Next Article in Journal
Making Sustained Green Innovation in Firms Happen: The Role of CEO Openness
Previous Article in Journal
Adaptive Predictive Maintenance and Energy Optimization in Metro Systems Using Deep Reinforcement Learning
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 11
10.3390/su17115097
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

How to Encourage Green Product Development Performance: A Stainable Leadership Perspective

by
Chien-Hsiang Huang
1,
Tai-Wei Chang
2,
Chih-Wen Ting
3,* and
Stanley Y. B. Huang
4
1
General Education Center, Chihlee University of Technology, New Taipei City 220305, Taiwan
2
Graduate School of Resources Management and Decision Science, National Defense University, Taipei City 112305, Taiwan
3
Department of Finance, Nanhua University, Chiayi County 622301, Taiwan
4
Master Program of Financial Technology, Ming Chuan University, Taipei City 111013, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(11), 5097; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115097
Submission received: 18 February 2025 / Revised: 7 April 2025 / Accepted: 9 April 2025 / Published: 2 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Leadership, Environment Innovation, Societal Transitions and Innovation Business Model)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This article aims to develop the concept of green job engagement to open the relationship between sustainable leadership and green product development performance, with institutional pressure as a moderating variable. This article collects 186 research and development personnel and their supervisors from the research and development departments of technology manufacturing companies to conduct an empirical investigation into green product development performance. The analysis results confirm that, when the research department head adopts a higher level of sustainable leadership at the initial time point, it will lead to the development of green work engagement of these research and development personnel, which will, in turn, lead to their green product development performance. This relationship is positively influenced by institutional pressure. This article empirically examines the causal linkage between sustainable leadership, green job engagement, green product development performance, and institutional pressure. The result shows that sustainable leadership can promote green product development performance and provide research and development departments with practical strategies for conducting green product development performance.

1. Introduction

In the current context of global warming and severe environmental pollution, the product development process is no longer based on past low-cost thinking or marketing thinking as the product development model. Still, it must comply with the new context of the green environmental system. Therefore, contemporary technology manufacturing companies should implement effective leadership mechanisms to promote performance in green product development. Past research has pointed out that it is essential to perceive the key drivers of green product development performance [1,2,3], because green product development performance can effectively enhance the green competitive performance of enterprises, so it is necessary to understand these key drivers to play a significant role in the practice of green management. In particular, it is essential to combine organizational management mechanisms that enterprises can actively implement to improve green product development performance effectively.
This article introduces green job engagement as an essential variable to open organizational management mechanisms to promote green product development performance. Job engagement refers to the behavior of employees investing all their resources into their job roles. Kahn [4] proposed the initial concept of job engagement and believed that role consistency, security, and availability are essential driving factors. This paper modifies Kahn’s [4] idea of job engagement to propose the concept of green job engagement to link the relationship between organizational leadership mechanisms and green product development performance. Indeed, past investigations lacked a complete theory to explain the formation mechanism of green product development performance, because most of these investigations use performance demand or market orientation to describe the performances of new product development [5,6,7]. The first purpose of this article is to use Kahn’s [4] employee engagement theory to develop green job engagement as an essential role in linking sustainable leadership and green product development performance.
Due to the environmental thinking perspective of harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, sustainable development continues to guide governments and businesses worldwide [8]. Especially after the United Nations proposed 17 Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, governments and enterprises around the world began to follow these sustainable development goals to develop norms and strategies [9,10,11], because these goals require governments and businesses to participate in developing solutions. The Sustainable Development Goals are not only norms requiring environmental protection but also a diverse and holistic system of norms, including air, soil, oceans, climate, rare animals, human health and well-being, human inequality and poverty, etc. Due to the close relationship between the state, enterprises, people, and sustainable development, scholars have suggested that enterprises should incorporate sustainable development goals into corporate strategy formulation, because enterprises have an essential role in solving the most sustainable development goals [8]. In the past, companies only emphasized their corporate social responsibility by making donations or sponsoring charity events, which resulted in the sustainable development goals being just an activity of corporate social responsibility and limiting the actual thinking of the sustainable development goals. In addition, for cases where a company does not have good profits and few resources to invest in sustainable development activities, some scholars have begun to integrate sustainable development goals into the organizational leadership mechanism for implementation. In addition to effectively improving organizational efficiency, sustainable development goals can be practiced, forming sustainable leadership. Sustainable leadership has attracted the attention of scholars. It is a new type of leadership behavior that aims to meet stakeholders’ interests, develop corporate performance, and create long-term value for all stakeholders. Sustainable leadership also integrates green transformational leadership and responsible leadership. Its goal is to help companies achieve profitable growth, while meeting sustainability requirements, which is becoming an essential trend in the current sustainability field [12,13]. Currently, research on sustainable leadership has gradually made progress. For example, scholars have found that sustainable leadership can effectively improve employees’ positive or environmental work behaviors. However, sustainable leadership still lacks new interdisciplinary research perspectives. This article introduces the concept of sustainable leadership as an essential driver of green product development performance, because it argues that sustainable leadership in research and development departments can effectively promote researchers’ green work commitment. When researchers invest their resources in green research and development, green product development performance will inevitably be increased, thereby connecting sustainable leadership to new perspectives in product development. The results of this article can not only promote new perspectives on sustainable leadership, green job engagement, and green product development performances but also provide technology manufacturing companies with practical strategies to improve green product development performance.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Green Job Engagement

Job engagement has been a focus of companies in recent years [14], as companies hope to increase corporate performance and allow employees to show their enthusiasm and passion for work and follow the company’s overall goals. In order to achieve organizational performance, the prototype of job engagement was developed. It is a concept discovered by Kahn [4] in an anthropological study and is believed to be highly related to performance, because when employees invest cognitive, emotional, and physical resources in their work, they will be more motivated. In the process, work performance will inevitably increase. Cognitive resource investment means that employees must understand the company’s vision and strategy and consider what performance they need to achieve to make the highest contribution to the company’s vision and strategy. Emotional resource investment refers to the emotional relationship between employees and the company. A positive relationship will make employees feel a sense of belonging and identify with the company’s vision and strategy, generating a sense of security and trust. Finally, physical resource investment refers to employees’ actual use of their resources to achieve the company’s vision and strategy, such as completing work tasks efficiently. In addition, Kahn [4] believed that work engagement should be a state that changes over time, so it should be studied from a longitudinal perspective.
Kahn [4] also proposed three critical psychological states affecting job engagement, as follows: meaning, security, and validation energy. Job meaning refers to whether employees believe the job is meaningful, because meaningful work will allow employees to invest more resources to achieve higher performance. Job security refers to whether the job makes employees feel safe, because working in a secure environment will make employees willing to increase their cooperation with other colleagues and achieve higher performance. The right energy at work refers to whether employees have enough confidence to complete their work and achieve a higher performance. This article adopts the perspective of sustainable leadership as an essential variable in these three critical psychological states.
As mentioned above, in addition to proposing the antecedent variables of green job engagement, this article proposes the relationship between green job engagement and green product development performance. Because green job engagement refers to an employee’s motivational concept, these motivations are converted into employee outcome behaviors [4]. Although job engagement theory does not explicitly point out the relationship between green product development performance and green job engagement, this article shows that this relationship should be included in the outcome behaviors proposed by job engagement theory. Indeed, employees with high green job engagement will use their physical resources to pursue green job engagement-related performance. They will continue to exhibit green job engagement-related behaviors cognitively and be closely associated with green job engagement-related behaviors emotionally [4]. In contrast, employees with low green job engagement reduce their investment of physical, cognitive, and emotional resources and only display passive behaviors in executing green product development performance tasks. Therefore, green product development performance should inevitably result from work dedication.

2.2. Sustainable Leadership

Since economic production activities may cause social and environmental problems, enterprises encounter an imbalance between ecological protection, social responsibility, and financial benefits. Balancing these three aspects is a challenge that academics and practitioners must address. This issue has also received a lot of attention and discussion. To balance the problems of environmental protection, social responsibility, and economic benefits, enterprise leaders need to introduce sustainable development goals in the leadership process and integrate the concept of sustainability into the enterprise, because leaders are the key driving force for enterprise transformation [15]. Therefore, subsequent scholars combined sustainable development with leadership and proposed the concept of sustainable leadership [15]. Subsequent scholars also conducted in-depth discussions and empirical investigations on sustainable leadership in different fields. For example, Suriyankietkaew et al. [16], using a case study method to explore the relationship between sustainable leadership and sustainable business practices in small- and medium-sized enterprises, found six types of sustainable leadership practices and five basic sustainable leadership capabilities and can promote the theoretical development of sustainable leadership and sustainable entrepreneurship, which provide substantive guidance for a sustainable future. Nisha et al. [17] investigated the impact of sustainable leadership on sustainable competitive performance in IT and found that sustainable leadership significantly impacts sustainable competitive performance. The results can not only encourage IT companies to cultivate a positive communication atmosphere but can also help IT companies improve production quality and efficiency. Burawat [18] explored the relationship between sustainable leadership and sustainable performance and supported the relationship between sustainable leadership and sustainable performance.

2.3. Green Product Development Performance

Product development performance refers to the efficiency and effectiveness of a company in bringing new products to market, including speed, cost, quality, and innovation. Companies with high product development performance can deliver innovative products quickly, on budget, and with high quality [5,6,7]. This article proposes the concept of green product development performance, which includes the speed, cost, quality, and innovation of green product launch. In response to the rise of the global green trend, manufacturing industries worldwide have shifted from traditional low-cost or high-quality product manufacturing to green product manufacturing. Therefore, this article concretizes this concept and proposes green product development performance.

2.4. The Link Between Sustainable Leadership and Green Job Engagement

Sustained leadership can promote the mentioned three drivers of green job engagement proposed by Kahn [4]: job meaning, job security, and job validation energy. First, because the process of sustainable leadership can pass on sustainable values to employees, the original values of employees may gradually be changed into the sustainable leadership values expected by the organization through sustainable leadership. When subordinates’ values are consistent with the organization’s work values, they will feel that their work is meaningful. Furthermore, sustainable leadership must align with the interests of stakeholders, and subordinates are also one of the organization’s stakeholders, so they will feel that the working environment of sustainable leadership is very safe. Finally, sustainable leadership will gradually develop the capabilities of subordinates, who will eventually feel that their work is full of positive energy. Therefore, in sustainable leadership, subordinates will increase their green job engagement, because they perceive job meaning, security, and validation energy. Because of the business practice, sustainable leadership helps stakeholders, such as employees, investors, and customers achieve the desired benefits between parties and recommends a trusting working environment.
Hypothesis 1.
Sustainable leadership positively influences green job engagement development at the initial time.

2.5. Green Job Engagement and Green Product Development Performance

Green job engagement means that employees invest all their resources in the research and development of green products to increase their job role performance, so they should develop better green products. Indeed, when employees invest their cognitive resources in research and development, they believe that they must achieve the goal of green product development, regardless of other obstacles. When employees invest their emotional resources in research and development work, they will feel passionate about achieving green product research and development goals and become immersed in green product research and development. Finally, when employees invest physical resources in research and development, they will work tirelessly on green product development, even to the point of neglecting sleep and food. Therefore, when research and development personnel are highly dedicated to green work, they will inevitably improve their green product research and development performance and achieve higher performance. Previous studies have also suggested that job engagement affects research and development performance [19,20].
Hypothesis 2.
Green job engagement development positively influences green product development performance.

2.6. The Adjustment Role of Institutional Pressure

Enterprises face institutional pressure under government environmental regulations [21]. Due to global warming and environmental pollution, governments worldwide have established many regulations to supervise corporate production activities, so companies must adjust their strategies based on government regulations [22]. This article argues that, when research and development personnel perceive higher pressure from environmental regulations, they will change their behavior to deal with these environmental regulations. Green product development is one of the ways to comply with government environmental regulations. Therefore, when research and development personnel perceive higher institutional pressure, in addition to the green product development performances caused by their green work engagement, they will work harder to develop green products to comply with these institutional pressures. Indeed, past research has also suggested that institutional pressures can lead to green-related behaviors [21,23,24].
Hypothesis 3.
Institutional pressure moderates the relationship between green job engagement development and green product development performance.

3. Methodology

This article addresses the hypothesis model in Figure 1, which is based on Kahn’s [4] engagement theory and a perspective of sustainable leadership.

3.1. Measurements

This article adopts the 11-item scale of sustainable leadership validated by McCann and Holt [25]. This article modifies the scale of job engagement validated by Huang [26] to develop the 10-item scale. This article modifies the new product development performance scale validated by Potter et al. [27] to create the 4-item green product development performance scale. Finally, this article adopts the 5-item scale of institutional pressures validated by Wu et al. [28]. This article provides all scale items in Appendix A.

3.2. Data Collection

Several technology associations were contacted for this article to obtain a list of research and development directors and researchers at technology manufacturing companies. This article contacted 186 research and development department supervisors, and all agreed to provide their subordinates with this survey. This article contacted these research and development personnel and provided coupons worth USD 10 to encourage these samples to complete the study for this article. Initially, this article emailed these research and development personnel to collect their evaluation about sustainable leadership, job engagement, green product development performance, and institutional pressure. Three months later, this article emailed these research and development personnel again. Finally, this article was emailed to the research and development personnel six months later. The sample’s descriptive statistics are listed in Table 1. This article uses three time points, because past research suggests this is the best measurement framework for statistical models [29,30,31]. Finally, this article adopts a sampling method of three time points, which can effectively alleviate the problem of standard method bias [32].

4. Analysis Results

4.1. Validity and Reliability of Variables

This article borrows from CFA (confirmatory analysis factor) to calculate the validity and reliability. This article also provides Cronbach’s α in Table 2. Cronbach’s α and composite reliability are used to measure a construct’s reliability and represent the measurement’s stability. The average variance extracted is used to measure the construct’s validity and indicates the measurement’s effectiveness, supporting the convergent validity. In addition, the measurement items for the constructs in this article are based on scales developed in past research studies and, therefore, meet the content validity. The constructs measured in this article all conform to the hypotheses of causal relationships between the constructs, supporting the criterion validity.
These indices are above the threshold posed by Fornell and Lacker [33].

4.2. The Result of Path Analysis

This article poses the result of path analysis in Table 3. First, this article uses the F test to verify the model’s validity, and the results show that the F value reaches a significant level. Next, sustainable leadership significantly causes green job engagement growth (coefficient = 0.34), confirming Hypothesis 1. In addition, a higher level of green job engagement significantly causes a higher level of green product development performance (coefficient = 0.29), confirming Hypothesis 2. Finally, institutional pressure significantly regulates the linkage between green job engagement and green product development performance (coefficient = 0.11), confirming Hypothesis 3.
To improve the persuasiveness of the analysis result, this article adopts the mediation test model [34] to test the mediating role of green job engagement. This article links sustainable leadership and green product development performance (coefficient = 0.25) and green job engagement and green product development performance (coefficient = 0.39), finding that both paths are significant. This article simultaneously links sustainable leadership (coefficient = 0.15) and green job engagement (coefficient = 0.28) to green product development performance and finds that the path between sustainable leadership and green product development performance is insignificant. According to the mediation test model [34], the full mediation effect of green job engagement makes the relationship between sustainable leadership and green product development performance insignificant, which supports the mediation effect of green job engagement.
This article provides a correlation coefficient between constructs in Table 4. Based on Table 4, the relationship between sustainable leadership and green product development performance is lower than the relationship between green job engagement and green product development performance. According to the mediation test model, green job engagement is a mediating variable. That is, the correlation between green job engagement and green product development performance should be higher than the correlation between sustainable leadership and green product development performance. Table 4 supports the mediating role of green job engagement. In addition, the correlation between institutional pressure and the other variables is the lowest among the correlations of these variables, because institutional pressure is not a mediating variable or an antecedent variable of green product development performance. Finally, to test the robustness of the findings, this article divides the sample into two parts and analyzes the three hypotheses, respectively. The analysis results of the first part of the samples in Table 5 are almost the same as those in Table 3. Similarly, the analysis results of the two samples in Table 6 show nearly no difference between them and those in Table 4.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Discussion of Results

This paper validates that sustainable leadership at the initial time significantly increases green job engagement. That is to say, a higher level of sustainable leadership at the initial time leads to employees showing a higher level of green job engagement. Next, increasing green job engagement leads to more significant increases in green product development performance. That is to say, higher increases in green job engagement led to employees showing a higher level of green product development performance. Finally, institutional pressure at the initial time significantly increases the linkage between green job engagement and green product development performance. That is to say, employees who perceive a higher level of institutional pressure at the initial time led to a higher level of green product development performance affected by green job engagement.
To further discuss the relationship between sustainable leadership and green product development performance, we also analyzed the path between sustainable leadership and green product development performance, and the path coefficient was 0.089 (p value < 0.05). The path effect of sustainable leadership affecting green product development performance through green work dedication (0.34 × 0.29 = 0.0986 p value < 0.01) is higher than the relationship between sustainable leadership and green product development performance (0.089 p value < 0.05). It can be inferred that green work dedication is an important mediating variable between sustainable leadership and green product development performance.

5.2. Academic Contribution

This paper proposes essential factors that promote green product development performance through the perspective of sustainable leadership and verifies the vital role of green job engagement and institutional pressure. It opens up the mechanism of green product development performance and proposes a new milestone for green product development performance. This article verifies the relationship between sustainable leadership, green job engagement, green product development performance, and institutional pressure through a sample of technology companies. Indeed, past research has focused chiefly on the green manufacturing innovation process. Few have investigated the critical factors that promote green product development performance, which is very important, because they can effectively achieve sustainable development goals; for example, Lee and Huang [31] used the upper echelon theory to investigate the green innovation strategies of clean energy technology companies. They adopted environmental leadership as an essential factor in promoting green innovation and considered the mediating effect of environmental organizational citizenship behavior. The research results supported this hypothesis. Huang [26] used China-specific transformational, supportive, and confident leadership to investigate innovation in renewable energy companies. The results support that China-specific transformational, supportive, and confident leadership is essential in promoting innovation strategies. Huang et al. [35] investigated how responsible leadership of the chief executive officer causes the company’s green innovations through the pro-environmental behavior of the senior management team, and the results supported their research hypotheses. At present, the investigation of sustainable leadership is still in its infancy, and it is still unknown how sustainable leadership promotes green product development performance through green job engagement and why institutional pressure affects these relationships, indicating the incremental contribution of this article to insurance owners.
Second, there has been a large amount of research in the past discussing leadership types and their outcome variables. Still, few studies have combined sustainable leadership with the field of product research and development to explore how to promote green product development performance. Surprisingly, environmental leadership is a common management mechanism, but little research has extended sustainable leadership to green product development. Therefore, this paper proposes a new research direction for sustainable leadership and green product development, suggests how to promote green product development performance through organizational sustainable leadership mechanisms, and establishes a new direction for new product development.
Third, this paper is the first to use Kahn’s [4] theory of job engagement to propose a new theory of antecedents and outcome factors of green job engagement, which provides a new perspective for the extensive research on job engagement. Indeed, past studies have proposed that meaningfulness, security, and positive energy are important factors contributing to job engagement. This article extends this view to green management, suggesting that sustainable leadership is an essential factor contributing to green job engagement and that green product development performance is a critical outcome variable of green job engagement, leading to a new direction for future research on job engagement.

5.3. Contributions in Practice

Green product development performance is an essential competitive advantage for technology manufacturing companies. Because of the current global attention to the greenhouse effect and environmental pollution, creating high-quality green products can attract consumers’ attention first and achieve profit goals. This article proposes that sustainable leadership is crucial to the performance of green product development, so companies should consider investing resources in sustainable leadership education and training. For example, middle and senior executives of technology companies should receive sustainable leadership education and training to implement the role of sustainable leadership in technology companies. In addition to education and training on sustainable leadership, heads of corporate research and development departments can also assign work tasks related to sustainable development so that employees in the research and development department can gain a deeper understanding of sustainable development. Companies can also include green management in their annual performance appraisal indicators to implement green knowledge among employees. Finally, companies can cultivate a sustainable leadership culture or atmosphere in the work environment and foster employees’ engagement in green work, thereby increasing the company’s green performance.

5.4. Research Limitations and Suggestions

This paper proposes sustainable leadership as essential to green product development performance. Still, there may be other potential leadership styles that may also promote green product development performance, such as authentic leadership [36], ethical leadership [37], responsible leadership [35], or environmental leadership [38]. Future investigations should test how leadership styles in different contexts impact green product development performance differently and discuss another possible mechanism to increase the innovation of this article. Second, this article proposes that sustainable leadership, green job engagement, and institutional pressure can increase green product development performance, but there may be different formation mechanisms in different contexts. Future investigations should explore other possible mechanisms to increase the research stream of green product development performance and increase the innovation of this article. For example, job satisfaction may be an essential mechanism by which sustainable leadership promotes green product development performance, because employees feel the leader’s sustainable responsibility, are more satisfied with the work environment, and work hard to develop green products. Third, this article’s sample is limited to companies in Taiwan and may not be representative. Past studies have found that cultural factors may cause different work behaviors of employees [39]. Therefore, to test the robustness of the findings, in addition to using samples from different countries for in-depth investigations, future studies should also consider larger samples from different countries in the research model of this article to increase the generality of this paper. Fourth, this paper adopts the theory of job engagement as the basis of the research framework. Future investigations should explore whether other theories are more suitable to explain how sustainable leadership, green job engagement, and institutional pressure increase green product development performance and whether different theories are applicable in different situations. For example, cognitive consistency theory [40] may be used to explain the research framework of this article, because when employees develop their green values due to the leadership process, they will exhibit behaviors consistent with green values and then strive to create green products. Future investigations should explore other possible mechanisms to increase the research stream of green product development performance and increase the innovation of this article. Fifth, the research model of this article adopts a mediation framework. Future investigations should explore in depth whether different frameworks are suitable for the research model of this article. Sixth, this article suggests that future investigations should integrate work engagement theory more deeply into the research model of this article and collect more literature to support the three research hypotheses proposed in this article. For example, can green product development performance be integrated into green job engagement theory to form a general theoretical framework? Finally, although this article is the first to explore the relationship between sustainable leadership, green job engagement, green product development performance, and institutional pressure, there is a lack of related studies for comparative analysis. It is suggested that subsequent research should still delve into the findings of this article to explore the underlying hypothetical mechanism and conduct a comparative analysis with more studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.-H.H.; Methodology, C.-W.T.; Software, C.-W.T.; Validation, C.-W.T.; Investigation, S.Y.B.H.; Resources, C.-W.T.; Data curation, S.Y.B.H.; Writing—original draft, C.-H.H.; Writing—review and editing, T.-W.C.; Visualization, C.-W.T.; Supervision, T.-W.C.; Project administration, T.-W.C.; Funding acquisition, S.Y.B.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Institutional Review Board. Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request from the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. The Measurement Scale

ConstructMeasurement Scale
Sustainable Leadership
  • I feel that my supervisor plays in a sustainable, socially, environmentally, and ethically responsible manner.
  • I feel that my supervisor’s decisions are made while considering the entire organization.
  • I feel that my supervisor’s management officially recognizes when a mistake is made that affects sustainability.
  • I feel that my supervisor is willing to correct mistakes that affect sustainability.
  • I feel that my supervisor attempts to use unique, innovative methods to resolve sustainability issues.
  • I feel that my supervisor attempts to create wealth through sustainable efforts.
  • I feel that my supervisor balances sustainable social responsibility with profits.
  • I feel that my supervisor demonstrates sustainability by persevering through all types of change.
  • I feel that my supervisor is concerned about how sustainability affects employees.
  • I feel that my supervisor attempts to build a culture of sustainability through its communication efforts.
  • I feel that my supervisor has a plan to demonstrate sustainability when hiring, promoting employees, and replacing leaders.
Green Job Engagement
  • I feel that my heart and soul are focused on environmental management and protection in my work.
  • I feel that I am very much focused on environmental management and protection in my work.
  • At work, I devote a lot of attention to environmental management and protection.
  • I feel that I take environmental management and protection very seriously in my work.
  • I feel enthusiastic about doing environmental management and protection work at work.
  • I feel energized by the environmental stewardship I perform at work.
  • I feel that I am interested in performing environmental management and protection in my work.
  • I feel proud of the environmental stewardship and protection I carry out at work.
  • I feel that I do my best to manage and protect the environment at work.
  • I feel that I am very involved in environmental stewardship and conservation in my job.
  • I feel that I do my best to manage and protect the environment at work.
Institutional Pressures
  • I think the central government’s environmental regulations will affect my company’s green environmental management.
  • I think local government environmental regulations will affect my company’s green environmental management.
  • I think the potential conflict between my company’s products and environmental regulations will affect the company’s green environmental management.
  • I think the buyer’s environmental regulations will affect my company’s green environmental management.
  • I think the cost of pollution prevention will affect my company’s green environmental management.
Green Product
Development Performance
  • I feel that the green products of my company provide customers with unique green features or attributes.
  • I feel that the green products of my company are superior in meeting customers’ green needs.
  • I feel that my company’s green products have excellent green technology performance.
  • I feel that the green products of my company are of higher quality.

References

  1. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, T.W.; Lin, C.Y.; Lai, P.Y.; Wang, K.H. The influence of proactive green innovation and reactive green innovation on green product development performance: The mediation role of green creativity. Sustainability 2016, 8, 966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhang, W.; Sun, B.; Xu, F. Promoting green product development performance via leader green transformationality and employee green self-efficacy: The moderating role of environmental regulation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Zhou, S.; Zhang, D.; Lyu, C.; Zhang, H. Does seeing “mind acts upon mind” affect green psychological climate and green product development performance? The role of matching between green transformational leadership and individual green values. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kahn, W.A. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Acad. Manag. J. 1990, 33, 692–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Morgan, T.; Anokhin, S.A. The joint impact of entrepreneurial orientation and market orientation in new product development: Studying firm and environmental contingencies. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 113, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rezaei, E.; Paydar, M.M.; Safaei, A.S. Customer relationship management and new product development in designing a robust supply chain. RAIRO Oper. Res. 2020, 54, 369–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wu, D.; Lin, X.; Liu, T.; Li, J. Cross-functional integration and new product development performance: Assessing mediating role of customer-supplier involvement and moderating role of structural empowerment. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2024, 208, 123658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Piwowar-Sulej, K.; Krzywonos, M.; Kwil, I. Environmental entrepreneurship-bibliometric and content analysis of the subject literature based on H-Core. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 295, 126277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Agrawal, R.; Majumdar, A.; Majumdar, K.; Raut, R.D.; Narkhede, B.E. Attaining sustainable development goals (SDGs) through supply chain practices and business strategies: A systematic review with bibliometric and network analyses. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 3669–3687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lee, S.C.; Huang, S.Y. The effect of Chinese-specific environmentally responsible leadership on the adoption of green innovation strategy. Energy Environ. 2024, 35, 4114–4132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Huang, S.Y. How can corporate social responsibility predict voluntary pro-environmental behaviors? Energy Environ. 2024, 35, 3386–3398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gerard, L.; McMillan, J.; D’Annunzio-Green, N. Conceptualising sustainable leadership. Ind. Commer. Train. 2017, 49, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hallinger, P.; Suriyankietkaew, S. Science mapping of the knowledge base on sustainable leadership, 1990–2018. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Lee, C.J.; Huang, S.Y. A moderated mediation examination of Kahn’s theory in the development of new product performance: Cross-level moderating role of open discussion of conflict. Chin. Manag. Stud. 2019, 13, 603–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Avery, G.; Bergsteiner, H. Sustainable Leadership: Honeybee and Locust Approaches; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  16. Suriyankietkaew, S.; Krittayaruangroj, K.; Iamsawan, N. Sustainable Leadership practices and competencies of SMEs for sustainability and resilience: A community-based social enterprise study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nisha, N.T.; Nawaz, N.; Mahalakshmi, J.; Gajenderan, V.; Hasani, I. A study on the impact of sustainable leadership and core competencies on sustainable competitive advantage in the information technology (IT) sector. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Burawat, P. The relationships among transformational leadership, sustainable leadership, lean manufacturing and sustainability performance in Thai SMEs manufacturing industry. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2019, 36, 1014–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chatzifoti, N.; Didaskalou, E.A.; Chountalas, P.T.; Agoraki, K.K.; Georgakellos, D.A. The Role of Information Technology and Employee Engagement in Enhancing Knowledge Management in the Pharmaceutical Research and Development Process: Insights from Dynamic Capabilities Theory. Businesses 2024, 4, 315–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, G.; Wang, X.; Duan, H. How does the collaboration with dominant R&D performers impact new R&D employees’ innovation performance in different cultural contexts? A comparative study of American and Chinese large firms. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2019, 148, 119728. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kauppi, K.; Hannibal, C. Institutional pressures and sustainability assessment in supply chains. Int. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2017, 22, 458–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lee, S.C.; Huang, S.Y.; Hu, L.; Chang, T.W. Why Do Employees Show Pro-Environmental Behaviors? A Perspective of Environment Social Responsibility. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Ahmed, W.; Najmi, A.; Arif, M.; Younus, M. Exploring firm performance by institutional pressures driven green supply chain management practices. Smart Sustain. Built Environ. 2019, 8, 415–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lui, A.K.; Lo, C.K.; Ngai, E.W.; Yeung, A.C. Forced to be green? The performance impact of energy-efficient systems under institutional pressures. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 239, 108213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. McCann, J.T.; Holt, R.A. Servant and sustainable leadership: An analysis in the manufacturing environment. Int. J. Manag. Pract. 2010, 4, 134–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Huang, S.Y. How to drive the innovation strategy adoption in the renewable energy technology company: A perspective of organizational management. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 27, 9021–9037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Potter, A.; Lawson, B.; Krause, D. Improving Supplier Performance in New Product Development: The Role of Supplier Development. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2014, 32, 777–792. [Google Scholar]
  28. Wu, G.-C.; Ding, J.-H.; Chen, P.-S. The effects of GSCM drivers and institutional pressures on GSCM practices in Taiwan’s textile and apparel industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 135, 618–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Huang, S.Y. Why Can Fintech Chatbots Guide Consumers to Buy Banking Products? Int. J. Hum.–Comput. Interact. 2025, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rodriguez-Cano, R.; Paulus, D.J.; Zvolensky, M.J.; Lopez-Duran, A.; Martinez-Vispo, C.; Becona, E. Depressive symptoms in the trajectory of craving during smoking cessation treatment: A latent growth curve model. Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse 2018, 44, 472–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhu, M.; Cai, W.; Li, L.; Guo, Y.; Monroe-Wise, A.; Li, Y.; Liu, C. Mediators of intervention effects on depressive symptoms among people living with HIV: Secondary analysis of a mobile health randomized controlled trial using latent growth curve modeling. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2019, 7, e15489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Podsakoff, P.M.; Podsakoff, N.P.; Williams, L.J.; Huang, C.; Yang, J. Common method bias: It’s bad, it’s complex, it’s widespread, and it’s not easy to fix. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2024, 11, 17–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Fornell, C.R.; Larcker, F.F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Huang, S.Y.; Huang, C.H.; Chang, T.W. A new concept of work engagement theory in cognitive engagement, emotional engagement, and physical engagement. Front. Psychol. 2022, 12, 663440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lee, C.J.; Huang, S.Y. Double-edged effects of ethical leadership in the development of Greater China salespeople’s emotional exhaustion and long-term customer relationships. Chin. Manag. Stud. 2020, 14, 29–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Huang, S.Y.; Li, M.W.; Lee, Y.S. Why do medium-sized technology farms adopt environmental innovation? The mediating role of pro-environmental behaviors. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Huang, C.H.; Chang, T.W.; Ting, C.W.; Huang, S.Y. How Does Organizational Leadership Promote Pro-Environmental Behavior? A Moderated Mediation Model of Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility Policies. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Steers, R.M.; Sánchez-Runde, C.J. Culture, motivation, and work behavior. In The Blackwell Handbook of Cross-Cultural Management; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 190–216. [Google Scholar]
  40. Feldman, S. (Ed.) Cognitive Consistency: Motivational Antecedents and Behavioral Consequents; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 17 05097 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 17 05097 g001
Table 1. The result of descriptive statistics.
Table 1. The result of descriptive statistics.
Gender Percentage
Male60%
Female40%
AgePercentage
18~3012%
31~4050%
41~5030%
51~608%
Education LevelPercentage
High school1%
University degree60%
Master’s degree or above40%
Working ExperiencePercentage
5~10 years70%
11~20 years20%
21 years or above10%
Table 2. The result of CFA.
Table 2. The result of CFA.
ConstructsItemsλCronbach’s αComposite ReliabilityAverage Variation Extracted
Sustainable LeadershipSL010.691 **0.930.920.51
SL020.772 **
SL030.615 **
SL040.778 **
SL050.711 **
SL060.721 **
SL070.712 **
SL080.786 **
SL090.774 **
SL100.611 **
SL110.699 **
Green Job EngagementGJE010.713 **0.910.920.54
GJE020.685 **
GJE030.699 **
GJE040.698 **
GJE050.762 **
GJE060.797 **
GJE070.779 **
GJE080.789 **
GJE090.719 **
GJE100.718 **
Institutional
Pressure		IP010.711 **0.880.870.557
IP020.814 **
IP030.777 **
IP040.795 **
IP050.701 **
Green Product Development PerformanceGDA010.704 **0.850.820.553
GDA020.794 **
GDA030.712 **
GDA040.718 **
Notes: (1) **: p < 0.01; (2) RMR = 0.044; RMSEA = 0.042; GFI = 0.92; CFI = 0.93; NFI = 0.92.
Table 3. Analysis results.
Table 3. Analysis results.
HypothesisRelationship PathCoefficient
Hypothesis 1Sustainable Leadership → Green Job Engagement0.34 **
Hypothesis 2Green Job Engagement → Green Product Development Performance0.29 **
Hypothesis 3Institutional Pressure × Green Job Engagement → Green Product Development Performance0.11 **
Note: ** = p < 0.01.
Table 4. The results of the correlation coefficient.
Table 4. The results of the correlation coefficient.
ConstructsSustainable LeadershipGreen Job EngagementInstitutional
Pressure		Green Product Development Performance
Sustainable Leadership1
Green Job Engagement0.34 *1
Institutional Pressure0.23 *0.25 *1
Green Product Development Performance0.31 *0.39 *0.26 *1
Note: * = p < 0.05.
Table 5. Analysis results (the first sample).
Table 5. Analysis results (the first sample).
HypothesisRelationship PathCoefficient
Hypothesis 1Sustainable Leadership → Green Job Engagement0.31 **
Hypothesis 2Green Job Engagement → Green Product Development Performance0.25 **
Hypothesis 3Institutional Pressure × Green Job Engagement → Green Product Development Performance0.12 **
Note: ** = p < 0.01.
Table 6. Analysis results (the second sample).
Table 6. Analysis results (the second sample).
HypothesisRelationship PathCoefficient
Hypothesis 1Sustainable Leadership → Green Job Engagement0.29 **
Hypothesis 2Green Job Engagement → Green Product Development Performance0.23 **
Hypothesis 3Institutional Pressure × Green Job Engagement → Green Product Development Performance0.13 **
Note: ** = p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Huang, C.-H.; Chang, T.-W.; Ting, C.-W.; Huang, S.Y.B. How to Encourage Green Product Development Performance: A Stainable Leadership Perspective. Sustainability 2025, 17, 5097. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115097

AMA Style

Huang C-H, Chang T-W, Ting C-W, Huang SYB. How to Encourage Green Product Development Performance: A Stainable Leadership Perspective. Sustainability. 2025; 17(11):5097. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115097

Chicago/Turabian Style

Huang, Chien-Hsiang, Tai-Wei Chang, Chih-Wen Ting, and Stanley Y. B. Huang. 2025. "How to Encourage Green Product Development Performance: A Stainable Leadership Perspective" Sustainability 17, no. 11: 5097. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115097

APA Style

Huang, C.-H., Chang, T.-W., Ting, C.-W., & Huang, S. Y. B. (2025). How to Encourage Green Product Development Performance: A Stainable Leadership Perspective. Sustainability, 17(11), 5097. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17115097

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