Next Article in Journal
Research on Energy Absorption Characteristics of Bouligand Biomimetic Structure Based on CFRP Composite Materials
Next Article in Special Issue
The Role of Internal Control Systems in Ensuring Financial Performance Sustainability
Previous Article in Journal
A Study on the Development of China’s Financial Leasing Industry Based on Principal Component Analysis and ARIMA Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure and Performance in China: Does the Background of Foreign Women Directors Matter?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 13
10.3390/su15139914
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Green Corporate Governance, Green Finance, and Sustainable Performance Nexus in Chinese SMES: A Mediation Moderation Model

by
Lei Wang
1,
Amin Ur Rehman
2,
Zhaocheng Xu
3,*,
Fiza Amjad
2,* and
Shams Ur Rehman
4
1
School of Management, Qufu Normal University, Rizhao 276826, China
2
Business School, Central South University, Changsha 410075, China
3
School of Business, Shanghai Dianji University, Pudong New Area District, Shanghai 201306, China
4
Department of Management Science, Institute of Business and Management Sciences (IBMS), University of Agriculture, Peshawar 21530, Pakistan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(13), 9914; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15139914
Submission received: 18 April 2023 / Revised: 14 June 2023 / Accepted: 15 June 2023 / Published: 21 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Corporate Governance, Performance and Sustainable Growth)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study explores the connection between corporate governance and sustainability performance through the mediating role of corporate governance and the moderating role of top management environmental concern, taking into account the perspectives of agency theory and stakeholder theory. Data were collected through a questionnaire survey of 314 employees working in SMEs operating in China, and the data analysis was carried out using Smart PLS 4 and SPSS. The results indicate that green corporate governance and green finance have a significant impact on corporate social responsibility, which in turn positively affects sustainable performance. Corporate social responsibility significantly mediates the link between green corporate governance and sustainable performance. Meanwhile, corporate social responsibility also mediates the relationship between green finance and sustainable performance. Additionally, top management environmental concern moderates the relationship between corporate governance and sustainable performance significantly, strengthening the impact of corporate social responsibility on sustainable performance. The study contributes to the literature by exploring the relationship between corporate governance, green finance, and sustainable performance in the context of Chinese SMEs. The study’s findings have significant implications for policymakers and managers interested in promoting sustainable development.

1. Introduction

In today’s business landscape, sustainable practices have gained immense importance, and organizations are increasingly recognizing the value of integrating sustainability into their operations. Sustainable performance refers to a company’s ability to achieve long-term success while minimizing negative environmental and social impacts. It is accomplished through implementing sustainable business practices that prioritize adding value for stakeholders while simultaneously addressing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) risks and opportunities. Organizations all over the world are under tremendous pressure to develop effective corporate governance processes as a result of the increasing incidence of company failures. Effective corporate governance ensures that companies take into account the interests of all stakeholders, including the environment and society, in their decision-making [1]. This is closely tied to corporate social responsibility, which requires companies to operate sustainably and ethically. Green finance provides companies with the means to invest in sustainable projects that benefit both the environment and their long-term financial performance. Corporate governance has emerged as a critical area of focus globally due to its relevance in defining the concept of privatization and its association with several global failures [2,3]. However, to understand the impact of corporate governance and green finance initiatives on sustainable performance, it is crucial to examine the moderating role of top management employees’ concerns.
The SME sector is crucial to China’s economy, contributing nearly 60% to the country’s total GDP and accounting for 68% of the country’s total exports [4]. Moreover, SMEs create a significant proportion of job opportunities in China, generating around 75% of all employment in the country. Although SMEs are a critical contributor to the country’s economy, they are facing increasing pressure from the government and other stakeholders to prioritize sustainability and improve their overall performance. As a result, firms have become increasingly focused on corporate social responsibility in recent years and have started adopting sustainable practices to minimize their environmental impact and enhance their social responsibility [5]. The concept of corporate social responsibility involves integrating social and environmental considerations into a company’s operational strategies and relationships with stakeholders. Businesses can better connect their operations with sustainable goals by implementing CSR practices, which will have a positive impact on the environment. According to Zhang et al. (2019), adopting CSR practices can also benefit SMEs by enhancing stakeholder engagement, reputation, and overall sustainable performance [6]. SMEs also encounter a significant challenge in accessing finance, which can be tackled through the adoption of sustainable practices. The concept of green finance aims to promote the financing of projects that support environmentally-friendly initiatives and contribute to sustainable development. This approach can be particularly beneficial for SMEs, as it can serve as a crucial tool in reducing their environmental impact and enhancing their overall sustainable performance, as highlighted by [7]. Effective corporate governance is another crucial factor in improving a firm’s sustainability. It ensures that companies are managed transparently and ethically while remaining accountable to all stakeholders. This fosters trust between SMEs and their customers, employees, and investors and strengthens their long-term relationships with suppliers and other business partners. By implementing effective corporate governance practices, SMEs can manage risks associated with sustainability issues, avoid legal and financial penalties, and sustain their long-term growth and success. Hence, SMEs must integrate sustainability into their business practices at all levels, from strategic planning to daily operations, to ensure that their practices align with their sustainability goals [8]. Additionally, they should prioritize establishing strong relationships with stakeholders and investors through a sustainability lens to boost their reputation and financial performance. As corporate social responsibility becomes more important, there is a growing demand for transparency and information sharing on companies’ sustainability performance.
Corporate governance and green finance are two crucial factors that can significantly impact the sustainable performance of SMEs in China. Several studies have explored the relationship between these two factors and their impact on sustainable performance. According to [9], corporate governance and green finance initiatives are two essential factors that contribute to the sustainable development of organizations. Meanwhile, Zaman et al. (2022) investigated the link between green finance and CSR in the non-banking sector [10]; however, the positive impact of green finance on corporate image was demonstrated by [11]. Another scholar Mavroulidis et al. (2022) focused on the development of green finance [12]. Furthermore, Rehman et al. (2021), stressed the importance of implementing sustainable practices to promote sustainable development, while highlighting the lack of research related to sustainability in SMEs in China [13]. Similarly Aslam and Jawaid (2022), also highlighted the need to integrate green banking initiatives into routine operations [14]. Furthermore, Chen et al. (2022) emphasized the critical role of green banking in promoting social and economic development in developing economies [15]. All these studies were conducted in different sectors and explore the impact of corporate governance and green finance on sustainable performance. Similarly, Ullah et al. (2022) found that corporate environmental responsibility moderates the relationship between green finance and the sustainable performance of Chinese SMEs [16]. The concept of sustainable development has emerged as a major concern in today’s corporate world. To protect natural resources for future generations, the promotion of sustainable practices has become a top focus for many organizations. However, there is a dearth of studies on sustainability in China’s SMEs, especially those in Shanghai. Considering the enormous contribution SMEs make to the Chinese economy, this is a huge study need. Investigating the effects of governmental policies and regulations on sustainability outcomes in SMEs might help bridge this gap. The literature indicates that government regulations in China were crucial in encouraging green business practices among Chinese small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) [17]. Therefore, it is crucial to evaluate the impact of government policies and regulations on fostering long-term viability in small- and medium-sized enterprises. More research is needed to explore how different combinations of these variables may lead to different outcomes for SMEs in China. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap in the literature by investigating the collective impact of corporate governance and green finance initiatives on sustainable performance in Chinese manufacturing SMEs through a mediation–moderation model.
The primary focus of this study is to analyze the correlation between corporate governance, green finance, and sustainable performance in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) operating in China. In addition, this study aimed to investigate how corporate social responsibility (CSR) functions as a mediator in the relationship between corporate governance, green finance, and sustainable performance in SMEs operating in China. Furthermore, this study also examined how the level of top management commitment moderates the relationship between corporate social responsibility and firm sustainability. Given China’s increasing focus on sustainable development, SMEs in the country face growing pressure to adopt environmentally responsible practices. Good corporate governance practices can help SMEs in China establish clear sustainability goals and improve their environmental and social performance. Research in this area can provide valuable guidance for SMEs in China looking to integrate sustainability into their business practices and contribute to the country’s broader goals of sustainable development.

2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development

2.1. Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility

Theories of agency and stakeholders offer insight into the reasons why effective corporate governance (CG) facilitates the adoption of corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives by companies and how it enhances a firm’s bottom line performance [18]. As per the agency theory perspective, corporate governance (CG) functions as an organizational tool that defines the roles, duties, and rights of stakeholders, including shareholders, and guarantees that business decisions are aligned with the objectives of the firm [19]. Recent years have seen a rise in the study and practice of corporate social responsibility (CSR), which is closely tied to corporate governance. Transparency, accountability, and ethical behavior are essential components of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and are fostered by effective governance structures. For businesses to achieve sustainable economic growth, both variables must be taken into account while making decisions. Several studies highlight the connection between corporate governance and CSR. Moreover, corporate governance (CG) effectively strikes a balance between creating short-term value and maintaining long-term value by monitoring the nature and extent of engagement in CSR initiatives [10]. According to the stakeholder theory, the adoption of corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices by companies generates value (such as heightened productivity) for their internal stakeholders, while simultaneously safeguarding value (such as a favorable reputation) with their external stakeholders [9]. Similarly, Dai et al. (2022) also suggest that a company’s commitment to CSR may require it to prioritize the expectations of various stakeholders over the short-term benefits of its shareholders [20]. Smith, Zhang, and Wang (2022) evaluated that stakeholder-centered CG have significant impact on CSR in large Shanghai Stock Exchange-listed manufacturing businesses. [21]. Xu and Hou (2021) discovered that overseas CEOs exercise CSR more. CEO abroad studies experience affects CSR more than overseas job experience in Chinese manufacturing listed companies. Recent research by Jain, Tanusree, and Dima Jamali (2016) suggests that “corporate governance practices have a positive impact on CSR activities and outcomes, and the relationship is moderated by the level of institutional development in a country [22].” Businesses in nations with more advanced institutional systems, including the United States and Japan, were found to have better governance and more CSR initiatives. The relationship between board diversity and CSR performance was also investigated. Better CSR performance was shown in the areas of environmental sustainability and labor rights at firms with more diverse boards, according to the report.
H1. 
Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility.

2.2. Mediating Role of Corporate Social Responsibility between Green Finance and Sustainability

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has a significant focus and encompasses a diverse range of fundamentals for achieving sustainability. CSR involves considering various perspectives, such as economic, legal, ethical, and future-oriented views, that society holds about businesses over an extended period [23]. Green and environmentally friendly businesses will receive credit-preferred treatment and support from commercial banks, which will have a direct impact on such businesses’ access to capital and their financing costs [24]. CSR and green credit initiatives can influence a company’s bottom line in multiple ways, such as reputation shifts, fluctuations in market share, and changes in environmental and credit risk. Although CSR could potentially play a mediating role in the relationship between green banking initiatives and sustainable performance, there has been limited research conducted on the direct association between CSR, green credit, and firm performance. Some studies such as those of Shahzad et al. (2022) and Prasad et al. (2019) demonstrate that CSR considerably improves environmental performance by encouraging eco-friendly projects within the corporation [25,26]. Suganthi (2020) also suggested that CSR can significantly improve a company’s environmental, social, and economic performance [27]. Additionally, several studies, including Lee (2020) and Madaleno et al. (2022), have demonstrated that green finance can enhance the long-term sustainability of businesses by promoting the development of eco-friendly initiatives, which can, in turn, improve the financial well-being of financial institutions [28,29]. On the other hand, a small number of studies have also investigated the influence of green finance on CSR [30,31]. Meanwhile, Indriastuti and Chariri (2021) suggested that green investment and CSR could be integrated if their goals were aligned [32]. Similarly, Hao and He (2022) proposed that green financing could enhance borrowers’ social responsibility, leading to improved profitability [33]. Green finance is especially linked to the government, depositors, borrowers, and other stakeholders interested in environmental conservation. This interrelation between green finance and CSR could potentially alter the relationship between CSR and sustainable performance. Drawing from the aforementioned discussion, we can formulate the following hypotheses:
H2. 
CSR has a direct relationship with sustainable performance.
H3. 
CSR mediates the relationship between green finance and sustainable performance.

2.3. Green Finance and Corporate Social Responsibility

The term “Green Finance”, also known as sustainable finance or environmental financing, pertains to the practice of banks providing funding for sustainable business projects and utilizing credit to promote sustainable development [21]. In the modern era, stakeholders not only expect companies to pursue their primary objective of generating profits but also demand sustainable practices. CSR and green banking are aligned in their objectives and fundamental principles. Broadly speaking, a company’s dedication to environmental accountability is typically demonstrated through its compliance with green credit obligations. However, economic and ethical responsibility, among other aspects of corporate social responsibility, also hold significant value. In regard to environmental responsibility, businesses diverge from conventional banks by emphasizing disclosing environmental information. Green financing is a useful instrument for advancing sustainable development and tackling environmental issues [18]. They contend that incorporating green financing into corporate social responsibility plans may assist businesses in achieving their sustainability objectives while also bolstering their public standing. In a similar vein, Zhang et al. (2019) argue that corporate social responsibility may be advanced via green financing [19]. Scholars argue that businesses may help promote sustainable development by incorporating green financing into their CSR strategy [18]. They discovered that businesses that make investments in green finance are more likely to participate in CSR initiatives, which may boost their brand and financial performance. Furthermore, they propose that green money may be utilized as a tool for supporting sustainable development and tackling social and environmental concerns [20]. They argue that sustainable development may benefit from corporations’ CSR efforts when green money is a part of such efforts.
H4. 
There is a positive and significant relationship between green finance and CSR.

2.4. Corporate Social Responsibility Mediates the Relationship between Corporate Governance and Sustainable Performance

Prior research has shown that corporate governance (CG) is a crucial factor in the development and prosperity of companies, as it fosters the adoption of corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives that can endure over time [34]. The practice of corporate social responsibility (CSR) involves incorporating environmental and social considerations into a company’s strategies and practices to enhance its responsibility, transparency, and sustainability over the long term [35,36]. The objectives of the firm encompass both financial outcomes, such as financial performance (FP), and non-financial outcomes, such as socially and environmentally responsible performance (SNFO) or corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance. CSR can function as an expansion tool to address the interests of other stakeholders, in order to attain the primary goal of optimizing financial performance, as suggested by [37]. The relevance of good corporate governance in encouraging CSR actions and results has been further emphasized in recent research. Strong governance frameworks and board diversity significantly affect the acceptance and execution of CSR efforts in technology enterprises [10]. Moreover, the researchers found that companies with effective governance structures and independent boards are more likely to participate in socially responsible activities [38]. These results underline the significance of good corporate governance in motivating CSR and, in the end, boosting organizational efficiency. In addition, CSR practices may aid businesses in gaining trust, reputation, and goodwill among stakeholders, all of which can improve a company’s long-term financial performance. As a result, we put forward the following hypothesis:
H5. 
Corporate social responsibility mediates the relationship between corporate governance and sustainable performance.

2.5. Moderating Role of Top Management Commitment

Wijethilake and Lama (2019) argues that top management plays an especially critical role in driving an organization’s green initiatives [39]. According to Tandoh et al. (2022), the achievement of an organization’s objectives is contingent on the dedication of its top-level management [40]. Hence, the cultivation of sustainable practices, which can result in a competitive edge, is predicated on the managers’ commitment to promoting such initiatives. This is because they are responsible for allocating resources and making decisions that are necessary to facilitate the necessary changes within the organization. However, Greiner and Sun (2021) propose that organizations are more likely to adopt environmentally friendly practices when there is a high level of commitment from top management [41]. This is consistent with the idea that top management plays a critical role in driving sustainability initiatives within organizations. When top management exhibits a strong commitment, it leads to a heightened sense of accountability and encourages them to take more proactive measures [42]. Top-level management serves as both leaders and catalysts for change, thereby ensuring the availability of necessary resources to embrace new business ideologies [43]. Furthermore, Mandip (2012) suggests that the moderating ability of top management positions them as significant influencers in encouraging other business units to adopt green policies and practices [44]. Top management commitment is crucial for achieving an organization’s mission and improving its performance. This implies that the success of any organizational goal is reliant on the dedication and involvement of top management. According to Babiak and S. Trendafilova (2011), top management commitment provides a framework for achieving environmental improvements effectively [7]. The dedication of senior management in a company towards implementing environmentally sustainable practices can significantly help in promoting the implementation of green banking practices in a bank’s branches. Other scholars, Wijethilake and Lama (2019), found evidence to support the idea that a strong commitment from top management has a positive impact on the adoption of environmental management systems [39]. This suggests that top management plays a crucial role in promoting and implementing sustainability practices within organizations. In addition, Yusliza et al. (2019) conducted a study that revealed a substantial and favorable correlation between corporate social responsibility, top management commitment, and corporate sustainability [43]. Similarly, Chatterjee et al. (2023) contend that the participation and dedication of top-level executives in corporate social responsibility initiatives are crucial to their successful implementation [42]. The authors further argued that a lack of commitment from the organization’s leadership is a key hindrance to the effective execution of CSR practices, as the CEOs’ political beliefs can impact their firms’ approach to CSR. Considering the above fact, we further proposed the following hypothesis:
H6. 
Top management commitment moderates the relationship between corporate social responsibility and sustainable performance.

3. Methodology

The aim of this research is to examine the effect of corporate governance, green finance, and corporate social responsibility on sustainable performance through the moderating role of green environmental concerns in Chinese SMEs as shown in Figure 1. SMEs that prioritize environmental sustainability were targeted, and the respondents were selected based on their job roles in finance and corporate social responsibility departments. Using this method, we could obtain data from respondents who have appropriate knowledge and experience in green finance and company governance. This study used a purposive sampling methodology for data collection, based on the largest population. Purposive sampling led to limiting the bias of the study’s generalizability because the sample was selected based on their expertise and knowledge in a specific field [45]. For data collection purposes, we particularly selected primary data collected through survey questionnaires; a total of 410 questionnaire surveys were distributed for data collection among the respondents who engaged in corporate governance, and sustainability practices. After the survey was initially screened, 96 replies were eliminated due to incomplete responses. The sample size for this investigation was n = 314, corresponding to 76.59%. Each organization was visited at a predetermined time and date to collect data. Eight measures were used to assess organizational sustainability adapted from [46]. To measure the GCSR construct, nine items were selected which had already been developed and used in previous studies [47]. The top management environment concern (TMEC) construct was assessed using a t-item scale developed and used in previous research [48,49,50]. To measure the green finance construct, a three-item scale was adapted from a previous study conducted by [49]. Corporate governance was measured through seven items, and the scale was adopted from previous studies [51]. A five-point Likert scale was used to quantify each variable response. Table 1 depicts the measurement scale operational definition. The demographic characteristics of respondents are discussing in Table 2.

4. Data Analysis

4.1. Measurement Model

Partial least square modeling (PLS-SEM) is a widely used statistical tool that helps researchers examine the relationships between latent variables and their constructs to test hypotheses. By analyzing multiple variables simultaneously, PLS-SEM can reduce errors in the model and identify significant connections between variables. There are two main approaches to SEM: covariance-based (CB-SEM) and variance-based partial least squares (PLS-SEM). While CB-SEM has been the more commonly used technique for analyzing complex relationships between latent and observed variables, PLS-SEM has gained popularity in recent years, particularly for small sample sizes, but it can also work well with large sample sizes. In this study, we employed PLS-SEM using SmartPLS V3.3.3 [52] to test the proposed hypotheses.
The choice of PLS-SEM for this study is supported by various reasons. Firstly, it is considered more suitable for estimation than CB-SEM by some scholars [53]. Secondly, PLS-SEM is better equipped to handle complex frameworks, especially those involving moderation, making it a more appropriate technique for executing mediation compared to regression [54,55]. Furthermore, PLS-SEM has a user-friendly interface that is easy to navigate, making it more accessible than other path modeling software such as MPLUS, AMOS, and LISREL. PLS-SEM does not require normality assumptions for data analysis, unlike other approaches, making it a robust component-based technique that has been widely used in recent studies. The PLS-SEM approach comprises two stages, namely the measurement and structural models. The measurement model describes the relationships between latent variables and their indicators, while the structural model determines the relationship between predictor and criterion variables. The quality of the measurement model is assessed using the PLS algorithm, while the structural model is verified using the bootstrapping technique with 5000 subsamples [56,57].
Corporate governance (CG) was measured through seven items, and these items are mentioned in the table as CG1-CG7; the scale was adopted from previous studies [51]. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) was measured through nine items ranging CSR1-CSR9 adopted from a previous study [47]. Green finance (GF) measured through a three-item scale ranged GF1-GF3, adapted from a previous study conducted by [49]. Top management environment concern (TMEC) was assessed using a four-item scale ranging TMEC1-TMEC4 and was adopted from a previous study [48,49,50].
Both the GFI and AGFI may vary from 0 to 1, with higher values suggesting a better overall model fit. To account for the number of parameters estimated in the model, the GFI is adjusted by the AGFI [58]. The GFI is the fraction of the variance in the observed data that is explained by the model.
The CFI compares how well the stated model fits to how well another model fits. Values of the CFI over 0.90 indicate an adequate match, whereas values above 0.95 indicate an excellent fit [59].
In this study, we evaluated the measurement model’s quality by examining the factor loadings, reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the variables. To ensure adequate factor loadings, we followed [60]’s recommendation that each item should have a minimum loading of 0.5. Our analysis revealed that all individual items had factor loadings exceeding the recommended value, ranging from 0.683 (SP2) to 0.882 (TMEC1), as illustrated in Figure 2 [60]. To assess reliability, we used composite reliability (CR), with a suggested value of over 0.70 [61]. Our findings indicated satisfactory reliability with CR values ranging from 0.784 (TMEC) to 0.919 (CG). GF3 was removed to improve the reliability and validity of the constructs which is less than the minimum acceptable criterion. We evaluated convergent validity using the average variance extracted (AVE), which should be no less than 0.50 [61]. All five constructs had AVE values exceeding 0.5, indicating satisfactory convergent validity. We employed the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) correlation ratio [62] to test discriminant validity, with a recommended value of less than 0.90. All HTMT correlations were less than 0.90, indicating satisfactory discriminant validity. Figure 2 illustrates the measurement model which measures the reliability and validity of the model. Table 3 and Figure 2 present the complete results of the measurement model.

4.2. Predictive Accuracy

To evaluate the quality of our model, we employed several criteria. Firstly, we used the R2 value to measure the model’s explanatory power and found values of 0.558 and 0.554 for SP and CSR, respectively. Secondly, we used the effect size (f2) to determine the significance of the predictor variables, with GF showing a medium-sized effect on CSR (0.63) and CSR having a medium-sized impact on SP (0.048), while CG had a negligible effect on CSR (0.01). Thirdly, we used the blindfolding procedure in SmartPLS to obtain the Q2 value, which showed medium and large predictive relevance for SP and CSR, respectively. Finally, we evaluated the model fit using the SRMR, which yielded a value of 0.071, indicating a good fit [63,64,65,66]. Table 4 and Table 5 provide a detailed summary of our results.

4.3. Structural Model Evaluation

4.3.1. Direct Effect

To test our proposed hypotheses, we used a structural model (Figure 3) and set a significance level of p < 0.05 or a standard t-value greater than 1.96 to confirm a hypothesis. After conducting the bootstrapping technique with 5000 subsamples, we tested five direct hypotheses. The results revealed that CG (t-value = 7.212 and β = 0.263) and GF (t-value = 0.619 and β = 0.619) have a positive and direct relationship with CSR, while CSR has a positive relationship with SP (t-value = 17.766 and β = 0.800). Therefore, all five direct hypotheses (e.g., H1, H2, and H3) were supported, as presented in Table 6 and Figure 3.

4.3.2. Mediation Analysis

Table 4 presents the results of two mediating and one moderating hypothesis. The results showed that CSR partially mediates the CG and SP nexus. We used the “variance accounted for” (VAF) method to verify the strength of the CSR mediators in the GF, CG, and SP relationship. The VAF calculation showed a value of 0.435 for CSR, indicating partial mediation as per the guidelines by [55]. Table 4 shows that the relationship between CG and SP is partially mediated by CSR. The results showed a positive and significant mediation effect. The total and specific indirect effects were both significant, with a total effect (t = 11.453, β = 0.059) and a specific indirect effect (β = 0.094, t = 3.118), confirming the significant and positive results of hypothesis 4. Similarly, hypothesis 6 showed a significant and positive effect. This hypothesis indicated that CSR mediates the relationship between GF and SP with a total effect (β = 0.702, t = 18.501) and a specific indirect effect (β = 0.495, t = 14.224). Therefore, hypotheses 4 and 5 illustrated that CSR partially mediates the relationship between GC, GF, and SP.

4.3.3. Moderation

Additionally, we proposed hypothesis 4, which suggests that TMEC moderates the relationship between CSR and SP. We utilized the product indicator method by multiplying CSR*TMEC to predict the outcome variable SP. The results indicated that TMEC positively moderates the relationship between CSR and SP (t-value = 2.349 and β = 0.067). The moderating effect graph is illustrated in Figure 4 and Table 7. Additionally, we proposed hypothesis 4, which suggests that TMEC moderates the relationship between CSR and SP. We utilized the product indicator method by multiplying CSR*TMEC to predict the outcome variable SP. The results indicated that TMEC positively moderates the relationship between CSR and SP (t-value = 2.349 and β = 0.067). The moderating effect graph is illustrated in Figure 3 and Table 8.

5. Discussion

The objective of this study was two-fold: firstly, to analyze the impact of CG effectiveness and green finance on sustainable performance; secondly, to investigate whether CSR mediates this relationship. Moreover, the study aimed to explore the extent to which top management commitment moderates the connection between corporate social responsibility and sustainable performance. In this study, a structured questionnaire was utilized to gather data from a total of 330 small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that are operating in China. The analysis of the data was conducted using version 4 of Smart PLS. The results of the study indicated that strong corporate governance has a significant and positive impact on a firm’s sustainable performance. The study is in line with previous studies such as Hussaine et al. (2018), Jan et al. (2021), and Maali et al. (2021) depicting that corporate governance frameworks can help to identify and manage risks, including those related to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues [67,68,69]. By addressing these risks, firms can reduce their exposure to potential negative impacts and improve their sustainable performance. Wahyudi et al. (2021) further added that the implementation of robust governance mechanisms, including independent boards, diverse leadership, and effective risk management systems, can facilitate the development of a sustainable culture in business practices within firms [70]. In contrast to our findings, a study by Maali et al. (2021) indicated that there is an insignificant influence on corporate governance [69]. The study suggested that weak corporate governance structures, which include inadequate board oversight, a lack of independent directors, and limited transparency, impede the implementation and monitoring of sustainable practices. As a consequence, this leads to an insignificant relationship between governance and sustainable firm performance, as highlighted by the study. We further observed that green finance significantly positively influences the sustainable development of the firm. The findings are very similar to findings from previous studies such as [65,66]. Green finance can lead to the improved performance of firms by promoting sustainable practices that result in cost savings, reduced consumption of energy and resources, enhanced brand image, and increased access to capital. These benefits can lead to long-term success for firms by enabling them to comply with regulations, drive innovation, and stay ahead of their competition. The study is in line with the past literature such as [67,68]. Zhang and Berhe (2022) emphasized the significant role of green banking activities in fostering the progress and expansion of green financing which helps in mitigating environmental pollution and driving sustainable development [71]. On the other side, previous studies, such as the study by Risal and Joshi (2018), found evidence of a negative impact of green lending and green loans on the environmental performance of commercial banks in Nepal [72]. In our study, we explored how corporate social responsibility acts as a mediator between green finance, corporate governance, and sustainable performance. Our findings indicate that the relationship between corporate governance and sustainable performance is mediated by corporate social responsibility. The findings are supported by the previous literature, such as [69,73]. Regulations related to corporate governance serve as safeguards for the CSR initiatives carried out by different firms that impact the overall performance of the company [74]. We further found that corporate social responsibility acts as a mediator in the relationship between green finance and sustainable performance which is slightly in line with previous studies such as [71]. CSR provides a framework for companies to align financial and environmental goals, integrate sustainability into decision-making, and promote long-term sustainability by investing in sustainable projects and practices. Our research also investigated the moderating effect of top management commitment on the relationship between corporate social responsibility and sustainable performance in small- and medium-sized enterprises. Our findings support the notion that top management commitment is a critical factor for the successful implementation of CSR initiatives and the achievement of sustainable performance in SMEs. The findings of our study share some similarities with the findings reported by [39].

6. Conclusions

The results of this research could be utilized to enhance one’s understanding of how Chinese small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) achieve success by implementing practices such as green finance, corporate governance measures, and corporate social responsibility initiatives. The research indicates that there is a strong connection between good corporate governance and green finance and the high sustainable performance of SMEs. Furthermore, it was observed that incorporating corporate social responsibility initiatives strengthens the link between corporate governance, green finance, and the sustainable performance of these SMEs. Furthermore, the results indicate that the involvement and dedication of top management play a significant role in moderating the correlation between corporate social responsibility and sustainable performance.

7. Practical and Theoretical Implications

The practical implications of the study are significant for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in China. The research emphasizes the significance of implementing sustainable practices and boosting corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts to enhance environmental and social performance. Sustainable results may be enhanced when SMEs use green financing and green corporate governance practices. In addition, the research highlights the significance of governmental regulations and policies in encouraging sustainable practices among SMEs. To address the particular difficulties faced by SMEs in promoting sustainability, policymakers, and regulatory bodies could take advantage of the findings of this study to develop targeted policies and frameworks to address the unique challenges faced by SMEs in promoting sustainability.
Policymakers and managers should prioritize the development and implementation of green finance policies and strengthen corporate governance practices to enhance SMEs’ sustainability. Our study provides evidence that CSR initiatives can mediate the relationship between green finance and sustainable performance, as well as the relationship between corporate governance and sustainable performance. Managers should prioritize CSR initiatives and ensure that they are integrated into the company’s strategy, policies, and processes to enhance sustainable performance. The findings of our study underscore the critical role of top management commitment as a moderator in the relationship between CSR and sustainable performance. Managers should prioritize leadership support and commitment to drive CSR initiatives and achieve sustainable performance. The findings of our study suggest that SMEs can enhance their sustainable performance by adopting a holistic approach that considers the interrelationships between green finance, corporate governance, CSR, and top management commitment. Our results provide policymakers with information that they can use to create policies that encourage sustainable business practices among SMEs and help bring the world closer to attaining the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations. SMEs may improve their reputation, acquire more committed customers, and aid in sustainable development by putting sustainability first. Overall, the study’s theoretical and practical ramifications emphasize how critical it is for companies to take a proactive stance toward sustainability. Businesses may boost their bottom line and aid in the nation’s and world’s long-term growth if they put ethical corporate governance and social responsibility first.

8. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Although the study has contributed to fulfilling the existing literature, there are still limitations that can be addressed in future research. The study’s sample size of 330 SMEs, all operating in Changsha, China, may restrict the generalizability of its findings. To broaden the scope of the analysis and account for the significance of SMEs worldwide, it would be valuable to extend the research to a national and even international level. Another limitation of this study is the use of questionnaires for self-diagnosis, which relied on the opinions of owners and managers of SMEs. While questionnaires are commonly used in social research and have advantages such as ease of use and cost-effectiveness, future researchers can use secondary data for their future studies. While the current study focuses on SMEs, the corporate sector, especially the manufacturing industry, is increasingly prioritizing sustainable performance. As a result, future research could expand to include other industries. It is also advisable to conduct comparative studies across various regions and industries. Future researchers should consider additional crucial variables, such as stakeholder engagement and government support, that could impact firms’ sustainability practices.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.W. and Z.X.; methodology, A.U.R. and F.A.; formal analysis, L.W.; validation, Z.X. and S.U.R.; investigation, F.A. and Z.X.; resources, L.W.; data curation, Z.X. and A.U.R.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.X; writing—review and editing, S.U.R.; visualization, Z.X.; supervision, L.W.; project administration, F.A.; funding acquisition, Z.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper was supported by the Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. ZR2019PA009).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors give thanks to the chief editor, guest editors, and journal editorial team.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

  1. Aguilera, R.V.; Marano, V.; Haxhi, I. International corporate governance: A review and opportunities for future research. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2019, 50, 457–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chandrakant, R.; Rajesh, R. Social sustainability, corporate governance, and sustainability performances: An empirical study of the effects. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2022, 14, 9131–9143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Husted, B.W.; de Sousa-Filho, J.M. Board structure and environmental, social, and governance disclosure in Latin America. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 102, 220–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lu, Y.; Wu, J.; Peng, J.; Lu, L. The perceived impact of the Covid-19 epidemic: Evidence from a sample of 4807 SMEs in Sichuan Province, China. Environ. Hazards 2020, 19, 323–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. ElAlfy, A.; Palaschuk, N.; El-Bassiouny, D.; Wilson, J.; Weber, O. Scoping the Evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Research in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Era. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang, Q.; Oo, B.L.; Lim, B.T.H. Drivers, motivations, and barriers to the implementation of corporate social responsibility practices by construction enterprises: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 563–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Babiak, K.; Trendafilova, S. CSR and environmental responsibility: Motives and pressures to adopt green management practices. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2011, 18, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mahmood, Z.; Kouser, R.; Ali, W.; Ahmad, Z.; Salman, T. Does Corporate Governance Affect Sustainability Disclosure? A Mixed Methods Study. Sustainability 2018, 10, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Wang, Y.; Chang, X.; Wang, T.; Wang, S. Female directors and environmental innovation: Is stakeholder orientation a missing link? Gend. Manag. Int. J. 2022, 37, 587–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zaman, R.; Jain, T.; Samara, G.; Jamali, D. Corporate Governance Meets Corporate Social Responsibility: Mapping the Interface. Bus. Soc. 2020, 61, 690–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sharma, M.; Choubey, A. Green banking initiatives: A qualitative study on Indian banking sector. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 293–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Mavroulidis, M.; Vouros, P.; Fotiadis, S.; Konstantakopoulou, F.; Fountoulakis, G.; Nikolaou, I.; Evangelinos, K. Occupational health and safety of multinational construction companies through evaluation of corporate social responsibility reports. J. Saf. Res. 2022, 81, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rehman, S.U.; Kraus, S.; Shah, S.A.; Khanin, D.; Mahto, R.V. Analyzing the relationship between green innovation and environmental performance in large manufacturing firms. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 163, 120481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Aslam, W.; Jawaid, S.T. Green banking adoption practices: Improving environmental, financial, and operational performance. Int. J. Ethic. Syst. 2022. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, J.; Siddik, A.B.; Zheng, G.-W.; Masukujjaman, M.; Bekhzod, S. The Effect of Green Banking Practices on Banks’ Environmental Performance and Green Financing: An Empirical Study. Energies 2022, 15, 1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ullah, H.; Wang, Z.; Mohsin, M.; Jiang, W.; Abbas, H. Multidimensional perspective of green financial innovation between green intellectual capital on sustainable business: The case of Pakistan. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 5552–5568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Graafland, J.; Bovenberg, L. Government regulation, business leaders’ motivations and environmental performance of SMEs. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2020, 63, 1335–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, K.; Tsai, S.-B.; Du, X.; Bi, D. Internet finance, green finance, and sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Zhang, Z.; Chen, H. Media coverage and impression management in corporate social responsibility reports: Evidence from China. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2020, 11, 863–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dai, X.; Siddik, A.B.; Tian, H. Corporate Social Responsibility, Green Finance and Environmental Performance: Does Green Innovation Matter? Sustainability 2022, 14, 13607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kolk, A.; Pinkse, J. The integration of corporate governance in corporate social responsibility disclosures. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2010, 17, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Jain, T.; Jamali, D. Looking Inside the Black Box: The Effect of Corporate Governance on Corporate Social Responsibility. Corp. Gov. Int. Rev. 2016, 24, 253–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hamidu, A.; Haron, M.; Amran, A. Corporate social responsibility: A review on definitions, core characteristics and theoretical perspectives. Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci. 2015, 6, 83–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Gerged, A.M. Factors affecting corporate environmental disclosure in emerging markets: The role of corporate governance structures. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2021, 30, 609–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shahzad, M.; Qu, Y.; Javed, S.A.; Zafar, A.U.; Rehman, S.U. Relation of environment sustainability to CSR and green innovation: A case of Pakistani manufacturing industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 253, 119938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Prasad, M.; Mishra, T.; Bapat, V. Corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability: Evidence from India using energy intensity as an indicator of environmental sustainability. IIMB Manag. Rev. 2019, 31, 374–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Suganthi, L. Investigating the relationship between corporate social responsibility and market, cost and environmental performance for sustainable business. S. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2020, 51, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lee, J.W. Green Finance and Sustainable Development Goals: The Case of China, Lee, Jung Wan (2020). Green Financ. Sustain. Dev. Goals Case China. J. Asian Finance Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 577–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Madaleno, M.; Dogan, E.; Taskin, D. A step forward on sustainability: The nexus of environmental responsibility, green technology, clean energy and green finance. Energy Econ. 2022, 109, 105945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Awawdeh, A.E.; Ananzeh, M.; El-Khateeb, A.I.; Aljumah, A. Role of green financing and corporate social responsibility (CSR) in technological innovation and corporate environmental performance: A COVID-19 perspective. China Financ. Rev. Int. 2021, 12, 297–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sadiq, M.; Nonthapot, S.; Mohamad, S.; Keong, O.C.; Ehsanullah, S.; Iqbal, N. Does green finance matter for sustainable entrepreneurship and environmental corporate social responsibility during COVID-19? China Financ. Rev. Int. 2022, 12, 317–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Indriastuti, M.; Chariri, A. The role of green investment and corporate social responsibility investment on sustainable performance. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1960120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hao, J.; He, F. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance and green innovation: Evidence from China. Financ. Res. Lett. 2022, 48, 102889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Harun, M.S.; Hussainey, K.; Kharuddin, K.A.M.; Al Farooque, O. CSR Disclosure, Corporate Governance and Firm Value: A study on GCC Islamic Banks. Int. J. Account. Inf. Manag. 2020, 28, 607–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kamal, Y. Stakeholders expectations for CSR-related corporate governance disclosure: Evidence from a developing country. Asian Rev. Account. 2021, 29, 97–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Firmansyah, A.; Husna, M.C.; Putri, M.A. Corporate social responsibility disclosure, corporate governance disclosures, and firm value in Indonesia chemical, plastic, and packaging sub-sector companies. Account. Anal. J. 2021, 10, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yang, J.; Basile, K. Communicating corporate social responsibility: External stakeholder involvement, productivity and firm performance. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 178, 501–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mukhtaruddin, M.; Ubaidillah, U.; Dewi, K.; Hakiki, A.; Nopriyanto, N. Good Corporate Governance, Corporate Social Responsibility, Firm Value, and Financial Performance as Moderating Variable. Indones. J. Sustain. Account. Manag. 2019, 3, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wijethilake, C.; Lama, T. Sustainability core values and sustainability risk management: Moderating effects of top management commitment and stakeholder pressure. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2019, 28, 143–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Tandoh, I.; Duffour, K.A.; Essandoh, M.; Amoako, R.N. Corporate Governance, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Corporate Sustainability: The Moderating Role of Top Management Commitment. Int. J. Prof. Bus. Rev. 2022, 7, e0309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Greiner, M.; Sun, J. How corporate social responsibility can incentivize top managers: A commitment to sustainability as an agency intervention. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 28, 1360–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chatterjee, S.; Chaudhuri, R.; Vrontis, D. Investigating the impacts of microlevel CSR activities on firm sustainability: Mediating role of CSR performance and moderating role of top management support. Cross Cult. Strat. Manag. 2023, 30, 123–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yusliza, M.-Y.; Norazmi, N.A.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Fernando, Y.; Fawehinmi, O.; Seles, B.M.R.P. Top management commitment, corporate social responsibility and green human resource management: A Malaysian study. Benchmarking Int. J. 2019, 26, 2051–2078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mandip, G. Green HRM: People management commitment to environmental sustainability. Res. J. Recent Sci. 2012, 2277, 2502. [Google Scholar]
  45. Babbie, E.R. The Practice of Social Research; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  46. Amjad, F.; Abbas, W.; Zia-Ur-Rehman, M.; Baig, S.A.; Hashim, M.; Khan, A.; Rehman, H.-U. Effect of green human resource management practices on organizational sustainability: The mediating role of environmental and employee performance. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 28191–28206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gallardo-Vázquez, D.; Sanchez-Hernandez, M.I. Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility for competitive success at a regional level. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 72, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Song, W.; Yu, H.; Xu, H. Effects of green human resource management and managerial environmental concern on green innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2021, 24, 951–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zheng, G.-W.; Siddik, A.B.; Masukujjaman, M.; Fatema, N.; Alam, S.S. Green Finance Development in Bangladesh: The Role of Private Commercial Banks (PCBs). Sustainability 2021, 13, 795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. de Groot, J.I.M.; Steg, L. Mean or green: Which values can promote stable pro-environmental behavior? Conserv. Lett. 2009, 2, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Nam, S.-W.; Nam, I.C. Corporate Governance in Asia: Recent Evidence from INDONESIA, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, and Thailand; Asian Development Bank Institute: Tokyo, Japan, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ringle, C.; Da Silva, D.; Bido, D. Structural equation modeling with the SmartPLS. Braz. J. Mark. 2015, 13, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  53. Kraus, S.; Rehman, S.U.; García, F.J.S. Corporate social responsibility and environmental performance: The mediating role of environmental strategy and green innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 160, 120262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 2004, 36, 717–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V.G. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2014, 26, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. JAnderson, C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Aftab, J.; Abid, N.; Cucari, N.; Savastano, M. Green human resource management and environmental performance: The role of green innovation and environmental strategy in a developing country. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2022, 32, 1782–1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Byrne, B.M. A Primer of LISREL: Basic Applications and Programming for Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  59. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hair, J.F.; Astrachan, C.B.; Moisescu, O.I.; Radomir, L.; Sarstedt, M.; Vaithilingam, S.; Ringle, C.M. Executing and interpreting applications of PLS-SEM: Updates for family business researchers. J. Fam. Bus. Strat. 2021, 12, 100392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Cohen, J. Set Correlation and Contingency Tables. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 1988, 12, 425–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Cohen, M.A.; Eliashberg, J.; Ho, T.H. An Analysis of Several New Product Performance Metrics. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2000, 2, 337–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Geisser, S. A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika 1974, 61, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hussain, N.; Rigoni, U.; Orij, R.P. Corporate Governance and Sustainability Performance: Analysis of Triple Bottom Line Performance. J. Bus. Ethic 2019, 149, 411–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Jan, A.A.; Lai, F.-W.; Tahir, M. Developing an Islamic Corporate Governance framework to examine sustainability performance in Islamic Banks and Financial Institutions. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 315, 128099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Maali, K.; Rakia, R.; Khaireddine, M. How corporate social responsibility mediates the relationship between corporate governance and sustainability performance in UK: A multiple mediator analysis. Soc. Bus. Rev. 2021, 16, 201–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wahyudi, S.M. The Effect of Corporate Governance and Company Characteristics on Disclosure of Sustainability Report Companies. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. Res. 2021, 6, 94–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhang, Y.; Berhe, H.M. The Impact of Green Investment and Green Marketing on Business Performance: The Mediation Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Ethiopia’s Chinese Textile Companies. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Risal, N.; Joshi, S.K. Measuring Green Banking Practices on Bank’s Environmental Performance: Empirical Evidence from Kathmandu valley. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2018, 2, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Alfalah, A.A.; Muneer, S.; Hussain, M. An empirical investigation of firm performance through corporate governance and information technology investment with mediating role of corporate social responsibility: Evidence from Saudi Arabia telecommunication sector. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 959406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Mahrani, M.; Soewarno, N. The effect of good corporate governance mechanism and corporate social responsibility on financial performance with earnings management as mediating variable. Asian J. Account. Res. 2018, 3, 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 15 09914 g001 550
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 15 09914 g001
Sustainability 15 09914 g002 550
Figure 2. Reliability and validity analysis.
Figure 2. Reliability and validity analysis.
Sustainability 15 09914 g002
Sustainability 15 09914 g003 550
Figure 3. Structure equation model.
Figure 3. Structure equation model.
Sustainability 15 09914 g003
Sustainability 15 09914 g004 550
Figure 4. TMEC significantly moderates the relationship between CSR and sustainable performance.
Figure 4. TMEC significantly moderates the relationship between CSR and sustainable performance.
Sustainability 15 09914 g004
Table
Table 1. Measurement scale.
Table 1. Measurement scale.
Sr#ConstructItemsReferences
1Green finance3[49]
2Corporate social responsibility9[47]
3Organizational sustainable8[46]
4Top management environment concern3[48,49,50]
5Corporate governance7[51]
Table
Table 2. Demographic details of our respondents.
Table 2. Demographic details of our respondents.
Demographic VariablesFrequencyPercentage
Gender
Male19863.06
Female11837.58
Age
   21–25 years7824.84
   26–30 years7022.29
   31–35 years12228.85
   Above 354414.01
Work experience
   Less than 5 years8226.11
   5 to 10 years11035.03
   10 to 15 years5818.47
   15 to 20 years4414.01
   Above 20 years206.36
Designation
   Senior officer3711.78
   Assistant manager8025.48
   Deputy manager7624.20
   Manager5918.79
   General manager6219.75
Table
Table 3. Reliability and validity analysis.
Table 3. Reliability and validity analysis.
Variables Item LoadingαCRAVE
Corporate governance 0.9090.9190.648
CG10.819
CG20.750
CG30.817
CG40.789
CG50.848
CG60.836
CG70.769
Corporate social responsibilityCSR10.6890.9070.9130.573
CSR20.717
CSR30.779
CSR40.774
CSR50.754
CSR60.766
CSR70.729
CSR80.827
CSR90.770
Green financeGF0.7170.7890.8010.613
GF10.775
GF20.796
GF40.838
Sustainable performanceSP10.8040.8090.8150.568
SP20.683
SP30.782
SP40.750
SP50.744
Top management environmental concernTMEC10.8820.7810.7840.700
TMEC20.742
TMEC30.878
Model Fit Indices
CFI0.91
GFI0.93
REMESA0.43
Table
Table 4. Discriminant validity.
Table 4. Discriminant validity.
CGCSRGFSPTMEC
CG0.805
CSR0.4960.757
GF0.3580.6750.782
SP0.5140.6420.7970.754
TMEC0.4720.5850.7150.7290.837
Table
Table 5. Predictive accuracy.
Table 5. Predictive accuracy.
ConstructR-SquareR-Square Adjusted
CSR0.5540.553
SP0.5580.557
Table
Table 6. Hypothesis evaluation.
Table 6. Hypothesis evaluation.
Hypothesis Path CoefficientT Statisticsp ValuesDecision
Direct Relationship
H1CG→CSR0.2637.2120.000Accepted
H2CSR→SP0.80017.7660.000Accepted
H3GF→CSR0.61919.8340.000Accepted
Table
Table 7. A mediation analysis.
Table 7. A mediation analysis.
RelationshipIndirect EffectsTotal EffectsResult
H4CG→CSR→SPβ = 0.094, t = 3.118β = 0.059, t = 11.453Partial
H5GF→CSR→SPβ = 0.495, t = 14.224β = 0.702, t = 18.501Partial
Table
Table 8. Moderation analysis.
Table 8. Moderation analysis.
Hypothesis Path CoefficientT Statisticsp ValuesDecision
H6TMEC × CSR→SP0.0672.3490.019Accepted
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, L.; Ur Rehman, A.; Xu, Z.; Amjad, F.; Ur Rehman, S. Green Corporate Governance, Green Finance, and Sustainable Performance Nexus in Chinese SMES: A Mediation Moderation Model. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9914. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15139914

AMA Style

Wang L, Ur Rehman A, Xu Z, Amjad F, Ur Rehman S. Green Corporate Governance, Green Finance, and Sustainable Performance Nexus in Chinese SMES: A Mediation Moderation Model. Sustainability. 2023; 15(13):9914. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15139914

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Lei, Amin Ur Rehman, Zhaocheng Xu, Fiza Amjad, and Shams Ur Rehman. 2023. "Green Corporate Governance, Green Finance, and Sustainable Performance Nexus in Chinese SMES: A Mediation Moderation Model" Sustainability 15, no. 13: 9914. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15139914

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop