Next Article in Journal
Assessing Habitat Vulnerability and Loss of Naturalness: Applying the GLOBIO3 Model in the Czech Republic
Next Article in Special Issue
Impact of Entrepreneurial Orientation on Innovation Capability: The Mediating Role of Absorptive Capability and Organizational Learning Capabilities
Previous Article in Journal
Farmers’ Perceptions of Commercial Insect-Based Feed for Sustainable Livestock Production in Kenya
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Typology of Spa-Goers in Southern Spain
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/su13105364
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

What Could Entrepreneurial Vision Do for Sustainable Development? Explore the Cross-Level Impact of Organizational Members’ Green Shared Vision on Green Creativity

by
Wenchang Fang
1,
Tzong-Hann Wu
1,
Tai-Wei Chang
2 and
Cheng-Ze Hung
3,*
1
Department of Business Administration, National Taipei University, Taipei 100-116, Taiwan
2
Graduate School of Resources Management and Decision Science, Management College, National Defense University, Taoyuan 320-338, Taiwan
3
Department of Management, Air Force Institute of Technology, Kaohsiung 800-852, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(10), 5364; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105364
Submission received: 30 March 2021 / Revised: 29 April 2021 / Accepted: 6 May 2021 / Published: 11 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovation and Entrepreneurship for Well-Being and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Entrepreneurial vision promotes innovation, which is a critical factor contributing to the success of an organization in the globalized world. However, the increasing awareness regarding sustainable development among people worldwide has not induced an increase in organizations’ concerns about environmental issues. An organization’s green shared vision (GSV) states its environmentally friendly philosophy to its members; however, few studies have examined GSV from a cross-level perspective. To fill this research gap, this study examined the influences of GSV on the psychological processes, attitudes, and behaviors of organization members. This study focuses on individuals’ psychological processes to explore the relationships among an organization’s GSV, green product psychological ownership (GPPO), proactive green innovation (PGI), reactive green innovation (RGI), and green creativity (GC). This study’s participants are employees from the research and development, design, marketing, and sales departments of small and medium-sized enterprises in Taiwan. The results obtained by surveying 575 employees in 72 teams indicate that team-level GSV has a positive and significant relationship with GPPO and GC at the individual level. In addition, our research results indicate the existence of mediating effects in the relationships between GPPO and GC and between PGI and RGI. Thus, GSV, GPPO, PGI and RGI greatly influence GC. Consequently, an organization should develop GSV to promote GPPO among its members to facilitate green innovation and enhance the GC of its members.

1. Introduction

As people worldwide become more environmentally conscious, environmental issues have attracted considerable attention. According to the Paris Agreement or the UNEP resolution “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, international organizations and nongovernmental environmental protection groups have worked together to protect the environment and have regulated environmental development. Under pressure from governments, customers, environment protection groups, and other related stakeholders, enterprises have begun to focus on environmental issues [1]. After nearly half a century of development, Taiwan has transformed from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy and from a labor-intensive industrial economy to a technology-intensive Information Age economy. Many environmental issues have emerged during Taiwan’s development. In response to the global wave of environmental awareness and the inadequate environmental efforts in Taiwan, the Taiwanese government passed the Basic Environment Act in 2002 to promote the implementation of sustainable development. This act urged all sectors to focus on environment management. Since the passing of the aforementioned act, Taiwanese enterprises have gradually accepted the importance of environmental management. Taiwanese enterprises have not only adopted preventive measures to eliminate environmental pollutions but also actively implemented environmental protection strategies, such as improving their internal business model and management philosophy. Thus, Taiwanese enterprises have achieved a reputation for environmental friendless, and the penalties levied on them for the violation of environmental regulations have been reduced. Taiwanese companies can expand into emerging markets and gain a competitive advantage if they improve their environmental performance; thus, a wave of green opportunity and green innovation has been initiated [2]. With the development of the green economy, companies have begun to actively pursue high environmental standards for turning environmental problems into profit-making opportunities [3], thus contributing to environment protection and enhancing their corporate image [4]. The state of the environment is constantly changing; thus, enterprises must adopt entrepreneurial strategies of innovation, risk taking and proactive actions.
In our current world of rapid innovation, innovative activities inspire spontaneous change within enterprises. In this scenario, enterprises attempt to enter the state of normal economic development. Therefore, innovative activities create opportunities for earning profits, breaking the economic cycle, and moving toward normal development. These activities include designing new products, introducing new production methods, acquiring supply sources of raw materials or semifinished products, or constructing new industrial organizations [5]. Entrepreneurs should invest more resources in innovative entrepreneurial activities to grow [6]. The concept of “producer responsibility” was derived from international environmental protection requirements. Producers are responsible for the environmental impact of the products that they manufacture throughout the product life cycle. Therefore, manufacturers should incorporate environmental factors into product design at the beginning of the design phase to ensure that the product is environmentally friendly throughout its life cycle. Cook [7] stated that innovation is crucial to the success of an organization in our competitive and globalized world. The key to the success of present-day enterprises lies in them developing novel environmentally friendly products and services to meet the needs of consumers who are becoming increasingly environmentally conscious [8]. The formulation of an appropriate green shared vision (GSV) by an enterprise enhances the green attitudes and green behaviors of its members, which is a key factor for promoting its perpetual development [9]. Therefore, enterprises should adopt environmental management as the blueprint for strategic development and incorporate it into their overall operation to achieve green innovation and develop green products that meet the public’s expectations. By doing so, enterprises can meet constantly changing market demands, maintain their profitability, and avoid public censure. Enterprises must understand the importance of green innovation, the popularity of the green product market, and the competitive advantage brought by green products [10]. Ottman [11] indicated that when an organization adopts the management model of an active strategy, it becomes a market leader by introducing new products and services into the market. Therefore, under proactive environmental management, an organization should invest in innovation and continually reapply products and services to different systems [12].
Extensive research has been conducted on green creativity (GC), and innovation has become a mainstream practice among large companies and high-tech start-ups [13]. However, implementing GC activities is a considerable challenge for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) due to their severe financial constraints and the information asymmetry working against their favor [14]. Although the application of innovative knowledge has gradually shifted from scholarship to industry, SMEs are lagging significantly in implementing innovative knowledge [15]. At present, most Taiwanese firms are SMEs. According to statistics in the 2018 White Paper on SMEs issued by the Small and Medium Enterprise Administration, Ministry Economic Affairs, Taiwan, the number of Taiwanese SMEs in 2017 was 1,437,616, which accounted for 97.70% of the total enterprises in Taiwan. Taiwan has an advanced semiconductor industry, and research on the green issues observed in Taiwan’s mixed industrial structure might provide helpful references for Southeast Asian countries. Moreover, with the prevalence of green trends, green innovation has become a crucial strategic tool for the sustainable development of the manufacturing industry [3]. The present study can function as a reference on problem-solving management for enterprises that face conflicts between profitability and environmental protection. In this study, teams from the marketing as well as research and development (R&D) departments of Taiwanese enterprises were recruited as participants to verify the effect of an organization’s GSV on its employees’ green attitudes and green behaviors, which constitutes a current gap in the literature. First, we reviewed the literature on the relationships among GC, GSV, green product psychological ownership (GPPO), proactive green innovation (PGI), and reactive green innovation (RGI). Subsequently, we verified these relationships by analyzing data from a questionnaire that the participants answered. Future research directions are also discussed in this paper.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Definition of GC

Creativity refers to the set of personality and epistemic characteristics of a person upon prolonged engagement with the process of creation [16]. Creativity, which is a new and useful concept [17], is the result of the interaction of multiple factors, including knowledge, personal traits, work motivation, and the working environment. The purpose of creativity is to solve current work problems [18]. Creativity is essential for developing novel, original, crucial, and useful product ideas or processes [19]. In summary, creativity represents the results constructed at an individual level with regard to working methods, which are used to produce novel and appropriate concepts or solutions.
Creativity has become increasingly crucial as enterprises attempt to develop sustainably in an increasingly competitive business environment [20,21]. With the rise of environmentalism, environmental laws and regulations are becoming increasingly stringent, and becoming more environmentally friendly is key to improving a company’s competitive advantage [22]. Chen and Chang [23] proposed the concept of GC, which is defined as the thought process leading to the development of novel ideas, products, services, processes, and practices that have an environmentally friendly impact. GC is vital for current enterprises and is the foundation for the implementation and development of green innovation. Effective GC can help enterprises and society achieve sustainable environmental development. Chang [24] indicated that GC can enable timely responses to green trends for gaining competitive advantages. Therefore, the current study explored the factors influencing GC.

2.2. Factors Affecting GC

2.2.1. Influence of GPPO on GC

Ownership is a psychological state experienced by human beings in which they regard nonmaterial or material objects in the natural world as being completely or partially owned by them [25]. It reflects the relationship between a person and an object closely related to them [26]. Ownership enables the owner to regard an object as a social entity through the establishment of a psychological connection with the object. When a linkage is formed between the individual’s labor and their emotion, a relatively close relationship forms between an organization and its employees; if such emotions are positive, then the employee tends to work more effectively [27]. The form of psychological ownership varies according to object, and psychological ownership toward an object is associated with the individual being willing to spend more time on or accept greater responsibility toward it [28,29].
Present-day enterprises must stay competitive and develop sustainably. Chang [30] proposed the concept of GPPO and stated that when organization members experience psychological ownership toward the organization’s green products, they begin to develop a strong sense of attachment toward the products. Based on the aforementioned discussion, we hypothesize that GPPO positively influences GC as follows.
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
GPPO positively affects GC.

2.2.2. Effects of GPPO on PGI and RGI

Noci and Verganti [31] proposed that enterprises implement both explicit and implicit management strategies for green innovation. Explicit management strategies regard the environment as a major strategic challenge and involve a systematic examination of the various effects triggered by the environment. By contrast, implicit management strategies regard the environment as a secondary factor and thus represent a passive strategic attitude. Explicit environmental management is associated with radical and proactive innovation. Although explicit environmental management strategies rely on considerable funding support during the development phase, if these strategies are well designed, the management team can easily master the process of change, reduce the cost of member silence, and increase the enterprise’s profitability [32]. Initiative, which is a function of perceptiveness, refers to how much an organization anticipates an impending environmental change and positions itself in advance under constantly changing conditions [33]. Crant [34] defined proactivity as the spontaneous improvement of the current situation or the creation of a new situation, which involves challenging the status quo rather than passively accepting it. However, Sandberg [35] argued that passiveness is a situation in which enterprises unilaterally respond to changes in the environment without preempting potential changes. Chen, Chang, and Wu [36] classified green innovation into PGI and RGI according to its external and internal factors. PGI encompasses environment-related innovations that are actively implemented by enterprises to take new measures, promote new products, reduce costs, seize opportunities, lead the market, and gain competitive advantages over its rivals. PGI is mainly associated with internal factors, such as environmental leadership, environment protection culture, and environmental protection capability. RGI refers to environment-related innovations that are passively implemented by enterprises to comply with environmental laws and regulations, adapt to stakeholder needs, and respond to the changing environment and challenges from competitors. RGI is mainly associated with internal and external factors originating from pressures exerted by investors, customers and environmental laws and regulations.
In summary, from the perspective of psychological ownership theory, the generation of a sense of ownership toward a subject matter promotes people’s positive behaviors and attitudes toward it. Consequently, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesisn 2 (H2).
GPPO positively affects PGI.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
GPPO negatively affects RGI.

2.2.3. Effect of PGI on GC

Proactiveness is defined by an active shaping of one’s environment to one’s advantage [37]. Proactiveness is a part of entrepreneurial philosophy, with the emphasis on adopting preemptive measures or introducing new products to stay ahead of the competition [38]. With the awakening of environmental protection consciousness, enterprises have begun to consider environmental sustainability when pursuing profits and actively regard environment management as an essential executive strategy [39]. Proactive environmental management has always been accompanied by strategic innovations, which can create opportunities for enterprises and help them gain competitive advantages [40]. Proactive environmental management strategies include reducing pollution treatment costs, increasing legitimacy, and obtaining support from customers and relevant stakeholders [41]. Organizations can enhance their environmental management performance through green innovation [10]. Sharma and Henriques [42] indicated that when enterprises adopt active environmental actions, their behaviors exhibit features of voluntary adoption and development and are not limited to compliance with environmental laws and regulations. At the lowest level, active environmental behaviors include enterprises conducting pollution prevention and control at the source, and at the highest level, such behaviors may include enterprises redesigning products and the sourcing process or redefining their business model. Thus, proactive environmental management involves predicting future environmental norms and social trends as well as designing or changing operational strategies, production processes, and products to avoid situations that may damage the environment. Chen, Lai and Wen [3] indicated that, to meet the requirements of environmental protection, enterprises must rely on green innovation for improving their environmental management performance. Thus, the proactive environmental behavior of an enterprise leads to PGI, which improves the GC of the enterprise.
The aforementioned discussion indicates that when enterprises proactively incorporate environmental management into their strategic policies, the PGI and GC of the enterprise are enhanced. Clapp [43] defined innovation as introducing unique products, services, and ideas, and studies have indicated that the GC of an enterprise is positively influenced by PGI [44,45]. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
PGI positively affects GC.

2.2.4. Effects of RGI on GC

Organizations with a passive attitude toward environment policies exhibit a negative attitude toward environmental management. Such organizations control pollution only to comply with regulations and only act when an environmental problem arises [46]. Organizations of the aforementioned type emphasize minimizing risk, responsibility, and cost [47]. Enterprises with a passive environmental strategy are guided by a treatment model that meets the minimum standards of environmental laws and regulations for coping with pressures from regulators and green customers. Such enterprises take environmental action only when environmental problems occur [48,49]. McGrath and MacMillan [50] stated that in a highly uncertain and ambiguous environment, a passive strategy enables an enterprise to respond to and learn from performance feedback when it engages in exploratory behavior. In addition, customers can urge organizations to pay attention to environmental problems and invest heavily in environmentally friendly practices [51]. Pressure from customers can prompt enterprises to engage in passive (rather than proactive) environmental behaviors that exist only to respond to consumer needs [52]. Therefore, under passive environmental strategies, although green innovation is observed, such innovation is only conducted in response to regulatory requirements and stakeholder demands.
In summary, passive organizations only implement environmental strategies when facing environmental issues to respond to customer needs. Passive strategies are triggered by green innovation [53]. Therefore, even if enterprises adopt passive environmental strategies, they must still implement green innovation according to customer needs, regulatory demands, and market competition. Although enterprise GC is required to implement environmental strategies, the effect of RGI on GC is weaker than that of PGI on GC. Therefore, RGI negatively affects GC. Consequently, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
RGI negatively affects GC.

2.2.5. Mediating Variables in the Relationship between GPPO and GC

When people experience psychological ownership, the object of their psychological ownership is regarded as an extension of themselves [54,55] and a part of them [56]. Psychological ownership affects one’s personal attitudes, motives and behaviors. It refers to extralegal ownership and implicates one’s attitude, self-concept, and sense of responsibility [57]. Ownership has various facets, is generated through a psychological process, and is a status in which one experiences partial or complete ownership of an object (i.e., “it is mine” or “it is ours;” Pierce, Rubenfeld and Morgan [58]). When organization members develop psychological ownership toward the organization, they are willing to accept additional responsibility for the organization, engage in extra-role behaviors, and adopt a more caring and protective attitude toward the organization [59]. Jussila et al. [29] indicated that motives affect an individual’s state of psychological ownership, which produces positive attitude and behavioral outcomes, such as organizational citizenship behavior in relation to the environment, green purchasing behavior, a willingness to pay more money to save the environment [60], greater job satisfaction and lower turnover intention [61]. Therefore, as people become more environmentally conscious, the attitude and behavior of members of an organized are improved when they develop GPPO.
In summary, under the pressure of environmental issues, when an organization’s members develop GPPO, they take initiatives to make the products of the organization more competitive while complying with regulatory requirements and the needs of environmental stakeholders. Thus, proactiveness mediates the relationship between GC and GPPO, as indicated in the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
The relationship between GPPO and GC is mediated by PGI.
Hypothesis 7 (H7).
The relationship between GPPO and GC is mediated by RGI.

2.2.6. Influences of GSV on Organization Members

Shared vision unites an organization with its members in pursuing a shared set of goals and developmental path [62,63]. Shared vision is the collective vision of what the mission and core values of an organization and its members are [64], and greater acceptance toward the company vision results in greater satisfaction and organizational belonging among employees [65]. Thus, shared vision is a fundamental aspect of each organization’s strategic management and includes the unique goals, general directions, and practices of the organization [66]. In response to the rising awareness of environmental protection, the concept of environment protection has been integrated into the operational management of enterprises. Chen et al. [67] indicated that enterprises should aim for environmentally friendly sustainable development and that the management of enterprises should devise a strategic development direction with explicit and common future environmental protection goals for establishing GSV. Senbel [68] stated that organization managers with a strong vision can promote the achievement of sustainability requirements. Studies have indicated that when appropriate GSV is developed, employees’ environmental performance [22], organizational citizenship behavior toward the environment [69], green product development performance [70], GPPO [30], and GC [67] are enhanced. Therefore, when an enterprise develops an appropriate GSV, the insights, knowledge, and guidelines contained in the GSV satisfy organization members’ future aspirations and inspire positive attitudes and behaviors in them.
In summary, when an enterprise is faced with the pressure to be environmentally friendly, the development of appropriate GSV enables organization members to develop a shared vision and motivation for working together. In such situations, organization members are motivated to engage in PGI, which increases their GC; thus, the products of the organization become more competitive while complying with relevant environmental protection standards. Moreover, studies have indicated that GSV is conducive for generating or enhancing environmentally friendly behavior [71], GPPO [30], and GC [67] of employees, as expressed in the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 8 (H8).
GSV positively affects GPPO.
Hypothesis 9 (H9).
GSV positively affects GC.
In general, and based on psychological ownership theory, the relationships among GPPO, PGI, RGI, and GSV in the aforementioned hypotheses are illustrated in Figure 1.

3. Methodology and Measurement

3.1. Data collection and Research Sample

In this study, questionnaires were administered to frontline supervisors and employees working in the information technology, manufacturing, trade, grocery, tourism, catering and leisure industries based on the “Business Directory of Taiwan” and distributed by convenience sampling. The participants were from the R&D, marketing, design, or sales departments of their companies in Taiwan. To improve the effective response rate of the questionnaire responses, the participants were guided by research personnel in answering the questionnaire and were provided a small gift for completing the questionnaire. A total of 750 formal questionnaires were distributed to 85 team members, and 575 questionnaires were recovered (effective response rate: 76.67%) from October 2019 to January 2020.
In this study, respondents of different industries, departments, and job levels helped reduce common method variance. The distribution of 575 respondents in the current employment was across the following categories: electronic information industry (37%), trading companies (21%), and tourism (42%); capitals of <10 million (37%), 10–50 million (40%), 50–100 million (7%), 100 million–1 billion (9%), and >1 billion (7%); Size of Firm of <50 (37%), 50–100 (40%), 100–500 (7%), 500–1000 (9%), and >1000 (7%) employees. Thus, the current samples were mainly small and medium-sized companies.

3.2. Definitions and Measurements of the Constructs

The questionnaire adopted in this study contains five survey dimensions: GSV, GPPO, PGI, RGI, and GC. Participant responses were indicated by tick boxes and all items were answered on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 for never to 7 for often. These five dimensions are detailed as follows.
GSV: GSV was examined using the GSV scale developed by Chen et al. [67]. This scale comprises four items: (1)”A commonality of environmental goals exists in the company;” (2) ”A total agreement on the strategic environmental direction of the organization;” (3) “All members in the company are committed to the environmental strategies of the company;” and (4) “Employees of the organization are enthusiastic about the collective environmental mission of the organization”. We obtained a Cronbach’s α (reliability) value of 0.952 for the items of the adopted GSV scale.
GPPO: GPPO was measured using the GPPO scale developed by Chang [30]. This scale contains three positive items: (1) “I feel like this green product is mine;” (2) “I feel a very high degree of personal ownership of this green product;” and (3) “I feel like I own this green product”. The GPPO scale had a Cronbach’s α value of 0.938.
PGI: PGI was evaluated using the PGI scale developed by Chen, Chang, and Wu [36]. This scale contains four items: (1) “Your company often actively has innovations about environmental protection then it can take new measures or have new products to have a lead over its rivals;” (2) “Your company actively engages in constantly betting on environmental innovation resources, successfully takes the opportunity to become a pioneer in the market;” (3) “Your company actively improves its production processes, reuses, recycles, and reduces the use of raw materials in order to cut costs;” and (4) “Your company voluntarily implements innovations about environmental protection in order to obtain a competitive advantage”. The PGI scale had a Cronbach’s α value of 0.923.
RGI: RGI was evaluated using the RGI scale developed by Chen, Chang, and Wu [36]. This scale contains four items: (1) “Your company passively adopt environment-related innovations, in order to comply with environmental regulations;” (2) “Your company was asked to create new solutions to meet the needs of interested parties;” (3) “Your company was forced to respond to changing circumstances;” and (4) “Your company will be passive and environment-related innovation, challenge to cope with competitors”. The RGI scale had a Cronbach’s α value of 0.897.
GC: GC was evaluated using the Green Activity Scale developed by Chen and Chang [23]. This scale contains six items: (1) “The members within the project propose new ways to realize the objectives of environmental protection;” (2) “The members within the project find out new green ideas to enhance environmental performance;” (3) “The members within the project advocate new green ideas to others;” (4) “The members within the project create proper plans for the implementation of new green ideas;” (5) “The members within the project would recheck new green ideas;” and (6) “The members within the project would discover original solutions for environmental problems”. The aforementioned scale had a Cronbach’s α value of 0.959.

4. Empirical Results

4.1. Results of the Measurement Model

The means, standard deviations, minimum values, maximum values, correlation coefficients and root mean square of the average variance extracted (AVE) values of the constructs were determined (Table 1). Table 1 indicates that all the constructs had a negative correlation with RGI. According to Fornell and Larcker [72], a construct has good discriminant validity if the root mean square of its AVE is higher than its correlation coefficient. As presented in Table 1, all the constructs adopted in this study had good discriminant validity.
Table 2 presents the factor loadings (λ) of the items and Cronbach’s α coefficient of each construct. All the composite reliability (CR) and AVE values were exceeded the requisite minimum. Cronbach’s α was used to analyze the reliability of each construct. According to Hair et al. [73], Cronbach’s α should be greater than 0.7 to achieve acceptable validity. In this study, the Cronbach’ s α coefficient of each construct was greater than 0.7 (i.e., 0.952, 0.938, 0.923, 0.897 and 0.959 for GSV, GPPO, PGI, RGI, and GC, respectively). Therefore, the reliability of the adopted questionnaire was satisfactory. The CR was used to analyze the internal consistency of each construct. According to Bagozzi and Yi [74], a construct has acceptable internal consistency if its CR is greater than 0.7. In this study, the CR value of each construct was greater in 0.7 (i.e., 0.966, 0.939, 0.925, 0.897, and 0.959 for GSV, GPPO, PGI, RGI, and GC, respectively). Therefore, the adopted questionnaire had acceptable internal consistency. The AVE was used to analyze the convergent validity of each construct. Fornell and Larcker [72] indicated that a construct has acceptable convergent validity if its AVE values is greater than 0.5. Moreover, a construct has acceptable discriminant validity if the root mean square of its AVE is greater than its correlation coefficient. As presented in Table 2, the AVE of each construct considered in this study was greater than 0.5 (i.e., 0.875, 0.838, 0.755, 0.686, and 0.794 for GSV, GPPO, PGI, RGI, and GC, respectively). In addition, as presented in Table 1 and Table 2, the root mean square of each construct’s AVE was greater than its correlation coefficient. Therefore, the adopted questionnaire had acceptable convergent and discriminant validity. The aforementioned results indicate that the scales adopted in this study were valid and reliable.

4.2. Results of the Structural Model

In this study, hypothesis verification and data analysis at the individual level were conducted by performing structural equation modeling (SEM) in Amos 26 statistical analysis software. Cross-level hypothesis verification was conducted using HLM 7.03. First, to ensure the appropriateness of the sampling variables at the team level, a null model test was conducted on GPPO and GC. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 1 and ICC 2 values were calculated for the aforementioned variables. James [75] suggested a requisite minimum of 0.12 for ICC 1, and Glick [76] and Qstroff and Schmitt [77] suggested a requisite minimum of 0.6 for ICC 2. The ICC 1 and ICC 2 values in this study exceeded the aforementioned minimum values; thus, the ratings of employees within an organization were highly consistent [76]. Thus, we calculated the rwg values to determine the appropriateness of GSV at the team level. George and Bettenhausen [78] suggested a standard rwg value of 0.7, and the calculated rwg values were greater than 0.7 (i.e., 0.876 and 0.845). Thus, GSV was suitable for aggregation at the team level. Second, the individual-level model was analyzed using SEM. The results obtained for the full model at the individual level are presented in Table 2, which indicates that GFI = 0.943, RMSEA = 0.053, AGFI = 0.924, and CFI = 0.979 (see Figure 2). Thus, the model had good overall fit. The coefficients of H1, H2, H3, H4, and H5 were 0.195, 0.393, 0.296, 0.130, and 0.370, respectively. The coefficients of all the aforementioned paths were significant.
The research framework contains both positive (between GPPO and GC and between GPPO and PGI) and negative (between GPPO and RGI and between RGI and GC) relationships of direct influence. According to the causal steps test of Baron and Kenny [79], PGI and RGI act as mediators in the relationship between GPPO and GC. The current study adopted the bootstrapping method of Taylor, MacKinnon, and Tein [80] to conduct the mediating effect test by using 5000 bootstrap samples with a 90% confidence interval. The results presented in Table 3 verify that PGI and RGI mediate the relationship between GPPO and GC, with Z values of 26.684 and 47.5 for the mediation effects of PGI and RGI, respectively. The aforementioned Z values were greater than 1.96; thus, the mediating effects of PGI and RGI on the aforementioned relationship were significant. In summary, PGI and RGI partially mediated the relationship between GPPO and GC. Moreover, no significant differences were observed in the two mediating effects during testing; however, RGI had a higher influence on the aforementioned relationship than PGI did.
The results indicate that, at the individual level, GPPO exert significant effects on PGI, RGI and GC. Except for the negative significant relationship between RGI and GPPO, all the other relationships were positive and significant. Moreover, GPPO is an important predictive variable, and PGI and RGI are crucial mediators in the relationship between GPPO and GC. GSV at the team level has positive and significant effects on GPPO and GC at the individual level, as presented in Table 4. Thus, the results obtained for the nine proposed hypotheses are significant.

5. Conclusions and Implications

5.1. Theoretical Implications

In this research, a cross-level study was conducted on GSV and the relationships among GPPO, PGI, RGI and GC. Formulating effective GSV is crucial for enterprises to enhance their GC and achieve sustainable development. This study developed an integrated research framework based on psychological ownership theory. The results of this study indicate that (1) GPPO has significant effects on PGI, RGI, and GC; (2) GPPO has a positive effect on GC; (3) GPPO has partial mediating effects on PGI and RGI; and (4) GSV has positive effects on the GPPO and GC of organization members. Therefore, the formulation of an appropriate GSV by an enterprise enables its members to generate GPPO. In addition, enhancements in organizational members’ GPPO can enhance their PGI and GC. However, RGI has a significant negative effect on GC.
This study makes four contributions to the literature. First, we found that GPPO has significant effects on PGI and RGI. Thus, this study expands on the factors influencing the internal sources of PGI and RGI, as proposed by Chen, Chang, and Wu [36], and fills a research gap on the cross-level effect of GSV [9]. Second, previous studies [81] have been methodologically limited in their investigation of the relationship between employees’ innovative behavior and GC, and they have failed to analyze the process of psychological motivation that affects organization members’ GC. In this study, psychological ownership theory was used to study the GC of frontline members of the R&D, sales, design, and marketing departments of Taiwanese companies, who put their customers first. The results of this study indicate that when an organization formulates appropriate an GSV, its members’ GPPO, GC and PGI are enhanced and RGI is reduced. Third, the results of this study verify that PGI and RGI partially mediate the relationship between organization members’ GPPO and GC. The results also indicate that the process of psychological members among an organization’s members affects their GC, GPPO, PGI and RGI. Therefore, organizations should formulate an appropriate GSV to strengthen the GPPO of their members to, in turn, improve their PGI, RGI and GC.

5.2. Managerial Implications

Meglio and Park [82] showed that organizations face a dilemma in converging the goals of strategic management with sustainability choices. The findings of this study provide two managerial implications and suggest a practical behavior mechanism to respond. First, in the current era of rising environmental awareness, formulating an appropriate GSV is crucial for enterprises to promote sustainable development. GSV effectively enhances organization members’ GPPO, makes them more committed to their work, enables the needs of environmentally conscious customers to be met, enhances GC, and helps an enterprise become more competitive and favored by consumers. Second, to formulate and implement a strategic green blueprint, an enterprise must actively allocate budgetary resources or design strategies to win the favor of its members to, in turn, effectively enhance their GPPO and improve their green attitudes and behaviors. Such a green governance model will improve an enterprise’s green management performance and enable it to achieve sustainable development in relation to the environment.

5.3. Strengths and Limitations

This study has certain limitations. First, most of the participants in this study worked in SMEs, which differ in their characteristics to over-the-counter listed companies. Second, considering that R&D and sales personnel aim for their company products to be welcomed by consumers, this study explored GSV, GPPO, PGI, RGI and GC from the perspectives of company executives and employees in the R&D, design, marketing, and sales departments of different companies. Third, this study tests the hypotheses with SEM and cross-sectional data to obtain the causal relationship among these variables, future researchers can have a longitudinal study to observe the causal relationship in the different stages. Forth, this study was restricted to Taiwanese companies. Taiwan has a different industrial structure and economic structure to other Asian countries, such as Vietnam, Japan, and Singapore. Thus, different results may be obtained for these other condition.

Author Contributions

Supervision, W.F.; Investigation, T.-H.W.; Writing-original draft, T.-W.C.; Writing—review & editing, C.-Z.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study did not require ethical approval.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Shrivastava, P.; Hart, S. Greening organizations. Acad. Manag. Proc. 1992, 52, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Porter, M.E.; van der Linde, C. Green and competitive. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1995, 73, 120–134. [Google Scholar]
  3. Chen, Y.-S.; Lai, S.-B.; Wen, C.-T. The Influence of Green Innovation Performance on Corporate Advantage in Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethic 2006, 67, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Naffziger, D.W.; Ahmed, N.U.; Montagno, R.V. Perceptions of environmental consciousness in US small businesses: An empirical study. Sam Adv. Manag. J. 2003, 68, 23–32. [Google Scholar]
  5. Schumpeter, J.A. The Theory of Economic Development; Harvard University Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1934. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hagen, A.; Tootoonchi, A.; Hassan, M. Integrating Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management Activities to Gain Wealth: CEOs’ Perspectives. Adv. Compet. Res. 2005, 13, 48–53. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cook, P. The creativity advantage-is your organization the leader of the pack? Ind. Commerc. Train. 1998, 30, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Cronin, J.J., Jr.; Smith, J.S.; Gleim, M.R.; Ramirez, E.; Martinez, J.D. Green marketing strategies: An examination of stakeholders and the opportunities they present. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2011, 39, 158–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chang, T.-W.; Wang, K.-H.; Lin, Y.-H. Corporate Sustainability: It’s Mine! Effect of Green Product Psychological Ownership on the Environmental Behavior and Performance of Employees. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Weng, H.-H.R.; Chen, J.-S.; Chen, P.-C. Effects of Green Innovation on Environmental and Corporate Performance: A Stakeholder Perspective. Sustainability 2015, 7, 4997–5026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Ottman, J. The New Rules of Green Marketing: Strategies, Tools, and Inspiration for Sustainable Branding; Berrett-Koehler Pub-lishers: Sheffield, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kasim, A. Environmental management system (EMS) Postulating the value of its adoption to organizational learning in hotels. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 27, 1233–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lüttgens, D.; Diener, K. Business model patterns used as a tool for creating (new) innovative business models. J. Bus. Models. 2016, 4, 19–36. [Google Scholar]
  14. Barbaroux, P. Innovation disruptive et naissance d’un écosystème: Voyage aux origines de l’internet. Revue d’Écon. Ind. 2014, 146, 27–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Kesting, P.; Günzel-Jensen, F. SMEs and new ventures need business model sophistication. Bus. Horiz. 2015, 58, 285–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Findlay, C.S.; Lumsden, C.J. The creative mind: Toward an evolutionary theory of discovery and innovation. J. Soc. Biol. Struct. 1988, 11, 3–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mumford, M.D.; Gustafson, S.B. Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sternberg, R.J. Cognitive-Behavioral Approaches to the Training of Intelligence in the Retarded. J. Speéc. Educ. 1981, 15, 165–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Oldham, G.R.; Cummings, A. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39, 607–634. [Google Scholar]
  20. Devanna, M.A.; Tichy, N. Creating the competitive organization of the 21st century: The boundaryless corporation. Hum. Resour. Manag. 1990, 29, 455–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Song, W.; Yu, H. Green Innovation Strategy and Green Innovation: The Roles of Green Creativity and Green Organizational Identity. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 135–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chang, T.W.; Yeh, Y.L.; Li, H.X. How to Shape an Organization’s Sustainable Green Management Performance: The Me-diation Effect of Environmental Corporate Social Responsibility. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chen, Y.-S.; Chang, C.-H. The Determinants of Green Product Development Performance: Green Dynamic Capabilities, Green Transformational Leadership, and Green Creativity. J. Bus. Ethic 2013, 116, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chang, C.-H. The Influence of Corporate Environmental Ethics on Competitive Advantage: The Mediation Role of Green Innovation. J. Bus. Ethic 2011, 104, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pierce, J.L.; Kostova, T.; Dirks, K.T. Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2001, 26, 298–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Furby, L. Possessions: Toward a theory of their meaning and function throughout the life cycle. Life-Span. Develop. Behav. 1978, 1, 297–336. [Google Scholar]
  27. Beggan, J.K. On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 62, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pierce, J.L.; Jussila, I. Psychological Ownership and the Organizational Context: Theory, Research Evidence, and Application; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  29. Jussila, I.; Tarkiainen, A.; Sarstedt, M.; Hair, J.F. Individual psychological ownership: Concepts, evidence, and implications for research in marketing. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2015, 23, 121–139. [Google Scholar]
  30. Chang, T.-W. Corporate Sustainable Development Strategy: Effect of Green Shared Vision on Organization Members’ Behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Noci, G.; Verganti, R. Managing ‘green’product innovation in small firms. RD Manag. 1999, 29, 3–15. [Google Scholar]
  32. Azzone, G.; Noci, G. Seeing the environment as a source of change. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 1998, 11, 94–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lumpkin, G.T.; Dess, G.G. Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1996, 21, 135–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Crant, J.M. Proactive behavior in organizations. J. Manag. 2000, 26, 435–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sandberg, B. Creating the market for disruptive innovation: Market proactiveness at the launch stage. J. Target. Meas. Anal. Mark. 2002, 11, 184–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H.; Wu, F.S. Origins of green innovations: The differences between proactive and reactive green in-novations. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 368–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chen, M.J.; Hambrick, D.C. Speed, stealth, and selective attack: How small firms differ from large firms in competitive be-havior. Acad. Manag. J. 1995, 38, 453–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Covin, J.G.; Slevin, D.P. Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strat. Manag. J. 1989, 10, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gladwin, T.N.; Kennelly, J.J.; Krause, T.S. Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 874–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Hart, S.L. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 986–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Sharma, S.; Vredenburg, H. Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable or-ganizational capabilities. Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19, 729–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sharma, S.; Henriques, I. Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strat. Manag. J. 2004, 26, 159–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Clapp, E.P. Participatory Creativity: Introducing Access and Equity to the Creative Classroom; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  44. Chen, Y.-S.; Chang, T.-W.; Lin, C.-Y.; Lai, P.-Y.; Wang, K.-H. The Influence of Proactive Green Innovation and Reactive Green Innovation on Green Product Development Performance: The Mediation Role of Green Creativity. Sustainability 2016, 8, 966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Vafaei, S.A.; Azmoon, I.; Fekete-Farkas, M. The impact of perceived sustainable marketing policies on green customer satis-faction. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2019, 19, 475–491. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kim, Y. Consumer Responses to the Food Industry’s Proactive and Passive Environmental CSR, Factoring in Price as CSR Tradeoff. J. Bus. Ethic 2017, 140, 307–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Roome, N. Developing environmental management strategies. Bus. Strat. Environ. 1992, 1, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Buysse, K.; Verbeke, A. Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strat. Manag. J. 2003, 24, 453–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lee, S.Y.; Rhee, S. The change in corporate environmental strategies: A longitudinal empirical study. Manag. Decis. 2007, 45, 196–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kor, Y.Y.; McGrath, R.G.; Macmillan, I. The Entrepreneurial Mindset: Strategies for Continuously Creating Opportunity in an Age of Uncertainty. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2001, 26, 457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Liu, W.; Atuahene-Gima, K. Enhancing product innovation performance in a dysfunctional competitive environment: The roles of competitive strategies and market-based assets. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2018, 73, 7–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liu, C.-Y.; Wu, C.-H. Environmental consciousness, reputation and voluntary environmental investment. Aust. Econ. Pap. 2009, 48, 124–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kasornbua, T.; Pinsame, C. Factors affecting purchase intention of community product in Thailand-Cambodia border. Entre-Preneurship Sustain. Issues. 2019, 7, 949–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Belk, R.W. Possessions and the Extended Self. J. Consum. Res. 1988, 15, 139–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Dittmar, H. The Social Psychology of Material Possessions: To Have Is to Be; Palgrave MacMillan: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  56. Isaacs, S. Social development in young children. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 1933, 3, 291–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Van Dyne, L.; Pierce, J.L. Psychological ownership and feelings of possession: Three field studies predicting employee attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 2004, 25, 439–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pierce, J.L.; Rubenfeld, S.A.; Morgan, S. Employee ownership: A conceptual model of process and effects. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1991, 16, 121–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mustafa, M.; Ramos, H.M.; Man, T.W.Y. Linking psychological ownership to employee extra-role behaviours in small overseas Chinese family businesses: Does family status matter? J. Entrepreneur. Emerg. Econ. 2015, 7, 129–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lessard-Bonaventure, S.; Chebat, J.C. Psychological ownership, touch, and willingness to pay for an extended warranty. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2015, 23, 224–234. [Google Scholar]
  61. Peng, H.; Pierce, J. Job- and organization-based psychological ownership: Relationship and outcomes. J. Manag. Psychol. 2015, 30, 151–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Larwood, L.; Falbe, C.M.; Kriger, M.P.; Miesing, P. Structure and meaning of organizational vision. Acad. Manag. J. 1995, 38, 740–769. [Google Scholar]
  63. Tsai, W.; Ghoshal, S. Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Acad. Manag. J. 1998, 41, 464–476. [Google Scholar]
  64. Colakoglu, S. Shared Vision in MNE Subsidiaries: The Role of Formal, Personal, and Social Control in Its Development and Its Impact on Subsidiary Learning. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 2012, 54, 639–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Slack, F.J.; Orife, J.N.; Anderson, F.P. Effects of commitment to corporate vision on employee satisfaction with their organ-ization: An empirical study in the United States. Int. J. Manag. 2010, 27, 421–579. [Google Scholar]
  66. Bart, C.K.; Hupfer, M. Mission statements in Canadian hospitals. J. Health Organ. Manag. 2004, 18, 92–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Chen, Y.-S.; Chang, C.-H.; Yeh, S.-L.; Cheng, H.-I. Green shared vision and green creativity: The mediation roles of green mindfulness and green self-efficacy. Qual. Quant. 2015, 49, 1169–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Senbel, M. Leadership in sustainability planning: Propagating visions through empathic communication. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2013, 58, 464–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wiradirja, I.R.; Ras, H.; Pranadita, N.; Macmud, S.; Anwar, H.; Haspada, D. Environmental performance: Role of green employee involvement practices, green training and green shared vision. J. Secur. Sustain. Issues 2020, 10, 721–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Chen, Y.; Lin, S.; Lin, C.; Hung, S.; Chang, C.; Huang, C. Improving green product development performance from green vision and organizational culture perspectives. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 222–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Afsar, B.; Maqsoom, A.; Shahjehan, A.; Afridi, S.A.; Nawaz, A.; Fazliani, H. Responsible leadership and employee’s proen-vironmental behavior: The role of organizational commitment, green shared vision, and internal environmental locus of con-trol. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 297–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics; SAGE Publishing: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  73. Hair, J.R.; Tatham, R.; Black, W. Multivariate Data Analysis; Englewood Cliff: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  74. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1988, 16, 74–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. James, L.R. Aggregation Bias in Estimates of Perceptual Agreement. J. Appl. Psychol. 1982, 67, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Glick, W.H. Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1985, 10, 601–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ostroff, C.; Schmitt, N. Configurations of organizational effectiveness and efficiency. Acad. Manag. J. 1993, 36, 1345–1361. [Google Scholar]
  78. George, J.M.; Bettenhausen, K. Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. J. Appl. Psychol. 1990, 75, 698–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Taylor, A.B.; MacKinnon, D.P.; Tein, J.-Y. Tests of the Three-Path Mediated Effect. Organ. Res. Methods 2007, 11, 241–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zhang, W.; Xu, F.; Wang, X. How Green Transformational Leadership Affects Green Creativity: Creative Process Engagement as Intermediary Bond and Green Innovation Strategy as Boundary Spanner. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Meglio, O.; Park, K. Strategic Decisions and Sustainability Choices; Springer Science and Business Media LLC.: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 13 05364 g001 550
Figure 1. Research framework.
Figure 1. Research framework.
Sustainability 13 05364 g001
Sustainability 13 05364 g002 550
Figure 2. Individual-level results obtained with the full model.
Figure 2. Individual-level results obtained with the full model.
Sustainability 13 05364 g002
Table
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the constructs.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of the constructs.
ConstructsMeanStandard DeviationMin.Max.A.B.C.D.
Team level
GSV4.7681.0481.007.00
Individual level
A. GPPO4.6801.2581.007.00(0.915)
B. PGI4.9151.0761.007.000.373 **(0.869)
C. RGI3.9831.0471.007.00−0.274 **−0.229 **(0.829)
D. GC4.8981.0691.007.000.341 **0.280 **−0.411 **(0.891)
Notes: (1) Diagonal elements are the square roots of the AVEs; (2) **: p < 0.01; (3) GSV: green shared vision, GPPO: green product psychological ownership, PGI: proactive green innovation, RGI: reactive green innovation, GC: green creativity.
Table
Table 2. Items loadings (λ), Cronbach’s α coefficients, and AVEs of the constructs.
Table 2. Items loadings (λ), Cronbach’s α coefficients, and AVEs of the constructs.
ConstructsItems
Number		Factor Loading (λ)Cronbach’s αCRAVEThe Square Root of AVE
Team level
GSVGSV10.9240.9520.9660.8750.936
GSV20.935 ***
GSV30.947 ***
GSV40.936 ***
Individual level
GPPOGPPO10.8890.9380.9390.8380.915
GPPO20.936 ***
GPPO30.918 ***
PGIPGI10.8450.9230.9250.7550.869
PGI20.925 ***
PGI30.883 ***
PGI40.820 ***
RGIRGI10.7690.8970.8970.6860.829
RGI20.864 ***
RGI30.869 ***
RGI40.807 ***
GCGC10.8820.9590.9590.7940.891
GC20.884 ***
GC30.901 ***
GC40.904 ***
GC50.885 ***
GC60.891 ***
Notes: (1) ***: p < 0.001; (2) GSV: green shared vision, GPPO: green product psychological ownership, PGI: proactive green innovation, RGI: reactive green innovation, GC: green creativity.
Table
Table 3. The mediation results for using Confidence Interval Bootstrap.
Table 3. The mediation results for using Confidence Interval Bootstrap.
Point EstimationProduct of CoefficientsBootstrapping
Bias-Corrected 95% CIPercentile 95% CI
S.E.ZLowerUpperLowerUpper
GPPO- > PGI- > GC0.450.01923.684 ***0.0130.0890.0100.084
GPPO- > RGI- > GC0.940.02047.5 ***0.0600.1410.0570.135
SIE diff comparison−0.050.029−1.724−0.1060.05−0.1050.007
Notes: (1) Standardized estimation of 5000 bootstrapped samples; (2) ***: Z > 3.29; (3) N = 583; (4) GSV: green shared vision, GPPO: green product psychological ownership, PGI: proactive green innovation, RGI: reactive green innovation, GC: green creativity.
Table
Table 4. Results of the structural model.
Table 4. Results of the structural model.
Individual Level Relations
HypothesisPath CoefficientZ ValueResults
H10.195 *** H1 is supported
H20.393 *** H2 is supported
H3−0.296 * H3 is supported
H40.13 *** H4 is supported
H5−0.37 *** H5 is supported
Mediates the Relations
H6GPPO- > PGI- > GC23.684 **H6 is supported
(Partial mediating)
H7 is supported
(Partial mediating)
H7GPPO- > RGI- > GC47.5 ***
Cross Level Relations
HypothesisGPPOGCGSVtValueResults
ICC (1)ICC (2)ICC (1)ICC (2)rwg
AverageMean
H80.2990.7730.1980.6640.8760.8453.595 ***H8 is supported
H95.627 ***H9 is supported
Notes: (1) *: p < 0.05, **: p < 0.001; (2) ***: Z > 3.29; (3) ***: t > 3.29; (4) GPPO: green product psychological ownership, GC: green creativity, GSV: green shared vision; (5) ICC 1 > 0.12, ICC 2 > 0.6; (6) rwg > 0.6.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fang, W.; Wu, T.-H.; Chang, T.-W.; Hung, C.-Z. What Could Entrepreneurial Vision Do for Sustainable Development? Explore the Cross-Level Impact of Organizational Members’ Green Shared Vision on Green Creativity. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5364. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105364

AMA Style

Fang W, Wu T-H, Chang T-W, Hung C-Z. What Could Entrepreneurial Vision Do for Sustainable Development? Explore the Cross-Level Impact of Organizational Members’ Green Shared Vision on Green Creativity. Sustainability. 2021; 13(10):5364. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105364

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fang, Wenchang, Tzong-Hann Wu, Tai-Wei Chang, and Cheng-Ze Hung. 2021. "What Could Entrepreneurial Vision Do for Sustainable Development? Explore the Cross-Level Impact of Organizational Members’ Green Shared Vision on Green Creativity" Sustainability 13, no. 10: 5364. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105364

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop