How Does Environmental Sustainability Commitment Affect Corporate Environmental Performance: A Chain Mediation Model

Abstract

Amid escalating ecological concerns and regulatory pressures, firms are adopting environmental sustainability commitments to enhance competitiveness and fulfill social responsibilities. However, the internal mechanisms linking these commitments to environmental performance remain insufficiently explored. This study investigates how corporate environmental sustainability commitments improve environmental performance by integrating the Planned Behavior Theory and Organizational Change Theory. Using structural equation modeling with 324 firm-level responses, we identify a chain mediation pathway. Results indicate that environmental sustainability commitment positively influences corporate environmental performance through the chain-mediating effects of green readiness and green opportunity identification and exploitation. By extending the Technology–Organization–Environment (TOE) framework, we delineate three dimensions of green readiness, showing that organization readiness exhibits the strongest mediating role. This study advances theoretical understanding by mapping the pathway from sustainability intentions to performance through internal capabilities and actions. Practically, it helps firms systematically align environmental and economic goals while avoiding greenwashing risks.

1. Introduction

In the context of the escalating global environmental crisis and increasingly stringent regulations, corporate environmental conduct has emerged as a pivotal metric of both social responsibility and competitive advantage [1,2,3]. While environmental sustainability commitments are widely adopted as strategic declarations [4], their implementation faces a critical dilemma: firms frequently engage in greenwashing due to short-termism or unclear pathways [5,6,7,8], which undermines consumer rights [9] and market integrity [10]. This paradox raises a pressing question: How can environmental sustainability commitments transcend symbolic gestures to genuinely improve corporate environmental performance?

Existing research predominantly focuses on individual employees’ or managers’ environmental commitments [11,12,13,14], often overlooking organizational-level environmental sustainability commitments as a strategic resource [15]. These commitments manifest across multiple dimensions, including financial pledges, green bond issuance [16], carbon emission reduction targets, energy efficiency and waste management initiatives, and corporate social responsibility commitment [17]. Environmental sustainability commitments can act as a strategic tool that can assist businesses in developing dynamic environmental adaptability [18,19]. Planned Behavior Theory posits that behavioral intention is the strongest predictor of action [20], suggesting environmental sustainability commitments—as deliberate pro-environmental intentions [21]—should drive corporate environmental performance. Employing Planned Behavior Theory to explore the impact of environmental sustainability commitment on corporate environmental performance is critical for revealing how enterprises translate strategic commitments into concrete actions. We can advance the theoretical application of Planned Behavior Theory by systematically validating its relevance at the organizational level, bridging the gap between individual behavioral frameworks and corporate sustainability practices.

The prevailing “orientation-performance” paradigm oversimplifies organizational greening by assuming linear causality, failing to address how environmental sustainability commitments activate internal change processes. Prior research primarily focuses on how environmental sustainability commitment influences corporate green initiatives from external perspectives such as stakeholder interests [22], consumer preferences [23], and environmental knowledge acquisition [24]. Drawing on Organizational Change Theory [25], we contend that the implementation of environmental sustainability commitments inherently requires a structured transformation process through the “unfreeze-change-refreeze” sequence. This process is fundamentally dependent on green readiness—a multidimensional organizational capability comprising strategic resource allocation, structural flexibility, and cognitive openness to environmental imperatives [26,27]. Functioning as a critical enabler throughout the transformation continuum, green readiness empowers firms to transcend reactive compliance while preventing opportunistic greenwashing through the institutionalization of sustainability as a core logic [28].

Green readiness alone, however, is insufficient. To convert preparedness into performance, firms must identify and exploit green opportunities—strategic initiatives that align ecological and economic value creation [29]. For instance, resource allocation, through the strategic reconfiguration of technological, financial, and human capital, directs resources toward latent opportunity domains [30] while mitigating uncertainties inherent in opportunity exploitation [31]. Environmental sustainability commitment-driven green readiness fosters opportunity recognition by sensitizing organizations to emerging sustainability trends, while green opportunity identification and exploitation operationalizes these insights through innovative practices (e.g., circular production and green partnerships) [32]. Yet, the interplay between green readiness and green opportunity identification and exploitation remains underdeveloped, particularly their chain-mediating role in linking environmental sustainability commitments to corporate environmental performance.

This study examines how green readiness and green opportunity identification and exploitation mediate the link between environmental sustainability commitment and corporate environmental performance, anchored in Planned Behavior Theory. By integrating organizational change perspectives, we propose a chain mediation model that maps the progression from strategic intentions to capability development and opportunity utilization, ultimately driving corporate environmental performance improvement. The research contributes to corporate green transformation theory in two ways: (1) it reveals cognitive-behavioral pathways through which environmental consciousness translates into operational practices, and (2) it demonstrates how firms’ proactive initiatives, through the chain mediation of green readiness and subsequent green opportunity identification and exploitation, systematically transform environmental sustainability commitments into measurable internal performance gains. By elucidating this “intention-capability-action” pathway, these insights offer practical frameworks for systematically implementing green strategies through staged capacity enhancement and strategic opportunity leverage.

2. Theory and Hypotheses

2.1. Environmental Sustainability Commitment and Corporate Environmental Performance

Environmental sustainability commitment constitutes one facet of environmental sustainability orientation [33]. This concept signifies the willingness of an organization to determine, articulate, and manage its responsibilities toward the natural environment [34,35]. Environmental sustainability commitment demonstrates companies’ inclination to reevaluate their operational strategies or business models to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of their activities [11]. Environmental sustainability commitment is indicative of an acknowledgment by businesses of the necessity for environmental sustainability practices and of their intention to engage in the requisite green initiatives and eco-friendly activities as part of this endeavor.

