Next Article in Journal
The Influence of Characteristics of Mobile Live Commerce on Purchase Intention
Next Article in Special Issue
Corporate Sustainability by Combating Bribery: The Role of an Organisation Culture and Its Impact on the Organisation’s Performance
Previous Article in Journal
Transforming Challenges into Opportunities for Qatar’s Food Industry: Self-Sufficiency, Sustainability, and Global Food Trade Diversification
Previous Article in Special Issue
Investigating the Factors That Determine the ESG Disclosure Practices in Europe
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Transformational Leadership, Organizational Innovation, and ESG Performance: Evidence from SMEs in China

Seoul School of Integrated Sciences and Technologies, 46, Ewhayeodae 2-gil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03767, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(7), 5756; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075756
Submission received: 22 February 2023 / Revised: 21 March 2023 / Accepted: 23 March 2023 / Published: 25 March 2023

Abstract

:
ESG is a sustainable development concept that integrates environmental, social, and corporate governance. Most studies on ESG have been conducted based on secondary data from listed companies and have not used questionnaires as a method for analysis. Given this research gap, this paper examines whether transformational leadership influences ESG performance in SMEs, whether organizational innovation mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and ESG performance, and the moderating effect of external social capital on transformational leadership and organizational innovation. Based on higher-order theory, resource-based theory, stakeholder theory, etc., we tested this hypothesis by conducting a regression analysis with a questionnaire collected from SMEs in China. After controlling for firm ownership, firm size, firm industry, and years in business, the results of the study indicate that transformational leadership has a positive effect on ESG performance and that organizational innovation partially mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and corporate ESG performance. Furthermore, external social capital moderates the direct relationship between transformational leadership and organizational innovation and moderates the role of organizational innovation as a mediator between transformational leadership and ESG performance. This study adds to our further understanding of the relationship between transformational leadership and ESG performance in SMEs, expanding the antecedent research on ESG performance and providing a basis for sustainable SME development.

1. Introduction

Through economic, societal, and scientific and technological development, humans have accomplished great things [1,2]. The public’s demand for environmental, social, and ethical responsibility of business has increased due to severe climate changes, depleting natural resources, harsh work conditions, and the proliferation of corporate scandals. More investors and consumers are focusing on corporate social responsibility and sustainability. Moreover, they expect companies to align their operating philosophies with social values [3]. In response to the emergence of these issues, the United Nations Commission on Environment and Development issued the “Brundtland Report” [4], and the concept of sustainable development was proposed. The ESG value concept is founded on sustainable development, and enterprises, as the fundamental units and organization of human economic and social operation, play a central role in sustainable development [5,6]. Therefore, for businesses to achieve sustainable economic and social development, the ESG value concept must be implemented.
ESG values can be traced back to the concept of socially responsible investment in the 1960s. It was not until 2004, when the United Nations Global Compact released its report [7], that ESG was introduced to the public as a holistic concept. ESG is an acronym for environmental, social, and governance. It provides a comprehensive framework for enterprises and investors to integrate environmental, social, and corporate governance concerns [8]. It conveys the development concept of pursuing integrated economic and social benefits, a sustainable development concept that has recently emerged in corporate management and financial investment. Environmental concerns include pollution control, renewable energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and other factors, as well as the resulting environmental impact [9]. The social dimension refers to a company’s responsibility to its employees, consumers, communities, suppliers, and other stakeholders while maximizing profits within the confines of the law [10]. Governance refers to business ethics, anti-competitive behavior, and protecting shareholders’ rights. It is the internal mechanism established by the company to achieve self-management, effective decision-making, compliance with laws and regulations, and the satisfaction of external stakeholders’ needs [11]. The core concept of ESG is that enterprises should pursue economic benefits in economic and social activities and pay attention to environmental resource protection, corporate social responsibility, and corporate governance effectiveness to achieve balanced development across multiple dimensions [12]. As a new value concept, ESG can promote corporate transformation from “profit maximization” to “sustainable development”. It has a significant effect on how companies manage their strategies and integrate their resources [13]. It is also an important tool for promoting high-quality economic growth and sustainable development [14]. Amid economic globalization, enterprises can only stand out in the increasingly fierce market competition if they can comprehensively address environmental, social, and corporate governance issues [15].
At the same time, investors at the international or regional level in developed countries take ESG investments seriously. According to KPMG, the global ESG disclosure rate for N100 companies was 76% in 2022, while 96% of G250 companies published ESG reports, indicating that ESG reporting has become an important management and investment concept for companies and financial institutions. In addition, the importance of ESG disclosure is being recognized by increasing numbers of regulators, stock exchanges, and investors. Moreover, many stock exchanges worldwide have begun to provide ESG disclosure requirements or guidelines for listed companies in countries such as the USA, the UK, Brazil, Canada, India, Malaysia, Norway, South Africa, France, Germany, the Philippines, Italy, and Singapore [16]. In the past few years, ESG has become one of the focal points of China’s economic development activities. Although ESG development in China is still in its infancy, ESG investment in China is improving as ESG becomes more common in the international market and corporate managers, consumers, investors, and regulators are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of ESG concepts [17]. Furthermore, the Chinese market has seen rapid developments in the areas of environmental, social, and governance reporting [18]. To encourage Chinese companies in the active practice of ESG responsibilities as well as to help balance economic growth and environmental sustainability, the CDFA released the 2018 Report on the ESG Rating System for Chinese Listed Companies and the Green Investment Guidelines (Trial), which require listed companies to become carbon-neutral by 2060. In addition, the “double carbon” target manifests China’s green development philosophy; to achieve this goal, China has to accelerate the construction of an ESG system to enhance its voice in the global sustainable development agenda [19]. On a global scale, after the COVID-19 pandemic shocked the global economy in 2020, systemic risks such as pandemics and climate change showed the need for sustainable development and green economies again, leading many countries to incorporate sustainability goals into their post-pandemic recovery plans [20].
With the emphasis on the ESG value concept in corporate strategic management, numerous theoretical and empirical studies on ESG have been conducted at home and abroad. Most studies examine the relationship between ESG evaluation systems or ESG investment and corporate performance; however, the research results are highly contentious and present two contradictory views. On the one hand, neoclassical economic theory suggests that a firm’s mission is to maximize profits, ESG has strong negative externalities, and managers may use it as a self-interest tool, so firms’ investment in ESG will lead to a waste of corporate resources and higher costs, resulting in a decline in corporate performance [21,22,23,24]. On the other hand, based on resource stakeholder theory and stakeholder theory, ESG disclosure helps increase a company’s transparency. In addition, investing in ESG can help companies develop internal resources to increase intrinsic earnings by enhancing corporate reputation [25,26,27]. The realization of corporate value is not limited to shareholders; environmental, social, and corporate governance factors should also be considered [20,28]. Financial factors significantly impact a company’s ESG rating [6]. Companies whose environmental, social, and corporate governance work is sound and whose relationships with stakeholders are strengthened can achieve good performance [16,29]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, portfolios with high ESG scores showed a higher risk tolerance. Furthermore, share prices of companies with good ESG performance were less volatile, thus demonstrating their investors’ confidence [14]. In other words, better ESG performance guarantees the anti-risk ability and long-term competitiveness of an enterprise. Apparently, the ESG investment concept can help align capital allocations with the goals of sustainable economic development [15]. Therefore, it is necessary to study the factors that influence corporate ESG in the context of the ESG investment concepts being promoted.
Although ESG theories have proliferated in recent years, however, most studies focus on developed markets [30], and very few studies investigate emerging markets [31,32]. China is on a high-quality development path but is still in the early stages of ESG development. Investors and companies still do not have a clear understanding of what ESG performance means in terms of corporate sustainability, or of the mechanisms underlying the role of leadership in corporate ESG performance. This paper uses higher-order behavior theory, social network theory, resource-based theory, and stakeholder theory as a foundation to investigate the effect of transformational leadership through organizational innovation on ESG performance of SMEs in China by distributing questionnaires to leaders and employees as a sample, as well as the moderating role of external social capital in transformational leadership and organizational innovation. The result indicates that transformational leadership has a positive impact on the ESG performance of SMEs. Organizational innovation partially mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and corporate ESG performance. Furthermore, the role of transformational leadership in organizational innovation is stronger when firms have higher levels of external social capital.
This study will offer three original contributions. First, it will enrich the research on the ESG performance of SMEs in developed countries. Most studies on ESG performance are based on secondary data from capital markets or listed companies in developed countries; there are no empirical studies based on primary data. To bridge this gap in the literature, this paper will distribute questionnaires to Chinese SMEs, which is an unexplored approach to ESG performance research. Second, it will enrich knowledge of the antecedents of ESG performance in SMEs. Most studies focus on the impact of ESG indicators or ESG investment on corporate financial performance but do not focus on ESG performance as a dependent variable, which means this study’s approach is a useful supplement to previous studies. Third, this study helps policymakers, stakeholders, regulators, and scholars improve their understanding of corporate sustainability. It also provides key theoretical and practical values for promoting corporate sustainability. This paper is organized as follows: first, a literature review based on pertinent theories and the establishment of research hypotheses; second, measurement of relevant variables and empirical analysis based on data and elaboration of research results; and third, a discussion of research findings, management insights, research limitations, and suggestions for future research.

2. Theoretical Background and Research Hypothesis

2.1. Transformational Leadership and ESG Performance

Higher-order theory is derived from Hambrick and Mason [33]. The theory is that executives are the subjects of strategic decision-making within an organization. They make limited rational decisions based on their psychological characteristics and highly individualized interpretations and decisions regarding the organizational situations they encounter. Senior managers participate in strategy formulation and play important roles such as control, coordination, and leadership in the process of strategy implementation. The top leaders who hold the decision-making power in the company have the strongest influence on the formation and adjustment of corporate behavior [34]. Therefore, strong leadership is required to formulate forward-looking corporate strategies and implement necessary organizational changes [35].
Transformational leadership theory was developed by Bass [36]. Transformational leaders possess four dimensions: idealized influence or charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration [37]. In addition, transformational leaders have a solid sense of intrinsic value and a conceptual system. They provide a clear vision for their subordinates, stimulate their high-level needs by making them aware of the importance of the tasks they undertake, build a climate of mutual trust, motivate them to sacrifice their self-interest for the good of the organization, and ultimately achieve performance beyond expectations [38,39].
Researchers have looked into transformational leadership from various perspectives, including psychological factors such as personality, mindset, and cognition of business leaders, as well as environments that affect transformational leadership behaviors [40,41,42]. For example, transformational leaders influence their followers by the following means: (a) setting examples of appropriate behaviors; (b) projecting a view of the future that shows employees what to strive for and where to go; (c) taking an active interest in the lives and work of their employees; and (d) fostering independence and active participation in tasks to increase their employees’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational identity, etc., and thus enhance job performance [43,44,45,46].
Transformational leaders communicate a clear and consistent vision regarding environmental responsibility by disseminating environmental information to demonstrate environmental commitment and values for action and discussing sustainability’s significance [47,48]. Moreover, transformational leaders can inspire a shared organizational vision, demonstrate the value and significance of environmental stewardship, and provide cohesive and information-sharing rallying points, thereby integrating environmental performance into corporate strategic planning [49,50]. According to social identity theory, individuals’ attitudes and behaviors can influence their group membership in CSR [51]. The humanistic perspective of transformational leaders, which is based on altruism, justice, and the greater good, effectively creates a collective identity based on appealing values, which may include catering to the more significant needs of stakeholder groups and the social good and are in line with corporate social responsibility [52,53]. Thus, followers will associate their organization’s identity with the greater social good and be motivated to engage in CSR [54,55].
In 1963, the Stanford Research Institute introduced stakeholder theory, which emphasizes the mutual influence between a firm and its stakeholders. Stakeholders are individuals or groups, such as investors and employees, who are dependent on the firm to achieve their goals and who the firm depends on for its development [56]. Based on previous research, Freeman and Mcvea [57] defines stakeholders as “individuals or groups of individuals who can influence or are influenced by the achievement of a firm’s organizational goals”. This definition considers the individuals and groups that influence the goals of the company as stakeholders, also considers the individuals and groups that are affected by the achievement of the company’s goals as stakeholders, and formally includes entities such as communities, governments, and environmental protection organizations in the study of stakeholders, all of which greatly expand the connotation of “stakeholders [58]”. At the level of corporate governance, transformational leaders begin with the organization’s shared vision and consider not only the interests of shareholders but also those of other stakeholders, such as small- and medium-sized shareholders, external investors, creditors, employees, and the government [59]. They also improve the transparency of corporate information and develop a sound corporate governance system [60,61]. Based on the initial assertion, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Transformational leadership has a positive impact on ESG performance.

2.2. Transformational Leadership and Organizational Innovation

Organizational innovation can be a new product or service, a new production process technology, a new structure or management system, or a new program or project involving organizational members [62]. OCED [63] distinguishes four types of innovation: product innovation, process innovation, marketing innovation, and management innovation. Innovation within an organization generates the most valuable, organizational, and difficult-to-replicate strategic assets that lead to enhanced business performance [64]. According to resource-based theory, a resource is anything in an organization that demonstrates the organization’s core competencies, both in the form of tangible assets and intangible assets [65]. A company’s competitive advantage and performance depend on how it uses its strategic resources, which are valuable, rare, and difficult for market rivals to imitate [66]. Therefore, organizational innovation is a direct source of competitive advantage and one of the essential sources of sustained competitiveness for modern businesses [67].
The impact of leadership style on organizational innovation has been the subject of extensive research. Most studies conclude that different leadership styles affect organizational innovation [68,69]. For example, transformational leadership, ethical leadership, servant leadership, and responsible leadership have a positive impact on organizational innovation [70,71], but authoritarian leadership has a negative impact on organizational innovation [72]. In addition, absorptive capacity, knowledge integration, organizational culture, and knowledge sharing at the organizational level also have a positive impact on organizational innovation [73,74,75,76]. Transformational leadership articulates the significant vision and mission of the organization. It enhances the significance of employees’ interest in the organization by stimulating their high-level needs for self-actualization, enabling employees to identify with and be motivated by intrinsic motivation to achieve their goals and assisting them in achieving organizational goals [77]. Transformational leadership also fosters dedication to long-term goals, mission, and vision by demonstrating high expectations and confidence in employees’ abilities and providing intellectual stimulation that encourages employees to think creatively and adopt innovative work practices [78]. The resulting increase in employee motivation and self-esteem will boost organizational innovation [79]. Based on the initial assertion, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Transformational leadership has a positive impact on organizational innovation.

2.3. Organizational Innovation and ESG Performance

Hellström [80] formulated the theory of responsible innovation. In 2011, the European Commission published the report [81], in which the concept of “responsible innovation” was included for the first time as a vital element of the EU’s development strategy. Meanwhile, the report “Addressing Ethical and Regulatory Challenges in Research Policy at the Global Level” outlined the fundamental elements of responsible innovation as social interest, moral and ethical acceptability, and risk management. According to the theory, responsible innovation requires innovative understanding and practice characterized by methodological features such as respect and preservation of human rights, the promotion of social well-being, and the full and active assumption of responsibilities [82]. To manage innovation practices in a way that seeks to improve innovations for society, it is also characterized by more elements being included in the responsibility system, greater consideration of human rights, and the pursuit of green and inclusive innovation outcomes [83]. Introducing this concept provides an operational path for businesses to realize sustainable development, which is a result of the deepening development of the global concept of “sustainable development” at present [84]. Therefore, businesses should consider the interests of both direct and indirect stakeholders in the innovation process and the ethical, ecological, and social dimensions in addition to the economic dimension [85,86].
The impact of organizational innovation on the economic performance and innovation performance of businesses has been the subject of numerous studies. Most academics believe that the influence of organizational innovation on enterprises includes reducing management or transaction costs to improve the performance of enterprises; increasing labor productivity by improving workplace satisfaction; acquiring assets that cannot be traded directly, such as non-coding knowledge or reduced supply costs; and flattening the inter-organizational or intra-organizational structure, which means employees and stakeholders are promoted to carry out potential innovation activities [87,88]. However, research on organizational innovation and ESG performance is scant. Legitimacy theory views legitimacy as an overarching concept or presumption in which organizations seek to establish coherence between the social values associated with or implied by their activities and the norms of acceptable behavior in the more extensive social system to which they belong [89]. Companies should consciously comply with social norms and contracts, actively fulfill their environmental responsibilities, and act to promote environmental protection to protect their interests [90]. Therefore, to achieve sustainable long-term business development as an ultimate business goal, innovation with only economic benefits can no longer meet the needs of enterprise development, which now requires strength in both economic and environmental performance [91]. By incorporating green concepts into organizational innovation, businesses can increase the environmental consciousness of their employees, which can lead to environmentally responsible actions [92]. On the other hand, innovation based on production process improvement can help reduce pollution emissions, reduce production costs, and improve the performance of the company’s products, thereby satisfying the environmental ethics requirements of stakeholders and enhancing competitive advantage [93].
Porter [94] formally introduced the theory of competitive advantage. The theory states that a firm’s competitive advantage refers to its ability to outperform other competitors in the process of providing consumers with products or services of a specific value in an effective “contestable market” and to create market dominance or profitability that is higher than the average of the industry in which it is located for a certain period [95]. A firm has a competitive advantage when it implements a value-creation strategy that is not implemented by any current or potential competitor. Innovation, according to Zeng et al. [96], is an efficient method for organizations to acquire and transform resources and shape resource differentiation, which can result in scarce, unique, and irreplaceable core competencies. Innovation influences CSR in a great variety of ways, such as by increasing the productivity of businesses to improve their ability to fulfill economic responsibility, by increasing the size of businesses to improve their ability to fulfill product responsibility, and by increasing the size of businesses to improve their ability to fulfill philanthropic responsibility [97]. Product innovation can result in product quality enhancement and product structure optimization, which better fulfill product responsibility; the development of enterprises enables them to engage in social charity and enhance their capacity to feed society [98]. The innovation drive also encourages businesses to fulfill their social responsibilities more effectively, enhancing their reputation and fostering a favorable external environment for future development [99].
The traditional principal–agent theory argued that the separation of ownership and control of modern companies is a significant source of governance issues and that in the principal–agent relationship, the principal and the agent pursue different goals. Agents seek to improve their social standing, income, and other concerns. With the separation of the two powers, corporate managers have more power and are likely to sacrifice the interests of corporate owners for their interests, resulting in moral hazard in the principal–agent relationship [100]. However, theory-based stakeholder co-governance was proposed as people began to question the unidirectional governance model of shareholders [101]. This model holds that businesses operate in an open market environment and that all stakeholders, including employees, suppliers, creditors, and investors, participate in corporate governance. Through a network of mutual interaction and influence, stakeholders create value and share risk [102].
Studies have examined the impact of corporate governance on technological innovation, considering factors such as equity concentration, board size, the number of independent directors, and executive incentives [103,104,105,106]. However, organizational innovation also impacts corporate governance effectiveness to some extent. For businesses to maintain their competitive advantage and achieve significant market expansion, continuous innovation is required [94]. New management techniques can reduce transaction costs and protect shareholders’ and other stakeholders’ interests [107]. In addition, organizational innovation can better motivate employees, make them realize they are the company’s owners, and increase their participation in the business’s day-to-day operations [108]. Therefore, organizational innovation influences corporate governance positively. Based on the initial assertion, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Organizational innovation has a positive impact on ESG performance.
Based on the above theoretical development, this study argues that the impact of transformational leadership on ESG performance may vary depending on the role of organizational innovation mechanisms as mediators. Transformational leadership increases employees’ intrinsic motivation and work motivation through their organizational commitment, thereby fostering organizational innovation and enhancing ESG performance. Based on the statement above, the mediating-role hypothesis is proposed.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Transformational leaders have a positive impact on ESG performance through organizational innovation.

2.4. The Moderating Role of External Social Capital

According to social network theory, organizations have social utility. People in social situations think and act in similar ways because of the bonds they share. Social networks represent not only two interrelated actors but an aggregate of polyglot indirect relationships and paths that encompass all actors in society [109]. Moreover, the network relationships created bring opportunities and challenges to organizations [110]. Furthermore, the social capital of enterprises consists of the resources that are embedded in the social network and acquired and mobilized through purposeful actions [111]. It has been noted that, in a trust-based relationship network, the ability to borrow resources through the relationship network and the enterprise assets created and accumulated by the economic or non-economic actions taken to achieve an enterprise’s goals constitute actual or potential resource aggregation, and the assets are considered important capital, in addition to material capital, human capital, and cultural capital [112]. According to the theory of resource dependence, the business activities of enterprises require resources [113]. Enterprise development depends on internal and external information and resource exchanges [114]. As the “collection of actual or potential resources” of an enterprise, social capital is one of the key business resources that affect or even determine the acquisition of other enterprise resources, such as capital and human resources, information resources, and legal support [115].
The external social capital of a company refers to the positive network ties that a company maintains through its customers, suppliers, financial institutions, government agencies, and other organizations to maintain mutually viable relationships [116]. Mainly, external social capital reflects the resource acquisition capability embedded in an organization’s external social network and emphasizes the organization’s diverse external social relationships and the network’s relationship quality [117]. Most researchers on external social capital believe that external social capital is conducive to an enterprise’s access to various types of information, reduces the cost of information search, and brings information diversification to businesses [118]. Moreover, social capital promotes resource exchange and integration between enterprises, enhances cooperation between enterprises, reduces transaction costs [119], and promotes knowledge sharing and cooperation between organizations, which is conducive to the generation of new ideas and innovations in enterprises [120]. First, enterprises are in the same industrial chain as their suppliers and customers, and customers and suppliers are both the closest business partners in the production and operation of enterprises as well as the primary providers of important product information to these enterprises [121]. Furthermore, establishing good relationships with companies with low external social capital can enable leaders to access useful information and feedback, which will have an important impact on the innovation activities of enterprises [122]. Second, firms maintain good relationships with their business partners to help form complementary resource models with other entities over time. Moreover, firms share resources to master complex technologies, promote resource integration and knowledge exchange, and acquire valuable external knowledge, thus helping leaders reduce search and information costs, negotiation and decision costs, and regulatory and enforcement costs, thus enhancing organizational innovation capabilities [123]. Finally, government agencies have jurisdiction over regulations, R&D funding, standard settings, procurement, and other functions that shape the innovation capabilities of firms. They also hold more innovative and strategic resources and intervene more in the economy [124]. Establishing and maintaining good relationships with the government also helps business leaders gain access to a variety of scarce innovative resources controlled by the government [125]. Based on this, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
External social capital can positively moderate the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational innovation.
Integrating H4 and H5, this study proposes a mediating-role model moderated with the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
External social capital positively moderates the mediating role of organizational innovation in the relationship between transformational leadership and ESG performance.
The research framework is shown in Figure 1.

3. Methodology

3.1. Data and Samples

This study employed a questionnaire survey to collect data. In July 2022, 500 questionnaires were distributed twice to Chinese managers and employees of enterprises; company employees evaluated transformational leaders, and leaders reported basic company information. In total, 370 questionnaires were collected in October 2022, and the questionnaire recovery rate was approximately 74%. After eliminating invalid questionnaires, we finally obtained 350 valid questionnaires. The valid questionnaire recovery rate was 70%. From the recovered samples, 47% were male and 53% were female; 76.3% had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Years in business was concentrated in less than 5 years category, which accounted for 34.86%. There were 87 state-owned enterprises, which accounted for 24.86%; 82 private enterprises, which accounted for 23.43%; 98 foreign enterprises, which accounted for 28.00%; and other businesses, which accounted for 29%. The finance and insurance industry employed 21 individuals, which accounted for 6%; the education industry employed 32 individuals, which accounted for 9.14%; and the transportation industry employed 26 individuals, which accounted for 7.43%. The manufacturing industry employed 41 individuals, which accounted for 11.71%, and services and 7 other industries accounted for 65.72%. Enterprises with 0–50 employees represented 23.14%, those with 50–200 employees represented 20.57%, those with 200–500 employees represented 32.86%, and those with more than 500 employees represented 23.43%. The demographic characteristics of the investigated respondents are shown in Table 1.

3.2. Variable Measurement

The variables measured in this study were selected from established domestic and international scales, and the items were modified and adapted based on the actual situation. All scales were measured using a 5-point Likert scale, with 5 representing “strongly agree” and 1 representing “strongly disagree”.
Transformational leadership: This study measures transformational leadership using a scale developed by scholars including Alrowwad and Chen [126,127]. The eight-item scale has demonstrated high levels of reliability and validity in previous research. Representative items on the scale include “the leader shows determination in accomplishing goals” and “the leader portrays an inspiring future”. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the scale is 0.895.
Organizational innovation: This study measures organizational innovation using a scale developed by scholars including Jansen and Zhou [128,129]. Previous research has demonstrated the reliability and validity of the five-item scale. Representative items on the scale include “the company introduces a new management system” and “the company introduces a new approach to planning and budgeting”.
External social capital: This study measures external social capital using a scale developed by academics including Bornay-Barrachina et al. [130,131]. Previous research has demonstrated the reliability and validity of the six-item scale. Representative items on the scale include “The company maintains good relationships with government departments” and “The company maintains good cooperative relationships with its suppliers”.
ESG performance: This study measures ESG performance using a scale developed by scholars such as De Roeck and Li [132,133], as well as data from databases such as Thomson Reuters. Environmental performance, corporate social responsibility, and corporate governance are the three dimensions of the scale. The environmental performance consists of six measures, such as “the company reduces environmentally harmful behaviors” and “the company uses clean energy and fuels”. Corporate social responsibility consists of twelve measures, such as “the company values the welfare of its employees” and “the company participates in long-term social welfare activities”. Finally, corporate governance consists of six measures, such as “the company has a good information disclosure mechanism” and “the company has good business ethics”.
Control variables: Based on prior research, years in business, firm ownership, industry, and size were utilized as control variables. The number of employees determines the size of a company: 1 represents 0 to 50 employees, 2 represents 50 to 200 employees, 3 represents 200 to 500 employees, and 4 represents more than 500 employees. There are four types of firm ownership: state-owned enterprises, private enterprises, enterprises funded by foreign investors, and others. In addition, the firm industries are the financial industry, the real estate industry, and the service industry, among others. Construct and items are shown in Appendix A.

3.3. Reliability and Validity Test

Reliability test: The reliability test of the survey questionnaire is referred to as the reliability test. The alpha coefficient of Cronbach is primarily used for reliability tests. If Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is greater than 0.7, each questionnaire item has a high degree of reliability. For example, in this study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for transformational leadership, organizational innovation, external social capital, and corporate ESG performance are 0.895, 0.834, 0.882, and 0.880, respectively, all greater than 0.7, indicating that the questionnaire items for each variable have good reliability.
Validity test: Validity refers to the design and content accuracy of the questionnaire. As shown in Table 2, the variance explained and factor loading are used to test the validity of the questionnaire in this study. All KMO values exceed 0.8, indicating that the scale is appropriate for factor analysis. All variables in this study can be distinguished with precision. All the factor loadings of the questionnaire questions were greater than 0.7. This indicates that the questionnaire’s convergent validity is high.

3.4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

We validated the primary variables of the study (transformational leadership, organizational innovation, external social capital, and ESG performance). According to the theoretical dimensions designed by the variable scale, ESG performance includes three first-order factors (corresponding to environmental performance, corporate social responsibility, and corporate governance, respectively). As shown in Table 3, the six-factor model assumed in this study has the best-fit index relative to other models, indicating that the six variables have good discriminant validity and correspond to six distinct constructs. The values of their χ2/df, TLI, CFI, RMR, and RMSEA were 1.380, 0.960, 0.962, 0.069, and 0.033, respectively, which were superior to those of the five-factor, four-factor, three-factor, two-factor, and one-factor models, indicating that the variables designed for this study had superior discriminant validity. As shown in Table 4, each construct’s composite reliability (CR) was high, with the lowest value being 0.838, indicating that the constructs have good convergent validity. The study used AVE values for discriminant validity testing, and Table 4 shows that the AVE values of all variables are higher than 0.5, so it can be concluded that the variables have good discriminant validity.

3.5. Multicollinearity Analysis

To avoid serious correlations between variables, this study used the analysis of variance inflation factor (VIF) to determine if there is multicollinearity amongst the explanatory variables. An analysis of the results shown in Table 5 shows that the VIF values of each explanatory variable are below 5, with a tolerance greater than 0.1, indicating that there is no multicollinearity amongst the explanatory variables.

4. Research Results

The mean, standard deviation, and correlation coefficient of each variable are shown in Table 6. The results of the correlation analysis indicate a significant positive relationship between transformational leadership and ESG performance, with a correlation coefficient value of 0.593, which is greater than 0. In addition, there is a significant positive relationship between external social capital and organizational innovation, with a correlation coefficient value of 0.367, which is greater than 0. There is a positive relationship between transformational leadership and external social capital, with a correlation coefficient of 0.351, which is greater than 0. Finally, there is a significant positive relationship between organizational innovation and ESG performance, with correlation coefficient values of 0.519, which is greater than 0.
In order to test the proposed hypotheses, this study conducted a multiple linear regression of the variables of interest using SPSS 26.0 software to test the research model while controlling for years in business, firm ownership, firm industry, and firm size (see Table 7). Table 7 shows that control variables are not statistically significant for organizational innovation and ESG performance. Transformational leadership positively affects ESG performance (b = 0.421, p < 0.001), and H1 is supported. Transformational leadership has a significant positive effect on organizational innovation (b = 0.288, p < 0.001), indicating that H2 is supported. Organizational innovation has a significant positive effect on ESG performance (b = 0.304, p < 0.001); thus, H3 is supported. In addition, as shown in Table 8, the bootstrap test indicates that this mediating effect is statistically significant, with a mediating effect value of 0.116, 95% CI = [0.079, 0.157], excluding 0; thus, H4 is supported.
The results indicate that external social capital significantly positively affects organizational innovation (b = 0.258, p < 0.001). There is a significant impact of the interaction term between transformational leadership and external social capital on ESG performance (b = 0.215, p < 0.001). The slope of the simple analysis indicates (see Figure 2) that when external social capital is low, the effect of transformational leadership on ESG performance is insignificant (b = 0.096, p = 0.184). The effect of transformational leadership on ESG performance is more significant when the external social capital is high (b = 0.479, p < 0.001), and H5 is supported.
According to Table 9, the analysis of moderated mediated effects reveals that when the external social capital is low, the indirect relationship between transformational leadership and ESG performance via organizational innovation is 0.029, 95% CI = [−0.018, 0.076]. When the external social capital is high, the indirect relationship between transformational leadership and ESG performance via organizational innovation is 0.146, 95% CI = [0.098, 0.200], and there is a significant difference in the indirect effect at both high and low levels, with a difference of 0.117, 95% CI = [0.028, 0.108]. Hence, H6 is supported.

5. Discussion

This study advances knowledge about how a firm’s ESG performance can be enhanced by its transformational leadership style. While the existing literature has investigated consequences of ESG performance, empirical studies on the transformational leadership–ESG performance outcome link are lacking. This study explored the action mechanisms between transformational leadership and ESG performance of SMEs from a strategic perspective, using a combination of higher-order theory, a resource-based view, and stakeholder theory. A questionnaire was administered to SME employees and senior leaders in a Chinese context, with transformational leadership as the dependent variable, corporate ESG performance as the independent variable, organizational innovation as a mediating variable between transformational leadership and ESG performance, and external social capital as a moderating variable between transformational leadership and organizational innovation. The conclusions of the study follow:
First, transformational leadership positively affects ESG performance in SMEs. Transformational leadership is an inherent element that focuses on the personal development of employees and creates a positive environment for their development through visionary motivation and personalized care [134]. In short, it is a leadership style that creates a positive environment for employees to develop. Transformational leaders are well positioned to integrate corporate sustainability with ESG performance, leading by example and communicating to employees through vision statements so that the employees have a clear understanding of the importance of ESG performance to corporate sustainability.
Second, organizational innovation partially mediates the linkages between transformational leadership and corporate ESG performance. For instance, transformational leaders help employees acquire knowledge and skills to enhance innovation through intellectual stimulation and visionary motivation, adopt innovative approaches to effectively increase employee motivation, and continuously improve employee motivation levels so that employees internalize organizational innovation goals as their own valued goals [135], thus improving ESG performance.
Third, external social capital positively moderates the direct relationships between transformational leadership and organizational innovation. External social capital is the bridging capital that connects the entire social relationship network. At the same time, it can expand diversified knowledge-source channels for the firm [136]. When an organization has a lot of external social capital, transformational leaders can broaden information channels through problem identification, information search, and accessing external knowledge and resources. This helps the organization improve its capabilities for organizational innovation [127].

5.1. Theoretical Significance

First, this study reveals that transformational leadership is an essential factor that effectively contributes to ESG performance, which is a valuable addition to previous research. Contemporary leadership approaches, in terms of their uniqueness and importance, have been increasingly studied by both academics and practitioners. Prior research on specific contemporary theories of transformational leadership has generally been on the implementation of the theory and its relationship with organizational citizenship behavior or firm performance [137,138,139]. This study is considered a significant contributor to the present literature, since it provides a perspective on the effects of leadership theories on ESG performance, in an area of scarce empirical research [140].
Second, this study enriches knowledge of the antecedents of ESG performance in SMEs. Most existing studies examined ESG performance as an influencing factor and explored its effects on corporate financing costs and financial performance; this research focus highlights the importance of corporate ESG performance, but there is no focus on ESG performance as a dependent variable. However, this paper explores corporate ESG performance as a dependent variable and looks into ways to improve ESG management. In addition, most studies only focus on one aspect of environmental performance, corporate social responsibility, or corporate governance, rarely combining these three aspects to examine corporate performance. By doing so, this study provides new perspectives and valuable directions.
Third, this study explores the internal mechanisms of transformational leadership and ESG performance in SMEs, thus opening the black box concerning the connections between transformational leadership and ESG performance in SMEs. To more fully reveal how transformational leadership affects ESG performance in SMEs, this paper provides a new perspective and theoretical model for the study of corporate ESG performance, constructs a model of leadership traits–organizational mechanisms–corporate ESG performance, clarifies the role of transformational leadership in influencing corporate ESG performance, remedies the shortcomings of previous studies, and provides a new reference for enhancing corporate strategic management theory. In short, it provides a new referential basis for deepening the theory of corporate strategic management.
Finally, this study introduces external social capital into the model, explores the impact and conditions of transformational leadership on organizational innovation, and establishes a mediating-effect model that is moderated to reveal the positive interaction effects of transformational leadership and external social capital on corporate ESG performance, thus changing the single model used in previous studies on factors affecting organizational innovation.

5.2. Practical Significance

First, businesses should prioritize the development of transformational leadership characteristics. For businesses to gain a competitive advantage, it is essential to identify and cultivate exceptional transformational leaders or even leadership teams [141]. Organizations can properly cultivate transformational leadership styles. For instance, a company can establish a leadership style analysis group, develop a transformational leadership training and evaluation system based on the dimensions of transformational leadership and the company’s characteristics, and conduct regular audits and training on the transformational leadership styles of its leaders. According to the evaluation results, the leader can be provided with suggestions for improving his or her leadership style.
Second, organizational enterprise innovation should be strengthened. Organizational innovation is a key measure for enterprises to enhance their competitive advantages [142]. Enterprises should optimize workflow, adjust staff tasks and functions, revise management rules and regulations, and explore more efficient management methods and novel management techniques to better adapt to external environmental changes, enhance enterprise resilience, and promote enterprise development through organizational innovation [143]. In addition, managers should establish innovative work models for their employees; provide them with intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and personalized care; help them establish high-level innovation goals; develop innovative ways of thinking; and enrich their innovation skills [144].
Third, businesses should consider ESG performance. When formulating strategies and implementing decisions, enterprises should consider their development and stakeholder demands, comprehensively analyze the impact on society and the environment, and maximize the total value [145]. By bolstering environmental responsibility and ethics, businesses integrate environmentally responsible behavior and executive ethical commitment with corporate strategy, enhancing their competitive advantage [146]. Responsible management can be practiced in numerous facets of R&D, design, manufacturing, and product sales [147]. At the same time, enterprises should integrate the practice of social responsibility into supply chain management, systematically manage the suppliers’ and partners’ compliance, safety, environmental protection, and operation transparency and realize the joint fulfillment of corporate social responsibility. In addition, enterprises should strengthen their daily information disclosure efforts and maintain immediate communication with various stakeholders to gain the community’s understanding and support through extensive use of traditional and new media.
Fourth, firms should focus on establishing social capital and strengthening the cultivation and maintenance of external social capital. Firstly, in terms of the relationship network of market competition, firms should establish a positive corporate image, strengthen their communication and cooperation channels with other enterprises, and learn advanced management modes and service concepts to build a stable relationship network [148]. Secondly, businesses should focus on and maintain their relationship networks with governments, strengthen the cooperation between government and enterprises by building a good relationship with the government, broaden information channels, and obtain the heterogeneous resources needed for the development and growth of enterprises.

5.3. Prospects and Limitations

Although this study has made progress in terms of its theoretical and practical implications, it still contains shortcomings that can be addressed in future research. First, in this paper, only firm type, firm size, years in business, and firm industry are selected as control variables; other control variables, such as the market value of equity, earnings per share, and return on asset may be selected in future research. Second, this paper only selects organizational innovation as the mediating variable between transformational leadership and ESG performance; in the future, other mediating variables, such as technological innovation, may be selected to investigate the mechanism underlying the relationship between transformational leadership and ESG performance. Third, this paper conducts empirical research using only a questionnaire and no qualitative research. Enterprises can be used as case studies for qualitative research in the future. In addition, future studies could include secondary data to make the study more rigorous and comprehensive. Fourth, this study only examines the impact of transformational leadership on corporate ESG performance, and it does not examine it from other leadership perspectives. In the future, the impact of different leadership styles on corporate ESG performance, such as ethical leadership and responsible leadership, can be studied.

Author Contributions

Supervision, F.H.; writing, original draft, J.Z. 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

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This study partially summarizes Jin Zhu’s Ph.D. thesis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Study’s construct and items.
Table A1. Study’s construct and items.
ConstructItemsStatement
Transformational leadership (TL)TL1The leader shows determination in accomplishing goals.
TL2The leader is respected by all for the way they handle things.
TL3The leader does not care about personal gain or loss for the sake of the team or collective good.
TL4The leader demonstrates competent, driven and confident traits.
TL5The leader is very focused on the interests of the organization.
TL6The leader expresses expectations for high performance to their subordinates.
TL7The leader portrays an inspiring future to everyone.
TL8The leader conveys a sense of mission to everyone.
Organizational innovation (OL)OL1The company introduced a new management system.
OL2The company introduces new practices of organizational improvement (process reengineering, quality management, etc.).
OL3The company introduces new management processes (new work manual, new recruitment and assessment system).
OL4The company introduces a new approach to planning and budgeting.
OL5The company actively implements new policies to improve organizational performance.
External social capital (sc)SC1The company maintains good relationships with government departments.
SC2The company can get support and resources from the government.
SC3The company establishes good relationships with its partners.
SC4The company regularly conducts technical exchanges with its partners.
SC5The company establishes good relationships with financial institutions.
SC6The company maintains good cooperative relationships with its suppliers.
Environmental performance (EP)EP1The company takes the initiative to use low-carbon energy-saving products and equipment.
EP2The company uses clean energy and fuels.
EP3The company has a comprehensive energy-saving system and measures for energy conservation, comprehensive recycling of resources, green office, etc., and has implemented them effectively.
EP4The company has built a perfect environmental protection organization management system and environmental management system.
EP5The company reduces environmentally harmful behaviors.
EP6The company actively participates in various social environmental causes and environmental protection acts such as ecological protection.
Corporate social responsibility
(CSR)
CSR1 The company encourages employees to develop their skills and careers.
CSR2The company pays attention to the needs of employees.
CSR3The company attaches great importance to the training of employees.
CSR4The company values the welfare of its employees.
CSR5The company focuses on the improvement of employees’ production and operation conditions.
CSR6The company supports the assistance of community personnel (vulnerable groups).
CSR7The company’s operations will not have a negative impact on the community.
CSR8The Company participates in various charitable activities.
CSR9The company participates in long-term social welfare activities.
CSR10The company attaches great importance to customer satisfaction.
CSR11The company provides customers with comprehensive and accurate information about the products it sells.
CSR12The company respects the protection of consumer rights.
Corporate
governance (CG)
CG1The company has a good information disclosure mechanism.
CG2The company fully considers the interests of shareholders and other stakeholders.
CG3The company has a good anti-risk response mechanism.
CG4The company has good business ethics.
CG5The company has a good anti-bribery mechanism to eliminate corruption.
CG6The company operates legally and compliantly.

References

  1. Giovannoni, E.; Fabietti, G. What Is Sustainability? A Review of the Concept and Its Applications. In Integrated Reporting; Busco, C., Frigo, M.L., Riccaboni, A., Quattrone, P., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2013; pp. 21–40. ISBN 978-3-319-02167-6. [Google Scholar]
  2. Eccles, N.S.; Viviers, S. The Origins and Meanings of Names Describing Investment Practices that Integrate a Consideration of ESG Issues in the Academic Literature. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 104, 389–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Galbreath, J. ESG in Focus: The Australian Evidence. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 118, 529–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Brundtland, G.H. Our Common Future—Call for Action*. Environ. Conserv. 1987, 14, 291–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tarmuji, I.; Maelah, R.; Tarmuji, N.H. The Impact of Environmental, Social and Governance Practices (ESG) on Economic Performance: Evidence from ESG Score. IJTEF 2016, 7, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Buallay, A. Is sustainability reporting (ESG) associated with performance? Evidence from the European banking sector. MEQ 2019, 30, 98–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. UN Global Compact. Who Cares Wins Conference Report: Investing for Long-Term Value. 2005. Available online: https://pt.scribd.com/fullscreen/16876744?access_key=key-mfg3d0usaiuaob4taki (accessed on 11 October 2022).
  8. Gillan, S.L.; Koch, A.; Starks, L.T. Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research in corporate finance. J. Corp. Financ. 2021, 66, 101889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, T.-T.; Wang, K.; Sueyoshi, T.; Wang, D.D. ESG: Research Progress and Future Prospects. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lindgreen, A.; Swaen, V. Corporate Social Responsibility. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2010, 12, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Henisz, W.; Koller, T.; Nuttall, R. Five ways that ESG creates value. The McKinsey Quarterly 2019, 11, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  12. Huang, D.Z.X. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) activity and firm performance: A review and consolidation. Acc. Financ. 2021, 61, 335–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Drempetic, S.; Klein, C.; Zwergel, B. The Influence of Firm Size on the ESG Score: Corporate Sustainability Ratings Under Review. J. Bus. Ethics 2020, 167, 333–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Broadstock, D.C.; Chan, K.; Cheng, L.T.W.; Wang, X. The role of ESG performance during times of financial crisis: Evidence from COVID-19 in China. Financ. Res. Lett. 2021, 38, 101716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Avramov, D.; Cheng, S.; Lioui, A.; Tarelli, A. Sustainable investing with ESG rating uncertainty. J. Financ. Econ. 2022, 145, 642–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhao, C.; Guo, Y.; Yuan, J.; Wu, M.; Li, D.; Zhou, Y.; Kang, J. ESG and Corporate Financial Performance: Empirical Evidence from China’s Listed Power Generation Companies. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Ruan, L.; Liu, H. Environmental, Social, Governance Activities and Firm Performance: Evidence from China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zahid, R.M.A.; Saleem, A.; Maqsood, U.S. ESG performance, capital financing decisions, and audit quality: Empirical evidence from Chinese state-owned enterprises. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 1, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liu, H.; Lyu, C. Can ESG Ratings Stimulate Corporate Green Innovation? Evidence from China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bahadori, N.; Kaymak, T.; Seraj, M. Environmental, social, and governance factors in emerging markets: The impact on firm performance. Bus. Strat. Dev. 2021, 4, 411–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Do, Y.; Kim, S. Do Higher-Rated or Enhancing ESG of Firms Enhance Their Long–Term Sustainability? Evidence from Market Returns in Korea. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Di Tommaso, C.; Thornton, J. Do ESG scores effect bank risk taking and value? Evidence from European banks. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2286–2298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Friede, G.; Busch, T.; Bassen, A. ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. J. Sustain. Financ. Invest. 2015, 5, 210–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Duque-Grisales, E.; Aguilera-Caracuel, J. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Scores and Financial Performance of Multilatinas: Moderating Effects of Geographic International Diversification and Financial Slack. J. Bus. Ethics 2021, 168, 315–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Alsayegh, M.F.; Abdul Rahman, R.; Homayoun, S. Corporate Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability Performance Transformation through ESG Disclosure. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ting, I.W.K.; Azizan, N.A.; Bhaskaran, R.K.; Sukumaran, S.K. Corporate Social Performance and Firm Performance: Comparative Study among Developed and Emerging Market Firms. Sustainability 2019, 12, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Mohammad, W.M.W.; Wasiuzzaman, S. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) disclosure, competitive advantage and performance of firms in Malaysia. Clean. Environ. Syst. 2021, 2, 100015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bhaskaran, R.K.; Ting, I.W.K.; Sukumaran, S.K.; Sumod, S.D. Environmental, social and governance initiatives and wealth creation for firms: An empirical examination. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2020, 41, 710–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Alareeni, B.A.; Hamdan, A. ESG impact on performance of US S&P 500-listed firms. CG 2020, 20, 1409–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nekhili, M.; Boukadhaba, A.; Nagati, H.; Chtioui, T. ESG performance and market value: The moderating role of employee board representation. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2021, 32, 3061–3087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Garcia, A.S.; Mendes-Da-Silva, W.; Orsato, R.J. Sensitive industries produce better ESG performance: Evidence from emerging markets. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 150, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Farooq, O. Financial Centers And The Relationship Between ESG Disclosure And Firm Performance: Evidence From An Emerging Market. JABR 2015, 31, 1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Hambrick, D.C.; Mason, P.A. Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1984, 9, 193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lv, Y.; Cao, C.; Yao, H. Does the Promotion of CSR by Senior Leaders Contribute to CSR Performance. Sci. Technol. Dev. 2020, 16, 508–515. [Google Scholar]
  35. Thomas, H.; Thomas, L. Perspectives on leadership in business schools. J. Manag. Dev. 2011, 30, 526–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bass, B.M. Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational Leadership. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 1999, 8, 9–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Bass, B.M.; Avolio, B.J. Developing Transformational Leadership: 1992 and Beyond. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 1990, 14, 231–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Siangchokyoo, N.; Klinger, R.L.; Campion, E.D. Follower transformation as the linchpin of transformational leadership theory: A systematic review and future research agenda. Leadersh. Q. 2020, 31, 101341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bakker, A.B.; Hetland, J.; Kjellevold Olsen, O.; Espevik, R. Daily transformational leadership: A source of inspiration for follower performance? Eur. Manag. J. 2022, 4, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Phaneuf, J.-É.; Boudrias, J.-S.; Rousseau, V.; Brunelle, É. Personality and transformational leadership: The moderating effect of organizational context. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 102, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jin, S.; Seo, M.-G.; Shapiro, D.L. Do happy leaders lead better? Affective and attitudinal antecedents of transformational leadership. Leadersh. Q. 2016, 27, 64–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lord, R.G.; Brown, D.J.; Harvey, J.L.; Hall, R.J. Contextual constraints on prototype generation and their multilevel consequences for leadership perceptions. Leadersh. Q. 2001, 12, 311–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lee, K.-M. The Effect of Transformational Leadership on Job Engagement and Employee Creativity: The Mediating Role of LMX. J. CEO Manag. Stud. 2020, 23, 49–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Farahani, M.; Taghadosi, M.; Behboudi, M. An Exploration of the Relationship between Transformational Leadership and Organizational Commitment: The Moderating Effect of Emotional Intelligence: Case Study in Iran. IBR 2011, 4, p211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Pradhan, R.K.; Panda, M.; Jena, L.K. Transformational leadership and psychological empowerment: The mediating effect of organizational culture in Indian retail industry. JEIM 2017, 30, 82–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pillai, R.; Williams, E.A. Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment, and performance. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2004, 17, 144–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sun, X.; El Askary, A.; Meo, M.S.; Zafar, N.u.A.; Hussain, B. Green transformational leadership and environmental performance in small and medium enterprises. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2022, 35, 5273–5291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kura, K.M. Linking Environmentally Specific Transformational Leadership and Environmental Concern to Green Behaviour at Work. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2016, 17, 1S–14S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kim, M.; Stepchenkova, S. Does environmental leadership affect market and eco performance? Evidence from Korean franchise firms. JBIM 2018, 33, 417–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Liu, X.; Jie, X. Can Manager’s Environmentally Specific Transformational Leadership Improve Environmental Performance? In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management, Cape Town, South Africa, 3–6 August 2023; Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing. Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; Volume 1002, pp. 730–742, ISBN 978-3-030-21254-4. [Google Scholar]
  51. Tourigny, L.; Han, J.; Baba, V.V.; Pan, P. Ethical Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility in China: A Multilevel Study of Their Effects on Trust and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 158, 427–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Khan, H.u.R.; Ali, M.; Olya, H.G.T.; Zulqarnain, M.; Khan, Z.R. Transformational leadership, corporate social responsibility, organizational innovation, and organizational performance: Symmetrical and asymmetrical analytical approaches. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 1270–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Groves, K.S.; LaRocca, M.A. Does Transformational Leadership Facilitate Follower Beliefs in Corporate Social Responsibility? A Field Study of Leader Personal Values and Follower Outcomes. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2012, 19, 215–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Waldman, D.A.; Siegel, D.S.; Javidan, M. Components of CEO Transformational Leadership and Corporate Social Responsibility. J. Manag. Stud. 2006, 43, 1703–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Waldman, D.A.; Siegel, D.S.; Javidan, M. Ceo TransformationalLeadership and Corporate Social Responsibility. Rensselaer Work. Pap. Econ. 2004, 6, 1–42. [Google Scholar]
  56. Frooman, J. Stakeholder Influence Strategies. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1999, 24, 191–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Freeman, R.E.; McVea, J. A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management. In The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management; Hitt, M.A., Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Eds.; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 183–201. ISBN 978-1-4051-6402-3. [Google Scholar]
  58. Donaldson, T.; Preston, L.E. The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 65–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Parmar, B.L.; Freeman, R.E.; Harrison, J.S.; Wicks, A.C.; Purnell, L.; de Colle, S. Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2010, 4, 403–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bandsuch, M.; Pate, L.; Thies, J. Rebuilding Stakeholder Trust in Business: An Examination of Principle-Centered Leadership and Organizational Transparency in Corporate Governance. Bus. Soc. Rev. 2008, 113, 99–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sözbilir, F.; Ye, S. Impact of Transformational Leadership and Corporate Governance on Business Performance. Int. J. Corp. Gov. 2017, 13, 268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Schumpeter, J.; Backhaus, U. The theory of economic development. In Joseph Alois Schumpeter; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2003; pp. 61–116. [Google Scholar]
  63. OECD. Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development; The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities; OECD: Paris, France, 2015; ISBN 978-92-64-23880-0. [Google Scholar]
  64. Birkinshaw, J.; Hamel, G. Management Innovation. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2008, 33, 825–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Barney, J.B. The Resource-Based Theory of the Firm. Organ. Sci. 1996, 7, 469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Grant, R.M. The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1991, 33, 114–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Khosravi, P.; Newton, C.; Rezvani, A. Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research. Eur. Manag. J. 2019, 37, 694–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gumusluoğlu, L.; Ilsev, A. Transformational Leadership and Organizational Innovation: The Roles of Internal and External Support for Innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2009, 26, 264–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Paulsen, N.; Maldonado, D.; Callan, V.J.; Ayoko, O. Charismatic leadership, change and innovation in an R&D organization. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2009, 22, 511–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhang, Y.; Yang, F. How and when spiritual leadership enhances employee innovative behavior. PR 2020, 50, 596–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yoshida, D.T.; Sendjaya, S.; Hirst, G.; Cooper, B. Does servant leadership foster creativity and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and prototypicality. J. Bus. Res. 2014, 67, 1395–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hou, B.; Hong, J.; Zhu, K.; Zhou, Y. Paternalistic leadership and innovation: The moderating effect of environmental dynamism. EJIM 2019, 22, 562–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hamdoun, M.; Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J.; Ben Othman, H. Knowledge transfer and organizational innovation: Impacts of quality and environmental management. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 193, 759–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Fu, W.; Revilla Diez, J.; Schiller, D. Interactive learning, informal networks and innovation: Evidence from electronics firm survey in the Pearl River Delta, China. Res. Policy 2013, 42, 635–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chang, S.; Lee, M. The linkage between knowledge accumulation capability and organizational innovation. J. Knowl. Manag. 2008, 12, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Büschgens, T.; Bausch, A.; Balkin, D.B. Organizational Culture and Innovation: A Meta-Analytic Review: Organizational Culture and Innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2013, 30, 763–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Chang, Y.-Y. Multilevel transformational leadership and management innovation: Intermediate linkage evidence. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2016, 37, 265–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Qu, R.; Janssen, O.; Shi, K. Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The mediating role of follower relational identification and the moderating role of leader creativity expectations. Leadersh. Q. 2015, 26, 286–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Jung, D.I.; Chow, C.; Wu, A. The Role of Transformational Leadership in Enhancing Organizational Innovation: Hypotheses and Some Preliminary Findings. Leadersh. Q. 2003, 14, 525–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hellström, T. Systemic innovation and risk: Technology assessment and the challenge of responsible innovation. Technol. Soc. 2003, 25, 369–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. European Commission. Ethical and Regulatory Challenges to Science and Research Policy at the Global Level; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2012; p. 60. [Google Scholar]
  82. Blok, V. Look who’s talking: Responsible innovation, the paradox of dialogue and the voice of the other in communication and negotiation processes. J. Responsible Innov. 2014, 1, 171–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Asante, K.; Owen, R.; Williamson, G. Governance of new product development and perceptions of responsible innovation in the financial sector: Insights from an ethnographic case study. J. Responsible Innov. 2014, 1, 9–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Liu, Z. Responsible innovation research review: Background, current status and trend. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 2015, 32, 155–160. [Google Scholar]
  85. Owen, R.; Stilgoe, J.; Macnaghten, P.; Gorman, M.; Fisher, E.; Guston, D. A Framework for Responsible Innovation. In Responsible Innovation; Owen, R., Bessant, J., Heintz, M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2013; pp. 27–50. ISBN 978-1-118-55142-4. [Google Scholar]
  86. Maak, T. Responsible Leadership, Stakeholder Engagement, and the Emergence of Social Capital. J. Bus. Ethics 2007, 74, 329–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Lee, R.; Lee, J.-H.; Garrett, T.C. Synergy effects of innovation on firm performance. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 99, 507–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Arranz, N.; Arroyabe, M.F.; Li, J.; de Arroyabe, J.C.F. An integrated model of organisational innovation and firm performance: Generation, persistence and complementarity. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 105, 270–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Suchman, M.C. Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Tilling, M.V. Some thoughts on legitimacy theory in social and environmental accounting. Soc. Environ. Account. J. 2004, 24, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Yang, D.; Xie, Y. Corporate Social responsibility, Green Innovation Ability and Corporate Environmental Performance. Commun. Financ. Accouting 2019, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Li, Y. Environmental innovation practices and performance: Moderating effect of resource commitment. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 66, 450–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Rehman, S.U.; Kraus, S.; Shah, S.A.; Khanin, D.; Mahto, R.V. Analyzing the relationship between green innovation and environmental performance in large manufacturing firms. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 163, 120481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Porter, M.E. Competitive strategy. Meas. Bus. Excell. 1997, 1, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Barney, J. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Zeng, H.; Chen, J.; Zhou, Z. Dynamic Interaction of Innovation Ability and Corporate Social Responsibility. RD Manag. 2020, 32, 111–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Asongu, J.J. Innovation as an Argument for Corporate Social Responsibility. J. Bus. Public Policy 2007, 1, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  98. Gallego-Álvarez, I.; Manuel Prado-Lorenzo, J.; García-Sánchez, I. Corporate social responsibility and innovation: A resource-based theory. Manag. Decis. 2011, 49, 1709–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pan, J.; Han, S.; Xiao, W. A Study on the Effects of Innovation Quality on the Corporate Social Responibility —Evidence from the Listed Companies on Shenzhen A—Share Stock Market. J. Macro—Qual. Res. 2021, 9, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Bosse, D.A.; Phillips, R.A. Agency theory and bounded self-interest. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2016, 41, 276–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Spitzeck, H.; Hansen, E.G. Stakeholder governance: How stakeholders influence corporate decision making. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2010, 10, 378–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Amis, J.; Barney, J.; Mahoney, J.T.; Wang, H. From the Editors—Why We Need a Theory of Stakeholder Governance—And Why This is a Hard Problem. AMR 2020, 45, 499–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Zhou, B.; Li, Y.; Sun, F.; Zhou, Z. Executive compensation incentives, risk level and corporate innovation. Emerg. Mark. Rev. 2021, 47, 100798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Belloc, F. Corporate governance and innovation: A survey: Corporate governance and innovation. J. Econ. Surv. 2012, 26, 835–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Asensio-López, D.; Cabeza-García, L.; González-Álvarez, N. Corporate governance and innovation: A theoretical review. EJMBE 2019, 28, 266–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Galia, F.; Zenou, E. Board composition and forms of innovation: Does diversity make a difference? EJIM 2012, 6, 630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Gonzales-Bustos, J.P.; Hernández-Lara, A.B. Corporate governance and innovation: A systematic literature review. COC 2016, 13, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Dang, Y. Corporate Governance and Technology Innovation: Review and Implications. Rev. Ind. Econ. 2012, 3, 62–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Kilduff, M.; Brass, D.J. Organizational Social Network Research: Core Ideas and Key Debates. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2010, 4, 317–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Burt, R.S. The network structure of social capital. Res. Organ. Behav. 2000, 22, 345–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Bolino, M.C.; Turnley, W.H.; Bloodgood, J.M. Citizenship Behavior and the Creation of Social Capital in Organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Adler, P.S.; Kwon, S.-W. Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 25, 17–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Hillman, A.J.; Withers, M.C.; Collins, B.J. Resource Dependence Theory: A Review. J. Manag. 2009, 35, 1404–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Engbers, T.A.; Thompson, M.F.; Slaper, T.F. Theory and Measurement in Social Capital Research. Soc. Indic. Res. 2017, 132, 537–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Servaes, H.; Tamayo, A. The Role of Social Capital in Corporations: A Review. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 2017, 33, 201–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Cuevas-Rodríguez, G.; Cabello-Medina, C.; Carmona-Lavado, A. Internal and External Social Capital for Radical Product Innovation: Do They Always Work Well Together?: Social Capital for Product Innovation. Brit. J. Manag. 2014, 25, 266–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Lin, N. Building a Network Theory of Social Capital. Connections 1999, 22, 28–51. [Google Scholar]
