Next Article in Journal
Energy Efficiency in Public Lighting Systems Friendly to the Environment and Protected Areas
Next Article in Special Issue
Mapping Circular Economy in Portuguese SMEs
Previous Article in Journal
Big Data Analytics, Strategic Capabilities, and Innovation Performance: Mediation Approach of Organizational Ambidexterity
Previous Article in Special Issue
Pioneering Sustainability: Insights from the Integrative Role of Knowledge Management Processes and Technological Innovation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 12
10.3390/su16125112
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

How to Leverage Digital Sustainability Orientation to Promote Environmentally Sustainable Practices of Manufacturing Enterprises in China

by
Jinshan Zhang
and
Man Liu
*
School of Business and Management, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(12), 5112; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125112
Submission received: 8 May 2024 / Revised: 13 June 2024 / Accepted: 14 June 2024 / Published: 16 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategic Enterprise Management and Sustainable Economic Development)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The promotion of high-quality, environmentally sustainable practices in enterprises in the digital age has become an important topic in business and academic circles. In this study, by employing a perspective combining digital orientation (DO) and sustainability commitment orientation (SCO), the concept of digital sustainability orientation (DSO) is presented, and digital green capability (DGC) is introduced as the mediating variable. Moreover, the driving mechanism model of corporate environmental sustainability practice (ESP) is constructed, and the moderating role of environmental scanning (ES) is taken into consideration. Using two sets of research data from 353 manufacturing enterprises in China, the empirical test results show that DSO has a significant role in improving ESP, and DGC is important in mediating between DSO and ESP. ES acts as a moderating variable between DSO and DGC and further moderates the mediating role of DGC between DSO and EPS; that is, the stronger the ES, the more significant the mediating effect of DGC. The conclusion of this study broadens the application scope of strategic orientation theory in the study of digital sustainability and has theoretical and practical implications for exploring the development of DGC and the dynamic mechanism of ESP.

1. Introduction

While industrial activities have promoted rapid social and economic development, they have also seriously threatened the natural environment. The degradation of the natural environment has become a severe global challenge facing humankind and a key issue restricting the economic development of various countries and the sustainable survival of enterprises [1]. The Natural Resource-Based View (Nature-RBV) theory postulates that enterprises can gain sustainable competitive advantages by solving environmental problems [2], and that improvement in enterprise competitiveness is proportional to the degree of perfection of environmental policy design [3]. For this reason, “environmental sustainability” has become a new direction for enterprise development in recent years [4]. Environmentally sustainable practices, also known as environmental sustainability, reflect the activities of enterprises committed to environmental protection and minimizing negative impacts on the environment during production and operation. Some scholars believe that enterprises that implement environmentally sustainable practices demonstrate a strong sense of social responsibility, which is conducive to providing legitimacy and shaping an image and reputation of environmental responsibility [5,6]. However, although enterprises implement environmentally sustainable practices to fulfill ethical and social responsibilities and to cope with institutional pressure, they are faced with the problem of not being able to demonstrate the benefits of such practices, thus making sustainable practices disadvantageous to implement [7]. This has led to some enterprises claiming to carry out environmentally sustainable practices but failing to implement them, and even engaging in greenwashing behavior [8,9]. The reasons for this phenomenon may be due to the lack of effective guidance on promoting environmental sustainability at the strategic level [10], as well as the lack of organizational capacity to effectively support environmentally sustainable practices [11]. How enterprises should establish a guaranteed mechanism to drive environmentally sustainable practices has become an urgent issue to be solved in academia and industry [12]. This study investigates how enterprises can continuously implement environmentally sustainable practices.
Research has found that, since environmentally sustainable practices may not result in immediate economic benefits to enterprises, economic motivations that play an important role in general innovation make it difficult to explain corporate environmentally sustainable activities [13]. The new institutional theory argues that external institutional factors are more critical to the driving effect of corporate green innovation, and points out that government regulation (regulatory pressure), industry norms (normative pressure), and peer pressure (imitation pressure) are key institutional factors that promote corporate environmentally sustainable practices [14]. This theory clarifies the impact of institutional pressure on environmentally sustainable practices; however, this simple “stimulus–response” model ignores the initiative of enterprises and cannot truly solve the problem of implementing environmental sustainability. Other studies have explored how organizational strategic orientation, resources, and capabilities affect corporate environmental strategies from a resource-based perspective [15,16,17]. Research based on the internal perspective of the organization has to some extent explained the dynamic mechanism of environmentally sustainable practices, but has not yet revealed what mechanism drives the continuity of corporate environmentally sustainable practices. With the acceleration of digital technology and industrial green transformation, environmentally sustainable practices that combine the advantages of digitalization have ushered in unprecedented development opportunities [18]. Plečko and Bradač (2024) [19] found that digital technology plays a core role in promoting sustainable business transformation. Digitalization reduces material consumption and waste by providing intelligent monitoring of production operations [20], and also shows unlimited development potential in dealing with pollution emissions [21]. In the context of digitalization, some companies have gradually transformed their roles from passively assuming environmental and social responsibilities to actively creating both environmental and economic value. To this end, George (2021) [22] conceived the concept of “digital sustainability”, which aims to encourage enterprises to use the coordinated development of digital transformation and sustainability as an action guide for the entire business of the organization and maximize the sustainable effects of digitalization. Digital sustainability may become a new driving force for promoting environmentally sustainable practices. However, digital sustainability research is currently in the stage of theoretical construction, and research on corporate digitalization and sustainability is relatively independent [23]. How can we effectively leverage the dual advantages of digital technology empowerment and sustainable value proposition leadership to achieve digital environmentally sustainable practices? Identifying the mechanisms that can help companies demonstrate how digital sustainability is transformed into environmentally sustainable practices is still a research issue that has not received sufficient attention.
The green capability perspective provides a tool for refining the relationship between digital sustainability and environmentally sustainable practices. Capabilities are the basis for implementing strategic concepts and maintaining continuity of action [24]. Studies have shown that under the pressure of environmental regulation, enterprises reconstruct and update existing green technology innovation, green process innovation, and green management innovation mechanisms, thereby forming responsive and sustainable green capabilities to support environmentally sustainable practices [25]. In particular, the emergence of digital technology has reshaped the green innovation process, helping enterprises to take advantage of the information, computing, communication, and connectivity provided by digital technology to achieve digital green capabilities to quickly identify, combine, process, and create green knowledge and opportunities [26]. Digital green capabilities involve a change in organizational knowledge and capabilities, which is conducive to breaking the original non-environmentally friendly production and operation mode, including the negative effects of digital technology [27]. Therefore, in line with digital sustainability, digital green capabilities may be an important dimension in which enterprises can achieve environmentally sustainable practices.
Moreover, in the process of digital sustainable transformation, enterprises must not only actively embrace the need to continuously upgrade digital technology, but also respond to the diversified needs of green development. When formulating, adjusting, and implementing specific strategic decisions, it is necessary to respond to changes in technology and environmental regulations in a timely manner, such as the scenario-based application of AI technology and the market access policy of the EU on carbon footprint. Therefore, enterprises undergoing digital sustainable strategic transformation should fully conduct environmental scanning and investigate new technologies, policies, and practices at home and abroad. Previous studies have shown that corporate strategic orientation under the influence of environmental perception and scanning can be more effective [28,29]. In exploring environmentally sustainable practices, digital sustainability may also be constrained by the degree of environmental scanning conducted by the organization, which has an important impact on improvements in digital green capabilities.
Based on the above analysis, this study has three core research questions: How does digital sustainability affect corporate environmentally sustainable practices? What kind of strategic orientation and organizational capabilities are corporate environmentally sustainable practices based on? How can enterprises maintain an adaptive and agile environmentally sustainable practice mechanism in a dynamic environment with iterative digital technologies and diverse institutional regulations? To answer these questions, this study proposes the concept of digital sustainability orientation based on strategic orientation theory, analyzes the impact mechanism of digital sustainability orientation on corporate environmentally sustainable practices through the mediating role of digital green capabilities in combination with the resource-based view, and considers the moderating effect of environmental scanning on this mediating role. This study empirically tests the proposed hypotheses based on double-survey data from 353 manufacturing companies. The conclusions of this study expand the application boundaries of strategic orientation theory in digital sustainability research, enrich the research on the development of digital green capabilities from the dual strategic perspectives of digitalization and sustainability, and provide a certain theoretical reference for guiding enterprises to carry out environmentally sustainable practices.

2. Literature Review and Research Hypothesis

2.1. Digital Sustainability Orientation

Digital sustainability is a new concept that has emerged in recent years in the interdisciplinary research fields of organizational sustainability and digitalization. It refers to a strategic tendency for organizations to achieve sustainable development goals by introducing digital solutions and accelerating digital transformation and upgrading by using sustainable value propositions [26]. Digitalization and sustainability, as important means to solve current economic, social, and environmental problems, have received widespread attention from scholars in various fields [22,30]. However, there is still much debate about the relationship between digitalization and corporate performance (including environmental, financial, and social performance) [31,32]. This is mainly because digitalization itself has a certain “double-edged nature” [33]. The resource-based view shows the relationship between resources and corporate advantages. Digitalization, as a kind of resource input, requires the purchase of hardware equipment, software systems, and network infrastructure, as well as the recruitment of digital maintenance personnel. Digitalization has high maintenance costs, opportunity costs, and sunk costs. Moreover, if it is improperly implemented or relies on digitalization without limit, it will have negative effects on the company’s own development, its ecological environment, and stakeholders, ultimately weakening the company’s industry competitiveness. Although the sustainable commitment orientation can drive the green innovation behavior of enterprises, the green innovation process of enterprises squeezes the company’s original limited resources. For example, the environmental protection transformation of existing production materials, production equipment, and operation processes requires a large amount of R&D funds and technology, which very easily falls into the “green trap”; this limits the profitability of enterprises and threatens their survival and development [34]. Some studies have also found that due to the lack of a reasonable sustainable business model, sustainable entrepreneurs have never been able to truly obtain a plan to implement sustainable practices [35]. In short, the implementation of digitalization orientation and sustainable commitment orientation has huge management costs. Table 1 shows the opportunities and threats that digitalization presents to corporate sustainable development [36].
In contrast, digital sustainability combines the advantages of digital technology, enabling enterprises to better leverage it to solve sustainable development problems and enhance the social value of enterprises. At the same time, the sustainable commitment orientation constrains the use of digitalization. It is precisely because of the uncertain risks that digitalization poses to sustainability that digital sustainability uses sustainable commitment as a “learning event” to drive digital development, constantly pushing enterprises to upgrade to a higher level and more responsible digitalization direction, practice digital social responsibility, and avoid aggressive strategies in digitalization. Digital sustainability actually reflects the synergistic and complementary relationship between digitalization orientation and sustainable commitment orientation, as shown in Figure 1.
As an emerging organizational phenomenon, the operationalization of digital sustainability concepts and the construction of a theoretical system have become urgent research issues to be addressed [26]. The theory of strategic orientation is a long-term working method that enterprises adhere to. Moreover, it is a strategic attitude with an obvious behavioral orientation that managers present when implementing their business philosophy [37]. Different strategic orientations of enterprises can support each other and have complementary synergistic effects [38]. Digital sustainability actually reflects two strategic orientations: digital technology empowerment and sustainable value leadership. Therefore, this study regards digital sustainability as a dual strategic orientation and reflects the synergy between the two through interactive processing of digital orientation and sustainable commitment orientation. Among them, digital orientation refers to the behavioral tendency of enterprises to advocate the use of digital technology to achieve the development goals of reducing costs and increasing efficiency in all links of the enterprise value chain, including digital R&D, production, management, and sales [39]. Sustainable commitment orientation reflects the recognition of enterprises to actively advocate for environmentally and socially friendly businesses [40]. When entrepreneurs with sustainable commitment orientation engage in digital transformation, it triggers the interactive mechanism of the two strategic orientations—digital orientation, characterized by digital innovation, and sustainable commitment orientation, characterized by the triple bottom line (environment, society, and economy)—to play a synergistic role. Therefore, intertwining is an essential characteristic of digital sustainability orientation [26].

2.2. Digital Sustainability Orientation and Corporate Environmentally Sustainable Practices

In developing countries, the environmentally sustainable practices of companies are often seen as an additional expense [41]; however, recent studies have found that environmental sustainability is a prerequisite for corporate legitimacy [26,42]. Based on the resource-based view, environmental sustainability is regarded as an important prerequisite for determining a company’s competitive advantage and a crucial component of obtaining venture capital [5,43]. Enterprise environmentally sustainable practice refers to the planning and execution of, and involvement in, environmental value creation activities, including participation in various environmental protection plans, energy conservation, pollution reduction, and other production and management and social welfare activities with environmental and social benefits [40]. In essence, it is an activity for enterprises to develop green opportunities. The embedding of digital technologies has reshaped the operational processes of demand gathering, product development, product trial, and manufacturing, thereby affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of environmentally sustainable practices in enterprises [22]. However, the introduction of digital technology as an additional cost investment of enterprises has technical and management thresholds. If enterprises handle the introduction of digital technology improperly or allow the disorderly development of digitalization, they fall into a “digital trap”, which hinders the accumulation of corporate wealth and produces an “ability curse” effect, thus hindering the development of their green innovation strategy [32]. In addition, the improper use of digital technology can also produce negative effects on the environmental sustainability of enterprises, such as electronic waste, resource waste, and excessive consumption [32]. For example, in a study of a manufacturing company in Italy, it was found that the use of smart technology had a negative impact on the environmental performance of the company [44] because smart factories that employ large-scale digital equipment consume more energy and resources than traditional factories [45]. The digital sustainability orientation combines the synergistic advantages of digitalization and sustainability, prompting enterprises to solve the problem of sustainable development by means of digital-oriented technology. Furthermore, digital sustainability orientation emphasizes the triple bottom line principle emphasized in the sustainable commitment orientation to drive and constrain digital transformation and upgrading. These two strategic orientations can lead to a management mechanism that drives synergies between digitalization and sustainable value creation.
Digital sustainability-oriented enterprises balance the synergies between digitalization and sustainability and promote the integration and empowerment of digital resources and traditional production factors by encouraging enterprises to continuously introduce new digital technologies and new knowledge. Moreover, digital sustainability-oriented enterprises continuously absorb and improve the sustainable efficiency of digital factors under the guidance of sustainable goals due to the self-growth of digitalization and promote digital transformation and upgrading led by sustainable value proposition. For example, the continuous investment of enterprises in digital simulation and digital twin technology has improved the feasibility and reliability of green solutions and reduced research and development costs [46]. The introduction of various kinds of digital resources and the embedding of digital technology improve the efficiency of organizational green element allocation and the diffusion effect of green innovation [47]. Users who advocate environmental value propositions can also use digital platforms to widely participate in product design, research and development, and production activities, which accelerates enterprises’ identification and development efficiency of green ideas and opportunities and gives birth to more environmentally friendly businesses with digital green capabilities [48]. Moreover, the strategic concept of enterprises advocating for digital sustainable production and operation will also increase the support of financial investment institutions with environmental preferences, and thus increase the enthusiasm of enterprises to participate in environmentally sustainable projects combined with digitalization [49]. Therefore, digital sustainability-oriented enterprises should take digital and sustainable transformation as the working model to guide their overall business activities, thus providing the internal conditions and motivation for promoting environmentally sustainable practices. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: 
Digital sustainability orientation has a positive impact on corporate environmentally sustainable practices.

2.3. The Mediating Role of Digital Green Capability

Ability is the basis of implementing strategic intention and supporting enterprises to carry out practical activities [50]. Digital green capability refers to the organizational ability of enterprises to learn, absorb, create knowledge, and identify opportunities for green products and process innovation with the help of digital technology [51]. The essence of digital green capability consists of the green capability reconstruction of the enterprise with digital technology as the core and index. The full implementation of digital green capabilities is key to the application of digital technologies to environmentally sustainable practices. To cultivate the ability of digital technology to serve green value creation, it is necessary to build an organizational culture for the coordinated development of digitalization and sustainability, maintain a dynamic digital sustainable learning atmosphere, and ultimately promote environmentally sustainable opportunity development activities by enhancing digital green capabilities. Based on the resource-based view, digital orientation and sustainable commitment orientation are often regarded as important resources of organizations which determine the evolution process of organizational capabilities. The initiative of digital orientation, which advocates for the ongoing adoption of cutting-edge digital technologies, assists enterprises in maintaining an open attitude of digital innovation in their operations and becoming more accustomed to using digital solutions to meet business needs [39]. Under the guidance of sustainable commitment, people are more inclined to carry out digital green learning in all aspects of organizational operations, thus laying a knowledge foundation for the development of digital green capabilities [40,52].
In addition, the development of digital green capability must depend on the match between the enterprise’s digital conditions (digital facilities, technologies, and capabilities) and sustainable commitment. Driven by the digital sustainability orientation, enterprises can devote themselves to the knowledge creation and innovation of green products and processes by virtue of digital technology capabilities such as intelligent computing, storage, and Big Data analysis and monitoring to form corporate digital green capability. In turn, digital green capability supports sustainable value creation activities. In short, the complementarity between digital technology resources and sustainable value propositions based on digital sustainability orientation makes up for the deficiency in the digital green knowledge of enterprises, guides the development of their digital green capabilities, and realizes dynamic matching between digital capabilities and green capabilities of enterprises. Employing the one-step learning of digital green knowledge and technology, in this study, we explore and establish a new, environmentally sustainable model so as to better serve enterprises to carry out green innovation research and development, such as end-treatment technology upgrades and cleaning process applications, to gradually form a sustainable competitive advantage through digital green capabilities. Therefore, it can be inferred that in the transmission mechanism of digital sustainability orientation → digital green capability → environmentally sustainable practice, the digital sustainability mechanism built with digital orientation and sustainable commitment orientation ensures adaptability and continuous improvement in enterprises’ digital green capabilities, and the improvement in digital green capability further promotes the enthusiasm and feasibility of enterprises’ environmentally sustainable practices. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: 
Digital sustainability orientation positively impacts corporate environmentally sustainable practices by enhancing digital green capabilities.

2.4. The Regulating Role of Environmental Scanning and the Mediating Role of Being Regulated

Environmental scanning is a method employed by enterprises to monitor the development trends of related fields and proactively and systematically collect valuable information about the external environment, which is key to linking the strategic decisions and actions of an enterprise. Environmental scanning is conducive to improving the matching relationship between the enterprise strategy and the external environment and dynamically modifying the enterprise behavior pattern [53]. Organizational information processing theory holds that the enterprise is an open information processing system [54]. The improvement in organizational ability comes from the external information flowing into the organization, and the information flow is affected by the information processing ability. The compatibility between the information and supporting information processing systems needed for strategy development and execution can significantly improve the way organizations operate. Under the background of digitalization and green transformation strategy, the complexity of the institutional environment and technological environment introduces pressure regarding the development and reconstruction of enterprises’ digital green capabilities. Environmental scanning can accelerate the trend of information and resource integration from the outside in and provide managers with timely information about cutting-edge digital green practices so that enterprises can deploy digital sustainable strategies. However, the level of environmental scanning in the implementation of digital sustainability orientation by different enterprises makes it clear that there are significant differences in the way enterprises apply digital greening. Consistent environmental scanning behaviors can enhance the alertness of enterprises to digital green capability trends, enabling them to constantly perceive external information about technology iteration and environmental policy change, strengthen the coupling of digitalization and sustainability knowledge, and provide information and social network conditions to effectively use digital technology to cultivate green capabilities. Specifically, digital orientation encourages enterprises to carry out digital innovation, and the introduction of highly integrated digital elements and green innovation solutions will expand the demand for digital green knowledge principles. Enterprises need to continuously introduce cutting-edge digital green knowledge into the digital innovation system to achieve subversive innovation experiments. The sustainable commitment orientation plays a role in leading enterprises to practice environmental protection and social responsibility. The environmental scanning of environmental protection policies, demands, and emerging practices can accelerate enterprises to identify more high-quality green entrepreneurship opportunities, so as to drive the continuous introduction and upgrading of digitalization. The combination of digitalization orientation enables enterprises to effectively develop and explore the innovation ability of digitalization and green integration.
In general, through environmental scanning, enterprises identify and take advantage of digital green opportunities in the external environment, strengthen their awareness and preparation to carry out digital green activities so that enterprises have a deeper understanding of the green application of digital technology, and further enhance their digital green capability. Digital green capabilities support enterprises to better internalize digital technology resources; serve green value creation; further promote knowledge creation and innovation in technologies, products, and services that integrate digital and sustainable value propositions; provide more stable technical solution support for environmentally sustainable business; and promote environmentally sustainable practices. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H3: 
Environmental scanning positively regulates the positive relationship between digital sustainability orientation and digital green capability.
H4: 
Environmental scanning positively moderates the mediating effect of digital sustainability orientation on corporate environmentally sustainable practices through digital green capabilities.
Based on the above analysis and theoretical deduction, the theoretical model of this study is shown in Figure 2.

3. Research Design

3.1. Sample and Data Collection

This study selected the most common questionnaire survey method in the field of sustainable management research as the research tool. The questionnaire survey method has the advantages of strong pertinence and high standardization and can collect data from different places at different times. The anonymous self-filled questionnaire is conducive to the respondents filling in the data objectively and truthfully, and the survey results can be quantified. In addition, by obtaining first-hand data, the questionnaire survey method can more truly reflect the subjective evaluation of the Chinese entrepreneurs surveyed in this study on digital orientation, sustainable commitment orientation, environmentally sustainable practices, and other concepts of their companies. For this reason, the questionnaire survey method was selected for empirical research. The investigated variables were all based on the maturity scale in the existing literature, and moderate adjustments were made according to the research context of this study. In order to ensure the rationality of the questionnaire items, two researchers translated the questionnaire into Chinese using traditional translation and back translation methods, and another two researchers translated the Chinese questionnaire back into English, during which repeated comparisons were made to ensure that the questionnaire items were as close as possible to the original meaning. In addition, 11 local enterprises were selected for in-depth investigation and interviews in advance, and after repeated discussions with middle and senior managers, the expression of measurement items was ensured to be clear, complete, and unambiguous. In addition, the final questionnaire was formed through a pre-survey conducted by MBA students at the university where the research team was located. After verifying the correctness of the form and content of the final questionnaire, a formal investigation was carried out.
The digital transformation and sustainable development of enterprises have reached a common consensus among Chinese entrepreneurs. This research relied on the alumni association platform to contact the enterprises registered in the alumni corporate newsletter directory. A total of 418 manufacturing enterprises were randomly selected in 23 provinces in China, and 353 target enterprises were finally confirmed. To avoid homologous bias, questionnaires were filled out independently by two key information providers (senior managers) in each target company. Before the formal investigation, the interviewees were also comprehensively trained in background knowledge, questionnaire structure, and content through interviews. The survey response result was 706 questionnaires (marked A/B) completed by 353 business leaders. The sample enterprises were distributed in the manufacturing industry, including food processing enterprises, which accounted for 35.41%; machinery manufacturing enterprises, which accounted for 28.05%; energy and chemical enterprises, which accounted for 24.08%; and automobile, electronics, and other manufacturing enterprises, which accounted for 12.46%. From the perspective of enterprise size, 12.18% employed under 500 people, 18.98% between 501 and 2000 people, 28.05% between 2001 and 3000 people, 17.28% between 3001 and 4000 people, 12.46% between 4001 and 5000 people, and 11.05% over 5000 people. In terms of the ages of the enterprises, 17.28% were under 5 years old, 27.48% were 6 to 10 years old, 25.78% were 11 to 15 years old, 17.85% were 16 to 20 years old, and 11.61% were more than 20 years old. In terms of regional distribution, enterprises from the eastern, central, and western regions accounted for 35.98%, 30.88%, and 33.14%, respectively. In summary, the study’s sample size, years, and regional distribution meet the statistical requirements.

3.2. Variable Measurement

The variables in this study were all measured using a Likert five-point scale, where 1 means completely disagree and 5 means completely agree. All variables were received from the questionnaire as shown in Appendix A. In order to reduce common methodology bias, digital-oriented, sustainability-oriented, and digital green capabilities were derived from volume A, and corporate environmental sustainability practice data were derived from volume B. The measurement methods for each variable were as follows: (1) Digital orientation was measured using Khin et al. [55] scale, including four items. (2) Sustainability commitment orientation was measured using Kuckertz and Wagner’s [56] scale, which consisted of five items. (3) Digital sustainability orientation was measured using the interaction of digitalization orientation and sustainability commitment orientation (digitalization orientation × sustainable commitment orientation). (4) Digital green capability was measured using the scale of Rehman et al. [40], which included seven items, with some terms slightly improved. (5) Environmental scanning was based on the scale of Beal [57], which included six items, with some terms slightly improved. (6) Corporate environmentally sustainable practice was based on the scales of Eiadat et al. [58] and Rehman et al. [40], which included six items, with some terms slightly improved. In addition to the above variables, there are other variables that may have an impact on the environmentally sustainable practices of enterprises. In this study, the size of enterprises, the type of industries, and the years of enterprises are taken as control variables.

3.3. Non-Return Bias and Common Method Bias

In this study, the collected samples were tested for non-return bias. By comparing the sample data collected in the early stage and the later stage, it was found that the differences in the age of the firm and the size of the firm were all at the significance levels of 0.05 and 0.01, indicating that there was no significant difference in the relationship between the variables; therefore, the problem of non-return bias had little impact on the research conclusion of this study. In addition to the targeted distribution of two questionnaires by each enterprise, the Harman single-factor test method was also used to conduct factor analysis on all variables before data analysis. The variance explanation percentage of the first common factor was 32.122% (less than 40%), suggesting that there was no serious common method bias. The VIF values of the regression analysis in this study were all less than 2, indicating that there was no multicollinearity problem.

4. Empirical Analysis

4.1. Reliability and Validity Analysis

As shown in Table 2, in terms of reliability, the Cronbach α coefficient of the variables in this study ranges from 0.880 to 0.935 (above 0.6), and the questionnaire measurement results are reliable. In terms of validity, firstly, this study tested the KMO value, and the results showed that the KMO of each variable was greater than 0.7. Then, confirmatory factor analysis was used to measure the validity of the questionnaire data. The fitting index of the measurement model indicated that the data fit well with the theoretical model and had good construction validity. CR values ranged from 0.880 to 0.937 (above 0.7), AVE values ranged from 0.513 to 0.681 (above 0.5), and the aggregation validity was good. Finally, the square root of AVE was used to identify the differential validity, as shown in Table 2. It can be found that the value of the square root of AVE is higher than the absolute value of the Pearson correlation coefficient between variables, which indicates that the differential validity in this study meets the requirements of theoretical construction.

4.2. Correlation Analysis and Descriptive Statistics

As shown in Table 3, the mean and standard deviation of the variables are within a reasonable range, and the correlation coefficients among independent variables are normal and correlated, which supports some of the research hypotheses proposed in this study.

4.3. Hypothesis Testing

4.3.1. Main Effect and Intermediate Effect Test

As shown in Table 4, models 1 to 3 show that digital sustainability orientation (interaction between digital orientation and sustainable commitment orientation) and digital green capabilities have significant positive effects on corporate environmentally sustainable practices (β = 0.523, p < 0.01; β = 0.353, p < 0.01); that is, hypothesis H1 is valid. Based on model 6 and model 4, it can be seen that after adding capability restructuring, the positive impact of digital sustainability orientation on corporate environmentally sustainable practices is significantly reduced (β = 0.457, p < 0.01), indicating that capability restructuring plays a partial mediating role between digital sustainability orientation and digital green innovation performance, that is, assuming H2 is valid.
In order to make the conclusion of the mediation hypothesis more robust, we employed the bootstrap analysis method to test the hypothesis of the mediation effect, and the results are shown in Table 5. The direct and total effects of digital sustainability orientation on corporate environmentally sustainable practices are significant, and the 95% confidence intervals, [0.067, 0.100] and [0.079, 0.112], respectively, do not contain 0. The mediating effect value of capability reconfiguration between digital sustainability orientation and corporate environmentally sustainable practices is 0.066, and the 95% confidence interval [0.028,0.115] does not include 0. The mediating effect is significant, and H1 and H2 are verified again.

4.3.2. Moderating Effect Test

As shown in Table 6, in order to test the moderating effect, this study centralized the digital sustainability orientation and environmental scanning items to reduce multicollinearity. On the basis of model 7, model 8 indicates that the interaction term between digital sustainability orientation and environmental scanning is positive and significant (β = 0.047, p < 0.01), indicating that environmental scanning positively regulates the relationship between digital sustainability orientation and digital green capabilities, that is, assuming that H3 is valid.
In order to verify the robustness of the conclusion of the adjustment effect, we employed the bootstrap method to test the adjustment effect of environmental scanning. As shown in Table 7, digital sustainability orientation has a significant impact on capability reconstruction, and the confidence interval does not include 0 ([0.022, 0.059]). The regression coefficient of the interaction term of digital sustainability orientation × environmental scanning on digital green capabilities is 0.047, with a significant p-value and confidence interval excluding 0 ([0.025, 0.068]). Therefore, the moderating effect of environmental scanning between digital sustainability orientation and digital green capabilities is supported, and H3 once again passes the test.

4.3.3. Moderated Mediation Effects

In order to further test the moderated mediation effect, with reference to Edwards and Lambert [59], the bootstrap method was used to conduct 5000 samplings through the Process plug-in, and the mediation and moderating effects were integrated into the same architecture. Table 8 in the SPSS-Process plug-in was selected specifically to calculate the mediating effect under different environmental scanning levels (M ± standard deviation). The empirical results are shown in Table 8. When the environmental scanning intensity is low, the mediating effect of capability reconstruction is 0.001, and the confidence interval includes 0 ([−0.004, 0.008]); when the environmental scanning intensity is moderate, the mediating effect is increased to 0.008, and the confidence interval does not include 0 ([0.003,0.0015]). Under high-intensity environmental scanning conditions, the mediating effect of capability reconstruction continues to increase to 0.015, with confidence intervals excluding 0 ([0.007, 0.0026]). This indicates that medium-to-high-level environmental scanning has a moderating effect on the process in which digital sustainability orientation influences corporate environmentally sustainable practices through capability restructuring. In other words, the higher the level of environmental scanning, the stronger the mediating role of capability restructuring between digital sustainability orientation and corporate environmentally sustainable practices. The index of moderated mediation is 0.009, and the confidence interval does not include 0 ([0.003, 0.0016]), which supports the positive moderating effect of environmental scanning on the mediating effect of capability reconstruction. Therefore, the moderated mediating effect of H4 is established.
In order to ensure the robustness of the conclusion of the moderated mediation effect, this study draws on the duality treatment method and adopts the method of adding digital orientation and sustainable commitment orientation to measure the overall level of digital sustainability orientation. The bootstrap method is used again, and 5000 samplings are conducted to test the moderated mediation effect of environmental scanning. The results show that the judgment index value is 0.031, and the confidence interval does not include 0 ([0.011, 0.0055]). Therefore, H4 passes the test again.

5. Conclusions and Discussion

5.1. Research Conclusions

This study operationally defined the connotation of digital sustainability orientation and explored the impact of the interaction between digital orientation and sustainable commitment orientation (digital sustainability orientation) on corporate environmentally sustainable practices. On this basis, the “black box” of the mechanism between digital orientation and sustainable commitment orientation was analyzed from the perspective of digital green capability. Furthermore, the moderating effect of environmental scanning on the role of digital sustainability orientation in corporate environmentally sustainable practices was analyzed. The results of this study show that (1) digital sustainability orientation has a positive and significant impact on corporate environmentally sustainable practices. This shows that digital orientation and sustainable commitment orientation can produce positive synergy and exert a positive impact on corporate environmentally sustainable practices. Most of the existing research focuses on the impact of enterprise digitalization on sustainable development and does not pay attention to the interaction between the two [60]. This conclusion responds to George and Schillebeeckx’s (2022) [26] proposal to deepen digitalization. The sustainability research initiative provides a unique perspective for promoting theoretical research on environmental sustainability. At present, there are few academic circles that define and explore this construct from the multiple strategic perspectives of collaborative development [22]. This study posits that digital orientation and sustainable commitment orientation are in a complementary relationship; the interaction between the two is used to measure digital sustainability orientation, verifying the important role that digital sustainability orientation plays in promoting environmentally sustainable practices. This conclusion has important strategic significance, i.e., digital sustainability orientation serves as an important resource base and cultural atmosphere that can enhance and promote the execution efficiency of environmentally sustainable practices. Therefore, enterprises must not only pay attention to the precipitation and accumulation of digital technology resources but also maintain certain environmental sustainability commitments. This study is in line with the view proposed by some scholars that the digitalization of enterprises can help improve environmental performance [30], but the premise of this conclusion is that enterprises must maintain their commitment to environmental sustainability. The expansion of digital technology’s application scope and its combination with digital innovation optimize environmentally sustainable manufacturing processes, enhance the organization’s implementation of programs to continuously reduce pollution emissions [61,62], and further explain the positive impact of sustainability commitment orientation on digitalization. The sustainable commitment orientation provides a strategic update direction to solve the risks introduced by digital technology in promoting sustainable development; it also uses sustainability needs as digital entrepreneurial opportunities that drive digital transformation [22]. The coordinated development of digital orientation and sustainable commitment orientation enriches the digital sustainability theoretical system and provides valuable theoretical references for subsequent environmental sustainability practice research.
(2) Digital green capability plays a mediating role between digital sustainability orientation and corporate environmentally sustainable practices, presenting a path mechanism of digital sustainability orientation → digital green capability → environmentally sustainable practices. This conclusion shows that, on the one hand, digital sustainability orientation and organizational learning behavior based on digitalization and sustainable commitment are important driving forces for the cultivation and development of digital green capability. The organizational values that integrate digital empowerment and sustainable value propositions are promoted by enterprises to form and update the digital green capability of the organization, and further support enterprises to carry out environmentally sustainable practices. Although digital greening has harnessed the advantages of digital technology and introduced new thinking patterns, development concepts, organizational resources, production factors, and business opportunities to environmental sustainability commitments, if enterprises do not establish an organizational culture in which digitalization and sustainable commitments are mutually coordinated, they will not be able to perceive and identify the sustainable value of digital technology, and will not be able to explore and integrate the value of environmental sustainability and form new sustainable entrepreneurship through analysis and insight. Therefore, the digital orientation within the enterprise will promote the improvements in the enterprise’s digital capabilities [63], thereby promoting the smooth development of digital technology from intelligence, monitoring, connection to integration, and application. On the other hand, the sustainable commitment orientation enables organizations to actively apply digital resources to green innovation, explore and integrate digital green knowledge, and form new sustainable entrepreneurial opportunities for enterprises through analysis and insight. Thus, through the improvement in digital green capabilities, new digital green innovation solutions are formed in the product and production process, creating environmentally sustainable value for stakeholders and realizing the digital sustainable value delivery mechanism [64]. As Yin and Yu [51] pointed out, digital green innovation comes from the digital green knowledge search and creation capabilities of enterprises. It is meaningless for enterprises to advocate digitalization and sustainability alone. Only by exerting the synergy between strategies, fully exploring the digital green knowledge creation behind digital sustainability, and using digital green capabilities for environmentally sustainable practice solutions can we truly promote enterprises from environmentally sustainable commitments to environmentally sustainable practice. This study reveals the internal mechanism that drives environmentally sustainable practice in the context of digital transformation.
(3) Environmental scanning positively moderates the relationship between digital sustainability orientation and digital green capabilities, as well as positively mediating role of digital green capabilities between digital sustainability orientation and corporate environmentally sustainable practices. A high degree of matching between digital sustainability orientation and green environmental scanning enables enterprises to quickly identify external digital green frontier knowledge, technology, practical experience, and other information, which is conducive to the development and reconstruction of digital green capabilities. When the level of environmental scanning is high, the positive effect of digital sustainability orientation on digital green capabilities is more prominent. In addition, the higher the environmental scanning, the more obvious the effect of digital sustainability orientation on corporate environmentally sustainable practices through digital green capabilities. That is, green environmental scanning has a positive impact on the action path of “digital sustainability orientation → digital green capabilities → corporate environmentally sustainable practices”, and there is a moderated mediating effect. This study clarifies the boundary conditions for digital green capabilities to mediate the relationship between digital sustainability orientation and environmentally sustainable practices. Digital sustainability orientation is a prerequisite for enterprises to further carry out capability reconstruction under the condition of continuous environmental scanning. Previous studies have mostly focused on the impact of environmental scanning on corporate performance [65], and few have used environmental scanning as a moderating variable for the development of organizational capabilities. This study found that the relationship between digital sustainability orientation and digital green capabilities shows different results due to the different degrees of environmental scanning behavior carried out by the organization, which expands the application scope of the theory of corporate strategy and environment matching and further explains the driving mechanism and influencing conditions that drive manufacturing companies to engage in environmentally sustainable practices.

5.2. Practical Implications

This study demonstrates that enterprises can enhance digital green capabilities by building a digital sustainability-oriented organizational culture and promoting the implementation and innovation of environmentally sustainable practices based on digital technology and sustainable commitments. The conclusions of this study present the following recommendations for enterprises in the context of the digital economy:
(1) Enterprises should actively cultivate a digital sustainable culture that adapts to environmentally sustainable practices and builds a digital sustainable organization. Moreover, enterprises should raise digitalization and sustainable commitment to the strategic level of the enterprise; clarify the coordinated development of digital orientation and sustainable commitment orientation organizational culture at the strategic level; consider the environmental sustainability of digitalization; take advantage of the enabling advantages of digital technology; actively learn and absorb digital innovation knowledge; gather digital resources; stimulate the development of new green development plans; and regard digitalization as a moral challenge. Sustainable value propositions can comprehensively guide enterprises to sustainably absorb, introduce, and utilize digital technology; realize a new pattern of mutual promotion between digital transformation and upgrading and sustainable development; cultivate employees’ open, inclusive, proactive adaptation; embrace change in mental models; and build a digital green knowledge, technology, and information sharing mechanism that combines horizontal and vertical integration among employees, teams, and departments.
(2) In order to transform the digital sustainability orientation into environmentally sustainable actions, managers should fully realize the importance of building digital green capabilities and vigorously enhance the company’s perception, recognition, digital integration, and in-depth analysis and insight into digital greening. Enterprises should organize employees to extensively discuss new technologies and ideas and their green application values, such as Big Data, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and blockchain; attach importance to the learning and introduction of digital technologies; and strengthen the green integration of digital technologies and existing technology systems. At the same time, it is necessary to consider the actual situation of each enterprise, rather than blindly duplicating models; focus on the construction of digital talents and digital economy talent teams; and establish a professional talent training system for enterprises to cope with the dynamic evolution of digital technologies through internal cultivation and external introduction. These considerations will ensure that digital green capabilities are dynamic, quickly responding to changes in the technology and policy environment. Moreover, better use of digital green integration solutions will support corporate environmentally sustainable practices.
(3) From the perspective of long-term development, business managers should fully realize the important value of organizational agility. Environmental scanning is an effective method for enterprises to respond quickly to green competitive markets. Only by maintaining a high degree of vigilance at all times, gaining insight into the changing trends of digital green development, and searching in a timely manner for information on environmentally friendly customers, markets, technologies, policies, and laws can enterprises take the lead in identifying sustainable entrepreneurial opportunities. Moreover, enterprises should track and discover the digital green strategic deployment of competitors as much as possible, use digital technology to promote the green digital innovation process, improve the matching degree between the digital sustainable strategy of enterprises and the external environment, and coordinate the relationship between sustainable development concepts, digital human capital, and green environmental scanning. Furthermore, the government can provide enterprises with more international digital green practice exchange opportunities, improve the market transaction and service efficiency of digital green technology, and create a good innovation system environment for enterprises.

5.3. Research Limitations and Prospects

Digital sustainability focuses on studying the role of digital technology in achieving sustainable development goals and the intertwining issues between the two. The digital sustainability field has opened up rich academic opportunities for multidisciplinary and multi-field research, and there is significant research potential in the future. However, this study still has some shortcomings. First, it uses cross-sectional data for empirical testing, which limits the judgment of the causal relationship between variables. Future research could use longitudinal case data to test the theoretical model proposed in this study to clarify the causal relationship between variables. Second, whether digital sustainability orientation can be used as a unidimensional construct or a multidimensional construct requires further exploration to develop a scale for digital sustainability orientation and build a more complete digital sustainability theoretical framework. Finally, this study does not distinguish between different industries. Future research could incorporate industrial factors into the theoretical framework to analyze whether the assumptions of this study are valid in different industries.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.Z.; methodology, M.L.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L.; writing—review and editing, J.Z. and M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Jilin University Labor Relations Research Project (2021LD013).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Measurement scales.
Table A1. Measurement scales.
VariableItem Description
DODO1. The company has worked hard to achieve digital leadership
DO2. The company attaches great importance to digital technology research and development, digital platform construction and digital innovation
DO3. The company has always taken bold and aggressive action to maximize the potential opportunities in the digital market
DO4. The company often launches digital strategic initiatives ahead of their competitors
SCOSCO1. The company should play a leading international role in the field of environmental protection
SCO2. The company believe a commitment to environmental sustainability is good for my business
SCO3. The company believe that corporate social responsibility should be a part of every company
SCO4. The company believe that our commitment to the environment will win us more customers
SCO5. The company focus on the balance between economic, environmental and social benefits
DGCDGC1. The company has the ability to use digital technology to identify green opportunities
DGC2. The company has the ability to identify and develop green knowledge through digital innovation procedures
DGC3. The company has the ability to develop green technologies through digital platforms
DGC4. The company has the ability to absorb, generate, combine, share, transform and apply digital technology to serve green production
DGC5. The company has the ability to integrate internal green knowledge using digital technology
DGC6. The company has the ability to coordinate employees to use digital technology to develop green technology
DGC7. The company has the ability to successfully deploy digital resources to develop green patents
ESES1. The company often collects customers’ opinions about its products
ES2. The company predicts the digital greening strategies and tactics of its competitors
ES3. The company forecasts sales, customer green preferences and technology
ES4. The company specializes in green marketing research
ES5. The company observes digital green technology trends, practices and strategies used at home and abroad
ES6. The company tracks information on future digital green economy trends
ESPESP1. The company offers training to our employees on environmental awareness.
ESP2. The company continues to cooperate across departments to improve the environment
ESP3. The company is engaged in designing product solutions with less materials and less energy consumption
ESP4. The company intends to apply for various environmental qualifications
ESP5. The company implements product programs that design reusable and recyclable materials and components
ESP6. The company carries out activities to reduce the discharge of toxic substances and pollutants

References

  1. Ahmed, R.R.; Streimikiene, D. Environmental Issues and Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility for Organizational Competitiveness. J. Compet. 2021, 13, 5–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hart, S.L. A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 986–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bresciani, S.; Puertas, R.; Ferraris, A.; Santoro, G. Innovation, environmental sustainability and economic development: DEA-Bootstrap and multilevel analysis to compare two regions. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 172, 121040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chege, S.M.; Wang, D. The influence of technology innovation on SME performance through environmental sustainability practices in Kenya. Technol. Soc. 2020, 60, 101210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Danso, A.; Adomako, S.; Amankwah-Amoah, J.; Owusu-Agyei, S.; Konadu, R. Environmental sustainability orientation, competitive strategy and financial performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 28, 885–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Leonidou, L.C.; Christodoulides, P.; Kyrgidou, L.P.; Palihawadana, D. Internal drivers and performance consequences of small firm green business strategy: The moderating role of external forces. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 140, 585–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Amores-Salvadó, J.; Martín-de Castro, G.; Navas-López, J.E. Green corporate image: Moderating the connection between environmental product innovation and firm performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 83, 356–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yadav, N.; Gupta, K.; Rani, L.; Rawat, D. Drivers of sustainability practices and SMEs: A systematic literature review. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 7, 531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yang, Z.; Nguyen, T.T.H.; Nguyen, H.N.; Nguyen, T.T.; Cao, T.T. Greenwashing behaviours: Causes, taxonomy and consequences based on a systematic literature review. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2020, 21, 1486–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sharma, A.; Iyer, G.R.; Mehrotra, A.; Krishnan, R. Sustainability and business-to-business marketing: A framework and implications. Ind. Market Manag. 2010, 39, 330–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. De Giacomo, M.R.; Bleischwitz, R. Business models for environmental sustainability: Contemporary shortcomings and some perspectives. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 3352–3369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Walsh, P.R.; Dodds, R. Measuring the choice of environmental sustainability strategies in creating a competitive advantage. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 672–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Banerjee, R.; Gupta, K. The effect of environmentally sustainable practices on firm R&D: International evidence. Econ. Model. 2019, 78, 262–274. [Google Scholar]
  14. Horbach, J.; Rammer, C.; Rennings, K. Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact—The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 78, 112–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lin, Y.H.; Chen, Y.S. Determinants of green competitive advantage: The roles of green knowledge sharing, green dynamic capabilities, and green service innovation. Qual. Quant. 2017, 51, 1663–1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ludwig, P.; Sassen, R. Which internal corporate governance mechanisms drive corporate sustainability? J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 301, 113780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kraus, S.; Rehman, S.U.; García, F.J.S. Corporate social responsibility and environmental performance: The mediating role of environmental strategy and green innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2020, 160, 120262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chen, X.; Despeisse, M.; Johansson, B. Environmental Sustainability of Digitalization in Manufacturing: A Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Plečko, S.; Bradač Hojnik, B. Sustainable Business Practices and the Role of Digital Technologies: A Cross-Regional Analysis. Systems 2024, 12, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Demartini, M.; Evans, S.; Tonelli, F. Digitalization technologies for industrial sustainability. Procedia Manuf. 2019, 33, 264–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Feroz, A.K.; Zo, H.; Chiravuri, A. Digital transformation and environmental sustainability: A review and research agenda. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. George, G.; Merrill, R.K.; Schillebeeckx, S.J.D. Digital Sustainability and Entrepreneurship: How Digital Innovations Are Helping Tackle Climate Change and Sustainable Development. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2021, 45, 999–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pan, S.L.; Nishant, R. Artificial intelligence for digital sustainability: An insight into domain-specific research and future directions. Int. J. Inform. Manag. 2023, 72, 102668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shahzad, M.; Qu, Y.; Zafar, A.U.; Rehman, S.U.; Islam, T. Exploring the influence of knowledge management process on corporate sustainable performance through green innovation. J. Knowl. Manag. 2020, 24, 2079–2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yuan, B.; Cao, X. Do corporate social responsibility practices contribute to green innovation? The mediating role of green dynamic capability. Technol. Soc. 2022, 68, 101868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. George, G.; Schillebeeckx, S.J.D. Digital transformation, sustainability, and purpose in the multinational enterprise. J. World Bus. 2022, 57, 101326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hu, C.; Yang, H.; Yin, S. Insight into the balancing effect of a digital green innovation (DGI) network to improve the performance of DGI for industry 5.0: Roles of digital empowerment and green organization flexibility. Systems 2022, 10, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Han, C.; Xie, Y.; Gao, S. Multiple strategic orientations and firm innovative performance: A moderated mediation model. J. Ind. Eng. 2020, 34, 29–37. [Google Scholar]
  29. Aldehayyat, J.S. Environmental scanning in business organisations: Empirical evidence from a Middle Eastern country context. Manag. Res. Rev. 2015, 38, 459–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xu, G.; Hou, G.; Zhang, J. Digital Sustainable Entrepreneurship: A Digital Capability Perspective through Digital Innovation Orientation for Social and Environmental Value Creation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kunkel, S.; Matthess, M. Digital transformation and environmental sustainability in industry: Putting expectations in Asian and African policies into perspective. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 112, 318–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ahmadova, G.; Delgado-Márquez, B.L.; Pedauga, L.E.; Leyva-de la Hiz, D.I. Too good to be true: The inverted U-shaped relationship between home-country digitalization and environmental performance. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 196, 107393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Feliciano-Cestero, M.M.; Ameen, N.; Kotabe, M.; Paul, J.; Signoret, M. Is digital transformation threatened? A systematic literature review of the factors influencing firms’ digital transformation and internationalization. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 157, 113546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Xiao, C.; Wang, Q.; van der Vaart, T.; van Donk, D.P. When Does Corporate Sustainability Performance Pay off? The Impact of Country-Level Sustainability Performance. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 146, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bican, P.M.; Brem, A. Digital Business Model, Digital Transformation, Digital Entrepreneurship: Is There A Sustainable “Digita”? Sustainability 2020, 12, 5239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lobschat, L.; Mueller, B.; Eggers, F.; Brandimarte, L.; Diefenbach, S.; Kroschke, M.; Wirtz, J. Corporate digital responsibility. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 122, 875–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gatignon, H.; Xuereb, J.M. Strategic Orientation of the Firm and New Product Performance. J. Mark. Res. 1997, 34, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cadogan, J.W. International marketing, strategic orientations and business success: Reflections on the path ahead. Int. Market Rev. 2012, 29, 340–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kindermann, B.; Beutel, S.; Garcia de Lomana, G.; Strese, S.; Bendig, D.; Brettel, M. Digital orientation: Conceptualization and operationalization of a new strategic orientation. Eur. Manag. J. 2021, 39, 645–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rehman, S.U.; Bresciani, S.; Yahiaoui, D.; Giacosa, E. Environmental sustainability orientation and corporate social responsibility influence on environmental performance of small and medium enterprises: The mediating effect of green capability. Corp. Soc. Resp. Env. Ma 2022, 29, 1954–1967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yasin, R.; Huseynova, A.; Atif, M. Green human resource management, a gateway to employer branding: Mediating role of corporate environmental sustainability and corporate social sustainability. Corp. Soc. Resp. Env. Ma 2023, 30, 369–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Oláh, J.; Aburumman, N.; Popp, J.; Khan, M.A.; Haddad, H.; Kitukutha, N. Impact of Industry 4.0 on Environmental Sustainability. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rehman, S.U.; Ashfaq, K.; Bresciani, S.; Giacosa, E.; Mueller, J. Nexus among intellectual capital, interorganizational learning, industrial Internet of things technology and innovation performance: A resource-based perspective. J. Intellect. Cap. 2023, 24, 509–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chiarini, A. Industry 4.0 technologies in the manufacturing sector: Are we sure they are all relevant for environmental performance? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 3194–3207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Waibel, M.W.; Steenkamp, L.P.; Moloko, N.; Oosthuizen, G.A. Investigating the Effects of Smart Production Systems on Sustainability Elements. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 8, 731–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Holzmann, P.; Gregori, P. The promise of digital technologies for sustainable entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Int. J. Inform. Manag. 2023, 68, 102593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chin, T.; Shi, Y.; Singh, S.K.; Agbanyo, G.K.; Ferraris, A. Leveraging blockchain technology for green innovation in ecosystem-based business models: A dynamic capability of values appropriation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2022, 183, 121908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Brenner, B.; Hartl, B. The perceived relationship between digitalization and ecological, economic, and social sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 315, 128128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ren, S.; Hao, Y.; Xu, L.; Wu, H.; Ba, N. Digitalization and energy: How does internet development affect China’s energy consumption? Energ. Econ. 2021, 98, 105220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hu, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, D.; Zhang, L. Ambidextrous Technical Capabilities, Evolutionary Entrepreneurship Behavior and Entrepreneurial Performance: Multiple Mediation Model Tests. South. China J. Econ. 2019, 7, 54–71. [Google Scholar]
  51. Yin, S.; Yu, Y. An adoption-implementation framework of digital green knowledge to improve the performance of digital green innovation practices for industry 5.0. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 363, 132608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jansson, J.; Nilsson, J.; Modig, F.; Hed Vall, G. Commitment to Sustainability in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: The Influence of Strategic Orientations and Management Values. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 69–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hambrick, D.C. Environmental scanning and organizational strategy. Strategic Manag. J. 1982, 3, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rogers, P.R.; Miller, A.; Judge, W.Q. Using information-processing theory to understand planning/performance relationships in the context of strategy. Strategic Manag. J. 1999, 20, 567–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Khin, S.; Ho, T.C. Digital technology, digital capability and organizational performance: A mediating role of digital innovation. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 2018, 11, 177–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kuckertz, A.; Wagner, M. The influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial intentions-Investigating the role of business experience. J. Bus. Ventur. 2010, 25, 524–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Beal, R.M. Competing effectively: Environmental scanning, competitive strategy, and organizational performance in small manufacturing firms. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2000, 38, 27. [Google Scholar]
  58. Eiadat, Y.; Kelly, A.; Roche, F.; Eyadat, H. Green and competitive? An empirical test of the mediating role of environmental innovation strategy. J. World Bus. 2008, 43, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Edwards, J.R.; Lambert, L.S. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychol. Methods 2007, 12, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Guandalini, I. Sustainability through digital transformation: A systematic literature review for research guidance. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 148, 456–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L.; Jabbour, C.J.C.; Foropon, C.; Godinho Filho, M. When titans meet—Can industry 4.0 revolutionise the environmentally-sustainable manufacturing wave? The role of critical success factors. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2018, 132, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bendig, D.; Schulz, C.; Theis, L.; Raff, S. Digital orientation and environmental performance in times of technological change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. 2023, 188, 122272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yu, J.; Moon, T. Impact of digital strategic orientation on organizational performance through digital competence. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Nguyen, N.M.; Hoai, T.T.; Vo, H.V.; Nguyen, N.P. Digital approach toward environmental sustainability in supply chains: Evidence from Vietnamese firms. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 31, 3303–3317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhang, X.; Majid, S.; Foo, S. The Contribution of Environmental Scanning to Organizational Performance. Singap. J. Libr. Inf. Manag. 2011, 40, 65. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 16 05112 g001
Figure 1. Digital sustainability conceptual model.
Figure 1. Digital sustainability conceptual model.
Sustainability 16 05112 g001
Sustainability 16 05112 g002
Figure 2. Theoretical model diagram.
Figure 2. Theoretical model diagram.
Sustainability 16 05112 g002
Table 1. Risks of digitalization in sustainable development.
Table 1. Risks of digitalization in sustainable development.
Economic DimensionEnvironmental DimensionSocial Dimension
Opportunity1. Develop new technologies to solve global problems.
2. Develop digital business models to explore new markets.
3. Drive new opportunities through effective value creation.
4. Achieve personalized customized production.		1. Improve the production efficiency of energy and materials.
2. Realize the supervision of the whole process of production and operation to enhance transparency.
3. Extend the production cycle.
4. Build a resource-saving value optimization chain.		1. Simplify the existing information retrieval methods.
2. Promote global social connectivity and community building.
3. Through media and online freelancing, introduce diverse employment opportunities.
4. Realize online connection of communication, leisure, education, health care, and other dimensions.
Risk1. Accelerate the rapid growth of the production structure.
2. The rapid change in digital technology reduces the maturity of technology and may introduce the risk of loss.
3. Intellectual property protection is more difficult.
4. Accelerate competition in the global marketplace.		1. The application of digital technology enhances energy use.
2. Increase the use of various materials.
3. Supply chain and product recycling have caused certain ecological problems.
4. Shortened product and service life, which may cause ecological problems in the supply chain.		1. Exacerbating the emergence of social inequality and the digital divide.
2. Common values are hard to form.
3. Unemployment and social security.
4. Increasing difficulties in online control.
5. Privacy information protection is more difficult
6. Information overload can lead to mental and psychological problems.
Table 2. Reliability and validity and confirmatory factor analysis test.
Table 2. Reliability and validity and confirmatory factor analysis test.
VariableConstructLoadingsKMOαC.RAVE
Digital OrientationDO10.8400.8410.8880.8900.669
DO20.762
DO30.819
DO40.846
Sustainable Commitment OrientationSOC10.7930.8810.8970.8970.637
SOC20.757
SOC30.851
SOC40.818
SOC50.765
Digital Green CapabilitiesDGC10.7890.9350.9360.9370.681
DGC20.845
DGC30.779
DGC40.817
DGC50.851
DGC60.857
DGC70.834
Environmental ScanningES10.7310.8890.8610.8630.513
ES20.773
ES30.658
ES40.629
ES50.771
ES60.725
Corporate Environmental Sustainability PracticesCESP10.6670.8800.8790.8800.552
CESP20.737
CESP30.662
CESP40.783
CESP50.818
CESP60.777
χ2/d.f. = 1.642, CFI = 0.963, IFI = 0.964, TLI = 0.959, RMSEA = 0.043
Table 3. Descriptive statistical analysis and correlation coefficient matrix.
Table 3. Descriptive statistical analysis and correlation coefficient matrix.
MSD123456
Digital Orientation3.471.040.818
Sustainable Commitment Orientation3.200.950.294 **0.798
Digital Sustainability Orientation11.375.300.786 **0.783 **-
Digital Green Capabilities3.571.020.308 **0.336 **0.338 **0.825
Environmental Scanning3.890.760.0430.135 *0.125 *0.409 **0.716
Corporate Environmental Sustainability Practices3.490.970.384 **0.569 **0.550 **0.382 **0.181 **0.743
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. The diagonal is the square root of AVE.
Table 4. Main effect and mediating effect regression analysis results.
Table 4. Main effect and mediating effect regression analysis results.
VariableCorporate Environmental Sustainability Practices
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4
Constant3.314 **2.308 **2.227 **1.779 **
Age0.0520.0310.0600.038
Size−0.130−0.064−0.117 *−0.064
Nature of property right0.182 **0.0890.102 *0.051
Digital Sustainability Orientation
(Digital Oriention × Sustainable Commitment Orientation)		 0.523 ** 0.457 **
Digital Green Capabilities 0.353 **0.213 **
R20.0570.3150.1750.354
Adjusted R20.0490.3080.1660.345
F7.077 **40.099 **18.469 **38.060 **
Note: The data listed are standard beta coefficients, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
Table 5. Bootstrap test of the mediating effect of capability reconfiguration.
Table 5. Bootstrap test of the mediating effect of capability reconfiguration.
EffectPathEffect SizeSE95% Confidence
Interval
Direct effectDigital Sustainability Orientation → Corporate Environmental Sustainability Practices0.4570.0090.067, 0.100
Mediating effectDigital Sustainability Orientation → Digital Green Capabilities → Corporate Environmental Sustainability Practices0.0660.0220.028, 0.115
Total effectDigital Sustainability Orientation → Corporate Environmental Sustainability Practices0.5230.0080.079, 0.112
Table 6. Moderating effect regression analysis results.
Table 6. Moderating effect regression analysis results.
VariableDigital Green Capabilities
Model 5Model 6Model 7Model 8
Constant3.244 **2.622 **0.991 **3.335 **
Age−0.023−0.036−0.063−0.043
Size−0.038−0.001−0.0030.018
Nature of property right0.234 **0.178 **0.123 **0.114 **
Digital Sustainability Orientation
(Digital Oriention × Sustainable commitment orientation)		 0.307 **0.274 **0.041 **
Environmental Scanning 0.359 **0.488 **
Digital Sustainability Orientation×Environmental Scanning 0.047 **
R20.0570.1460.2690.307
Adjusted R20.0570.0890.1230.038
F7.079 **14.897 **25.587 **25.491 **
Note: The data presented are standard beta coefficients, ** p < 0.01.
Table 7. Bootstrap test of the moderating effect of environmental scanning.
Table 7. Bootstrap test of the moderating effect of environmental scanning.
VariableCoefficient SETP95% Confidence Interval
Constant3.3350.21215.7430.0002.918, 3.751
Digital Sustainability Orientation0.0410.0094.3360.0000.022, 0.059
Environmental Scanning0.4880.0627.8900.0000.367, 0.610
Digital Sustainability Orientation × Environmental Scanning0.0470.0114.3060.0000.025, 0.068
Table 8. Test of moderated mediation effects.
Table 8. Test of moderated mediation effects.
Moderate VariableMediate EffectSE95% Confidence Interval
Environmental Scanning (Low)0.0010.003−0.004, 0.008
Environmental Scanning (middle)0.0080.0030.003, 0.015
Environmental Scanning (High)0.0150.0050.007, 0.026
Mediated Index0.0090.0030.003, 0.016
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, J.; Liu, M. How to Leverage Digital Sustainability Orientation to Promote Environmentally Sustainable Practices of Manufacturing Enterprises in China. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125112

AMA Style

Zhang J, Liu M. How to Leverage Digital Sustainability Orientation to Promote Environmentally Sustainable Practices of Manufacturing Enterprises in China. Sustainability. 2024; 16(12):5112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125112

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Jinshan, and Man Liu. 2024. "How to Leverage Digital Sustainability Orientation to Promote Environmentally Sustainable Practices of Manufacturing Enterprises in China" Sustainability 16, no. 12: 5112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125112

APA Style

Zhang, J., & Liu, M. (2024). How to Leverage Digital Sustainability Orientation to Promote Environmentally Sustainable Practices of Manufacturing Enterprises in China. Sustainability, 16(12), 5112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125112

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop