The Influence of Executives’ Education Background on Corporate Green Innovation: A Dual Perspective of Risk Bearing and Social Responsibility

Abstract

Sustainable development, epitomized by green innovation, is increasingly emerging as a pivotal force propelling economic ecosystems and environmental conservation efforts. It plays a vital role in addressing the environmental challenges epitomized by the Kuznets curve conundrum. As a pivotal theoretical determinant in fostering green innovation practices within firms, the extent of influence and the underlying mechanism of top executives’ educational backgrounds have not been adequately examined through empirical research. This study investigates the influence of executives’ educational attainment on corporate green innovation, examining the relationship from the perspectives of risk assumption and corporate social responsibility. The results of our analysis are as follows: (1) there is a significant positive correlation between the educational level of executives and the incidence of green technological innovation within firms. (2) Executives with overseas backgrounds make a substantial contribution to both green technological and green management innovation. (3) The examination of mediation effects reveals that risk bearing plays a partial mediation role in the process through which executives’ educational background influences green technological innovation. Additionally, corporate social responsibility functions as a partial mediation factor.

1. Introduction

Enterprise green innovation encompasses innovation efforts aimed at mitigating adverse environmental impacts and advancing sustainable development. These activities span a wide array of domains, including process improvements, technological advancements, and product and service innovation, as well as organizational structures and management practices (Oltra and Saint-Jean, 2008; Li et al., 2018) [1,2]. According to Huang and Li (2017) [3], the pursuit of green innovation not only enhances production efficiency, fosters a positive corporate reputation, and builds competitive advantage, but it also contributes to the enhancement of external environmental performance. Furthermore, it promotes green socio-economic growth and facilitates the transition towards high-quality development. Sustainable development, represented by green innovation, is gradually leading the economic ecology and environmental protection systems. It serves as a pivotal support in addressing the environmental Kuznets curve dilemma. The dual performance contribution of green innovation to both the economy and the environment has been widely recognized. Fussler and James (1996) [4] proposed, from a goal-oriented perspective, that green innovation is the catalyst for enterprise development. It not only facilitates profit generation and competitive advantages but also enables them to effectively recycle resources and reduce the adverse environmental effects caused by their operations. As global environmental consciousness intensifies, corporate sustainable development has emerged as a focus for governments, industry organizations, and the public worldwide. According to Kawai et al. (2018) [5], international enterprises need to take proactive measures towards foreign stakeholders in order to gain a foothold in the market, which encompasses green innovation. A growing number of companies are incorporating green production and environmental protection into their business decision-making processes, with green innovation being recognized as one of the key pathways to achieve sustainable development. As the largest developing economy, China has witnessed a 6.5% annual growth rate in green and low-carbon patent grants from 2016 to 2021, accounting for 41.2% of the global total. This makes China a leading force in global green and low-carbon technological innovation. A comprehensive analysis of China’s successful experiences in this domain can offer valuable insights for other developing economies seeking to emulate such progress.

Senior executives and decision-makers within an enterprise play a pivotal role in shaping the company’s development strategy and environmental protection trajectory. Their attitudes and actions significantly influence the enterprise’s commitment to green innovation. If senior executives lack awareness of environmental protection and tend to prioritize profit strategies, the enterprise may lower or abandon environmental protection standards, thus inhibiting the willingness of the enterprise to participate in green innovation.

Exploring the behavioral characteristics and values of executives is instrumental in analyzing the decision-making process, dynamic adjustment mechanism, and empirical facts of corporate green innovation from a micro-level perspective. This allows for better management of risks and challenges associated with green innovation initiatives. Due to the complex internal and external environment of enterprises, managers may not possess a holistic understanding of it all. And they tend to make selective judgments based on their own understanding (Hambrick and Mason, 1984) [6]. Their interpretation of information is largely influenced by their existing cognitive structure and value orientation. In the transformation of corporate green innovation and green production, the education background of executives is one of the most important dimensions among various executive characteristics. It is closely related to cognitive ability and values, and it can be objectively measured. In the studies of executive characteristics, demographic attributes emerge as significant explanatory variables, which are simple and intuitive (Pfeffer, 1983; Sperber and Linder, 2018) [7,8]. This study explores the impact of executives’ education background, a key demographic variable, on the pursuit of corporate green innovation.

The level of corporate risk bearing represents the costs that management is willing to pay in pursuit of profitability and growth opportunities (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996) [9]. The risks that companies bear include not only those embedded within their own production and operation, but also those arising from shifts in external macroeconomic environments and government policies. Risk bearing is not a characteristic derived from a single source; it is influenced by situational factors, attributes of decision-makers, and the interaction between situations and decision-makers (Figner and Weber, 2011) [10]. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) pertains to an organization’s obligation to make business decisions and implement related plans in accordance with the long-term value objectives of social development. Entrepreneurs or managers should bear the necessary social responsibilities commensurate with their rights. Elkington (1998) [11] subdivides CSR into economic, environmental, and social dimensions, advocating that enterprises should actively participate in environmental protection and social activities. In the current era which champions sustainable development, CSR has risen to the strategic dimension. Abbas and Sağsan (2019) [12] propose that CSR is an organizational green strategy that can maintain stability in environmental, social, and economic aspects. Although the maximization of profits remains the fundamental and ultimate objective of enterprises, assuming social responsibility is conducive to the growth and development of enterprises.

In summary, while some research has investigated the influence of executive attitudes, behaviors, and other more overt demographic traits on green innovation, the extent and mechanism of the impact of executives’ educational backgrounds remain underexplored. Specifically, the literature on the role of executive overseas experience in green innovation is clearly limited. Despite the recognition that such experience can shape the cognitive structure, values, and decision-making of executives, empirical studies are lacking in terms of whether and how this experience promotes green innovation. Additionally, the interplay between executive risk bearing, CSR performance, and the relationship between executives’ education background and corporate green innovation warrants further investigation.

