The Effect of Customer Involvement on Green Innovation and the Intermediary Role of Boundary Spanning Capability
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Basis and Research Hypothesis
2.1. Customer Involvement and Green Innovation
2.2. The Impact of Customer Involvement on Corporate Boundary Spanning Capability
2.3. The Mediating Effect of Border Spanning Capability
3. Research Design
3.1. Selection of Research Targets and Data Collection
3.2. Development of Measurement Questions
4. Empirical Analysis
4.1. Reliability and Validity of Measured Variables
4.1.1. Factor Analysis of Customer Involvement
4.1.2. Factor Analysis of Boundary Spanning Capability
4.1.3. Factor Analysis of Green Innovation
4.1.4. Reliability Analysis of Measurement Variables
4.2. Response Tendency of Measurement Variables
4.3. Correlation Analysis
4.4. Results Analysis and Discussions
4.4.1. Influence of Customer Involvement and Capacity to Expand Relationships
4.4.2. Influence of Customer Involvement and Eco-Friendly Innovation
4.4.3. Capacity to Expand Relationships and the Impact of Eco-Friendly Innovation
4.4.4. Mediating Effect of Capacity to Expand Relationships
- (1)
- Mediating effect of innovation of eco-friendly products
- (2)
- Mediating effect of eco-friendly process innovation
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Available online: https://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/towards-green-growth-9789264111318-en.htm (accessed on 16 June 2022).
- Kim, M.J. The Relationship Between DEA Model-based Eco-Efficiency and Economic Performance. J. Environ. Policy 2014, 13, 3–49. [Google Scholar]
- Park, G.D.; Park, N.S.; Kim, S.S.; Seo, I.S. A study on the effects of environmental investment and costs on environmental performance. J. Korean Soc. Water Wastewater 2009, 23, 315–320. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.; Terlaak, A.; Potoski, M. Corporate sustainability and financial performance: Collective reputation as moderator of the relationship between environmental performance and firm market value. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2020, 30, 1689–1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qing, L.; Chun, D.; Dagestani, A.A.; Li, P. Does Proactive Green Technology Innovation Improve Financial Performance? Evidence from Listed Companies with Semiconductor Concepts Stock in China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeon, S.-W.; Kang, S.-A. Impact of Foreign Currency Derivative Usage on Firm Value. J. Korea Contents Assoc. 2012, 12, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, A.S.; Wu, F. Utilizing customer knowledge in innovation: Antecedents and impact of customer involvement on new product performance. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 44, 516–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chesbrough, H.W. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology; Harvard Business Press: Brighton, MA, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Blazevic, V.; Lievens, A. Managing innovation through customer coproduced knowledge in electronic services: An exploratory study. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2007, 36, 138–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fang, E. Customer Participation and the Trade-Off between New Product Innovativeness and Speed to Market. J. Mark. 2008, 72, 90–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jepsen, A.L.; Madsen, S.O. Developing Competences Designed to Create Customer Value (No. 68). IME Working Paper. 2006. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/83101 (accessed on 16 June 2022).
