Next Article in Journal
Spatial Analysis of COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts on Mobility in Madrid Region
Next Article in Special Issue
Expediting Time to Market: Evaluating the Effects of Change Control Board Performance in Emerging Markets
Previous Article in Journal
Enhancing Environmental Sustainability: Stakeholder Pressure and Corporate CO2-Related Performance—An Examination of the Mediating and Moderating Effects of Corporate Decarbonization Strategies
 
 
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 19
10.3390/su151914258
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

Institutional Pressures on Sustainability and Green Performance: The Mediating Role of Digital Business Model Innovation

by
Yi Liang
1,
Chenyu Zhao
2 and
Min-Jae Lee
3,*
1
School of Foreign Languages, Neijiang Normal University, Neijiang 641100, China
2
Neijiang Economic Cooperation and Development Bureau, Neijiang 641100, China
3
Department of Global Business, Mokwon University, Daejeon 35349, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(19), 14258; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914258
Submission received: 28 August 2023 / Revised: 23 September 2023 / Accepted: 26 September 2023 / Published: 27 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Digital Innovation and Technology Transfer in Emerging Markets and/or from Emerging Markets)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The purpose of this study is to examine the mediating role of digital business model innovation (DBMI) in the relationship between institutional pressures (i.e., regulation and normative pressures) on sustainability and green performance. To verify our hypotheses, we performed the structural equation model as an analytical technique using 396 datasets from firms listed on the China Stock Exchange. The structural results showed that institutional pressures had a positive effect on DBMI, and that DBMI had a significant effect on green performance. The analysis also supports the full mediation role of DBMI between institutional pressures and green performance. We believe that our findings contribute to ongoing knowledge by enriching institutional perspectives on sustainable management and providing managers with practical implications on how to drive DBMI.

1. Introduction

As stakeholder awareness and regulatory pressures for firms to integrate environmental issues into their commercial operations grow [1], a growing number of firms are looking for ways to enhance sustainability through business model innovation (BMI) [2,3]. Porter and Van der Linde [4] argued that “properly designed regulation can trigger innovation that may partially or more than fully offset the costs of complying with it.” To put it another way, firms need to explore innovation in the sustainability of their business models to find solutions to institutional regulations and stakeholder requirements. To develop sustainable remedies that drive green innovation value, firms have begun to pay attention to BMI, especially digitalization [5]. Despite the growing interest of academics and practitioners in digital transformation to achieve sustainability, there is a relative lack of literature on how these schemes transition to BMI-based firms’ green performance [6]. Put differently, a comprehensive study of the extent to which BMI based on digital transformation drives firms’ green performance is still in its infancy. Moreover, according to Zhang et al. [7] and Wang [8], research related to green performance is still lacking compared to its importance, and it is difficult to identify prior studies that closely examine the relationship between digital business model innovation (DBMI) and green performance.
This study examines mechanisms for achieving green performance through DBMI based on institutional pressures. Digitalization is the process of using digitalized information to make traditional practices simpler and more efficient [9]. By basing the definition on this, digital transformation is the process of reconstructing existing business processes, cultures, and customer experiences with digital technologies to meet changing business environments and market needs [10]. Due to the influence of digitalization, firms are generating more profits with less labor than in the past as marginal costs approach zero. Some firms are experiencing tremendous growth with a small capital by leveraging information goods that cost little to store, transport, and replicate. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic rapidly transferred the flow of goods, consumers, information, and payments, which are the foundation of business activities, from the physical environment to cyberspace. In the process, digital technologies (e.g., AI, IoT, and cloud) linked offline-oriented businesses to the web [11], accelerating innovation [12] and creating new business models (e.g., online-to-offline business, direct-to-consumer business) as a cornerstone [13,14]. The resulting DBMI has dramatically affected the operations sector of a firm’s green management. As online consumption grows and the quantity of packing trash produced accelerates significantly, stakeholders have increased interest and pressure to achieve sustainability through resource recycling [15,16]. Accordingly, some firms seek solutions based on their connection to digital transformation. For example, SAP has developed digital solutions that help track and measure carbon footprints, transparently manage supply chains through blockchain technology, and support sustainability in retail and transportation firms.
In particular, since China joined the WTO, China’s economy has achieved rapid growth due to the opening of industries and the increase in consumption due to increased national income [17]. However, the consumption-oriented economic shift has rapidly exacerbated China’s environmental and social issues [18]. As these problems intensified, related regulations and institutions for suppression were strengthened, consumer trends changed, and the pressure of stakeholders that was facing firms increased [19,20]. This situation is expected to play a leading role in China’s economic development as more firms innovate business models based on digital transformation to respond to these issues and pursue sustainability. Tang et al. [21] reviewed what green practices Chinese firms have implemented to meet the needs of various stakeholders and confirmed that such practices have a positive impact on their financial performance. Gong and Ribiere [22] explained that Chinese manufacturers innovate their business models by improving value-chain operations through digital transformation to strengthen environmental protection measures. As such, digitalization factors play a key strategic role in transforming a firm’s business model to achieve sustainability. However, the results of digital transformation on firm performance are often contradictory; while some studies emphasize that digitalization catalyzes green performance, others have shown it to be an impediment. Nonetheless, studies examining the institutional pressures–DBMI–green performance relationship are scant, and less empirical research has been conducted so far on the mediating role of DBMI from an institutional perspective.
By filling these gaps, we will try to contribute to both facets of our understanding. First, to find solutions for achieving green performance under institutional pressures on sustainability, we applied institutional theory. The flow of research investigating the determinants of green innovation [23,24] identifies institutional pressures (e.g., government regulation and stakeholder normative) as the main drivers of green performance [4,25]. However, some studies [26,27], find that regulatory pressures have no significant effect on environmental value creation. Furthermore, Rehfeld et al. [28] have discovered empirical evidence suggesting that customer demand does not significantly influence a firm’s green performance, as eco-friendly items tend to be costlier. The presence of conflicting results implies that the mechanism by which institutional pressures drive green performance is still largely unclear. Therefore, this study builds a conceptual model based on an institutional perspective to explore the effect of institutional pressure on green performance based on DBMI.
Second, our research explores DBMI and green performance to increase sustainability from a digital transformation perspective. Digital transformation can provide firms with the ability to respond quickly and effectively to unpredictable changes in the business environment [29,30]. Some studies emphasize that digital transformation can lead to green performance and that DBMI is critical to ensuring sustainability, as it means changing the way business is conducted as well as the needs of customers and stakeholders [29,31]. Meanwhile, the core idea of the institutional perspective is that the actors in an organization pursue actions to secure their own interests within institutional constraints. Although institutional theory has been generally adopted in various strategic management studies, institutional applications related to understanding the mediating role of DBMI are insufficient. Under institutional pressure, looking at disruptive changes within firms, such as DBMI, can be a pivotal factor in finding remedies that drive the firm’s green performance.