The principal marginal contributions of our study are as follows: Firstly, while there has been abundant research which report on the relationship between executive characteristics and corporate innovation, the green innovation in emerging markets is undergoing rapid evolution and development. This necessitates a re-evaluation of executives’ educational backgrounds and knowledge reserves. Nonetheless, the research examining the relationship between executives’ education background and corporate green innovation is still relatively scarce. Compared with executive groups in developed regions such as the United States and Western Europe, Chinese executives tend to exhibit a stronger affinity for ‘collectivism’. The findings of our study fill in some of the research gaps. Secondly, previous measurements of executives’ education backgrounds mostly start from academic qualifications or years of education. Within the context of global carbon reduction efforts, the significance of international exchange and learning has been overlooked, leading to certain limitations in the existing literature. Our study adds a discussion on executives’ overseas background, thereby aligning the research outcomes more closely with the general trend in international coordinated development.

The structure of this paper is arranged as follows: the first part outlines the research background and significance. The second part presents a theoretical analysis and research hypotheses, discussing the possible influence of executives’ education background on corporate green innovation and analyzing the roles of risk bearing and social responsibility as transmission paths. The third part is the research design, including the sample selection, data sources, variable design, and model setting. The fourth part conducts an empirical analysis, discussing the impact of executives’ education background on green innovation, verifying the transmission mechanism of risk bearing and CSR, and conducting a robustness analysis. The final part includes the main research conclusions of this paper and management recommendations.

2. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypothesis

2.1. Education Background of Executives and Corporate Green Innovation

The educational background of executives not only shapes a company’s green innovation strategy but also interacts with the company’s own attributes to impact the outcomes of the green innovation. Green innovation in enterprises requires long-term planning and investment, requiring executives to have a clear development strategy and to integrate green concepts throughout all aspects of production and operations. At the same time, executives need to actively support green innovation initiatives, promoting the green transformation and upgrading of the enterprise. The leadership and long-term values of executives are pivotal in the success of green innovation, while their education background has a significant impact on their leadership style, values, and decision-making skills. In the process of green technology application and R&D, executives are tasked with integrating and allocating resources, such as materials and human capital. The innovative consciousness and resource allocation capabilities of executives will affect the development of enterprises in the green field, and the educational background of executives plays an important role in this process.

It is widely believed that education background reflects an individual’s knowledge and skill foundation (Wiersema et al., 2017) [13], and its impact is particularly significant for decision-makers. Early research on corporate diversification and management performance revealed that CEOs with higher levels of education positively correlate with corporate diversification (Tihanyil et al., 2000) [14], and those who graduated from top universities can achieve superior enterprise management (King et al., 2016) [15]. Smith and Tushman (2005) [16] found that executive teams with greater educational diversity are more adept at grasping market changes and promoting corporate innovation, partly because well-educated executives have stronger skills to acquire and process information.

Due to the increasing interconnectedness among economies and objective differences in the level of higher education, overseas experience has emerged as another critical component of executives’ educational background. Senior executives’ overseas experience plays a pivotal role in shaping their cognitive structures and values, which in turn influences their business decision-making and governance practices (Hao et al., 2020) [17]. An international background endows executives with a broader spectrum of professional knowledge and more profound insights, enabling them to gain a superior understanding of their industry’s core technologies and market information (Yuan and Wen, 2018; Mohr and Batsakis, 2019) [18,19]. Filatotchev et al. (2008) [20] argued that executives with overseas experience are adept at cross-cultural communication, cross-border collaboration, and global business networking. Furthermore, such international experience has a significant impact on corporate innovation (Yuan and Wen, 2018; Fu et al., 2024) [18,21]. Advanced management experience and a diverse perspective also help executives handle various risks and emergencies (Yuan and Wen, 2018) [18], and executives with an overseas background can improve investment efficiency (Dai et al., 2018) [22]. These executives can harness their unique advantages in information access and strategic decision-making to seize business opportunities and drive development in emerging economies, thereby gaining a competitive edge (Dai and Liu, 2009) [23] and enhancing the performance of enterprises in emerging markets (Giannetti et al., 2015) [24]. Fu et al. (2024) [21] had identified that an increase in R&D investment is a crucial channel through which returning overseas executives influence corporate innovation. Cao et al. (2022) [25] contend that CEOs with overseas experience exert a positive influence on corporate innovation performance, primarily by augmenting R&D investment and enhancing the quality of information disclosure. With a focus on green innovation, both Chen et al. (2022) [26] and Cheng and Kuang (2024) [27] had concluded that executive overseas experience fosters green innovation. In a study of CEOs with foreign experience, Zhang et al. (2022) [28] found that CEOs who have worked abroad, as opposed to those who have studied abroad, have a more pronounced positive impact on corporate green innovation, emphasizing the significance of overseas work experience.

Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is proposed.

Hypothesis 1.

There is a positive impact of executives’ education background on corporate green innovation.

2.2. Transmission Mechanism of Risk Bearing to Green Innovation

In the context of corporate risk bearing, enterprises face various uncertainties during their investment, operation, and development processes, which generate risks that need to be managed. The balance between risky and risk-free assets in an investment portfolio depends on investors’ trade-off between risk and expected return (Bodie et al., 2022) [29]. Traditional theories of enterprise decision-making were profit-oriented, based on expected returns and risks. Yet, with increasing market competition and changing environments, enterprises cannot rely solely on traditional measures such as profits or cash flow to ensure stable development, and they must take on more future risks. Enterprises should adopt targeted risk management measures and investment strategies according to their specific capacity and risk preferences. In line with the principle of risk–reward equivalence, high-risk investment project decisions require higher rates of return, and many of the projects with high current rates of return are reflected in green innovation. The higher the level of corporate risk bearing, the more fully enterprises utilize investment opportunities and actively choose long-term, high-risk, high-tech green innovation projects.

Risk bearing is crucial for the sustainable growth of enterprises, and the educational background of executives significantly influences the risk bearing of enterprises, which will affect investment decisions. The psychological cognition of executives will have an impact on risk preference, and the psychological cognition of executives is affected by personal education to a certain extent, which in turn is influenced by their educational background. Executive confidence reflects beliefs about future outcomes and risk bearing, and highly confident executives are suited for high-challenge, high-risk investments (Brisley et al., 2021) [30]. Shue and Townsend (2017) [31] found that CEOs with higher education levels are more inclined to engage in high-risk investments, indicating that a CEO’s education level has a positive effect on enterprise risk bearing. More educated managers possess stronger information assessment capabilities and are more inclined to take innovative risks.

Furthermore, if executives have overseas study or work experience, it may have a significant impact on their value judgment and cognitive level, thereby affecting risk preferences and improving the corporate risk bearing capacity. Sambharya (1996) [32] posits that executives with overseas experience acquire enhanced executive competencies and risk management skills. Zhang and Fu (2020) [33], focusing on China’s listed manufacturing firms, discovered that returning overseas executives primarily enhance firm performance through a risk bearing mechanism. Zheng et al. (2023) [34] also hold the view that executives with international exposure are more inclined to take risks and are prone to engage in green innovation activities with a higher uncertainty and longer return cycle. Cui et al. (2024) [35] examined the influence mechanism of risk preference tendency on the green innovation output of enterprises, concluding that senior executives’ overseas experience significantly impacts corporate green innovation, with the level of risk preference among senior executives acting as a mediating factor.

In conclusion, Hypothesis 2 is proposed.

Hypothesis 2.

Corporate risk bearing serves as a critical transmission channel for executives’ education background to affect corporate green innovation.

2.3. Transmission Mechanism of Corporate Social Responsibility to Green Innovation

The theory of CSR holds that enterprises should not only pursue profit maximization, but also take responsibility for society and the environment within the framework of legality and justice. Paying attention to social responsibility can not only align with the expectations of the outside world for enterprises but is also a key factor for long-term sustainability. The underlying logic of CSR can be summarized into two primary kinds. One is influenced by the external institutional environment from the outside to the inside, emphasizing the motivation of external stakeholders. The other is focusing on entrepreneurship and missions from the inside to the outside, aiming to seek the integration and symbiosis of both economic value and social value.

In recent years, the role of CSR in driving enterprise innovation has attracted increasing scholarly attention. Tang et al. (2012) [36] hold that corporate profits are determined by how enterprises undertake CSR, suggesting that participation in CSR initiatives can enhance corporate financial performance. Luo and Du (2015) [37] proposed that CSR can reduce information asymmetry within the enterprise, enhance communication with external stakeholders, and promote its R&D innovation. Santos et al. (2021) [38] found that CSR is conducive to optimizing corporate debt and reducing employee resistance to change, thus promoting corporate innovation activities. Green innovation, as a pivotal form of enterprise innovation, takes into account both corporate economic responsibility and social responsibility. While creating economic contributions, it reduces environmental pollution through efficient and green production methods to ensure the sustainable development of enterprises.

According to Donaldson (1997) [39], the decision-making behavior of enterprises reflects the demographic characteristics of executives and their management autonomy. The fulfillment of social responsibility is a kind of decision-making behavior of the company, which has obvious characteristics in the temporal context and is intrinsically related to the education background of senior executives. Executives with higher levels of education are more likely to comprehend the significance of social responsibility for corporate development and to promote CSR initiatives. The social responsibility education system in developed countries such as Western Europe and the United States is more advanced and comprehensive, and the concept of social responsibility is widely recognized.

Compared with the executives trained in China, the executives with an overseas background are influenced by the external environment. They are inclined to cultivate a knowledge structure and thought patterns that prioritize information disclosure (Hao et al., 2020) [17], leading to a more profound understanding and a greater propensity to fulfill CSRs. The majority of overseas executives hail from developed countries and regions in Europe and the United States, where the theory and practice of CSR have a longer history. And these countries’ governance of social responsibility and educational systems are relatively mature and standardized (Zhang et al., 2018) [40]. Executives with an overseas background are more familiar with the operation mode of overseas enterprises and the practice of social responsibility, which they can transpose to the management of Chinese enterprises. Yu et al. (2022) [41] indicated that the sustainable development mindset and long-term goal orientation developed by returning overseas executives can heighten their focus on green innovation, thereby fostering the sustainable growth of enterprises. The research conducted by Hussain et al. (2024) [42] similarly discovered that an increased presence of foreign directors from developed countries on the boards of Chinese listed companies can positively enhance the company’s commitment to green initiatives. It is inferred that Chinese executives with an overseas background may also exert a significant influence on the green innovation practices of Chinese listed companies.

Consequently, Hypothesis 3 is proposed.

Hypothesis 3.

Corporate social responsibility serves as a pivotal transmission channel for the education background of executives to affect corporate green innovation.

3. Study Design

3.1. Sample Selection and Data Sources

Private listed companies on Shanghai and Shenzhen A-share markets from 2016 to 2021 were selected as the research sample. On the one hand, the impact of overseas executive experience may be more pronounced in private enterprises (Yuan and Wen, 2017; Cheng and Kuang, 2024) [18,27]. On the other hand, green innovation poses a greater challenge to private enterprises. This selection excluded firms that were listed or delisted from the year 2016, as well as those classified as ST or *ST. The dataset comprises a total of 7940 enterprise annual observations, primarily encompassing 20 sub-industries (as per the industry classification guidelines for listed companies (2012 edition) issued by the China Securities Regulatory Commission). Data regarding the educational background of executives and the green management innovation of enterprises were primarily sourced from the CSMAR database and the CNRDS database. The CSMAR database and the CNRDS database are both research-focused precision databases. They are high-quality, open, and platform-comprehensive data platforms for Chinese economic, financial, and business research, serving academic universities and financial institutions for the purpose of research and quantitative investment analysis. To mitigate the influence of outliers, all continuous variables were winsorized at the 1% level.

3.2. Variable Design and Model Setting

3.2.1. Explained Variables

Chiou et al. (2011) [43] argued that technology and management are two pivotal dimensions of green innovation in enterprises, with each aspect complementing and facilitating the implementation of green innovation practices. Qi et al. (2020) [44] similarly categorize green innovation into two distinct types, green management innovation and green technology innovation. Consequently, this study measures the green innovation capability of enterprises through these two aspects. Green technology innovation (GTI) is measured by the number of green patents of enterprises, and the higher number of green innovation patents is indicative of a stronger green innovation capability of enterprises. Green management innovation (GMI) is measured by whether a company has passed the ISO14001 certification in the current year. ISO14001 [45] is a standard that helps organizations establish, implement, maintain, and improve environmental management systems. If a company passes the certification, it is considered to have carried out green management innovation.

3.2.2. Explanatory Variables

This paper measures the educational background of senior executives from two aspects, namely educational level (Education) and overseas background (Oversea). The educational level of executives is used as a direct indicator to measure the education level of executives, categorized as senior high school or below, junior college, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and doctorate, assigned values from 1 to 5 in turn. The overseas background of executives is measured by whether they have studied or worked abroad. Executives with overseas experience are assigned a value of 1, while those without are assigned a value of 0. The term ‘executives’ in this article does not include independent directors.

3.2.3. Mediating Variables

The mediating variables in this study include risk bearing (Risk) and social responsibility (CSR). Referring to the research of John et al. (2008) [46], the risk bearing is measured by the volatility of earnings and income. The industry average is used to adjust the ROA of enterprises, that is, the enterprise ROA subtracts the average of the industry ROA to obtain the ADJ_ROA_i,n. The standard deviation of ADJ_ROA_i,n over a three-year period serves as an indicator of the level of risk bearing. In recent years, China has made some regulations on the disclosure of CSR reports, but there are still obvious problems in the form and content of some enterprises’ reports. We use the Sino-Securities ESG rating to measure CSR in this study.

3.2.4. Control Variables

Profitability, agency problems, commercial agency, ability to grow, fixed assets ratio, enterprise size, enterprise age, asset–liability ratio, ROE, investment expenditure rate, actual income tax rate, maximum shareholding ratio, capital intensity, leverage, and top three executive salaries are used as control variables. We add the fixed effect of province × year and industry × year to account for all the factors that change with time at the regional level and industry level, such as regional policy changes, technological progress, industry competition dynamics, and import and export trade trends. The detailed breakdown of the main variables is provided in

Table 1. Definition of main variables.

Variable	Meaning	Calculation Method
GTI	green technology innovation	natural logarithm of the number of green patents obtained + 1
GMI	green management innovation	ISO14001 certified or not
Education	level of education	average education level of senior management team, technical secondary school and below = 1; junior college = 2; undergraduate = 3; master = 4; doctoral = 5
Oversea	overseas background	average value of the senior management team with overseas background; those with overseas study or job-hunting background are assigned 1, otherwise are assigned 0
Risk	risk bearing	standard deviation of ROA adjusted by industry average within 3 years
CSR	social responsibility	corporate social responsibility dimension score of Sino-Securities ESG rating
Profitability	profitability	EBIT/Total Assets
Agency_issues	agency problem	administrative expenses/operating income
Agency	commercial agency	(accounts payable + notes payable-accounts receivable − notes receivable)/total assets
Growth	ability to grow	growth rate of main business income
Fix_asset	fixed assets ratio	fixed assets/total assets
Size	enterprise size	natural logarithm of total assets
Firm_age	enterprise age	statistical year—the year in which the company was listed
Ass_liab	asset–liability ratio	total liabilities/total assets
ROE	return on equity	net profit/owner’s equity
Investment	investment expenditure rate	cash paid for purchase and construction of fixed assets, intangible assets and other long-term assets/total assets
Income_taxr	actual income tax rate	actual income tax/total profit
TOP1Sharehold	maximum shareholding ratio	shareholding ratio of the largest shareholder
Per_fixedasset	capital intensity	natural logarithm of per capita fixed assets of enterprise
Leverage	integrated leverage	(net profit + income tax expense + financial expense + depreciation of fixed assets + depletion of oil and gas assets + depreciation of productive biological assets + amortization of intangible assets + amortization of long-term deferred expenses)/(net profit + income tax expense)
TOP3Mana_salary	top three executive salaries	natural logarithm of the total compensation of the top three executives
Province × Year	province × year,	fixed effect of province and year
Sic_str × Year	industry × year	fixed effect of industry and year

.

3.3. Model Settings

3.3.1. Base Model

Model 1 and Model 2 are formulated to test the impact of executives’ education background on green innovation. The panel data are analyzed using multidimensional fixed effects, and robust standard errors are used to eliminate some of the possible effects of heteroscedasticity.

$$GT{I}_{i,t}={\alpha }_0+{\alpha }_{1}Educatio{n}_{i,t}+{\alpha }_{2}Overse{a}_{i,t}+{\alpha }_{3}Control{s}_{i,t}+\sum Province\times Year+\sum Si{c}_{s}tr\times Year+{\epsilon }_{i,t}$$

(1)

$$GM{I}_{i,t}={\alpha }_0+{\alpha }_{1}Educatio{n}_{i,t}+{\alpha }_{2}Overse{a}_{i,t}+{\alpha }_{3}Control{s}_{i,t}+\sum Province\times Year+\sum Sic\_str\times Year+{\epsilon }_{i,t}$$

(2)

3.3.2. Mediating Effect of Risk Bearing

Stepwise regression is widely used to test for mediating effects (Wen et al., 2004) [47]. In order to verify the possible mediating effect of risk bearing on the influence of executives’ education background on green innovation, Model 3, Model 4, and Model 5 were constructed.

$$\begin{gathered} Ris{k}_{i,t}={\beta }_0+{\beta }_{1}Educatio{n}_{i,t}+{\beta }_{2}Overse{a}_{i,t}+{\beta }_{3}Control{s}_{i,t}+\sum Province\times Year \\ +\sum Sic\_str\times Year+{\epsilon }_{i,t} \end{gathered}$$

(3)

$$\begin{gathered} GT{I}_{i,t}={\gamma }_0+{\gamma }_{1}Educatio{n}_{i,t}+{\gamma }_{2}Overse{a}_{i,t}+{\gamma }_{3}Risk+{\gamma }_{4}Control{s}_{i,t}+ \\ \sum Province\times Year+\sum Sic\_str\times Year+{\epsilon }_{i,t} \end{gathered}$$

(4)

$$\begin{gathered} GM{I}_{i,t}={\gamma }_0+{\gamma }_{1}Educatio{n}_{i,t}+{\gamma }_{2}Overse{a}_{i,t}+{\gamma }_{3}Risk+{\gamma }_{4}Control{s}_{i,t}+ \\ \sum Province\times Year+\sum Sic\_str\times Year+{\epsilon }_{i,t} \end{gathered}$$

(5)

If the coefficient of the variable of executives’ education background in Model 3 is significant, the regression test is carried out on Model 4 and Model 5; if the coefficients ${\gamma }_1$, ${\gamma }_2$, and ${\gamma }_3$ are all significant, there is a partial mediating effect; if only ${\gamma }_3$ is significant, there is a complete mediating effect; if ${\gamma }_3$ is not significant, there is no mediating effect.

3.3.3. Mediating Effect of Social Responsibility

Similarly, in order to verify the possible mediating effect of social responsibility on the process of executives’ education background affecting green innovation, Model 6, Model 7, and Model 8 are constructed to test the mediating effect of the process and risk bearing.

$$\begin{gathered} CS{R}_{i,t}={\beta }_0+{\beta }_{1}Educatio{n}_{i,t}+{\beta }_{2}Overse{a}_{i,t}+{\beta }_{3}Control{s}_{i,t}+\sum Province\times Year \\ +\sum Sic\_str\times Year+{\epsilon }_{i,t} \end{gathered}$$

(6)

$$\begin{gathered} GT{I}_{i,t}={\gamma }_0+{\gamma }_{1}Educatio{n}_{i,t}+{\gamma }_{2}Overse{a}_{i,t}+{\gamma }_{3}CSR+{\gamma }_{4}Control{s}_{i,t}+ \\ \sum Province\times Year+\sum Sic\_str\times Year+{\epsilon }_{i,t} \end{gathered}$$

(7)

$$\begin{gathered} GM{I}_{i,t}={\gamma }_0+{\gamma }_{1}Educatio{n}_{i,t}+{\gamma }_{2}Overse{a}_{i,t}+{\gamma }_{3}CSR+{\gamma }_{4}Control{s}_{i,t}+ \\ \sum Province\times Year+\sum Sic\_str\times Year+{\epsilon }_{i,t} \end{gathered}$$

(8)

4. Empirical Analysis

4.1. Variable Descriptive Statistics

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

	N	Mean	p50	SD	Variance	Max	Min
GTI	4115	0.797	0	1.082	1.171	5.869	0
GMI	4115	0.285	0	0.451	0.204	1	0
Education	4115	3.266	3.286	0.573	0.329	5	1
Oversea	4115	0.062	0	0.150	0.023	1	0
Risk	4115	0.023	0.012	0.051	0.003	0.571	0.000
CSR	4115	75.136	75.600	10.504	110.337	100	14.9
Profitability	4115	0.066	0.054	0.047	0.002	0.245	−0.008
Agency_issues	4115	0.079	0.065	0.060	0.004	0.496	0.010
Agency	4115	−0.022	−0.016	0.107	0.011	0.253	−0.362
Growth	4115	0.276	0.138	0.629	0.395	4.159	−0.528
Fix_asset	4115	0.196	0.176	0.135	0.018	0.569	0.002
Size	4115	22.492	22.430	1.044	1.090	25.029	19.814
Firm_age	4115	12.477	11	6.475	41.921	29	1
Ass_liab	4115	0.408	0.408	0.179	0.032	0.832	0.046
ROE	4115	0.086	0.070	0.067	0.005	0.323	−0.042
Investment	4115	0.043	0.031	0.042	0.002	0.239	0.000
Income_taxr	4115	0.143	0.139	0.118	0.014	0.601	−0.441
TOP1Sharehold	4115	29.926	28.250	13.199	174.203	70.530	8.448
Per_fixedasset	4115	12.585	12.616	1.081	1.168	14.955	8.976
Leverage	4115	3.085	1.552	18.260	333.413	913.802	0.369
TOP3Mana_salary	4115	14.696	14.642	0.744	0.554	18.197	11.958

presents the descriptive statistics of the variables. The average value of GTI is 0.797, with a standard deviation of 1.082, ranging from 0 to 5.869. This indicates that the average number of green patents of sample enterprises is less, and there is a big difference in green technology innovation among enterprises. The average value of GMI is 0.285, with a standard deviation of 0.451, and about 28.5% of enterprises pass the ISO14001 certification. The average value of Education is 3.266, which is between the undergraduate and master’s level of education, and there is a significant gap among different enterprises. The average value of Oversea is 0.062, with a median value of 0. This indicates that senior executives with an overseas background are relatively scarce in China’s privately listed companies.

4.2. Benchmark Regression Results

The foundational regression results are shown in

Table 3. Impact of executives’ education background on green innovation of enterprises.

	Model 1	Model 2
Education	0.075 ***	0.004
	(2.59)	(0.31)
Oversea	0.270 **	0.184 ***
	(2.32)	(3.25)
Profitability	−6.255 ***	−0.113
	(−6.76)	(−0.28)
Agency_issues	0.633 **	−0.377 ***
	(2.14)	(−2.82)
Agency	−0.156	−0.141 *
	(−0.96)	(−1.74)
Growth	0.008	−0.011
	(0.33)	(−1.21)
Fix_asset	0.226	0.431 ***
	(1.39)	(5.40)
Size	0.388 ***	0.030 ***
	(18.57)	(3.15)
Firm_age	−0.009 ***	−0.005 ***
	(−3.32)	(−4.04)
Ass_liab	−0.010	−0.010
	(−0.08)	(−0.17)
ROE	3.989 ***	0.122
	(5.85)	(0.42)
Investment	0.467	−0.058
	(1.05)	(−0.29)
Income_taxr	−0.325 **	−0.182 ***
	(−2.49)	(−2.79)
TOP1Sharehold	−0.000	−0.001 **
	(−0.38)	(−2.55)
Per_fixedasset	−0.052 ***	−0.035 ***
	(−2.81)	(−4.07)
Leverage	−0.002	−0.002
	(−0.35)	(−0.67)
TOP3Mana_salary	0.067 **	−0.002
	(2.56)	(−0.12)
Province × Year	Yes	Yes
Sic_str × Year	Yes	Yes
N	4107	4107
Adj R-sq	0.313	0.066

The values in brackets are t-values. ***, **, and * are significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.

. In Model 1, the regression coefficient of Education is 0.075, which has a positive impact on GTI at the 1% significance level. The regression coefficient of Oversea is 0.270, which has a positive impact on GTI at the 5% significance level. In Model 2, Education has a positive effect on GMI, but it does not pass the significance test. The regression coefficient of Oversea is 0.075, and it has a positive effect on GMI at the 1% significance level. Executives with higher levels of education possess certain advantages in information acquisition, comprehension, and problem-solving, which provide rich information and different perspectives for the senior management team when dealing with issues related to enterprise development. This helps to promote the green innovation of enterprises. The overseas background of top management teams will bring diversified knowledge and views to the team. Consequently, the greater the influence of an overseas background on the top management teams, the more substantial the promotion of green technology innovation and green management innovation.

4.3. Mediating Effect of Risk Bearing

The results of the mediating effect of corporate risk bearing are shown in

Table 4. Mediating effect of risk bearing.

	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Education	0.004 ***	0.076 ***	0.004
	(2.66)	(2.61)	(0.27)
Oversea	0.006 *	0.271 **	0.183 ***
	(1.85)	(2.33)	(3.24)
Risk		0.142 **	0.120
		(2.53)	(0.83)
Controls	Yes	Yes	Yes
Province × Year	Yes	Yes	Yes
Sic_str × Year	Yes	Yes	Yes
N	4107	4107	4107
Adj R-sq	0.086	0.192	0.066

The values in brackets are t-values. ***, **, and * are significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.

. In Model 3, both Education and Oversea exhibit a significant positive impact on Risk. The higher the education attainment of executives and the more overseas experience, the stronger the risk bearing of enterprises. The results of Model 4 and Model 5 show that Risk plays a partial mediating role in the process of executives’ education background affecting GTI, while it does not play a significant mediating role in the process of executives’ education background affecting GMI. Overall, the greater propensity for risk bearing is associated with more pronounced green technology innovation.

4.4. Mediating Effect of Social Responsibility

The outcomes of the mediating effect of CSR are displayed in

Table 5. Mediating effect of social responsibility.

	Model 6	Model 7	Model 8
Education	0.387	0.073 **	0.007
	(1.62)	(2.54)	(0.46)
Oversea	2.062 *	0.267 **	0.188 ***
	(1.80)	(2.31)	(3.35)
CSR		0.005 ***	0.007 ***
		(2.96)	(9.45)
Controls	Yes	Yes	Yes
Province × Year	Yes	Yes	Yes
Sic_str × Year	Yes	Yes	Yes
N	4107	4107	4107
Adj R-sq	0.110	0.194	0.086

The values in brackets are t-values. ***, **, and * are significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.

. In Model 6, Oversea has a significant positive impact on CSR, indicating that executives with more international experience are associated with better CSR performance. The results from Model 7 and Model 8 reveal that CSR plays a partial mediating role in the relationship of executives’ education background, especially Oversea, on both GTI and GMI. Collectively, these findings suggest that superior performance in CSR is linked to more advanced levels of both green technology innovation and green management innovation.

4.5. Robustness Test

4.5.1. Bootstrap Self-Sampling

The bootstrap self-sampling method is used to test the robustness of the regression results. This technique achieves an unbiased asymptotic population distribution by repeated sampling of the original sample, which improves the effectiveness and consistency of the estimation results. In this part, we set the value of seed at 20,000 and the value of random sampling at 1000. The regression outcomes are basically consistent with the above findings. The regression results are shown in

Table 6. Bootstrap self-sampling robustness test.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6	Model 7	Model 8
Education	0.075 ***	0.004	0.004 **	0.076 ***	0.004	0.387	0.073 **	0.007
	(2.96)	(0.29)	(2.49)	(2.99)	(0.26)	(1.37)	(2.55)	(0.44)
Oversea	0.270 **	0.184 ***	0.008 *	0.271 **	0.183 ***	2.062 *	0.267 **	0.188 ***
	(2.35)	(3.24)	(1.68)	(2.35)	(3.23)	(1.81)	(2.29)	(3.36)
Risk				0.419 *	0.120
				(1.69)	(0.85)
CSR							0.005 ***	0.007 ***
							(2.99)	(9.53)
Controls	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Province × Year	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Sic_str × Year	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
N	4107	4107	4107	4107	4107	4107	4107	4107
Adj R-sq	0.313	0.066	0.086	0.192	0.066	0.121	0.314	0.086

The values in brackets are t-values. ***, **, and * are significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.

.

4.5.2. Changing the Scale of Variables

The difference in the dimension of each variable in the model may lead to estimation bias, and there may be original errors in the variables. We use the method of changing the scale of variables, normalizing the variables by min–max, to test the robustness. The regression results are basically consistent with the above findings. The regression results are shown in

Table 7. Min–max normalized robustness test.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6	Model 7	Model 8
mmx_Education	0.031 ***	0.011	0.019 ***	0.031 ***	0.009	0.017	0.030 **	0.016
	(2.59)	(0.31)	(2.66)	(2.61)	(0.27)	(1.32)	(2.54)	(0.46)
mmx_Oversea	0.031 **	0.123 ***	0.007 *	0.031 **	0.122 ***	0.025 *	0.030 **	0.126 ***
	(2.32)	(3.25)	(1.85)	(2.33)	(3.24)	(1.80)	(2.31)	(3.35)
mmx_Risk				0.041 *	0.069
				(1.69)	(0.83)
mmx_CSR							0.046 ***	0.404 ***
							(2.96)	(9.45)
mmx_Controls	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Province × Year	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Sic_str × Year	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
N	4107	4107	4107	4107	4107	4107	4107	4107
Adj R-sq	0.313	0.066	0.086	0.192	0.066	0.254	0.314	0.086

The values in brackets are t-values. ***, **, and * are significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.

.

4.6. Analysis of Influencing Mechanisms

The regression outcomes are depicted in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Senior executives’ education background exhibits a more substantial explanatory influence on green technological innovation (GTI) compared to green management innovation (GMI). Moreover, senior executives’ international experience demonstrates a greater capacity to explain corporate green innovation than their educational level. Furthermore, CSR emerges as a more effective mediator than risk bearing. The varying degrees of explanatory power and mediation roles of these variables reflect the historical context and the contemporary landscape of China’s economic and social progress.

4.6.1. Difference between GTI and GMI

We utilize the presence or absence of the ISO14001 certification as an indicator of a company’s green management innovation. The requirements for an environmental management system certification are more stringent than those for patent approval, and a significant number of companies have not achieved this certification, leading to a discrepancy between GTI and GMI. The quantity of green patents a company holds does not always signify robust green management capabilities. Moreover, an increase in the count of green patents tends to carry more economic value for companies. Investors tend to place greater emphasis on the tangible growth in patent tallies, interpreting this increase as a reflection of both the company’s innovative prowess and its commitment to social responsibility, while their understanding and attention to the ISO14001 certification are somewhat lacking. Additionally, regional policies that offer incentives for patent approvals have prompted companies to prioritize green technological innovation over management innovation. Consequently, the combined influence of internal and external factors results in the educational background of executives exerting a stronger predictive power on GTI.

4.6.2. Value of Executives’ Overseas Experience

Amidst the backdrop of China’s expanding higher education enrollment and the internal demand for managerial competencies, the mean educational attainment of executives across various enterprises, as it currently stands, has reached a notably high plateau. Despite this, the incidence of executives with international experience remains quite low, which inversely heightens the value of such experience due to its rarity. International exposure endows executives with a broader global perspective, cross-cultural communication skills, innovative thinking, and management paradigms. These competencies empower executives to more adeptly grasp and capitalize on enterprises’ efforts in green sustainable innovation, thereby playing a pivotal role in fostering technological and managerial innovation.

4.6.3. Significant Mediating Effect of CSR

CSR can effectively catalyze green sustainable innovation within enterprises by mitigating financial constraints and augmenting government subsidies through various channels. Additionally, media coverage enhances the sustainability innovation impact of CSR. In contrast, the relationship between corporate risk bearing and green sustainable innovation is more nuanced. Both green technological innovation and green management innovation are characterized by low returns, high risks, and long development cycles, necessitating enterprises to embrace a significant degree of risk bearing. Nevertheless, corporate risk bearing manifests itself in a dual manner. Enterprises with a low tolerance for risk may struggle to fully exploit their resource capabilities, which can negatively influence green sustainable innovation. On the other hand, an overindulgence in risk bearing could exacerbate financial instability and be detrimental to the stable progression of enterprises. As a result, in the context of this study, the mediating role of CSR emerges as more consistent and pronounced.

5. Discussions and Recommendations

5.1. Research Conclusions

Sustainable development, epitomized by green innovation, is gradually leading the economic ecology and environmental protection system. It stands as a pivotal support in resolving the quandary posed by the environmental Kuznets curve. Its dual contribution to economic and environmental performance has been widely valued. We study how the educational background of executives affects corporate green innovation from the dual perspectives of risk bearing and social responsibility and use the bootstrap self-sampling technique and min–max normalization for variables to test the robustness of findings.

The education level of executives exerts a significant positive influence on the green technological innovation of enterprises. Highly educated executives have certain advantages in information acquisition, understanding things, and dealing with problems, which provides rich information and different perspectives for dealing with issues related to enterprise development and helps to promote the green innovation of enterprises. Additionally, executives’ overseas background has a significant positive impact on both green technology innovation and green management innovation. The international exposure of executives brings a multiplicity of knowledge and insights to the management team, thereby catalyzing the green technological innovation efforts of the enterprise.

The mediation analysis reveals that both that executives’ education level and overseas background have a significant positive impact on corporate risk bearing and social responsibility. In the pathway through which executives’ educational background impacts green technology innovation, risk bearing serves as a partial mediator. Similarly, CSR acts as a partial mediator in the process of executives’ education background affecting both green technology innovation and green management innovation. Overall, the stronger the risk bearing, the more prominent the outcomes in green technology innovation. Correspondingly, the better the CSR performance, the more enhanced the outcomes in both green technology innovation and green management innovation.

Our study confirms the significant impact of executives’ educational background on corporate green innovation practices and elucidates the potential mechanisms of this influence. Traditional higher-order theory underscores the pivotal role of senior management in enterprise decision-making processes. However, when examining the influence of senior executives’ traits on innovative behavior, the focus often defaults to more transparent factors such as age, tenure, and gender, with educational background either overlooked or not given due prominence in many scholarly inquiries. The imprinting theory illuminates how individual experiences shape current and future behaviors, yet research into the effects of international experience still needs to be improved. And because of the obvious cultural differences between China and foreign countries, the imprint left by overseas experience is likely to be particularly profound. Our investigation contributes valuable insights into the sustainable development dialog on green innovation. While we may not provide an exhaustive theoretical framework in the literature section, our research design and empirical analysis adeptly synthesize two prominent theoretical perspectives, underscoring the critical importance of executives’ educational and international backgrounds within contemporary corporate governance. The mechanism analysis section of our study also makes the conclusions and theoretical development easier to understand and more reliable.

5.2. Management Recommendations

5.2.1. Recommendations for Enterprises

Enterprises should gain a comprehensive understanding of the benefits brought about by green innovation. To achieve long-term economic benefits, companies need to harness the power of green innovation. Educational background shapes executives’ sense of social responsibility and their forward-thinking and information processing abilities, enhancing their willingness and capacity for green innovation within the enterprise. When constructing or updating management teams, companies should actively seek to elevate the educational credentials of their executives, curating a group of executives with a variety of educational and professional backgrounds, including international experience. This will allow enterprises to fully utilize the potential of their executives’ educational backgrounds and incorporate green innovation into their long-term growth and sustainability. At the same time, enterprises can motivate their management teams to pursue further education, fostering the green transformation of the company. It is imperative for companies to clearly recognize the strategic value of green transformation and green innovation in a new stage of development. They should actively practice the concept of creating green and eco-friendly value, not only focusing on enhancing green technology innovation but also prioritizing the enhancement of green management innovation.

(1)

To successfully entice overseas talent, enterprises must place a premium on recruiting and nurturing managers who possess international expertise as they strive towards green innovation. Including an international background as a key criterion in the selection process for senior executives and thoughtfully assigning leaders with varied experiences can enrich the team’s diversity. By actively creating platforms and enhancing human capital frameworks through robust talent development programs, companies not only stimulate a culture of risk bearing among staff through job rotations and skill enhancement but also foster a mutually beneficial environment where overseas executives can further their personal growth while simultaneously propelling the company’s expansion. Recognizing that cultural nuances may hinder swift integration, companies should provide customized onboarding and ongoing educational support to assist senior executives in adapting and achieving their full potential. Furthermore, by strengthening the training of overseas hires to navigate cross-cultural management challenges and mitigating cultural conflicts, companies can harness the full potential of their senior executives’ international backgrounds to drive green technology innovation performance.

(2)

Enhance the enterprise’s capacity to bear risk by bringing in more executives with international backgrounds to the decision-making level, thereby creating a multicultural and inclusive environment for decision-making. This approach allows for a broader perspective in assessing risks and opportunities, as well as optimizing the decision-making process. Leveraging the international risk management insights of these executives, the companies can establish and refine their risk management system. Routine risk assessments and drills will equip the companies with the proficiency to pinpoint, evaluate, and respond to potential risks effectively, thereby fortifying their risk management prowess. Additionally, implementing tailored incentive schemes for both overseas and local executives will encourage them to utilize their unique strengths, collaboratively enhancing the enterprise’s ability to withstand risk.

(3)

Enhance the efficacy of corporate social responsibility initiatives by harnessing the international perspective and expertise of overseas executives to craft strategies that align with global standards and the company’s unique context. Ensure that social responsibility objectives are congruent with the enterprise’s core values and are seamlessly integrated into its long-term growth plans. Overseas executives should champion the development of a social responsibility culture, embedding it within the corporate ethos and fostering a heightened sense of awareness and engagement among all staff through internal dialog and training programs. Drawing on international best practices in social responsibility management, these executives can assist in establishing and refining the company’s management systems, guaranteeing that social responsibility efforts are institutionalized, standardized, and continuously enhanced. With a global outlook informed by overseas executives, the company can also address pressing worldwide concerns such as climate change and environmental stewardship.

5.2.2. Recommendations for Government Departments

Our findings suggest that the educational background of executives is a potent catalyst for green innovation within enterprises, implying that green innovation may be spontaneously driven by companies. Government agencies have a role to play in steering and supporting enterprise-led green innovation, diminishing enterprises’ excessive reliance on external regulation. It is of great significance for government agencies to enhance their efforts in attracting returnees, formulate reasonable policies to encourage overseas talent, and support their entrepreneurial and work endeavors within the country, thereby effectively leveraging their role in green innovation. The data for this study were derived from private listed companies. Private enterprises have demonstrated tremendous vitality in China’s economic landscape. Compared to state-owned enterprises, private firms often confront inherent challenges such as funding shortages and technological constraints in their pursuit of green innovation. Therefore, it is equally crucial for the government to augment its support for green innovation initiatives within the private sector. This reinforcement can help level the playing field and ensure that these companies can contribute more effectively to sustainable development and environmental stewardship.

5.3. Limitations and Future Outlook

This paper has the following research limitations: firstly, the measurement of green innovation behavior lacks precision, such as the number of green patent citations, exploratory innovation, and breakthrough innovation, which can be analyzed more carefully in the future. Secondly, the educational background of senior executives is a complex, multi-faceted indicator. At present, it is only divided according to the education level and overseas experience. Future research could delve deeper by considering additional factors, such as the alignment of the executive’s major with the company’s needs and the quality of the educational institutions they attended. Thirdly, this study did not consider the objective differences between different industries in the level of green innovation in detail.

Future research on the linkage between executives’ education and enterprise green innovation can be expanded in several directions. Firstly, the applicability of executives’ education background may vary across different companies or sub-industries. Future studies could extend the time frame, encompass a broader range of enterprises, and engage in more nuanced comparative analyses to discern these variations. Secondly, while this study centers on Chinese listed companies, it could be broadened to include comparisons with enterprises in other nations, thereby gaining a more global perspective on the impact of executives’ education background on green innovation practices. Thirdly, future research might explore the interplay between executives’ education and overseas experience; for example, the combination of higher education and overseas experience may bring greater innovation results.