  118. Nahapiet, J.; Ghoshal, S. Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Chen, Y.; Jin, B.; Ren, Y. Impact Mechanism of Corporate Social Responsibility on Technological Innovation Performance: The Mediating Effect Based on Social Capital. Sci. Res. Manag. 2020, 41, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Huggins, R.; Johnston, A.; Thompson, P. Network Capital, Social Capital and Knowledge Flow: How the Nature of Inter-organizational Networks Impacts on Innovation. Ind. Innov. 2012, 19, 203–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Landry, R.; Amara, N.; Lamari, M. Does social capital determine innovation? To what extent? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2002, 69, 681–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Jamali, D.; Yianni, M.; Abdallah, H. Strategic partnerships, social capital and innovation: Accounting for social alliance innovation. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2011, 20, 375–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Sanchez-Famoso, V.; Maseda, A.; Iturralde, T. The role of internal social capital in organisational innovation. An empirical study of family firms. Eur. Manag. J. 2014, 32, 950–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Zeng, P.; Deng, T.; Song, T. The Relationship among Social apital, Dynamic Capabilities, and Enterprise Innovation. Sci. Res. Manag. 2013, 34, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Jane, E. Fountain Social capital: Its relationship to innovation in science and technology. Sci. Public Policy 1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  126. Alrowwad, A.; Obeidat, B.Y.; Tarhini, A.; Aqqad, N. The Impact of Transformational Leadership on Organizational Performance via the Mediating Role of Corporate Social Responsibility: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. IBR 2016, 10, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Chen, L.; Zheng, W.; Yang, B.; Bai, S. Transformational leadership, social capital and organizational innovation. LODJ 2016, 37, 843–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Jansen, J.J.P.; Van Den Bosch, F.A.J.; Volberda, H.W.; Ignacio, G. Vaccaro Management Innovation and Leadership: The Moderating Role of Organizational Size: Management Innovation and Leadership. J. Manag. Stud. 2012, 49, 28–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zhou, F.; Lin, C.; Sun, R. A Research on the Relationship between Ethical Leadership and Organization Management Innovation: Mediation Effect of Informal Knowledge Sharing. Manag. Rev. 2015, 27, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Bornay-Barrachina, M.; López-Cabrales, A.; Valle-Cabrera, R. How do employment relationships enhance firm innovation? The role of human and social capital. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2017, 28, 1363–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Luo, J.; Jia, X. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Initiatives and Firm lnnovation—Based on the Social Capital Theory. RD Manag. 2017, 29, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Li, J.; Zhang, G.; Xie, L. Environmental Knowledge Learning, Green Innovation and Environmental Performance. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 2019, 36, 122–128. [Google Scholar]
  133. De Roeck, K.; Farooq, O. Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethical Leadership: Investigating Their Interactive Effect on Employees’ Socially Responsible Behaviors. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 151, 923–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Kark, R.; Shamir, B.; Chen, G. The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 246–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Bartel, C.A.; Garud, R. The Role of Narratives in Sustaining Organizational Innovation. Organ. Sci. 2009, 20, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Robison, L.J.; Schmid, A.A.; Siles, M.E. Is Social Capital Really Capital? Rev. Soc. Econ. 2002, 60, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  137. Boehm, S.A.; Dwertmann, D.J.G.; Bruch, H.; Shamir, B. The missing link? Investigating organizational identity strength and transformational leadership climate as mechanisms that connect CEO charisma with firm performance. Leadersh. Q. 2015, 26, 156–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Masa’deh, R.; Obeidat, B.Y.; Tarhini, A. A Jordanian empirical study of the associations among transformational leadership, transactional leadership, knowledge sharing, job performance, and firm performance: A structural equation modelling approach. J. Manag. Dev. 2016, 35, 681–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Atmojo, M. The Influence of Transformational Leadership on Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Employee Performance. IRJBS 2012, 5, 113–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  140. Kim, M.-S.; Thapa, B. Relationship of Ethical Leadership, Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Performance. Sustainability 2018, 10, 447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Aga, D.A.; Noorderhaven, N.; Vallejo, B. Transformational leadership and project success: The mediating role of team-building. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 806–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Rowe, L.A.; Boise, W.B. Organizational Innovation: Current Research and Evolving Concepts. Public Adm. Rev. 1974, 34, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Damanpour, F. Organizational Innovation; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2020; ISBN 978-1-78811-744-9. [Google Scholar]
  144. Sapprasert, K.; Clausen, T.H. Organizational innovation and its effects. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2012, 21, 1283–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Aguinis, H.; Glavas, A. What We Know and Don’t Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda. J. Manag. 2012, 38, 932–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. Zhang, Y.; Wei, F. SMEs’ charismatic leadership, product life cycle, environmental performance, and financial performance: A mediated moderation model. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 306, 127–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Du, S.; Bhattacharya, C.B.; Sen, S. Corporate Social Responsibility and Competitive Advantage: Overcoming the Trust Barrier. Manag. Sci. 2011, 57, 1528–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  148. Parra-Requena, G.; Ruiz-Ortega, M.J.; García-Villaverde, P.M.; Rodrigo-Alarcón, J. The Mediating Role of Knowledge Acquisition on the Relationship Between External Social Capital and Innovativeness. Eur. Manag. Rev. 2015, 12, 149–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Research Framework.
Figure 1. Research Framework.
Sustainability 15 05756 g001
Figure 2. The moderating role of external social capital in the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational innovation.
Figure 2. The moderating role of external social capital in the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational innovation.
Sustainability 15 05756 g002
Table 1. Participants’ demographic profiles.
Table 1. Participants’ demographic profiles.
CharacteristicOptionsNo.Percentage
GenderMale16547.14
Female18552.86
Age20–30 years old9025.71
30–40 years old10329.43
40–50 years old9727.71
Over 50 years old6017.14
EducationHigh school8323.71
College degree10730.57
Bachelor’s degree7822.29
Master’s degree or above8223.43
Years in businessLess than 5 years12234.86
5–10 years318.86
10–20 years11031.43
More than 20 years8724.86
Firm ownershipState-owned enterprise8724.86
Private enterprise8223.43
Foreign enterprise9828.00
Others8323.71
Firm industryManufacturing industry4111.71
Finance and insurance industry216.00
Culture, sports, and entertainment industry257.14
Wholesale, retail, and service industry298.29
Real estate industry3510.00
Information transportation, computer services, and software industry4111.71
Scientific research, technical services, geological prospecting, and energy industry3810.86
Health and social security industry339.43
Transportation industry267.43
Education industry329.14
Others298.29
Firm size0–50 people8123.14
50–200 people7220.57
200–500 people11532.86
More than 500 people8223.43
         Total350100.0
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis, reliability, and validity of measurement model.
Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis, reliability, and validity of measurement model.
ConstructItemsFactor
Loading
Variance
Explained
Cronbach’s AlphaKMO Value
Transformational
Leadership (TL)
TL10.8630.5760.8950.932
TL20.746
TL30.737
TL40.731
TL50.724
TL60.755
TL70.772
TL80.739
Organizational
innovation (OL)
OI10.8660.6010.8340.845
0I20.777
OI30.748
OI40.754
OI50.723
External social capital
(SC)
SC10.8680.6310.8820.903
SC20.821
SC30.799
SC40.785
SC50.705
SC60.777
Environmental
performance (EP)
EP10.911 0.6330.8840.893
EP20.771
EP30.765
EP40.796
EP50.772
EP60.751
Corporate social responsibility
(CR)
CSR10.9030.6030.940 0.917
CSR20.753
CSR30.773
CSR40.761
CSR50.752
CSR60.757
CSR70.809
CSR80.769
CSR90.774
CSR100.753
CSR110.741
CSR120.763
Corporate
governance (CG)
CG10.9050.6510.8920.901
CG20.811
CG30.777
CG40.771
CG50.777
CG60.791
Table 3. Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 3. Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
Modelχ2dfχ2/dfTLICFIRMRRMSEA
Six-factor1166.3008451.3800.9600.9620.0690.033
TL, SC, OI, EP, CSR, GC
Five-factor1663.0938501.9570.8980.9040.0880.052
TL, SC + OI, EP, CSR, GC
Four-factor2390.7618542.7990.8090.8190.0960.072
TL + SC + OI, EP, CSR, GC
Three-factor3135.9688573.6590.7170.7320.1290.087
TL, SC + OI, EP + CSR + GC
Two-factor3863.5688594.4980.6280.6470.1340.100
TL + SC + OI, EP + CSR + GC
One-factor4362.8778605.0730.5670.5880.1320.108
TL + SC + OI + EP + CSR + GC
Note: TL = transformational leadership, SC = external social capital, OI = organizational innovation, EP = environmental performance, CSR = corporate social responsibility, and GC = corporate governance. “+” indicates combined variables. Same applies below.
Table 4. Model AVE and CR indicator results.
Table 4. Model AVE and CR indicator results.
FactorAverage Variance
of Extracted AVE Values
CR Value of Combined
Confidence
TL0.5200.896
SC0.5610.884
OI0.5090.838
EP0.5690.887
CSR0.5690.940
GC0.5880.895
Table 5. Multicollinearity analysis.
Table 5. Multicollinearity analysis.
VariableVIF1/VIF
EP1.720.583
CSR1.620.616
TL1.560.640
CG1.530.648
SC1.490.673
OI1.430.698
Mean VIF1.56
Table 6. Means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients of variables.
Table 6. Means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients of variables.
VariableMeanSD12345678
Years in business2.4601.2031
Firm ownership2.5101.107−0.0491
Firm industry5.9903.1110.032−0.0041
Firm size2.5701.087−0.0650.0190.0201
TL3.2550.8220.0160.0710.057−0.0301
SC3.2540.8920.030−0.0030.034−0.0400.351 **1
OI3.2800.8410.0260.0360.0710.0260.377 **0.367 **1
ESG3.0870.7410.055−0.0080.043−0.0050.593 **0.563 **0.519 **1
Note: N = 350, ** is p < 0.01, two-tailed test.
Table 7. Results of regression analysis.
Table 7. Results of regression analysis.
ESG PerformanceOrganizational Innovation
VariableβSEt-Valuep-ValueβSEt-Valuep-Value
Constant2.1230.17612.0740.000 **3.1430.18116.9010.000 **
TL0.4210.03910.8190.000 **0.2880.0525.6540.000 **
SC 0.2580.0485.4400.000 **
TL * SC 0.2150.0573.7550.000 **
Firm ownership−0.0350.027−1.3050.1930.0100.0330.2940.769
Firm industry−0.0020.010−0.2430.8080.0130.0131.0040.316
Firm size0.0010.0270.0290.9770.0300.0370.8240.410
Years in business0.0230.0250.9170.3600.0100.0330.2940.769
OI0.3040.0388.0090.000 **
R0.6760.491
R20.4570.241
F-value48.17815.517
Note: N = 350, ** is p < 0.01.
Table 8. Decomposition of the total, direct, and indirect effect (Bootstrap = 5000).
Table 8. Decomposition of the total, direct, and indirect effect (Bootstrap = 5000).
EffectSELLCIULCI
Total effect0.5370.0390.4600.614
Direct effect0.4210.0390.3440.497
Indirect effect0.1160.0200.0790.157
Table 9. Results of bootstrap test for the moderated mediated-effects model.
Table 9. Results of bootstrap test for the moderated mediated-effects model.
TL—>OI—>ESG
SCEffectSELLCIULCI
Low group0.0290.024−0.0180.076
High group0.1460.027 0.0980.200
Differences between groups0.1170.0200.0280.108
Note: Results for bootstrap = 5000. The test to distinguish between indirect and direct effects is based on the confidence interval of bootstrap estimates after bias correction.
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

Zhu, J.; Huang, F. Transformational Leadership, Organizational Innovation, and ESG Performance: Evidence from SMEs in China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5756. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075756

AMA Style

Zhu J, Huang F. Transformational Leadership, Organizational Innovation, and ESG Performance: Evidence from SMEs in China. Sustainability. 2023; 15(7):5756. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075756

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhu, Jin, and Fei Huang. 2023. "Transformational Leadership, Organizational Innovation, and ESG Performance: Evidence from SMEs in China" Sustainability 15, no. 7: 5756. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075756

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