Next Article in Journal
Religious Tourism and Sustainable Development of the Economy in the Context of Globalization in the Northeast Area of Romania
Previous Article in Journal
Environmental Taxation on the Agri-Food Sector and the Farm to Fork Strategy: The Portuguese Case
 
 
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 16
10.3390/su151612122
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

Environmental, Social and Economic Sustainability in Mining Companies as a Result of the Interaction between Knowledge Management and Green Innovation—The SEM Approach

by
Violeta Jovanović
1,*,
Sunčica Stanković
2,* and
Vesna Krstić
3,4
1
Faculty of Management, Metropolitan University, 11158 Belgrade, Serbia
2
Faculty of Business Economics and Entrepreneurship, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
3
Mining and Metallurgy Institute Bor, 19210 Bor, Serbia
4
Technical Faculty Bor, University of Belgrade, 19210 Bor, Serbia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(16), 12122; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612122
Submission received: 29 June 2023 / Revised: 24 July 2023 / Accepted: 26 July 2023 / Published: 8 August 2023
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The mining industry is one of the greatest polluters of the environment and has direct positive and negative impacts on all three pillars of sustainable development: economy, environment and society. Due to the aforementioned, primarily negative impacts on the environment, it is important to implement sustainability principles in the operations of companies in the mining industry. The implementation of the sustainability principle enables the economically profitable, ecologically clean and socially responsible exploitation and processing of mineral raw materials. This means of doing business requires the introduction of clean or green technologies, which are the product of green innovation. The innovation process is highly dependent on knowledge. Knowledge has a great contribution to creativity and the creation of innovation. Accordingly, knowledge management activities and the ability of a company to use and combine different sources of knowledge are essential for the creation of different types of innovation, including green innovation. The research, including the pilot test, was carried out in the period of May–August 2022, whereby convenience sampling was used to obtain 626 employees in six mining companies in Serbia. The structural equation modeling approach was used to evaluate the causal relationship between knowledge management, green innovation and the sustainable operations of the mining industry. The indirect effects of the dimensions of knowledge management, through the dimensions of green innovation, on the dimensions of sustainable development were examined using the bootstrap procedure. The results of the study confirmed the positive direct and indirect relations between the constructs. The research indicates the importance of including all components of knowledge management and green innovation in achieving all components of business sustainability.

1. Introduction

The basis of industrial development is non-renewable mineral resources (ores, non-metals and raw energy materials). Thus, industrial and economic development is conditioned by the existence of natural sources of raw materials and energy, and the survival of civilization by the production of healthy food and industrial products and the preservation of the environment, which is the most threatened by industrial development.
The first serious warnings about the uncontrolled growth in production and the consumption of natural resources, and the increasing pollution of the environment, were published in “The Limits of Growth”, by the Club of Rome, in 1972 [1]. Twenty years later, at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the Sustainable Development Strategy was adopted. The strategy highlights three major goals: the preservation of ecological balance, the fair distribution of natural resources between generations and the development of the underdeveloped part of the world. As stated in the Brunthald report, which contains the most widely used definition of sustainable development, “Sustainable development meets the needs of the present, without denying the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [2]. From the aspect of environmental protection, sustainable development should ensure that the emission of pollutants does not exceed the capacity of the soil, water and air to preserve their quality, which is at least sufficient for the lives of people, plants and animals. From the social aspect, sustainable development should enable social justice through the elimination of poverty and the improvement of quality of life. From the economic aspect, sustainable development should enable the development of the economy while creating standards.
From the socioeconomic aspect, the positive effects of the mining industry can be explained through the growth of the mining industry, which contributes to an increase in the share of this sector in the gross domestic product (GDP) of a country and thus has a positive effect on the economy [3]. Moreover, the growth of the mining industry leads to increasing employment, which is significant in achieving the economic and social goals of sustainable development [4]. However, there are both positive and negative effects of the mining industry on the social aspect of sustainable development. The mining industry is at the top of the list of active polluters of waterways, soil and air. The exploitation and processing of mineral raw materials cause major environmental pollution, accompanied by the following phenomena: the major degradation of land surfaces; and large amounts of waste, such as mine and flotation tailings, ash, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and large amounts of wastewater; and oil spills. In the process of coal mining, gangue is formed, which poses a serious threat to the environment [5]. Such pollution contributes to climate change, destroys natural habitats and leads to a loss of biodiversity [6]. Non-products that are created in the mining industry and that pollute the environment indirectly harm people’s health, and this is an evident negative impact of the mining sector on the social aspect [7].
In general, the conclusions of numerous studies on the impact of the mining industry on environmental pollution and sustainable development point to the necessity of changing the existing practices in the mining industry in order to protect the environment and human health and achieve the sustainable development goals [8,9]. These changes imply a transition to sustainable business. Sustainable business implies the application of green innovation. This means that the existing technology in the mining industry must be replaced with green technology. Moreover, an appropriate knowledge management process is necessary for sustainable business. The knowledge management process enables the dissemination of knowledge within the organization [10] and facilitates the creation of innovation for sustainable business [11,12].
The subject of this study is environmental, social and economic sustainability, as dimensions of sustainable business, in mining companies as a result of the interaction between knowledge management and green innovation. The study aims to determine (1) whether knowledge management practices have a direct positive effect on green innovation, (2) whether knowledge management practices have a direct positive effect on sustainable business, (3) whether green innovation has a direct positive effect on sustainable business and (4) whether green innovation dimensions are a significant mediator of the relationship between knowledge management dimensions and sustainable business dimensions in mining companies.
The basic organization of the work’s content is determined by the objectives established as well as the research methods. The paper is divided into six sections as a result. The subject and objectives are discussed in the first section of the paper. The research background is presented in the second section. This section gives a brief summary of prior studies that have looked at this issue, specifically how knowledge management, green innovation and sustainable business are intertwined. In the third section of the study, the research methodology is presented. This part includes the description of the research data, the model, the research hypotheses and the applied data analysis method. The fourth section of the paper includes the research results. Within this part, the results of testing the assumptions of the model, namely the adequacy of the sample, multicollinearity and common method bias test, are first presented; then, the measurement and structural model are analyzed; and, finally, the results of testing the mediator role are presented. In the fifth part, the results of the research are discussed. The sixth part contains the key conclusions of the research; the limitations of the current research are pointed out and recommendations are given for future researchers of this topic.

2. Research Background

Sustainable business was created as an extension of the concept of sustainable development; it is essentially connected with sustainable development and represents a means of doing business without which it is not possible to achieve sustainable development [13]. The importance of sustainable business was highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which significantly affected the business of small and medium-sized family and non-family firms [14], but also large companies in the mining sector [15]. According to [16], changes leading to sustainable business require a fundamental change in the purpose of business and all aspects of business management. Sustainable business implies the application of business models that create a competitive advantage and contribute to the sustainable development of the company and society [17]. The ultimate goal of sustainable business is to preserve the environment and improve quality of life [18]. It can be said that sustainable business involves achieving a balance between economy and ecology for the sake of achieving social benefits. Research has shown that it is possible to achieve a balance between economy and ecology [19] and maximize company revenues through the introduction of sustainable business practices [20]. According to [21], one of the key challenges of sustainable business is designing business models that allow an organization to create economic value while providing social and environmental benefits. Sustainable business involves the company’s cooperation with its environment and the harmonization of the interests of all stakeholders [22]. Ogrean and Herciu [23] defined sustainable business as the integration of economic, social and environmental goals into the organization’s operations, while taking into account the interests and claims of its (current and future) stakeholders. In [24], sustainable business is defined as “a corporate activity that seeks to achieve a balance of sustainability when performing business activities and communicating with stakeholders, which consists of the dimensions of economic, social and environmental responsibility, and includes present and future time”. Socially responsible business, as a company’s positive attitude towards the public, the environment, its employees and its suppliers, is important for sustainable business [25]. The application of sustainable business practices focused on the efficient use of resources or eco-innovations has proven to be successful in reducing environmental impacts and increasing social value [26].
From the perspective of the mining sector, changing existing practices and transitioning to sustainable business implies the application of new tools and methods of waste reduction in the mining sector, and the application of green technologies and innovations in the mining industry [27]. The question of integrating elements of the circular economy into the mining industry was considered in [28]. The authors of this study concluded that the implementation of circular business models in mining companies’ strategies will contribute to the sustainable operations of these companies, as well as the achievement of sustainable development goals. Adequate data on the achievement of the sustainable development goals and the impact of mining companies on the environment can be obtained from the sustainability reports that mining companies publish [29]. In addition to providing information about companies’ impacts on the environment, these reports have a positive impact on corporate reputation [30].
Innovation is one of the most important factors in business activity and has positive effects on company performance [31], as well as positive, direct and indirect effects on economic growth and development in general [32]. With the increase in the number of environmental problems and the awareness of sustainable development and sustainable business, there is a need for innovations that can contribute to solving the mentioned problems. These are green innovations, for which different authors use different terms, such as “eco-innovations”, “ecological innovations” or “sustainable innovations”. Regardless of the use of different terms in discussions of these innovations, the common aspect in all of them is that they refer to new technologies, production methods, products or services that result in a reduction in environmental risks [33] and contribute to quality of life [34], with the minimal use of natural resources [35]. In general, it can be said that green innovations bring both economic and environmental benefits [36]. In addition to technologies, products and processes, according to the OECD definition, green innovations also include marketing methods, organizational structures and institutional arrangements that—with or without intention—lead to environmental improvements [37]. Therefore, in addition to technological achievements, management practices are equally important for sustainable business. In support of the application of technological innovation, managerial and organizational innovations help to preserve the natural environment [38]. Research points to three main categories of green innovation: green product innovation, green process innovation and green management [39]. This classification results in two basic dimensions of green innovation: green technological innovation and green management innovation [11].
Research has shown the indisputable importance of green innovation in the mining sector [8,40], as well as the essential role of knowledge management in the development of green innovation [11,41,42]. Therefore, the appearance of a large number of environmental and socioeconomic problems requires a large amount of knowledge to solve them, which conditions the need to introduce the concept of knowledge management in organizations. New knowledge, especially external knowledge, can be a powerful stimulus for organizational change and improvement [11]. In the knowledge economy, knowledge management is a significant income generation factor [43]. Accordingly, it is necessary that modern production and service organizations have the ability to develop and use the value of knowledge [44]. The application of knowledge enables creativity, facilitates the creation of innovation and forms competencies that contribute to the improvement of overall organizational performance in all sectors [45].
In [46], knowledge management is defined as “the management function that creates or locates knowledge, manages the flow of knowledge within organizations, and ensures that knowledge is used effectively and efficiently for the long-term benefit of the organization”. In [47], knowledge management is described as organizational practices based on the application and use of knowledge. It can be said that knowledge management enables the effective use of human capital. Walczak [48] points to the importance of knowledge culture and states that knowledge management refers to the creation of an adequate organizational culture that facilitates and encourages the creation and sharing of knowledge within the organization.
Several dimensions of knowledge management appear in the literature. In this research, four dimensions of knowledge are used, which are the creation (creation) of knowledge, the acquisition of knowledge, the dissemination (sharing) of knowledge and the application of knowledge [11].
According to Borghini [44,49], knowledge makes a great contribution to creativity and the creation of innovation, and therefore there is a close relationship between organizational knowledge and the capacity to innovate. Knowledge-sharing facilitators that can improve organizational innovation are also important [50]. According to [51], the knowledge management process drives the innovation activities of companies. Knowledge is a critical input in business processes and, in this sense, knowledge management refers to the ability of a company to use and combine different sources of knowledge that can transform existing resources into value in the form of products, processes or other types of innovation [45].
Knowledge management enables changes and innovations to lead to the improvement of the organization’s key competencies [52], and it is capable of solving contemporary environmental and socioeconomic problems [43]. Mikalauskienė and Atkočiūnienė [53] investigated the impact of knowledge management on sustainable development and concluded that organizations that aim to contribute to the creation of social well-being, the preservation of the environment and the creation of social health must create an environment suitable for the development of knowledge processes and the creation of innovation. Robinson et al. [54] attempted to consider the role of knowledge management in promoting sustainable business practices in the context of the construction industry by proposing a five-stage road map. According to [55], knowledge management enables the transfer of useful information and intellectual property and thus contributes to the sustainable operation of an organization. Wu et al. [56] showed that improving corporate sustainability and doing business according to sustainable development principles relies on knowledge management and creating strong links for knowledge exchange between the organization and the external environment. Shahzad et al. [57] pointed out the essential importance of acquiring knowledge in achieving sustainable development. There are various studies that have shown that knowledge management practices have a positive impact on green innovation [12,42] and on sustainable business results [58,59]. In [60], the authors showed that green innovation affects sustainable development by improving the production average and resource utilization, as well as improving the relationship between companies and stakeholders and increasing market shares. In [61], the results obtained showed the existence of a significant relationship between green innovation and environmental performance.
The tightening of environmental regulations in the mining sector to protect the environment and achieve sustainable development has led to the necessity of applying green innovation in mining companies [8]. Based on the previously stated facts about the problems of sustainable development and the impact of the mining sector on it, it is possible to point out the significant role of knowledge management in the development of green innovation and its contribution to sustainable business. Namely, studies have shown that both knowledge management and green innovation can influence the sustainable operations of companies [11,41,62], and their positive connection is often mentioned. Moreover, the findings of earlier studies indicate a positive influence of knowledge management on green innovation [11,41]. In this sense, the results of the current research are expected to confirm these relationships.
Only a few empirical studies, such as [11,41], investigate the dimensions of knowledge management and green innovation as determinants of the dimensions of sustainable business, and this paper contributes to the body of existing literature by empirically investigating the role of the dimensions of green innovation as a mediator of the relationship between the dimensions of knowledge management and the dimensions of sustainable business of mining companies in Serbia.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Data Collection, Sample of Respondents and Questionnaire

The quantitative research (Supplementary Materials) was carried out using the method of surveying employees in six mining companies in Serbia, in the period from the beginning of May to the end of August 2022. Online surveys were used to collect data. Respondents were informed about the objectives and anonymity of the survey and were then asked to rate items in the questionnaire, keeping in mind the mining company that they worked for. A total of 647 questionnaires were collected. Examination of the questionnaires revealed that, due to irregularities such as missing data or random filling, 21 questionnaires had to be excluded from further analysis.
The convenience sampling approach yielded 626 respondents, of which 70.3% were men and 29.7% were women. The largest percentage of respondents belonged to the age group of 41–50 years (33.1%), while the fewest respondents were 20–30 years old (17.9%). The largest percentage of respondents had completed university (60.2%), and the smallest had a doctorate (1.1%). Most of the respondents had worked for more than 15 years in the same mining company (36.4%), followed by at least 10–15 years (19.2%). Most respondents were from lower management (41.5%), and the least were from senior management (2.9%). More detailed information on the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents is shown in Table 1.
The structured questionnaire consisted of 4 parts. The first part of the questionnaire contained questions about the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents (gender, age, level of education, work experience and hierarchical job level). The second part of the questionnaire concerned the attitudes of employees in the mining industry regarding knowledge management (KM) practices. The knowledge management measurement scale consisted of fourteen items, divided into four dimensions: (1) knowledge creation (KC)—3 items; (2) knowledge acquisition (KAC)—4 items; (3) knowledge sharing (KS)—3 items and (4) knowledge application (KAP)—4 items. Items were taken and adapted from [46,63,64,65]. The third part of the questionnaire concerned employees’ attitudes toward green innovation (GI). The green innovation measurement scale consisted of six items, divided into two dimensions: (1) green technological innovation (GTI)—3 items and (2) green management innovation (GMI)—3 items, taken and adapted from [66,67]. The fourth part of the questionnaire concerned employees’ attitudes toward sustainable business (SB). The sustainable business measurement scale consisted of ten items, divided into three dimensions: (1) environmental sustainability (ENVS)—3 items, (2) social sustainability (SOCS)—3 items and (3) economic sustainability (ECOS)—4 items, which were taken and adapted according to the items used by other authors in their research [68,69,70,71]. A 5-point Likert scale was used to evaluate items (1—do not agree at all, 5—absolutely agree).

3.2. Model and Research Hypotheses and Analysis

Following the model, which was applied in [11,41], the current study examined how knowledge management, directly and indirectly, through green innovation, affects sustainable business in mining companies. A novelty of the research is the examination of the mediating role of green innovation between knowledge management and sustainable business on a dimensional level. Figure 1 shows the research model.
Taking into account the subject and objectives of the research, as well as previous research on this topic, the following hypotheses were defined.
H1. 
Knowledge management has a significant direct positive effect on green innovation in mining companies.
H2. 
Knowledge management has a significant direct positive effect on sustainable business in mining companies.
H3. 
Green innovation has a direct significant and positive effect on sustainable business in mining companies.
H4. 
Green innovation dimensions mediate the relationship between knowledge management dimensions and sustainable business dimensions in mining companies.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test hypotheses H1, H2 and H3, i.e., to examine the causal links between knowledge management, green innovation and sustainable business. Structural equation modeling is a method that has similar goals to multiple regression, but the SEM approach is much broader, taking into account interaction modeling, nonlinearity, dependent and independent variables, measurement errors and multiple latent independent variables [72]. It can be used as an alternative to multiple regression, path analysis, factor analysis, time series analysis and the analysis of covariance. These procedures can be considered special cases of SEM, i.e., viewed from another perspective, SEM is an extension of the general linear model (GLM), of which multiple regression is a part [72,73]. Relationships between constructs were tested based on the approach proposed in [74], which includes two steps: measurement model assessment and structural model assessment. To test hypothesis H4, the bootstrap procedure was used, which examined the indirect effects of dimensions of knowledge management, through dimensions of green innovation, on dimensions of sustainable business, i.e., the mediating role of dimensions of green innovation in the relationship between dimensions of knowledge management and sustainable business.
Data were processed using SPSS IBM Statistics Version 21 and AMOS Graphics.

4. Results

4.1. Adequacy of the Sample, Multicollinearity and Common Method Bias Test

Conducting multivariate analysis, followed by structural equation modeling, implies an adequate sample, the absence of multicollinearity and a common method variance bias test [75]. Since the sample size in the current study was 626 respondents, which was more than the 200 respondents recommended by [76] for a factor analysis, this criterion was met. In addition, the VIF test values ranged from 1.649 to 2.866, being less than 3, indicating that there were no multicollinearity problems in the data. For CMB analysis, Harman’s single-factor test was used. Results indicated that there was no CMB in the data, since the value of a single factor’s contribution was 28,161, and, according to [77], the contribution of a single factor should not exceed 50%.

4.2. Analysis of Measurement and Structural Model

To evaluate the measurement model, confirmatory factor analysis was first conducted. Walts et al. [78] recommend that the normalized chi-square (χ2df) should be equal to or less than 3. The NFI, TLI and CFI values should be around 0.9 or more, while RMSEA and SRMR should be 0.08 or less for the model fit to be adequate [79]. According to the obtained results, the initial measurement model required modifications. The research model was modified based on suggestions for a potential revision (Amos Graphics modification indices) and after considering the modifications that were suggested., all fit indicators were improved, so that acceptable fit indicators of the structural model were achieved (Table 2).
In the next step, the convergent and discriminant validity of the constructs was assessed. In [80,81], the authors recommend Cronbach’s α and the composite reliability values for the construct must be above 0.7. In [81], the authors suggest that for a measurement model to demonstrate sufficient convergent validity, the AVE for each construct in the model must be above 0.5. Fulfillment of convergent validity is indicated by standardized factor loadings greater than 0.50, internal reliability coefficient values (Cronbach’s alpha) and composite reliability (CR), as well as values of the share explained in the total variability (AVE). Results are shown in Table 3.
According to the Fornell-Larker criterion [82], the AVE’s square root was calculated to test the discriminant validity. The obtained values of √AVE were, for each construct, higher than its correlation with the other two constructs, so that the discriminant validity was confirmed (Table 4).
Based on the obtained research results (Table 5), it was determined that knowledge management has a significant direct positive effect on green innovation (β = 0.802, p < 0.01) and sustainable business (β = 0.336, p < 0.01). On the other hand, it was determined that green innovation has a significant direct positive effect on sustainable business (β = 0.650, p < 0.01).

4.3. Mediation Analysis

In order to examine the indirect effects of the dimensions of knowledge management on the dimensions of the sustainable business of mining companies, we used a two-step approach, proposed in [80], which included first the assessment of indirect effects and then the assessment of direct effects in the presence of a mediator; 24 mediation analyses were conducted.
In the first step, the indirect effects of the dimensions of knowledge management (KC, KAC, KS, KAP) on the dimensions of sustainable business (ENVS, SOCS, ECOS) through the dimensions of green innovation (GTI, GMI) were assessed. The obtained results indicated a significant indirect effect of knowledge management dimensions on sustainable business dimensions. In the second step, the direct effects of knowledge management dimensions on sustainable business dimensions were assessed, in the presence of mediators (GTI, GMI). According to the obtained results, the direct effects were also significant. Such results indicated partial mediation. More detailed results are shown in Table 6.

5. Discussion

The current study considered the connection between knowledge management, green innovation and sustainable business in mining companies in Serbia, with special reference to direct and indirect impacts at the dimensional level of the observed constructs.
The empirical results of the conducted study indicate that knowledge management is a significant determinant of both green innovation and sustainable business in mining companies. By sharing knowledge and collaborating with employees in other organizations, managers can apply the experience of their colleagues and “develop environment-friendly technology” [11]. On the other hand, green innovation is a significant determinant of sustainable business. In relation to studies by other authors, the results of the current study can most appropriately be compared with the results in [11]. The mentioned studies, using SEM, examined the role of knowledge management in activities of green innovation and corporate sustainable development and determined the significant impacts of knowledge management on green innovation and sustainable business, as well as green innovation on sustainable business in manufacturing and service companies, in Pakistan. The results of the current study are also consistent with the results of [41], which examined the operability of knowledge management processes in improving green innovation and tried to clarify the role of green innovation in achieving sustainable enterprise development in manufacturing industries.
The results of the study indicate that both dimensions of green innovation, i.e., green technological and green management innovation, partially mediate the relationship between the dimensions of knowledge management (creation, acquisition, sharing and application of knowledge) and the dimensions of sustainable business (environmental, social and economic sustainability). Based on the review of the existing available literature, to the best of our knowledge, the studies of other authors do not consider the dimensional level of the observed constructs; in this way, the obtained research results cannot be compared with the results of other authors. However, taking into account the positive and significant influences between the dimensions of the observed constructs, which are indicated by the results of a large number of studies by different authors [11,41,55,66,83,84,85], a positive and significant role of green innovation dimensions can be expected, as a mediator in the relationship between knowledge management dimensions and sustainable business dimensions. Milojević et al. [86] considered methods of data acceptance in financial analysis in enterprises in the metallurgical industry. Within the framework of green technologies, Đurđevac-Ignjatović et al. [87] considered the significant economic and environmental advantages of cement paste, especially in the mining industry.

6. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

The results of the conducted study indicate the significant direct effects of knowledge management on green innovation and sustainable business in mining companies in Serbia. In addition, the obtained results indicate a significant positive and direct impact of green innovation on sustainable business. The obtained results are in line with the results of earlier research, which also concluded a positive, direct and significant relationship between knowledge management and green innovation, as well as knowledge management and sustainable business. The results indicate significant direct and indirect effects of knowledge management dimensions on sustainable business dimensions, through green innovation dimensions. The direct effects of knowledge management dimensions on the dimensions of sustainable business are indicated by the results of earlier studies. Regarding indirect effects, some authors obtained results according to which knowledge management, through green innovation, has a significant indirect effect on sustainable business. However, based on the review of the existing literature, it can be noted that earlier research did not examine the role of green innovation, as a mediator of the relationship between knowledge management and sustainable business, on a dimensional level.
This study explored a still under-researched area and attempted to empirically examine the importance of knowledge management and its dimensions in improving green innovation and its dimensions and sustainable business and its dimensions. Since positive relationships were found, it can be concluded that the inclusion of all components of knowledge management and green innovation in the implementation of sustainable business is very important for the efficient management of limited resources.
The practical implications of the current study are reflected in highlighting the importance of knowledge management in promoting green innovation and improving business sustainability for policymakers, and the results suggest that various government sectors should encourage training programs for the professional development of managers, thereby supporting the development of a sustainable organization.
Empirically, this study examined the previously unresearched mediating role of the green innovation dimensions between the knowledge management and sustainable business dimensions, which contributes to the existing literature that covers these topics. The current study also has certain limitations. The focus of the study was only Serbia. In this sense, future research could focus on other countries, or a group of countries, and on comparing the obtained results with the results from the current study. In addition, the current study only examined the perceptions of managers, and, in this sense, future research could also consider the perceptions of non-managerial staff. The current study considered only the mining sector, which is one of the greatest polluters of the environment. Future research could apply the proposed model to other sectors as well. Moreover, the proposed model can be extended by adding new constructs and moderators, such as environmental turbulence.
Finally, the results of the current study highlight the importance of knowledge management processes and green innovation in achieving sustainable business in mining companies; therefore, the need for additional empirical research on this topic is, in fact, one of the main practical implications of this study.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su151612122/s1, Questionnaire.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.J., V.K. and S.S.; methodology, S.S.; software, S.S.; validation, S.S.; formal analysis, S.S. and V.J.; investigation, V.J., S.S. and V.K.; resources, V.J. and S.S.; data curation, S.S.; writing—original draft preparation, V.J. and S.S.; writing—review and editing, V.K. and S.S.; visualization, V.J.; supervision, V.K.; project administration, V.J. and S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no funding. Part of the funds from contract No. 451-03-47/2023-01/200052 was used for writing the paper.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Meadows, D.H.; Meadows, D.L.; Randers, J.; Behrens, W.W., III. The Limits to Growth; Universe Books: New York, NY, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  2. WCED (The World Commission on Environment and Development). Our Common Future—The Bruntland Report; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  3. Nazir, M.; Murdifin, I.; Putra, A.H.P.K.; Hamzah, N.; Murfat, M.Z. Analysis of economic development based on environment resources in the mining sector. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2020, 7, 133–143. [Google Scholar]
  4. Jahanmiri, S.; Asadizadeh, M.; Alipour, A.; Nowak, S.; Sherizadeh, T. Predicting the Contribution of Mining Sector to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Index Utilizing Heuristic Approaches. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2021, 35, 1990–2012. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ma, D.; Duan, H.; Liu, J.; Li, X.; Zhou, Z. The role of gangue on the mitigation of mining-induced hazards and environmental pollution: An experimental investigation. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 664, 636–1448. [Google Scholar]
  6. Pons, A.; Vintrò, C.; Rius, J.; Vilaplana, J. Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility in mining industries. Resour. Policy 2021, 72, 102117. [Google Scholar]
  7. Szabo, A.; Shriver, T.E.; Longo, S. Environmental threats and activism against extractive industries: The case of gold mining in Rosia Montană, Romania. J. Rural. Stud. 2022, 92, 26–34. [Google Scholar]
  8. Đurđevac Ignjatović, L.; Krstić, V.; Radonjanin, V.; Jovanović, V.; Malešev, M.; Ignjatović, D.; Đurđevac, V. Application of Cement Paste in Mining Works, Environmental Protection, and the Sustainable Development Goals in the Mining Industry. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7902. [Google Scholar]
  9. Liu, Y.; Wang, P.; Gojenko, B.; Yu, J.; Wei, L.; Luo, D.; Xiao, T. A review of water pollution arising from agriculture and mining activities in Central Asia: Facts, causes and effects. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 291, 118209. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cugueró-Escofet, N.; Ficapal-Cusí, P.; Torrent-Sellens, J. Sustainable human resource management: How to create a knowledge sharing behavior through organizational justice, organizational support, satisfaction and commitment. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5419. [Google Scholar]
  11. Abbas, J.; Sağsan, M. Impact of knowledge management practices on green innovation and corporate sustainable development: A structural analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 611–620. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kavalić, M.; Nikolić, M.; Radosav, D.; Stanisavljev, S.; Pečujlija, M. Influencing factors on knowledge management for organizational sustainability. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1497. [Google Scholar]
  13. Vildåsen, S.S.; Keitsch, M.; Fet, A.M. Clarifying the epistemology of corporate sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 138, 40–46. [Google Scholar]
  14. Shafeeq Nimr Al-Maliki, H.; Salehi, M.; Kardan, B. The effect of COVID 19 on risk-taking of small and medium-sized, family and non-family firms. J. Facil. Manag. 2023, 21, 298–309. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gałaś, A.; Kot-Niewiadomska, A.; Czerw, H.; Simić, V.; Tost, M.; Wårell, L.; Gałaś, S. Impact of COVID-19 on the mining sector and raw materials security in selected European countries. Resources 2021, 10, 39. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bocken, N.M.; Short, S.W.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 42–56. [Google Scholar]
  17. Schneider, S.; Clauß, T. Business models for sustainability: Choices and consequences. Organ. Environ. 2020, 33, 384–407. [Google Scholar]
  18. Garetti, M.; Taisch, M. Sustainable manufacturing: Trends and research challenges. Prod. Plan. Control 2012, 23, 83–104. [Google Scholar]
  19. Aragon-Correa, J.A.; Sharma, S. A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2003, 28, 71–88. [Google Scholar]
  20. Judge, W.Q.; Douglas, T.J. Performance implications of incorporating natural environmental issues into the strategic planning process: An empirical assessment. J. Manag. Stud. 1998, 35, 241–260. [Google Scholar]
  21. Schaltegger, S.; Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Hansen, E.G. Business cases for sustainability: The role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 6, 95–119. [Google Scholar]
  22. Nosratabadi, S.; Mosavi, A.; Shamshirband, S.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Rakotonirainy, A.; Chau, K.W. Sustainable business models: A review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1663. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ogrean, C.; Herciu, M. Corporate sustainability-from a fuzzy concept to a coherent reality. Stud. Bus. Econ. 2018, 13, 112–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Lozano, R. A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2015, 22, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mrvica-Mađarac, S.; Nedović, M.; Galić, M. Socially responsible business in relation to suppliers. Int. Rev. 2021, 3–4, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cheng, C.; Yang, C.; Sheu, C. The link between eco-innovation and business performance: A Taiwanese industry context. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 64, 81–90. [Google Scholar]
  27. Zhang, Q.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Jiang, H.; Wang, Y.; Yang, K.; Tian, K.; Longfeng, Y. Integrated green mining technology of “coal mining-gangue washing-backfilling-strata control-system monitoring”—Taking Tangshan Mine as a case study. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 5798–5811. [Google Scholar]
  28. Blinova, E.; Ponomarenko, T.; Knysh, V. Analyzing the Concept of Corporate Sustainability in the Context of Sustainable Business Development in the Mining Sector with Elements of Circular Economy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wilasittha, A.A.; Putri, S.Y.; Azmiyanti, R. Implementation of sustainable development goals in mining companies listed on the Indonesia stock exchange in 2018–2020. In 4th Economics, Business, and Government Challenges 2021; NST Proceedings: Jawa Timur, Indonesia, 2022; pp. 35–42. [Google Scholar]
  30. Zimon, G.; Arianpoor, A.; Salehi, M. Sustainability reporting and corporate reputation: The moderating effect of CEO opportunistic behavior. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1257. [Google Scholar]
  31. Thatrak, D. The Effect of Strategic Innovation on Company Performance: A Case Study of the Industrial Estate of Thailand. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 37–45. [Google Scholar]
  32. Galindo, M.A.; Méndez, M.T. Innovation, entrepreneurship and economic growth. Manag. Decis. 2013, 51, 501–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bartlett, D.; Trifilova, A. Green technology and eco-innovation: Seven case-studies from a Russian manufacturing context. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2010, 21, 910–929. [Google Scholar]
  34. Reid, A.; Miedzinski, M. Eco-Innovation Final Report for Sectoral Innovation Watch; Technopolis Group: Brussels, Belgium, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  35. Miao, C.; Fang, D.; Sun, L.; Luo, Q. Natural resources utilization efficiency under the influence of green technological innovation. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 126, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lončar, D.; Paunković, J.; Jovanović, V.; Krstić, V. Environmental and social responsibility of companies cross EU countries—Panel data analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 657, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. OECD. Sustainable Manufacturing and Eco-Innovation: Framework, Practices and Measurement; Synthesis Report; OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry: Paris, France, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  38. Ilvitskaya, S.; Prihodko, V. Innovative technologies in the field of topography, land management, territorial planning, construction and architecture. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Proceedings of the XXI International Scientific Conference on Advanced in Civil Engineering “Construction—The Formation of Living Environment” (FORM 2018), Moscow, Russia, 25–27 April 2018; IOP Publishing Ltd.: Bristol, UK, 2018; Volume 365, p. 365022030. [Google Scholar]
  39. Chen, Y.S. The driver of green innovation and green image–green core competence. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 81, 531–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jahanger, A.; Usman, M.; Murshed, M.; Mahmood, H.; Balsalobre-Lorente, D. The linkages between natural resources, human capital, globalization, economic growth, financial development, and ecological footprint: The moderating role of technological innovations. Resour. Policy 2022, 76, 102569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shahzad, M.; Qu, Y.; Zafar, A.U.; Rehman, S.U.; Islam, T. Exploring the influence of the knowledge management process on corporate sustainable performance through green innovation. J. Knowl. Manag. 2020, 24, 2079–2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shahzad, M.; Qu, Y.; Zafar, A.U.; Appolloni, A. Does the interaction between the knowledge management process and sustainable development practices boost corporate green innovation? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 4206–4222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mabe, K.; Bwalya, K.J. Critical soft skills for information and knowledge management practitioners in the fourth industrial revolution. S. Afr. J. Inf. Manag. 2022, 24, a1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lyapina, S.Y.; Degtyareva, V.V.; Tarasova, V.N. Intelligent technologies for knowledge management at a modern company. In Digital Economy and the New Labor Market: Jobs, Competences and Innovative HR Technologies; IPM 2020; Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems; Ashmarina, S.I., Mantulenko, V.V., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 161, pp. 459–469. [Google Scholar]
  45. Nonaka, I.; Nishiguchi, T. Knowledge Emergence: Social, Technical, and Evolutionary Dimensions of Knowledge Creation; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  46. Darroch, J. Developing a measure of knowledge management behaviors and practices. J. Knowl. Manag. 2003, 7, 41–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Alegre, J.; Sengupta, K.; Lapiedra, R. Knowledge management and innovation performance in a high-tech SMEs industry. Int. Small Bus. J. 2013, 31, 454–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Walczak, S. Organizational knowledge management structure. Learn. Organ. 2005, 12, 330–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Borghini, S. Organizational creativity: Breaking equilibrium and order to innovate. J. Knowl. Manag. 2005, 9, 19–33. [Google Scholar]
  50. Salehi, M.; Sadeq-Alanbari, S.A. Knowledge sharing barriers and knowledge sharing facilitators in innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2023; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Breznik, K. Knowledge Management—from its Inception to the Innovation Linkage. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2018, 238, 141–148. [Google Scholar]
  52. Liao, S.H.; Wu, C.C. The relationship among knowledge management, organizational learning, and organizational performance. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2009, 4, 64–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Mikalauskienė, A.; Atkočiūnienė, Z.O. Knowledge management impact on sustainable development. Montenegrin J. Econ. 2019, 15, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Robinson, H.S.; Anumba, C.J.; Carrillo, P.M.; Alghassani, A.M. Steps: A knowledge management maturity roadmap for corporate sustainability. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2006, 12, 793–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Lim, M.K.; Tseng, M.L.; Tan, K.H.; Bui, T.D. Knowledge management in sustainable supply chain management: Improving performance through an interpretive structural modelling approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 806–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wu, K.J.; Gao, S.; Xia, L.; Tseng, M.L.; Chiu, A.S.; Zhang, Z. Enhancing corporate knowledge management and sustainable development: An inter-dependent hierarchical structure under linguistic preferences. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 146, 560–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Shahzad, M.; Ying, Q.; Ur Rehman, S.; Zafar, A.; Ding, X.; Abbas, J. Impact of knowledge absorptive capacity on corporate sustainability with mediating role of CSR: Analysis from the Asian context. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 63, 148–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Al Mansoori, S.; Salloum, S.A.; Shaalan, K. The impact of artificial intelligence and information technologies on the efficiency of knowledge management at modern organizations: A systematic review. In Recent Advances in Intelligent Systems and Smart Applications. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, 1st ed.; Al-Emran, M., Shaalan, K., Hassanien, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 295, pp. 163–182. [Google Scholar]
  59. Areed, S.; Salloum, S.A.; Shaalan, K. The role of knowledge management processes for enhancing and supporting innovative organizations: A systematic review. In Recent Advances in Intelligent Systems and Smart Applications. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, 1st ed.; Al-Emran, M., Shaalan, K., Hassanien, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 295, pp. 143–161. [Google Scholar]
  60. Liao, Y.; Qiu, X.; Wu, A.; Sun, Q.; Shen, H.; Li, P. Assessing the Impact of Green Innovation on Corporate Sustainable Development. Front. Energy Res. 2022, 9, 800848. [Google Scholar]
  61. Wang, H.; Khan, M.A.S.; Anwar, F.; Shahzad, F.; Adu, D.; Murad, M. Green Innovation Practices and Its Impacts on Environmental and Organizational Performance. Front. Psychol. 2021, 11, 553625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wang, S.; Abbas, J.; Sial, M.S.; Álvarez-Otero, S.; Cioca, L.-I. Achieving green innovation and sustainable development goals through green knowledge management: Moderating role of organizational green culture. J. Innov. Knowl. 2022, 7, 100272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Korbab, M.; Raudeliūnienė, J.; Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė, I. Mediating Role of Knowledge Management in the Relationship between Organizational Learning and Sustainable Organizational Performance. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10061. [Google Scholar]
  64. Kun, M. Linkages Between Knowledge Management Process and Corporate Sustainable Performance of Chinese Small and Medium Enterprises: Mediating Role of Frugal Innovation. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 850820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Wang, C.L.; Ahmed, P.K.; Rafiq, M. Knowledge management orientation: Construct development and empirical validation. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 2008, 17, 219–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. El-Kassar, A.-N.; Singh, S.J. Green innovation and organizational performance: The influence of big data and the moderating role of management commitment and HR practices. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 144, 483–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ma, Y.; Hou, G.; Yin, Q.; Xin, B.; Pan, Y. The sources of green management innovation: Does internal efficiency demand pull or external knowledge supply push? J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 202, 582–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bansal, P. Evolving Sustainably: A Longitudinal Study of Corporate Sustainable Development. Strateg. Manag. J. 2005, 26, 197–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Laosirihongthong, T.; Adebanjo, D.; Tan, K.C. Green supply chain management practices and performance. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2013, 113, 1088–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Perlin, A.P.; Gomes, C.M.; Kneipp, J.M.; Motke, F.D. Practices of energy use management and sustainable performance in Brazilian mineral industries. Environ. Qual. Manag. 2018, 27, 143–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. 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]
  72. Lepojević, V.; Janković-Milić, V. Application of Path Analysis Method and Structural Equation Modeling in Market Research. Econ. Themes 2008, XLVI, 79–93. [Google Scholar]
  73. Graham, J.M. The General Linear Model as Structural Equation Modeling. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 2008, 33, 485–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lee, V.H.; Ooi, K.B.; Tan, B.I.; Chong, A.Y.L. A structural analysis of the relationship between TQM practices and product innovation. Asian J. Technol. Innov. 2010, 18, 73–96. [Google Scholar]
  76. Hoelter, J.W. The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociol. Methods Res. 1983, 11, 325–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, N.P. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012, 63, 539–569. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Walts, C.F.; Strickland, O.L.; Lenz, E.R. Measurement in Nursing and Health Research, 4th ed.; Springer Publishing Company: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  79. Pituch, K.A.; Stevens, J.P. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Science, 6th ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  80. Hair, J.F.J.; Hult, G.T.M.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: New York, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  81. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New Challenges to International Marketing (Advances in International Marketing); Sinkovics, R.R., Ghauri, P.N., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009; Volume 20, pp. 277–319. [Google Scholar]
  82. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar]
  83. Baeshen, Y.; Soomro, Y.A.; Bhutto, M.Y. Determinants of Green Innovation to Achieve Sustainable Business Performance: Evidence From SMEs. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 767968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Davenport, M.; Delport, M.; Blignaut, J.N.; Hichert, T.; Van Der Burgh, G. Combining theory and wisdom in pragmatic, scenario-based decision support for sustainable development. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 62, 692–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mardani, A.; Nikoosokhan, S.; Moradi, M.; Doustar, M. The relationship between knowledge management and innovation performance. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2018, 29, 12–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Milojević, I.; Miljković, M.; Radosavljević, M. Application of group method of data handling in financial analysis of metallurgical industry enterprises. Copper 2022, 47, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Đurđevac Ignjatović, L.; Lukić, I.; Zlatanović, D.; Ignjatović, D.; Đurđevac, V. Stope stability analysis in room-and-pillar mining method using cemented paste backfill. Min. Metall. Eng. Bor 2022, 2, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 12122 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 15 12122 g001
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents.
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents.
FrequencyPercentage
GenderMale44070.3
Female18629.7
Age≥307915.8
31–4012625.2
41–5014629.2
≤5112725.4
EducationHigh school24238.7
University—bachlor’s and master’s37760.2
Post-university (PhD)71.1
Years of work experience≥515124.1
6–1012720.3
11–1512019.2
≤1522836.4
Hierarchical level of workSenior management182.9
Middle management13221.1
Lower management26041.5
Officer/coordinator21634.5
Table 2. Model fit indicators.
Table 2. Model fit indicators.
Fit Indicatorsχ2/dfNFITLICFIRMSEASRMR
Adequate fit≤3≥0.90≥0.90≥0.90≤0.08≤0.08
Measurement model
χ2 = 112.304, df = 24, p < 0.001		4.6790.9600.9520.9680.0770.032
Structural model
χ2 = 54.951, df = 22, p < 0.001		2.4980.9800.9800.9880.0490.023
Table 3. Factor loadings, reliability coefficients and convergent validity.
Table 3. Factor loadings, reliability coefficients and convergent validity.
ConstructFactor LoadingCronbach’s AlphaCRAVE
KM 0.8360.8280.552
KC0.647
KAC0.604
KS0.799
KAP0.886
GI 0.7130.8490.583
GTI0.660
GMI0.841
SB 0.7830.7240.571
ENVS0.708
SOCS0.697
ECOS0.728
Table 4. Discriminant validity.
Table 4. Discriminant validity.
ConstructKMGISB
KM0.743 *
GI0.6040.764 *
SB0.6550.7210.756 *
Note: *—square root of AVE.
Table 5. Results of testing hypotheses H1, H2 and H3.
Table 5. Results of testing hypotheses H1, H2 and H3.
HypothesisPathβtDecision
H1KM → GI0.802 ***18.477Supported
H2KM → SB0.336 ***4.014Supported
H3GI → SB0.650 ***6.767Supported
Note: ***—p < 0.01.
Table 6. Indirect and direct effects of knowledge management dimensions on sustainable business dimensions (GTI and GMI as mediators).
Table 6. Indirect and direct effects of knowledge management dimensions on sustainable business dimensions (GTI and GMI as mediators).
HypothesisPathIndirect EffectDirect EffectDecision
H4KC → GTI → ENVS0.140 ***0.290 ***Supported partial mediation
KC → GTI → SOCS0.108 ***0.309 ***Supported partial mediation
KC → GTI → ECOS0.135 ***0.254 ***Supported partial mediation
KAC → GTI → ENVS0.161 ***0.232 ***Supported partial mediation
KAC → GTI → SOCS0.127 ***0.240 ***Supported partial mediation
KAC → GTI → ECOS0.145 ***0.257 ***Supported partial mediation
KS → GTI → ENVS0.141 ***0.363 ***Supported partial mediation
KS → GTI → SOCS0.099 ***0.402 ***Supported partial mediation
KS → GTI → ECOS0.130 ***0.357 ***Supported partial mediation
KAP → GTI → ENVS0.128 ***0.434 ***Supported partial mediation
KAP → GTI → SOCS0.087 ***0.463 ***Supported partial mediation
KAP → GTI → ECOS0.106 ***0.483 ***Supported partial mediation
KC → GMI → ENVS0.198 ***0.233 ***Supported partial mediation
KC → GMI → SOCS0.208 ***0.209 ***Supported partial mediation
KC → GMI → ECOS0.228 ***0.161 ***Supported partial mediation
KAC → GMI → ENVS0.192 ***0.201 ***Supported partial mediation
KAC → GMI → SOCS0.204 ***0.163 ***Supported partial mediation
KAC → GMI → ECOS0.209 ***0.194 ***Supported partial mediation
KS → GMI → ENVS0.212 ***0.292 ***Supported partial mediation
KS → GMI → SOCS0.224 ***0.201 ***Supported partial mediation
KS → GMI → ECOS0.248 ***0.240 ***Supported partial mediation
KAP → GMI → ENVS0.206 ***0.356 ***Supported partial mediation
KAP → GMI → SOCS0.226 ***0.323 ***Supported partial mediation
KAP → GMI → ECOS0.228 ***0.361 ***Supported partial mediation
Note: ***—p < 0.01.
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

Jovanović, V.; Stanković, S.; Krstić, V. Environmental, Social and Economic Sustainability in Mining Companies as a Result of the Interaction between Knowledge Management and Green Innovation—The SEM Approach. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12122. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612122

AMA Style

Jovanović V, Stanković S, Krstić V. Environmental, Social and Economic Sustainability in Mining Companies as a Result of the Interaction between Knowledge Management and Green Innovation—The SEM Approach. Sustainability. 2023; 15(16):12122. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612122

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jovanović, Violeta, Sunčica Stanković, and Vesna Krstić. 2023. "Environmental, Social and Economic Sustainability in Mining Companies as a Result of the Interaction between Knowledge Management and Green Innovation—The SEM Approach" Sustainability 15, no. 16: 12122. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151612122

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