Evolving market dynamics and legislative frameworks are establishing new corporate environmental performance benchmarks, driving organizations to pursue systematic sustainability improvements. Grounded in the Planned Behavior Theory, this regulatory context positions environmental sustainability commitment as a critical determinant of corporate environmental performance, encapsulating organizational disposition toward sustainability initiatives. Environmental sustainability commitment functions as a general belief that permeates business operations, critically influencing competitive positioning, resource allocation, and innovation trajectories [36]. Strategically, environmental sustainability commitment establishes decision-making heuristics that align competitive positioning and innovation trajectories with ecological imperatives, directing capital investments toward emissions reduction technologies and waste minimization systems [36]. Institutionally, these strategic imperatives become codified through governance frameworks that operationalize environmental stewardship, thereby shaping value preservation systems [2]. Importantly, such institutional codification generates normative pressures that cascade through organizational hierarchies, as evidenced by behavioral research demonstrating environmental sustainability commitment’s capacity to elevate employees’ pro-environmental sentiment and motivate green practice adoption [37]. Through environmental sustainability commitment-driven mechanisms, strategic prioritization [36], institutional codification [2], and normative pressures [37] synergistically enhance corporate environmental performance outcomes. The synergistic effect substantiates environmental sustainability commitment’s role as the cornerstone of sustainable transformation, enabling organizations to reconcile economic objectives with environmental imperatives through coherent alignment of strategic targets, operational practices, and employee behaviors.

Based on this, environmental sustainability commitment can promote the improvement of corporate environmental performance in different aspects. This study proposes the following hypothesis:

H1. 

Environmental sustainability commitment can improve corporate environmental performance.

2.2. The Mediating Role of Green Readiness

According to the principles of Organizational Change Theory, businesses must effectively transform both their internal and external environments to adapt to new conditions [38]. Such change requires thorough planning. Owing to the distinct differences in nature and usage between green resources and traditional resources [39], companies are required to devote efforts to preparation for green practices [7], thereby more effectively exerting the incentive effect on environmental performance. The TOE framework proposes a generic set of factors that explain and predict the likelihood of innovation adoption, and it is most dominant in studying organizational-level adoption [40]. This study, based on TOE and relevant research, delineates green readiness into three dimensions: green technology readiness, green organization readiness, and green environment readiness, drawing on research conducted by other scholars [41].

Green technology readiness refers to the technical preparations that businesses undertake to implement green practices. This encompasses the efforts businesses undertake in learning green technologies, conducting research and development, and preparing resources, among other activities. Green technologies, which include pollution prevention, waste treatment, recycling, and renewable energy technologies, have established a fundamental foundation for businesses to achieve sustainable development by reducing emissions and conserving energy.

Environmental sustainability commitment drives firms to acquire, develop, and utilize green technologies, intensifying investments and resource allocation to establish a technological foundation for sustainable transformation [42]. In organizations prioritizing environmental sustainability commitment, green technology readiness emerges as technical capacities that operationalize environmental commitments into actionable practices. These commitments impose emerging requirements on corporate operations, particularly in product innovation, resource utilization efficiency, and pollution control mechanisms. These commitments impose emerging requirements on corporate operations, particularly in product innovation, resource utilization efficiency, and pollution control mechanisms. Specifically, green technology readiness facilitates product innovation through systematic design frameworks, enabling firms to develop offerings with enhanced recyclability and reduced ecological footprints—key differentiators that surpass baseline compliance thresholds [35] while aligning with circular economy imperatives. Regarding resource management, the implementation of standardized monitoring systems and waste-to-resource conversion processes enables firms to achieve measurable efficiency improvements in energy and material utilization [43]. These technical adaptations systematically reduce resource depletion while maintaining operational scalability. For pollution control, green technology readiness institutionalizes environmental sustainability commitment-driven mitigation strategies through treatment standardization. Technical frameworks transform reduction targets into operational benchmarks, ensuring consistent compliance through automated monitoring systems [44]. This interdependence demonstrates how environmental sustainability commitment systematically elevates corporate environmental performance by embedding sustainability into technical operations. The symbiotic relationship between environmental sustainability commitment and green technology readiness fosters continuous environmental improvement, where strategic commitments and technical capabilities jointly advance corporate environmental performance while simultaneously strengthening organizational competitiveness through first-mover advantages in green markets.

Based on this, the research and development and application of green technology can transform the company’s environmental sustainability commitment into specific actions and results. This study proposes the following hypothesis:

H2a. 

Green technology readiness mediates the relationship between environmental sustainability commitment and corporate environmental performance.

Green organization readiness encompasses the development of green culture, the enhancement of organizational green cognition, the reinforcement of employees’ green competencies, and the preparation for enterprise operational procedures and management choices. According to the principles of Organizational Change Theory, management’s readiness to embrace green practices can serve as a mitigating factor in the face of resistance to change, thereby reducing the probability of failure and enhancing the collective psychological cognition within the organization. Consequently, this readiness can contribute to the diminution of enterprise-wide resistance and discontent with the implementation of change.

Green organization readiness integrates environmental sustainability commitment with the organizational structure, enabling the translation of strategic environmental objectives into actionable pathways for corporate environmental performance enhancement [45]. Specifically, green organization readiness enables firms to restructure organizational architectures, construct corporate value systems, and empower employee capabilities for effective environmental sustainability commitment implementation. Environmental sustainability commitment drives firms to methodically establish green departments and green project teams supported by dedicated sustainability budgets and decision-making authority to facilitate organizational-level green transformation and upgrading. For instance, the establishment of an Environment, Health, and Safety (EHS) department or a board of directors and management committee with a focus on environmental issues can catalyze such transformation and upgrading [22]. This structural adaptation fosters interdepartmental collaboration and professionalized support systems, ensuring operational coherence in green initiatives. Crucially, environmental sustainability commitment drives cultural and strategic realignment by embedding environmental values into corporate ethos through sustainability-linked performance appraisals and executive compensation structures, driving systematic integration of corporate environmental performance enhancement into strategic planning processes. This value internalization motivates organizations to prioritize solutions that balance economic efficiency with ecological preservation, triggering operational shifts toward sustainable supply chain management, production optimization, and eco-design methodologies. Such transitions systematically reduce resource intensity and environmental externalities across value chains. Concurrently, environmental sustainability commitment cultivates organizational learning agility, enhancing capabilities to identify and respond to green development demands. This is operationalized through dynamic green knowledge creation and assimilation mechanisms [24], which foster innovation-oriented environments conducive to employee-driven ecological solutions. Furthermore, environmental sustainability commitment aligns individual competencies with sustainability goals by clarifying green performance expectations, incentivizing proactive career development in environmental stewardship, and reinforcing habitual engagement in sustainable practices [46]. These effects cultivate employees’ personal environmental commitments [47,48] by embedding sustainability into daily workflow rituals and peer recognition systems. Collectively, these mechanisms mitigate implementation barriers by transforming sustainability from peripheral compliance requirements into core organizational competencies through cascading goal alignment from boardrooms to operational teams.

Based on this, green organization readiness can play a mediating role between the company’s environmental sustainability commitment and corporate environmental performance. This study proposes the following hypothesis:

H2b. 

Green organization readiness mediates the relationship between environmental sustainability commitment and corporate environmental performance.

According to the tenets of Organizational Information Processing Theory, the influx of external heterogeneous information into an organization serves as a crucial catalyst for updating organizational capabilities. This is due to the fact that organizations function as open information processing systems [49]. The process by which businesses collect, process, and assess diverse data from policy settings, market demands, and other external sources is considered green environment readiness. This encompasses government support programs for green industries and shifts in customer demand for eco-friendly products.

Environmental sustainability commitment reflects a corporation’s social responsibility and proactive adoption of eco-friendly practices, demonstrating its capacity to acquire diverse green development knowledge and enhance openness to external expertise [24]. By requiring organizations to systematically identify stakeholders’ environmental demands through active collection of ecological data using AI-powered environmental monitoring platforms, environmental sustainability commitment ensures operational alignment with market expectations via the application of context-specific green methodologies [50]. This process is further reinforced through the integration of external environmental factors into business strategies, where organizational adaptability and continuous processing of ecological information become critical drivers of measurable performance improvements [51]. Simultaneously, the cultivation of green environment readiness enables proactive environmental risk mitigation and strategic sustainability planning. Specifically, green environment readiness empowers organizations to implement preventive measures against ecological challenges, optimize green product development cycles, and align offerings with both regulatory frameworks and consumer preferences, thereby strengthening market positioning and long-term value creation [52,53]. Furthermore, environmental sustainability commitment’s strategic orientation is operationalized through advanced big data analytics, which facilitates rapid identification of environmental trends, systematic evaluation of sustainability metrics, and data-driven formulation of green environment readiness initiatives. This technological capability not only enhances the precision of environmental decision-making but also supports dynamic adjustments to operational processes, ensuring responsiveness to evolving ecological demands [54,55]. Collectively, green environment readiness serves as a critical mediator that translates institutional environmental sustainability commitment into enhanced corporate environmental performance by channeling strategic commitments into actionable green practices, operational adaptations, and data-informed decision-making processes.

Based on this, green environment readiness can play a mediating role between the company’s environmental sustainability commitment and corporate environmental performance. This study proposes the following hypothesis:

H2c. 

Green environment readiness mediates the relationship between environmental sustainability commitment and corporate environmental performance.

2.3. The Mediating Role of Green Opportunity Identification and Exploitation

Analyzing opportunities is the initial step in focused and systematic innovation [56]. The establishment of an effective and comprehensive operational system for goods or services produced or derived from business opportunities is termed opportunity identification and exploitation [57]. Consequently, the process by which businesses gather and reorganize resources to capture and exploit green opportunities is referred to as green opportunity identification and exploitation. In the contemporary business landscape, enterprises are presented with novel prospects for green transformation. To implement green practices and achieve sustainable development, businesses must recognize, evaluate, and successfully capitalize on green opportunities.

According to relevant studies, firms with strong environmental sustainability commitments demonstrate higher adoption rates of green opportunities, as environmental sustainability commitment provides intrinsic motivation for proactive environmental strategies [15]. From an organizational initiative perspective, the institutionalization of entrepreneurs’ environmental values exerts a defining influence on strategic decision-making frameworks. When environmental sustainability commitment becomes embedded as a core organizational value, enterprises systematically adopt preventive mechanisms, leveraging predictive environmental impact modeling to anticipate environmental challenges, thereby cultivating organizational capacities to systematically internalize emerging green opportunities [58]. Building on this logic, green opportunity identification and exploitation serve as the foundational mechanism for implementing corporate green practices [59]. In the pursuit of sustainable development, enterprises encounter multifaceted opportunities for green innovation. Within sustainable transformation contexts, enterprises implement green opportunity identification and exploitation through environmentally optimized production processes that enhance resource efficiency, concurrently developing market-responsive green products/services that meet evolving consumption demands. These strategic actions substantively improve corporate environmental performance by achieving operational eco-efficiency and market legitimacy, with enhanced corporate environmental performance subsequently consolidating enterprises’ competitive positioning in green markets. Functioning as strategic drivers, environmental sustainability commitments further stimulate sustained green innovation through market-oriented adaptation. Marketing research confirms that enterprises aligning environmental sustainability commitment with market expectations systematically invest in green technology development, thereby delivering eco-innovative solutions that satisfy consumer preferences [50]. The causal chain demonstrates that environmental sustainability commitment drives green opportunity identification and exploitation, which enhances corporate environmental performance. This progression establishes a sustainable value creation mechanism, underpinned by performance-based validation of environmental sustainability commitment through closed-loop feedback between operational outcomes and strategic refinement.

Based on this, green opportunity identification and exploitation can play a mediating role between the company’s environmental sustainability commitment and corporate environmental performance. This study proposes the following hypothesis:

H3. 

Green opportunity identification and exploitation mediates the relationship between environmental sustainability commitment and corporate environmental performance.

2.4. The Chain Mediating Role of Green Readiness and Green Opportunity Identification and Exploitation

Businesses are engaging in a variety of green practices in response to mounting pressure to enhance their environmental performance and meet the objectives of green transformation. The external environment’s demands for businesses’ green development and their environmental sustainability commitments serve as powerful motivators for environmental practices. This underscores businesses’ objectives to enhance environmental performance and accomplish sustainable development. Following the “unfreeze-change-refreeze” organizational change process [25], businesses initiate this change activity by developing green technology readiness, green organization readiness, and green environment readiness. They also transform their environmental sustainability commitment into tangible actions by green opportunity identification and exploitation. Consequently, a specific approach for enhancing corporate environmental performance can be identified within the context of organizational change: environmental sustainability commitment, green readiness, green opportunity identification and exploitation, and the enhancement of corporate environmental performance.

