTech adoption on the
sustainability performance of banking firms: The mediating effect of green finance and
innovation. Systems, 10(5), 148.

Yu, C.-H., Wu, X., Zhang, D., Chen, S., & Zhao, J. (2021). Demand for green finance: Resolving financing
constraints on green innovation in China. Energy Policy, 153, 112255.

Yu, L., Zhao, D., Xue, Z., & Gao, Y. (2020). Research on the use of digital finance and the adoption of
green control techniques by family farms in China. Technology in Society, 62, 101323.

Yuan, G., Ye, Q., & Sun, Y. (2021). Financial innovation, information screening and industries’ green
innovation—Industry-level evidence from the OECD. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 171, 120998.

Zadek, S., & Flynn, C. (2013). South-originating green finance. Exploring Its Potential, Geneva: Geneva.

Zarrouk, H., El Ghak, T., & Bakhouche, A. (2021). Exploring economic and technological determinants of
FinTech startups’ success and growth in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Open Innovation:
Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 50.

Zhang, X., Wang, Z., Zhong, X., Yang, S., & Siddik, A. B. (2022). Do green banking activities improve the
banks’ environmental performance? The mediating effect of green financing. Sustainability,
14(2), 989.
Zheng, G.-W., Siddik, A. B., Masukujjaman, M., & Fatema, N. (2021). Factors affecting the sustainability
performance of financial institutions in Bangladesh: the role of green finance. Sustainability,
13(18), 10165.

Zheng, G.-W., Siddik, A. B., Masukujjaman, M., Fatema, N., & Alam, S. S. (2021). Green finance
development in Bangladesh: The role of private commercial banks (PCBs). Sustainability, 13(2),
795.

Zhou, Y., Shu, C., Jiang, W., & Gao, S. (2019). Green management, firm innovations, and environmental
turbulence. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(4), 567-581.

Zhu, Q., Geng, Y., Fujita, T., & Hashimoto, S. (2010). Green supply chain management in leading
manufacturers: Case studies in Japanese large companies. Management Research Review, 33(4),
380-392.