Journal Pre-proof

Green learning orientation, green knowledge acquisition and ambidextrous green

innovation

Juanru Wang, Yajiong Xue, Xiaolin Sun, Jin Yang

PII: S0959-6526(19)34345-8
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119475
Reference: JCLP 119475

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 11 June 2018

Accepted Date: 26 November 2019

Please cite this article as: Juanru Wang, Yajiong Xue, Xiaolin Sun, Jin Yang, Green learning
orientation, green knowledge acquisition and ambidextrous green innovation, Journal of Cleaner
Production (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119475

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the
addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive
version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it
is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article.
Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the
content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2019 Published by Elsevier.

 Journal Pre-proof

Green learning orientation, green knowledge acquisition and ambidextrous green innovation

Juanru Wanga,*, Yajiong Xueb, Xiaolin Sunc, Jin Yangd

a School of Management, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China
b College of Business, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA
c School of Business, Xi'an University of Finance and Economics, Xi’an 710100, China
d School of Humanities, Economics and Law, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China

*Corresponding author: Juanru Wang

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Wang), [email protected] (Y. Xue), [email protected] (X. Sun)
[email protected] (J. Yang).

1
 Journal Pre-proof
Green learning orientation, green knowledge acquisition and ambidextrous green innovation

Abstract: Drawing on resource-based theory, this study proposes a moderated mediation model to facilitate
ambidextrous green innovation. The relationship of green learning orientation and ambidextrous green innovation is
discussed, and the mediating role of green knowledge acquisition and the moderating role of environmental
organizational culture are examined. The empirical results show that green learning orientation has a positive effect
on both exploitative and exploratory green innovations, and that its effect on exploratory green innovation is
stronger than on exploitative green innovation. Green knowledge acquisition plays a partial mediating role between
green learning orientation, exploitative and exploratory green innovations. Environmental organizational culture
moderates not only the relationship between green learning orientation and green knowledge acquisition, but also
the link between green knowledge acquisition and exploratory green innovation. However, environmental
organizational culture doesn't moderate the relationship between green knowledge acquisition and exploitative
green innovation. The results further reveal that the mediating role of green knowledge acquisition on green
learning orientation and ambidextrous green innovation is stronger when environmental organizational culture is
high. This study extends previous research by emphasizing the importance of green learning orientation in the
context of sustainable development, and enriches existing research of green innovation.
Keywords: green learning orientation, green knowledge acquisition, exploitative green innovation,
exploratory green innovation, environmental organizational culture

1 Introduction
China has become the second largest economy in the world. However, with the fast growth of economy,
environmental issues are emerging, such as tight resources constraints, serious environmental pollutions, and
excessive carbon emissions (Wang et al., 2015). The International Energy Agency estimates that China's carbon
emissions is about 7.5 billion tons, accounting for more than 20% of the world's total, and each person's average
emissions exceeds 5 tons. In recent years, haze has become a serious problem in China, which impacts 25 areas and
populations of about 600 million people. Facing serious environmental issues, firms are aware of the importance of
environmental protection. They start to pay more attention to the influence of their decision making and
management behavior on the environment, and strive to promote green innovation (Safari et al., 2018). Green
innovation has increasingly become a hot topic in both academia and practice. It refers to the development or
improvement of products and processes about saving energy, controlling pollution, recycling waste, and
implementing environmental management (Chang, 2011; Saunila et al., 2018). The aim of green innovation is to
realize a win-win solution for reducing the conflicts between economic development and environmental protection
(Leal-Rodríguez et al., 2018). On the one hand, green innovation is conducive to firms' sustainable development,
realizing environmental benefits, such as saving energy, reducing carbon emissions, saving water, and facilitating
product recovery. On the other hand, green innovation is beneficial to improve firms' green images, obtain

1
 Journal Pre-proof
customer recognition, and exploit international market (Albort-Morant et al., 2016; Albort-Morant et al., 2018), and
then economic benefits, such as increasing green production and operation capability, can be achieved. Therefore,
green innovation becomes an important way for firms to respond to the call for environmental protection and obtain
sustainable competitive advantages.
Green innovation is technologically complex and costly (Ben Afri, et al., 2018; Ma et al., 2018), which needs
more environmental knowledge than traditional innovations. In order to quickly put green innovation into practice,
firms should keep on learning and take a green learning orientation. Green learning orientation is the tendency that
firms value the creation and use of green knowledge (Baker & Sinkula, 1999; Fong & Chang, 2012). Influenced by
green values, firms will consciously adopt green learning to facilitate green innovation behaviors. Although
researchers have studied the antecedents of green innovation, including environmental ethics (Chang, 2011),
environmental regulation (Chan et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2018), green supplier (Weng et al., 2015), quality
management (Li et al., 2018), absorptive capacity (Aboelmaged & Hashem, 2019), and time consciousness (Liao,
2016), there is little research about the link between green learning orientation and green innovation. Previous
studies have highlighted that a firm can be an ambidextrous organization, pursue both exploitative and exploratory
innovations (He & Wong, 2004; Lee et al., 2018), and an ambidextrous organization tends to achieve better
performance (Lin & Ho, 2016). Organizational learning orientation is found to affect ambidextrous innovation
(Sheng & Chien, 2016; Kraft & Bausch, 2016). Yet, how green learning orientation affects exploitative and
exploratory green innovations still needs to be investigated.
Drawing on resource-based theory, knowledge resource is one of the basic elements of the firm (Wernerfelt,
1984; Barney, 1991; Sirmon et al., 2011). It is essential for firms to acquire many kinds of knowledge
(Martínez-Ros & Kunapatarawong, 2019), include green knowledge about green technology and green needs (Chen
et al., 2019). Green knowledge acquisition focuses on obtaining green knowledge (Chen et al., 2014) and affects
green innovation (Marzucchi & Montresor, 2017; Liao, 2018). Green learning orientation thus may influences
green knowledge acquisition, which in turn facilitates exploitative and exploratory green innovations. Recently,
researchers have explored the factors that mediate the relationship between learning orientation and innovation,
such as knowledge sourcing (Khedhaouria et al., 2017) and market orientation (Choi, 2014). But there is little
research about green knowledge acquisition. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the effect of green knowledge
acquisition on the relationship between green learning orientation and ambidextrous green innovation.
Environmental organizational culture involves the values and behaviors of firms to protect environments
(Gopalakrishnan & Zhang, 2017; Roscoe et al., 2019), which determines how firms react to environments. As
suggested by Chen et al. (2019), environmental organizational culture is imperative for firms to encourage
employee to carry out green innovation. Roscoe et al. (2019) emphasized that organizational culture can facilitate
green innovation. Moreover, existing research has found that organizational culture plays a moderating role in
facilitating innovation (Gopalakrishnan & Zhang, 2017), environmental performance (Dubey et al., 2017), and
environmental strategy (Dai et al., 2019). However, from the viewpoint of environmental management, little
research investigates the impact of environmental organizational culture on green innovation. As an atmosphere of

2
 Journal Pre-proof
innovation, environmental organizational culture may play a moderating role in green innovation. This study hence
investigates whether environmental organizational culture moderates the relationship between green learning
orientation, green knowledge acquisition, and ambidextrous green innovation.
This study aims to empirically test a moderated mediation model, including green learning orientation, green
knowledge acquisition, environmental organizational culture, and ambidextrous green innovation. First, according
to ambidexterity theory, two types of ambidextrous green innovation are considered, namely exploitative green
innovation and exploratory green innovation, and the relationship between green learning orientation and
ambidextrous green innovation is discussed. Second, green knowledge acquisition is suggested to play a vital role
and mediate the relationship between green learning orientation and ambidextrous green innovation. Third,
environmental organizational culture is proposed to moderate the relationships between green learning orientation
and exploitative and exploratory green innovations. Specifically, environmental organizational culture moderates
not only the relationship between green learning orientation and green knowledge acquisition, but also the link
between green knowledge acquisition and ambidextrous green innovation.
The rest of this article is organized as follows. First, the theory and hypotheses are put forward. Subsequently,
the research design is described. Then, the hypotheses are tested by conducting hierarchical regression analysis and
bootstrapping. Finally, the research findings, implications and limitations are discussed.

2 Theory and hypotheses development

Based on resource-based theory, this study proposes that green learning orientation has positive relationships
with two types of ambidextrous green innovation, and the relationships will be mediated by green knowledge
acquisition and moderated by environmental organizational culture. Figure 1 presents the research model.

Environmental
organizational culture

Exploitative green innovation

Green learning orientataion Green knowledge acquisition
Exploratory green innovation

Figure 1. The research model

2.1 Green learning orientation and ambidextrous green innovation

Green innovation is related to products, processes, and services to protect environments, which is a process
that firms continuously launch and implement green activities involved in energy saving, pollution prevention, and
environmental quality improvement to eventually achieve economic benefits (Chen, 2008; Chen & Chang, 2013;
Leal-Rodríguez et al., 2018). To meet environment challenges, firms should engage in exploitative and exploratory
green innovations simultaneously. Exploitative green innovation is the application of existing environmental
knowledge, abilities and processes to improve existing green products and green designs (Chen et al., 2014), and
exploratory green innovation focuses on new environmental information, knowledge and skills to create new green
markets and green products. Existing research has found that learning orientation is an antecedent of innovation

3
 Journal Pre-proof
(Hult et al., 2004; Chung et al., 2015; Atitumpong & Badir, 2018), which influences the effectiveness of firms'
innovation activities, and facilitates firms to respond rapidly to customers' need and market changes. For example,
Calantone et al. (2002), Rhee (2010), and Fraj et al. (2015) proposed that learning orientation positively affects
innovation. Additionally, Pérez-Bustamante (1999) suggested that innovation is essentially an outcome of learning
orientation. In a similar vein, Kraft & Bausch (2016) discussed the influence of organization learning orientation on
exploitative and exploratory innovations, and demonstrated that learning orientation is positively associated with
exploitative and exploratory innovations. Therefore, green learning orientation is an antecedent of ambidextrous
green innovation.
Green learning orientation is the shared values that guide firms to learn green knowledge (Fong & Chang,
2012; D'Angelo & Presutti, 2019). It is embodied in firms' commitment and can facilitate ambidextrous green
innovation in the following ways. First, shared values, as the core of green learning orientation, influence firms'
direction of learning and employees' attitudes to acquire new skills (Huang & Li, 2017), and promote employees'
initiative and enthusiasm to participate in green innovation (Chen et al., 2019). Second, firms with green learning
orientation have the propensity to scan environmental changes, and can encourage employees' proactive thinking
(Baker & Sinkula, 1999; Nasution et al., 2004). Thus, environmental ideas and thoughts to satisfy green innovation
goals can be accumulated, further facilitating exploitative and exploratory green innovations. Third, firms with
green learning orientation have strong green organizational identity, which reinforce firms' environmental vision
(Song et al., 2019), and incentivize employees to carry out learning about environmental issues and solutions. As a
result, the uncertainty of green innovation will be eliminated and the chances for success of green innovation will
be enhanced (Soewarno et al., 2019). All in all, firms with green learning orientation, on the one hand, will actively
search and assimilate existing environmental knowledge about customers and markets, which will facilitate
exploitative green innovations; on the other hand, they will identify and absorb new environmental knowledge, and
may come up with novel thoughts to nurture exploratory green innovation. Hence, the following hypotheses are put
forward:
H1a: Green learning orientation is positively associated with exploitative green innovation.
H1b: Green learning orientation is positively associated with exploratory green innovation.
2.2 The mediating effect of green knowledge acquisition
Green knowledge acquisition is the process that firms acquire knowledge related to environmental protection
(Chen et al., 2014), which is essential for firms to utilize environmental knowledge and enrich environmental
technology resources to facilitate ambidextrous green innovation. To survive and meet environmental regulations,
firms should acquire and assimilate green knowledge to conduct innovation (Cainelli et al., 2015; Ben Afri, et al.,
2018). Thus, green knowledge acquisition may play a mediating role between green learning orientation and
ambidextrous green innovation. As found by Liao (2018), knowledge acquisition has a positive impact on green
innovation, and also mediates the relationship between institutional pressure and green innovation. According to
resource-based theory, knowledge is the vital resource of firms' innovation. Only with green learning orientation
can firms accurately find and identify environmental knowledge, choose the best way to acquire green knowledge

4
 Journal Pre-proof
according to the characteristics of knowledge, and further effectively integrate and orchestrate green knowledge. As
such, firms can better use internal and external knowledge to improve exploitative and exploratory green
innovations.
Green learning orientation is the firm's tendency of learning knowledge, which drives knowledge sourcing,
reuse, and creation (Khedhaouria & Jamal, 2015). Hence, green learning orientation is beneficial for firms to
identify, acquire, and create green knowledge, and the obtained knowledge enhances exploitative and exploratory
innovations simultaneously (Lubatkin et al., 2006; Bierly et al., 2009). As highlighted by Fong & Chang (2012),
green learning orientation is the trigger of green knowledge acquisition. Hernández-Espallardo et al. (2011) also
suggested that knowledge acquisition impacts on exploitative and exploratory innovations. Accordingly, green
learning orientation can provide new knowledge and inspiration for firms, and the green knowledge acquired from
market and technology by transformation and integration can form new thoughts, new ideas and new solutions, then
green product and technology can be produced. Therefore, green learning orientation is important for firms to
obtain green knowledge, and green knowledge acquisition further stimulates firms to pursue exploitative and
exploratory green innovations. Thus, the following hypotheses are posited:
H2a: Green knowledge acquisition mediates the relationship between green learning orientation and
exploitative green innovation;
H2b: Green knowledge acquisition mediates the relationship between green learning orientation and
exploratory green innovation.
2.3 The moderating effect of environmental organizational culture
Environmental organizational culture refers to firms' values, beliefs, symbols and assumptions shaping green
management styles and processes (Harris & Crane, 2002; Roscoe et al., 2019). It is formed by firms to fit for
external environment and internal organization activities in the long run (White et al., 2003; Shao, 2019).
Embodied in firms' operation philosophy and conduct, it plays a critical role in determining employees' values,
beliefs, behaviors, thinking ways, habits, and styles (Chang & Lu, 2009; Gopalakrishnan & Zhang, 2017; Dai et al.,
2018). Therefore, environmental organizational culture, spreads in firms, can foster the impact of green learning
orientation on green knowledge acquisition. For example, De Long & Fahey (2000) argued that effective
organizational culture, as a key factor influencing firms' long-term survival and success, is an important condition
for firms to acquire and share knowledge. Schneider et al. (2013) suggested that organizational culture is a
contextual factor that can create atmosphere for firms for effective learning, acquiring and applying knowledge.
Hence, firms with a high level of environmental organizational culture can find more opportunities from external
environment, and further access to more green knowledge resources about products and markets. Accordingly, the
higher of the environmental organizational culture, the stronger the effect of green learning orientation on green
knowledge acquisition is.
Moreover, environmental organizational culture may play an important role in the relationships between green
knowledge acquisition and exploitative and exploratory green innovations. Environmental organizational culture
includes the intuitions and beliefs that firms hold for environmental protection. The intuitions and beliefs are also

5
 Journal Pre-proof
firms' expectations of operation objectives (Khazanchi et al., 2007), which are embodied in firms' attitudes or
behaviors, and reflect firms' value (Dubey et al., 2019). Organizational culture, as one kind of firms' resources, can
help firms conduct innovation (De Long & Fahey, 2000; Matinaro & Liu, 2017). As proposed by Zhu et al. (2013),
environmental organizational culture affects competitive advantage through green innovation. Gopalakrishnan &
Zhang (2017) highlighted the moderating role of organizational culture in innovation. Thus, firms with a high level
of environmental organizational culture are likely to explore green knowledge related to products, customers,
markets and environment, and integrate the acquired green knowledge with existing knowledge to facilitate
exploitative and exploratory green innovations. Therefore, the higher the environmental organizational culture, the
more likely firms apply green knowledge to make exploitative and exploratory green innovations. In the high level
of environmental organizational culture, green knowledge acquisition will has a stronger effect on exploitative and
exploratory green innovations. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H3a: Environmental organizational culture moderates the relationship between green learning orientation and
green knowledge acquisition.
H3b: Environmental organizational culture moderates the relationship between green knowledge acquisition
and exploitative green innovation.
H3c: Environmental organizational culture moderates the relationship between green knowledge acquisition
and exploratory green innovation.
In the above discussion, it is assumed that green knowledge acquisition plays a mediating role between green
learning orientation and exploitative and exploratory green innovations, and environmental organizational culture
can strengthen the links between green learning orientation, green knowledge acquisition and exploitative and
exploratory green innovations. Following this logic, when environmental organizational culture is high, green
learning orientation will have stronger positive effect on exploitative and exploratory green innovations via green
knowledge acquisition. That is, when environmental organizational culture is high, the mediating effects of green
knowledge acquisition on green learning orientation and exploitative and exploratory green innovations will be
stronger. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H4a: Green knowledge acquisition has a stronger mediating effect on green learning orientation and
exploitative green innovation when environmental organizational culture is high.
H4b: Green knowledge acquisition has a stronger mediating effect on green learning orientation and
exploratory green innovation when environmental organizational culture is high.

3 Method
3.1 Samples
The manufacturing industry is important for China's rapid development. However, it is one of the biggest
industries that affect the natural and social ecological environments, leading to the fast resource consumption and
serious environmental pollution. In the economic transformation period, it is urgent for manufacturing firms,
characterized by high energy consumption and high pollution (Li & Zhang, 2014), to conduct green innovation.
Therefore, this study selected manufacturing firms in China as research sample. From March to June 2017, students
6
 Journal Pre-proof
coming from manufacturing firms in our school's MBA, MEM, and ME were invited to participate in the study.
The students were asked to bring a sealed questionnaire to their top managers. At the same time, through the
authors and their friends' social network, questionnaires were issued to senior managers in manufacturing firms by
E-mail and WeChat. Appling the above channels, 300 questionnaires were issued to top-and mid-level managers in
manufacturing firms located mainly in Xi'an, Beijing, Suzhou, Shenzhen, and Shenyang. Overall, 240
questionnaires were returned. After deleting the incomplete ones, 206 effective questionnaires were obtained, and
the effective response rate was 68.7%.
Among those sampled firms, 40.29% are in the equipment manufacturing industry, 15.53% in the textile
industry, 11.65% in the paper industry, 26.70% in the chemical industry, and 5.83% in other types manufacturing
industries. Firm scale and firm age are also collected, and the detail characteristics of 206 sample firms are shown
in Table 1.
Table 1. Sample characteristics

Characteristics of firms Number of firms Percentage

Industry type

Equipment industry 83 40.29%

Textile industry 32 15.53%

Paper industry 24 11.65%

Chemical industry 55 26.70%

Others industries 12 5.83%

Firm scale (number of employees)

Less than 100 14 6.80%

101 - 500 75 36.41%

501- 1000 45 21.84%

1001 - 2000 52 25.24%

2001or more 20 9.71%

Firm age (years since establishment)

Less than 5 15 7.28%

5 - 10 37 17.96%

10 - 15 73 35.44%

15 - 20 68 33.01%

20 or more 13 6.31%

To examine common method bias (CMB), the Harman's single factor test was conducted (Podsakoff et al.,
2003). The results displayed that the total variance explained by five factors was 76.66%. The first factor accounted
for 22.40% of the variance, which was less than 25% (Williams et al., 1989), suggesting that common method bias
was not a threat in this research.
3.2 Measures

7
 Journal Pre-proof
The measurement items in this study were based on the existing literature and have already been validated by
other researchers. An initial questionnaire was designed by two-way English-Chinese translation, and then some
items and their expressions were modified and supplemented through in-depth interviews with the manufacturing
firms located in Xi'an. The questionnaire included two parts: one is the basic information of manufacturing firms;
the other is the measurement items of main variables. A five-point Likert scale was used to measure all variables,
ranging from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”. The measurement items are displayed in Appendix A.
Green learning orientation is measured with four items adapted from Sheng & Chien (2016) and Fong &
Chang (2012). Sample items include “employees think learning ability is important to ensure firms survival and
competitive advantage” and “employees identify organizational goals and vision, and are willing to accept green
new knowledge”. Environmental organizational culture is measured with six items adapted from Dubey et al. (2017)
and Chen et al. (2019). Sample items are “our firm emphasizes environmental protection knowledge” and “our firm
emphasizes the cooperation of environmental protection”. Green knowledge acquisition is measured with three
items adapted from Yli-Renko et al. (2001) and Presutti et al. (2007). Sample items include “our firm obtains a lot
of technical knowledge related to environmental protection” and “our firm obtains a lot of market knowledge
related to environmental protection”. For exploitative green innovation, four items are designed based on the
measurement of Jansen et al. (2006) and He & Wong (2004). Sample items include “our firm actively improves
current green products, processes and services” and “our firm actively adjusts current green products, processes and
services”. For exploratory green innovation, a four-item measurement is designed adapted from Jansen et al. (2006)
and He & Wong (2004). Sample items include “our firm actively adopts new green products, processes and
services” and “our firm actively exploits new green products, processes and services”.
Previous studies have indicated that the firm's background, such as industry type, scale and age affect the
firm's knowledge acquisition and innovation. Hence, industrial type, firm scale, and firm age are designed as
control variables. Industrial type is measured by the specific manufacturing type, firm scale is measured by
numbers of employee, and firm age is expressed in years at the time of data collection.
3.3 Reliability and Validity
Cronbach's α were applied to test the reliability. As shown in Table 2, all scales were reliable, with values
ranging from 0.854 to 0.943. To verify the construct validity, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted,
with the use of varimax rotation. The factor analysis indicated that five factors were extracted according to the
criterion of eigenvalue greater than one, and all factor loadings were larger than 0.50, demonstrating good construct
validity in this research.
Table 2. Reliability and construct validity

Variable Item Factor loading Cronbach's α

Green learning orientation (GLO) GLO1 0.781 0.854

GLO2 0.816

GLO3 0.780

GLO4 0.755

8
 Journal Pre-proof
Environmental organizational culture (EOC) EOC1 0.824 0.943

EOC2 0.830

EOC3 0.891

EOC4 0.909

EOC5 0.904

EOC6 0.894

Green knowledge acquisition (GKA) GKA1 0.877 0.890

GKA2 0.888

GKA3 0.844

Exploitative green innovation（EIGI） EIGI1 0.812 0.886

EIGI2 0.827

EIGI3 0.845

EIGI4 0.883

Exploratory green innovation (ERGI) ERGI1 0.816 0.878

ERGI2 0.847

ERGI3 0.808

ERGI4 0.808

Further, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to estimate convergent validity and discriminant validity.
The proposed model was examined, and the results were χ2= 429.992, RMSEA = 0.083, TLI = 0.902, CFI = 0.917.
The five-factor model hence was acceptable, indicating good convergent validity. Moreover, all factor loadings
exceeded 0.6, further demonstrating good convergent validity. Discriminant validity was examined by contrasting
different nested models. As summarized in Table 3, the results suggested the five-factor model was better. Thus,
the discriminant validity was ensured.
Table 3. Convergent validity and discriminant validity

Model Variable Χ2 Df RMSEA TLI CFI

One-factor model GLO+EOC+GKA+EIGI+ERGI 2095.205 189 0.222 0.298 0.368

Four-factor model GLO+EOC, GKA, EIGI, ERGI 862.841 183 0.135 0.741 0.775

Four-factor model GLO+GKA, EOC, EIGI, ERGI 776.529 183 0.126 0.774 0.803

Four-factor model GLO, EOC, GKA+EIGI, ERGI 766.843 183 0.125 0.778 0.806

Four-factor model GLO, EOC, GKA+ERGI, EIGI 764.841 183 0.125 0.779 0.807

Five-factor model GLO, EOC, GKA, EIGI, ERGI 429.992 179 0.083 0.902 0.917

4 Results
4.1 Descriptive statistics and correlations
The variables' means, standard deviations and correlations were calculated. As displayed in Table 4, green
learning orientation is positively correlated with green knowledge acquisition (r = 0.319, p < 0.01), exploitative
green innovation (r = 0.333, p < 0.01), and exploratory green innovation (r = 0.484, p < 0.01), respectively.
9
 Journal Pre-proof
Moreover, green knowledge acquisition is also positively correlated with both exploitative and exploratory green
innovations, and the correlation coefficients are the same (r = 0.296, p < 0.01). The control variables have no
significant correlation with green knowledge acquisition, exploitative and exploratory green innovations,
demonstrating that green knowledge acquisition, exploitative and exploratory green innovations have no difference
among firms in terms of industry type, scale, and age.
Table 4. Means, standard deviations and correlations
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Industry type 2.422 1.394 1.00

2. Firm scale 2.947 1.131 -0.054 1.00

3. Firm age 3.131 1.020 0.005 0.023 1.00

4. GLO 3.538 0.594 0.060 0.056 0.028 1.00

5. EOC 3.434 0.720 -0.015 -0.008 0.016 0.129 1.00

6. GKA 3.518 0.691 -0.029 0.056 -0.032 0.319** 0.229** 1.00

7. EIGI 3.481 0.709 0.032 0.015 -0.002 0.333** 0.032 0.296** 1.00

8. ERGI 3.627 0.686 0.074 0.086 0.053 0.484** 0.149* 0.296** 0.259** 1.00

** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

4.2 Hypotheses testing

To examine the main influencing mechanism of green learning orientation on ambidextrous green innovation,
and test the mediating effect of green knowledge acquisition, the processes suggested by Baron & Kenny's (1986)
were applied. Full mediation is proved if the following four conditions are satisfied: (1) green learning orientation
(independent variable) is significantly related to exploitative and exploratory green innovations (dependent
variables); (2) green learning orientation is significantly related to green knowledge acquisition (mediation
variable); (3) green knowledge acquisition is significantly related to exploitative and exploratory green innovations;
and (4) after entering green knowledge acquisition, green learning orientation has non-significant impact on
exploitative and exploratory green innovations. As displayed in Table 5, green learning orientation is positively
associated with exploitative green innovation (Model 6: β = 0.333, p < 0.01) and exploratory green innovation
(Model 12: β = 0.476, p < 0.01), and that its effect on exploratory green innovation is stronger than on exploitative
green innovation, thus, H1a and H1b are fully supported. Moreover, green learning orientation positively influences
green knowledge acquisition (Model 2: β = 0.320, p < 0.01), and green knowledge acquisition is positively
associated with exploitative green innovation (Model 7: β = 0.298, p < 0.01) and exploratory green innovation
(Model 13: β = 0.296, p < 0.01). When green knowledge acquisition was entered, the influence of green learning
orientation on exploitative green innovation (Model 8: β = 0.265, p < 0.01) and exploratory green innovation
(Model 14: β = 0.425, p < 0.01) are still significant. Meanwhile, green knowledge acquisition is still positively
related to exploitative (Model 8: β = 0.213, p < 0.01) and exploratory green innovations (Model 14: β = 0.161, p <
0.05). Thus, green knowledge acquisition partially mediates the relationships between green learning orientation,
exploitative and exploratory green innovations, supporting H2a and H2b.

10
 Journal Pre-proof
Table 5. Results for testing hypotheses
GKA EIGI ERGI

Model 1 Model2 Model 3 Model4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10 Model11 Model 12 Model 13 Model 14 Model 15 Model 16

Control Variable

Industry type -0.026 -0.046 -0.041 -0.047 0.033 0.012 0.040 0.021 -0.047 0.021 0.078 0.048 0.086 0.055 0.056 0.056

Firm scale 0.056 0.037 0.040 0.041 0.017 -0.002 0.001 -0.010 -0.011 -0.012 0.089 0.061 0.072 0.055 0.057 0.056

Firm age -0.033 -0.042 -0.044 -0.027 -0.002 -0.011 0.008 -0.002 -0.001 0.002 0.050 0.038 0.060 0.044 0.043 0.052

Independent variable

GLO 0.320** 0.295** 0.313** 0.333** 0.265** 0.268** 0.250** 0.476** 0.425** 0.421** 0.362**

Mediator Variable

GKA 0.298** 0.213** 0.224** 0.225** 0.296** 0.161* 0.148* 0.149*

Moderator Variable

EOC 0.191** 0.135* -0.054 -0.059 0.061 0.044

Interaction

GLO×EOC 0.334**

GKA×EOC 0.053 0.169**

R2 0.005 0.107 0.143 0.251 0.001 0.111 0.089 0.152 0.155 0.157 0.016 0.241 0.103 0.264 0.241 0.292

F 0.335 6.013** 6.654** 11.094** 0.088 6.299** 4.938** 7.166** 6.067** 5.271** 1.097 15.962** 5.794** 14.355** 12.122** 11.673**

△R2 0.005 0.102 0.036 0.108 0.001 0.110 0.088 0.041 0.043 0.002 0.016 0.225 0.087 0.023 0.027 0.024

△F 0.335 22.937** 8.340** 28.686** 0.088 24.899** 19.463** 9.560** 5.090** 0.571 1.097 59.603** 19.585** 6.257** 15.962** 6.846**

** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

To assess the moderating effect of environmental organizational culture, the procedure proposed by Cohen et
al. (2003) was conducted. In the stepwise regression, the variables of green knowledge acquisition, exploitative and
exploratory green innovations were first entered respectively, followed by the control variables of industry type,
firm scale and firm age, the independent and the moderator variable, and the interactions were entered in the last
step. The interaction variables were mean-centered so that the effect of multicollinearity can be reduced (Aiken &
West, 1991). As displayed in Table 5, the interaction between green learning orientation and environmental
organizational culture is positively related to green knowledge acquisition (Model 4: β = 0.334, p < 0.01). The
interaction between green knowledge acquisition and environmental organizational culture has no significant effect
on exploitative green innovation (Model 10: β = 0.053, n.s.), and the interaction has a positive effect on exploratory
green innovation (Model 16: β = 0.169, p < 0.01). Thus, H3a and H3c are confirmed, while H3b is rejected.
Furthermore, the moderating effects were plotted by applying Stone & Hollenbeck's (1989) suggestion. As shown
in Figure 2, the relationship between green learning orientation and green knowledge acquisition is more positive
when environmental organizational culture is high. Figure 3 indicates green knowledge acquisition has a stronger
positive relationship with exploratory green innovation when environmental organizational culture is high.
Therefore, H3a and H3c are further supported.

11
 Journal Pre-proof

Figure 2. The moderating effect of environmental Figure 3. The moderating effect of environmental
organizational culture (EOC) on green learning orientation and organizational culture (EOC) on green knowledge acquisition
green knowledge acquisition and exploratory green innovation

In order to test the moderated mediation effect, the bootstrapping procedure suggested by Edwards & Lambert
(2007) was followed. The total influence of green learning orientation on exploitative and exploratory green
innovations was separated into direct and indirect effects at different levels of environmental organizational culture.
As shown in Table 6, at low level of environmental organizational culture (one standard deviation below the mean),
green learning orientation has no significant effect on green knowledge acquisition (r = 0.029, n.s.), while at high
level of environmental organizational culture (one standard deviation above the mean), green learning orientation
has a significant positive impact on green knowledge acquisition (r = 0.691, p < 0.01), and the two influence
coefficient has significant difference (Δr = 0.662, p < 0.01). Therefore, H3a is further supported. Table 6 indicates
that green knowledge acquisition has a significant effect on exploitative green innovation (r = 0.200, p < 0.01；r=
0.300, p < 0.05) at both low and high levels of environmental organizational culture, and the two influence
coefficient has no significant difference (Δr = 0.100, n.s.). Furthermore, when environmental organizational culture
is high, the influence of green knowledge acquisition on exploratory green innovation is significant (r = 0.394, p <
0.01), whereas when environmental organizational culture is low, the influence is not significant (r = 0.106, n.s.),
and the two influence coefficient has significant difference (Δr = 0.288, p < 0.05). Hence, environmental
organizational culture could only enhance the link between green knowledge acquisition and exploratory green
innovation, further supporting H3c.
Table 6 also shows that the indirect impact of green learning orientation on exploitative green innovation
through green knowledge acquisition is stronger at high level of environmental organizational culture (r = 0.208, p
< 0.05) than at low level of environmental organizational culture (r = 0.006, n.s.), and the two influence
coefficients are significantly different (Δr = 0.202, p < 0.05). Therefore, H4a is supported. Furthermore, the indirect
impact of green learning orientation on exploratory green innovation through green knowledge acquisition is
significant when environmental organizational culture is high (r = 0.272, p < 0.01), but not significant when it is
low (r = 0.003, n.s.), and two influence coefficient has a significant difference (Δr = 0.269, p < 0.01). Thus, the
result supports H4b.

12
 Journal Pre-proof

Table 6. Results of moderated mediation analysis

Stage Effect
Moderator variable
First Second Direct effects Indirect effects Total effects

GLO (X) → GKA (M) →EIGI (Y1)

PMX PY1M PY1X PY1M PMX PY1X+ PY1M PMX

Low level of EOC 0.029 0.200** 0.362* 0.006 0.368**

High level of EOC 0.691** 0.300* 0.218 0.208* 0.426**

Differences 0.662** 0.100 -0.144 0.202* 0.058

GLO (X) → GKA (M) →ERGI (Y2)

PMX PY2M PY2X PY2M PMX PY2X+ PY2M PMX

Low level of EOC 0.029 0.106 0.646** 0.003 0.649**

High level of EOC 0.691** 0.394** 0.114 0.272** 0.386**

Differences 0.662** 0.288* -0.533 0.269** -0.264

** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

5 Discussions
Drawing on resource-based theory, this study investigates the impact of green learning orientation on green
knowledge acquisition and ambidextrous green innovation, and examines the moderating role of environmental
organizational culture. First, the findings confirm that green learning orientation has a positive effect on
exploitative and exploratory green innovations, and that its effect on exploratory green innovation is stronger than
that on exploitative green innovation. This reveals that green learning orientation is particularly beneficial to
exploratory green innovation. One possible reason is that green learning orientation focuses on self-reinforcing
learning based on the improvement of new environmental knowledge, which easily nurtures exploratory green
innovation. Second, the results indicate that green knowledge acquisition partially mediates the links of green
learning orientation, exploitative and exploratory green innovations. Therefore, green learning orientation not only
has direct impact on exploitative and exploratory green innovations, but also has indirect influence on exploitative
and exploratory green innovations via green knowledge acquisition. Third, the findings suggest that environmental
organizational culture plays a moderating role not only between green learning orientation and green knowledge
acquisition, but also between green knowledge acquisition and exploratory green innovation. However,
environmental organizational culture has no significant moderating effect on the relationship between green
knowledge acquisition and exploitative green innovation. The possible reason may be that firms with a high level
of environmental organizational culture prefer to assimilate new environmental knowledge to facilitate exploratory
green innovation, but ignore existing environmental knowledge that it is necessary for exploitative green innovation.
As a consequence, the interaction between of environmental organizational culture and green knowledge
acquisition has a positive influence on exploratory green innovation, but no effect on exploitative green innovation.
5.1 Theoretical implications
First, the links of green learning orientation and two types of ambidextrous green innovations are clarified, and

13
 Journal Pre-proof

the findings reveal that the impact of green learning orientation on exploratory green innovation is stronger than on
exploitative green innovation. The results are consistent with the research of Kraft & Bausch (2016), who showed
that learning orientation has a stronger effect on exploratory innovation than on exploitative innovation. From the
viewpoint of environmental management, this study defines green learning orientation as the shared values that can
guide firms to learn green knowledge, further demonstrating that green learning orientation is an antecedent of
ambidextrous green innovation. This extends and enriches the research of green innovation, and uncovers the
mechanism about how ambidextrous green innovation can be facilitated and influenced by firms' green learning
orientation. Second, green knowledge acquisition is found to partially mediate the link between green learning
orientation and ambidextrous green innovation. This result is partially in line with Liao (2018), who suggested that
knowledge acquisition mediates the effect of institutional pressure on green innovation. The important findings
highlight the role of green knowledge acquisition, and uncover the influencing mechanism of green learning
orientation on ambidextrous green innovation. Third, it is found that environmental organizational culture
moderates the links between green learning orientation, green knowledge acquisition, and exploratory green
innovation. As highlighted by Gopalakrishnan & Zhang (2017), organizational culture plays a moderating role to
facilitate innovation. The interesting findings yield evidence that environmental organizational culture is a vital
contingency factor in facilitating ambidextrous green innovation. Furthermore, the moderated mediation effect
illustrates how green learning orientation facilitates ambidextrous green innovation, and emphasizes the importance
of green knowledge acquisition and environmental organizational culture.
5.2 Managerial implications
This study offers some practical implications. First, the results suggest that green learning orientation has a
positive effect on exploitative and exploratory green innovations. Thus, in order to improve ambidextrous green
innovation, firms need to make some policies to nurture a shared vision to promote organizational insights and
design incentive mechanisms to enhance green organizational identity, so that the willingness of employee to learn
green knowledge will be promoted and firms' green learning capability development are facilitated. Second, the
results indicate that green knowledge acquisition partially mediates the link between green learning orientation and
ambidextrous green innovation. Thus, firms should not only improve their capability of green knowledge
acquisition at the firm level, but also increase their employees' capability of green knowledge acquisition at the
individual level through on-job training and cooperation. Accordingly, firms can integrate and apply the acquired
green knowledge, conduct exploitative and exploratory green innovations, and then gain competitive advantage to
realize green sustainable development. Third, this study finds that environmental organizational culture plays a
pivotal role in facilitating ambidextrous green innovation. Hence, with the increasing consciousness of
environmental protection, it is necessary for firms to create environmental organizational culture, and embed it into
employees' daily work. As such, employees' environmental protection consciousness can be improved, and the
tendency of employee to acquire green knowledge will be increased, and then exploitative and exploratory green
innovation can be accelerated.

14
 Journal Pre-proof

5.3 Limitations and future research

There are three limitations in this study. First, since a cross-sectional survey is conducted, it is impossible to
reveal causal relationships between the factors in the research. In future, a longitudinal research can be considered
to assess how green learning orientation, green knowledge acquisition, environmental organizational culture and
ambidextrous green innovation affect each other over time. Second, the sample is 206 manufacturing firms in
China. Due to the limitation of sample coverage and size, the results may be limited and can't be generalized to
other industries and countries. Future research can expand the industry type and sample size, and conduct research
to compare the differences in different industry types across countries. Third, green knowledge acquisition and
environmental organizational culture are regarded as mediator and moderator, and the influence of green learning
orientation on exploitative and exploratory green innovations are examined. However, some factors, such as green
knowledge integration capability, environmental awareness, may also play a critical role between green learning
orientation and ambidextrous green innovation. Therefore, these variables need to be identified and examined
empirically in future research.

Acknowledgements
This research was conducted with the support of National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.71371154,
No.71673221), Humanity and Social Science Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (No.18XJA630006),
National Social Science Foundation of China (No.14CGL006), and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities (No. 3102019JC04).

Appendix A. Measurement items

Green learning orientation (GLO)
GLO1: Employees think learning ability is important to ensure our firm survival and competitive advantage;

GLO2: Employees identify organizational goals and vision, and are willing to accept green new knowledge;

GLO3: Our firm's organizational structure is help for sharing and creating green knowledge;

GLO4: Top managers encourage employees to share and create green knowledge.

Environmental organizational culture (EOC)

EOC1: Our firm emphasizes environmental protection knowledge;

EOC2: Our firm emphasizes the cooperation of environmental protection;

EOC3: Our firm emphasizes the agreement of environmental protection;

EOC4: Our firm emphasizes the change of environmental protection;

EOC5: Our firm emphasizes the impact of environmental protection;

EOC6: Our firm emphasizes the vision of environmental protection.

Green knowledge acquisition (GKA)

GKA1: Our firm obtains a lot of technical knowledge related to environmental protection;

15
 Journal Pre-proof

GKA2: Our firm obtains a lot of market knowledge related to environmental protection;

GKA3: Our firm obtains a lot of product and service knowledge related to environmental protection.

Exploitative green innovation (EIGI)

EIGI1: Our firm actively improves current green products, processes and services;

EIGI2: Our firm actively adjusts current green products, processes and services;

EIGI3: Our firm actively strengthens current green market;

EIGI4: Our firm actively strengthens current green technology.

Exploratory green innovation (ERGI)

ERGI1: Our firm actively adopts new green products, processes and services;

ERGI2: Our firm actively exploits new green products, processes and services;

ERGI3: Our firm actively discovers new green market;

ERGI4: Our firm actively enters new green technology.

References
Aboelmaged, M., & Hashem, G. (2019). Absorptive capacity and green innovation adoption in SMEs: The mediating effects of

sustainable organisational capabilities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 220, 853-863.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.

Albort-Morant, G., Leal-Millán, A., & Cepeda-Carrión, G. (2016). The antecedents of green innovation performance: A model of

learning and capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4912-4917.

Albort-Morant, G., Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., & De Marchi, V. (2018). Absorptive capacity and relationship learning mechanisms as

complementary drivers of green innovation performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(2), 432-452.

Atitumpong, A., & Badir, Y. F. (2018). Leader-member exchange, learning orientation and innovative work behavior. Journal of

Workplace Learning, 30(1), 32-47.

Baker, W. & Sinkula, J. (1999). Learning orientation, market orientation, and innovation: Integrating and extending models of

organizational performance. Journal of Market Focused Management, 4(4), 295-308.

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17(1), 99-120.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator--mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,

strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Ben Afri, W., Hikkerova, L., & Sahut, J. M. (2018). External knowledge sources, green innovation and performance. Technological

Forecasting & Social Change, 129, 210-220.

Bierly, P. E., Damanpour, F., & Santoro, M. D. (2009). The application of external knowledge: Organizational conditions for

exploration and exploitation. Journal of Management Studies, 46(3), 481-509.

Cainelli, G., De Marchi, V., & Grandinetti, R. (2015). Does the development of environmental innovation require different resources?

Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 94, 211-220.

Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability and firm performance. Industrial

Marketing Management, 31(6), 515-524.

16
 Journal Pre-proof

Chan, H. K., Yee, R. W. Y., Dai, J., & Lim, M. K. (2016). The moderating effect of environmental dynamism on green product

innovation and performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 181, 384-391.

Chang, C. H. (2011). The influence of corporate environmental ethics on competitive advantage: The mediation role of green

innovation. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(3), 361-370.

Chang, K., & Lu, L. (2009). The influence of occupation on stressors and work behaviours. International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 20(3), 591-605.

Chen, Y. S. (2008). The driver of green innovation and green image: Green core competence. Journal of business Ethics, 2008, 81(3),

531-543.

Chen, Y. S., & Chang, C. H. (2013). Towards green trust: The influences of green perceived quality, green perceived risk, and green

satisfaction. Management Decision, 51(1), 63-82.

Chen, Y. S., Chang, C. H., & Lin, Y. H. (2014). The determinants of green radical and incremental innovation performance: Green

shared vision, green absorptive capacity, and green organizational ambidexterity. Sustainability, 6(11), 7787-7806.

Chen, Y. S., Lin, S. H., Lin, C. Y., Hung, S. T., Chang, C. W., & Huang, C. W. (2019). Improving green product development

performance from green vision and organizational culture perspectives. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental

Management, 1-10.

Choi, S. (2014). Learning orientation and market orientation as catalysts for innovation in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and

Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(2), 393-413.

Chung, H., Yang, Z., & Huang, P. H. (2015). How does organizational learning matter in strategic business performance? The

contingency role of Guanxi networking. Journal of Business Research, 68(6), 1216-1224.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral

Sciences. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dai, J., Chana, H. K., & Yee, R. W. Y. (2018). Examining moderating effect of organizational culture on the relationship between

market pressure and corporate environmental strategy. Industrial Marketing Management, 74, 227-236.

D'Angelo, A., & Presutti, M. (2019). SMEs international growth: The moderating role of experience on entrepreneurial and learning

orientations. International Business Review, 28, 613-624.

De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. Academy of Management Executive,

14(4), 113-127.

Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos, T., Luo, Z. W., Wamba, S. F., & Roubaud, D. (2019). Can big data and

predictive analytics improve social and environmental sustainability? Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 144, 534-545.

Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Helo, P., Papadopoulos, T., Childe, S. J., & Sahay, B. S. (2017). Explaining the impact of reconfigurable

manufacturing systems on environmental performance: The role of top management and organizational culture. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 141, 56-66.

Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using

moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 1-22.

Fong, C. M., & Chang, N. J. (2012). The impact of green learning orientation on proactive environmental innovation capability and

firm performance. African Journal of Business Management, 6(3), 397-401.

17
 Journal Pre-proof

Fraj, E., Matute, J., & Melero, I. (2015). Environmental strategies and organizational competitiveness in the hotel industry: The role of

learning and innovation as determinants of environmental success. Tourism Management, 46(6), 30-42.

Gopalakrishnan, S., & Zhang, H. (2017). Client dependence and vendor innovation: The moderating role of organizational culture.

Industrial Marketing Management, 66, 80-89.

Harris, L. C., & Crane, A. (2002). The greening of organizational culture: Management views on the depth, degree and diffusion of

change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(3), 214-234.

He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science,

15(4), 481-494.

Hernández-Espallardo, M. Sánchez-Pérez, M., & Segovia-López, C. (2011). Exploitation-and exploration-based innovations: The role

of knowledge in inter-firm relationships with distributors. Technovation, 31(5-6), 203-215.

Huang, J. W., & Li, Y. H. (2017). The mediating role of ambidextrous capability in learning orientation and new product performance.

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32(5), 613-624.

Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. (2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial

Marketing Management, 33(5), 429-438.

Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance:

Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661-1674.

Khazanchi, S., Lewis, M. W., &Boyer, K. K. (2007). Innovation-supportive culture: The impact of organizational values on process

innovation. Journal of Operations Management, 25(4), 871-884.

Khedhaouria, A., & Jamal, A., (2015). Sourcing knowledge for innovation: Knowledge reuse and creation in project teams. Journal of

Knowledge Management, 19(5), 932-948.

Khedhaouria, A., Montani, F., & Thurik, R. (2017). Time pressure and team member creativity within R&D projects: The role of

learning orientation and knowledge sourcing. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 942-954.

Kraft, P. S., & Bausch, A. (2016). How do transformational leaders promote exploratory and exploitative innovation? Examining the

black box through MASEM. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(6), 687-707.

Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., Ariza-Montes, A. J., Morales-Fernández, E., & Albort-Moranta, G. (2018). Green innovation, indeed a

cornerstone in linking market requests and business performance. Evidence from the Spanish automotive components industry.

Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 129, 185-193.

Lee, S. U., Park, G., & Kang, J. (2018). The double-edged effects of the corporate venture capital unit's structural autonomy on

corporate investors' explorative and exploitative innovation. Journal of Business Research, 88, 141-149.

Li, D. Y., Zhao, Y. N., Zhang, L., Chen, X. H., & Cao, C. C. (2018). Impact of quality management on green innovation. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 170, 462-470.

Li, M., & Zhang, L. (2014). Haze in China: Current and future challenges. Environmental Pollution, 189, 85-86.

Liao, Z. J. (2016). Temporal cognition, environmental innovation, and the competitive advantage of enterprises. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 135(1): 1045-1053.

Liao, Z. J. (2018). Institutional pressure, knowledge acquisition and a firm's environmental innovation. Business Strategy and the

Environment, 27, 849-857.

18
 Journal Pre-proof

Lin, L. H., & Ho, Y. L. (2016). Institutional pressures and environmental performance in the global automotive industry: The

mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Long Range Planning, 49(6), 764-775.

Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to-medium-sized firms: The

pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646-672.

Ma, Y., Hou, G. S., Yin, Q. Y., Xin, B. G., & Pan, Y. J. (2018). The sources of green management innovation: Does internal efficiency

demand pull or external knowledge supply push? Journal of Cleaner Production, 202, 582-590.

Martínez-Ros, E., & Kunapatarawong, R. (2019). Green innovation and knowledge: The role of size. Business Strategy and the

Environment, 1-15.

Marzucchi, A., & Montresor, S. (2017). Forms of knowledge and eco‐ innovation modes: Evidence from Spanish manufacturing

firms. Ecological Economics, 131, 208-221.

Matinaro, V., & Liu, Y. (2017). Towards increased innovativeness and sustainability through organizational culture: A case study of a

Finnish construction business. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 3184-3193.

Nasution, H. N., Mavondo, F. T., Matanda, M. J., & Ndubisi, N. O. (2011). Entrepreneurship: Its relationship with market orientation

and learning orientation and as antecedents to innovation and customer value. Industrial Marketing Management, 40, 336-345.

Pérez-Bustamante, G. (1999). Knowledge management in agile innovative organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(1):

6-17.

Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical

review of the literature and recommended remedies, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

Presutti, M., Boari, C., & Fratocchi, L. (2007). Knowledge acquisition and the foreign development of high-tech start-ups: A social

capital approach. International Business Review, 16(1), 23-46.

Rhee, J., Park, T., & Lee, D. H. (2010). Drivers of innovativeness and performance for innovative SMEs in South Korea: Mediation of

learning orientation. Technovation, 30(1), 65-75.

Roscoe, S., Subramanian, N., Jabbour, C. J. C., & Chong, T. (2019). Green human resource management and the enablers of green

organisational culture: Enhancing a firm's environmental performance for sustainable development. Business Strategy and the

Environment, online, https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2277.

Safari, A., Salehzadeh, R., Panahi, R., & Abolghasemian, S. (2018). Multiple pathways linking environmental knowledge and

awareness to employees' green behavior. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 18(1), 81-103.

Saunila, M., Ukko, J., & Rantala, T. (2018). Sustainability as a driver of green innovation investment and exploitation. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 179, 631-641.

Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64,

361-388.

Shao, Z. (2019). Interaction effect of strategic leadership behaviors and organizational culture on IS-Business strategic alignment and

Enterprise Systems. International Journal of Information Management, 44, 96-108.

Sheng, M. L., & Chien, I. (2016). Rethinking organizational learning orientation on radical and incremental innovation in high-tech

firms. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2302-2308.

Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., Ireland, R. D., & Gilbert, B. A. (2011). Resource orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth,
19
 Journal Pre-proof

depth and life cycle effects. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1390-1412.

Soewarno, N., Tjahjadi, B., & Fithrianti, F. (2019). Green innovation strategy and green innovation: The roles of green organizational

identity and environmental organizational legitimacy. Management Decision, online, https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2018-0563.

Song, W. H., Ren, S. C., & Yu, J. (2019). Bridging the gap between corporate social responsibility and new green product success:

The role of green organizational identity. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28, 88-97.

Stone, E. F., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1989). Clarifying some controversial issues surrounding statistical procedures for detecting

moderator variables: Empirical evidence and related matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 3-10.

Wang, L., Cui, Z., & Liang, X. (2015). Does it pay to be green? Financial benefits of environmental labeling among Chinese firms,

2000-2005. Management and Organization Review, 11(3), 493-519.

Weng, H. H. R., Chen, J. S., & Chen, P. C. (2015). Effects of green innovation on environmental and corporate performance: A

stakeholder perspective. Sustainability, 7(5), 4997-5026.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 7(5), 171-180.

White, J. C., Varadarajan, P. R., & Dacin, P. A. (2003). Market situation interpretation and response: The role of cognitive style,

organizational culture, and information use. Journal of Marketing, 67, 63-79.

Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989). Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions of work: Reality

or artifact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(3), 462-468.

Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. (2001). Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young

technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6/7): 587-613.

Zhang, Y., Wang, J. R., Xue, Y. J., & Yang, J. (2018). Impact of environmental regulations on green technological innovative

behavior: An empirical study in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 763-773.

Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., & Lai, K. H. (2013). Institutional-based antecedents and performance outcomes of internal and external green

supply chain management practices. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 19(2), 106-117.

20
 Journal Pre-proof

Declaration of interests

☑The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests: