*5.4. Hypotheses Testing and Results*

A hierarchical regression method was used to test the proposed hypothesis and passed the multicollinearity test. To avoid the threat of multi-collinearity, the variance inflation factors were computed, and the value of 1.37 revealed that the dataset was suitable for regression analysis [92], thus dataset was suited for the regression analysis. Additionally, the value of the adjusted *R*<sup>2</sup> of each model confirmed that the output of the regression models was accepted.

As shown in Table 5, the significant coefficient of model 1 (β = 0.832, *p* < 0.001) indicates that GS is positively correlated with VCS, thus supporting H1a; the significant coefficient of model 3 (β = 0.870, *p* < 0.001) indicates that GS is positively correlated with VCC, supporting H1b; and the significant coefficient of model 5 (β = 0.778, *p* < 0.001) indicates that GS is positively correlated with VCS, supporting H1c. Therefore, it shows that the green strategy is positively related to the value co-creation behavior. Model 8 shows that value co-creation behaviors (VCS, VCC, VCR) have a positive and significant effect on OP (*p* < 0.001), so H2 is accepted. The results of model 11 show that VCC is positively correlated with FP (β = 0.520, *p* < 0.001) and VCR is positively correlated with FP (β = 0.231, *p* < 0.05), but the relationship between VCC and FP is not significant, so H3b and H3c are accepted and H3 is rejected. Similarly, the results of model 14 show that VCC is positively correlated with IP (β = 0.321, *p* < 0.001) and VCR is positively correlated with IP (β = 0.368, *p* < 0.001), but VCC is not significantly related to IP, thus accepting H4b and H4c and rejecting H4a.

The research results show that models 2, 4, and 6 test the moderating effect of ETE and ITE on the GS and value co-creation behavior (VCS, VCC, VCR), indicating that ETE has a positive moderating effect on GS and value co-creation behavior (VCS, VCC, VCR) (*p* < 0.05), while ITE has no moderating effect on GS and value co-creation behavior (VCS, VCC, VCR), so it accepts H5a and rejects H6a. Model 9 tests the moderating effect of EEP and IES on the value co-creation behavior (VCS, VCC, VCR) and OP, indicating that EEP and IES have no moderating effect on the relationship between value co-creation (VCS, VCC, VCR) and OP, thus rejecting H5b and H6b. Model 12 tests the moderating effect of EEP and IES on value co-creation behavior (VCS, VCC, VCR) and FP and shows that EEP has no moderating effect on the relationship between value co-creation behavior (VCS, VCC, VCR) and FP, but IES has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between value co-creation behavior (VCS, VCC, VCR) and FP (*p* < 0.05). Therefore, it rejects H5c and accepts H6c. Model 15 tests the moderating effect of EEP and ITE on value co-creation behavior (VCS, VCC, VCR) and IP, indicating that EEP and IES both have a positive moderating effect on the relationship between value co-creation behavior (VCS, VCC, VCR) and IP (*p* < 0.05), so H5d and H6d is accepted.

In addition, in the study of control variables, firm age has a positive effect on FP, but has no effect on OP and IP, while firm size and firm ownership have no effect on OP, FP, and IP.



#### **6. Discussion and Implications**

### *6.1. E*ff*ects of Green Strategy on Value Co-Creation Behavior*

This paper conducted an empirical study on value co-creation behavior in the green supply chain. First of all, this paper studied the impact of green strategy on value co-creation in the supply chain where the results showed that VCS, VCC, and VCR had a positive impact, and the implementation of a green strategy of manufacturers can effectively promote value co-creation among suppliers and other supply chain members. At the same time, both corporate responsibility and public awareness attach great importance to "green", which proves the importance of co-creation under the green supply chain. The establishment of a green strategy by the state and enterprises can promote enterprises to seek more active ways to realize the strategy, and then effectively promote the green cooperation and value creation between enterprises and other enterprises in the supply chain.

#### *6.2. Enablers of Performance*

The article found that there was a positive correlation between value co-creation behavior in the supply chain and financial performance and innovation performance. Moreover, the nature of the manufacturer also has an impact on performance, which is rarely mentioned in the literature on green supply chains. Therefore, this study provides a new theoretical perspective.

Empirical results support H5 and H6, indicating that value co-creation behaviors are positively related to manufacturers' financial performance and innovative performance in green supply chains. The results showed that value co-creation with suppliers was positively related to manufacturers' operational performance, which confirmed H4a. The value co-creation of manufacturers and suppliers can deepen the information sharing and cooperation between the two sides, improving the supply efficiency of raw materials and the supply chain flexibility of manufacturing enterprises. However, when it comes to value co-creation between manufacturers and competitors, the value co-creation between manufacturers and retailers was not significant for operational performance, which indicates that hypothesis H4b and H4c are not valid. Green co-creation requires manufacturers to invest more money in technology for suppliers with a relatively weak technology level. Although it helps to improve operational efficiency, it may lead to higher costs. At the same time, due to the low co-creation degree of the sample enterprises in this paper, the innovation practice of suppliers cannot meet the production needs of the market and manufacturing enterprises, so it cannot promote the production of innovative products/services.

Regarding the influence of control variables on manufacturer performance, the results showed that only firm age had a positive effect on the manufacturers' financial performance. This indicates that the age of the company is a major factor affecting corporate performance. Large companies with a long history and good reputation are more likely to win the trust of other firms, thus promoting value co-creation with other firms. However, the influence of firm size and firm ownership on performance was not significant, and the results did not show that company size and ownership had an impact on performance.

#### *6.3. E*ff*ects of Moderators*

This paper analyzed the moderating effect of external and internal contextual variables on the relationship between value co-creation behavior and enterprise performance in a green supply chain.

The results shows that external environment pressure (EEP) had a positive regulating effect on the relationship between green strategy (GS), value co-creation with supplier (VCS), value co-creation with competitor (VCC), and value co-creation with retailer (VCR), while internal environmental support (IES) had no significant regulating effect on the relationship between green strategy (GS), value co-creation with supplier (VCS), value co-creation with competitor (VCC), and value co-creation with retailer (VCR). This indicates that external contextual variables (legal environment, consumption environment, industry environment) have positive effects on promoting value co-creation in the green

supply chain. Effective policies such as green subsidies and the attention of suppliers, consumers, and competitors to the green strategy can encourage enterprises to actively seek the realization channels of green products, and then promote the co-creation of green value with upstream and downstream enterprises. However, internal contextual variables (manager's attitude, supply chain relationship, digitization capability) have little effect on promoting value co-creation in the green supply chain.

At the same time, external environment pressure (EEP) had a positive moderating effect on the relationship between co-creation behavior (value co-creation with supplier, value co-creation with competitor, and value co-creation with retailer) and innovative performance (IP), while external environment pressure (EEP) had no significant moderating effect on co-creation behavior (value co-creation with supplier, value co-creation with competitor, and value co-creation with retailer) and operational performance (OP) and financial performance( FP), indicating that good external contextual factors can promote the improvement of enterprise innovation performance, but not for operational performance and economic performance. This shows that good legal, production, and consumption environments can promote enterprises to increase the degree of innovation in the development and production of green products to design products more in line with the requirements, but at the same time, it often needs to spend more money and manpower, resulting in its impact on financial performance, and operational performance is not significant. Internal environmental support (IES) has no significant moderating effect on co-creation behavior (value co-creation with supplier, value co-creation with competitor, and value co-creation with retailer) and operational performance (OP) relationship, while internal environmental support (IES) has a positive regulating effect on co-creation behavior and the relationship between financial performance (FP) and innovative performance (IP), indicating that a good internal enterprise environment has a positive effect on improving enterprise financial performance and innovation performance, but has little effect on operational performance. This shows that managers' attention to green products can promote enterprises to invest more innovation costs in the research and development of green products to improve the innovation performance of the enterprise. At the same time, the higher the degree of digitalization the enterprise has, the less the cost of replacing green products, so the financial performance is higher.