While opportunities for environmentally sustainable practices are identified, their successful implementation requires systematic organizational preparation. This process necessitates resource planning, strategic decision-making, and calculated risk-taking [60]. Within organizational change frameworks, the crux of successful green practice adoption resides in the multidimensional construct of green readiness, which serves as the foundation for effective green opportunity identification and exploitation. The green readiness mechanism operates through three distinct pathways: At the organizational capability level, the advancement of green opportunity identification and exploitation enables enterprises to institutionalize green operational practices and strengthen green technology innovation capacities. This technological dimension (green technology readiness) empowers organizations to detect market shifts proactively, thereby developing more competitive green products or services. At the psychological level, cognitive factors encompassing executive leadership, employee engagement, and organizational event dynamics substantially influence green opportunity recognition [61]. The cultivation of mutual trust among organizational members significantly reduces resistance to green initiatives. Through green organization readiness, enterprises can align employee perceptions with transformation objectives, thereby mitigating psychological barriers to sustainable change. From an external adaptation perspective, market confidence in green transitions is inevitably affected by environmental uncertainties. The aggregation and interpretation of ecological intelligence emerge as a critical determinant in strategic decision-making [62]. By systematically analyzing environmental dynamics through green environment readiness, organizations can identify latent green opportunities and steer their transformation trajectories. This opportunity identification process is contingent upon the organization’s existing knowledge base and information processing capabilities regarding sustainability [63].

Based on this, this study proposes the following hypotheses:

H4a. 

Green technology readiness and green opportunity identification and exploitation play a chain mediating role between environmental sustainability commitment and corporate environmental performance.

H4b. 

Green organization readiness and green opportunity identification and exploitation play a chain mediating role between environmental sustainability commitment and corporate environmental performance.

H4c. 

Green environment readiness and green opportunity identification and exploitation play a chain mediating role between environmental sustainability commitment and corporate environmental performance.

The theoretical framework of this study is shown in Figure 1.

3. Methods

3.1. Sample

This study collects data through questionnaire surveys. The surveyed companies are companies undergoing sustainable transformation in China. China has demonstrated a robust commitment to green and low-carbon development through its pursuit of the dual carbon goals [64] and enactment of the Environmental Protection Law [65]. These initiatives have collectively strengthened corporate environmental awareness. These contexts provide a solid practical foundation for exploring the relationship between environmental sustainability commitment and environmental performance. Before the formal distribution of the questionnaire, 20 middle and senior managers of companies in Northeast China were invited to conduct a pre-test, asking them for their suggestions for improvement on the setting of questionnaire items and language expression, and the questionnaire was revised based on the feedback. Subsequently, the formal questionnaire distribution began. This study invited middle and senior managers in sustainable development operations to fill out the questionnaire online or offline. A total of 368 questionnaires were collected, of which 324 were valid, and the questionnaire collection efficiency was 88.04%. This study conducts descriptive statistics on the questionnaire data as shown in

Table 1. Descriptive statistics (N = 324).

Descriptive Items	Number	Percentage
Firm size (employees)
Less than 50	31	9.57%
51–100	34	10.49%
101–500	69	21.30%
501–1000	53	16.36%
Above 1000	137	42.28%
Industry type
Manufacturing	148	45.68%
Construction	29	8.95%
Transportation and Logistics	17	5.25%
Information Technology	51	15.74%
Retail and Wholesale Trade	17	5.25%
Financial Services	20	6.17%
Others	42	12.96%
Firm age (years)
Less than 3	41	12.65%
3–5	63	19.44%
5–10	72	22.22%
10–15	89	27.47%
More than 15	59	18.21%
Working experience (years)
Less than 3	22	6.79%
3–5	44	13.58%
5–10	77	23.77%
10–15	92	28.40%
More than 15	89	27.47%

.

3.2. Measures

This study combines relevant domestic and foreign research with the opinions of experts, governments, and researchers, and uses classic scales from domestic and foreign research to measure the main variables, and indicators are collected using a 5-point Likert scale. The 5-point Likert scale is widely adopted in organizational behavior research because it effectively balances measurement precision and respondent burden. Fewer response options (e.g., 3-point scales) may result in a loss of information, whereas more options (e.g., 7-point scales) can introduce unnecessary complexity and compromise data quality [66]. Table 2 presents the measurements of all variables.

(1) The independent variable is environmental sustainability commitment. The scale of environmental sustainability commitment refers to the research results of Rehman et al. (2022) [33] and includes four items, such as “Environmental protection is part of the business”. The selected items capture the multidimensional nature of environmental sustainability commitment by emphasizing its integration into core business strategy and perceived commercial benefits. These items align with the construct’s theoretical definition as both an ethical imperative and a strategic advantage.

(2) The mediator variables are green readiness and green opportunity identification and exploitation. The measurement of green readiness refers to the research results of Zhang et al. (2020) [41], where green technology readiness includes five items such as “Our green technologies meet our operational needs”, and green organization readiness includes six items such as “Our organization cultivates a green culture among employees”, and green environment readiness includes five items such as “Our organization pays attention to and complies with environmental policies”. The items for green technology readiness emphasize functional efficacy and external stakeholder alignment, ensuring the scale captures both internal operational optimization and market responsiveness. Green organization readiness items focus on cultural and structural enablers, reflecting institutional mechanisms for embedding sustainability into governance and employee engagement. Green environment readiness items prioritize regulatory compliance and market-oriented adaptation, aligning with external pressures and stakeholder-driven environmental strategies. The measurement of green opportunity identification and exploitation refers to the research results of Ozgen et al. (2007) [67] and Dewar and Dutton (1986) [68], including six items such as “Our company can gather green opportunity information quickly”. The selected items for green opportunity identification and exploitation emphasize both information agility and execution capacity. These items emphasize organizational responsiveness to emerging trends, balancing speed in environmental scanning with strategic implementation.

(3) The dependent variable is corporate environmental performance. The measurement of corporate environmental performance refers to the research results of Sahoo et al. (2023) [69], including five items such as “We can promote the reduction of air emissions”. The selected items for corporate environmental performance focus on measurable environmental outcomes and pollution mitigation alongside broader ecological improvements. These items reflect key dimensions of environmental performance, including waste management, resource efficiency, and systemic impact, ensuring content validity while maintaining respondent clarity through concrete, action-oriented phrasing.

