Effect of Environmental Regulation on Energy-Intensive Enterprises’ Green Innovation Performance

Abstract

Promoting energy-intensive enterprises’ green innovation is essential for transitioning to a low-carbon economy. This study explores the promoting factors and influencing mechanisms that drive energy-intensive enterprises’ green innovation performance from the perspective of environmental regulation and the theory of planned behavior. A questionnaire was distributed to energy-intensive enterprises in China from February 2021 to March 2022, and various statistical analyses such as confirmatory factor analysis, reliability and validity analysis, structural equation modeling, and stepwise regression model analysis were conducted. The findings reveal that environmental regulation has a positive impact on energy-intensive enterprises’ environmental innovation prospective, stakeholder pressure, and innovation capability, respectively. In turn, this has a significant impact on enterprises’ green innovation performance. This study also found stakeholder pressure and green innovation capability to play an important role between environmental regulation and green innovation performance. It is better to promote enterprises’ green innovation prospective and innovation ability through environmental regulation to promote stakeholder pressure, in turn, that improve enterprises’ innovation performance. It is important to leverage these influencing factors to promote green innovation performance to achieve a carbon turning point.

1. Introduction

Greenhouse gas emissions negatively impact the living environment and air quality and even affect human sustainable development. Energy-intensive enterprises have high carbon emissions and intensive environmental pollution, dramatically challenging China’s green and low-carbon growth. In addition, the Chinese government proposed the goal of “the carbon turning point by 2030 and carbon neutral by 2060”, which sets high requirements and challenges for China’s energy-intensive and pollution-intensive enterprises. Green technology innovation can decrease greenhouse gas and promote sustainable development. It has become critical to mitigate the issue, which is also essential for China’s green low-carbon economy [1,2]. The development of green innovation is the solution to achieve the Chinese government’s environmental vision to reach a carbon turning point and its carbon-neutral goal.

Since China has enforced more environmental regulations, those heavily impacted by the tightened environmental regulations most likely consist of heavily polluting and energy-intensive enterprises such as building and construction, chemical, steel, paper, and textile. With carbon neutrality and stakeholder pressure, more and more energy-intensive firms are trying to develop green processes and green products, and as they begin their low-carbon green investment, their ability and capability to develop clean production technology, energy-saving technology, and recycling technology innovation are improving. However, to reach carbon neutrality in 2060, China’s green innovation quality still needs to be significantly improved.

Following this context, many scholars have focused on localizing low-carbon transformation issues and climate policy and energy, environmental, and business development for policymakers. For instance, Long et al. suggested that Korean-owned manufacturing firms should proactively develop their green innovation in line with the Paris Agreement to achieve environmental economic goals and carbon emission targets [3]. Pigato and Lin and Zhang indicated an extensive account of carbon emissions coming from the energy-intensive manufacturing industry. Automotive, chemistry, building materials, and electronics are heavy-pollution industries that generate massive waste and harmful emissions [4,5]. Song et al. mentioned a large amount of carbon emissions from transportation [6]. Li et al. suggested the deployment of green low-carbon innovation in the energy-intensive industry sector can help reduce large emissions [7]. Thus, we can see that green technology innovation will be an essential solution for the sustainability of energy-intensive industries. Promoting green innovation is critical to enhancing green low-carbon economic development. Promoting energy-intensive enterprises’ green innovation performance is essential to effectively reduce enterprise pollution governance and sustainable development. Thus, this paper attempts to identify the driving factors and mechanisms for green innovation performance among energy-intensive enterprises.

Green innovation means maximizing the economic output from innovation and minimizing environmental pollutant emissions. The green innovation performance of energy-intensive enterprises is conducive to promoting China’s innovation-driven strategy and green and low-carbon economy, reducing environmental pollution, ecological destruction, and resource waste, and achieving harmonious and sustainable development of the social economy and environment. Many companies have an environmental goal of producing recyclable packaging and energy-saving products such as green low-carbon products to mitigate climate change and carbon neutrality. Previous research stated that Chinese firms’ green technology innovation could be influenced by environmental regulations [1,5,8]. However, Kneller and Manderson proposed that the influence of environmental regulation on green technology innovation has an incomplete effect [9]. With stricter environmental regulations and carbon neutrality, regulation costs for energy-intensive enterprises increase. The stricter environmental regulation promotes green innovation performance in energy-intensive enterprises, but the influence paths and mechanisms of environmental regulation and green innovation performance need further analysis. Moreover, environmental innovation attitude and capability positively affected corporate green innovation, and green innovation led to a positive environmental low-carbon performance [10]. Jiang et al. revealed internal and external prospective factors of corporate green innovation, such as institutional and stakeholder pressure [11].

Considering the green innovation performance of energy-intensive enterprises is still insufficient [12], the TPB model demonstrated that it could be used to reach individual adoption. However, there is a lack of study on whether the TPB model predicts green innovation performance at the company level. The TPB model proposed by Ajzen extends the theory of reasoned action, and previous researchers extended the TPB model in individual innovation adoption [2,3]; however, there is limited research on how environmental regulations affect a firm’s green innovation performance through the revised TPB model [12]. This present research aims to bridge the research gap by exploring the driving factors contributing to green innovation performance in energy-intensive enterprises. The present study uses integrated environmental regulations with the planned behavior model theory and analyzes their relationship with green innovation performance in China. The research questions outlining the objective of this research are as follows: Firstly, what is the driving model of green innovation performance in an energy-intensive enterprise? Second, can environmental regulation affect green innovation performance? Thirdly, can revised TPB predict corporate green innovation performance?

The potential research contributions of this paper are as follows: Firstly, it reveals how environmental regulation affects the green innovation performance of enterprises; in particular, this study extends environmental regulations and a revised TPB model for the green innovation performance of energy-intensive enterprises, and we construct a measurement scale for measuring environmental regulations and revising the TPB model. We also construct a theoretical model of green innovation performance in Chinese enterprises. Secondly, through structural equation modeling and path analysis, we determine the influencing mechanism through the TPB model to improve the green innovation performance of energy-intensive enterprises. Thirdly, this paper investigates the effect of the revised TPB model in the relationship between environmental regulation and green innovation performance of an energy-intensive enterprise and then reveals the important role of prospective environmental innovation, stakeholder pressure, and green innovation ability in green innovation performance among energy-intensive enterprises in China. Finally, this paper focuses on the combination of theory and practice, and the research results are conducive to the green transformation of China’s energy-intensive enterprises to accelerate the realization of the dual-carbon target.

This present study is organized as follows. In Section 2 and Section 3, related theories are discussed in the literature review, and then the hypothesis development and research model are described. Section 4 describes the research methodology, including data collection, data description, and analysis of data. Section 5 and Section 6 present the results of the analysis and the discussion, the research’s theoretical and practical implications, and the investigation’s scientific contributions.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Environmental Regulation

Environmental regulation is the regulation that the government uses to restrain enterprises through administrative laws and regulations, market mechanisms, and environmental protection propaganda. Environmental regulation has an objective and goal of attributes and environmental regulation functions to protect the ecological environment with formal and informal regulation [13]. Liu pointed out that environmental regulation means the government can restrict enterprises’ pollution behavior, improve the environment, and promote the coordinated development of the industrial economy and environmental protection by establishing a legal system [14]. Tong et al. proposed that the government restrains the pollution behavior of firms by issuing administrative systems, using market mechanisms, and giving play to the public [15]. Shen et al. pointed out that China has shifted from administrative and command-based regulation to market-based environmental regulation, which has effectively supplemented administrative and command-based environmental regulation [16]. Command-based regulations primarily include administrative regulations, local laws, and environmental protection laws and regulations [17]. The administrative regulations primarily have fines for pollutants exceeding the standard and the concentration control of environmental pollutants issued by the environmental protection law [2]. Market-based environmental regulation primarily refers to carbon taxes, carbon emission trading, waste disposal taxes, and other policies guided by market economic incentives [18,19,20]. With the diversification of environmental regulation subjects, informal environmental regulations have emerged, including the government, industry associations, and other subjects. It involves public participation and has the attribute of information [21].

2.2. Green Innovation Performance

Innovation is the generation, acceptance, and implementation of new products, processes, or services. Innovation can drive the force of corporate performance and competitive advantage, societal and technological progress, and economic growth. Porter suggested that technological innovation can improve the productivity of an organization, which leads to the value of an organization’s competitive advantage [22]. Damanpour and Evan proposed innovation, including product, process, and organizational innovation aspects [23]. The organization of economic and cooperative development (OECD) defined technological innovation to include new products and processes [24]. Green technology innovations are categorized as technology, product design, the production process, and management functions. Green technology innovation comprises energy resource minimization, materials reduction, and pollution prevention during production [25]. Green technology innovation includes modifying an existing new product design to reduce the negative impact on the environment [26].

Green innovation can be understood as green or environmental technology innovation, etc. It follows that green technology innovation is one of the leading forces driving green low-carbon green economic growth. Existing studies have explored the driving factors of green innovation from different perspectives. It is primarily divided into the theoretical perspectives of Schumpeter, institutional innovation, and the national innovation system, as well as the theoretical perspectives of enterprises’ sustainability management [27]. Existing studies are helpful to understand the influencing factors of green innovation, which can be summarized as follows: Environmental policy-oriented institutional factors [28], corporate internal governance factors, stakeholder factors, and innovation capabilities [29]. Due to the large consumption of steel and glass, electricity, water, and coal, fossil fuels have released excessive greenhouse gases that have caused global warming.

Energy-intensive enterprises’ green innovation can lead to the value of a corporate competitive advantage and increase corporate value. Energy-intensive enterprises’ eco-friendly product and process innovations can minimize the enterprise firm’s waste and improve energy efficiency through recycling and reuse, while also improving the firm’s economic and social performance by reducing waste and costs [7,30]. Recent research proposes that green innovation can drive environmental performance, and environmental performance relies on the value of eco-friendly materials, environmental procedures, new product development, and the inclusion of environmental sustainability concerns in corporate activities and product innovation [31].

Green innovation performance can be understood as green innovation efficiency or performance, which refers to the ratio of enterprises’ input to output in green technology innovation and is an important indicator to measure green technology innovation. The higher the efficiency of green innovation, the better the match between resource factor input, innovation factor input, and green performance output. There have been abundant achievements in the evaluation of green innovation efficiency, and most literature uses stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) and data enveloping analysis (DEA) to measure green innovation efficiency or performance [3,28].

3. Influencing Mechanism of Environmental Regulation on Enterprises’ Green Innovation Performance base on Revised TPB Model

3.1. Environmental Innovation Prospective Effect

Serious environmental impacts and climate change threaten future generations’ survival. Following this agenda, more and more countries’ governments are beginning to propose environmental regulations to ameliorate environmental externalization, causing traditional profit maximization-driven businesses to shift to more sustainable businesses. Environmental regulations influence business decisions to make greener choices and produce green products and processes. For example, environmental regulations can affect the business management’s environmental perception and decisions [32]. Environmental regulations push firms to focus on environmental issues [33], and firms can benefit and be exempted from paying fines [1]. To survive under stringent environmental regulations, firms need to adapt and act according to these regulations [30]. However, a firm’s environmental innovation adaptation relies on the behavioral innovation perspective of green innovation [27]. Previous studies highlight the significance of an environmental attitude to pro-environmental action [34,35,36]. Though firms are the major concern and priority of the government to enforce environmental regulation, this is not limited to the firm only. Environmental regulation pressure can cultivate awareness among individuals and society, causing more environmentalists to establish helpful environmental norms and culture. Moreover, Milfont et al.’s study on national identity revealed the importance of environmental attitude and superordinate environmental identity in the result of pro-environmental actions [37].

Environmental regulations aiming to prevent environmental degradation from worsening further, when strictly enforced, would impact a firm’s profitability due to the high environmental costs, thus influencing the firm’s managers’ innovation perspectives. Milfont et al. pointed out the importance of an environmental attitude to pro-environmental behaviors and environmental regulation to a positive environmental innovation perspective at the individual level [37]. López-Gamero et al. focused on firms affected by environmental law or regulation, IPCC, meaning participant firms were all from polluting backgrounds; the result might not apply to other industries [32]. Ajibike et al. pointed out the positive relationship between managerial attitude and environmental practice, the positive relationship between environmental regulation pressure on environmental practice, and the positive relationship between environmental regulation and organizational environmental innovation perspectives [38]. With the approach of China’s two-carbon goal and the implementation of China’s corporate carbon trading system, this study proposed that environmental regulation would impact the environmental innovation perspective positively, and Hypothesis 1 is presented as follow:

Hypothesis 1.

Environmental regulation has a positive effect on enterprises’ environmental innovation prospective. 

When enterprise managers believe that green innovation can increase their advantage and sales or market share, their energy-saving technology or cleaner production technology can reduce environmental pollution and avoid government penalties [12]. The company can also receive tax incentives or technology research subsidies, which will generate a positive environmental innovation perspective and cause a driving force from expected performance. The positive environmental innovation perspective of the firm managers toward green innovation activity due to environmental regulation and the influence of other stakeholder pressure drives green innovation development and improves green innovation performance. Green product and process innovation include producing less polluting material, and this refers to adopting new environmental production methods that save energy, reduce emissions, reduce waste, and use fewer polluting materials. Prior studies indicate that green innovation improves firm organizational performance in terms of financial and non-financial criteria such as profits, return on assets and sales, market share [12,39], and sustainable performance in economic, environmental, and social aspects [30,40]. Green innovation performance can improve competitive advantages and firm value [41]. Firms are more aware of environmental issues and proactively drive green innovation and improve green innovation performance. Kitsis and Chen found that top management’s environmental commitment positively affects the firm’s engagement in green operations. This study pointed out that green operations improved the firm’s environmental and economic performance [42]. However, Baah et al. found that environmental performance is positively associated with firm green production. Furthermore, financial performance is negatively linked, which may mean green innovation practices consume large initial investment costs, thus negatively impacting the firm’s financial performance [43]. This difference in result about the relationship between a firm’s environmental innovation perspective and green innovation performance requires further exploration, and hence this study proposed Hypothesis 2, as follows:

Hypothesis 2.

Environmental innovation prospective has a positive effect on enterprises’ green innovation performance. 

3.2. Stakeholder Pressures’ Effect

Prior studies examined whether environmental regulations are linked to stakeholder pressure, and many studies have focused on the relationship between environmental regulation and environmental behavior [44] and the relationship between stakeholder pressure and environmental practice and innovation [42,45,46]. Studies have indicated that government pressure is critical to stimulating environmental behavior [47,48]. Even though environmental regulation pressure is generally referred to as the most significant stakeholder pressure due to stricter environmental regulation, Kawai et al. found no significant relationship between regulatory and societal pressure on environmental practice [46]. In their studies, Kitsis and Chen excluded the influence of government regulation pressure and non-government organization environmental demand [42]. Generally, when exploring the relationship between environmental regulation and stakeholder pressure, the role of government is critical. The government wants to solve the environmental issue and promote economic growth.

With the diversification of regulations and subjects, market-based environmental regulation enforces the environmental regulation followed by a series of environmental costs such as carbon emission trading and taxes or subsidies to attract cooperation. In addition, the emergence of informal regulations, such as news media disclosure, would impact each stakeholder’s interest in providing subsidies to firms and maximize their innovation motivation, due to the high level of strict environmental regulation and the amount of environmental damage cost. Thus, investors would pressure the firm not to go against environmental regulations to avoid losing a significant profit to penalties and tax payments [1,5]. As more regulations and enforcement create environmental awareness among society, consumers, competitors, and suppliers tend to adopt better environmental behavior to support the government’s environmental goal [49,50]. The government is enforcing environmental regulations in line with the carbon turning point and carbon neutrality proposed by the Chinese government, hence focusing on stakeholder pressure perceived by the firm under the influence of environmental regulations. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 is presented as follows:

Hypothesis 3.

Environmental regulation has a positive effect on stakeholder pressure. 

A stakeholder is a group of institutions with a conflict of interest with the firm, such as the government, society, consumers, an environmental protection agency, shareholders or investors, employees, suppliers, and even competitors, and they can affect and be affected by the firm’s decision [51,52]. Environmental regulation or a carbon trading system can cause stakeholders to change their environmental preservation perception. When stakeholders perceive environmental preservation, their innovation perspective tends to be more positive. Therefore, stakeholder pressure perceived by firms can influence firms to consider environmental issues and develop environmental innovation [44]. The firm will tend to make stakeholder priority the business objective to maximize stakeholders’ profit and welfare or to fulfil stakeholder demand for new environmental regulations by engaging in environmental behavior, causing them to form a more positive innovation perspective toward environmental practice. Stakeholders are important to keep the firm consistently in existence, and stakeholder pressure can affect firm decision-making [47].

Various research has mentioned the critical role of stakeholder pressure on firms as a driver of environmental behavior due to the relationship between stakeholders and the firm, causing them to be able to affect and also be affected by the firm’s decision [51], so when this stakeholder has environmental awareness about an environmental issue, they can influence the firm to have a more positive environmental innovation perspective. Kawai et al. explored the relationship between stakeholder pressure and green innovation in Japanese multinational companies in North America and Europe. The results indicated that market stakeholder pressure drives environmental behavior implementation and green innovation activity [46]. Kitsis and Chen found that stakeholder pressure positively affected top management commitment to green operations of 206 US firms. However, studies have not included the influence of government regulatory pressure and pressure from NGOs [42]. Nishitani et al. posited that government and final consumer pressure effectively influenced firms to implement environmental management control systems in Vietnam [48]. As observed, prior studies have examined the critical role of stakeholder pressure in different industries and countries, but the result has not been consistent. Hence, the relationship between stakeholder pressure and a firm’s environmental innovation perspective is worth exploring in China as a different context in this study. Hypothesis 4 is formed as follows:

Hypothesis 4.

Stakeholder pressure has a positive effect on enterprises’ environmental innovation prospective. 

Stakeholder pressure can enhance a firm’s green innovation capability, especially under the influence of government regulatory pressure. Previous research has focused on the relationship between environmental regulation pressure from the government and its effect on technology innovation and green innovation performance [1,53,54]. Stakeholders can affect firms’ decisions, and stakeholders are essential to maintaining the consistent sustainable development of the firm. Hence, how a firm manages pressure from these stakeholders, such as the government, investors, the local community, customers, suppliers, employees, and even competitors, is critical for firm growth and sustainable development. Due to the diversification of environmental regulations, from basic administrative regulations to market-based environmental regulations, any obligation of environmental law will result in fines and penalties for environmental damage. This increases the firm’s cost of production and damages the reputation of the firm in public, ultimately decreasing profitability [52,55,56,57]. Green technology innovation is the solution for the firm to contribute to realizing the government’s environmental goal while affecting the long-term development of the firm [58]. Evidence can be obtained from Ouyang et al. that in the long term, government regulatory pressure improves industry innovation in China [53]. Fang et al. also indicated that the national specially monitored firm program improved the innovation of those firms supervised under the program [54]. Moreover, Cai et al. pointed out direct regulatory pressure as significantly enhancing the green technology innovation of Chinese heavy-polluting industries, and the result is more significant when the companies are state-owned [1]. Stakeholder pressure can affect green innovation [59]. Shahzad et al. found that stakeholder pressure positively affects the knowledge management process and green innovation. Furthermore, the green innovation of a firm can be improved following the expansion of the firm’s green innovation capability [60]. However, research regarding the effect of stakeholder pressure on a firm’s green innovation capability is still limited compared to research regarding government stakeholders’ regulatory pressure and its impact on the green innovation capability of a firm [61]. In addition, Kawai et al. found that regulatory pressure and societal pressure have no significant effect on the environmental practices and green innovation of Japanese multinational companies based in North America and Europe [46]. This difference in findings prompts this study to fill the research gap by focusing on stakeholder pressure from the government, suppliers, investors, consumers, employees, and competitors and their effects on a firm’s green innovation capability and green innovation in enterprise firms in China. Thus, Hypothesis 5 and Hypothesis 6 are proposed as follows:

Hypothesis 5.

Stakeholder pressure has a positive effect on green innovation capability. 

Hypothesis 6.

Stakeholder pressure has a positive impact on green innovation performance. 

3.3. Green Innovation Capability’s Effect

While environmental regulations solves the environmental problem and burdens firms with additional costs to adopt specific technology or pay fines [53], developing green innovation seems to be the only solution to stringent environmental regulation [1]. This phenomenon is observed in the increasing number of patents following the introduction of environmental regulations [5]. The high production cost and government subsidies encourage firm-level low-carbon green innovation development, causing firms to proactively innovate new green products or processes that save energy, reduce pollutants, and reduce waste [1,5]. However, the development of green innovation depends on the firm’s green innovation capability, such as resources available and specific technology requirements and knowledge [62]. Green innovation capability refers to the strong ability to carry out innovation strategy and development, including the resources available, innovation knowledge, and ability. Therefore, aside from resource availability, innovation knowledge from external sources is equally important for a firm’s green innovation capability and ensures successful green innovation development. When a firm engages with learning knowledge, especially from external sources, it is recognized as an absorptive capability, which initially refers to utilizing knowledge learned from external sources and applying this knowledge within the firm [63].

Another important contribution of their study is that they posited that absorptive capability is accumulative, and prior-accumulated knowledge facilitates the further accumulation of knowledge. This ability to exploit external knowledge enhances the firm’s innovative capabilities. Similarly, Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler also referred to absorptive capability as exploring external knowledge while realizing the significance of internal knowledge [64]. Tu et al. defined absorptive capability as the organizational mechanism that helps firms to identify, communicate, and assimilate relevant external and internal expertise [65]. Absorptive capability is essential to ensure the firm can scan, acquire, and utilize helpful information from external and internal environments that improve its green innovation capability through product and process innovation development. Najafi-Tavani et al. found that absorptive capability determines successful innovation capability through collaborative innovation networks. Their study researched the collaborative innovation network of firms and its relationship with the innovation capabilities of products or processes. They stressed that a high level of absorptive capability helps the firm identify, communicate, and collaborate with partners’ knowledge resources, which the firm can learn and utilize in the firm and improve its innovation capability [66], consistent with Tzokas et al. [67]. Moreover, a related study has proven that knowledge learning is important to enhancing firm innovation via absorptive capacity [68].

Environmental regulation stimulates environmental awareness, increases the consideration of environmental behaviors in the business environment, and drives innovation development within the industry. Incentivized by stricter environmental regulations, the firm would innovate the production process or development of a new green product. With prior knowledge, the firm may seek knowledge from the external environment that would enable it to implement innovation within the firm effectively. Therefore, environmental regulations improve green innovation capability when a firm acquires valuable knowledge of technology, management, and operation from external stakeholders such as suppliers, consumers, the government, the local community, and competitors and internally from employees and collaborators that facilitate the firm’s green innovation capability. Prior studies fundamentally understand the relationship between environmental regulation and green innovation capability. However, the data primarily focus on secondary data and use city or province data for research. Even though secondary data provide more precise and accurate information, these data are unable to analyze the mechanism at the micro level, especially for a firm. Firms might develop innovation for reasons other than environmental regulation enforcement. One possible reason is other stakeholders’ pressure that drives the firm’s innovation, which this study examines further. Kawai et al. also found that policy pressure and societal pressure can help firms’ environmental practices and enhance innovation capability [46]. Thus, environmental regulations can stimulate the firm’s green innovation capability. Therefore, this study would propose the hypothesis as follows:

Hypothesis 7.

Environmental regulation has a positive effect on green innovation capability. 

Environmental innovation capability is critical to realizing the green innovation performance of a firm, and green innovation performance development is the financial and technological barrier. The lack of technology and managerial capability might lead to a failure in implementing a green process, and green procurement. Hence, it can be understood that better green innovation capability indicates that a firm has better green innovation performance. Even though green innovation capability can lead to the success or failure of green innovation in the firm, green innovation capability is subject to change over time. This is because green innovation is a long-term investment project that allows the firm to improve its green innovation capability through organizational learning, resource reallocation, and intensive employee training. Past studies examining the effect of green innovation capability on green innovation performance have shown that dynamic innovative capabilities, opportunity-recognizing innovative capability, and opportunity-capitalizing capability positively correlated with a hotel’s eco-innovation [69]. Innovation capability also mediated the relationship between two types of leadership and green procurement in the UAE public sector [70]. These findings confirm our claim that green innovation capability facilitates green innovation. Better green innovation capability improves a firm’s green innovation performance. Therefore, Hypothesis 8 is proposed as follows:

Hypothesis 8.

Environmental innovation capability has a positive effect on green innovation performance. 

3.4. Hypothesis Model Construction

The above research model was drawn (Figure 1) to illustrate the impact of environmental regulation on green innovation performance through the influence of environmental innovation prospective, stakeholder pressure, and green innovation capability. The impact of environmental regulation (ER) is integrated into the original TPB model. The innovation prospective construct from the TPB model and the environmental innovation attitude is represented by the environmental innovation perspective (EA), subjective norms are represented by stakeholder pressure (SP), and perceived behavioral control is represented by green innovation capability (GC). Enterprises’ innovation is represented by green innovation performance (GP).

4. Methods

4.1. Sampling and Procedure

Data were collected using online and offline questionnaires distributed from February 2021 to March 2022. Before handing out the questionnaires, we checked the questionnaires with 5 manufacturing managers. We allocated 10 questionnaires to employees working at energy-intensive enterprises in Nanjing and Suzhou. We distributed 200 questionnaires to employees working at energy-intensive enterprises, finally collecting 160 questionnaires. The online questionnaire was distributed to Chinese energy-intensive enterprises from different provinces. The sampled managers answered the questionnaire and randomly received 1–10 Yuan RMB rewards. Furthermore, 245 valid questionnaires were collected, and 415 valid questionnaires were used for data analysis. Respondents were employees working in Chinese energy-intensive enterprises. Respondents were asked to state their level of agreement with the statements in the questionnaire using a 5-point Likert scale.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics.

Measurements	Types	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender	male	244	58.8
	female	171	41.2
Education level	middle school	52	12.53
	high school	139	33.49
	university	64	15.42
	master	160	38.56
Number of employees	below 3000	322	77.59
	3000 over	93	22.41
Industry’s type	thermal power plant	41	9.87
	aluminum and steel manufacture	60	14.46
	metallurgy and chemical and petrochemical	94	22.65
	automotive and transportation	58	13.98
	electronics and computers	65	15.66
	pharmaceutical and medical	30	7.23
	construction and building materials	37	8.92
	textile and apparel	30	7.23
Company’s ownership	state-owned companies	136	32.77
	private companies	118	28.43
	multinational companies and sino-foreign joint	161	38.80
Company’s age	1–10 years	112	26.98
	More than 10 years	303	73.02

indicates the demographic characteristics of the sample. Among the 415 respondents, 244 were male and 171 were female, comprising 58.8% and 41.2%, respectively. In terms of education level, 52 (12.53%) had a middle-school qualification, 139 (33.49%) had a high-school qualification, 64 (15.42%) had a university qualification, and 160 (38.56%) had a master’s qualification. Moreover, 322 (77.59%) were from medium and small-sized enterprises, which have below 3000 employees, and 93 (22.41%) were from large companies, which have more than 3001 employees. Furthermore, 41 (9.87%) were from the thermal power plant industry, 60 (14.46%) were from the electrolytic aluminum/iron and steel industry, 94 (22.65%) were from metallurgy and chemical and petrochemical, 58 (13.98%) were from automotive and transportation, 65 (15.66%) were from electronics and computers, 30 (7.23%) were from the pharmaceutical and medical industry, 37 (8.92%) were from the construction and building materials industry, and 30 (7.23%) were from the textile and apparel industry. In total, 136 (32.77%) were from state-owned companies, 118 (28.43%) were from private companies, and 161 (38.80%) were from multinational companies or sino-foreign joint companies. Finally, 117 (28.19%) worked in companies aged 1–10 years and 298 (71.81%) worked in companies aged 11 years and above.

4.2. Construct Concepts and Measurements Scales

This present study refers to the measurement scale by Long et al., Singh et al., and Lopeze-Gamero and Murillo-Luna [2,3,10,61,71]. Environmental regulation has 5 measurement items, and examples of the items measuring environmental regulations are as follows: “violating the environmental regulations will be penalized”, “corporate pollution increases carbon tax costs”, “the government operates carbon emission trading system”, “company emission will increase the tax payable”, and “news media will report on company violation of environmental law”. Green innovation performance has 5 measurement items, and examples of the measurement items that measure green innovation performance are as follows: “environmental patent application increases”, “environmental patent authorization increases”, “reduce raw material usage, increase in recycling material and implement recycling”, “reduce the emission of chemical polluting”, and “green product sales and market share increased”.

Environmental innovation prospective has 5 measurement items, and example items for environmental innovation prospective are as follows: “corporate can improve product competitiveness through green innovation”, “corporate can enter new market through green innovation”, “company can reduce carbon emission through green technology innovation”, “company can reduce carbon tax through green technology innovation”, and “company can improve social and economic and environmental performance”. Stakeholder pressure has 5 measurements items, and examples of the items that measure stakeholder pressure are as follows: “the board of director thinks that green innovation is important”, “suppliers push the company to develop green innovation”, consumer push the company to should develop green innovation”, “bank creditors think that green technology innovation is necessary”, and “the government thinks that green innovation is necessary”. Green innovation capability has 5 measurement items, and examples of the items that measure green innovation capability are as follows: “the company has sufficient financial resources for R&D”, “the company has professional knowledge and ability to develop environmental innovation”, “the company can cooperate with other enterprises for environmental innovation”, “company has market-oriented technology to develop innovation”, and “company has the ability of environmental management system and improving innovative quality methods”.

4.3. Data Analysis Technique

We first determined each variable mean using office excel, and then we conducted the descriptive statistics and correlation analysis using the SPSS statistics application. Correlation analysis was conducted to confirm the direction of the hypothesis. Secondly, the PCA method and reliability analysis was implemented using the STATA statistics application to confirm the consistency and stability of each research variable. Thirdly, we conducted confirmation factor analysis using the AMOS statistics application to test the validity of each variable and research model. Fourthly, hypothesis testing was conducted using SEM modeling analysis. Furthermore, according to the heterogeneity of organizations, we also performed conditional regression model analyses using the STATA application to test the robustness and heterogeneity.

5. Empirical Analysis

5.1. Correlation Results

We conducted correlation analysis using the SPSS application. Environmental regulation positively correlates with energy-intensive enterprises’ environmental innovation prospective (r = 0.631, p < 0.01). Environmental regulation also has a positive correlation with stakeholder pressure (r = 0.299, p < 0.01); in addition, environmental regulation also has a positive and significant correlation with green innovation capability(r = 0.530, p < 0.01). Furthermore, green innovation prospective also have a positive correlation with energy-intensive enterprises’ green innovation performance (r = 0.584, p < 0.01). Similarly, stakeholder pressure and innovation capability also have a positive correlation with energy-intensive enterprises’ green innovation performance (r = 0.642, p < 0.01; r = 0.619, p < 0.01). The results are in the direction expected by our research hypothesis (See

Table 2. Correlation results.

	ER	EIPR	SP	GIC	GIP
Environmental regulation	1.000
Environmental innovation prospective	0.631 ***	1.000
Stakeholder pressure	0.299 ***	0.401 ***	1.000
Green innovation capability	0.530 ***	0.620 ***	0.389 ***	1.000
Green innovation performance	0.584 ***	0.642 ***	0.602 ***	0.619 ***	1.000
Mean	3.425	3.370	3.359	3.510	3.365
Std.Err	0.031	0.036	0.047	0.034	0.031
S.D	0.639	0.746	0.974	0.696	0.628
Max	5	5	5	5	5

Note: *** p < 0.01.

).

5.2. Reliability and Validity Results

A total of 25 items were retained and five factors were extracted using the principal component method (PCA): Environmental regulation, environmental innovation prospect, stakeholder pressure, green innovation capability, and green innovation performance. The reliability analysis results are as follows: The coefficient of environmental regulation was 0.882, the environmental innovation prospect was 0.926, stakeholder pressure was 0.967, green innovation capability was 0.896, and green innovation performance was 0.836. All research variables were higher than the standard weight (see

Table 3. The results of PCA analysis and reliability.

Construct Concepts and Measurements	1	2	3	4	5
Environmental regulation (Variance = 19.18%) (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.882)
[1] violating the environmental regulations will be penalized	0.062	0.386	0.157	0.739	0.114
[2] corporate pollution increases carbon tax costs	0.159	0.302	0.249	0.671	0.056
[3] the government operates carbon emission trading system	0.124	0.209	0.248	0.716	0.128
[4] company emission will increase the tax payable	0.051	0.317	0.105	0.807	0.115
[5] news media will report on company violation of environmental law	0.056	0.007	0.180	0.792	0.232
Environmental innovation prospective (Variance = 15.78%) (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.926)
[1] corporate can improve social economic and environmental performance	0.159	0.815	0.182	0.280	0.137
[2] corporate can improve product competitiveness through green innovation	0.215	0.699	0.324	0.178	0.192
[3] corporate can enter new market through green innovation	0.166	0.657	0.350	0.251	0.200
[4] corporate can reduce carbon emission through green technology innovation	0.119	0.778	0.239	0.274	0.139
[5] corporate green innovation can received subsidy and tax rebate from government	0.171	0.843	0.255	0.262	0.168
Stakeholder pressure (Variance = 15.56%) (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.967)
[1] the board of director thinks that green technology innovation is compulsory	0.844	0.141	0.122	0.021	0.165
[2] suppliers push company to develop green technology innovation	0.889	0.120	0.127	0.108	0.175
[3] consumer push company to develop green technology innovation	0.908	0.134	0.163	0.104	0.160
[4] bank creditors think that green technology innovation is compulsory	0.910	0.133	0.170	0.122	0.161
[5] the government thinks that green innovation is necessary and important	0.945	0.148	0.113	0.095	0.173
Green innovation capability (Variance = 14.60%) (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.896)
[1] the company has sufficient financial resources for R&D	0.161	0.140	0.700	0.196	0.131
[2] the company has professional knowledge and ability to develop environmental innovation	0.147	0.313	0.721	0.142	0.076
[3] the company can cooperate with other enterprises for environmental innovation	0.169	0.189	0.780	0.156	0.197
[4] the company has market oriented technology to develop innovation	0.071	0.241	0.727	0.235	0.184
[5] the company has ability of environmental management system and improving quality methods	0.164	0.243	0.876	0.194	0.177
Green innovation performance (Variance = 10.05%) (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.836)
[1] environmental patent application was increased in the past two years	0.304	0.299	0.330	0.301	0.578
[2] environmental patent authorization was increased in the past two years	0.265	0.232	0.198	0.208	0.728
[3] reduce raw material usage, increase in recycling material and recycling package	0.283	0.196	0.225	0.196	0.726
[4] reduce emission of chemical polluting	0.300	0.184	0.256	0.178	0.720
[5] new product sales and market share were increased in the past years	0.335	0.287	0.194	0.349	0.516

).

5.3. The Results of Confirmation Factor Analysis and Convergent Validity

Validity analysis was conducted using the AMOS application. The analysis results showed that the standardized loading weights of environmental innovation prospective, stakeholder pressure, green innovation capability, and green innovation performance were higher than the recommended weight of 0.6. All measurements of CR and AVE were higher than the recommended criteria index (see

Table 4. The results of reliability and validity.

Variables	Factor Loading	Standard Loading	t−Value	CR	AVE	Square Root of AVE
Environmental regulation	1.427	0.821	10.840	0.680	0.914	0.882
	1.307	0.782	10.472
	1.250	0.770	10.915
	1.229	0.759	11.879
	1	0.602	-
Environmental innovation prospective	0.955	0.948	24.009	0.776	0.945	0.926
	1.050	0.898	21.068
	1.007	0.922	21.645
	1.002	0.894	21.300
	1	0.889	-
Stakeholder pressure	0.892	0.807	20.631	0.886	0.920	0.960
	0.935	0.875	28.123
	1.052	0.907	30.473
	1.098	0.919	31.943
	1	0.914	-
Green innovation capability	0.835	0.681	14.948	0.716	0.926	0.898
	0.953	0.749	17.986
	1.008	0.762	21.042
	1.074	0.791	18.228
	1	0.863	-
Green innovation performance	1	0.646	-	0.605	0.885	0.836
	1.063	0.670	13.785
	1.043	0.642	11.666
	1.080	0.654	11.281
	1.044	0.662	11.761

Notes: Root mean square residual = 0.058, minimum discrepancy = 2.408, CFI = 0.968, TLI = 0.956, IFI = 0.969.

). Moreover, the square root of AVE of environmental regulation (ER) was 0.882, environmental innovation prospect (EIP) was 0.926, stakeholder pressure (SP) was 0.960, green innovation capability (GIC) was 0.898, and green innovation performance (GIP) was 0.836. The alternative measurement model fit index was as follows: Minimum discrepancy = 2.408, CFI = 0.968, TLI = 0.956, IFI = 0.969, and root mean square residual = 0.058. All fits were higher than the standards.

5.4. The Results of Hypotheses Testing Using the SEM Model

We employed the SEM model to test the hypothesis. The results are shown in

Table 5. Results of structural equation modeling.

Hypothesis Path	Estimate Coefficient	t-Value	Result
Environmental regulation → Environmental innovation prospective	0.274 ***	11.522	Supported H1
Environmental innovation prospective → Green innovation performance	0.384 ***	7.666	Supported H2
Environmental regulation → Stakeholder pressure	0.643 ***	5.207	Supported H3
Stakeholder pressure → Environmental innovation prospective	0.206 ***	5.421	Supported H4
Stakeholder pressure → Green innovation capability	0.208 ***	4.810	Supported H5
Stakeholder pressure → Green innovation performance	0.415 ***	8.578	Supported H6
Environmental regulation → Green innovation capability	0.484 ***	8.943	Supported H7
Green innovation capability → Green innovation performance	0.357 ***	7.309	Supported H8

Notes: *** p < 0.01, Chi-square = 868.36, degrees of freedom = 241, minimum discrepancy = 3.603, CFI = 0.935, TLI = 0.919, IFI = 0.935, root mean square residual = 0.079.

and are as follows: Chi-square = 868.36, p < 0.01, degrees of freedom = 241, minimum discrepancy = 3.603, CFI = 0.935, TLI = 0.919, and IFI = 0.935. Environmental regulation has a positive effect on environmental innovation prospective among energy-intensive enterprises. For hypothesis testing, the t-value was used to determine whether a hypothesis is supported or not, and if the t-value is greater than 1.96 with a significance level of 0.05, then the hypothesis is accepted. Table 5 shows the results of the estimated coefficient and t-value tests for hypothesis testing. The path coefficient of environmental regulation to environmental innovation prospect was positive (β = 0.274, p < 0.01); hence, H1 is supported. Environmental innovation prospective and green innovation performance (β = 0.384, t-value = 7666) showed a positive relationship, and therefore H2 is supported. Environmental regulation has a direct effect on stakeholder pressure (β = 0.643, t-value = 5.207); hence, H3 is accepted. Due to the positive relationship observed between stakeholder pressure and environmental innovation prospective (β = 0.206, t-value = 5.421), H4 is supported. We also found that stakeholder pressure has an effect on green innovation capability and green innovation performance (β = 0.208, t-value = 4.810); hence, H5 is accepted. Moreover, stakeholder pressure has an effect on green innovation performance (β = 0.415, t-value = 8.578); hence, H6 is accepted. Environmental regulation also has an effect on green innovation capability (β = 0.484, t-value = 8.943); hence, H7 is accepted. Green innovation capability positively affects green innovation performance (β = 0.357, t-value = 7.3); hence, H8 is accepted. Considering these results, and all hypotheses are supported (see Table 5).

5.5. The Results of Hypotheses Testing by Using Multivariate Regression Analysis

Moreover, we also conducted multivariate regression model analysis to test the research hypotheses. We added control variables, as the number of employees and the company’s age, to the multivariate regression model. The results are shown in

Table 6. Results of multivariate regression analysis.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)
Variables	Logmeipr	Logmgip	Logmeipr	Logmsp	Logmgic	Logmgip	Logmgic	Logmgip
logmer	0.793 ***			0.582 ***			0.607 ***
	(0.0449)			(0.0856)			(0.0467)
company	0.0247	−0.0134	0.00729	0.0102	−0.0192	−0.00865	−0.00583	0.00160
	(0.0200)	(0.0180)	(0.0240)	(0.0381)	(0.0231)	(0.0187)	(0.0208)	(0.0187)
ne	0.00352	−0.00282	0.00626	−0.00269	0.000810	0.000895	−0.00129	0.000232
	(0.0061)	(0.0055)	(0.0074)	(0.0117)	(0.0071)	(0.0057)	(0.0066)	(0.0057)
logmgic								0.574 ***
								(0.0374)
logmeipr		0.566 ***
		(0.0335)
logmsp			0.276 ***		0.212 ***	0.352 ***
			(0.0296)		(0.0284)	(0.0230)
Constant	0.173 **	0.552 ***	0.838 ***	0.441 ***	1.018 ***	0.798 ***	0.511 ***	0.482 ***
	(0.0691)	(0.0534)	(0.0600)	(0.1320)	(0.0577)	(0.0466)	(0.0718)	(0.0607)
Observations	415	415	415	415	415	415	415	415
R-squared	0.432	0.410	0.175	0.101	0.120	0.364	0.293	0.365

Notes: Standard errors in parentheses, *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05. mer = environmental regulation, meipr = environmental innovation prospective, mgip = green innovation performance, msp = stakeholder pressure, mgic = green innovation capability, company = company age, ne = number of employees.

. According to the results, we can confirm that the findings of the multivariate regression model analysis are the same as the SEM model analysis based on models 1 to 8, thus all research hypotheses are supported.

5.6. Heterogeneity Testing

Moreover, we analyzed the impact of environmental regulation on green innovation performance according to the company’s age, size, and type. The analysis results are as expected (see

Table 7. Result of multivariate regression analysis.

	Model (1)	Model (2)	Model (3)	Model (4)	Model (5)	Model (6)	Model (7)	Model (8)
Variables	Logmgip	Logmgip	Logmgip	Logmgip	Logmgip	Logmgip	Logmgip	Logmgip
	Less 10 years	Over 10 years	less 3000	Over 3001	State-owned	Private companies	Joint companies	All
logmer	0.2531 ***	0.1579 ***	0.1684 ***	0.2183 ***	0.1583 *	0.2474 ***	0.1948 ***	0.187 ***
	(0.0859)	(0.0528)	(0.0588)	(0.0695)	(0.0896)	(0.0783)	(0.0749)	(0.0447)
logmeipr	0.1076	0.2187 ***	0.2117 ***	0.1663 **	0.1675 ***	0.2809 ***	0.1514 **	0.195 ***
	(0.0892)	(0.0461)	(0.0509)	(0.0647)	(0.0732)	(0.0737)	(0.0678)	(0.0400)
logmsp	0.2267 ***	0.2128 ***	0.2077 ***	0.2389 ***	0.2395 ***	0.2132 ***	0.1922 ***	0.216 ***
	(0.0379)	(0.0235)	(0.0233)	(0.0367)	(0.0329)	(0.0361)	(0.0371)	(0.0199)
logmgic	0.3156 ***	0.2236 ***	0.1833 ***	0.3337 ***	0.2495 ***	0.1728 **	0.2888 **	0.237 ***
	(0.0942)	(0.0416)	(0.0435)	(0.0648)	(0.0566)	(0.0810)	(0.0689)	(0.0378)
Constant	0.1053	0.2183	0.2778	0.0402	0.2286	0.0945	0.1907	0.193 ***
	(0.0926)	(0.0501)	(0.0534)	(0.0763)	(0.0634)	(0.1046)	(0.0782)	(0.0440)
Observations	112	303	322	93	136	118	161	415
R-squared	0.603	0.622	0.608	0.636	0.685	0.565	0.544	0.615

Notes: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.

). Because of previous research, enterprise size, ownership, and company age would affect enterprise innovation [2,72,73]. Environmental regulation, environmental innovation prospective, and innovation capability positively affect manufacturing green innovation performance in China. However, environmental innovation prospective does not have a positive or significant effect on green innovation performance in energy-intensive companies younger than 10 years old. Moreover, this research found that environmental regulation does not impact green innovation performance differently in different company types.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Findings

With industry development, urbanization, and environmental pollution, implementing environmental regulations is critical to alleviating the issue. In this context, environmental regulations prevent environmental degradation and pollution from worsening, especially in energy-intensive industries. With environmental regulations, energy saving, emissions, and the disposal of harmful substances can be controlled and eventually reduced by developing the firm’s green innovation in products or processes. Due to the increase in production costs resulting from environmental penalties and taxes, firms have been observed to engage in the development of green innovation more actively, and evidence from China has already met the guidelines of the Paris Agreement, and the increasing technological innovation simultaneously corresponds with the environmental regulations in China [54,74,75,76].

Previous studies show that green innovation produces positive environmental performances [3,10]. Li et al. showed that green innovation significantly and positively affects environmental performance [7]. Sezen and Cankaya investigated the impact of green innovation on corporate sustainability across companies in the automotive, chemistry, and electronic sectors in Turkey [77]. In particular, the development of green innovation performance in energy-intensive enterprises is vital to sustainability and addressing climate change [78]. This study revealed the influencing mechanism of environmental regulation on green innovation performance via environmental innovation prospective, stakeholder pressure, and green innovation capability. Furthermore, the effect of stakeholder pressure on environmental innovation prospective and green innovation capability, as well as green innovation performance, the effect of environmental innovation prospective on green innovation performance, and the effect of green innovation capability on green innovation performance were examined. The results indicated that environmental regulation positively affects environmental innovation prospective, stakeholder pressure, and green innovation capability, contributing to a positive green innovation performance and environmental performance, which corresponds with Long et al. and Singh et al. [3,10]. The present study also used an extended TPB model to reveal the influencing effects of environmental regulations on environmental innovation prospective, stakeholder pressure, green innovation capability, and green innovation performance. This study showed that TPB applies to firms by determining the research subject of firm green innovation performance.

6.2. Discussions

China, as the largest emitter of the world, has dedicated its determination to reduce carbon emissions, which is important to mitigate climate issues outlined in global agreements such as the Paris Agreement in 2015, and announced its environmental vision to reach a carbon turning point before 2030 and carbon neutrality before 2060 at the 75th United Nations General Assembly. China now has a high demand for carbon reduction solutions and urgently needs a green and low-carbon economy. Considering the importance of improving energy-intensive enterprises’ green innovation performance, it is necessary to identify the promoting factors of green innovation performance among China’s energy-intensive enterprises. To do this, the Chinese government has introduced various environmental regulations from the central government to local municipalities, which means the government’s stricter supervision also affects business operations. Government supervision using environmental regulations has caused firms to develop a relatively positive environmental innovation perspective. In addition, China has introduced environmental regulations such as carbon trading and government subsidies, which also incentivize enterprises to carry out environmental innovation prospective. These regulations have also caused firms, especially energy-intensive firms, to change their environmental innovation prospective due to the high cost of penalties and fines from the environmental regulations [3,55,74,75,79].

Environmental regulations stimulate the firms’ environmental innovation prospective and the whole industry, including all the valuable stakeholders of a firm that ensure its continued existence and operation. The enhanced environmental belief of stakeholders is known by the term stakeholder pressure, which this study applied using an extended model of the theory of planned behavior, which initially used the term social norm when studying an individual’s behavior. Due to the complexity of the relationship between stakeholders and firms and their conflict of interest, stakeholders are able to affect and be affected by firm decisions. Therefore, with consistent pressure from stakeholders, firms take stakeholder priority as their own and try to fulfill these priorities, which is to comply with environmental regulations that demand firms reduce their emissions.

Green innovation prospective are used to determine the perception of energy-intensive firms and their green innovation attitude. The result has managed to provide evidence that positive environmental innovation prospective toward green innovation, which firms believe are able to enhance their competitiveness, penetrate a new markets, and reduce emissions and carbon taxes, also benefit local society and the environment, which has positively affected firms’ green innovation performance. This indicates that positive environmental innovation prospective constitute an important driver of the development and implementation of green innovation in energy-intensive firms. Stakeholder pressure plays an important role in cultivating environmental innovation prospective in energy-intensive firms. When environmental regulation succeeds in triggering stakeholder environmental awareness, it will exert pressure on the firm to directly influence its innovation prospective toward environmental issues and preservation. Hence, stakeholder pressure assists in cultivating environmental innovation prospective in firms and driving firms to develop green innovation, especially in energy-intensive firms. As firms’ green innovation capability improves, green innovation performance will also be enhanced [55]. Green innovation capability positively affects green innovation performance because higher green innovation capability ensures a higher probability of successful implementation of green innovation, which would improve green innovation performance.

6.3. Managerial Implications

This study’s main contribution is identifying the driving factors of green innovation performance of energy-intensive firms in China, which suggest that the government takes prompt action to strengthen the influence of these factors to push the performance of green innovation in energy-intensive industries and achieve the carbon turning point toward carbon neutrality. This study managed to propose several recommendations based on our results. The government should tackle its environmental issue by designing environmental regulations, especially for energy-intensive and heavily polluting enterprises. The government should take action on Chinese energy-intensive industries to reduce emissions, which is important to realize carbon neutrality. A combination of penalties and incentives serves as prevention and motivation for firms to promote energy-saving technology and motivates firms to proactively develop its green innovation capability that can contribute to positive green innovation performance.

The environmental innovation prospective of firms’ decision-makers are an important driver for the development of green innovation in a firm. This indicates that firms’ decision-makers consisting of the top manager and owner should pay attention to the government’s environmental concerns, take the government’s concern as its own, and act environmentally to mitigate the issue. These decision makers’ positive environmental innovation prospective can significantly boost the development of green innovation and, at the same time, help the government achieve its environmental emission target.

Moreover, stakeholders are also important to ensure the firm voluntarily develops green technology innovation. This highlights that stakeholders’ opinions are as important to driving green technology innovation as the top manager’s positive environmental innovation prospective. The firm manager should be aware that green innovation development is a long-term investment project requiring tremendous funds and resources. The results might also not be observable quickly, especially economically. However, with the green low-carbon economic transformation occurring more rapidly in China, firms must either invest in developing their green innovation capability or continue being burdened by environmental taxes and penalties. Based on the result of this study, energy-intensive firms are encouraged to expand their green innovation capability, which can facilitate the development of green innovation performance. Green innovation capability can be developed by resource reallocation, organizational learning, and training for employees to prepare for specific technology adoption.

6.4. Limitations and Future Recommendations

Considering the importance of improving energy-intensive enterprises’ green innovation performance, it is necessary to identify the promoting factors of green innovation performance in China’s energy-intensive enterprises. Therefore, the study applied an extended research model of the theory of planned behavior, including environmental regulation, environmental innovation prospective, stakeholder pressure, and green innovation capability, and the effects of these factors were integrated on the theoretical framework of green technology innovation. However, this research has several limitations. First, the data were collected from enterprise managers, which may have meant respondents did not know the green innovation performance as a result of cognitive bias. Therefore, we suggest that future researchers obtain a secondary dataset for sampling [80,81]. Second, since environmental regulation policies and green innovation are dynamic, future research should focus on revealing the additional impact of different environmental regulations on different types of enterprises to improve the green innovation performance of enterprises effectively. In addition, corporate environmental quality management and CSR information disclosure may positively affect the environmental innovation performance of corporations [80], and under the background of double carbon, we suggest more scholars pay attention to sustainable energy policy and climate change and the green and low-carbon development of enterprises.