- Nambisan, S. Designing Virtual Customer Environments for New Product Development: Toward a Theory. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 392–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, K.; Oh, W.; Im, K.S.; Chang, R.M.; Oh, H.; Pinsonneault, A. Value Cocreation and Wealth Spillover in Open Innovation Alliances. MIS Q. 2012, 36, 291–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mengüç, B.; Auh, S.; Yannopoulos, P. Customer and Supplier Involvement in Design: The Moderating Role of Incremental and Radical Innovation Capability. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2014, 31, 313–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lagrosen, S. Customer involvement in new product development: A relationship marketing perspective. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2005, 8, 424–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, T.Y.; Lee, J.F. A comparative study of online user communities’ involvement in product innovation and development. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Management of Technology, Washington, DC, USA, 3–7 April 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Lau, A.K.W.; Tang, E.; Yam, R.C.M. Effects of Supplier and Customer Integration on Product Innovation and Performance: Empirical Evidence in Hong Kong Manufacturers. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2010, 27, 761–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grekova, K.; Calantone, R.; Bremmers, H.; Trienekens, J.; Omta, S. How environmental collaboration with suppliers and customers influences firm performance: Evidence from Dutch food and beverage processors. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 1861–1871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Marchi, V. Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 614–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, R.-J.; Tan, K.H.; Geng, Y. Market demand, green product innovation, and firm performance: Evidence from Vietnam motorcycle industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 40, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, Z.; Wang, S.; Cheng, E. Competition and evolution in multi-product supply chains: An agent-based retailer model. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2013, 146, 325–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crawford, M.; Di Benedetto, A. Marketing innovation. Key Concepts Innov. 2011, 53, 96–105. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, M.-J.J.; Chang, C.-H. The positive effect of green relationship learning on green innovation performance: The mediation effect of corporate environmental ethics. In Proceedings of the PICMET’09—2009 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology, Portland, OR, USA, 2–6 August 2009; pp. 2341–2348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Theyel, G. Customer and supplier relations for environmental performance. In Greening the Supply Chain; Springer: London, UK, 2006; pp. 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyer, A.; Hohmann, P. Other thoughts; other results? Remei’s bioRe organic cotton on its way to the mass market. Greener Manag. Int. 2000, 31, 59–70. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/greemanainte.31.59 (accessed on 16 June 2022).
- Chen, Y.-S.; Chang, C.-H. Greenwash and Green Trust: The Mediation Effects of Green Consumer Confusion and Green Perceived Risk. J. Bus. Ethics 2013, 114, 489–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shu, S.; Wong, V.; Lee, N. The effects of external linkages on new product innovativeness: An examination of moderating and mediating influences. J. Strat. Mark. 2005, 13, 199–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wynstra, F.; van Weele, A.; Weggemann, M. Managing supplier involvement in product development: Three critical issues. Eur. Manag. J. 2001, 19, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoyer, W.D.; Chandy, R.; Dorotic, M.; Krafft, M.; Singh, S.S. Consumer Cocreation in New Product Development. J. Serv. Res. 2010, 13, 283–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoegl, M.; Wagner, S. Buyer-Supplier Collaboration in Product Development Projects. J. Manag. 2005, 31, 530–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, R.; Andriani, P. Managing knowledge associated with innovation. J. Bus. Res. 2003, 56, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeSouza, K.C.; Awazu, Y.; Jha, S.; Dombrowski, C.; Papagari, S.; Baloh, P.; Kim, J.Y. Customer-Driven Innovation. Res. Manag. 2008, 51, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lam, P.-K.; Chin, K.-S. Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for conflict management in collaborative new product development. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2005, 34, 761–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gulati, R.; Wohlgezogen, F.; Zhelyazkov, P. The Two Facets of Collaboration: Cooperation and Coordination in Strategic Alliances. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2012, 6, 531–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walter, A.; Ritter, T. The influence of adaptations, trust, and commitment on value-creating functions of customer relationships. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2003, 18, 353–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Claudy, M.; Peterson, M. Developing Sustainable Products: The Mediating Roles of Customer Orientation and Stakeholder Integration. In Proceedings of the Annual Macromarketing Conference, Chicago, IL, USA, 25–28 June 2015; p. 254. [Google Scholar]
- Tushman, M.L. Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process. Adm. Sci. Q. 1977, 22, 587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hallenbeck, G.S.; Hautaluoma, J.E.; Bates, S.C. The Benefits of Multiple Boundary Spanning Roles in Purchasing. J. Supply Chain Manag. 1999, 35, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersen, H. The Second Essential Tension: On Tradition and Innovation in Interdisciplinary Research. Topoi 2013, 32, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, B.K. Adaptive management of natural resources—Framework and issues. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 1346–1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Druskat, V.U.; Wheeler, J.V. Managing from the Boundary: The Effective Leadership of Self-Managing Work Teams. Acad. Manag. J. 2003, 46, 435–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Wu, F.; Henke, J.W. Leveraging boundary spanning capabilities to encourage supplier investment: A comparative study. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2015, 49, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, C.; Viswanathan, S.; Henke, J.W. The boundary spanning capabilities of purchasing agents in buyer-supplier trust development. J. Oper. Manag. 2011, 29, 318–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models. Behav. Res. Methods 2008, 40, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pujari, D. Eco-innovation and new product development: Understanding the influences on market performance. Technovation 2006, 26, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, P.-C.; Hung, S.-W. Collaborative green innovation in emerging countries: A social capital perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2014, 34, 347–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, S.K. The influence of green product competitiveness on the success of green product innovation: Empirical evidence from the Chinese electrical and electronics industry. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2012, 15, 468–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.-S.; Lai, S.-B.; Wen, C.-T. The Influence of Green Innovation Performance on Corporate Advantage in Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 67, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J. Relationships between operational practices and performance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. J. Oper. Manag. 2004, 22, 265–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reiche, B.S. Knowledge transfer in multinationals: The role of inpatriates’ boundary spanning. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2011, 50, 365–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marrone, J.A. Cutting Across Team Boundaries: Antecedents and Implications of Individual Boundary Spanning Behavior within Consulting Teams; University of Maryland: College Park, MD, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Kiessling, T.; Harvey, M.; Akdeniz, L. The evolving role of supply chain managers in global channels of distribution and logistics systems. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2014, 44, 671–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, J. A Multi-Step Model of Boundary Spanning and Absorptive Capacity: The Differential Impact of Board and Top Management Team Experience on the Development of Sustainability-Related Capabilities; Arizona State University: Tempe, AZ, USA, 2018; Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/2286/R.I.49186 (accessed on 16 June 2022).
- Rahim, M.A. A Measure of Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict. Acad. Manag. J. 1983, 26, 368–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ancona, D.G.; Caldwell, D.F. Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance in Organizational Teams. Adm. Sci. Q. 1992, 37, 634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Faraj, S.; Yan, A. Boundary work in knowledge teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 604–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, P. The Competent Boundary Spanner. Public Adm. 2002, 80, 103–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldrich, H.; Herker, D. Boundary Spanning Roles and Organization Structure. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1977, 2, 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levina, N.; Vaast, E. The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for implementation and use of information systems. MIS Q. 2005, 29, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlile, P.R. Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries. Organ. Sci. 2004, 15, 555–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tushman, M.L.; Scanlan, T.J. Boundary Spanning Individuals: Their Role in Information Transfer and Their Antecedents. Acad. Manag. J. 1981, 24, 289–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anning-Dorson, T. Customer involvement capability and service firm performance: The mediating role of innovation. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 86, 269–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicolajsen, H.W.; Scupola, A. Investigating issues and challenges for customer involvement in business services innovation. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2011, 26, 368–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vivek, S.D.; Beatty, S.E.; Morgan, R.M. Customer Engagement: Exploring Customer Relationships Beyond Purchase. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2012, 20, 122–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Zhao, Y.; Hou, L. How does green innovation affect supplier-customer relationships? A study on customer and relationship contingencies. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2020, 90, 170–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burki, U.; Ersoy, P.; Najam, U. Top Management, Green Innovations, and the Mediating Effect of Customer Cooperation in Green Supply Chains. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leal-Millan, A.; Roldán, J.L.; Leal-Rodriguez, A.L.; Ortega-Gutierrez, J. IT and relationship learning in networks as drivers of green innovation and customer capital: Evidence from the automobile sector. J. Knowl. Manag. 2016, 20, 444–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, H.M.; Onofrei, G.; Truong, D.; Lockrey, S. Customer green orientation and process innovation alignment: A configuration approach in the global manufacturing industry. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2020, 29, 2498–2513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dess, G.G.; Robinson, R.B., Jr. Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strat. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Factor | Survey Questions | Reference |
---|---|---|
Customer Involvement |
| [14,17,45] |
Capacity to Expand Relationships (Building relationships) |
| [40,41,50,51,52] |
Capacity to Expand Relationships (Relationship persuasion) |
| [42,43,53,54,55,56,57] |
Knowledge Expansion Capacity |
| [53,58,59,60,61] |
Innovation of Eco-friendly Products |
| [46,48] |
Eco-friendly Process Innovation |
| [47,49] |
Variables | Measurement Items | Loading | Commonality |
---|---|---|---|
Customer Involvement | 1. We actively share information about the eco-friendly market. | 0.797 | 0.635 |
2. We actively share eco-friendly technology. | 0.862 | 0.742 | |
3. We actively share our ideas about eco-friendly products. | 0.856 | 0.733 | |
4. We actively share our ideas about the eco-production process. | 0.824 | 0.678 | |
5. Actively participate in the evaluation of eco-friendly products (environmental impact assessment, performance, and quality evaluation). | 0.785 | 0.617 | |
6. Actively participate in research and development (R&D) of eco-friendly products. | 0.749 | 0.560 | |
7. Actively participate in the process of developing eco-friendly production process. | 0.773 | 0.597 | |
Eigenvalue | 4.563 | ||
Cumulative value | 65.184 |
Measurement Items | Factor Loading | Commonality | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | ||
It is possible to communicate smoothly with major external stakeholders. | 0.153 | 0.090 | 0.830 | 0.720 |
Cooperative relations can be established with major external stakeholders. | 0.118 | 0.108 | 0.874 | 0.789 |
Continuous exchanges with major external stakeholders may be carried out. | 0.062 | 0.055 | 0.804 | 0.654 |
Official/unofficial interactions can be carried out with major external stakeholders. | 0.046 | 0.093 | 0.810 | 0.667 |
The best compromise can be proposed in the event of a dispute with a major external interested party. | 0.145 | 0.867 | 0.078 | 0.778 |
Major external stakeholders may be persuaded to recognize the importance of our eco-friendly management activities. | 0.091 | 0.777 | 0.106 | 0.623 |
Major external stakeholders may be persuaded to participate in our eco-friendly management activities. | 0.115 | 0.800 | 0.126 | 0.670 |
Major external stakeholders may be persuaded to support our decision on environmentally friendly management activities. | 0.114 | 0.736 | 0.025 | 0.555 |
Major external stakeholders can be persuaded to understand that our green management activities are genuinely carried out. | 0.152 | 0.801 | 0.064 | 0.668 |
Among environmentally friendly information provided by major external stakeholders, it may be provided to the relevant departments, except for inaccurate or overlapping information. | 0.830 | 0.132 | 0.077 | 0.713 |
Only information suitable for our eco-friendly management strategy from among the information provided by major external stakeholders may be selected and provided to the relevant departments. | 0.879 | 0.113 | 0.117 | 0.800 |
Among environmentally friendly information provided by major external stakeholders, information necessary for the development of environmentally friendly technology/product may be selected and provided to the relevant departments. | 0.866 | 0.136 | 0.094 | 0.777 |
Environmentally friendly information provided by major external stakeholders may be reinterpreted to suit the reality of Korean enterprises and provided to the relevant departments. | 0.806 | 0.156 | 0.026 | 0.675 |
Information related to environmentally friendly management activities provided by major external stakeholders may be interpreted so that in-house members can understand them and provide them to the relevant departments. | 0.836 | 0.115 | 0.140 | 0.732 |
Eigenvalue | 3.683 | 3.295 | 2.843 | |
Cumulative value | 26.310 | 49.848 | 70.157 |
Variables | Factor Loading | Commonality | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | ||
Excellent eco-friendly product innovation. | 0.783 | 0.125 | 0.628 |
Launch various eco-friendly products. | 0.848 | 0.176 | 0.750 |
Launch various eco-friendly products. | 0.764 | 0.225 | 0.635 |
The quality of eco-friendly products is excellent. | 0.750 | 0.172 | 0.592 |
The development speed of eco-friendly products is fast. | 0.767 | 0.207 | 0.630 |
The return on investment (ROI) in the development of eco-friendly products is high. | 0.855 | 0.229 | 0.783 |
The market share of eco-friendly products is high. | 0.794 | 0.158 | 0.656 |
Customer satisfaction with eco-friendly products is high. | 0.753 | 0.219 | 0.614 |
Use fewer resources (water, energy). | 0.228 | 0.752 | 0.617 |
Use fewer raw materials/materials. | 0.178 | 0.823 | 0.709 |
The degree of recycling/reusing raw materials and materials is high. | 0.171 | 0.826 | 0.712 |
The discharge of waste is low. | 0.211 | 0.856 | 0.778 |
Less use of harmful substances. | 0.147 | 0.792 | 0.648 |
The overall eco-friendliness of the production process is high. | 0.204 | 0.754 | 0.610 |
Eigenvalue | 5.215 | 4.147 | |
Cumulative value | 37.252 | 66.872 |
Variables | Factor | Number of Items | Cronbach’s Alpha | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Independent variable | Customer Involvement | 7 | 0.907 | ||
mediator variable (0.858) | Capacity to expand relationships | building relationships | 4 | 0.860 | 0.821 |
relationship persuasion | 5 | 0.865 | |||
Knowledge expansion capacity | 5 | 0.909 | |||
dependent variable (0.919) | Innovation of eco-friendly products | 8 | 0.926 | ||
Eco-friendly process innovation | 6 | 0.903 |
Variable | Min | Max | Mean | sd | Skewness | Kurtosis | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Independent | Customer Involvement | 1.57 | 7.00 | 4.96 | 1.38 | −0.324 | −0.957 |
Mediator | Capacity to expand relationships (building relationships) | 1.00 | 7.00 | 4.56 | 1.73 | −0.271 | −1.238 |
Capacity to expand relationships (relationship persuasion) | 1.20 | 7.00 | 4.67 | 1.49 | −0.211 | −1.043 | |
Capacity to expand relationships (all) | 1.44 | 7.00 | 4.62 | 1.25 | −0.157 | −0.636 | |
Knowledge expansion capacity | 1.20 | 7.00 | 4.87 | 1.66 | −0.389 | −1.129 | |
Dependent | Innovation of eco-friendly products | 1.38 | 7.00 | 4.69 | 1.52 | −0.309 | −1.102 |
Eco-friendly process innovation | 1.67 | 7.00 | 5.05 | 1.30 | −0.246 | −0.952 |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Customer involvement | 1 | ||||||
2. Capacity to expand relationships (building relationships) | 0.468 ** | 1 | |||||
3. Capacity to expand relationships (relationship persuasion) | 0.409 ** | 0.220 ** | 1 | ||||
4. Capacity to expand relationships(all) | 0.560 ** | 0.762 ** | 0.800 ** | 1 | |||
5. Knowledge expansion capacity | 0.444 ** | 0.233 ** | 0.308 ** | 0.348 ** | 1 | ||
6. Innovation of eco-friendly products | 0.458 ** | 0.417 ** | 0.376 ** | 0.507 ** | 0.393 ** | 1 | |
7. Eco-friendly process innovation | 0.503 ** | 0.421 ** | 0.452 ** | 0.559 ** | 0.489 ** | 0.451 ** | 1 |
Dependent Variables | Independent Variables | Non-Standardized Coefficient | Standardization Factor | t | p | Collinearity Statistics | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | S.E. | Tolerance | VIF | |||||
CER (BR) | (Constant) | 1.642 | 0.254 | 6.462 | 0.000 | |||
CI | 0.589 | 0.049 | 0.468 | 11.927 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
= 0.219, adj. = 0.218 F = 142.265 (p = 0.000), Durbin Watson = 1.965 | ||||||||
CER (RP) | (Constant) | 2.470 | 0.227 | 10.902 | 0.000 | |||
CI | 0.444 | 0.044 | 0.409 | 10.093 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
= 0.167, adj. = 0.166 F = 101.860 (p = 0.000), Durbin Watson = 2.023 | ||||||||
CER (all) | (Constant) | 2.102 | 0.172 | 12.215 | 0.000 | |||
CI | 0.508 | 0.033 | 0.560 | 15.210 | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
= 0.313, adj.= 0.312 F = 231.354 (p = 0.000), Durbin Watson = 1.952 |
Dependent Variables | Independent Variables | Non-Standardized Coefficient | Standardization Factor | t | p | Collinearity Statistics | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | S.E. | Tolerance | VIF | |||||
IEF | (constant) | 2.182 | 0.224 | 9.724 *** | 0.000 | |||
CI | 0.505 | 0.044 | 0.458 | 11.593 *** | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
= 0.210, adj.= 0.208 F = 134.392 (p = 0.000), Durbin Watson = 2.041 | ||||||||
EPI | (constant) | 2.689 | 0.187 | 14.371 *** | 0.000 | |||
CI | 0.477 | 0.036 | 0.503 | 13.118 *** | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |
= 0.253, adj.= 0.252 F = 172.082 (p = 0.000), Durbin Watson = 1.844 |
Dependent Variables | Independent Variables | Non-Standardized Coefficient | Standardization Factor | t | p | Collinearity Statistics | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | S.E. | Tolerance | VIF | |||||
IEF | (constant) | 1.862 | 0.223 | 8.335 | 0.000 | |||
CER (BR) | 0.309 | 0.034 | 0.352 | 8.966 *** | 0.000 | 0.951 | 1.051 | |
CER (RP) | 0.304 | 0.040 | 0.299 | 7.615 *** | 0.000 | 0.951 | 1.051 | |
= 0.259, adj.= 0.256 F = 88.514 (p = 0.000), Durbin Watson = 1.967 | ||||||||
EPI | (constant) | 2.355 | 0.185 | 12.763 | 0.000 | |||
CER (BR) | 0.254 | 0.028 | 0.338 | 8.944 *** | 0.000 | 0.951 | 1.051 | |
CER (RP) | 0.329 | 0.033 | 0.377 | 9.983 *** | 0.000 | 0.951 | 1.051 | |
= 0.313, adj.= 0.310 F = 115.070 (p = 0.000), Durbin Watson = 1.813 |
Step | Independent Variables | Dependent Variables | Non-Standardized Coefficient | Standardization Factor | t | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | S.E. | ||||||
1 | Customer Involvement | Capacity to expand relationships | 0.508 | 0.033 | 0.560 | 15.210 | 0.000 |
2 | Customer Involvement | Green Innovation (IER) | 0.505 | 0.044 | 0.458 | 11.593 | 0.000 |
3 | Customer Involvement | Green Innovation (IER) | 0.280 | 0.050 | 0.253 | 5.652 | 0.000 |
Capacity to expand relationships | 0.443 | 0.055 | 0.365 | 8.135 | 0.000 | ||
1st step: = 0.313, F = 231.354 (p = 0.000) 2nd step: = 0.208, F = 134.392 (p = 0.000) 3rd step: = 0.298, F = 108.921 (p = 0.000) |
Step | Independent Variables | Dependent Variables | Unstandardized Coefficients | Standardized Coefficient | t | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | SD | ||||||
1 | Customer Involvement | Capacity to expand relationships | 0.508 | 0.033 | 0.560 | 15.210 | 0.000 |
2 | Customer Involvement | Green Innovation (EPI) | 0.477 | 0.036 | 0.503 | 13.118 | 0.000 |
3 | Customer Involvement | Green Innovation (EPI) | 0.263 | 0.040 | 0.277 | 6.489 | 0.000 |
Capacity to expand relationships | 0.421 | 0.045 | 0.404 | 9.449 | 0.000 | ||
1st Step: = 0.313, F = 231.354 (p = 0.000) 2nd Step: = 0.253, F = 172.082 (p = 0.000) 3rd Step: = 0.363, F = 145.669 (p = 0.000) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ma, X.; Qing, L.; Ock, Y.-S.; Wu, J.; Zhou, Y. The Effect of Customer Involvement on Green Innovation and the Intermediary Role of Boundary Spanning Capability. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8016. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138016
Ma X, Qing L, Ock Y-S, Wu J, Zhou Y. The Effect of Customer Involvement on Green Innovation and the Intermediary Role of Boundary Spanning Capability. Sustainability. 2022; 14(13):8016. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138016
Chicago/Turabian StyleMa, Xiang, Lingli Qing, Young-Seok Ock, Jiao Wu, and Yaying Zhou. 2022. "The Effect of Customer Involvement on Green Innovation and the Intermediary Role of Boundary Spanning Capability" Sustainability 14, no. 13: 8016. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14138016