Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Dynamic Capabilities and Environmental Performance of High-Tech SMEs in Pakistan – The Role of Eco-Innovation and Female Executives Cover

Dynamic Capabilities and Environmental Performance of High-Tech SMEs in Pakistan – The Role of Eco-Innovation and Female Executives

Open Access
|May 2025

References

  1. Akhtar, P., Ullah, S., Amin, S. H., Kabra, G., & Shaw, S. (2020). Dynamic capabilities and environmental sustainability for emerging economies’ multinational enterprises. International Studies of Management & Organization, 50(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2020.1726596
  2. Almeida, F., Faria, D., & Queirós, A. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. European Journal of Education Studies, 3, 369–387. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.887089
  3. Arend, R. J. (2014). Social and environmental performance at SMEs: Considering motivations, capabilities, and instrumentalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 541–561.
  4. Arranz, N., Arroyabe, M., Li, J., & Fernández de Arroyabe, J. C. (2020). Innovation as a driver of eco‐innovation in the firm: An approach from the dynamic capabilities theory. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 1494–1503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1934-5
  5. Aydıner, A., Tatoglu, E., Bayraktar, E., Zaim, S., & Delen, D. (2018). Business analytics and firm performance: The mediating role of business process performance. Journal of Business Research, 96, 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.056
  6. Baird, J. A., Hopfenbeck, T., Newton, P., Stobart, G., & Steen-Utheim, A. (2014). Assessment and learning: State of the field review. Oslo: Knowledge Centre for Education.
  7. Ballen, C., & Salehi, S. (2021). Mediation analysis in discipline-based education research using structural equation modeling: Beyond “what works” to understand how it works, and for whom—Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 22. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v22i1.2320
  8. Barriga, R., et al. (2022). Eco-innovation and firm performance: Evidence from South America. Sustainability, 14, 9579. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159579
  9. Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C. (2010). The impact of board diversity and gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0505-2
  10. Becker, J. M., Klein, K., & Wetzels, M. (2012). Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM: Guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range Planning, 45(5–6), 359–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.10.001
  11. Boulouta, I. (2013). Hidden connections: The link between board gender diversity and corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1293-7
  12. Buzzao, G., & Rizzi, F. (2021). On the conceptualization and measurement of dynamic capabilities for sustainability: Building theory through a systematic literature review. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), 135–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2614
  13. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. London: Routledge.
  14. Cai, W., & Li, G. (2018). The drivers of eco-innovation and its impact on performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 176, 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.109
  15. Chen, Y., & Chang, C. (2013). The determinants of green product development performance are dynamic capabilities, transformational leadership, and creativity. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(1), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1452-x
  16. Cheng, C. C., Yang, C. L., & Sheu, C. (2014). The link between eco-innovation and business performance: A Taiwanese industry context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.068
  17. Costantini, V., Crespi, F., Marin, G., & Paglialunga, E. (2017). Eco-innovation, sustainable supply chains, and environmental performance in European industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155, 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.038
  18. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research: Developments, debates, and dilemmas. Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry, 2, 315-326.
  19. Dadanlar, H., & Abebe, M. A. (2018). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm performance: Evidence from U.S. technology firms. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 22(1), 1–8.
  20. Dangelico, R. M., & Pontrandolfo, P. (2015). Being ‘green and competitive’: The impact of environmental actions and collaborations on firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(6), 413-430. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1828
  21. Dangelico, R. M., Pujari, D., & Pontrandolfo, P. (2017). Green product innovation in manufacturing firms: A sustainability-oriented dynamic capability perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(4), 490–506. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1932
  22. del Rosario Reyes-Santiago, M., Sánchez-Medina, P. S., & Díaz-Pichardo, R. (2019). The influence of environmental dynamic capabilities on organizational and environmental performance of hotels: Evidence from Mexico. Journal of Cleaner Production, 227, 414-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.062
  23. Drnevich, P. L., & Kriauciunas, A. P. (2011). Clarifying the conditions and limits of the contributions of ordinary and dynamic capabilities to relative firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 254–279. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.882
  24. Eikelenboom, M., & de Jong, G. (2019). The impact of dynamic capabilities on the sustainability performance of SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 1360-1370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.07.061
  25. Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen‐Schmidt, M. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 781–797. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00241
  26. Eisenhardt, K., & Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200010/11)21:10/11
  27. Esty, D. C., & Winston, A. (2009). Green to gold: How smart companies use environmental strategy to innovate, create value, and build competitive advantage. John Wiley & Sons.
  28. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results, and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1–2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001
  29. Fernando, Y., & Wah, W. X. (2017). The impact of eco-innovation drivers on environmental performance: Empirical results from the green technology sector in Malaysia. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 12, 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.05.002
  30. Gana, K., & Broc, G. (2019). Structural equation modeling with lavaan. John Wiley & Sons.
  31. García-Granero, E. M., Arranz, N., Arroyabe, M. F. D., & Li, J. (2018). Eco-innovation measurement: A review of firm performance indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 191, 304–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.207
  32. Glass, C., Cook, A., & Ingersoll, A. R. (2016). Do women leaders promote sustainability? Analyzing the effect of corporate governance composition on environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(7), 495-511. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1879
  33. Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of Management Review, 32, 334–343. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24345254
  34. ************
  35. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.2307/258434
  36. Helfat, C., & Peteraf, M. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 997–1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.332
  37. Hossan, D., Aktar, A., & Zhang, Q. (2020). A study on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLSSEM) as an emerging tool in action research. 2708-7123. https://doi.org/10.47150
  38. Hox, J., & Bechger, T. (1999). An introduction to structural equation modelling. Family Science Review, 11.
  39. Jantunen, A., Tarkiainen. A., Chari, S., & Oghazi, P. (2018). Dynamic capabilities, operational changes, and performance outcomes in the media industry. Journal of Business Research, 89.
  40. Johnson, R., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (5th ed.).
  41. Küçükoğlu, M. T., & Pınar, R. İ. (2015). Positive influences of green innovation on company performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1232–1237.
  42. Liu, Y., Wei, Z., & Xie, F. (2014). Do women directors improve firm performance in China? Journal of Corporate Finance, 28, 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2013.11.016
  43. Liu, J., Nathaniel, S. P., Chupradit, S., Hussain, A., Köksal, C., & Aziz, N. (2022). Environmental performance and international trade in China: The role of renewable energy and eco‐innovation. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 18(3), 813–823. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4563
  44. Lubin, D. A., & Esty, D. C. (2010). The sustainability imperative. Harvard Business Review, 88(5), 42–50. https://hbr.org/2010/05/the-sustainability-imperative
  45. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64
  46. Moroni, I. T., Seles, B. M. R. P., Lizarelli, F. L., Guzzo, D., & da Costa, J. M. H. (2022). Remanufacturing and its impact on dynamic capabilities, stakeholder engagement, eco-innovation, and business performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 371, 133274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133274
  47. Mousavi, S., Bossink, B., & van Vliet, M. (2018). Dynamic capabilities and organizational routines for managing innovation towards sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 203, 224–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.207
  48. Nieves, J., & Haller, S. (2014). Building dynamic capabilities through knowledge resources. Tourism Management, 40, 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tour-man.2013.06.010
  49. O‘Neil, I., & Usbasaran, D. (2016). Balancing ‘what matters to me’ with ‘what matters to them’: Exploring the legitimation process of environmental entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 31, 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2015.10.003
  50. Peteraf, M. A., & Barney, J. (2003). Unraveling the resource-based tangle. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24, 309–323. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.1126
  51. Post, C., Rahman, N., & Rubow, E. (2011). Green governance: Boards of directors’ composition and environmental corporate social responsibility. Business & Society, 50(1), 189–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650310394642
  52. Protogerou, A., Caloghirou, Y., & Lioukas, S. (2011). Dynamic capabilities and their indirect impact on firm performance. Industry and Innovation, 18(5), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtr049
  53. Qi, G., Zeng, S., Chiming, T., Yin, H., & Zou, H. (2013). Stakeholders‘ influences on corporate green innovation strategy: A case study of manufacturing firms in China. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.283
  54. Rahman, W., Shah, F. A., & Rasli, A. (2015). Use of structural equation modeling in social science research. Asian Social Science, 11(4), 371. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n4p371
  55. Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modelling.
  56. Sharma, G. (2017). Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. International Journal of Applied Research, 3(7), 749–752.
  57. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
  58. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic management journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
  59. Terjesen, S., Aguilera, R. V., & Lorenz, R. (2015). Legislating a woman’s seat on the board: Institutional factors driving gender quotas for board directors. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(2), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2083-1
  60. Tran, N., & Pham, B. J. M. S. L. (2020). The influence of CEO characteristics on corporate environmental performance of SMEs: Evidence from Vietnamese SMEs. Management Science Letters, 10(8), 1671–1682. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.1.013
  61. Tseng, S. M., & Lee, P. S. (2014). The effect of knowledge management capability and dynamic capability on organizational performance. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(5), 618–636. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-05-2012-0025
  62. Wilden, R., Devinney, T. M., & Dowling, G. R. (2013). Dynamic capabilities and performance: Strategy, structure, and environment. Long Range Planning, 46(1), 72–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2012.12.001
  63. Yurdakul, M., & Kazan, H. (2020). Effects of eco-innovation on economic and environmental performance: Evidence from Turkey’s manufacturing companies. Sustainability, 12(8), 3167. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083167
  64. Zhou, Y., Hong, J., Zhu, K., Yang, Y., & Zhao, D. (2018). Dynamic capability matters: Uncovering its fundamental role in decision-making of environmental innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 177, 516–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.208
  65. Zhou, S. S., Zhou, A. J., Feng, J., & Jiang, S. (2019). Dynamic capabilities and organizational performance: The mediating role of innovation. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(5), 731–747. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.20
  66. Zollo, M., & Winter, S. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2025-0010 | Journal eISSN: 1581-1832 | Journal ISSN: 1318-5454
Language: English
Page range: 158 - 174
Submitted on: Oct 29, 2024
|
Accepted on: Apr 25, 2025
|
Published on: May 23, 2025
Published by: University of Maribor
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2025 Rameen Niamat, Fayyaz Hussain Qureshi, published by University of Maribor
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.