Research article

Green innovation mediates between financial innovation and business sustainability? Proof in the mexican manufacturing industry

  • Received: 19 March 2024 Revised: 23 June 2024 Accepted: 27 August 2024 Published: 05 September 2024
  • JEL Codes: G15, F36, C40

  • Recent studies have shown that the lack of environmental regulations in public administrations, the inability of employees to innovate knowledge and skills, the high price of green technologies, and the lack of environmental awareness in organizations are the biggest threats to the environmental and sustainable development. In this context, manufacturing companies in emerging markets should not only focus on achieving a higher level of business sustainability in economic and financial terms, but also pay attention to financial and green innovation, because they are important ways to achieve a green transformation of businesses, to improve sustainability, and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This study provides data on the adoption and repercussions of these activities on the sustainability of manufacturing companies in Mexico. The proposed research model was validated by applying partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) on a sample of 338 companies. The results of the study showed that the business sustainability of manufacturing companies significantly improved through the application of financial and green innovation. In addition, the results of the study showed that green innovation plays the role of a mediating variable in the relationship between financial innovation and corporate sustainable development.

    Citation: Gonzalo Maldonado-Guzmán. Green innovation mediates between financial innovation and business sustainability? Proof in the mexican manufacturing industry[J]. Green Finance, 2024, 6(3): 563-584. doi: 10.3934/GF.2024021

    Related Papers:

    [1] Rizwan Ullah Khan, Hina Arif, Noor E Sahar, Arif Ali, Munir A. Abbasi . The role of financial resources in SMEs' financial and environmental performance; the mediating role of green innovation. Green Finance, 2022, 4(1): 36-53. doi: 10.3934/GF.2022002
    [2] Yafei Wang, Jing Liu, Xiaoran Yang, Ming Shi, Rong Ran . The mechanism of green finance's impact on enterprises' sustainable green innovation. Green Finance, 2023, 5(3): 452-478. doi: 10.3934/GF.2023018
    [3] Tao Lin, Mingyue Du, Siyu Ren . How do green bonds affect green technology innovation? Firm evidence from China. Green Finance, 2022, 4(4): 492-511. doi: 10.3934/GF.2022024
    [4] Pengzhen Liu, Yanmin Zhao, Jianing Zhu, Cunyi Yang . Technological industry agglomeration, green innovation efficiency, and development quality of city cluster. Green Finance, 2022, 4(4): 411-435. doi: 10.3934/GF.2022020
    [5] Jun Duan, Tingting Liu, Xiaoran Yang, Hua Yang, Yunwei Gao . Financial asset allocation and green innovation. Green Finance, 2023, 5(4): 512-537. doi: 10.3934/GF.2023020
    [6] Sa Xu . International comparison of green credit and its enlightenment to China. Green Finance, 2020, 2(1): 75-99. doi: 10.3934/GF.2020005
    [7] Raja Elyn Maryam Raja Ezuma, Nitanan Koshy Matthew . The perspectives of stakeholders on the effectiveness of green financing schemes in Malaysia. Green Finance, 2022, 4(4): 450-473. doi: 10.3934/GF.2022022
    [8] Xinyu Fu, Yanting Xu . The impact of digital technology on enterprise green innovation: quality or quantity?. Green Finance, 2024, 6(3): 484-517. doi: 10.3934/GF.2024019
    [9] Olli Tammekivi, Tõnis Mets, Mervi Raudsaar . The corporate entrepreneurial and innovation processes for business sustainability: A critical overview and conceptual process model development. Green Finance, 2024, 6(1): 52-77. doi: 10.3934/GF.2024003
    [10] Jacob Guinot, Zina Barghouti, Inmaculada Beltrán-Martín, Ricardo Chiva . Corporate social responsibility toward employees and green innovation: Exploring the link in the tourism sector. Green Finance, 2023, 5(2): 298-320. doi: 10.3934/GF.2023012
  • Recent studies have shown that the lack of environmental regulations in public administrations, the inability of employees to innovate knowledge and skills, the high price of green technologies, and the lack of environmental awareness in organizations are the biggest threats to the environmental and sustainable development. In this context, manufacturing companies in emerging markets should not only focus on achieving a higher level of business sustainability in economic and financial terms, but also pay attention to financial and green innovation, because they are important ways to achieve a green transformation of businesses, to improve sustainability, and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This study provides data on the adoption and repercussions of these activities on the sustainability of manufacturing companies in Mexico. The proposed research model was validated by applying partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) on a sample of 338 companies. The results of the study showed that the business sustainability of manufacturing companies significantly improved through the application of financial and green innovation. In addition, the results of the study showed that green innovation plays the role of a mediating variable in the relationship between financial innovation and corporate sustainable development.



    It is recognized in the literature that the central goal of all manufacturing firms around the world is to improve their economic and financial performance (Mohd et al., 2022), which should be accompanied by business sustainability (BS) and long-term business success (Ahmed et al., 2020; Shahzad et al., 2021). Currently, this issue has received increasing attention, especially the environmental pollution caused by the manufacturing industry, which affects the global society and ecology (Yusliza et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2022a). Commonly, manufacturing firms in countries such as Mexico have ignored the negative environmental and social impacts of transforming their resources into products for the benefit of their economic profits (Najmi et al., 2019; Shahzad et al., 2021).

    Similarly, the adoption of financial innovation (FI) and green innovation (GI) by manufacturing firms in emerging markets will enable them to improve their BS (Sonmez & Adiguzel, 2022), especially since FI plays a vital role in promoting GI and development as well as boosting the GI efficiency (Yuan et al., 2021). In addition, FI bottle help firms ease any financial constraints by creating more GI-enhancing loans (Huang et al., 2019a; Tariq et al., 2019; Qu et al., 2020). Moreover, FI in the literature is considered to be an important factor not only in improving BS levels (Sonmez & Adiguzel, 2023), but also in GI development (Yuan et al., 2021), mainly because FI has completely changed the way business financial transactions are conducted (Nejad, 2022). Additional examples include mobile banking, online payment systems, virtual currencies, robo-advisors, and peer-to-peer lending (Nejad, 2022).

    Although some studies published in the literature have shown that FI has a positive impact on BS (Castelli, 2019; Huber, 2020; Biswas, 2020), and GI (Tariq et al., 2019; Pham, 2019; Qu et al., 2020), and that GI has a positive impact on BS (Cai & Li, 2018; Zhang et al., 2019; Ahmed et al., 2020), there are contradictory results, which indicates that there is controversy among FI, GI, and BS (Sonmez & Adiguzel, 2022). Sonmez and Adiguzel (2022, 2023) argued that due to the relatively few empirical studies on the existing impact of FI on GI and BS in the literature, the scientific, academic, and business communities must focus future research on providing reliable empirical evidence, thereby demonstrating the consistency of results among the three constructs, especially when GI is used as a mediating variable between FI and BS (Sonmez & Adiguzel, 2023).

    In this sense, the aim of this study is to analyze and discuss the relationship between FI and GI in the context of BS, as well as the mediating role of GI on the relationship between FI and BS in manufacturing companies. To achieve this goal, we will conduct an empirical study on manufacturing firms in Mexico, with a sample of 338 companies. The research model is estimated using the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (Ringle et al., 2022). It is worth noting that manufacturing firms are interesting in two fundamental aspects: on the one hand, the manufacturing industry in Mexico is generally incompatible with sustainable development (Scur et al., 2019); and on the other hand, the manufacturing industry traditionally causes the highest environmental pollution (Farkavcova et al., 2018).

    In particular, the Mexican manufacturing industry is responding to nationwide shifts towards eco-friendly products and production, thereby leading to the adoption of green strategies (Rodríguez-González et al., 2022). In Mexico, the manufacturing industry represents a third of all existing companies, generates a third of the total employment, and contributes to 18% of the national gross domestic product (GDP) (Statista, 2023). These data indicate that manufacturing industry plays an essential role in advancing green production in developing economies (Le, 2022). However, as noted by Lepistö et al., despite the pivotal role of the manufacturing industry in both the economic and environmental spheres, they face many difficulties in determining the benefits of the necessary investments to obtain the ideal business sustainability performance (2023).

