Next Article in Journal
Social Media Adoption and Financial Sustainability: Learned Lessons from Developing Countries
Next Article in Special Issue
Innovativeness of Tourism Enterprises: Example of Poland
Previous Article in Journal
The Role and Influence of Industry 4.0. in Airport Operations in the Context of COVID-19
Previous Article in Special Issue
How to Shape an Organization’s Sustainable Green Management Performance: The Mediation Effect of Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility
Article

Environmental Outcomes of Green Entrepreneurship Harmonization

1
School of Management, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China
2
School of Technology Management and Logistics, College of Business, University Utara, Sintok 06010, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(24), 10615; https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410615
Received: 30 November 2020 / Revised: 11 December 2020 / Accepted: 16 December 2020 / Published: 18 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Organisation Management for Environmental Sustainability)
Establishing equilibrium between business growth and environmental sustainability is one of the core focuses of green entrepreneurship. However, the scarcity of resources, ecological concerns, business growth, and survival are among the issues that are recognized by entrepreneurs. In the light of the Natural Resource-Based View (NRBV) and Dynamic Capability View, this study aims to examine the effects of Green Innovation Performance (GIP) on Green Entrepreneurship Orientation (GEO) and Sustainability Environmental Performance (SEP). As advocated by NRBV, this study emphasizes the importance of pursuing the three types of distinct yet interrelated environmental strategies and its association impact on GEO. The results indicated that internal green dynamic capabilities, namely, green absorptive capacity, environmental cooperation, and managerial environmental concern to have significant positive effects on GIP, where GIP positively impacted GEO and SEP. Besides, GIP partially mediated the relationship between internal green dynamic capabilities on GEO and SEP. The results also demonstrated that environmental regulations significantly moderated the relationship between GEO and SEP. Furthermore, by linking these three concepts in a single model, this study theoretically pioneering and responding to bridge significant gaps emerged in the NRBV theory. This study provides crucial practical implications for entrepreneurs, policymakers, and academicians. Limitations were also discussed. View Full-Text
Keywords: green entrepreneurship orientation; green innovation performance; sustainable environmental performance; dynamic capability theory; the natural resources-based view green entrepreneurship orientation; green innovation performance; sustainable environmental performance; dynamic capability theory; the natural resources-based view
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Meirun, T.; Makhloufi, L.; Ghozali Hassan, M. Environmental Outcomes of Green Entrepreneurship Harmonization. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10615. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410615

AMA Style

Meirun T, Makhloufi L, Ghozali Hassan M. Environmental Outcomes of Green Entrepreneurship Harmonization. Sustainability. 2020; 12(24):10615. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410615

Chicago/Turabian Style

Meirun, Tang, Lahcene Makhloufi, and Mohamad Ghozali Hassan. 2020. "Environmental Outcomes of Green Entrepreneurship Harmonization" Sustainability 12, no. 24: 10615. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410615

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop