How Green Entrepreneurial Orientation Influences Corporate Performance: The Missing Link of Green Knowledge Sharing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is devoted to the study of the relationship between green entrepreneurship orientation (GEO) and corporate performance (CP), with an emphasis on the mediating role of green knowledge sharing (GKS) and the influence of environmental dynamics (ED). The main empirical basis of the authors' work is a study of 387 Chinese manufacturing enterprises, which allowed us to identify the key dependencies between GEO, financial and environmental indicators, as well as the role of GKS as a mediator. (I would like to note right away that in the work I did not see a clear reference to where the data were obtained. And whether the authors have the necessary permissions to study them). In their work, the authors showed that the mediating role of GKS: SKS has a positive effect on financial and environmental performance, while the influence of CKS is limited. And the moderator ED: Environmental Dynamics enhances the effect of GEO on corporate performance in turbulent conditions. At the end of their work, the authors presented a strategy for implementing GEO to improve the competitiveness and sustainable development of enterprises. Comments:
1. The literature review could be supplemented with examples from other countries to compare with the specifics of the Chinese context.
2. The economic aspects of GEO implementation, such as costs and profitability, are not covered in sufficient detail.
3. The role of CKS requires more in-depth analysis, especially the reasons for its weak impact on financial performance.
4. The authors should provide information on where the analytical data was obtained and whether they have the rights to use it.
5. Line 10: A comma is missing before "and environmental dynamism (ED)".
6. Line 78: "mediating role of green knowledge sharing" — it is recommended to clarify "the mediating role".
7. Line 556: A comma may be missing before "and developing environmentally".
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you for providing directions and constructive comments. Your help is much appreciated. Following your suggestions, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript, which is now more carefully framed. We have written a detailed reply below, hoping that this will help you reconnect with your initial suggestions and understand how we have addressed your comments. Below, we include your points and summarize the actions we have taken.(please note that the references mentioned here are included in the revised version of the manuscript).
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: The literature review could be supplemented with examples from other countries to compare with the specifics of the Chinese context.
Response 1: Thank you for your advice. According to your suggestion, we have carefully considered your suggestion. We have reviewed the latest literature and summarized the research on the implementation of GEO in other developing countries such as India and Egypt, pointing out the shortcomings of existing research and the perspectives that need further exploration. After discussion by the research team, we believe that adding this section to the Introduction would be more appropriate. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found from Line 46 to Line 59 in the second paragraph of the Introduction.
Previous studies have explored the pathways from the perspectives of internal resources and capabilities [5, 6, 7]. For example, Mondal et al. found that the practice of green innovation is effective for GEO to achieve sustainable performance in the Indian MSMEs [5]. Marzouk et al. conducted an investigation among large firms in Egypt, that GEO can achieve triple bottom line performance through two internal capabilities, including green learning orientation and green absorptive capacity [8]. Makhloufi et al. suggested that green innovation performance is a process to help GEO promote business growth and control environmental degradation, and environmental awareness is expected to play an important role in promoting and implementing green practices[9]. However, green entrepreneurship activities have the characteristics of professionalism, complexity, and rapid change. Enterprises may not have all the information and resources needed to implement GEO [10, 11]. How to utilize external resources and capabilities to deal with green entrepreneurship activities has not been examined yet.
Comments 2: The economic aspects of GEO implementation, such as costs and profitability, are not covered in sufficient detail.
Response 2: Thank you for your advice. To explain more clearly, we have further explained the impact of GEO on financial performance through three aspects, including costs saving, profitability improving and product competitiveness. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found from Line 161 to Line 183 in the second paragraph of 2.2 Green entrepreneurial orientation and corporate performance.
GEO can also affect financial performance through three aspects, including costs saving, profitability improving and product competitiveness. Enterprises pursuing GEO have three characteristics, namely green innovation, green proactivity, and risk-taking [26, 27]. First, green innovation reflects the willingness of enterprises to explore new business concepts, products, and services. Enterprises that adopt GEO tend to pursue product innovation and process innovation by restructuring resources [28]. Green product innovation can enable companies to use recyclable and biodegradable materials during production. These methods can reduce energy consumption, alleviate high cost issues [25], and avoid environmental taxes as well as other penalties [29]. In addition, green process innovation helps companies transform waste into profitable products by using new ways [30], providing additional revenue for the enterprise. Second, green proactivity reflects a desire to seize opportunities faster than competitors [31]. Enterprises that adopt a positive attitude towards pursuing green opportunities can gain a first mover advantage [3]. They will seize market opportunities and respond to customer needs faster than competitors, distinguishing their products from competitors in terms of ecological functions [32], and achieve better performance results than competitors [33]. Third, risk-taking involves a company’s preference for pursuing high risks and high returns [34]. Enterprises that implement GEO are willing to take risks in highly uncertain environments and invest a large amount of resources into projects with unpredictable returns [31]. Although the process of green entrepreneurship is always full of complexity and uncertainty, companies have expanded their business exploration scope while pursuing risky activities, gaining more customers and new market growth [35].
Comments 3: The role of CKS requires more in-depth analysis, especially the reasons for its weak impact on financial performance.
Response 3: Thank you for your advice. We have carefully considered your suggestion. To explain more clearly, we have further explained the reason for CKS weak impact on financial performance three aspects, including knowledge absorption, information overload, and reaction speed. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found from Line 678 to Line 701 in the second paragraph of 5.1 Discussion.
These findings are consistent with Zhang and Le's previous research [6], which found that customers' impact on the green development of enterprises is not as significant as that of suppliers. The reasons may related to knowledge absorption, information overload, and reaction speed. First, the knowledge provided by customers may be brand new that is different from the traditional knowledge base of the enterprise [65], which is difficult to quickly integrate with the existing knowledge of the enterprise, making it challenging to effectively absorb and utilize knowledge. Second, the knowledge shared with customers mainly focuses on environmental protection needs, product quantity, and product pricing [44]. On the one hand, these information will not directly and quickly change the resource scheduling of the enterprise. On the other hand, customer demands are often uncertain, and there are differences in customer market demands. Knowledge sharing with customers may result in overloaded information and enterprises may pay mismatched costs to meet customer environmental requirements, which burden the implementation of GEO, leading performance results that do not meet expectations. Third, under the green initiative, customer demands change rapidly, green entrepreneurship investment and resource integration effect of enterprises may not be able to respond in a timely manner to the needs of knowledge sharing with customers. Therefore, the performance improvement brought by customer knowledge sharing is not yet significant. However, knowledge sharing between suppliers can obtain key information about production plans, order changes, raw material supply, and other aspects [43]. These knowledge are directly related to resource allocation and restructuring, and can effectively reduce inventory levels and costs. Therefore, under the guidance of GEO, companies are more likely to rely on knowledge sharing with suppliers to improve their financial performance.
Comments 4: The authors should provide information on where the analytical data was obtained and whether they have the rights to use it.
Response 4: Thank you for your advice. According to your suggestion, we have supplemented information on where the analytical data was obtained and whether they have the rights to use it. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found from Line 375 to Line 395 in the first paragraph of 3.1 Data collection and the Sample.
We collect data from Jilin Province, Shanxi Province, Shandong Province, Sichuan Province, Jiangsu Province and Guangdong Province in China. The reason for choosing these six specific provinces is that China has a vast territory. Choosing six different provinces not only reflects varying degrees of environmental pollution, but also covers different levels of environmental protection work in various regions of China. And it also reflects the different levels of economic development in China to avoid endogeneity issues. Among them, Jilin Province and Shanxi Province are the industrial bases in North China, representing a lower level of economic conditions. Shandong Province and Sichuan Province are on behalf of middle level of China's economic growth, while Jiangsu and Guangdong Province are located along the southeast coast with a fast economic growth. It should be pointed out that the data was collected in two stages. From June 2023 to September 2023, a first round survey questionnaire was distributed to manufacturing enterprises from six provinces. Before distributing the questionnaire, we informed the respondents of our research purpose and kept the content confidential. The respondents have the right to examine the results and general conclusions of this investigation. The respondents are middle and senior management personnel, such as general managers, R&D managers, purchasing managers, environmental department managers, and financial managers and others to ensure that the respondents can accurately reflect the company's strategic orientation, supplier and buyer relationships, and corporate performance. Detail information about the respondents can be seen in the Table 1.
Comments 5:. Line 10: A comma is missing before "and environmental dynamism (ED)".
Comments 6:. Line 78: "mediating role of green knowledge sharing" — it is recommended to clarify "the mediating role".
Comments 7:. Line 556: A comma may be missing before "and developing environmentally".
Response 5-7: Thank you very much for your careful review of the content of the article. Based on your suggestions, we have conducted a detailed examination of the punctuation marks and sentences and made modifications to the entire text. Specific modifications are marked in red in the text.
Once again, we appreciate your insightful suggestions and thank you very much for taking the time to read our manuscript and provide such a detailed review. We greatly value the opportunity to revise and resubmit our study, and we have made every effort to incorporate all the points you raised. We sincerely appreciate your diligent work and hope that the revisions will meet with your approval.
Sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI had the pleasure of reviewing the manuscript titled “How green entrepreneurial orientation influences corporate performance: The missing link of green knowledge sharing” to be considered for publishing in "Sustainability". The research seems sound and provides interesting findings:
1- The title: the title is okey.
1- The abstract: abstract looks okay but it is necessary to mention the data analysis method. Additionally, you may include the statistical software used.
2- The introduction: The introduction is comprehensive and well-written; however, relying on relatively older references to demonstrate the research gap, such as Reference 5, significantly weakens it. Therefore, I kindly request updating the references in the key points throughout the entire manuscript.
3- Literature: the literature looks sufficient:
· I wish the authors had dedicated a section to the theoretical background of the research to explain the theories used in justifying the relationships of the proposed model.
4- Methodology and discussion: seem to be thorough.
· Finally, I would like to congratulate the authors on this outstanding effort. They have successfully presented the study’s concept with a well-crafted introduction to its hypotheses. Rigorous statistical methods were employed to validate or refute the hypotheses, and the authors concluded the study effectively with a comprehensive discussion. This included comparing their study with previous literature and offering well-received contributions, whether theoretical or practical.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you for providing directions and constructive comments. Your help is much appreciated. Following your suggestions, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript, which is now more carefully framed. We have written a detailed reply below, hoping that this will help you reconnect with your initial suggestions and understand how we have addressed your comments. Below, we include your points and summarize the actions we have taken.(please note that the references mentioned here are included in the revised version of the manuscript).
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: The title is okey.The abstract looks okay but it is necessary to mention the data analysis method. Additionally, you may include the statistical software used.
Response 1: Thank you for your advice. According to your suggestion, we have supplemented the data analysis method and the statistical software used in the Abstract. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found in the Abstract.
Abstract: Based on the dynamic capability theory and the contingency theory, this study explores effects of green knowledge sharing (GKS), and environmental dynamism (ED) on the relationship between green entrepreneurial orientation (GEO) and corporate performance (CP). Using SPSS 24.0 software to perform hierarchical regression analysis on the collected data from 387 Chinese manufacturing firms, it was found that GEO has positive influence on financial performance (FP) and environmental performance (EP), supplier knowledge sharing (SKS) and customer knowledge sharing (CKS) play a mediating role in the relationship between GEO and EP, SKS mediates the relationship between GEO and FP. However, CKS does not mediate the relationship between GEO and FP. In addition, our empirical findings show that CP is improved through GEO and GKS in a high dynamic environment. These findings provide theoretical contributions and practical inspirations for the research on green entrepreneurship.
Comments 2: The introduction is comprehensive and well-written; however, relying on relatively older references to demonstrate the research gap, such as Reference 5, significantly weakens it. Therefore, I kindly request updating the references in the key points throughout the entire manuscript.
Response 2: We very much appreciate your comments and your attention to details. According to your suggestion, we have used the latest literature to support our research gaps, and then we have summarized the research gaps including two aspects: First, existing research on the relationship between GEO and corporate performance has been inconsistent. Second, there are still undiscovered path of the relationship. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found in the Introduction. We have also updated the references throughout the entire manuscript, the literature are added as follows and can also be found in Reference.
Reviewing the existing research, we found that there have been many studies on the relationship between GEO and corporate performance, but there are still two aspect remaining unclear. First, existing research on the relationship between GEO and corporate performance has been inconsistent. Traditionally, it has been believed that addressing environmental issues may increase operating costs that limit competitive advantage and affect sustainable development [3]. However, some studies have shown that economic value may be increased through green entrepreneurship [2]. There are also scholars emphasizing that GEO may have an insignificant relationship with CP [4]. The inconsistent research conclusions above indicate that it is still unclear whether and how companies can benefit from green entrepreneurship. Second, there are still undiscovered path of the relationship. Previous studies have explored the pathways from the perspectives of internal resources and capabilities [5, 6, 7]. For example, Mondal et al. found that the practice of green innovation is effective for GEO to achieve sustainable performance in the Indian MSMEs [5]. Marzouk et al. conducted an investigation among large firms in Egypt, that GEO can achieve triple bottom line performance through two internal capabilities, including green learning orientation and green absorptive capacity [8]. Makhloufi et al. suggested that green innovation performance is a process to help GEO promote business growth and control environmental degradation, and environmental awareness is expected to play an important role in promoting and implementing green practices[9]. However, green entrepreneurship activities have the characteristics of professionalism, complexity, and rapid change. Enterprises may not have all the information and resources needed to implement GEO [10, 11]. How to utilize external resources and capabilities to deal with green entrepreneurship activities has not been examined yet.
Reference:
Marzouk, J.; El Ebrashi, R. The interplay among green absorptive capacity, green entrepreneurial, and learning orientations and their effect on triple bottom line performance. Business Strategy and the Environment 2023, 33, 1962-1976.
Zhang, X.; Meng, Q; Le, Y. How do new ventures implementing green innovation strategy achieve performance growth? Sustainability 2022, 14, 2299.
Mishra, P.; Yadav, M. Environmental capabilities, proactive environmental strategy and competitive awadvantage: A natural-resource-based view of firms operating in India. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021, 291, 125249.
Wei, L. S.; Zhu, R.; Yuan, C. L. Embracing green innovation via green supply chain learning: The moderating role of green technology turbulence. Sustainable Development 2020, 28, 155-168.
Schaltegger, S.; Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Hansen, E. G. Business models for sustainability: A co-evolutionary analysis of sustainable entrepreneurship, innovation, and transformation. Organization & Environment 2016, 29, 264-289.
Xie, X. M.; Huo, J. G.; Zou, H. L. Green process innovation, green product innovation, and corporate financial performance: A content analysis method. Journal of Business Research 2019, 101, 697-706.
Hu, D.; Qiu, L.; She, M. Y.; Wang, Y. Sustaining the sustainable development: How do firms turn government green subsidies into financial performance through green innovation? Business Strategy and the Environment 2021, 30, 2271-2292.
Liu, H. F.; Wei, S. B.; Ke, W. L.; Wei, K. K.; Hua, Z. S. The configuration between supply chain integration and information technology competency: A resource orchestration perspective. Journal of Operations Management 2016, 44, 13-29.
Singh, S.; Darwish, T. K.; Potocˇnik, K. Measuring organizational performance: A case for subjective measures. British Journal of Management 2016, 27, 214-224.
Comments 3: I wish the authors had dedicated a section to the theoretical background of the research to explain the theories used in justifying the relationships of the proposed model.
Response 3: Thank you for your advice. According to your suggestion, we have added a section 2.1 Dynamic capability theory to explain the theories used in justifying the relationships of the proposed model, and we modified section 2 to 2. Theoretical background and research model. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found from Line 110 to LIne 140 in 2.1 Dynamic capability theory.
2.1 Dynamic capability theory
This study takes dynamic capability theory as the theoretical perspective. This theory was first proposed by Teece and Pisano [21]. They believed that the resource-based view has not fully addressed the issue of how companies can update their sources of competitiveness. They emphasized the need for the company to integrate, establish, and reconfigure its internal and external resources to cope with rapidly changing environments.
The dynamic capability view expands and supplements the natural resource based view. First, dynamic capabilities allow enterprises to change current norms and solve problems in different ways [22]. For green manufacturing enterprises, constraints caused by the natural environment, such as ecosystem degradation and resource depletion, can threaten the existing resources and capabilities of the enterprise [23]. Therefore, enterprises must take active actions to ensure that they can respond to environmental pressures in an uncertain market and competitive environment, prioritize seizing green opportunities, avoid unnecessary punishment and image damage. Based on this, this study believes that GEO is a dynamic ability to actively seek market green opportunities, which has been also applied in the research of Jiang et al. [2]. Second, an implicit concept of dynamic capability is that enterprises not only compete by utilizing existing resources and organizational capabilities, but also compete by updating and developing organizational capabilities to adapt to uncertain environments [21]. The source of a company's competitive advantage lies in its knowledge resources. Therefore, in the development process of dynamic capabilities, companies need to continuously manage knowledge and dynamically learn from it. Many researchers have pointed out that collaboration and partnerships are a new organizational learning tool to recognize dysfunctional practices to prevent strategic blind spots [14]. Based on this, this study further proposes the mediating role of GKS and focuses on analyzing the differences in the roles of SKS and CKS from a supply chain perspective. Third, it is emphasized that enterprises must pay attention to the dynamic impact of the environment [20]. Therefore, in the process of implementing GEO, the changing environment must be considered. Based on this, this study identified environmental dynamism as a moderating variable and attempted to explore its moderating effect on the model.
Comments 4: Methodology and discussion seem to be thorough.
Response 4: Thank you for your advice. To refine our research, we further modified the Methodology and Discussion to highlight the significance and innovation of this paper. We hope our modification could meet your standard.
As for Methodology, we have supplemented information on where the analytical data was obtained and whether they have the rights to use it. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found from Line 375 to Line 395 in the first paragraph of 3.1 Data collection and the Sample.
We collect data from Jilin Province, Shanxi Province, Shandong Province, Sichuan Province, Jiangsu Province and Guangdong Province in China. The reason for choosing these six specific provinces is that China has a vast territory. Choosing six different provinces not only reflects varying degrees of environmental pollution, but also covers different levels of environmental protection work in various regions of China. And it also reflects the different levels of economic development in China to avoid endogeneity issues. Among them, Jilin Province and Shanxi Province are the industrial bases in North China, representing a lower level of economic conditions. Shandong Province and Sichuan Province are on behalf of middle level of China's economic growth, while Jiangsu and Guangdong Province are located along the southeast coast with a fast economic growth. It should be pointed out that the data was collected in two stages. From June 2023 to September 2023, a first round survey questionnaire was distributed to manufacturing enterprises from six provinces. Before distributing the questionnaire, we informed the respondents of our research purpose and kept the content confidential. The respondents have the right to examine the results and general conclusions of this investigation. The respondents are middle and senior management personnel, such as general managers, R&D managers, purchasing managers, environmental department managers, and financial managers and others to ensure that the respondents can accurately reflect the company's strategic orientation, supplier and buyer relationships, and corporate performance. Detail information about the respondents can be seen in the Table 1.
As for subjective performance measures, we discussed the advantages of subjective measurement methods and implemented some measures to avoid subjective bias and common method bias issues. In the limitations of our research, we also supplemented the measurement methods for performance. Details are as follow and can also be found from Line 420 to Line 445 in 3.2.1 Dependent variable.
3.2.1 Dependent variable
We test performance through self-report by asking respondents questions against their peer to see their condition compared to the industry average. The reasons are as follows: first, there is a lack of unified standards for objective data measurement of financial performance. Previous studies on the impact of green and sustainable development on enterprises have used asset return rate, return on equity, or ROA to measure financial performance [54, 55]. It can be seen that financial performance based on objective indicators only reflects a part of corporate performance, and scholars may choose different objective indicators to measure financial performance based on their research focus. Second, using subjective perception measurement methods can help obtain information about external environmental conditions and industry characteristics, [56]. To avoid subjective perception bias in measuring performance and other variables, we have also taken some measures to reduce the issue of common method bias. For example, in our questionnaire, performance is filled out by the financial manager, while the measurement of other variables is filled out by managers from other departments. And we have adopted the method of collecting data in different time periods to reduce homology bias impact. Third, although subjective measurement shows some limitations, existing research has found a positive correlation between subjective perception measurement and objective performance measurement [57]. Our research mainly examines whether and how GEO will lead to performance improvement. Moreover, the concept of financial performance includes other indicators such as operational efficiency and market share. Using subjective perception measurement methods can provide internal insights into the green entrepreneurial activities of enterprises and a more comprehensive market response. Therefore, drawing on the research of Jiang et al. [2], we use seven items for measuring financial performance, four items for measuring environmental performance.
As for Discussion, we have further explained the reason for CKS weak impact on financial performance three aspects, including knowledge absorption, information overload, and reaction speed. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found from Line 678 to Line 701 in the second paragraph of 5.1 Discussion.
These findings are consistent with Zhang and Le's previous research [6], which found that customers' impact on the green development of enterprises is not as significant as that of suppliers. The reasons may related to knowledge absorption, information overload, and reaction speed. First, the knowledge provided by customers may be brand new that is different from the traditional knowledge base of the enterprise [65], which is difficult to quickly integrate with the existing knowledge of the enterprise, making it challenging to effectively absorb and utilize knowledge. Second, the knowledge shared with customers mainly focuses on environmental protection needs, product quantity, and product pricing [44]. On the one hand, these information will not directly and quickly change the resource scheduling of the enterprise. On the other hand, customer demands are often uncertain, and there are differences in customer market demands. Knowledge sharing with customers may result in overloaded information and enterprises may pay mismatched costs to meet customer environmental requirements, which burden the implementation of GEO, leading performance results that do not meet expectations. Third, under the green initiative, customer demands change rapidly, green entrepreneurship investment and resource integration effect of enterprises may not be able to respond in a timely manner to the needs of knowledge sharing with customers. Therefore, the performance improvement brought by customer knowledge sharing is not yet significant. However, knowledge sharing between suppliers can obtain key information about production plans, order changes, raw material supply, and other aspects [43]. These knowledge are directly related to resource allocation and restructuring, and can effectively reduce inventory levels and costs. Therefore, under the guidance of GEO, companies are more likely to rely on knowledge sharing with suppliers to improve their financial performance.
We then provide more nuanced insights into why environmental dynamism influences environmental performance more significantly than financial performance. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found from Line 710 to Line 750 in the third paragraph of 5.1 Discussion.
Besides, the moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the relationship between GKS and environmental performance is significant but financial performance is not significant. A possible explanation is that, environmental improvement involves advanced technology, innovative production processes, and management models [51]. When the environment is turbulent, enterprises actively acquire technology and market knowledge from suppliers and customers through GEO, helping them allocate resources more timely to internal processes and management improvements, achieving the goal of preventing and controlling pollution, saving energy and reducing emissions and reducing the negative impact of production and operation activities on the environment. When environmental dynamism is at a low level, customer demand is stable, industry technological changes and development are slow, enterprises may not have stronger motivation to spend resources and energy on GKS, that maintaining the current situation can achieve environmental improvement. However, financial improvement is related to resource utilization and cost reduction [44]. When environmental dynamism is at a high level, it enhances the possibility for enterprises to capture new market opportunities and meet new market demands, but at the same time, it means that the technological changes and unpredictability of market demands faced by enterprises increase accordingly. Although knowledge sharing between suppliers and customers is important, actively sharing knowledge with supply chain partners may meet a new round of technological and market changes before achieving economic performance improvement. Moreover, dynamic external environment means that the possibility of heterogeneous knowledge obtained by enterprises from suppliers and customers increases [2]. If enterprises do not have sufficient internal integration capabilities to ensure coordination between different functions within the enterprise and improve information transmission efficiency, it is also difficult to profit in the dynamic environment. That is to say, in a dynamic external environment, acquiring, absorbing, and transforming knowledge is a more complex process for enterprises, which is not only influenced by the dynamic environment, but may also require a waste of time and coordination costs. Therefore, the impact of environmental dynamism on GKS is even more uncertain. In addition, the insignificant results also indicate that the impact of GKS on financial performance is relatively stable, that is, regardless of the dynamic level of the external environment, cooperation and knowledge sharing within the supply chain can increase internal resource utilization and reduce operating costs [40]. For example, supplementary information obtained from customers can alert companies to potential issues that may have been overlooked in the development of new products. Therefore, customer knowledge sharing helps companies make changes in the early stages of green product development and avoid unnecessary expenses [11]. Supplier knowledge sharing can help companies integrate professional knowledge, supplement their own capabilities and resource base, enrich their information base, and thus increase the variety and quantity of solutions [11].
Once again, we appreciate your insightful suggestions and thank you very much for taking the time to read our manuscript and provide such a detailed review. We greatly value the opportunity to revise and resubmit our study, and we have made every effort to incorporate all the points you raised. We sincerely appreciate your diligent work and hope that the revisions will meet with your approval.
Sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- Introduction: Strengthen the problem statement by succinctly emphasizing the inconsistency in the GEO-corporate performance relationship.
- Literature Review: Highlight how this study uniquely addresses the mediating and moderating variables in the GEO framework.
- Methodology: Clarify why specific provinces were selected for the survey. Discuss potential biases introduced by relying on subjective performance measures.
- Results: Expand on the implications of non-significant findings, particularly the lack of mediation by customer knowledge sharing (CKS) for financial performance.
- Discussion: Provide more nuanced insights into why environmental dynamism influences environmental performance more significantly than financial performance.
- Managerial Implications: Offer clearer actionable recommendations for managers on how to operationalize GEO effectively under different environmental conditions.
- Figures and Tables: Ensure that all figures (e.g., interaction plots) are adequately labeled and explained within the text for accessibility.
- The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. While the language is generally clear, there are occasional awkward phrasings and grammatical issues. Professional proofreading is recommended.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you for providing directions and constructive comments. Your help is much appreciated. Following your suggestions, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript, which is now more carefully framed. We have written a detailed reply below, hoping that this will help you reconnect with your initial suggestions and understand how we have addressed your comments. Below, we include your points and summarize the actions we have taken.(please note that the references mentioned here are included in the revised version of the manuscript).
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: Introduction: Strengthen the problem statement by succinctly emphasizing the inconsistency in the GEO-corporate performance relationship.
Response 1: We very much appreciate your comments and your attention to details. According to your suggestion, we have used the latest literature to support our research gaps, and then we have summarized the research gaps including two aspects: First, existing research on the relationship between GEO and corporate performance has been inconsistent. Second, there are still undiscovered path of the relationship. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found in the Introduction.
Reviewing the existing research, we found that there have been many studies on the relationship between GEO and corporate performance, but there are still two aspect remaining unclear. First, existing research on the relationship between GEO and corporate performance has been inconsistent. Traditionally, it has been believed that addressing environmental issues may increase operating costs that limit competitive advantage and affect sustainable development [3]. However, some studies have shown that economic value may be increased through green entrepreneurship [2]. There are also scholars emphasizing that GEO may have an insignificant relationship with CP [4]. The inconsistent research conclusions above indicate that it is still unclear whether and how companies can benefit from green entrepreneurship. Second, there are still undiscovered path of the relationship. Previous studies have explored the pathways from the perspectives of internal resources and capabilities [5, 6, 7]. For example, Mondal et al. found that the practice of green innovation is effective for GEO to achieve sustainable performance in the Indian MSMEs [5]. Marzouk et al. conducted an investigation among large firms in Egypt, that GEO can achieve triple bottom line performance through two internal capabilities, including green learning orientation and green absorptive capacity [8]. Makhloufi et al. suggested that green innovation performance is a process to help GEO promote business growth and control environmental degradation, and environmental awareness is expected to play an important role in promoting and implementing green practices[9]. However, green entrepreneurship activities have the characteristics of professionalism, complexity, and rapid change. Enterprises may not have all the information and resources needed to implement GEO [10, 11]. How to utilize external resources and capabilities to deal with green entrepreneurship activities has not been examined yet.
Comments 2: Literature Review: Highlight how this study uniquely addresses the mediating and moderating variables in the GEO framework.