2. Theoretical Frameworks

2.1. Institutional Pressures on Sustainability

According to institutional theory, firms can ensure the legitimacy of their business activities by complying with the prevailing practices of their business environment [32]. North [33] explains that institutions are the so-called rules of the game that make up political, economic, and social interactions. Institutional pressures can function as a mold for firms to move forward and form strategies [34]. This is an essential concept in conveying the influence of institutions on the strategic behavior and outcomes of firms [35]. Therefore, institutional pressures can provide an understanding of how institutions relate the relationship between strategic behavior and specific performance [36].
In a dynamic market where interest and anxiety about sustainability are increasing, how firms can innovate their business models to respond to the changing environment is becoming an essential concern [37]. Sustainability in firms arises not only from internal dynamics but also from external pressures that are becoming increasingly important to business management [38]. Institutional theory can be a good theoretical lens that explains that institutional pressures are an important dimension in explaining the adoption of sustainable practices [39] and are also related to the adoption of digital transformation [40]. In this vein, the institutional environment can provide an understanding of a firm’s BMI drive through pressures that affect its strategic behavior and decision-making [41,42]; these are divided into regulatory, normative, and imitation pressures according to institutional characteristics [43]. Regulatory pressure typically arises from stakeholders in firms, such as governments, non-governmental organizations, suppliers, and customers [44]. Normative pressure stems from collective expectations, values, and standards within a particular organizational environment [32]. Mimetic pressure refers to pressure that motivates an organization to imitate the actions and practices of people it considers similar [45]. In general, institutional pressures include three types of pressures, but in terms of sustainability management, a number of studies stress that regulatory and normative pressures can have a huge impact on firms [46,47].
As described above, in a business environment where the pressure on sustainability is growing, institutional perspectives can have crucial implications for understanding the strategic changes in firms due to digital transformation and achieving green performance.

2.2. Digital Business Model Innovation

Regulatory push and demand pull have been recognized as significant external factors driving the implementation of BMI in multiple studies [48,49]. The commonly accepted interpretation is that institutional pressures enable firms to explore legitimacy for how they do business and encourage them to innovate business models that sense, seize, and reconfigure new values [50,51]. This is because domestic and international regulations and stakeholder demands to preserve the natural environment have forced firms to consider the impact of operations on the natural environment and follow green production processes [52]. Therefore, the pressures and demands of future sustainability can be a starting point for BMI [53]. Spieth et al. [54] argued that the BMI concept is a blueprint that can provide legitimacy for firm activities well-beyond simple storytelling about how a firm conducts business activities. Amit and Zott [55] suggested that firms create innovation value by redesigning their business models to adapt to changing business environments. In this vein, BMIs represent innovations that ‘value creation’, ‘proposition’, and ‘capture’, thereby attracting a customer base and increasing profitability [50,56].
Meanwhile, the recent proliferation of digitalization helps firms to effectively innovate their business models by providing new products and revenue paths and by gaining a competitive advantage [57]. According to Foss and Saebi [58], BMI reflects designed, novel, and non-trivial changes to crucial elements of a firm’s business model and/or the architecture linking these elements. Digital technologies represent a valuable means of creating and capturing new value [30,59], thus enabling DBMI, which results in the update and formulation of new business models [60]. In particular, digital technologies have two main effects on traditional BMs’ value creation and capture mechanisms, thus enabling DBMI [61]. Previous studies explain that DBMI enables firms to leverage more direct channels to enhance value communication [62], better understand customer needs [63], co-create new values [64], and monetize network effects [65]. Amid growing institutional pressures on sustainability in recent years, firms are driving for DBMIs to find solutions for their survival.

2.3. Green Performance

Green performance is the positive impact of green initiatives on the natural environment both inside and outside the firm, providing core information about environmental impacts, regulatory compliance, and organizational systems that demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the firm’s activity [66]. As sustainability concerns emerge as a pivotal issue for corporate management activities, some studies emphasize the need to drive business model innovation that can improve green performance directly or indirectly [67]. In particular, a growing number of firms are promoting and integrating work related to a variety of environmentally friendly processes based on digitization [68], while enhancing green performance based on DBMI.

3. Hypothesis Development

3.1. Institutional Pressures on Sustainability and Digital Business Model Innovation

Regulatory pressure on sustainability can encourage firms to push for a digital transformation of their business models when thinking about which direction they want to take in their move toward eco-friendliness. This is because digital transformation is expected to play a pivotal role in improving sustainability in firms’ business activities [30]. The trend that focuses on increasing sustainability through digital transformation is assembling an action plan. Its enforcement mechanisms include not only government regulations but also practical guidelines and conventions, which can trigger a firm’s DBMI execution. For example, the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU) supervise DBMI in order to promote the SDGs. The UN and the EU supervise digitization to facilitate the SDGs. These organizations establish rules and set requirements that firms must comply with in order to achieve SD [69], and they require DBMI. Specifically, in 2019, the UN published “The Digital Revolution and Sustainable Development: Opportunities and Challenges,” which explored ways to accelerate firms’ DBMI [70]. In this vein, top management may be forced to adopt DBMI by evaluating the consequences of non-compliance with regulations, such as possible legal actions, fines, and losses [71]. The fact that it can help organizations build healthy reputations and relationships with government agencies will also be fully considered [46].
In a competitive market environment, business activities by firms that do not conform to stakeholder-formed norms can lead to a loss of market share and a poor performance. Normative pressure stems from the appropriate standards of behavior set for relevant members of the business ecosystem to conduct the firm’s operations [67]. Firms strive to be recognized by various stakeholders because being recognized for complying with norms is beneficial to their business activities [72,73]. In this context, it is plausible that senior executives may be compelled to implement DBMI through a comprehensive assessment of the ramifications associated with non-adherence to regulatory requirements. These potential implications may encompass legal proceedings, financial penalties, and detrimental financial outcomes. For example, stakeholders such as governments, rating agencies, and investment organizations require data disclosure based on global ESG standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) [74]. Under mounting pressures, firms are required to systematically manage ESG data and establish digital-based BMIs to ensure their survival. Therefore, the ability to structure, integrate, and reconstruct data from a digitalization perspective across business activities and systems is required [30]. Many firms are focusing on driving DBMI to effectively respond to sustainability issues and institutional pressures.
As discussed above, it is more important than ever for firms to pursue DBMI to respond to institutional pressures. In line with this trend, many firms are seeking to lead DBMI by introducing artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, the Internet of Things (IoT), big data, and other digital technologies [75]. Therefore, this study predicts that these institutional pressures may affect the drive for DBMI.
Hypothesis 1.
The regulatory pressure on sustainability will affect the drive for DBMI.
Hypothesis 2.
The normative pressure on sustainability will affect the drive for DBMI.

3.2. Digital Business Model Innovation and Green Performance

As the future unfolds, the problem of environmental degradation looms large and poses a significant risk to human survival. Consequently, a growing number of firms are actively striving to attain green performance [76]. Green performance refers to the creation of value that can lead an organization to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage in an eco-friendly way [77]. The green performance of a firm shows how much it is striving for eco-friendly activities and measures to protect the natural environment. Some of the existing literature on green performance explores the environmental value of digital transformation [78]. At present, there is much research on digital transformation and its relationship with environmental issues such as energy conservation, emission reduction, and pollution control.
At the core of DBMI is the restructuring of the management mode, which can lead to disruptive innovation by introducing digital technologies into existing business models and by facilitating value creation and the reorganization of the business paradigm [61]. In this same vein, several studies state that DBMI has the potential to lead to improvements in green performance. Digitalization-based BMI can gradually realize the immediate interaction of internal and external innovators, encourage the full integration of innovation resources, and facilitate the gradual, in-depth integration of digital technologies and green innovations [29,31]. Moreover, some studies have confirmed that digital transformation of business models is considered a crucial solution for organizations seeking green process innovation; digital transformation can improve firms’ environmental performance by improving capacity utilization [79], operating efficiency [80], and supply chain optimization [81]. In light of these discussions, when a firm’s DBMI is achieved, it will have a positive ripple effect on the green performance of a firm powered by digital transformation. Therefore, we propose:
Hypothesis 3.
DBMI will affect green performance.

3.3. Digital Business Model Innovation and Its Mediating Effect

These hypotheses suggest that regulatory and normative pressures possess a beneficial influence on DBMI, which is expected to exert a positive impact on green performance. In particular, according to previous literature [82,83], BMI enables firms to develop value from external demands and achieve superior performance. We thereby argue that DBMI mediates the relationship between institutional pressures and green performance for the following reasons. First, institutional pressure can promote DBMI. Institutional pressures allow firms to identify opportunities they can leverage to increase legitimacy. DBMI emphasizes recreating business models to gain legitimacy so that they can be aligned with sustainable development and facilitated by external institutional pressures. Second, DBMI contributes to green performance in that it helps businesses leverage digitalization opportunities to cope with environmental changes and improve business efficiency. As shown in previous studies [29,31], the positive association between DBMI and green performance has been well demonstrated. Third, DBMI can serve as a channel between external pressure and internal performance. As the results of previous empirical studies show, the relationship between institutional pressure and green performance is a cross between significant [4,25] and insignificant [26,27]. This indicates that the role of DBMI in increasing green performance is important. In the context of environmental management, some studies [48,84] argue that green performance depends on the coordination between external drivers and internal competencies. The disparity in green performance among different firms can be attributed to their distinct reactions to equivalent levels of external demand. When a firm effectively responds to both regulatory and normative pressures, the execution of DBMI is more effective, as evidenced by the positive performance outcomes observed in firms. Thus, the subsequent hypotheses are additionally established (Figure 1).
Hypothesis 4a.
DBMI mediates the relationship between regulatory pressure and green performance.
Hypothesis 4b.
DBMI mediates the relationship between normative pressure and green performance.

4. Research Methods and Results

4.1. Sample and Data Collection

To verify the hypotheses of this study, we conducted an empirical analysis of the dataset of Chinese listed firms. Since the reform and opening, China has grown into the second-largest economy in the world based on government-centered industrial development policies and aggressive investment programs. However, behind the rapid development, there is also a view that firms have worsened environmental pollution. Against this background, the Chinese government has become very committed to environmental protection and has established strict environmental regulations and policies [7,85]. For example, China’s 2015 Environmental Protection Law is the strictest legislation in the environmental sector so far; environmental protection is also listed as one of the six national priority tasks in the government’s 13th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development (2016–2020); in 2018, the Chinese State Council (CSC) set concrete targets for air, forest, marine, and land protection and promulgated them to firms [86]. Moreover, Chinese media and NGOs are often seen putting pressure on environmental improvement by announcing blacklists and announcing firms that emit environmental pollutants. Considering this environment, China is one of the largest emerging economies and is selected as a research context in many studies [7,87] because it provides unique characteristics that provide theoretical and practical implications for the relationship between sustainability pressures and a firm’s development.
In general, listed firms are under constant pressure from stakeholders to monitor their management activities and respond quickly to changes in government agencies. The Shenzhen Stock Exchange and the Shanghai Stock Exchange issued notices and guidelines on the disclosure of environmental information for listed companies in 2006 and 2008, respectively, making the firms’ environmental practices transparent to stakeholders [86]. Thus, we based our collection of listed firms on the China Exchange. As of the end of 2022, there were a total of 5067 firms listed on the China Stock Exchange, and we asked a market research agency in China to survey them to gather data as quickly and accurately as possible. First, the market research agency provided a list of firms so that the author could randomly select some of them as potential samples. And then, the market research agency randomly selected 1000 potential samples of listed firms, contacted them by e-mail, and contacted them by phone to encourage the survey. We asked the market research agency to only contact informants within the senior managerial staff, including chief executive officers (CEOs), vice presidents, and general managers. A single survey was conducted for each firm during our data collection process. The survey was carried out over a period of three months, from March to June 2023, and a total of 396 significant responses were received (the response rate was 39.6%).

4.2. Variables and Measurement

In this study, all items are derived from the existing literature and measured on a Likert seven-point scale (one = strongly disagree and seven = strongly agree).
The institutional pressures of digitalization on sustainability were measured in each of the three questions about regulatory and normative institutional pressures. Regulatory pressure was measured based on previous studies [1,88], and perceived pre-pressure caused by strict legal restrictions or regulations by Chinese government agencies to increase sustainability was evaluated. To measure normative pressure, we adopted measurements from [89,90] to assess the normative pressures of stakeholders on sustainability felt by respondents.
DBMI consisted of three dimensions, such as digital value creation innovation, digital proposition innovation, and digital capture innovation, and was measured through two questions, each based on the items adopted by Clauss [56]. The first question posed by digital value creation innovation is whether or not a firm is implementing business improvement initiatives to build digital capabilities and digital processes. Second, digital proposition innovation inquired as to whether or not a firm is engaging in business development activities to develop digital channels and digital offerings. Thirdly, digital capture innovation inquired as to whether or not a firm participates in business development activities such as creating digital revenge models and value–cost structures.
Green performance was measured based on three questions, based on [91], and asked how firms have helped reduce carbon emissions, save resources (or energy), and address environmental challenges such as climate change over the past five years.

4.3. Bias Tests

Since the survey elicited responses from a single representative of each firm, a common method bias may have posed a problem for our study [92]. Our study tried to solve these problems through three validations. First, Harman’s single factor test was performed using exploratory and unrotated factor analysis. This result shows that a single factor does not account for the majority of the variance and that the first factor accounts for 37.4% of the total variance, which is less than 50% [93]. Second, the minimum and maximum values of the variance inflation factor (VIF) for the data used were 1.000 and 2.547, respectively, with both values below the 3.3 threshold [94]. Third, as a result of analyzing the correlation between marker variables (M1), which are composed of an entrepreneur orientation, and existing structures, it was found that it was not statistically significant, confirming that there is no theoretical connection between M1 and existing structures [95]. These findings suggest that common method bias does not present a serious concern in our study.

4.4. Reliability and Validity of the Model

This study conducted the validity and hypothesis testing using the PLS-SEM. Table 1 shows the results of the validity analysis. First, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for all constituent concepts was 0.70 or higher (0.903 < all alpha coefficients < 0.962). Second, the factor weights and factor loadings of all variables were significant, and the AVE values for all configurations were greater than 0.50 (0.840 < all AVE values < 0.953), which provides a strong evidence of convergence validity. When the AVE of each configuration exceeds the square of the standardized correlation between the two configurations, we determine that discriminant validity is achieved, and this study shows that all AVE estimates were larger than the square of the correlation coefficients between all configurations.

4.5. Hypotheses Testing

Table 2 presents the path analysis results, R2, effect size (f2), and Stone-Geisser’s predictive relevance (Q2). First, the path from regulatory pressure (b = 0.331, p < 0.000) and normative pressure (b = 0.582, p < 0.000) to DBMI was statistically significant and positively correlated, supporting H1 and H2. Both institutional pressures on DBMI were found to have a small (RP: 0.114) and medium (NP: 0.353) effect in f2, and the explanatory power for DCs was found to be 0.787. Second, the coefficient of the path between DBMI and green performance (b = 0.923), was significant at the level of 0.000, indicating that H3 was supported. The f2 of DBMI for green innovation (5.770) was large, and the explanatory power was found to be 0.852. Note that there is a small effect (0.02 < f2 ≤ 0.15), a medium effect (0.15 < f2 < 0.35), and a large effect (f2 ≥ 0.35) [96].
Moreover, we further validated the mediating role of DBMI in the direct influence of institutional pressures on green performance. We performed 5000 replicates using bootstrapping [97]. The mediating effects of the regulatory pressure → DBMI → green performance path was 0.305. The mediating effects of the normative pressure → DBMI → green performance path was 0.537. As a result of the confidence interval verification, it was found that the bias–correct confidence interval did not contain zero, and the indirect effect was found to be significant at the 5% level. As a result of verifying the partial and complete mediation through Baron and Kenny [98]’s three-step test, there was a significant partial mediation effect (p < 0.05).

5. Discussion and Implications

5.1. Discussion

Some core findings found in this study are discussed below. The first two hypotheses predicted a direct relationship between each institutional pressure on sustainability, such as regulatory and normative pressure, and the DBMI, which was consistent with the discussion of previous studies [30,75] that supported these hypotheses. This suggests that government regulations and market normative pressures, which have sparked a growing interest in sustainability in recent years, can have a positive impact on firms, driving DBMI. Indeed, various stakeholders on sustainability issues, including governments and customers, propose digital transformation as a potent remedy and encourage firms to drive DBMI [99]. Second, the third hypothesis expected a positive correlation between DBMI execution and green performance. This result was consistent with [100,101], which demonstrated a significant positive and direct relationship between digital-linked BMI and green performance. Our results extend existing research discussions to provide a supplementary explanation of the positive association between DBMI practice and environmental performance. Third, this study proposed that DBMI fully mediates the relationship between regulatory and normative pressures and green performance. These findings extend previous studies that investigated the mediating effects of BMI through digital transformation on the association between institutional pressure and green performance [102,103]. When digitalization is promoted and regulatory pressures, such as laws and policies, that promote environmentally friendly behavior are high, firms believe that digitally converting existing business models to comply with these regulations can reduce environmental pollution and increase their competitive advantage. While regulatory compliance may be a primary driver of these actions, the impact of DBMI can also have a positive impact on a firm’s green performance. In addition, when there is high normative pressure to promote environmentally friendly behavior, such as customer and supplier demands, firms can adopt DBMI to create a better performance that meets these expectations. While the primary motivation for this behavior may be that of being socially responsible and meeting stakeholder expectations, implementing DBMI has a positive impact on green performance.

5.2. Theoretical Contributions

This work holds immense significance in enhancing our comprehension of sustainable development by empirically validating a set of mechanisms for implementing DBMI and improving green performance under increasing institutional pressures on sustainability. This study provides a new channel to explain how DBMI affects green performance from an institutional perspective. Our empirical results on listed firms in China provide evidence of claims that institutional pressures can affect DBMI and that these DBMIs play a pivotal role in improving green performance. This reinforces the discussion, from an institutional perspective, that firms develop behaviors that are most appropriate and profitable to adapt to the rules and belief systems that exist around them for survival [32]. It also supports the theoretical discussion in some studies that firms will build BMI based on digital technology and digital transformation to increase sustainability [91,104]. With the recent climate crisis increasing interest in creating a strong green performance to achieve a firm’s competitive advantage, this study is a very encouraging contribution to confirming that there is a significant relationship between DBMI and green performance.

5.3. Managerial Implications

The results of our study indicate that DBMI has an advantageous effect on improving a firm’s green performance, and the findings of this study provide implications for managers looking for remedies to address sustainability issues. Institutional pressures for the sustainable development of firms require innovation in digital business models to comply with stakeholder needs, ensure social legitimacy, and enhance green performance. In particular, given that a firm’s competitive advantage depends on its ability to transform its business model in ways that competitors cannot easily emulate, DBMI appears to be a valuable milestone for managers to pursue. Our research suggests that institutional pressures on sustainability can inspire firms’ managers to drive digital transformation, and managers that are actually facing pressures from environmental misconduct or compliance issues can quickly consider digital business model innovation. Therefore, this study advances the legitimacy of DBMI in enhancing the green performance of a firm in a situation where the digitization of the business environment is proceeding rapidly with the fourth industrial revolution. In this context, our findings provide managers with useful and practical advice to overcome institutional pressures on sustainability and complement them for eco-friendly growth. Finally, managers should understand that the DBMI response is not a simple reaction to institutional pressures. In other words, managers should pay attention to the efficient use of digital technologies to drive DBMI to achieve green performance. For example, some firms, such as Siemens, GE, and Schneider Electric, are trying to achieve their decarbonization values by introducing artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, the Internet of Things (IoT), big data, and other digital technologies, and by promoting DBMI.

6. Conclusions

This study expands institutional theory and sustainable management literature by examining the mediating role of DBMI in the relationship between institutional pressures and green performance, derived from Chinese listed firms, and helps managers to respond systematically in their pursuit of sustainable development.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study has the following limitations and can be supplemented by the following efforts in future studies. First, this study conducted verifications on Chinese listed firms, and it should be careful to generalize these results to other countries. Therefore, replicating the research model of this study with data collected from other countries with strong institutional pressures on sustainability can further highlight the appropriateness of the research model in future studies. Second, this research is limited by its cross-sectional design, and the collected data only permit one-time evaluations of the responses. In order to analyze changes in responses over time and determine the causal relationships between variables, longitudinal research is employed. Third, China maintains a market economy system, but it is a country where the government can exert strong institutional power to adjust the market. As with the emphasis on “guanxi” in China [105], future research may be a good way to consider institutional distance from the government when examining institutional pressures on firms.

Author Contributions

Y.L. and M.-J.L. contributed to the conceptualization, methodology, investigation, and writing—original draft. Y.L., C.Z. and M.-J.L. performed research modeling, data collection, data curation, and formal analysis. Y.L., C.Z. and M.-J.L. participated in the manuscript revision, review, editing, and validation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gunarathne, A.N.; Lee, K.H.; Hitigala Kaluarachchilage, P.K. Institutional pressures, environmental management strategy, and organizational performance: The role of environmental management accounting. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 825–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Evans, S.; Vladimirova, D.; Holgado, M.; Van Fossen, K.; Yang, M.; Silva, E.A.; Barlow, C.Y. Business model innovation for sustainability: Towards a unified perspective for creation of sustainable business models. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 597–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Majid, A.; Yasir, M.; Yasir, M.; Javed, A. Nexus of institutional pressures, environmentally friendly business strategies, and environmental performance. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 706–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Porter, M.E.; Van der Linde, C. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J. Econ. Perspect. 1995, 9, 97–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Luo, S.; Yimamu, N.; Li, Y.; Wu, H.; Irfan, M.; Hao, Y. Digitalization and sustainable development: How could digital economy development improve green innovation in China? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2023, 32, 1847–1871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kluza, K.; Ziolo, M.; Spoz, A. Innovation and environmental, social, and governance factors influencing sustainable business models-Meta-analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 303, 127015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhang, D.; Rong, Z.; Ji, Q. Green innovation and firm performance: Evidence from listed companies in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 144, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, C.-H. How organizational green culture influences green performance and competitive advantage: The mediating role of green innovation. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2019, 30, 666–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Björkdahl, J. Strategies for digitalization in manufacturing firms. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2020, 62, 17–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tabrizi, B.; Lam, E.; Girard, K.; Irvin, V. Digital transformation is not about technology. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2019, 13, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  11. Sohrabpour, V.; Oghazi, P.; Toorajipour, R.; Nazarpour, A. Export sales forecasting using artificial intelligence. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 163, 120480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Parida, V.; Burström, T.; Visnjic, I.; Wincent, J. Orchestrating industrial ecosystem in circular economy: A two-stage transformation model for large manufacturing companies. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 101, 715–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Von Briel, F. The future of omnichannel retail: A four-stage Delphi study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 132, 217–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, C.; Wang, Y.; Wang, J.; Xiao, J.; Liu, J. Factors influencing consumers’ purchase decision-making in O2O business model: Evidence from consumers’ overall evaluation. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 61, 102565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jabbour, C.J.C.; Seuring, S.; de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; Jugend, D.; Fiorini, P.D.C.; Latan, H.; Izeppi, W.C. Stakeholders, innovative business models for the circular economy and sustainable performance of firms in an emerging economy facing institutional voids. J. Envrion. Manag. 2020, 264, 110416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jakhar, S.K.; Mangla, S.K.; Luthra, S.; Kusi-Sarpong, S. When stakeholder pressure drives the circular economy: Measuring the mediating role of innovation capabilities. Manag. Decis. 2019, 57, 904–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Agarwal, J.; Wu, T. China’s entry to WTO: Global marketing issues, impact, and implications for China. Int. Mark. Rev. 2004, 21, 279–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Xiong, J.; Xu, D. Relationship between energy consumption, economic growth and environmental pollution in China. Environ. Res. 2021, 194, 110718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cheung, Y.-L.; Kong, D.; Tan, W.; Wang, W. Being good when being international in an emerging economy: The case of China. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 130, 805–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yu, J.; Lo, C.W.H.; Li, P.H.Y. Organizational visibility, stakeholder environmental pressure and corporate environmental responsiveness in China. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 371–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tang, A.K.; Lai, K.-h.; Cheng, T. A multi-research-method approach to studying environmental sustainability in retail operations. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 171, 394–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gong, C.; Ribiere, V. Developing a unified definition of digital transformation. Technovation 2021, 102, 102217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Brunnermeier, S.B.; Cohen, M.A. Determinants of environmental innovation in US manufacturing industries. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2003, 45, 278–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chen, Y.-S. The driver of green innovation and green image–green core competence. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 81, 531–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yalabik, B.; Fairchild, R.J. Customer, regulatory, and competitive pressure as drivers of environmental innovation. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2011, 131, 519–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Eiadat, Y.; Kelly, A.; Roche, F.; Eyadat, H. Green and competitive? An empirical test of the mediating role of environmental innovation strategy. J. World Bus. 2008, 43, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Frondel, M.; Horbach, J.; Rennings, K. What triggers environmental management and innovation? Empirical evidence for Germany. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 66, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rehfeld, K.-M.; Rennings, K.; Ziegler, A. Integrated product policy and environmental product innovations: An empirical analysis. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 61, 91–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ciasullo, M.V.; Lim, W.M. Digital transformation and business model innovation: Advances, challenges and opportunities. Int. J. Qual. Innov. 2022, 6, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  30. Rachinger, M.; Rauter, R.; Müller, C.; Vorraber, W.; Schirgi, E. Digitalization and its influence on business model innovation. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2018, 30, 1143–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gregori, P.; Holzmann, P. Digital sustainable entrepreneurship: A business model perspective on embedding digital technologies for social and environmental value creation. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 272, 122817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. DiMaggio, P.J.; Powell, W.W. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. North, D.C. Institutions. J. Econ. Perspect. 1991, 5, 97–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ekman, P.; Röndell, J.; Kowalkowski, C.; Raggio, R.D.; Thompson, S.M. Emergent market innovation: A longitudinal study of technology-driven capability development and institutional work. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 124, 469–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Teece, D.J. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28, 1319–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Beckert, J. Institutional isomorphism revisited: Convergence and divergence in institutional change. Sociol. Theory 2010, 28, 150–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yu, W.; Ramanathan, R. An empirical examination of stakeholder pressures, green operations practices and environmental performance. Int. J. Product. Res. 2015, 53, 6390–6407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Poisson-de Haro, S.; Bitektine, A. Global sustainability pressures and strategic choice: The role of firms’ structures and non-market capabilities in selection and implementation of sustainability initiatives. J. World Bus. 2015, 50, 326–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Huang, Y.-C.; Chen, C.T. Exploring institutional pressures, firm green slack, green product innovation and green new product success: Evidence from Taiwan’s high-tech industries. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 174, 121196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jiao, H.; Yang, J.; Cui, Y. Institutional pressure and open innovation: The moderating effect of digital knowledge and experience-based knowledge. J. Knowl. Manag. 2022, 26, 2499–2527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Campbell, J.L. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 946–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Suchman, M.C. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 571–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Scott, W.R. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  44. Oliver, C. Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 697–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Teo, H.-H.; Wei, K.K.; Benbasat, I. Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 19–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Colwell, S.R.; Joshi, A.W. Corporate ecological responsiveness: Antecedent effects of institutional pressure and top management commitment and their impact on organizational performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2013, 22, 73–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wang, S.; Li, J.; Zhao, D. Institutional pressures and environmental management practices: The moderating effects of environmental commitment and resource availability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 52–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Huang, X.-X.; Hu, Z.-P.; Liu, C.-S.; Yu, D.-J.; Yu, L.-F. The relationships between regulatory and customer pressure, green organizational responses, and green innovation performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3423–3433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Waldner, F.; Poetz, M.K.; Grimpe, C.; Eurich, M. Antecedents and consequences of business model innovation: The role of industry structure. In Business Models and Modelling; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2015; Volume 33, pp. 347–386. [Google Scholar]
  50. Teece, D.J. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 172–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 509–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. 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]
  53. Casadesus-Masanell, R.; Ricart, J.E. From strategy to business models and onto tactics. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 195–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Spieth, P.; Schneckenberg, D.; Ricart, J.E. Business model innovation–state of the art and future challenges for the field. RD Manag. 2014, 44, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Amit, R.; Zott, C. Business Model Innovation Strategy: Transformational Concepts and Tools for Entrepreneurial Leaders; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  56. Clauss, T. Measuring business model innovation: Conceptualization, scale development, and proof of performance. RD Manag. 2017, 47, 385–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Şimşek, T.; Öner, M.A.; Kunday, Ö.; Olcay, G.A. A journey towards a digital platform business model: A case study in a global tech-company. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 175, 121372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Foss, N.J.; Saebi, T. Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: How far have we come, and where should we go? J. Manag. 2017, 43, 200–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mancuso, I.; Petruzzelli, A.M.; Panniello, U. Innovating agri-food business models after the COVID-19 pandemic: The impact of digital technologies on the value creation and value capture mechanisms. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2023, 190, 122404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. D’Ippolito, B.; Messeni Petruzzelli, A.; Panniello, U. Archetypes of incumbents’ strategic responses to digital innovation. J. Intellect. Cap. 2019, 20, 662–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mancuso, I.; Petruzzelli, A.M.; Panniello, U. Digital business model innovation in metaverse: How to approach virtual economy opportunities. Inf. Process. Manag. 2023, 60, 103457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Parida, V.; Sjödin, D.; Reim, W. Reviewing literature on digitalization, business model innovation, and sustainable industry: Past achievements and future promises. Sustainability 2019, 11, 391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Vaska, S.; Massaro, M.; Bagarotto, E.M.; Dal Mas, F. The digital transformation of business model innovation: A structured literature review. Front. Psychol. 2021, 11, 539363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Klos, C.; Spieth, P.; Clauss, T.; Klusmann, C. Digital transformation of incumbent firms: A business model innovation perspective. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2021, 70, 2017–2033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Cusumano, M.A.; Gawer, A.; Yoffie, D.B. The Business of Platforms: Strategy in the Age of Digital Competition, Innovation, and Power; Harper Business: New York, NY, USA, 2019; Volume 320. [Google Scholar]
  66. Li, S.; Ngniatedema, T.; Chen, F. Understanding the impact of green initiatives and green performance on financial performance in the US. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 776–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Berrone, P.; Fosfuri, A.; Gelabert, L.; Gomez-Mejia, L.R. Necessity as the mother of ‘green’inventions: Institutional pressures and environmental innovations. Strateg. Manag. J. 2013, 34, 891–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hellemans, I.; Porter, A.J.; Diriker, D. Harnessing digitalization for sustainable development: Understanding how interactions on sustainability-oriented digital platforms manage tensions and paradoxes. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 668–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cordella, A.; Tempini, N. E-government and organizational change: Reappraising the role of ICT and bureaucracy in public service delivery. Gov. Inf. Q. 2015, 32, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. ElMassah, S.; Mohieldin, M. Digital transformation and localizing the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Ecol. Econ. 2020, 169, 106490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hoffman, A.J. Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry. Acad. Manag. J. 1999, 42, 351–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Krell, K.; Matook, S.; Rohde, F. The impact of legitimacy-based motives on IS adoption success: An institutional theory perspective. Inf. Manag. 2016, 53, 683–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zhu, Q. Institutional pressures and support from industrial zones for motivating sustainable production among Chinese manufacturers. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2016, 181, 402–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Liang, Y.; Lee, M.J.; Jung, J.S. Dynamic capabilities and an ESG strategy for sustainable management performance. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 887776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kuo, H.-M.; Chen, T.-L.; Yang, C.-S. The effects of institutional pressures on shipping digital transformation in Taiwan. Marit. Bus. Rev. 2022, 7, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kennedy, S.; Whiteman, G.; van den Ende, J. Radical innovation for sustainability: The power of strategy and open innovation. Long Range Plan. 2017, 50, 712–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Abbas, J. Impact of total quality management on corporate green performance through the mediating role of corporate social responsibility. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 118458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zhang, W.; Zhao, J. Digital transformation, environmental disclosure, and environmental performance: An examination based on listed companies in heavy-pollution industries in China. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2023, 87, 505–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Pick, J.B.; Nishida, T. Digital divides in the world and its regions: A spatial and multivariate analysis of technological utilization. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 91, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhai, H.; Yang, M.; Chan, K.C. Does digital transformation enhance a firm’s performance? Evidence from China. Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sharma, M.; Kumar, A.; Luthra, S.; Joshi, S.; Upadhyay, A. The impact of environmental dynamism on low-carbon practices and digital supply chain networks to enhance sustainable performance: An empirical analysis. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 1776–1788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Amit, R.; Zott, C. Creating value through business model innovation. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2012, 53, 41. [Google Scholar]
  83. Chesbrough, H. Business model innovation: Opportunities and barriers. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 354–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hart, S.L.; Dowell, G. Invited editorial: A natural-resource-based view of the firm: Fifteen years after. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1464–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Yang, D.; Wang, A.X.; Zhou, K.Z.; Jiang, W. Environmental strategy, institutional force, and innovation capability: A managerial cognition perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 159, 1147–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wang, K.; Jiang, W. State ownership and green innovation in China: The contingent roles of environmental and organizational factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 314, 128029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Jin, X.; Lei, X.; Wu, W. Can digital investment improve corporate environmental performance?—Empirical evidence from China. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 414, 137669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zeng, H.; Chen, X.; Xiao, X.; Zhou, Z. Institutional pressures, sustainable supply chain management, and circular economy capability: Empirical evidence from Chinese eco-industrial park firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 155, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Liao, Z. Institutional pressure, knowledge acquisition and a firm’s environmental innovation. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2018, 27, 849–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Singh, S.K.; Del Giudice, M.; Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J.; Latan, H.; Sohal, A.S. Stakeholder pressure, green innovation, and performance in small and medium-sized enterprises: The role of green dynamic capabilities. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 500–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lee, M.-J.; Roh, T. Unpacking the sustainable performance in the business ecosystem: Coopetition strategy, open innovation, and digitalization capability. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 412, 137433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, P.M. Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. J. Retail. 2012, 88, 542–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kock, N.; Lynn, G. Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2012, 13, 546–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Lindell, M.K.; Whitney, D.J. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001, 86, 114–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 155–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Hair, J.; Hollingsworth, C.L.; Randolph, A.B.; Chong, A.Y.L. An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2017, 117, 442–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Rodrigues, A.R.D.; Ferreira, F.A.; Teixeira, F.J.; Zopounidis, C. Artificial intelligence, digital transformation and cybersecurity in the banking sector: A multi-stakeholder cognition-driven framework. Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2022, 60, 101616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Cao, S.; Nie, L.; Sun, H.; Sun, W.; Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. Digital finance, green technological innovation and energy-environmental performance: Evidence from China’s regional economies. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 327, 129458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Li, Y.; Dai, J.; Cui, L. The impact of digital technologies on economic and environmental performance in the context of industry 4.0: A moderated mediation model. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 229, 107777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Soluk, J.; Miroshnychenko, I.; Kammerlander, N.; De Massis, A. Family influence and digital business model innovation: The enabling role of dynamic capabilities. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2021, 45, 867–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Zhang, Y.; Ma, X.; Pang, J.; Xing, H.; Wang, J. The impact of digital transformation of manufacturing on corporate performance—The mediating effect of business model innovation and the moderating effect of innovation capability. Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2023, 64, 101890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Zhao, T.; Koo, J.-M.; Lee, M.-J. How Firms Can Improve Sustainable Performance on Belt and Road Initiative. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Roy, A.; Walters, P.G.; Luk, S.T. Chinese puzzles and paradoxes: Conducting business research in China. J. Bus. Res. 2001, 52, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 14258 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 15 14258 g001
Table 1. Correlations, reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity.
Table 1. Correlations, reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity.
ConstructRPNPDBMIGP
Regulatory pressure0.957
Normative pressure0.8820.931
DBMI *0.8440.8730.917
Green performance0.8500.8930.9240.916
Cronbach’s alpha0.9540.9230.9620.961
Composite reliability0.9700.9510.9690.972
rho_A0.9550.9240.9630.964
AVE0.9150.8670.8400.896
Note: The square roots of the AVE values are shown on the diagonals, and printed with bold, non-diagonal elements are the latent variable correlations. All correlations are statistically significant at p < 0.01, * reflective–reflective second order, rho_a = Dijkstra and Henseler’s composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted.
Table 2. Results of path effect.
Table 2. Results of path effect.
Path β S.E.t-Valuep-Value95% Confidence Interval
(Lower Bound, Upper Bound)		Hypothesis Test
H1. RP → DBMI0.3310.0477.0120.000(0.236, 0.423)Supported
H2. NP → DBMI0.5820.04612.5820.000(0.492, 0.673)Supported
H3. DBMI → GP0.9230.008120.2280.000(0.907, 0.937)Supported
H4a. RP → DBMI → GP0.3050.0446.9850.000(0.218, 0.390)Supported
H4b. RP → DBMI → GP0.5370.04312.4050.000(0.452, 0.623)Supported
Note: All indirect effects are partially mediated, 5000 iterations for bootstrapping, S.E. = standard error, RP = regulatory pressures, NP = normative pressures, GP = green performance.
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

Liang, Y.; Zhao, C.; Lee, M.-J. Institutional Pressures on Sustainability and Green Performance: The Mediating Role of Digital Business Model Innovation. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14258. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914258

AMA Style

Liang Y, Zhao C, Lee M-J. Institutional Pressures on Sustainability and Green Performance: The Mediating Role of Digital Business Model Innovation. Sustainability. 2023; 15(19):14258. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914258

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liang, Yi, Chenyu Zhao, and Min-Jae Lee. 2023. "Institutional Pressures on Sustainability and Green Performance: The Mediating Role of Digital Business Model Innovation" Sustainability 15, no. 19: 14258. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914258

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