Table 2. Variable measurement scale.

Construct and Derivation	Indicator	Measures
Corporate environmental performance (CEP), Sahoo et al. (2023) [69]	CEP1 CEP2 CEP3 CEP4 CEP5	We can promote the reduction of air emissions. We can promote the reduction of wastewater. We can promote the reduction of solid wastes. We can decrease the consumption of hazardous/ harmful/toxic materials. We can improve the company’s environmental situation.
Environmental sustainability commitment (ESC), Rehman et al. (2022) [33]	ESC1 ESC2 ESC3 ESC4	Environmental protection is part of the business. Committing to environmental sustainability is good for my business. Our commitment to the environment allows us to gain more customers. We are proud to do business in the local community.
Green technology readiness (GTR), Zhang et al. (2020) [41]	GTR1 GTR2 GTR3 GTR4 GTR5	Our green technologies meet our operational needs. Our green technologies match the requirements of suppliers/customers. Our green technologies increase operational efficiency. Our green technologies promote job effectiveness. Our green technologies enhance product/service quality.
Green organization readiness (GOR), Zhang et al. (2020) [41]	GOR1 GOR2 GOR3 GOR4 GOR5 GOR6	Our organization cultivates a green culture among employees. Our organization pays attention to environmental protection in daily operations. Our organization incorporates sustainable development in corporate strategy. Our organization encourages employees to think creatively. Our organization provides managerial support at all levels. Our organization makes resources available as possible.
Green environment readiness (GER), Zhang et al. (2020) [41]	GER1 GER2 GER3 GER4 GER5	Our organization pays attention to and complies with environmental policies. Our organization shares policy updates with employees. Our organization keeps track of green product/service demands. Our organization understands customers’ environmental concerns. Our organization regards customers as environmental partners.
Green opportunities identification and exploitation (GOIE), Ozgen et al. (2007) [67] and Dewar and Dutton (1986) [68]	GOIE1 GOIE2 GOIE3 GOIE4 GOIE5 GOIE6	Our company can gather green opportunity information quickly. Our company can identify the impact of new information quickly. Our company can master new green opportunity information. Our company can master new green opportunity information. Our company can provide new green products/services. Our company can provide new green products/services.

Table 2. Variable measurement scale.

Construct and Derivation	Indicator	Measures
Corporate environmental performance (CEP), Sahoo et al. (2023) [69]	CEP1 CEP2 CEP3 CEP4 CEP5	We can promote the reduction of air emissions. We can promote the reduction of wastewater. We can promote the reduction of solid wastes. We can decrease the consumption of hazardous/ harmful/toxic materials. We can improve the company’s environmental situation.
Environmental sustainability commitment (ESC), Rehman et al. (2022) [33]	ESC1 ESC2 ESC3 ESC4	Environmental protection is part of the business. Committing to environmental sustainability is good for my business. Our commitment to the environment allows us to gain more customers. We are proud to do business in the local community.
Green technology readiness (GTR), Zhang et al. (2020) [41]	GTR1 GTR2 GTR3 GTR4 GTR5	Our green technologies meet our operational needs. Our green technologies match the requirements of suppliers/customers. Our green technologies increase operational efficiency. Our green technologies promote job effectiveness. Our green technologies enhance product/service quality.
Green organization readiness (GOR), Zhang et al. (2020) [41]	GOR1 GOR2 GOR3 GOR4 GOR5 GOR6	Our organization cultivates a green culture among employees. Our organization pays attention to environmental protection in daily operations. Our organization incorporates sustainable development in corporate strategy. Our organization encourages employees to think creatively. Our organization provides managerial support at all levels. Our organization makes resources available as possible.
Green environment readiness (GER), Zhang et al. (2020) [41]	GER1 GER2 GER3 GER4 GER5	Our organization pays attention to and complies with environmental policies. Our organization shares policy updates with employees. Our organization keeps track of green product/service demands. Our organization understands customers’ environmental concerns. Our organization regards customers as environmental partners.
Green opportunities identification and exploitation (GOIE), Ozgen et al. (2007) [67] and Dewar and Dutton (1986) [68]	GOIE1 GOIE2 GOIE3 GOIE4 GOIE5 GOIE6	Our company can gather green opportunity information quickly. Our company can identify the impact of new information quickly. Our company can master new green opportunity information. Our company can master new green opportunity information. Our company can provide new green products/services. Our company can provide new green products/services.

3.3. Evaluation of Common Method Bias

Common method bias could disturb the study results, and the collected data should be evaluated for common method bias. Harman’s single-factor method using principal component analysis is commonly used to detect common method bias issues. This study employed Harman’s single-factor test to analyze the survey data. The results indicated that the first factor accounted for 39.871% of the variance, which was under the 50% threshold, indicating the absence of common method bias issues. Additionally, this study constructed a single-factor model, loading all measurement items onto a single latent variable. The results indicated that the fit indices of the single-factor model were suboptimal: χ²/d.f. = 7.370, IFI = 0.588, CFI = 0.586, TLI = 0.557, RMSEA = 0.140, RMR = 0.150, SRMR = 0.109, all of which are significantly below the threshold values for these indices. These two methods collectively suggest that there is no significant common method bias in this study.

4. Results

4.1. Measurement Model Assessment

The appropriate methods for assessing the measurement model have been carried out, which include convergent validity, discriminant validity, and scale reliability.

Table 3. Loading, reliability, and validity.

Variables	Items	Loading	KMO	Cronbach’s Alpha	C.R.	AVE
CEP	CEP1 CEP2 CEP3 CEP4 CEP5	0.753 0.832 0.722 0.827 0.850	0.885	0.895	0.897	0.637
ESC	ESC1 ESC2 ESC3 ESC4	0.820 0.845 0.785 0.788	0.837	0.884	0.884	0.656
GTR	GTR1 GTR2 GTR3 GTR4 GTR5	0.805 0.684 0.831 0.833 0.771	0.875	0.888	0.890	0.619
GOR	GOR1 GOR2 GOR3 GOR4 GOR5 GOR6	0.843 0.784 0.786 0.769 0.850 0.861	0.917	0.922	0.923	0.666
GER	GER1 GER2 GER3 GER4 GER5	0.728 0.781 0.718 0.734 0.893	0.841	0.879	0.881	0.598
GOIE	GOIE1 GOIE2 GOIE3 GOIE4 GOIE5 GOIE6	0.808 0.818 0.700 0.816 0.863 0.708	0.908	0.907	0.907	0.621

Note: χ²/d.f. = 1.725, CFI = 0.955, IFI = 0.955, TLI = 0.950, RMSEA = 0.047.

shows an overview of factor loadings, KMO, Cronbach’s Alpha, C.R., and AVE.

The analysis demonstrates that all variables’ Cronbach’s Alpha (0.879–0.922) and C.R. rates (0.881–0.923) were higher than the suggested requirement of 0.7. In light of this, the model’s scales are reliable. As all questionnaire items were derived from established scales, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was deemed unnecessary. The KMO values (0.837–0.917) for each variable were tested and found to be greater than 0.7, confirming the data’s suitability for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The fit indices of the measurement model reveal that the data fit the theoretical model well, exhibiting high construct validity. Additionally, the C.R. values are greater than 0.7, and the AVE values (0.598–0.666) are greater than 0.5, indicating strong convergent validity. In this study, the examination of discriminant validity was conducted using both the classical Fornell-Larcker criterion [70] and the modern HTMT criterion [71]. The results (

Table 4. Discriminant validity.

	1	2	3	4	5	6
Fornell and Larcker criterion
1.CEP	0.798
2.ESC	0.417 ***	0.810
3.GTR	0.552 ***	0.301 ***	0.787
4.GOR	0.608 ***	0.344 ***	0.571 ***	0.816
5.GER	0.542 ***	0.226 ***	0.671 ***	0.575 ***	0.773
6.GOIE	0.626 ***	0.375 ***	0.542***	0.644 ***	0.537 ***	0.788
Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio criterion
1.CEP
2.ESC	0.424
3.GTR	0.564	0.304
4.GOR	0.620	0.352	0.586
5.GER	0.544	0.222	0.671	0.588
6.GOIE	0.617	0.371	0.537	0.639	0.521

Note: Bold values are the square root of AVE. *** denotes p < 0.001.

) indicate that the square roots of the AVE values were higher than the absolute values of the Pearson correlation coefficients between the variables, and the correlations among the variables were below the threshold of 0.85. Therefore, the study meets the requirements for discriminant validity.

Additionally, this study conducted descriptive statistics on the data. The means and standard deviations of all variables were within reasonable ranges, and the primary variables exhibited significant correlations, providing a preliminary basis for further exploration of their relationships. Furthermore, the VIF values (1.165–1.864) for all variables were below 3, indicating that the study does not suffer from severe multicollinearity issues.

4.2. Model Selection

M0 (Figure 1) represents the conceptual model of this study. To further determine the form of the multiple mediation model, this study proposes two competing models (Figure 2): M1 is a chain-mediated model, which eliminates the paths from environmental sustainability commitment to green opportunity identification and exploitation, as well as from green readiness to corporate environmental performance; M2 is a parallel-mediated model, which eliminates the path between the process of green readiness and green opportunity identification and exploitation in the hypothesized model. These competing models (M1 and M2) were designed to empirically test whether the mediation mechanism operates through chain mediation or parallel mediation. By contrasting M1 and M2, this study clarifies whether green readiness and opportunity processes function as sequentially linked mechanisms or distinct mediating forces, resolving ambiguities in how sustainability commitments translate into environmental performance. This comparative approach ensures methodological rigor by identifying the most theoretically coherent mediation structure while avoiding over-specification.

Table 5. Model characteristics.

Model	χ2/d.f.	GFI	CFI	NNFI	IFI	PNFI	RMSEA
M0	2.273	0.844	0.920	0.911	0.920	0.786	0.063
M1	2.352	0.834	0.914	0.906	0.914	0.788	0.065
M2	2.555	0.815	0.901	0.892	0.902	0.775	0.069

presents the fit indices for the hypothesized model M0 and the competing models M1 and M2. In terms of model fit indices, compared to the hypothesized model M0, the fit of the competing models M1 and M2 significantly deteriorates. Therefore, the hypothesized model of this study is the optimal model.

4.3. Hypotheses Testing

Table 6. Main effect test results.

Hypothesis	Path	Coefficient	S.E.	C.R.	p	Result
H1	ESC→CEP	0.173	0.051	2.796	0.005	Supported

presents the test results of H1. Based on the output results of SEM (Figure 3), hypothesis H1 was supported ($\beta$ = 0.173, p < 0.01), which means that the environmental sustainability commitment has a significant positive effect on corporate environmental performance. This aligns with the Planned Behavior Theory, where commitment reflects intentional attitudes and perceived behavioral control, acting as a critical antecedent to performance outcomes. The result empirically reinforces the theory’s theoretical relevance in linking sustainability-oriented organizational commitments to actionable environmental outcomes.

This study employs the bootstrapping method to examine the mediating pathways.

Table 7. Bootstrapping results.

Hypothesis	Path	Coefficient	S.E.	p	LLCI	ULCI	Result
H2a	ESC→GTR→CEP	0.051	0.030	0.038	0.003	0.124	Supported
H2b	ESC→GOR→CEP	0.089	0.039	0.003	0.031	0.186	Supported
H2c	ESC→GER→CEP	0.044	0.028	0.029	0.004	0.117	Supported
H3	ESC→GOIE→CEP	0.042	0.025	0.018	0.007	0.107	Supported
H4a	ESC→GTR→GOIE→CEP	0.017	0.012	0.012	0.002	0.053	Supported
H4b	ESC→GOR→GOIE→CEP	0.046	0.020	0.000	0.019	0.106	Supported
H4c	ESC→GER→GOIE→CEP	0.015	0.010	0.003	0.003	0.046	Supported

presents path coefficients, t-statistics, p-values, and confidence intervals as a demonstration of the outcomes. The findings support the study hypotheses with under and higher confidence intervals that do not consist of 0. Based on the findings, hypotheses H2a, H2b, H2c, H3, H4a, H4b, and H4c are supported. Specifically, green technology readiness mediates the relationship between environmental sustainability commitment and corporate environmental performance ($\beta$ = 0.051, p < 0.05), as do green organization readiness ($\beta$ = 0.089, p < 0.05) and green environment readiness ($\beta$ = 0.044, p < 0.05). Additionally, green opportunity identification and exploitation play a mediating role between environmental sustainability commitment and corporate environmental performance ($\beta$ = 0.042, p < 0.05). Furthermore, a chained mediating effect is observed where green readiness, including green technology readiness ($\beta$ = 0.017, p < 0.05), green organization readiness ($\beta$ = 0.046, p < 0.05), and green environment readiness ($\beta$ = 0.015, p < 0.05), and green opportunity identification and exploitation sequentially mediate the relationship between environmental sustainability commitment and corporate environmental performance.

Further analysis of the three dimensions of green readiness reveals that green organization readiness exhibits superior transmission efficiency ($\beta$ = 0.089, p < 0.05) between environmental sustainability commitment and corporate environmental performance compared to green technology readiness and green environment readiness. This finding suggests that an organization’s readiness in terms of its structure, culture, and processes plays a more pivotal role in translating its environmental sustainability commitment into tangible environmental performance outcomes.

4.4. Robustness Tests

To further substantiate the direct and mediating effects, this study employs a combination of the SPSS 26.0 process macro and bootstrap testing, conducting 5000 resamples to calculate the 95% confidence interval. The results are presented in

Table 8. Robustness Tests.

Paths	Estimate	S.E.	LLCI	ULCI
ESC—CEP	0.375	0.051	0.268	0.468
ESC—GTR—CEP	0.075	0.026	0.031	0.129
ESC—GOR—CEP	0.103	0.032	0.049	0.173
ESC—GER—CEP	0.053	0.022	0.016	0.101
ESC—GOIE—CEP	0.162	0.039	0.093	0.246
ESC—GTR—GOIE—CEP	0.041	0.014	0.018	0.073
ESC—GOR—GOIE—CEP	0.053	0.018	0.024	0.092
ESC—GER—GOIE—CEP	0.029	0.013	0.009	0.058

, and the robustness tests provide additional validation for all hypotheses posited in this research. Consequently, the conclusions drawn from this study exhibit a high degree of robustness.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Conclusions

This study analyzes the impact mechanism between environmental sustainability commitment and corporate environmental performance and draws the following conclusions:

(1) The Role of Environmental Sustainability Commitment

The analysis of Hypothesis 1 confirms that environmental sustainability commitment significantly enhances corporate environmental performance. Firms integrating environmental priorities into core operations exhibit measurable reductions in air emissions, wastewater, and hazardous materials usage, alongside improvements in overall environmental outcomes. These results affirm that institutionalizing ESC as a strategic imperative, rather than a compliance-driven approach, effectively advances ecological objectives.

(2) The Mediating Role of Green Readiness

As hypotheses H2a, H2b, and H2c, environmental sustainability commitment improves corporate environmental performance through the mediating role of green readiness. Green technology readiness enables firms to operationalize commitments through efficiency-driven technological adaptations. Green organization readiness strengthens internal alignment by embedding sustainability into cultural norms and managerial practices. Green environment readiness ensures external alignment with regulatory standards and market expectations. Among these mechanisms, green organization readiness exerts the strongest mediating influence, highlighting the critical role of organizational capacity in transforming sustainability commitments into tangible ecological outcomes. These findings confirm that environmental performance gains arise not only from technological or regulatory adherence but fundamentally through institutionalizing sustainability within organizational governance.

(3) The Mediating Role of Green Opportunity Identification and Exploitation

As hypothesis H3, environmental sustainability commitment elevates corporate environmental performance through the mediating role of green opportunity identification and exploitation. This mechanism enables firms to systematically translate sustainability commitments into actionable strategies by rapidly identifying, assessing, and operationalizing emerging green opportunities. Companies demonstrating robust green opportunity capabilities exhibit enhanced capacity to optimize existing products/services and innovate environmentally aligned offerings, directly addressing market demands for sustainable solutions. The findings confirm that effective opportunity exploitation bridges strategic intent and ecological outcomes, positioning it as a critical conduit for converting environmental aspirations into measurable performance improvements.

(4) The Chain Mediating Effect

As hypotheses H4a, H4b, and H4c, environmental sustainability commitment improves corporate environmental performance through a chain mediation sequentially involving green readiness and green opportunity identification and exploitation. Green readiness equips firms with the foundational capacities to adopt green technologies, align organizational practices with sustainability goals, and comply with evolving regulatory and market demands. These capacities directly enable the identification and execution of green opportunities, which subsequently translate commitments into measurable ecological improvements such as reduced emissions and resource efficiency. The results confirm that this sequential pathway—from readiness-building to opportunity-driven actions—is essential for bridging the gap between strategic environmental commitments and tangible performance outcomes.

5.2. Theoretical Contributions

This study has three theoretical contributions.

First, this study advances theoretical understanding by integrating Planned Behavior Theory to elucidate how proactive environmental sustainability commitment catalyzes corporate environmental performance through strategic internalization rather than external compliance. While prior research predominantly examined external influences on environmental sustainability commitment adoption [22] or individual-level environmental behaviors [14,21,37], and focused on antecedents of environmental sustainability commitment [36], this inquiry uniquely positions organizational agency as the mechanism bridging intentional commitment to ecological outcomes, addressing the oversight in existing literature regarding implementation gaps of sustainability commitments [5]. We further continue the research on environmental sustainability commitment by Jansson et al. [36] and Roy et al. [24], confirming the strategic significance of environmental sustainability commitment for corporate sustainability. From the phenomenon that the environmental sustainability commitments of some firms have evolved into greenwashing behavior, we respond to the suggestion of Eka-sari et al. [4] to further study whether enterprises have actually fulfilled their environmental sustainability commitments. The empirical validation of Hypothesis 1 demonstrates that firms operationalizing environmental sustainability commitment as an institutionalized strategic priority achieve substantive progress in pollution mitigation and operational eco-efficiency. These findings align with Planned Behavior Theory’s foundational premise that attitudes serve as the strongest predictor of behavioral outcomes [20], as evidenced by the direct translation of strategic prioritization of sustainability into institutionalized practices that yield measurable environmental improvements. By revealing how environmental sustainability commitment transcends symbolic gestures when embedded within organizational volition and operational frameworks, this research addresses critical gaps regarding the implementation of sustainability commitments while extending Planned Behavior Theory’s explanatory power to collective corporate decision-making contexts. The results substantiate that environmental sustainability commitment’s efficacy hinges not merely on policy declarations but on enterprises’ deliberate orchestration of structures and processes that convert environmental intentionality into habitual practice.

Secondly, this study delineates the chain-mediating pathway through which environmental sustainability commitment enhances corporate environmental performance, anchored in the “unfreeze–change–refreeze” organizational change theory [25]. While existing literature has primarily attributed corporate green practices to environmental attitudes [54], overlooking the nuanced mechanisms linking commitment to outcomes, this research identifies green readiness and green opportunity identification and exploitation as sequential mediators. The findings reveal that green readiness—the “unfreezing” phase—equips firms with foundational capabilities to adopt green technologies and align practices with sustainability objectives, enabling the subsequent “change” phase of systematically identifying and executing green opportunities. This sequential progression, from capacity-building to opportunity-driven actions, aligns with the theory’s phased transformation model, demonstrating how environmental commitments evolve from strategic intent to measurable ecological improvements. By mapping these mediators to distinct stages of organizational change, the study addresses the theoretical gap highlighted by Hirunyawipada et al. [50], clarifying how firms operationalize sustainability pledges into tangible performance. The integration of green readiness and green opportunity identification and exploitation within a unified framework advances the application of Organizational Change Theory in corporate green transitions, emphasizing phased, capability-driven pathways over isolated attitudinal influences [25,54].

In addition, this study advances theoretical understanding by dissecting the differential mediating effects of green technology readiness, green organization readiness, and green environment readiness in translating environmental sustainability commitment into corporate environmental performance, framed through the TOE perspective [41]. While prior research has examined the collective influence of these dimensions on corporate activities [41], their relative significance in mediating sustainability commitments remains underexplored. By systematically analyzing and comparing their transmission pathways, this research reveals that green organization readiness emerges as the most pivotal mediator. The findings underscore that organizational capacity, rather than isolated technological adoption or regulatory compliance, fundamentally drives the institutionalization of environmental commitments into measurable performance gains. These insights extend the TOE framework’s application to corporate green innovation, emphasizing the hierarchical importance of organizational readiness in bridging strategic sustainability intent with operational outcomes. By resolving the theoretical ambiguity regarding the comparative roles of technology, organization, and environment in green transitions, this study provides a nuanced understanding of how firms can prioritize multidimensional readiness to amplify the efficacy of sustainability commitments.

5.3. Managerial Implications

This study has important implications for the sustainable transformation management of enterprises.

First, companies must prioritize the execution of environmental sustainability commitments, fortify oversight and control mechanisms, and ensure that these commitments do not become mere rhetoric in practice. Companies must establish specific, quantifiable, and traceable environmental sustainability goals, tailored to their business attributes and characteristics. Furthermore, they must implement a diversified supervision framework encompassing internal audits, third-party assessments, and stakeholder feedback. Additionally, companies should devise a reasonable reward and punishment mechanism and a clear accountability system to visualize every link in the implementation of environmental sustainability commitments. Concurrently, companies should prioritize the promotion of cultural cultivation and employee training to ensure that environmental values are deeply ingrained in the minds of individuals and to facilitate the green transformation of the entire organization.

Secondly, recognizing the varying importance of green technology readiness, green organization readiness, and green environment readiness is critical to effective resource allocation. Green technology readiness ensures that green technologies not only meet operational needs but also enhance efficiency and product quality. This means companies should prioritize investing in and integrating green technologies that align with their operational goals and customer expectations. Green organization readiness is key to translating environmental sustainability commitments into tangible corporate environmental performance. Companies should proactively adapt to strategic changes by developing comprehensive organizational readiness plans and establishing a green management system that defines clear environmental goals and mitigates risks. Training employees in green practices promotes environmental awareness and innovation, fostering a culture that supports sustainable development. Green environment readiness ensures compliance with environmental policies and addresses customer environmental concerns, thereby reducing the environmental impact of business operations. Companies should stay updated on environmental regulations and customer demands, ensuring their operations are aligned with these external factors. Resource allocation should support dedicated environmental management teams and cross-departmental collaboration to seamlessly integrate environmental management. Embracing continuous improvement and innovation, such as adopting circular economy principles and green supply chain management, helps maintain competitive advantage and contribute to environmental protection.

Finally, enterprises should accurately identify and reasonably evaluate opportunities in the process of green development and effectively develop them. Identifying green opportunities requires enterprises to build an efficient information-gathering and analysis system to accurately grasp green development opportunities such as market dynamics, policy orientation, and technological innovation. On this basis, enterprises must combine their resources and capabilities to scientifically evaluate the identified opportunities to ensure that they are in line with the trend of green development and fit into the enterprise’s long-term planning. Enterprises should formulate detailed implementation strategies, including technological innovation, process optimization, product upgrading, and market expansion, to effectively develop these green opportunities.

5.4. Limits and Future Research

This study still has certain limitations, which provide feasible directions for future research. First, this study uses cross-sectional data for analysis, which makes it difficult to examine the dynamic relationship between environmental sustainability commitment and corporate environmental performance. Future research can enrich the research methods and use longitudinal research methods, such as panel data, to test the dynamic impact of variables. Second, the scope of the sample selection in this study is relatively limited. This may restrict the generalizability of the research findings, as companies across different industries and regions may exhibit significant differences in environmental management strategies, resource allocation, and policy support. Future research can expand the sample selection to include a broader range of industries, different scales, and diverse geographical areas, thereby enhancing the representativeness and applicability of the research conclusions. This would provide more targeted references for decision-making in environmental management for companies of different types. Beyond these methodological extensions, future work should prioritize investigating micro-level mechanisms, such as employee environmental commitment, to unravel how individual behaviors reinforce organizational-level sustainability pathways. Examining contextual moderators could further clarify boundary conditions of the chain mediation model, while cross-cultural comparisons would strengthen the model’s adaptability to heterogeneous policy and market environments.