Response 2: Thank you for your advice. According to your suggestion, we explained this study uniquely addresses the mediating and moderating variables in the GEO framework from two aspects. As for mediating variables, we have reviewed the latest literature and summarized the research on the implementation of GEO in other developing countries such as India and Egypt, pointing out the shortcomings of existing research and the perspectives that need further exploration. As for moderating variables, reviewing existing literature, we found that previous studies have focused on the impact of technological turbulence, environmental uncertainty, and environmental hostility on green strategies and green supply chain learning [18, 19], but there is still a research gap on how GEO and green knowledge sharing operate in dynamic environments. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found in second and third paragraph in the Introduction.
Reviewing the existing research, we found that there have been many studies on the relationship between GEO and corporate performance, but there are still two aspect remaining unclear. First, existing research on the relationship between GEO and corporate performance has been inconsistent. Traditionally, it has been believed that addressing environmental issues may increase operating costs that limit competitive advantage and affect sustainable development [3]. However, some studies have shown that economic value may be increased through green entrepreneurship [2]. There are also scholars emphasizing that GEO may have an insignificant relationship with CP [4]. The inconsistent research conclusions above indicate that it is still unclear whether and how companies can benefit from green entrepreneurship. Second, there are still undiscovered path of the relationship. Previous studies have explored the pathways from the perspectives of internal resources and capabilities [5, 6, 7]. For example, Mondal et al. found that the practice of green innovation is effective for GEO to achieve sustainable performance in the Indian MSMEs [5]. Marzouk et al. conducted an investigation among large firms in Egypt, that GEO can achieve triple bottom line performance through two internal capabilities, including green learning orientation and green absorptive capacity [8]. Makhloufi et al. suggested that green innovation performance is a process to help GEO promote business growth and control environmental degradation, and environmental awareness is expected to play an important role in promoting and implementing green practices[9]. However, green entrepreneurship activities have the characteristics of professionalism, complexity, and rapid change. Enterprises may not have all the information and resources needed to implement GEO [10, 11]. How to utilize external resources and capabilities to deal with green entrepreneurship activities has not been examined yet.
Scholars have also found insufficient attention to mediating variables in existing research [12]. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the analysis of internal mechanism to further explore the complex relationship between GEO and CP. Heterogeneous knowledge outside the boundaries of enterprises plays a crucial role [13]. As an important supplement to internal resources and capabilities, geen knowledge sharing (GKS) is the activity of sharing or transferring green marketing and technical knowledge between enterprises and their supply chain members [14], which includes supplier knowledge sharing (SKS) and customer knowledge sharing (CKS). Through information exchange between organizations, enterprises can timely obtain relevant knowledge from upstream and downstream that is conducive to green development [15], and effectively customize green innovative products [16], thereby achieving better market orders and performance improvement. However, China is undergoing economic and social transformation, and the formal institutional framework has not yet developed well. Many industries are undergoing rapid changes [17], thus the dynamic external environment cannot be ignored. Previous studies have focused on the impact of technological turbulence, environmental uncertainty, and environmental hostility on green strategies and green supply chain learning [18, 19], but there is still a research gap on how GEO and green knowledge sharing operate in dynamic environments. The contingency theory holds that environmental dynamism plays a significant role in organizational management, representing the unpredictability of external environmental changes and change rates [20]. Therefore, enterprises need different decision-making methods to survive and develop in this kind of turbulent environment. In summary, this study attempts to explore the following questions:
1.Can GEO, as a strategic posture and key resource to respond to environmental changes, bring performance improvement to enterprises?
2.How can companies achieve a win-win situation for financial and environmental performance by implementing GEO? What is the role of green knowledge sharing?
3.Does environmental dynamism constitute the boundary conditions for these relationships? How does it affect corporate performance?
Comments 3: Clarify why specific provinces were selected for the survey. Discuss potential biases introduced by relying on subjective performance measures.
Response 3: Thank you for your advice. According to your suggestion, we first explained why the six provinces were selected for the survey. Details are as follow and can also be found from Line 375 to Line 395 in the first paragraph of 3.1 Data collection and the Sample.
We collect data from Jilin Province, Shanxi Province, Shandong Province, Sichuan Province, Jiangsu Province and Guangdong Province in China. The reason for choosing these six specific provinces is that China has a vast territory. Choosing six different provinces not only reflects varying degrees of environmental pollution, but also covers different levels of environmental protection work in various regions of China. And it also reflects the different levels of economic development in China to avoid endogeneity issues. Among them, Jilin Province and Shanxi Province are the industrial bases in North China, representing a lower level of economic conditions. Shandong Province and Sichuan Province are on behalf of middle level of China's economic growth, while Jiangsu and Guangdong Province are located along the southeast coast with a fast economic growth.
As for subjective performance measures, we discussed the advantages of subjective measurement methods and implemented some measures to avoid subjective bias and common method bias issues. In the limitations of our research, we also supplemented the measurement methods for performance. Details are as follow and can also be found from Line 420 to Line 445 in 3.2.1 Dependent variable.
3.2.1 Dependent variable
We test performance through self-report by asking respondents questions against their peer to see their condition compared to the industry average. The reasons are as follows: first, there is a lack of unified standards for objective data measurement of financial performance. Previous studies on the impact of green and sustainable development on enterprises have used asset return rate, return on equity, or ROA to measure financial performance [54, 55]. It can be seen that financial performance based on objective indicators only reflects a part of corporate performance, and scholars may choose different objective indicators to measure financial performance based on their research focus. Second, using subjective perception measurement methods can help obtain information about external environmental conditions and industry characteristics, [56]. To avoid subjective perception bias in measuring performance and other variables, we have also taken some measures to reduce the issue of common method bias. For example, in our questionnaire, performance is filled out by the financial manager, while the measurement of other variables is filled out by managers from other departments. And we have adopted the method of collecting data in different time periods to reduce homology bias impact. Third, although subjective measurement shows some limitations, existing research has found a positive correlation between subjective perception measurement and objective performance measurement [57]. Our research mainly examines whether and how GEO will lead to performance improvement. Moreover, the concept of financial performance includes other indicators such as operational efficiency and market share. Using subjective perception measurement methods can provide internal insights into the green entrepreneurial activities of enterprises and a more comprehensive market response. Therefore, drawing on the research of Jiang et al. [2], we use seven items for measuring financial performance, four items for measuring environmental performance.
Comments 4: Results: Expand on the implications of non-significant findings, particularly the lack of mediation by customer knowledge sharing (CKS) for financial performance.
Response 4: Thank you for your advice. We have carefully considered your suggestion. To explain more clearly, we have further explained the reason for CKS weak impact on financial performance three aspects, including knowledge absorption, information overload, and reaction speed. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found from Line 678 to Line 701 in the second paragraph of 5.1 Discussion.
These findings are consistent with Zhang and Le's previous research [6], which found that customers' impact on the green development of enterprises is not as significant as that of suppliers. The reasons may related to knowledge absorption, information overload, and reaction speed. First, the knowledge provided by customers may be brand new that is different from the traditional knowledge base of the enterprise [65], which is difficult to quickly integrate with the existing knowledge of the enterprise, making it challenging to effectively absorb and utilize knowledge. Second, the knowledge shared with customers mainly focuses on environmental protection needs, product quantity, and product pricing [44]. On the one hand, these information will not directly and quickly change the resource scheduling of the enterprise. On the other hand, customer demands are often uncertain, and there are differences in customer market demands. Knowledge sharing with customers may result in overloaded information and enterprises may pay mismatched costs to meet customer environmental requirements, which burden the implementation of GEO, leading performance results that do not meet expectations. Third, under the green initiative, customer demands change rapidly, green entrepreneurship investment and resource integration effect of enterprises may not be able to respond in a timely manner to the needs of knowledge sharing with customers. Therefore, the performance improvement brought by customer knowledge sharing is not yet significant. However, knowledge sharing between suppliers can obtain key information about production plans, order changes, raw material supply, and other aspects [43]. These knowledge are directly related to resource allocation and restructuring, and can effectively reduce inventory levels and costs. Therefore, under the guidance of GEO, companies are more likely to rely on knowledge sharing with suppliers to improve their financial performance.
Comments 5: Discussion: Provide more nuanced insights into why environmental dynamism influences environmental performance more significantly than financial performance.
Response 5: Thank you for your advice. To explain more clearly, we have further explained the reason for why environmental dynamism influences environmental performance more significantly than financial performance. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found from Line 710 to Line 750 in the third paragraph of 5.1 Discussion.
Besides, the moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the relationship between GKS and environmental performance is significant but financial performance is not significant. A possible explanation is that, environmental improvement involves advanced technology, innovative production processes, and management models [51]. When the environment is turbulent, enterprises actively acquire technology and market knowledge from suppliers and customers through GEO, helping them allocate resources more timely to internal processes and management improvements, achieving the goal of preventing and controlling pollution, saving energy and reducing emissions and reducing the negative impact of production and operation activities on the environment. When environmental dynamism is at a low level, customer demand is stable, industry technological changes and development are slow, enterprises may not have stronger motivation to spend resources and energy on GKS, that maintaining the current situation can achieve environmental improvement. However, financial improvement is related to resource utilization and cost reduction [44]. When environmental dynamism is at a high level, it enhances the possibility for enterprises to capture new market opportunities and meet new market demands, but at the same time, it means that the technological changes and unpredictability of market demands faced by enterprises increase accordingly. Although knowledge sharing between suppliers and customers is important, actively sharing knowledge with supply chain partners may meet a new round of technological and market changes before achieving economic performance improvement. Moreover, dynamic external environment means that the possibility of heterogeneous knowledge obtained by enterprises from suppliers and customers increases [2]. If enterprises do not have sufficient internal integration capabilities to ensure coordination between different functions within the enterprise and improve information transmission efficiency, it is also difficult to profit in the dynamic environment. That is to say, in a dynamic external environment, acquiring, absorbing, and transforming knowledge is a more complex process for enterprises, which is not only influenced by the dynamic environment, but may also require a waste of time and coordination costs. Therefore, the impact of environmental dynamism on GKS is even more uncertain. In addition, the insignificant results also indicate that the impact of GKS on financial performance is relatively stable, that is, regardless of the dynamic level of the external environment, cooperation and knowledge sharing within the supply chain can increase internal resource utilization and reduce operating costs [40]. For example, supplementary information obtained from customers can alert companies to potential issues that may have been overlooked in the development of new products. Therefore, customer knowledge sharing helps companies make changes in the early stages of green product development and avoid unnecessary expenses [11]. Supplier knowledge sharing can help companies integrate professional knowledge, supplement their own capabilities and resource base, enrich their information base, and thus increase the variety and quantity of solutions [11].
Comments 6: Managerial Implications: Offer clearer actionable recommendations for managers on how to operationalize GEO effectively under different environmental conditions.
Response 6: Thank you for your advice. According to your suggestion, we added clearer actionable recommendations for managers. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found in 5.3 Managerial implications.
5.3 Managerial implications
First, our research findings provide empirical evidence on whether implementing GEO can bring performance returns, indicating a positive correlation between GEO and corporate performance. Managers always have doubts about the significance of carrying out sustainable operations. This study provides insights to managers that companies should bring sustainable development into their strategic decisions, especially in a dynamic external environment. Implementing GEO not only meets customer demands for but also responds to national and global calls for environmental protection and responsibility. Therefore, managers in the manufacturing industry should have a strategic and sustainable perspective, focus on strategic choices towards green entrepreneurship, and enhance the company's green innovation, green initiative, and risk management capabilities.
Second, GKS is an important element for enterprises to achieve GEO and improve their performance. In this era of knowledge economy and technological explosion, the situation of green entrepreneurship for manufacturing enterprises embedded in the supply chain environment is more complex. To provide environmentally friendly products and services, enterprises need to strengthen GKS. In order to better achieve GKS, it is necessary for enterprises to conduct internal skills training and provide diversified green knowledge learning channels to better meet the needs of employees in green practice work. For example, cultivating employees and managers' knowledge of the latest green technologies and products, as well as their sensitivity to customer green needs, and supporting employees in carrying out green innovation activities. These methods help companies to continue organizational learning and strengthen communication with supply partners, thus optimize the internal knowledge structure of the enterprise. At the same time, managers should take notice of the role difference between suppliers and customers, and coordinate the allocation of different resources into cooperative relationships with different supply chain partners. Especially for financial performance, establishing cooperative relationships with suppliers, sharing key technical knowledge and market trend information, are more conducive to enterprises that undertake environmental protection responsibilities.
Third, managers should also pay attention to how the positive impact of GEO on corporate performance changes in the context of a dynamic external environment. It is difficult to determine when and to what extent to implement GEO and which aspects of GKS if enterprises do not consider environmental conditions. For example, during periods of stable environment, companies can invest more effort in improving financial performance, as calling resources for GKS is more conducive to improving environmental performance under a dynamic environmental. At the same time, attention should be paid to factors that may affect financial performance, such as competitor behavior and government policy implementation. In addition, managers should pay attention to the interactive effects of different types of GKS and environmental dynamism. In the process of conducting GKS, it is important to carefully identify the performance outcomes that the enterprise is pursuing and the environmental conditions it faces, in order to select suitable partners for knowledge sharing activities.
Comments 7: Figures and Tables: Ensure that all figures (e.g., interaction plots) are adequately labeled and explained within the text for accessibility.
Response 7: Thank you for your advice. According to your suggestion, we ensure that all figures are adequately labeled and then, we have explained within the text about each figure for accessibility. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found from Line 572 to Line 578 and Line 605 to Line 612 in 4.3 Hypotheses testing.
Figure 2 shows that environmental dynamism strengths the positive impact of GEO on environmental performance. In the case of a higher degree of environmental dynamism, GEO has a significantly positive impact on environmental performance, while in the case of a lower degree of environmental dynamism, GEO has a weaker impact on environmental performance. Similarly, Figure 3 also shows a positive moderating role of environmental dynamism on the relationship between GEO and financial performance.
Figure 4 shows that environmental dynamism strengths the positive impact of SKS on environmental performance. In the case of a higher degree of environmental dynamism, SKS has a significantly positive impact on environmental performance, while in the case of a lower degree of environmental dynamism, SKS has a weaker impact on environmental performance. Similarly, Figure 5 also shows a positive moderating role of environmental dynamism on the relationship between CKS and environmental performance, which once again verify the validity of H7a and H7b.
Comments 8: The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. While the language is generally clear, there are occasional awkward phrasings and grammatical issues. Professional proofreading is recommended.
Response 8: Thank you for your advice. Following your suggestion, we have refined the language and standardized the grammar and syntax to ensure the academic rigor and adherence to norms in this paper.
Once again, we appreciate your insightful suggestions and thank you very much for taking the time to read our manuscript and provide such a detailed review. We greatly value the opportunity to revise and resubmit our study, and we have made every effort to incorporate all the points you raised. We sincerely appreciate your diligent work and hope that the revisions will meet with your approval.
Sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research topic is of great theoretical and practical significance, the theoretical review and hypotheses development are comprehensive and well organized, the methodology is appropriate and the results are clearly reported, the conclusions are thus relatively reliable. There are still several issues to be further improved.
1. The introduction is a little too long and the structure is not very clear, too many paragraphs, and the practical background is usually discussed before theoretical analysis very briefly.
2. It is argued that "GEO can improve environmental performance through three aspects" "GEO can also affect financial performance through green innovation, green proactivity, and risk-taking", what are the relationships between theses aspects and the SKS and CKS? If SKS and CKS are among them or antecedents of them, it should be reflect in the analysis of the hypotheses development.
3. The hypotheses of moderating effects, such as "H5a. Environmental dynamism positively moderates the relationship between GEO and environmental performance", instead of just saying "positively moderate", it is better to clear indicate what the relationships will be by saying "such that the positive relationship will be stronger at higher levels of environmental dynamism" or something like that.
4. Who in each firm answered the questionnaire? It will be better to reported the demographics of the respondents if available, at least the positions or departments of them.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
1. Summary
Thank you for providing directions and constructive comments. Your help is much appreciated. Following your suggestions, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript, which is now more carefully framed. We have written a detailed reply below, hoping that this will help you reconnect with your initial suggestions and understand how we have addressed your comments. Below, we include your points and summarize the actions we have taken.(please note that the references mentioned here are included in the revised version of the manuscript).
2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments 1: The introduction is a little too long and the structure is not very clear, too many paragraphs, and the practical background is usually discussed before theoretical analysis very briefly.
Response 1: Thank you for your advice. According to your suggestion, we will first discuss the practical background that the environment and business situation faced by Chinese manufacturing enterprises. And then we review existing literature and identify gaps in current research from two aspects, highlight how this study addresses the mediating and moderating variables in the GEO framework and put forward our research question. Finally, we provide our research contribution and a description of the paper's structure. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found in 1. Introduction.
1. Introduction
The rapid development of the economy has brought a series of environmental problems. Faced with increasingly severe environmental problems, Chinese government has given high attention and strives to achieve dual carbon target. With the awareness of sustainable development in society, some scholars believe that environmental problems can be solved through entrepreneurial activities [1, 2]. Green entrepreneurship orientation (GEO) refers to the tendency of enterprises to prioritize environmental protection and sustainable development as core strategic directions during the entrepreneurial process [2]. In fact, more and more enterprises have engaged in green activities [1], especially manufacturing enterprises in China are currently facing multiple challenges, such as lack of innovation capacity, weak brand competitiveness, and serious environmental pollution. Therefore, it is an urgent practical problem to find ways to achieve business growth through green entrepreneurship.
Reviewing the existing research, we found that there have been many studies on the relationship between GEO and corporate performance, but there are still two aspect remaining unclear. First, existing research on the relationship between GEO and corporate performance has been inconsistent. Traditionally, it has been believed that addressing environmental issues may increase operating costs that limit competitive advantage and affect sustainable development [3]. However, some studies have shown that economic value may be increased through green entrepreneurship [2]. There are also scholars emphasizing that GEO may have an insignificant relationship with CP [4]. The inconsistent research conclusions above indicate that it is still unclear whether and how companies can benefit from green entrepreneurship. Second, there are still undiscovered path of the relationship. Previous studies have explored the pathways from the perspectives of internal resources and capabilities [5, 6, 7]. For example, Mondal et al. found that the practice of green innovation is effective for GEO to achieve sustainable performance in the Indian MSMEs [5]. Marzouk et al. conducted an investigation among large firms in Egypt, that GEO can achieve triple bottom line performance through two internal capabilities, including green learning orientation and green absorptive capacity [8]. Makhloufi et al. suggested that green innovation performance is a process to help GEO promote business growth and control environmental degradation, and environmental awareness is expected to play an important role in promoting and implementing green practices[9]. However, green entrepreneurship activities have the characteristics of professionalism, complexity, and rapid change. Enterprises may not have all the information and resources needed to implement GEO [10, 11]. How to utilize external resources and capabilities to deal with green entrepreneurship activities has not been examined yet.
Scholars have also found insufficient attention to mediating variables in existing research [12]. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the analysis of internal mechanism to further explore the complex relationship between GEO and CP. Heterogeneous knowledge outside the boundaries of enterprises plays a crucial role [13]. As an important supplement to internal resources and capabilities, geen knowledge sharing (GKS) is the activity of sharing or transferring green marketing and technical knowledge between enterprises and their supply chain members [14], which includes supplier knowledge sharing (SKS) and customer knowledge sharing (CKS). Through information exchange between organizations, enterprises can timely obtain relevant knowledge from upstream and downstream that is conducive to green development [15], and effectively customize green innovative products [16], thereby achieving better market orders and performance improvement. However, China is undergoing economic and social transformation, and the formal institutional framework has not yet developed well. Many industries are undergoing rapid changes [17], thus the dynamic external environment cannot be ignored. Previous studies have focused on the impact of technological turbulence, environmental uncertainty, and environmental hostility on green strategies and green supply chain learning [18, 19], but there is still a research gap on how GEO and green knowledge sharing operate in dynamic environments. The contingency theory holds that environmental dynamism plays a significant role in organizational management, representing the unpredictability of external environmental changes and change rates [20]. Therefore, enterprises need different decision-making methods to survive and develop in this kind of turbulent environment. In summary, this study attempts to explore the following questions:
1.Can GEO, as a strategic posture and key resource to respond to environmental changes, bring performance improvement to enterprises?
2.How can companies achieve a win-win situation for financial and environmental performance by implementing GEO? What is the role of green knowledge sharing?
3.Does environmental dynamism constitute the boundary conditions for these relationships? How does it affect corporate performance?
This study contributes to the research on GEO and environmental sustainability in three aspects. First, this paper strengthens the understanding of the relationship between GEO and corporate performance from an empirical perspective, which can assist enterprises in establishing sustainable strategies. Second, the theoretical gap between GEO and corporate performance is revealed by exploring the mediating role of green knowledge sharing, explaining the role of transmitting technology and product knowledge by suppliers and customers in improving performance through GEO from a supply chain perspective, which further expanding the dynamic capability theory that GEO not only reflects the resource advantages of enterprises in transforming financial and environmental performance, but also can transform profits by enhancing green knowledge sharing capability of enterprises. Finally, we examined the boundary conditions of GEO from the perspective of environmental dynamism, which reveal the optimal way for an organization to operate depends on the characteristics and essence of the environment.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: first, we conduct a theoretical background and put forward our hypothesis in section 2. Next, research methodology and data collection procedure are explained in section 3. In section 4, we report the empirical analysis results. Finally, we discuss the conclusion in section 5, provide theoretical and managerial implications and then, propose limitations and future research directions in section 6.
Comments 2: It is argued that "GEO can improve environmental performance through three aspects" "GEO can also affect financial performance through green innovation, green proactivity, and risk-taking", what are the relationships between theses aspects and the SKS and CKS? If SKS and CKS are among them or antecedents of them, it should be reflect in the analysis of the hypotheses development.
Response 2: Thank you for your advice. To explain more clearly, we have further explained the impact of GEO on financial performance through three aspects, including costs saving, profitability improving and product competitiveness. As for green innovation, green proactivity, and risk-taking, according to Dean and McMullen as well as Schaltegger et al., enterprises pursuing GEO have three characteristics, namely green innovation, green proactivity, and risk-taking. Therefore, we explain how GEO affects financial performance through these three characteristics. In 2.3 Green entrepreneurial orientation and green knowledge sharing, we also discussed the relationship between GEO and GKS from these three aspects. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found from Line 161 to Line 183 in the second paragraph of 2.2 Green entrepreneurial orientation and corporate performance.
GEO can also affect financial performance through three aspects, including costs saving, profitability improving and product competitiveness. Enterprises pursuing GEO have three characteristics, namely green innovation, green proactivity, and risk-taking [26, 27]. First, green innovation reflects the willingness of enterprises to explore new business concepts, products, and services. Enterprises that adopt GEO tend to pursue product innovation and process innovation by restructuring resources [28]. Green product innovation can enable companies to use recyclable and biodegradable materials during production. These methods can reduce energy consumption, alleviate high cost issues [25], and avoid environmental taxes as well as other penalties [29]. In addition, green process innovation helps companies transform waste into profitable products by using new ways [30], providing additional revenue for the enterprise. Second, green proactivity reflects a desire to seize opportunities faster than competitors [31]. Enterprises that adopt a positive attitude towards pursuing green opportunities can gain a first mover advantage [3]. They will seize market opportunities and respond to customer needs faster than competitors, distinguishing their products from competitors in terms of ecological functions [32], and achieve better performance results than competitors [33]. Third, risk-taking involves a company’s preference for pursuing high risks and high returns [34]. Enterprises that implement GEO are willing to take risks in highly uncertain environments and invest a large amount of resources into projects with unpredictable returns [31]. Although the process of green entrepreneurship is always full of complexity and uncertainty, companies have expanded their business exploration scope while pursuing risky activities, gaining more customers and new market growth [35].
Comments 3: The hypotheses of moderating effects, such as "H5a. Environmental dynamism positively moderates the relationship between GEO and environmental performance", instead of just saying "positively moderate", it is better to clear indicate what the relationships will be by saying "such that the positive relationship will be stronger at higher levels of environmental dynamism" or something like that.
Response 3: Thank you for your advice. Following your suggestion, we have refined the description of the hypothesis. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found from Line 325 to Line 328 and Line 361 to Line 368 in 2.6 The moderating role of environmental dynamism.
H5a. The positive relationship between GEO and environmental performance will be stronger at higher levels of environmental dynamism.
H5b. The positive relationship between GEO and financial performance will be stronger at higher levels of environmental dynamism.
H6a. The positive relationship between SKS and environmental performance will be stronger at higher levels of environmental dynamism.
H6b. The positive relationship between CKS and environmental performance will be stronger at higher levels of environmental dynamism.
H6c. The positive relationship between SKS and financial performance will be stronger at higher levels of environmental dynamism.
H6d. The positive relationship between CKS and environmental performance will be stronger at higher levels of financial dynamism.
Comments 4: Who in each firm answered the questionnaire? It will be better to reported the demographics of the respondents if available, at least the positions or departments of them.
Response 4: Thank you for your advice. Following your suggestion, we have added a detailed description about respondents who answered the questionnaire and details are shown in Table 1. The specific modifications are as follows, which can also be found from Line 572 to Line 578 and Line 385 to Line 403 in 3.1 Data collection and the Sample.
It should be pointed out that the data was collected in two stages. From June 2023 to September 2023, a first round survey questionnaire was distributed to manufacturing enterprises from six provinces. Before distributing the questionnaire, we informed the respondents of our research purpose and kept the content confidential. The respondents have the right to examine the results and general conclusions of this investigation. The respondents are middle and senior management personnel, such as general managers, R&D managers, purchasing managers, environmental department managers and others to ensure that the respondents can accurately reflect the company's strategic orientation, supplier and buyer relationships, and corporate performance. Detail information about the respondents can be seen in the Table 1. After multiple rounds of reminders, 526 questionnaires were received. After deleting questionnaires with missing values and did not meet the sample standards, there are 436 valid questionnaires remaining. To reduce homology bias impact [53], the questionnaires about performance were collected three months later. We distributed questionnaires to corporate finance managers or financial executives from 436 questionnaires, requesting them to fill out the corporate performance section. After excluding questionnaires containing missing values and questionnaires that did not meet the sample standards, a total of 387 valid questionnaires were obtained.
Table 1. Sample characteristics(N=387)
|
Characteristics |
Frequency |
Percentage(%) |
|
Firm Age |
|
|
|
Less than 5 |
59 |
15.25 |
|
6-10 |
119 |
30.75 |
|
11-15 |
95 |
24.55 |
|
15 or more |
114 |
29.45 |
|
Gender |
|
|
|
Female |
104 |
26.87 |
|
Male |
283 |
73.13 |
|
Position |
|
|
|
General manager |
112 |
28.94 |
|
Purchasing Manager |
89 |
23.00 |
|
R&D Manager |
83 |
21.45 |
|
Environmental Department Manager |
67 |
17.31 |
|
Others |
36 |
9.30 |
|
Financial Manager |
387 |
100 |
|
Industry |
||
|
Food and beverage |
63 |
16.28 |
|
Textile |
52 |
13.44 |
|
Chemical and related |
46 |
11.89 |
|
Non-metallic mineral |
42 |
10.85 |
|
Machinery |
69 |
17.83 |
|
Metal |
33 |
8.53 |
|
Pharmaceutical and medical |
29 |
7.49 |
|
Communication and computers related |
31 |
8.01 |
|
Others |
22 |
5.68 |
|
Ownership |
||
|
State owned |
142 |
36.70 |
|
Privately owned |
97 |
25.05 |
|
Foreign invested |
118 |
30.5 |
|
Others |
30 |
7.75 |
|
Region |
||
|
Jilin |
89 |
23.00 |
|
Shanxi |
49 |
12.66 |
|
Jiangsu |
67 |
17.31 |
|
Guangdong |
76 |
19.64 |
|
Shandong |
65 |
16.80 |
|
Sichuan |
41 |
10.59 |
|
Number of employees |
|
|
|
Less than 100 |
83 |
21.45 |
|
101-500 |
135 |
34.88 |
|
501-1000 |
101 |
26.10 |
|
1000 or more |
68 |
17.57 |
Once again, we appreciate your insightful suggestions and thank you very much for taking the time to read our manuscript and provide such a detailed review. We greatly value the opportunity to revise and resubmit our study, and we have made every effort to incorporate all the points you raised. We sincerely appreciate your diligent work and hope that the revisions will meet with your approval.
Sincerely,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsno comments