    Moreover, the outcomes of implementing a green business strategy in developing economies depend on the extent of its implementation (Lin et al., 2021). Thus, the Mexican manufacturing industry has not yet recognized the opportunity to implement green practices through GI, GF, and BS (INEGI, 2023). In this sense, there is a notable dearth of empirical studies that addressed green actions at the strategic level and their BS performance for decision-making process in the Mexican manufacturing industry (Lopez-Torres, 2023; Maldonado-Guzán et al., 2020; Ortiz-Palafox, 2019; Rodríguez-Espíndola et al., 2022). The Mexican manufacturing industry must provide sustainability green solutions, even with limited resources, as Rodríguez-Espíndola et al. (2022) affirmed.

    Furthermore, given the increasing preference of consumers and businesses for mobile and contactless payments (Bond, 2020; Mckinsey, 2020; Streeter, 2020), there is a need to develop an analysis with risk assessment methods to integrate FI, GI, and payment methods in manufacturing organizations (Nejad, 2022; Sonmez & Adiguzel, 2022, 2023), especially in the manufacturing sector of emerging economies (Yuan et al., 2021). Therefore, this study will contribute to the literature in understanding the state of knowledge, understanding and overcoming the challenges of connecting FI and GI to improve BS in manufacturing firms, and providing strong empirical evidence to address inconsistencies in the results to significantly improve on previous empirical studies published in the literature (Sonmez & Adiguzel, 2023).

    This empirical study is embedded in the Natural Resource Based View (NRBV) (Hart, 1995) and the Resource Based View (RBV) (Barney, 1991), which is essentially based on the management and efficiency of resource development to achieve a competitive advantage and to improve business performance (Mohd et al., 2022). Therefore, according to the NRBV, manufacturing companies should not pursue a high performance at the expense of environmental degradation (Hart, 1995); however, they should incorporate environmental and sustainable development elements into the design of business strategies, which obviously helps to achieve the goal of improving business performance and gaining a competitive advantage (Rehman et al., 2021).

    In addition, NRBV helps manufacturing companies improve their ability to develop and optimize industrial processes, which is reflected not only in reducing the pollutant emissions and production costs (Hart, 1995), but also in improving the efficiency and the company's strategic initiative to protect the environment and sustainability (Shahzad et al., 2021). In addition, NRBV helps the manufacturing firms to examine how their available resources can improve their competitive advantage without harming the environment, which can be achieved by considering resources that are not controlled by the company, such as BS (Anderson, 2021). Therefore, NRBV supports our argument that manufacturing companies with higher levels of FI and GI are more likely to have higher levels of BS (Mohd et al., 2022).

    The emergence of the FI concept in the literature in the early 1960s led to significant changes in the financial landscape of manufacturing firms and countries (Sonmez & Adiguzel, 2023). However, the importance of this concept began to attract scientific and academic interests in the late 1970s, when it gained a prominent position in financial markets (Tufano, 2003). In addition, the rapid increase in competition, technological developments, new investment and savings systems, profit maximization, and changes in consumption habits played crucial roles in the development of the financial concept (Maingi et al., 2013), especially because of fundamental increases to the BS. The purpose of FI is to reduce environmental regulatory costs and change the image of investors through new financial products, which not only reduces the financial costs, but also increases the BS (Arnold et al., 2021).

    In this sense, studies published in the literature showed a positive relationship between FI and BS (Nejad, 2022), especially because FI created various opportunities for manufacturing firms in terms of development and expansion of the market by either acquiring new customers or offering new services and better satisfying customer needs (Nejad, 2022), thus increasing sales, profits, growth and BS in the long run (Scott et al., 2017). However, there are also studies that found a negative relationship between FI and BS (e.g., Gennaioli et al., 2012; Leaven et al., 2015; González et al., 2016), especially because some researchers and scholars believed that FI predatory practices harmed consumers because they were difficult to understand and could lead to lower credit standards and higher delinquency rates (Gathergod & Weber, 2017).

    To provide solid empirical evidence for the relationship between FI and BS, Nejad (2016) found that the introduction of FI in manufacturing companies improved financial inclusion, especially in developing countries, by developing new financial services such as mobile banking that offered better benefits, including BS. Scott et al. (2017) found that the introduction of FI led to various customers of manufacturing firms shifting their bank deposits to new financial services, which improved the BS of the organization in the long run. Streeter (2020) concluded that the introduction of FI enabled companies to make customers feel better about paying for products or services using mobile applications, which led to a higher BS. Sardon (2020) argued that the use of information technology available in the financial system of an organization significantly improved the BS level of the organization.

    In a recent study, Nejad (2022) found that 88% of consumers expected manufacturers from whom they bought products and services to provide at least the same level of personalization as Amazon and Netflix. This is why consumers prefer to pay via mobile apps, which leads to higher levels of BS for companies. Therefore, considering the information provided previously, the following research hypothesis can be proposed.

    H1: The greater the application of innovation in finance, the greater business sustainability

    The literature argues that FI is a key factor to improve the environmental and socio-economic development of manufacturing enterprises and countries (Hu et al., 2021), especially when FI promotes technological innovation and the large-scale production of environmentally friendly products, thus leading to GI activities (Akram et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020). However, it is often found in the literature that GI activities are generally characterized by a high input, a high risk, and long cycles (Liu & Wang, 2023). Using credit default swaps (CDS) as a proxy service for FI, Chang et al. (2019) studied the impact of CDS on the GI of manufacturing enterprises, and found that CDS increased the willingness of financial intermediaries to provide preferential interest rate loans for organizational innovation projects and innovation promotion, thereby improving the GI.

    Similarly, there are various published studies in the literature that analyzed the impact of FI on pollutant emissions and the energy consumption of manufacturing efirms (e.g., Yue et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020a; Acheampong et al., 2020; Anees et al., 2021); however, few published studies in the literature focused on analyzing the relationship between FI and GI (Yuan et al., 2021). Noailly and Smeets (2016) used a database of 1300 European companies between 1995 and 2009, and found that FI was an important factor that positively affected GI; alternatively, Kim and Park (2016) used a database from 30 companies between 2000 and 2013, and found that financial institutions could increase the number and preferential terms of loans to promote the GI of manufacturing firms. Tariq et al. (2019) found a mutual causal relationship between the FI and green technology (GI) in European manufacturing enterprises.

    Furthermore, Pham (2019) found that FI could improve the green technology (GI) and that its positive impact was greater in countries with higher pollution levels. Huang et al. (2019b) found a positive impact between the IF and GI, while Yu et al. (2021) analyzed the impact of FI on GI in Chinese manufacturing companies and found a positive impact between the two concepts. In recent studies, Zhou and Li (2022) found a positive correlation between FI and the use of renewable energy (GI). Ronaldo and Suryanto (2022) concluded that intermittent interval training is essential to improve GI. Naeem et al. (2022) found that financial investments have a positive impact on GI in the agricultural and energy sectors. Finally, Liu and Wang (2023) analyzed the impact of FI on GI in Chinese manufacturing companies and found that FI has a significant positive impact on GI activities.

    In this context, it is generally accepted in the literature that financial institutions are the key means to achieve significant improvements in GI activities, thus suggesting the need to diversify credit resources from manufacturing firms with high pollution and energy consumption to those with low pollution and high energy consumption, and low energy consumption and a respect for the environment (GI) (Sachs et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2021). Therefore, taking the information that was previously provided into account, the following research hypotheses can be proposed.

    H2: The greater the application of innovation in finance, the greater green innovation

    A large number of recently published studies indicated that environmental and sustainable development issues have received increased attention from the scientific, academic, and business communities (e.g., Sun et al., 2022a; Shahzad et al., 2022). These studies identified some of the main causes and solutions to improve the environmental quality (Mohd et al., 2022), including companies switching to renewable resources (Anwar et al., 2021), providing innovative and eco-friendly products to consumers (Ahmed et al., 2020; Shahzad et al., 2022), and introducing geographical indication initiatives in the production process (Ahmed et al., 2020). In this sense, geographical indication initiatives are considered in the literature as important activities to improve the operating performance of manufacturing companies (Jin et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2022a), especially in developing and emerging countries (Ali et al., 2021).

    In this context, GIs are considered in the literature as a fundamental driver fto improve the BS level of manufacturing firms (Yousaf, 2021), especially because GI help organizations reduce environmental pollution by producing ecological products and services (Shahzad et al., 2021). In addition, Jin et al. (2022) believe that GI usually includes green product innovation and green process innovation, which leads to a significant increase in the BS (Sun et al., 2022b). However, there are differences in the results on the improvement of BS (Mohd et al., 2022). For example, Jiang et al. (2018) found that GI had a negative impact on BS based on a survey of Chinese manufacturing firms, while Stucki (2019) found that only a small number of manufacturing companies achieved significant improvements in BS, while about 81% of companies achieved negative results.

    To demonstrate the relationship between GI and BS, Huang and Li (2017) found that manufacturing companies that invested in GI activities not only increased productivity by minimizing industrial waste, but also improved the BS, while Li et al. (2017) found that GI had a significant positive impact on BS through green product innovation. Saunila et al. (2018) concluded that GI reduced the production costs and pollutant emissions, thereby increasing the BS. Xie et al. (2019) found that GI practices had a significant positive impact on the competitive advantage and BS, while Fernando et al. (2019) found that manufacturing companies that adopted GI not only reduced the negative impacts on the environment and industrial waste, but also significantly improved the BS level.

    Generally speaking, the use of environmentally friendly products and technologies in GI activities provides two key advantages to manufacturing companies: on the one hand, environmentally friendly products provide a commercial advantage over the main competitors; and on the other hand, it improves the economic and financial performance, which in turn increases the company returns (Albort-Morant et al., 2016). Therefore, considering the information provided in the previous paragraphs, the following research hypothesis can be proposed.

    H3: The greater the application of green innovation, the greater business sustainability

    In the literature, few published studies have analyzed GI as a mediating variable. For example, Gürlek and Tuna (2018) found that GI has a mediating effect between entrepreneurial orientation and BS, while Dulca et al. (2018) found that GI has a positive mediating effect on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance. Fatoki (2021) analyzed the mediating role of GI in the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and competitive advantage, and Astuti and Datrini (2021) found that GI can be regarded as a mediating variable between environmental pressure and BS. However, analyses of GI as a mediating variable between IF and BS are relatively rare (Zhang et al., 2023); therefore, it can be found that GI can be considered as a mediating variable that has a positive impact on the relationship between FI and BS (Qiu et al., 2020; Li et al., 2023).

    In this context, the literature assumes that manufacturing firms that use geographical indications for product development and the implementation of environmental practices can act as a mediating variable between FI and BS (Zhang et al., 2023). Moreover, companies that adopt GIs not only increase their FI (Chen et al., 2018a, b), but also increase their BS levels when it acts as a mediating variable (Al-Batayneh et al., 2021). In a recent study, Jahanger et al. (2022) studied how green technology (GI) affected the environmental footprint of 73 emerging economies during the period 1990–2016, and concluded that GI could act as a mediating variable between financial performance and BS through the use of natural resources. On the other hand, Wang et al. (2021) analyzed the relationship between green technology (GI) and environmental performance in 28 provinces in China during 2000–2018, and concluded that GI had a positive impact on financial performance and sustainability.

    Abbasi et al. (2021) analyzed the relationship between green technology (GI) and the pollutant emissions of consumer products in Pakistani manufacturing firms, and found that GI could significantly reduce the pollutant emissions by mediating the financial and sustainable development outcomes. Similar results were obtained by Zhao et al. (2021), who used a data panel of 62 countries from 2003 to 2018 to analyze the financial institution risks and the corporate sustainable development outcomes through the mediating role of green technology (GI); they found that when green technology acted as a mediator, the financial institutions achieved better sustainable development returns. Finally, Sonmez and Adiguzel (2023) analyzed the mediating role of GI strategy in the relationship between FI and BS, and found that the BS level was much higher when GI was used as a mediating variable. Therefore, considering the information provided in the previous paragraphs, the following research hypothesis can be proposed.

    H4: Green innovation acts as a mediating variable between innovation in finance and business sustainability.

    Figure 1, which is presented below, shows the approach of the four hypotheses in the research model.

    Figure 1.  Research model.

    The National Statistical Directory of Economic Entities was used as the reference framework in this study, which covers 36,800 manufacturing companies in 2021 (INEGI, 2021). The manufacturing companies that participated in the study were selected through simple random sampling with a maximum error of ±5%, a significance level of 95%, and a sample of 280 companies. On the one hand, a "business forum" was held, with the participation of five entrepreneurs of manufacturing companies, two representatives of government agencies related to the financial support of enterprises, and three academics in the field of innovation, to whom the questionnaire was submitted for analysis and discussion.

    On the other hand, the results obtained in the first phase made it possible to design an information collection survey, which was applied to a pilot sample of ten manufacturing entrepreneurs, with minor adjustments to the font, appearance, and spelling. Pilot studies are essential to ensure the validity when the survey is either self-administered or contains a self-developed scale (Hair et al., 2016). The survey used to collect the information was sent to 500 manufacturing companies in eight large states that were home to 90% of the country's manufacturing. Only 308 surveys were conducted, which made the final sample representative of the study population. In addition, the survey was conducted from February to May 2021 and was distributed to business leaders who identified the people in their organization who should answer the different questions asked in the survey.

    A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify the most appropriate scales to measure the FI, GI, and BS. The Mbogoh (2013) scale was used to measure the FI, which uses 7 items to measure this concept. One of the recurring issues in the innovation literature is the question of how to measure GI (Zhang et al., 2019). To this end, Kemp and Pearson (2008) conducted an extensive literature review and found that GI is usually measured using 7 items. This study also adopted these 7 items to measure the GI. The scale of Ullah et al. (2021a) was used to measure the BS, who used 4 items. The use of these three scales was considered relevant, especially because these scales were tested in manufacturing firms in developing countries. All items on the scales were measured using a five-point Likert scale with a cut-off of 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

    In this study, the use of composite models was considered relevant, which was the key reason for using the SmartPLS 4.0 software (Ringle et al., 2022) for the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (Sarstedt et al., 2016), because the composite indicator is considered in the literature as an operational definition of an emerging construct that mediates all the effects of the model, and the components measured by the composite indicator have no error terms (Hair et al., 2021). To estimate the path model, PLS-SEM usually uses either Model A or Model B: Model A refers to the correlation weights derived from the bivariate correlations between each indicator and the construct, while Model B refers to the regression weights (Sarstedt et al., 2016). We used Model A in this study.

    Table 1 shows the items of the three measurement scales used in this empirical study, which indicates that the values of the factor loadings of all the items are higher than the recommended value of 0.60 (Hair et al., 2019). Additionally, the values of Cronbach's Alpha, Dijkstra-Henseler rho, and the Composite Reliability Index (CRI) are higher than the value of 0.70, while the values of the Average Variance Index (AVE) are higher than the value of 0.50, both of which are recommended by Hair et al. (2019), which provides indications that the items are indeed measuring each of the three concepts.

    Table 1.  Measurement model assessment.
    Indicators Constructs Factor Loads (p-value)
    Financial Innovation (FI)
    Cronbach's Alpha: 0.913; Dijkstra–Henseler's rho: 0.923; CRI: 0.934; AVE: 0.671
    FI1 New financing techniques are used 0.806 (0.000)
    FI2 Thanks to financial innovations, we can make technology investments by planning our budget better. 0.718 (0.000)
    FI3 We can see the advantage of applying financial innovations by overcoming the economic/financial crises. 0.764 (0.000)
    FI4 By following financial innovations closely, we can implement our strategies better. 0.816 (0.000)
    FI5 Financial innovations give us a competitive advantage over competitors without risking our assets. 0.839 (0.000)
    FI6 By applying financial innovations, organizational activities are successfully carried out. 0.892 (0.000)
    FI7 Ensuring sustainability against competitors through the implementation of financial innovations is successfully managed. 0.885 (0.000)
    Green Innovation (GI
    Cronbach's Alpha: 0.943; Dijkstra–Henseler's rho: 0.947; CRI: 0.954; AVE: 0.746
    GI1 It mainly focuses its investment on eco-innovation activities 0.873 (0.000)
    GI2 Raise awareness towards Eco-innovation 0.877 (0.000)
    GI3 It has a distribution of the information of the eco-innovation 0.894 (0.000)
    GI4 Has constant training in eco-innovation 0.869 (0.000)
    GI5 Participate or develop research and development projects in eco-innovation 0.869 (0.000)
    GI6 Consistently supports the adoption and implementation of green standards 0.846 (0.000)
    GI7 Support with investments to improve the eco-innovation of its suppliers 0.818 (0.000)
    Business Sustainability (BS)
    Cronbach's Alpha: 0.897; Dijkstra–Henseler's rho: 0.899; CRI: 0.928; AVE: 0.764
    BS1 Business sustainability is necessary for our firm to ensure long-term growth 0.885 (0.000)
    BS2 Business sustainability helps our firm to compete well in the industry 0.887 (0.000)
    BS3 Sustainability increases the sales of our firm as consumers are more attracted to sustainable products. 0.888 (0.000)
    BS4 Sustainability helps our firm to develop long-term strategies 0.836 (0.000)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Furthermore, since the data were collected using the same instrument and were applied to the same informants (company managers), there may be endogeneity and bias that could alter the responses and lead to either type Ⅰ (false positive) or type Ⅱ (false negative) errors. The assessment of the common method variance (CMV) was conducted according to Podsakoff et al. (2012) recommendatios. Traditionally, Harman's single factor test is the most commonly used approach by researchers when testing the possible influence of CMV in PLS-SEM analysis (Podsakoff et al., 2003), in which almost all the items of the exploratory factor analysis scale are subjected to, forcing the extraction into a single factor (Andersson & Bateman, 1997; Mossholder et al., 1998; Iverson & Maguire, 2000; Aulakh & Gencturk, 2000).

    To check the adequacy of the data and the possible influence of CMV, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed using the principal component method, and the varimax rotation, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin coefficient (KMO), and Bartlett's sphericity test were calculated. With a KMO value of 0.812 and a statistically significant Bartlett's test [χ2 (276) = 8562.47, p < 0.000], the obtained results supported the use of EFA with this sample data. If there is a CMV problem, the extracted commonality factor should have a value higher than 50% of the variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003); however, the commonality factor extracted from the data was 37.25%, which is lower than the recommended value, thus indicating that CMV does not pose a threat to the sample data of this study and does not seem to significantly affect the relationship between the variables of the research model (Podsakoff et al., 2012).

    Data analysis was performed using the PLS-SEM statistical technique with the support of the SmartPLS 4 software (Ringle et al., 2022), particularly since the literature recommends the use of PLS-SEM in theories that are under development (Hair et al., 2019) in different disciplines of knowledge (Cepeda-Carrion et al., 2019; Ringle et al., 2020), and when the established objective in the study is the prediction and explanation of the concepts (Sarstedt et al., 2019). Furthermore, according to Wang et al. (2020b) and Karami and Madlener (2021), the use of PLS-SEM is recommended to measure complex research models that involve different variables. Finally, PLS-SEM is an approach frequently used in literature to measure the structural relationship between variables, generally using a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and regression (Ullah et al., 2022).

    The reliability of the FI, GI, and BS scales was assessed using Cronbach's Alpha and CRI, which are considered in the literature to be the two main CFA indicators to measure the reliability of the research model, as assessed through internal reliability, while AVE was adopted to measure the convergent validity of the latent structure (Ullah et al., 2022). The results obtained by applying PLS-SEM are shown in Table 2. On the one hand, the reliability of the constructs was analyzed, and it was found that, according to Wang and Yang (2021) and Abbasi et al. (2021), the recommended values of Cronbach's alpha and CRI should be between 0.60 and 0.70. In this study, the constructs used in the research model can be considered as reliable because all values of Cronbach's alpha and CRI were above the maximum recommended value of 0.70.

    Table 2.  Measurement model. Reliability, validity, and discriminant validity.
    PANEL A. Reliability and Validity
    Variables Cronbach's Alpha Dijkstra-Henseler rho CRI AVE
    Financial Innovation 0.917 0.923 0.934 0.671
    Green Innovation 0.943 0.947 0.954 0.746
    Business Sustainability 0.897 0.899 0.928 0.764
    PANEL B. Fornell-Larcker Criterio Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT)
    Variables 1 2 3 1 2 3
    1. Financial Innovation 0.819
    2. Green Innovation 0.238 0.864 0.252
    3. Business Sustainability 0.280 0.168 0.874 0.306 0.179
    Note: PANEL B: Fornell-Larcker Criterion: Diagonal elements (bold) are the square root of the variance shared between the constructs and their measures (AVE). For discriminant validity, diagonal elements should be larger than off-diagonal elements.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    On the other hand, the convergent validity of the constructs was analyzed. It was found that Hair and Sarstedt (2021) suggested an acceptable AVE value of 0.70, while Ullah et al. (2021b) and Abbasi et al. (2021) considered an AVE value of 0.50 to be acceptable. In the present study, the constructs used in the research model demonstrated a convergent validity, as all the AVE values were above the recommended value of 0.50. In addition, the discriminant validity of the constructs was analyzed using two of the most commonly used indices in PLS-SEM: the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) (Henseler, 2018). The Fornell-Larcker criterion specifies that the AVE value must be greater than the correlation between each pair of constructs. In the present study, the AVE values were higher than the correlations of the other constructs. Moreover, the HTMT must be less than 0.85. In the present study, all HTMT values were below the recommended value of 0.85, thus indicating the presence of a discriminant validity (Henseler, 2018).

    The PLS-SEM estimation of the research model indicated that the generated data had an acceptable statistical level (Table 3). The results showed that the adjusted endogenous variable R2 values (GI = 0.160; BS = 0.198) were above the recommended value of 0.10 (Hair et al., 2020), and the SRMR values were below the 0.080 value and below the recommended value of 0.10. The HI99 values (0.037–0.045), the unweighted least squares error (dULS), and the geodetic error (dG) were lower compared to those reported by Sarstedt et al. (2019) and the recommended HI99 values (0.239–0.352; 0.145–0.195). Finally, the effect size of the independent variable (f2) on the independent variable R2 values indicated a small change (values between 0.02–0.14) (Hair et al., 2017).

    Table 3.  Structural model.
    Paths Path (t-value; p-value) 95% Confidence Interval f2 Support
    FI → BS (H1) 0.263 (3.217; 0.000) [0.106-0.471] 0.085 Yes
    FI → GI (H2) 0.244 (3.849; 0.000) [0.115-0.363] 0.069 Yes
    GI → BS (H3) 0.118 (1.657; 0.096) [0.021-0.236] 0.017 Yes
    Indirect Effects
    FI → GI → BS (H4) 0.206 (3.432; 0.000) [0.085-0.306] Yes
    Endogenous Variable Adjusted R2 Model Fit Value HI99
    SRMR 0.037 0.045
    GI 0.160 dULS 0.239 0.352
    BS 0.198 dG 0.145 0.195
    Note: FI: Financial Innovation; GI: Green Innovation; BS: Business Sustainability. One-tailed t-values and p-values in parentheses; bootstrapping 95% confidence intervals (based on n=5,000 subsamples); SRMR: standardized root mean squared residual; dULS: unweighted least squares discrepancy; dG: geodesic discrepancy; HI99: bootstrap-based 99% percentiles.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Furthermore, the estimated data confirm our argument that FI has a significant positive effect at both the BS level (0.263; p-value 0.000) and at the GI level (0.244; p-value 0.000), thus providing solid empirical evidence for hypotheses H1 and H2. These results are similar to those of Nejad (2016), Scott et al. (2017), and Streeter (2020) for hypothesis 1, Noailly and Smeets (2016), Kim and Park (2016), and Tariq et al. (2019) for hypothesis 2, thus indicating that the introduction and implementation of the new FI tool led to a significant increase in the BS and GI activities in Mexican manufacturing firms. On the other hand, the obtained results also confirm our argument that GI activities have a significant positive effect on BS (0.118; p-value 0.096), thus providing solid empirical evidence for hypothesis H3. These results are consistent with the results of Ahmed et al. (2020), Anwar et al. (2021), and Ali et al. (2021), who showed that the introduction and implementation of GI activities led to an increase in the BS level among Mexican manufacturing firms.

    Moreover, the estimated data also confirm our argument that GI can act as a mediating variable in the relationship between FI and BS (0.206; p-value 0.000), thus supporting this result with strong empirical evidence in favor of hypothesis H4. These results are similar to those of Al-Batayneh et al. (2021), Wang et al. (2021) and Jahanger et al. (2022), who showed that a large part of the positive effect of FI activities at the BS level in Mexican manufacturing firms was transmitted through the GI activities. In this context, it can be said that the introduction and implementation of GI activities by manufacturing firms not only significantly improves the BS in the organization, but also can act as a mediating variable, thus significantly improving the existing link between FI and BS in Mexican manufacturing firms.

    When estimating the data, the obtained results supported our argument that FI has a significant positive impact on the operating performance of Mexican manufacturing companies. These results are consistent with those of Streeter (2020), Sardon (2020), and Nejad (2022). The main reasons that can explain this positive effect are as follows: first, the managers of manufacturing firms experience using various information technologies in financial services, as a high percentage of customers and consumers are using mobile banking as their first choice for financial transactions after the COVID-19 pandemic; and second, manufacturing companies are increasingly facing a strong pressure to introduce and adopt new production systems in order to improve the sustainability of society as a whole.

    Additionally, the obtained outcome supported our argument that FI has a important affirmative effect on GIs in Mexican manufacturing firms. These outcome are similar to those of Zhou and Li (2022), Ronaldo and Suryanto (2022), and Naem et al. (2022). The primary reasons that can explain this positive effect are as follows: first, the managers of manufacturing firms are aware of the various perks of adopting GI, especially because they can help them convert resources into products and services, and thus into monetary profits and revenues; and second, companies have the ability to improve and use resources more efficiently to produce more environmentally friendly products, which means that managers need to focus not only on financial aspects, but also on commercial activities.

    Lastly, the obtained outcome supported our argument that the GI not only has a significant positive impact on BS, but also acts as a mediating variable between FI and BS. These results are consistent with those of Saunila et al. (2018), Xie et al. (2019), Fernando et al. (2019), Wang et al. (2021), Jahanger et al. (2022), and Zhang et al. (2023). On the one hand, these outcome can be explained by the culture of manufacturing companies, which puts the customer at the center of the institution, thus leading to a high level of BS. On the other hand, manufacturing firms are able to integrate GI activities not only within the organization, but also across all companies in the supply chain, thereby reducing economic risks and improving economic performance and business value.

    Additionally, these results not only established the adoption of GI, FI, and BS in manufacturing firms in Mexico, but may also have an indirect impact on manufacturing firms in the United States, Japan, and Germany, particularly because a high percentage of manufacturing firms established in Mexico, especially in the automotive industry, are of an origin from these countries, which is why green strategies and innovative organizational culture are generally designed in parent companies that are established in these countries and are applied in manufacturing firms in Mexico, as well as in other Latin American countries such as Argentina and Brazil, in which manufacturing companies in the automotive industry have a high impact on the GDP.

    The data estimated in this study have several practical implications for managers and companies, as well as for professionals in the industry and public administration, Here, we discuss the most important of these implications. On the one hand, if it is assumed that the main goal of financial institutions is to reduce financial costs and provide new financial services adapted to customer needs (Arnold et al., 2021), then the managers of manufacturing firms must adopt the digital technologies used during the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby seeking to change the profile of investors and customers by providing innovative financial services adapted to new global business models, not only to provide companies with a competitive advantage in terms of financial costs, but also to integrate sustainability into financial activities.

    On the other hand, manufacturing firms must provide innovative products and services to their customers, investors, and consumers in order to remain relevant and competitive in the global market. However, this is only possible if there is a culture within the organization that encourages innovation, thereby supporting initiatives, discussions, and improvements in products and services (Ahmed et al., 2020). In this context, manufacturing firms must foster a culture where management and employees promote innovation in products, processes, and financial services through a continuous training of human resources. This helps companies develop and utilize resources in accordance with BS principles and achieve more and better competitive advantages, especially in manufacturing companies in emerging markets where most companies lack an innovative culture.

    Finally, the adoption and implementation of GI activities in manufacturing firms is a relevant issue from the point of view of public administration in developing countries and emerging economies, such as Mexico, particularly because the design of public policies promotes a multiplier effect through the incorporation and use of information technologies in financial systems, as well as the generation of greener innovation activities that significantly improve the BS of organizations. In this sense, while transforming resources into products and services and then into financial gains, manufacturing firms generally almost entirely neglect the negative effects they cause to the environment and sustainability (Najmi et al., 2019), for which reason manufacturer's managers should not solely focus on the financial results of the organization, but should also strive to improve BS (Yusliza et al., 2020).

    Several conclusions can be drawn from the data estimated in this empirical study; here, we list the most important conclusions. On the one hand, we can conclude that there is a high correlation between the concepts of FI, GI, and BS, which indicates that the research model not only has an acceptable internal consistency, but also has a holistic vision of the main health services of FI, the main activities of GI, and the basic indicators of BS, as defined in the literature. In addition, there are relatively few published studies that analyzed these three concepts simultaneously, because most of the published studies focused on the simultaneous analysis of two concepts and the development of bibliometric studies, which we believe does not make a significant empirical contribution; therefore, this study provides strong empirical evidence and new insights in favor of the links between FI, GI, and BS in the manufacturing firms of emerging economies.

    On the other hand, the use of information technology in the financial services sector by clients, consumers, and manufacturing companies has exponentially increased due to the COVID-19 pandemic, from which it can be concluded that customers feel more comfortable using mobile applications for financial activities, not only because it entails lower costs, but also because it gives them a sense of control over their finances, especially because they believe that they can manage their finances using the tools available to them and that they are able to handle technology. In this sense, it can be generally concluded that the benefits of introducing and implementing innovations in the financial services (FI) and GI sectors are greater than the costs of their application in manufacturing companies, namely the BS-Organizational level.

    Furthermore, this empirical study has some limitations that should be considered before interpreting the results obtained from the data estimation. Here, we list the most limitations. On the one hand, there are limitations to the sample used in the study, since only Mexican manufacturing companies with more than 10 employees were included. Therefore, the results could be different if the sample included companies with the same or fewer employees. On the other hand, another limitation could be that the estimation was carried out using data obtained through a survey of the management of manufacturing firms. The results could be very different if the opinions of the employees or stakeholders were taken into account. Finally, another limitation is that this study focused on the analysis of cross-sectional data, which actually ignored the possible transient effects of FI, GI, and BS. For this reason, it is necessary to conduct longitudinal studies to confirm the obtained results, especially in emerging countries.

    The author declares they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

    The author declares no conflicts of interest in this paper.



    [1] Abbasi K, Hussain K, Haddad A, et al. (2021) The role of financial development and technological innovation towards sustainable development in Pakistan: Fresh insights from consumption and territory-based emissions. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 176: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121444 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121444
    [2] Acheampong A, Amponsah M, Boateng E (2020) Does financial development mitigate carbon emissions? Evidence from heterogeneous financial economies. Energ Econ 88: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104768 doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104768
    [3] Ahmed W, Ashraf M, Khan S, et al. (2020) Analyzing the impact of environmental collaboration among supply chain stakeholders on a firm's sustainable performance. Opera Manage Res 13: 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-020-00152-1 doi: 10.1007/s12063-020-00152-1
    [4] Akram R, Majeed T, Fareed Z, et al. (2020) Asymmetric effects of energy efficiency and renewable energy on carbon emission of BRICS economies: Evidence from nonlinear panel autoregressive distributed lag model. Environ Sci Pollut R 27: 18254–18268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08353-8 doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-08353-8
    [5] Al-Batayneh A, Khaddam A, Irtaimeh H, et al. (2021) Drivers of performance indicators for success of green SCM strategy and sustainable performance: The mediator role innovation strategy. Int J Serv Sci Manage Eng Technol 12: 14–28. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSSMET.2021090102 doi: 10.4018/IJSSMET.2021090102
    [6] Albort-Morant G, Leal-Millán A, Cepeda-Carrión G (2016) The antecedents of green innovation performance: A model learning and capabilities. J Bus Res 69: 4912–4917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.052 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.052
    [7] Ali W, Jun W, Hussain H, et al. (2021) Does green intellectual capital matter for green innovation adoption? Evidence from the manufacturing SMEs of Pakistan. J Intellect Cap 22: 868–888. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-06-2020-0204 doi: 10.1108/JIC-06-2020-0204
    [8] Andersen J (2021) A relational natural-resource-based view on product innovation: The influence of green product innovation and green suppliers on differentiation advantages in small manufacturing firms. Technovation 104: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102254 doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102254
    [9] Andersson LM, Bateman TS (1997) Cynicism in the workplace: Some causes and effects. J Organ Behav 18: 449–469. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199709)18:5<449::AID-JOB808>3.0.CO;2-O doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199709)18:5<449::AID-JOB808>3.0.CO;2-O
    [10] Anees S, Zaidi H, Hussain M, et al. (2021) Resources, environment and sustainability dynamic linkages between financial inclusion and carbon emission: Evidence from selected OECD countries. Resour Environ Sustain 4: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2021.100022 doi: 10.1016/j.resenv.2021.100022
    [11] Anwar A, Siddique M, Dogan E, et al. (2021) The moderating role of renewable and non-renewable energy in environment-income nexus for ASEAN countries: Evidence from method of moments quantile regression. Renew Energ 164: 956–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.09.128 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.09.128
    [12] Arnold M, Schuette D, Wagner A (2021) Neglected risk in financial innovation: Evidence from structured product counterparty exposure. Eur Financ Manag 27: 287–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/eufm.12281 doi: 10.1111/eufm.12281
    [13] Astuti D, Datrini L (2021) Green competitive advantage: Examining the role of environmental consciousness and green intellectual capital. Manage Sci Lett 11: 1141–1152. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.11.025 doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.11.025
    [14] Aulakh PS, Gencturk EF (2000) International principal-agent relationships-control, governance and performance. Ind Market Manag 29: 521–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(00)00126-7 doi: 10.1016/S0019-8501(00)00126-7
    [15] Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manage 17: 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108 doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108
    [16] Biswas S (2020) Al-Bank of the Future: Can Banks Meet the AI Challenge? New York: McKinsey and Co.
    [17] Bond C (2020) 6 predictions for banking in 2021. US News, 23 December. Available from: https://money.usnews.com/banking/articles/predictions-for-banking.
    [18] Cai W, Li G (2018) The drivers of eco-innovation and its impact on performance: Evidence from China. J Clean Prod 176: 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.109 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.109
    [19] Castelli B (2019) Machine Learning: What Every Risk and Compliance Professional Needs to Know. PWC. Available from: https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/cybersecurity-privacy-forensics/library/machine-learning-risk-compliance.html.
    [20] Cepeda-Carrion G, Cegarra J, Cillo V (2019) Tips to use partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in knowledge management. J Knowl Manag 23: 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2018-0322 doi: 10.1108/JKM-05-2018-0322
    [21] Chang X, Chen Y, Wang S, et al. (2019) Credit default swaps and corporate innovation. J Financ Econ 134: 474–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2017.12.012 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2017.12.012
    [22] Chen M, Wang H, Wang M (2018a) Knowledge sharing, social capital, and financial performance: The perspective of innovation strategy in technological clusters. Knowl Man Res Pract 16: 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2017.1415119 doi: 10.1080/14778238.2017.1415119
    [23] Chen Z, Huang S, Liu C, et al. (2018b) Fit between organizational culture and innovation strategy: Implications for innovation performance. Sustainability 10: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103378 doi: 10.3390/su10103378
    [24] Deluca H, Wagner M, Block J (2018) Sustainability and environmental behavior in family firms: A longitudinal analysis of environment related activities, innovation, and performance. Bus Strat Environ 27: 152–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1998 doi: 10.1002/bse.1998
    [25] Farkavcova V, Rieckhof R, Guenther E (2018) Expanding knowledge environmental impacts of transport processes for more sustainable supply chain decisions: A case study using life cycle assessment. Transport Res D-TR E 61: 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.04.025 doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2017.04.025
    [26] Fatoki O (2021) Environmental orientation and green competitive advantage of hospitality firms in South Africa: mediating effect of green innovation. J Open Innov Technol Market Complex 7: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7040223 doi: 10.3390/joitmc7040223
    [27] Fernando Y, Chiappetta-Jabbour C, Wah W (2019) Pursuing green growth in technology firms through the connections between environmental innovation and sustainable business performance: Does service capability matter? Resour Conserv Recy 141: 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.031 doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.031
    [28] Gathergood J, Weber J (2017) Financial literacy, present bias, and alternative mortgage products. J Bank Financ 78: 58–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2017.01.022 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2017.01.022
    [29] Gennaioli N, Shleifer A, Vishny R (2012) Neglected risks, financial innovation, and financial fragility. J Financ Econ 104: 452–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.05.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2011.05.005
    [30] González L, Gil L, Cunill O, et al. (2016) The effect of financial innovation on European banks risk. J Bank Res 69: 4781–4786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.030 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.030
    [31] Gürlek M, Tuna M (2018) Reinforcing competitive advantage through green organizational culture and green innovation. Serv Ind J 38: 467–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2017.1402889 doi: 10.1080/02642069.2017.1402889
    [32] Hair J, Hult T, Ringle C, et al. (2019) Manual de Partial Least Squares PLS-SEM. Madrid: OmniaScience. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/11420/5279.
    [33] Hair J, Sarstedt M (2021) Data, measurement, and causal inferences in machine learning: Opportunities and challenges for marketing. J Market Theory Prac 29: 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2020.1860683 doi: 10.1080/10696679.2020.1860683
    [34] Hair J, Howard M, Nitzl C (2020) Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. J Bus Res 109: 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069
    [35] Hair J, Hult G, Ringle C, et al. (2017) Mirror, mirror on the wall: A comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods. J Acad Market Sci 45: 616–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0517-x doi: 10.1007/s11747-017-0517-x
    [36] Hair JF, Celsi M, Money A, et al. (2016) Essentials of Business Research Methods. 3rd Ed. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315704562
    [37] Hart S (1995) A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad Manage Rev 20: 986–1014. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9512280033 doi: 10.5465/amr.1995.9512280033
    [38] Henseler J (2018) Partial least squares path modeling: Quo vadis? Qual Quant 52: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-018-0689-6 doi: 10.1007/s11135-018-0689-6
    [39] Hu J, Li J, Li X, et al. (2021) Will green finance contribute to a green recovery? Evidence from green financial pilot zone in China. Frontiers Public Health 9: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.794195 doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.794195
    [40] Huang J, Li Y (2017) Green innovation and performance: The view of organizational capability and social reciprocity. J Bus Ethics 145: 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2903-y doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2903-y
    [41] Huang P, Yao C, Chen S (2019a) Development of the organizational resources towards innovation strategy and innovation value: Empirical study. Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala 64: 108–119. https://doi.org/10.33788/rcis.64.9 doi: 10.33788/rcis.64.9
    [42] Huang Z, Liao G, Li Z (2019b) Loaning scale and government subsidy for promoting green innovation. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 144: 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.04.023 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.04.023
    [43] Huber N (2020) AI only scratching the surface of potential in finance services. Financ Times. Available from: https://www.ft.com/content/11aab1cc-907b-11ea-bc44-dbf6756c871a.
    [44] INEGI (2021) Directorio Estadístico Nacional de Unidades Económicas. Available from: https://www.inegi.org.mx/app/mapa/denue/default.aspx.
    [45] Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía[INEGI]. (2023) Banco de Indicadores. Producción Bruta Total. Industrias Manufactureras. Available from: https://www.inegi.org.mx/app/indicadores/?t = 261 & ag = 01#D261.
    [46] Iverson RD, Maguire C (2000) The relationship between job and life satisfaction: Evidence from a remote mining community. Hum Relat 53: 807–839. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700536003 doi: 10.1177/0018726700536003
    [47] Jahanger A, Usman M, Murshed M, et al. (2022) The linkage between natural resources, human capital, globalization, economic growth, financial development, and ecological footprint: The moderating role of technological innovation. Resour Policy 76: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102569 doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102569
    [48] Jiang W, Chai H, Shao J, et al. (2018) Green entrepreneurial orientation for enhancing firm performance: A dynamic capability perspective. J Clean Prod 198: 1311–1323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.104 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.104
    [49] Jin C, Shahzad M, Zafar A, et al. (2022) Socio-economic and environmental drivers of green innovation: Evidence from nonlinear ARDL. Econ Res-Ekonomska Istrazivanja 35: 5336–5356. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2026241 doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2022.2026241
    [50] Karami M, Madlener R (2021) Business model innovation for the energy market: Joint value creation for electricity retailers and their customers. Energy Res Soc Sci 73: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101878 doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101878
    [51] Kemp R, Pearson P (2008) MEI project about measuring eco-innovation. J Sci Technology Inf 2: 85–95.
    [52] Kim J, Park K (2016) Financial development and deployment of renewable energy technologies. Energ Econ 59: 238–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.08.012 doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2016.08.012
    [53] Laeven L, Levine R, Michalopoulos S (2015) Financial innovation and endogenous growth. J Financ Intermed 24: 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfi.2014.04.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jfi.2014.04.001
    [54] Le TT (2022) How do corporate social responsibility and green innovation transform corporate green strategy into sustainable firm performance? J Clean Prod 362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132228 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132228
    [55] Le T, Le H, Taghizadeh-Hesary F (2020) Does financial inclusion impact CO2 emissions? Evidence from Asia. Financ Res Lett 34: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2020.101451 doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2020.101451
    [56] Lepistö K, Saunila M, Ukko J (2023) The effects of soft total quality management on the sustainable developments of SMEs. Sustain Dev 31: 2797–2813. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2548 doi: 10.1002/sd.2548
    [57] Li D, Zheng M, Cao C, et al. (2017) The impact of the legitimacy pressure and corporate profitability on green innovation: Evidence from China top 100. J Clean Prod 141: 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.123 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.123
    [58] Li W, Bhutto M, Waris I, et al. (2023) The nexus between environmental corporate social responsibility, green intellectual capital, and green innovation towards business sustainability: An empirical analysis of Chinese automobile manufacturing firms. Int J Env Res Pub He 20: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20031851 doi: 10.3390/ijerph20031851
    [59] Lin H, Chen L, Yu M, et al. (2021) Too little or too much of good things? The horizontal S-curve hypothesis of green business strategy on firm performance. Technol Forecast Soc 172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121051 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121051
    [60] Liu S, Wang Y (2023) Green innovation effect of pilot zone for green finance reform: Evidence of quasi natural experiment. Technol Forecast Soc 186: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122079 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122079
    [61] Liu Y, Lei J, Zhang Y (2021) A study on the sustainable relationship among the green finance, environmental regulation, and green-total-factor productivity in China. Sustainability 13: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111926 doi: 10.3390/su132111926
    [62] Lopez-Torres GC (2023) The impact of SMEs' sustainability on competitiveness. Meas Bus Excell 27: 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-12-2021-0144 doi: 10.1108/MBE-12-2021-0144
    [63] Maingi M, Wanjiru G, Samuel K, et al. (2013) Financial innovation as a competitive strategy: The Kenyan financial sector. J Modern Accounting Auditing 9: 997–1004. http://repository.rongovarsity.ac.ke/handle/123456789/747
    [64] Maldonado-Guzmán G, Pinzón SY, Alvarado A (2020) Responsabilidad Social Empresarial, Ecoinnovación y Rendimiento Sustentable en la Industria Automotriz de México. Revista Venezolana de Gerencia, 25: 188–205. Available from: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=29062641014%0APDF.
    [65] Mbogoh G (2013) The effect of financial innovation on financial performance of insurance companies in Kenya. Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi.
    [66] McKinsey (2020) How Covid-19 has Pushed Companies over the Technology Tipping Point: An Transformed Business Forever. McKinsey and Co. Available from: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-an-corporate-finance/our-insights/how-covid-19-has-pushed-companies-over-the-technology-tipping-point-and-transformed-business-forever.
    [67] Mohd S, Mohd S, Sharif A, et al. (2022) Importance of green innovation for business sustainability: Identifying the key role of green intellectual capital and green SCM. Bus Strateg Environ 32: 1542–1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3204 doi: 10.1002/bse.3204
    [68] Mossholder KW, Bennett N, Kemery ER, et al. (1998) Relationships between bases of power and work reactions: The mediational role of procedural justice. J Manage 24: 533–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80072-5 doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80072-5
    [69] Naeem M, Conlon T, Cotter J (2022) Green bonds and other assets. Evidence from extreme risk transmission. J Environ Manage 305: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114358 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114358
    [70] Najmi A, Kanapathy K, Aziz A (2019) Prioritizing factor influencing consumers' reversing intention of e-waste using analytic hierarchy process. Int J Electron Customer Relationship Manage 12: 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJECRM.2019.098981 doi: 10.1504/IJECRM.2019.098981
    [71] Nejad G (2022) Research on financial innovations: An interdisciplinary review. Int J Bank Mark 40: 578–612. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-07-2021-0305 doi: 10.1108/IJBM-07-2021-0305
    [72] Nejad G (2016) Research on financial services innovations: A quantitative review and future research directions. Int J Bank Mark 34: 1042–1067. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-08-2015-0129 doi: 10.1108/IJBM-08-2015-0129
    [73] Noailly J, Smeets R (2016) Financing energy innovation: The role of financing constraints for direct technical change from fossil-fuel to renewable innovation. EIB Working Papers No. 216/06. Luxembourg: European Investment Bank (EIB) Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/148571.
    [74] Ortiz-Palafox KH (2019) Sustentabilidad como estrategia competitiva en la gerencia de pequeñas y medianas empresas en México. Revista Venezolana de Gerencia 24: https://www.redalyc.org/jatsRepo/290/29062051001/
    [75] Pham L (2019) Does financial development matter for innovation in renewable energy? Appl Econ Lett 26: 1756–1761. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2019.1593934 doi: 10.1080/13504851.2019.1593934
    [76] Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP (2012) Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu Rev Psychol 63: 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
    [77] Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Jeong-Yeong L, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88: 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
    [78] Qiu L, Jie X, Wang Y, et al. (2020) Green product innovation, green dynamic capability, and competitive advantage: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma 27: 146–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1780 doi: 10.1002/csr.1780
    [79] Qu C, Shao J, Shi Z (2020) Does financial agglomeration promote the increase of energy efficiency in China? Energ Policy 146: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111810 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111810
    [80] Rehman S, Kraus S, Shah S, et al. (2021) Analyzing the relationship between green innovation and environmental performance in large manufacturing firms. Technol Forecast Soc 163: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120481 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120481
    [81] Ringle C, Sarstedt M, Mitchell R, et al. (2020) Partial least squares structural equation modeling in HRM research. Int J Human Resour Manage 31: 1617–1643. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1416655 doi: 10.1080/09585192.2017.1416655
    [82] Ringle C, Wende S, Becker J (2022) SmartPLS 4 (computer software). Available from: http://www.smartpls.com.
    [83] Rodríguez-Espíndola O, Cuevas-Romo A, Chowdhury S, et al. (2022) The role of circular economy principles and sustainable-oriented innovation to enhance social, economic and environmental performance: Evidence from Mexican SMEs. Int J Prod Econ 248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108495 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108495
    [84] Rodríguez-González RM, Maldonado-Guzman G, Madrid-Guijarro A (2022) The effect of green strategies and eco-innovation on Mexican automotive industry sustainable and financial performance: Sustainable supply chains as a mediating variable. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma 29: 779–794. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2233 doi: 10.1002/csr.2233
    [85] Ronaldo R, Suryanto T (2022) Green finance and sustainability development goals in Indonesian Fund Village. Resour Policy 78: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102839 doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102839
    [86] Sachs J, Woo W, Yoshino N, et al. (2019) Importance of green finance for achieving sustainable development goals and energy security, In: Sachs J. (Ed.), Handbook of Green Finance: Energy Security and Sustainable Development, Japan: CiNii, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0227-5_13
    [87] Sardon M (2020) Millennials prefer apps to humans for financial advice. Wall Street J, 16 March. Available from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/millennials-prefer-apps-to-humans-for-financial-advice-11584377127.
    [88] Sarstedt M, Hair JF, Ringle CM, et al. (2016) Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bies lies. J Bus Res 69: 3998–4010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.007 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.007
    [89] Sarstedt M, Hair J, Cheah J, et al. (2019) How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australas Mark J (AMJ) 27: 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.003. doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.003
    [90] Saunila M, Ukko J, Rantala T (2018) Sustainability as a driver of green innovation investment and exploitation. J Clean Prod 179: 631–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.211 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.211
    [91] Scott S, Van Reenen J, Zachariadis M (2017) The long-term effect of digital innovation on bank performance: An empirical study of swift adoption in financial services. Res Policy 46: 984–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.03.010 doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.03.010
    [92] Scur G, de Mello A, Schreiner L, et al. (2019) Eco-design requirements in heavyweight vehicle development – a case study of the impact of the Euro 5 emissions standard on the Brazilian industry. Innov Manage Rev 16: 404–442. https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-08-2018-0063 doi: 10.1108/INMR-08-2018-0063
    [93] Shahzad M, Qu Y, Rehman S, et al. (2022) Impact of stakeholder's pressure on green management practices of manufacturing organizations under the mediation of organizational motives. J Environ Plann Manage 66: 2171–2194. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2062567 doi: 10.1080/09640568.2022.2062567
    [94] Shahzad M, Qu Y, Zafar A, et al. (2021) Does the interaction between the knowledge management process and sustainable development practices boost corporate green innovation? Bus Strateg Environ 30: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2865 doi: 10.1002/bse.2865
    [95] Sonmez C, Adiguzel Z (2022) An examination of the effects of financial and process innovation on the sustainability of businesses under the influence of entrepreneurial leadership: A research in energy companies. Am J Bus 37: 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJB-03-2022-0046 doi: 10.1108/AJB-03-2022-0046
    [96] Sonmez C, Adiguzel Z (2023) Effects of innovation finance, strategy, organization, and performance: A case study of company. Int J Innov Sci 15: 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-08-2021-0146 doi: 10.1108/IJIS-08-2021-0146
    [97] Statista (2023) La Industria Manufacturera En México. Datos Estadísticos. Statista Research Department. Available from: https://es.statista.com/temas/7853/la-industria-manufacturera-en-mexico/#topicOvervi.
    [98] Streeter B (2020) Four ways banks must change before millennials and Gen Z will love you. The Financial Brand. Available from: https://thefinancialbrand.com/103616/banks-millennials-gen-z-personalization-loyalty-fintech-gamification/.
    [99] Stucki T (2019) Which firms benefit from investments in green energy technologies? The effect of energy costs. Res Policy 48: 546–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.09.010 doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.09.010
    [100] Sun Y, Guan W, Razzaq A, et al. (2022b) Transition towards ecological sustainability through fiscal decentralization, renewable energy, and green investment in OECD countries. Renew Energ 190: 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.099 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2022.03.099
    [101] Sun Y, Razzaq A, Sun H, et al. (2022a) The asymmetric influence of renewable energy and green innovation on carbon neutrality in China: Analysis from non-linear ARDL model. Renew Energ 193: 334–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2022.04.159 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2022.04.159
    [102] Tariq M, Khan I, Rizwan M, et al. (2019) Nexus between financial development, tourism, renewable energy, and greenhouse gas emission in high-income countries: A continent-wise analysis. Energ Econ 83: 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.07.018 doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2019.07.018
    [103] Tufano P (2003) Financial innovation. Handbook Econ Financ 1: 307–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0102(03)01010-0 doi: 10.1016/S1574-0102(03)01010-0
    [104] Ullah H, Wang Z, Abbas M, et al. (2021b) Association of financial distress and predicted bankruptcy: The case of Pakistani Banking Sector. J Asian Financ Econ Bus 8: 573–585. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no1.573 doi: 10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no1.573
    [105] Ullah H, Wang Z, Bashir S, et al. (2021a) Nexus between IT capability and green intellectual capital on sustainable businesses: Evidence from emerging economies. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28: 27825–27843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-12245-2 doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-12245-2
    [106] Ullah H, Wang Z, Mohsin M, et al. (2022) Multidimensional perspective of green financial innovation between green intellectual capital on sustainable business: The case of Pakistan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29: 5552–5568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15919-7 doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-15919-7
    [107] Wang K, Umar M, Akram R, et al. (2021) Is technological innovation making world greener? Evidence from changing growth story of China. Technol Forecast Soc 165: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120516 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120516
    [108] Wang R, Mirza N, Vasbieva D, et al. (2020a) The nexus of carbon emissions, financial development, renewable energy consumption, and technological innovation: What should be the priorities considering COP21 agreements? J Environ Manage 271: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111027 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111027
    [109] Wang X, Zhao Y, Hou L (2020b) How does green innovation affect supplier-customer relationships? A study on customer and relationship contingencies. Ind Mark Manage 90: 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.07.008 doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.07.008
    [110] Wang Y, Yang Y (2021) Analyzing the green innovation practices based on sustainability performance indicators: a Chinese manufacturing industry case. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28: 1181–1203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10531-7 doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-10531-7
    [111] Xie X, Huo J, Zou H (2019) Green process innovation, green product innovation, and corporate financial performance: A content analysis method. J Bus Res 101: 697–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.010
    [112] Yousaf Z (2021) Go for green: Green innovation through green dynamic capabilities: Accessing the mediate role of green practices and green value. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28: 54863–54875. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14343-1 doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-14343-1
    [113] Yu C, Wu X, Zhang D, et al. (2021) Demand for green finance: Resolving financing constraints on green innovation in China. Energ Policy 153: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112255 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112255
    [114] Yuan G, Ye Q, Sun Y (2021) Financial innovation, information screening and industries green innovation: Industry-level evidence from the OECD. Technol Forecast Soc 171: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120998 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120998
    [115] Yue S, Lu R, Shen Y, et al. (2019) How does financial development affect energy consumption? Evidence from 21 transitional countries. Energ Policy 130: 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.029 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.03.029
    [116] Yusliza M, Yong J, Tanveer M, et al. (2020) A structural model of the impact of green intellectual capital on sustainable performance. J Clean Prod 249: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119334 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119334
    [117] Zhang D, Rong Z, Ji Q (2019) Green innovation and firm performance: Evidence from listed companies in China. Resour Conserv Recy 144: 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.023 doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.023
    [118] Zhang X, Yang H, Kumar N, et al. (2023) Assessing Chinese textile and apparel industry business sustainability: The role of organizational green culture, green dynamic capabilities, and green innovation in relation to environmental orientation and business sustainability. Sustainability 15: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118588 doi: 10.3390/su15118588
    [119] Zhao J, Shahzad M, Dong X, et al. (2021) How does financial risk affect global CO2 emissions? The role of technological innovation. Technol Forecast Soc 168: 14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120751 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120751
    [120] Zhou M, Li X (2022) Influence of green finance and renewable energy resources over the sustainable development goals of clean energy. Resourc Policy 78: 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102816 doi: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102816
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Claudia Díaz Gayou, Carlos Alberto Rentería Rivera, María Isaura Morales Pulido, Hacia un Modelo Corporativo Integrador: Innovación y Sostenibilidad en el Desarrollo de PYMES en México, 2025, 5, 3005-2599, 395, 10.61384/r.c.a..v5i1.849
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1441) PDF downloads(172) Cited by(1)

Figures and Tables

Figures(1)  /  Tables(3)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog