Resources Policy 75 (2022) 102515

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resourpol

Sustainable environmental strategy, firm competitiveness, and financial

performance: Evidence from the mining industry
Samuel Adomako a, b, *, Mai Dong Tran b
a
Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
b
School of International Business and Marketing, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Although our understanding of how mining firms’ sustainable environmental strategy drives financial perfor­
Environmental strategy mance is well-established, there is still limited research that examines the mechanism that proves this correla­
Mining firms tion. Consequently, this paper investigates how firm competitiveness plays into the aforementioned narrative. In
Competitiveness
addition, we examine the moderating role of market orientation the relationship sustainable environmental
Performance
Market orientation
strategy and firm competitiveness. Using time-lagged data from 194 mining companies, we found support for our
Sustainable development hypotheses. Specifically, our findings revealed that (1) sustainable environmental strategy positively relates to
Sustainability firm competitiveness, (2) the impact of sustainable environmental strategy on firm competitiveness is moderated
by market orientation, especially when it is high, and (3) firm competitiveness mediates the relationship between
sustainable environmental strategy and financial performance. This study contributes to the literature on envi­
ronmental management, especially on mining firms’ sustainability. It is also expected that these outcomes would
guide managers and policymakers on the importance of establishing meaningful sustainable strategies to drive
the bottom line.

1. Introduction
Global warming, ozone layer depletion, water pollution and defor­
estation are among some of the most urgent environmental challenges
that businesses have to face daily. Their emergence and severe impact on
people’s livelihood and businesses’ profitability have forced many or­
ganizations, especially mining companies, to more seriously look into
strategies and response plans that would address these issues promptly
while continuing to uphold their overall productivity and performance
(Famiyeh et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021). Despite being one of the core
industries in the global economy (Vintró et al., 2012), mining firms have
been criticized for their insufficient effort in protecting the natural
environment (Govindan et al., 2014). Indeed, companies in the mining
industry have had to face increasing pressures to undertake more
environmental responsibilities. Namely, these businesses are compelled
to accelerate the integration of environmental tactics into the overall
business strategies, with emphasis on areas such as human resource
management, supply chain management, marketing and product
development (Adomako, 2020; Boso et al., 2017).
Consequently, it is essential for policymakers to devise the most
productive approach to sustainability incorporation (Abban and Hasan,
2021; Uhlaner et al., 2012). For example, in Africa, mining has great
potential to contribute to economic growth while helping to improve
people’s lives. However, their stakeholders are concerned that the
benefits of the resource boom on this continent have not been
adequately reflected in economic growth of the African countries. This
suggests that resources obtained from the mining sector do not always
translate into sustainable development (Vintro et al., 2012) due to the
difficulty in managing these resources to mitigate poverty in these re­
gions. It has also been argued that mining resources are non-renewable,
which makes it more challenging to improve sustainable development
(Cowell et al., 1999). Thus, due to their huge ecological footprints, it is
important for mining companies to integrate sustainability (i.e., meeting
present needs without compromising the needs of future generations)
into their mining practices (Bartels, 2014), which could also mean that
any and all integration efforts could potentially allow mining companies
to develop operational policies and procedures for managing these im­
pacts (Famiyeh et al., 2021).
The emerging and growing concerns around environmental chal­
lenges in the mining industry have caused researchers to pay more
attention to how these organizations can deal with its perpetual conse­
quences (Cowell et al., 1999; Famiyeh et al., 2021). In particular,

* Corresponding author. Birmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom.

E-mail addresses: S.Adomako@bham.ac.uk (S. Adomako), tmdong@ueh.edu.vn (M.D. Tran).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102515
Received 7 April 2021; Received in revised form 9 July 2021; Accepted 7 December 2021
Available online 15 December 2021
0301-4207/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Adomako and M.D. Tran
researchers have investigated the impact of sustainable environmental
strategy on firm outcomes such as performance (Amankwah-Amoah,
Danso and Adomako, 2019; Kumar and Dua, 2021), and innovation
(Adams et al., 2016; Adomako, 2020; Bos-Brouwers, 2010; Liao et al.,
2020). In addition, researchers have identified factors that foster sus­
tainability practices and performance outcomes arising from sustain­
ability (Kammerer, 2009; Dangelico and Pujari, 2010). The findings
from these studies have concluded that sustainability strategy does
indeed enhance performance outcomes. Overall, the literature appears
to highlight that mining organizations can be considered environmen­
tally conscious and have developed strategies to reduce their environ­
mental footprints (Azapagic, 2004; Hodge, 2014; Mudd, 2007).
Despite the growing interest in sustainable environmental activities,
the extant literature exhibits some knowledge gaps. First, the body of
literature focuses on a fundamental question relating to the performance
outcomes of sustainable environmental strategy in the mining sector (de
Villiers, Low and Samkin, 2014; Wasara and Ganda, 2019). Addressing
this question overlooks its impact on intermediate outcomes such as firm
competitiveness in the mining sector (Marín et al., 2012). A firm’s
competitiveness reflects its ability to create and sustain competitive
advantages that could be used to achieve performance outcomes such as
growth and performance (Marín et al., 2012; Vilanova et al., 2009). By
achieving competitiveness, firms are better able to produce goods and
services that are valuable to compete with rival firms (Porter, 1996).
Given the importance of competitiveness for firms, it is critical to take a
closer examination of and explain how sustainable environmental
strategy affects firm competitiveness. Second, researchers have
refrained from investigating the conditions under which sustainable
environmental strategy influences firm competitiveness in the mining
sector. Apart from Marín, Rubio, and de Maya’s (2012) study that
examined the boundary condition of the effect of corporate social re­
sponsibility (CSR) on firm competitiveness, research efforts considering
the moderating impact of market orientation on the relationship be­
tween environmental strategy and firm competitiveness have been
notably slow. Third, while previous studies have examined the perfor­
mance outcomes of sustainable environmental strategy in the mining
sector (Muduli and Barve, 2013; Vintró et al., 2014), the mechanisms
through which it influences financial performance is still insufficiently
and unproductively comprehended.
Drawing the on the natural resource-based view (Hart, 1995), the
main of objective of this study is two-fold. To begin with, it examines the
impact of sustainable environmental strategy on financial performance
through the mediating mechanism of firm competitiveness. Subse­
quently, we investigate the moderating role of market orientation on the
relationship between sustainable environmental strategy on firm
competitiveness.
Thus, this study aims to contribute to the sustainable environment
strategy literature in three ways. For starters, we compliment studies
that explore how environmental strategy fosters firm competitiveness in
the mining sector (Ruokonen and Temmes, 2019; Vintró et al., 2014).
This is an important addition to the literature because it helps explain
how mining firms could achieve sustainable competitive advantage
through environmental strategy (Hart, 1995; Rosen, 2001; Vintró et al.,
2014). Next, we add to the existing literature by explaining the condi­
tions under which sustainable environmental strategy improve firm
competitiveness. In particular, our study explains the moderating
impact of market orientation on the relationship between sustainable
environmental strategy and firm competitiveness. In doing so, we
contribute to the sustainability literature by integrating the literature on
market orientation and on sustainability altogether. This is an important
extension to the literature because market orientation has long been
considered a foundation of strategic practices which could help achieve
competitive advantage for the firm (Chen et al., 2015; Zhou et al., 2008).
However, the impact of market orientation in explaining the effect of
sustainable environmental strategy on firm competitiveness still expe­
riences inadequate comprehension. Finally, our study shows the
2
Resources Policy 75 (2022) 102515
underlying mechanism of how sustainable environmental strategy im­
pacts financial performance. More specifically, we reveal that firm
competitiveness mediates the relationship between sustainable envi­
ronmental strategy and financial performance. Collectively, our
research further accentuates the importance of sustainable environ­
mental strategy and its underlying mechanism for firms’ successes.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
2.1. The NRBV theory and environmental strategy
Sustainable environmental strategy refers to business policies and
practices of companies that meet the need to stakeholders in addressing
current environmental grand challenges (van Someren, 1995). These
strategies are reflected in the firm’s expenditure to reduce pollution,
waste, as well as protect the environment. While the mining sector
provides the required raw materials to feed many important industries,
its activities are considered a threat to the natural environment. For
example, mining activities have a detrimental impact on the air, water,
and agriculture production (Mudd, 2010). This has called for mining
companies to establish policies and practices to reduce their environ­
mental footprints (Hilson and Murck, 2000; Mudd, 2010). The mining
sector is believed to have important economic, environmental, and so­
cial impacts on local and global economy (Dutta et al., 2012; Vintró
et al., 2014) and companies in this sector are expected to improve their
environmental tactics by assuming responsibilities in the sustainable
development agenda. Firms in the extractive industry are required to
adapt or adopt practices to address these demands (Famiyeh et al., 2021;
Hassan and Ibrahim, 2012; Vintró et al., 2014). Given that sustainable
development has been the major focus of many stakeholders across the
globe (Adomako, 2020), mining companies are required to develop
various initiatives to mitigate their impact on the environment (Hassan
and Ibrahim, 2012).
Indeed, the adoption of environmentally responsible practices could
help mining companies to mitigate their negative impact on the envi­
ronment and improve their competitiveness (Driussi and Jansz, 2006;
Hassan and Ibrahim, 2012). The resource-based theory (RBT) (Barney,
1991) indicates that firms achieve competitive advantage from strategic
resources of the firm. The RBT theory’s foundation stems from the
notion that firms’ resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable, and
non-substitutable could generate competitive advantage. Though the
RBT explains the impact of resources on firms’ competitive advantage,
the natural resource-based view (NRBV) (Hart, 1995) accounts for the
effects of the natural environment in generating competitive advantage.
Based on Hart (1995), the NRBV argues firms should develop stronger
capabilities to pursue a proactive stance in environmental management
to acquire sustainable competitive advantage.
The environmental management literature shows that firms that a
pursue proactive strategy to manage environmental issues that go
beyond regulatory requirements are able to achieve stronger perfor­
mance (Yang et al., 2019). Having said that, they usually respond to
stakeholder pressures by integrating environmental protection initia­
tives into their strategic planning process (Adomako et al., 2020; Shu
et al., 2020). These environmental activities include waste management,
employee training, and emission reduction. Although many firms differ
in terms of their environmental management practices, the literature
indicates such proactive stance tends to yield greater performance by
cutting costs and improving differentiation (Leonidou et al., 2013). This
proves that examining the impact of sustainable environmental strategy
may enhance the firm’s competitive advantage (Sharma and Sharma,
2011; Yang et al., 2019).
2.2. Environmental strategy and firm competitiveness
Firm competitiveness refers to the ability to create competitive ad­
vantages that allows the firm to outperform its rivals (Marín et al., 2012;
S. Adomako and M.D. Tran
Welford and Gouldson, 1993). What often distinguishes firms from their
competitors is the fact that they are able to produce goods and services
that exhibit further values in their operations (Porter, 1996). Having a
competitive edge is critical for firms to achieve their strategic goals
because it serves as major determinants of the disparities between suc­
cess and unsuccessful organizations (Adomako et al., 2021). Previous
research has argued that the integration of environmentally-friendly
value proposition into the firm’s strategy is a valuable way to stay
competitive (Marín et al., 2012; Rosen, 2001 Xie et al., 2020). As sug­
gested by Kramer (2007), a value proposition that sets the needs of the
company’s customers cannot be ignored. Thus, environmental strategy
could enhance the firm’s social value proposition for making social
impact integral to the overall strategy.
Through the NRBV theory (Hart, 1995), researchers have also
explained why firm engage in environmental and sustainability activ­
ities, especially through the benefits that these initiatives have on firm’s
reputation (Nguyen and Adomako, 2021) and overall performance
(Adomako et al., 2021; Shu et al., 2020). For example, firms’ environ­
mental activities tend to receive favourable support from stakeholders
including customers, employees, shareholders, media, and community
members (Darnall et al., 2010). Thus, the firm’s engagement in strategic
environmental activities is associated with positive stakeholder re­
actions that could enhance the competitiveness of the firm.
In addition, given that environmental sustainability practices are
associated with reputation (Cho et al., 2012; Nguyen and Adomako,
2021), the more the firm engages in environmental sustainability ac­
tivities, the greater they will be held in good esteem. This could be
inferred from consumer reactions to environmental footprints of the
products they consume. This will likely increase the firm’s competitive
capacities because firms that engage in greater environmental activities
tend to meet the environmental requirements of its stakeholders (Dar­
nall et al., 2010; Murillo-Luna, Garcés-Ayerbe and Rivera-Torres, 2008).
Thus, we conclude that the adoption of sustainable environmental
strategy provides stakeholders more information about the firm’s
ecological footprints, which would elevate the firm’s reputation against
other rivals in the same industry. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
H1. Sustainable environmental strategy is positively related to firm
competitiveness
2.3. Moderating role of market orientation
Market orientation has been described as an intangible firm-level
resource that general competitive advantage (Ketchen et al., 2007).
Through sustainable strategic environmental activities, firms use their
resources to exploit opportunities that can realize potential value (Cho
et al., 2012; Wagner and Schaltegger, 2004). Our H1 argues that sus­
tainable environmental strategy is crucial for firm competitiveness, it is
reasonable to also contend that market orientation, which is considered
a resource, could be a potential contingency factor between sustainable
environmental strategy and firm competitiveness. Market orientation is
considered a foundation for environmental strategy implementation
that could help the firm yield competitive advantages (Chen et al.,
2015). Market orientation, being a customer-focused construct, is
characterized by customer orientation, competitor orientation, and
inter-functional coordination (Narver and Slater, 1990). Given that the
society is gravitating towards environmental issues, the firm’s culture of
market orientation should influence its environmental strategy. As such,
firms are likely to engender pro-environmental learning strategy which
can bolster its environmental footprints to create competitive advantage
(Prasada et al., 2021). The shift in consumer preferences had resulted in
changing firm strategy by integrating environmental protection issues
into the firm’s overall strategy. In doing so, market-oriented firms tend
to adopt proactive environmental strategy to meet customer requires for
products (Chen et al., 2015; Dibrell et al., 2011). More importantly,
when customers demand for environmentally-friendly products and
3
Resources Policy 75 (2022) 102515
services, it sends a signal to the firm that it should increase its envi­
ronmental footprints on products and services, thus suggesting that
market orientation is a potential contingent factor of the relationship
between sustainable environmental strategy and firm competitiveness.
Thus, we suggest that:
H2. Market orientation moderates the strength of the relationship between
sustainable environmental strategy and financial performance mediated by
firm competitiveness, such that the mediated relationship is stronger under
high market orientation than under low market orientation.
2.4. The mediating role of firm competitiveness
In H1, we established that sustainable environmental strategy pre­
dicts firm competitiveness. However, previous literature also points out
that firm competitiveness influences financial performance (Kianto
et al., 2013). Moreover, the sustainability literature indicates that pro­
active environmental strategy is a precursor for firm performance
(Nguyen and Adomako, 2021). These assertations show that there is a
mediating mechanism of the relationship between sustainable environ­
mental strategy and financial performance. In this study, we propose
that firm competitiveness mediates this relationship. This mechanism is
proposed because the impact of sustainable environmental strategy and
firm financial performance has been inconclusive in the literature
(López-Gamero and Molina-Azorín, 2016; Porter and van der Linde,
1995). When firms pursue proactive environmental strategy, it helps
them to reduce cost through inputs and energy consumption
(López-Gamero et al., 2009). This allows the firm to produce goods and
services that are eco-friendly, this reducing the impact of the firm’s
activities on the environment. Given that pollution is considered an
inefficiency (Porter and van der Linde, 1995), the reduction of pollution
will likely counter this problem, thus increasing its financial perfor­
mance. In addition, firms that prioritize proactive environment man­
agement strategies enjoy greater environmental reputation (Miles and
Covin, 2000), which could improve the bottom line through increased
sales and product legitimacy (López-Gamero and Molina-Azorín, 2016;
Melnyk et al., 2003). Based on this argument, we propose that:
H3. The relationship between sustainable environmental strategy and
financial performance is mediated by firm competitiveness
3. Method
3.1. Sample and data collection
As one of the major focuses for Ghanaian government, we targeted
our data collection on mining companies in this area (Famiyeh et al.,
2021). Ghana is an interesting context to collect data for our study
because its mining industry contributes significant revenues to its gov­
ernment for more than 150 years (Famiyeh et al., 2021). Our sampling
frame was taken from the Ghana Company Register and Ghana Chamber
of Mines, all of which contained the most up-to-date information,
including conversations from Chief Executive Officers (CEOs)/General
Managers and Heads of Finance Division of mining companies operating
in the country. The questionnaire was designed such that the CEOs/­
General Managers can provide information on the independent, medi­
ating, moderating and control variables whiles Finance Managers can
give insights on the finances.
The data were collected from mining firms because these firms have
been the major focus of the Ghanaian government (Famiyeh et al.,
2021). Mining companies that operate mines in various locations in
Ghana were included in the sample. The sample was purposefully
derived from the Association of Ghana Industries.
Initially, CEOs and General Managers of the targeted mining corpo­
rations were informed, via letters, about the study, its purpose as well as
consent to participate. The respondents were promised a summary of the
findings, and were asked not to identify themselves but only their
S. Adomako and M.D. Tran
position in the company.
After two weeks, during the first wave, the questionnaires were then
distributed to the CEOs and General Managers, with a pre-determined
deadline for collection. Overall, 800 surveys were sent out to firms
enaged in mining activities, and upon several visits, 203 responses were
received, 197 of which were valid and useable.
Then, to attenuate the potential problems associated with a single
informant and common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003), we
temporarily separated the measurement of the stakeholder integration
and the moderating variable, from the measurement of the dependent
variables by six months. Accordingly, the Heads of Finance Division of
the 197 companies were contacted to provide further data on the
financial performance of their companies – this was conducted during
the second survey wave. After discounting missing values, we obtained
194 matched responses from both waves, representing a 24.25%
response rate. The sample contains firms with a mean age of 34.63 (s.d.
= 11.69) years and mean size of 109 (s.d. = 15.37) full-time employees
and the age of the CEO was 49.14 (s.d 14.17).
To evaluate non-response bias, the early and late respondents were
compared concurrently for the final sample by assuming that late re­
sponses are more similar to non-responses (Kanuk and Berenson, 1975).
Using Pearson’s chi-square test for categorization (Greenwood and
Nikulin, 1996), the final results indicated that the early respondents
were not significantly different from the late respondents in terms of
firm age and size. Thus, non-response bias was not considered a serious
threat to our results.
3.2. Measures
Unless otherwise stated, all variables were measured on a seven-
point Likert scale ranging from 1 = ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to 7 =
‘‘strongly agree’’
Sustainable environmental strategy. We measured sustainable envi­
ronmental strategy with four items from Banerjee et al. (2003). The CEO
of each firm responded to an where the firm integrates environmental
issues into its overall strategy.
Firm competitiveness. We captured firm competitiveness using five
items that measure the degree of competitiveness of the firm (Yang et al.,
2015).
Market orientation. We measured market orientation as a reflective
measure entailing customer orientation (three items), competitor
orientation (two items) and inter-functional coordination (three items).
These items capture the cultural perspective of market orientation (Zhou
et al., 2008).
Financial performance. The three-item scale measuring financial
performance was derived from Judge and Douglas (1998). The items
reflected profitability, return on investment and sales growth.
Control variables. Several control variables were added to control for
their effects of on the research model. These were CEO age, firm age,
firm size, past venture growth, financial resources. We added the CEO’s
age as more experienced CEOs are more likely to be skilful in engaging in
environmental strategy. Firm size was the number of full-time em­
ployees for it is believed that several advantages (e.g., availability of
resources) and disadvantages (e.g., bureaucracy) are associated with
larger firms. We measured firm age in the number of years since the
formation of the firm (George, 2005). We controlled for the availability
of financial resources as firms with many resources are likely to engage
in environmental strategy. We measured financial resource availability
by using four items following Wiklund and Shepherd (2005) to assesses
managers’ satisfaction levels with access to financial capital.
3.3. Common method bias, validity, and reliability assessment
We investigated the potential threat of common method variance
influencing our data by employing two main procedures. First, we fol­
lowed Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) approach and identified an item
4
Resources Policy 75 (2022) 102515
that has no conceptual ties with any of the constructs used in our study.
We used “I like blue colour” as a marker variable. We recorded
nonsignificant correlations ranging from − 0.01 to 0.02. Second, we
applied Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff’s (2003) approach
and included a single common latent factor in the model. The model
without common method factor yielded the following results: χ2/df =
2.13, CFI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0.05 and TLI = 0.92, whilst the model with
common method factor produced the following results: χ2/df = 2.12,
CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.04 and TLI = 0.93. When the two models are
compared, the results show that the path coefficient of the main model
did not change after the inclusion of the model without a common
method factor. In addition, the items loaded more strongly on the
respective constructs than on the latent common method factor. Overall,
we are confident that our results are not substantially affected by
common method bias.
The reliability and validity of the measures were assessed with
Cronbach’s alpha, average variance extracted (AVE), and composite
reliability (CR). As reported earlier, the Cronbach’s alpha and CR were
greater than the suggested cut-off value 0.70 for all measures (Fornell
and Larcker, 1981). All values for CR were significantly larger than 0.60,
the level considered as evidence for convergent validity (Bagozzi and Yi,
2012).
The discriminant validity was assessed by running a series of com­
parison tests to investigate differences in chi-square of the main model
against a series of restricted models. The results confirmed that each
model is distinct. Besides, we also utilized the approach suggested by
Fornell and Larcker (1981) to assess this factor, which resulted in our
inspection into whether AVE was larger than the highest shared variance
(HSV) for each pair of constructs. A conclusion was drawn that for each
construct, the AVE exceeded the HSV between each pair of constructs,
suggesting discriminant validity for our constructs (see Table 1).
4. Results
Table 2 reports the descriptive statistics and correlations of the main
variables. To prevent multicollinearity, we mean-centred the variables
involved in the interaction (Aiken and West, 1991). The results pointed
out that the largest variance inflation factor (VIF) was 3.41, suggesting
that multicollinearity is not a major concern in the analysis (Neter et al.,
1996). The hierarchical regression was used to test the hypotheses.
The regression results are presented in Table 3. In Models 1–4, the
dependent variable is firm competitiveness. The control variables are
entered in Model 1. In Model 2, we added sustainable environmental
strategy. The results in Model 2 denotes that sustainable environmental
strategy positively relates to firm competitiveness (β = 0.27, p < 0.01).
This provides support for H1. Model 3 enters the direct impact of market
orientation on firm competitiveness (β = 0.13, p < 0.05). The results also
show that when market orientation was added in Model 3, the influence
of sustainable environmental strategy on firm competitiveness is still
significant (β = 0.25, p < 0.01).
In Model 4, the interaction terms of between sustainable environ­
mental strategy and market orientation was added to the regression
equation. The result of the interaction term is significant and positive (β
= 0.47, p < 0.01), indicating that market orientation positively mod­
erates the relationship between sustainable environmental strategy and
firm competitiveness. Therefore, the findings in Model 4 provide support
for H2.
In Models 5–8, the dependent variable is financial performance, who
results were also used to test the mediating hypothesis H3. To do this, we
followed the recommendations outlined by Zhao et al. (2010). More
specifically, the predictor variable and the mediator variable should first
be significantly related. The findings from Model 2 showed that the
relationship between sustainable environmental strategy and firm
competitiveness (mediator) was positively related (β = 0.27, p < 0.01).
Next, the mediating variable and the dependent variable should be
significantly correlated with each other, whichin Model 7, it can be
S. Adomako and M.D. Tran Resources Policy 75 (2022) 102515

Table 1
Construct validation and reliability tests.
Description of items
Sustainable environmental strategy: α = .089; CR = 0.90; AVE =
0.76; HSV = 0.23
Our firm has integrated environmental issues into our strategic
planning process
At our firm, quality includes reducing the environmental impact
of products and processes
At our firm, we make every effort to link environmental objectives
with our other corporate goals.
Environmental issues are always considered when we develop
new products
Firm competitiveness: α = .084; CR = 0.86; AVE = 0.66; HSV =
0.15
Our company often defeats the main competitors in the
marketplace
Our company can provide higher quality products and services to
customers as compared with the main competitors
Our company can respond more rapidly to market demands as
compared to the main competitors
Our company can respond more promptly to environmental
changes as compared to the main competitors
The relational networking of our company can help in responding
marking demands rapidly
Customer orientation: α = 0.86; CR = 0.88; AVE = 0.60; HSV =
0.18
Our business objectives are driven primarily by customer
satisfaction
Our strategies are driven by beliefs about how we can create
greater value for customers
We emphasize constant commitment to serving customer needs
Competitor orientation: α = 0.80; CR = 0.81; AVE = 0.54; HSV =
0.16
We regularly share information concerning competitors’
strategies
We emphasize the fast response to competitive actions that
threaten us
Inter-functional coordination: α = 0.93; CR = 0.94; AVE = 0.79;
HSV = 0.28
We regularly communicate information on customer needs across
all business functions
We frequently discuss market trends across all business functions
All of our business functions are integrated in serving the needs of
our target markets
Financial resource: α = 0.78; CR = 0.80; AVE = 0.55; HSV = 0.09
Our company has easy access to financial capital to support its
business operations
If we need more financial assistance for our business operations,
we could easily get it
We have substantial financial resources at the discretion of
managers for funding business initiatives
We are able to obtain financial resources at short notice to support
business operation
Financial performance: α = 0.84; CR = 0.85; AVE = 0.59; HSV =
0.14
Our profitability has been substantially better
Our return on investment has been substantially better
Our sales growth has been substantially better
clearly seen that firm competitiveness has a significant positive effect on
financial performance (β = 0.33, p < 0.01). Following that, the impact of
Loadings (t- independent variable and the dependent variable must be nonsignificant
values) when the mediating variable is added. The results in Model 8 demon­
strated that when both sustainable environmental strategy and firm
competitiveness were added to the regression equation, firm competi­
0.80(1.00) tiveness was positively related to financial performance (β = 0.33, p <
0.01). In addition, the effect of sustainable environmental strategy on
0.86(21.29)
financial performance is nonsignificant (β = 0.05, ns). Overall, these
0.90(23.34) results suggest that firm competitiveness mediates sustainable envi­
ronmental strategy and financial performance. Thus, H3 wass
0.91(23.89) supported.
In addition, we investigated the conditional indirect effect of sus­
tainable environmental strategy on financial performance (via firm
0.77(1.00) competitiveness) at values of market orientation, using PROCESS macro
(cf. Preacher et al., 2007). Accordingly, market orientation was set at
0.89(22.34) high and low levels at one standard deviation above and below the mean
0.87(20.12)
score of market orientation. The results in Table 4 showed that the in­
direct influence of sustainable environmental strategy on financial
0.83(19.45) performance through firm competitiveness was conditional on the level
of market orientation. The outcome demonstrated that the indirect ef­
0.79(18.09)
fect was stronger (0.05) and significant at a high level of market
orientation (CI ranging from 0.04 to 0.22) but was weaker (− 0.00) and
insignificant at a low level of market orientation (CI ranging from − 0.03
0.84(1.00) to 0.06). Therefore, H3 was supported.
0.93 (25.68)
5. Discussion and conclusion
0.88 (21.17)
Using the NRBV (Hart, 1995), this study examined the impact of
sustainable environmental strategy on firm competitiveness and the
0.72 (11.19)
moderating role of market orientation in the mining industry in Ghana.
0.78 (14.15) In addition, we investigated the underlying mediating mechanism of the
relationship between sustainable environmental strategy and financial
performance. The findings in this study clearly illustrated that sustain­
able environmental strategy positively relates to firm competitiveness,
0.89(1.00)
and this linkage is moderated by market orientation, such relationship is
0.92 (22.11) amplified when market orientation is high compared to when it is low.
0.87 (18.03) Moreover, we found that firm competitiveness mediates the relationship
between sustainable environmental strategy and financial performance.
These results have several implications for environmental management
0.91(1.00)
in the mining industry.
0.69 (9.91)
5.1. Theoretical contributions
0.78 (10.19)
0.86 (17.25) This study contributes to the environmental management literature
by offering empirical support for the relationship between sustainable
environmental strategy and firm competitiveness in the mining sector.
0.77(1.00)
Thus, this finding extends the extant environmental management liter­
0.83 (18.11) ature (Nguyen and Adomako, 2021; Adomako et al., 2021; Shu et al.,
0.79 (16.13) 2020). In particular, they add to the sustainable mining studies (Gorman
and Dzombak, 2018; Hassan and Ibrahim, 2012), which have mainly
focused on how mining firms reduce environmental impact (Miranda
et al., 2005). This is an important development because previous studies

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and correlations.
Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 6 7 8

1. Firm size (log) 5.321 0.98

2. Firm age (log) 3.53 0.77 − 0.06
3. CEO age 49.49 7.67 − 0.03 0.01
4. Financial resources 4.40 1.25 0.20** 0.11 0.00
6. Market orientation 4.49 1.45 − 0.12 0.19** − 0.06 0.30**
7. Firm competitiveness 5.19 1.63 − 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.15a 0.14a
8. Environmental strategy 4.90 1.41 0.19** − 0.18** 0.04 0.20** 0.15** 0.29**
9. Financial performance 5.32 1.11 0.15a − 0.25** 0.11 0.26** 0.22** 0.40** 0.37**
a
p ˂ 0.05; **p ˂ 0.01 (2-tailed test); S.D. = Standard Deviation.

5
S. Adomako and M.D. Tran Resources Policy 75 (2022) 102515

Table 3
Regression results.
Models 1–4: Firm Competitiveness Models 5–8: Financial Performance

Control variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8
Firm size (employees)α − 0.04 − 0.04 − 0.05 0.12* 0.13** 0.12* 0.12* 0.11*
Firm ageα 0.01 0.01 0.02 − 0.19*** − 0.10* − 0.11* − 0.12* − 0.11
CEO age 0.09* 0.09* 0.09* 0.06 0.06 0.04 − 0.05 − 0.04
Financial resources 0.11* 0.11* 0.12* 0.17*** .14** 0.14** 0.13** 0.12*
Independent variable
Sustainable environmental strategy (SES) 0.27*** 0.25*** 0.23*** 0.25*** 0.24*** 0.23*** 0.05
Moderator
Market orientation (MO) 0.13** 0.12* 0.19*** 0.18*** 0.17*** 0.14**
Interaction
SES * MO 0.46*** 0.37***
Mediator
Firm competitiveness 0.33*** 0.33***
Model fit statistics
F 1.38 3.99*** 5.55*** 7.37*** 2.19** 3.95*** 5.96*** 6.69***
R2 0.13 0.17 0.22 0.31 0.11 0.16 0.20 0.24
ΔR2 – 0.04 0.05 0.09 – 0.05 0.04 0.04
Largest VIF 2.21 2.19 3.41 1.70 2.99 3.39 3.34 3.88

N = 269; *p < 0.10.; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01; standardised coefficients are shown. α
Logarithm transformation of original values.

5.2. Practical contributions

Table 4
Moderated mediation results for financial performance across levels of market
orientation.
Financial performance
Moderator Level Conditional SE LL 95%
indirect effect CI
Market Low − 0.00 0.03 − 0.03
orientation (− 1.03)
High 0.05 0.04 0.04
(1.09)
Results are based on 10,000 bootstrap sample.
have refrained from establishing a clear linkage between environmental
strategy and firm competitiveness. With this, we fill the gap in the
current literature on the potential role of environmental strategy in
fostering firm competitiveness.
In addition, this study aims to clarify the conditions under which
sustainable environment strategy is fostering, in an increasingly pro­
nounced manner, firm competitiveness in the mining sector. Specif­
ically, we were able to prove that market orientation is a contingency
factor of the relationship between environmental strategy and firm
competitiveness. These discoveries close an important gap in the envi­
ronmental management literature because it is clear how market
orientation (i.e., intangible firm-level resource) could improve the effect
of a firm’s environmental strategy in generating corporate competitive
advantage (Adomako, 2020; Boso et al., 2017; Ketchen et al., 2007).
This contribution implies that when small firms integrate environmental
strategy into the processes and management of the firm, they stand to
benefit when market orientation is stronger.
Moreover, while previous environmental management research have
demonstrated that environmental strategy has financial benefits for the
firm, it is not clear the underlying mediating mechanism of this linkage.
In this study, we established that firm competitiveness is a mediator of
the relationship between sustainable environmental strategy and
financial performance. As one of the main contributions of the study, we
provided proof on the usefulness of environmentally sustainable prac­
tices to business results, which may improve the reputation of mining
companies and help them accomplish a better environmental balance
(Vintró et al., 2014). Thus, we extended the environmental management
literature (Ketchen et al., 2007; Nguyen and Adomako, 2021) by high­
lighting the underlying mechanisms through which environmental
strategy predicts firm success.
This paper provides some practical contributions. Our findings
painted a clear picture that high levels of environmental strategy are
particularly beneficial for mining firms to achieve financial success. In
UL 95% addition, the influence of environmental strategy on levels of firm
CI competitiveness is stronger under conditions of greater market orien­
0.06
tation. This insight is crucial for two types of real-life conditions. First,
0.22 mining firms are encouraged to pay attention to environmental strategy
management as this can be a source of competitive advantage (Marín
et al., 2012; Rosen, 2001 Xie et al., 2020). Thus, mining firms should
develop a holistic approach to sustainable development as this could
improve their competitiveness and performance. Second, the discovery
that market orientation moderates the relationship between environ­
mental strategy and firm competitiveness suggest that firms should
integrate environmental strategy when market orientation is high.
Particularly, this can help mining firm managers understand the critical
moderating role of market orientation in converting environmental
strategy into firm competitiveness. That being said, managers in mining
companies can ensure that environmental strategy provides its strategic
value for firm success. Third, the fact that environmental strategy im­
proves financial performance of mining companies should prompt
governments in developing country to provide a vision to help firms
integrate sustainability issues into their strategy and planning. This
could be achieved by setting a policy roadmap for firms to facilitate and
advance sustainable innovation. Other stakeholders such as customers,
shareholders, media, NGOs and international pressure groups could
enhance this idea by serving as watchdogs.
6. Limitations and future research
This study has some limitations that offer opportunities for future
research. The findings of the study are based on a Ghanaian sample
which does not address the role of proactive environmental strategy and
levels of firm competitiveness and performance in other contexts. Ghana
has strong values of a collectivistic culture (Adomako et al., 2020a,b)
which offers assertiveness and independence for managers to integrate
response to stakeholders by embarking on environmental management
strategy. Therefore, any and all research outcomes must be interpreted
based on a collectivistic culture where families and communities hold
central importance in entrepreneurship. Accordingly, future studies can
be conducted using a multi-country setting (Europe, Latin America, and
Africa) to capture the unique and varied contextual idiosyncrasies
within which the environmental strategy drives firm competitiveness
(Famiyeh et al., 2021; Hassan and Ibrahim, 2012). Following that, firm

6
S. Adomako and M.D. Tran
competitiveness and financial performance were measured by using
self-reported data. Measuring firm competitiveness and company’s
bottom-line in this way may be affected by social desirability bias.
Future studies may, therefore, employ triangulated methods to capture
relevant expenditures on environmental sustainability and financial
performance in each firm.
Due to its critical role in economic, environmental, and social im­
pacts on local and global economy (Dutta et al., 2012; Vintró et al.,
2014), further assessing the mining sector through the lense of a
developing country could provide researchers an important perspective
about environmental tactics of these firms. We encourage future studies
to validate our conceptual model in other African countries.
Despite these limitations, our results indicate that high levels of
environmental strategy positively influence financial performance
through firm competitiveness. The results also show that levels of
environmental strategy drive firm competitiveness and that these re­
lationships are amplified under greater levels of market orientation.
Overall, the outcomes from this study extend the environmental man­
agement literature in several ways. Mainly, the study contributes to the
environmental sustainability literature by providing a clearer illustra­
tion of the specific conditions in which firm strategic orientation, such as
sustainable environmental strategy, positively impact financial perfor­
mance within a developing market context.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the University of Economics Ho Chi
Minh City, Vietnam.
References
Abban, A.R., Hasan, M.Z., 2021. The causality direction between environmental
performance and financial performance in Australian mining companies-A panel
data analysis. Resour. Pol. 70, 101894.
Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., Overy, P., 2016. Sustainability-
oriented innovation: a systematic review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 18 (2), 180–205.
Adomako, S., 2020. Environmental collaboration, sustainable innovation, and small and
medium-sized enterprise growth in sub-Saharan Africa: evidence from Ghana.
Sustain. Dev. 28 (6), 1609–1619.
Adomako, S., Ning, E., Adu-Ameyaw, E., 2020a. Proactive Environmental Strategy and
Firm Performance at the Bottom of the Pyramid. Business Strategy and the
Environment.
Adomako, S., Frimpong, K., Danso, A., Amankwah-Amoah, J., Uddin, M., Kesse, K.,
2020b. Home country institutional impediments and international expansion of
developing country SMEs. Int. Bus. Rev. 29 (5), 101716.
Adomako, S., Ning, E., Adu-Ameyaw, E., 2021. Proactive environmental strategy and
firm performance at the bottom of the pyramid. Bus. Strat. Environ. 30 (1), 422–431.
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Sage, Newbury Park: CA.
Amankwah-Amoah, J., Danso, A., Adomako, S., 2019. Entrepreneurial orientation,
environmental sustainability and new venture performance: does stakeholder
integration matter? Bus. Strat. Environ. 28 (1), 79–87.
Azapagic, A., 2004. Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for
the mining and minerals industry. J. Clean. Prod. 12 (6), 639–662.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., 2012. Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural
equation models. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 40 (1), 8–34.
Banerjee, S.B., Iyer, E.S., Kashyap, R.K., 2003. Corporate environmentalism: antecedents
and influence of industry type. J. Market. 67 (2), 106–122.
Barney, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 17 (1),
99–120.
Bartels, R., 2014. How can mining become more sustainable? Future of Economic
Progress World Economic Forum also available at: https://www.weforum.org/age
nda/2014/02/will-mining-look-like-sustainable-world/. (Accessed 26 June 2021).
Boso, N., Danso, A., Leonidou, C., Uddin, M., Adeola, O., Hultman, M., 2017. Does
financial resource slack drive sustainability expenditure in developing economy
small and medium-sized enterprises? J. Bus. Res. 80, 247–256.
Bos-Brouwers, H.E.J., 2010. Corporate sustainability and innovation in SMEs: evidence
of themes and activities in practice. Bus. Strat. Environ. 19 (7), 417–435.
Chen, Y., Tang, G., Jin, J., Li, J., Paillé, P., 2015. Linking market orientation and
environmental performance: the influence of environmental strategy, employee’s
environmental involvement, and environmental product quality. J. Bus. Ethics 127
(2), 479–500.
Cho, C.H., Guidry, R.P., Hageman, A.M., Patten, D.M., 2012. Do actions speak louder
than words? An empirical investigation of corporate environmental reputation.
Accounting, organizations and society 37 (1), 14–25.
7
Resources Policy 75 (2022) 102515
Cowell, S.J., Wehrmeyer, W., Argust, W.P., Robertson, J.G.S., 1999. Sustainability and
the primary extraction industries: theories and practice. Resour. Pol. 25 (4),
277–286.
Dangelico, R.M., Pujari, D., 2010. Mainstreaming green product innovation: why and
how companies integrate environmental sustainability. J. Bus. Ethics 95 (3),
471–486.
Darnall, N., Henriques, I., Sadorsky, P., 2010. Adopting proactive environmental
strategy: the influence of stakeholders and firm size. J. Manag. Stud. 47 (6),
1072–1092.
Dibrell, C., Craig, J., Hansen, E., 2011. Natural environment, market orientation, and
firm innovativeness: an organizational life cycle perspective. J. Small Bus. Manag. 49
(3), 467–489.
Driussi, C., Jansz, J., 2006. Pollution minimization practices in the Australian mining and
mineral processing industries. J. Clean. Prod. 14, 673–681.
Dutta, S., Lawson, R., Marcinko, D., 2012. Paradigms for sustainable development:
implications of management theory. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 19 (1),
1–10.
Famiyeh, S., Opoku, R.A., Kwarteng, A., Asante-Darko, D., 2021. Driving forces of
sustainability in the mining industry: evidence from a developing country. Resour.
Pol. 70, 101910.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J. Market. Res. 18 (3), 382–388.
George, G., 2005. Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Acad.
Manag. J. 48, 661–676.
Gorman, M.R., Dzombak, D.A., 2018. A review of sustainable mining and resource
management: transitioning from the life cycle of the mine to the life cycle of the
mineral. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 137 (October), 281–291.
Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Shankar, K.M., 2014. Evaluating the drivers of corporate social
responsibility in the mining industry with multi-criteria approach: a multi-
stakeholder perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 84, 214–232.
Greenwood, P.E., Nikulin, M.S., 1996. A Guide to Chi-Squared Testing. Wiley, New York.
Hart, S.L., 1995. A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (4),
986–1014.
Hassan, A., Ibrahim, E., 2012. Corporate environmental information disclosure: factors
influencing companies’ success in attaining environmental awards. Corp. Soc.
Responsib. Environ. Manag. 19 (1), 32–46.
Hilson, G., Murck, B., 2000. Sustainable development in the mining industry: clarifying
the corporate perspective. Resour. Pol. 26, 227–238.
Hodge, R.A., 2014. Mining company performance and community conflict: moving
beyond a seeming paradox. J. Clean. Prod. (December), 27–33.
Judge, W.Q., Douglas, T.J., 1998. Performance implications of incorporating natural
environmental issues into the strategic planning process: an empirical assessment.
J. Manag. Stud. 35 (2), 241–262.
Kammerer, D., 2009. The effects of customer benefit and regulation on environmental
product innovation. empirical evidence from appliance manufacturers in Germany.
Ecol. Econ. 68 (8–9), 2285–2295.
Kanuk, L., Berenson, C., 1975. Mail surveys and response rates: a literature review.
J. Market. Res. 22 (4), 440–453.
Ketchen, D.J., Hult, G.T.M., Slater, S.F., 2007. Toward greater understanding of market
orientation and the resource-based view. Strat. Manag. J. 28 (9), 961–964.
Kianto, A., Andreeva, T., Pavlov, Y., 2013. The impact of intellectual capital management
on company competitiveness and financial performance. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract.
11 (2), 112–122.
Kramer, 2007. Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and
corporate social responsibility-Reply. Harv. Bus. Rev. 85 (4), 133-133.
Kumar, S., Dua, P., 2021. Environmental management practices and financial
performance: evidence from large listed Indian enterprises. J. Environ. Plann.
Manag. 1–27.
Leonidou, C.N., Katsikeas, C.S., Morgan, N.A., 2013. Greening” the marketing mix: do
firms do it and does it pay off? J. Acad. Market. Sci. 41 (2), 151–170.
Liao, Z., Liu, P., Liu, S., 2020. A meta-analysis of environmental innovation and firm
performance. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 1–35.
Lindell, M.K., Whitney, D.J., 2001. Accounting for common method variance in cross-
sectional research designs. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 (1), 114–121.
López-Gamero, M.D., Molina-Azorín, J.F., 2016. Environmental management and firm
competitiveness: the joint analysis of external and internal elements. Long. Range
Plan. 49 (6), 746–763.
López-Gamero, M.D., Molina-Azorín, J.F., Claver-Cortés, E., 2009. The whole
relationship between environmental variables and firm performance: competitive
advantage and firm resources as mediator variables. J. Environ. Manag. 90 (10),
3110–3121.
Low, M., Samkin, G., 2014. The institutionalisation of mining company sustainability
disclosures. J. Clean. Prod. 84, 51–58.
Marín, L., Rubio, A., de Maya, S.R., 2012. Competitiveness as a strategic outcome of
corporate social responsibility. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 19 (6),
364–376.
Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R.P., Calantone, R., 2003. Assessing the impact of environmental
management systems on corporate and environmental performance. J. Oper. Manag.
21 (3), 329–351.
Miles, M.P., Covin, J.G., 2000. Environmental marketing: a source of reputational,
competitive, and financial advantage. J. Bus. Ethics 23 (3), 299–311.
Miranda, M., Chambers, D., Coumans, C., 2005. Framework for responsible mining: a
guide to evolving standards. Available online: http://www.frameworkforresponsible
mining.org/pubs/Framework_ES_20051018.pdf. (Accessed 27 June 2021).
Mudd, G.M., 2007. Global trends in gold mining: towards quantifying environmental and
resource sustainability. Resour. Pol. 32 (1–2), 42–56.
S. Adomako and M.D. Tran
Mudd, G.M., 2010. The Environmental sustainability of mining in Australia: key mega-
trends and looming constraints. Resour. Pol. 35, 98–115.
Muduli, K., Barve, A., 2013. Sustainable development practices in mining sector: a GSCM
approach. Int. J. Environ. Sustain Dev. 12 (3), 222–243.
Murillo-Luna, J.L., Garcés-Ayerbe, C., Rivera-Torres, P., 2008. Why do patterns of
environmental response differ? A stakeholders’ pressure approach. Strat. Manag. J.
29 (11), 1225–1240.
Narver, J.C., Slater, S.F., 1990. The effect of a market orientation on business
profitability. J. Market. 54 (4), 20–35.
Neter, J., Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J., Wasserman, W., 1996. Applied Linear
Statistical Models. Irwin, Chicago.
Nguyen, N.P., Adomako, S., 2021. Environmental proactivity, competitive strategy, and
market performance: the mediating role of environmental reputation. Bus. Strat.
Environ. 30 (4), 2008–2020.
Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review
of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 885 (879), 10-1037.
Porter, M.E., 1996. What is a strategy? Harv. Bus. Rev. 74 (6), 61–78.
Porter, M., van der Linde, C., 1995. Green and competitive: ending the stalemate.
Harvard Business Review September–October 120–134.
Prasada, P., Febrian, E., Komaladewi, R., Zusnita, W., 2021. Competitiveness of SMEs:
the support of value creation and market orientation. Management Science Letters
11 (2), 645–656.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., Hayes, A.F., 2007. Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behav. Res. 42,
185–227.
Rosen, C.M., 2001. Environmental strategy and competitive advantage: an introduction.
Calif. Manag. Rev. 43 (3), 8.
Ruokonen, E., Temmes, A., 2019. The approaches of strategic environmental
management used by mining companies in Finland. J. Clean. Prod. 210, 466–476.
Sharma, P., Sharma, S., 2011. Drivers of proactive environmental strategy in family
firms. Bus. Ethics Q. 309–334.
Shu, C., Liu, J., Zhao, M., Davidsson, P., 2020. Proactive environmental strategy and firm
performance: the moderating role of corporate venturing. Int. Small Bus. J. 38 (7),
654–676.
Uhlaner, L.M., Berent-Braun, M.M., Jeurissen, R.J., de Wit, G., 2012. Beyond size:
predicting engagement in environmental management practices of Dutch SMEs.
J. Bus. Ethics 109 (4), 411–429.
Resources Policy 75 (2022) 102515
van Someren, T.C., 1995. Sustainable development and the firm: organizational
innovations and environmental strategy. Bus. Strat. Environ. 4 (1), 23–33.
Vilanova, M., Lozano, J.M., Arenas, D., 2009. Exploring the nature of the relationship
between CSR and competitiveness. J. Bus. Ethics 87, 57–69.
Vintró, C., Fortuny, J., Sanmiquel, L., Freijo, M., Edo, J., 2012. Is corporate social
responsibility possible in the mining sector? Evidence from Catalan companies.
Resour. Pol. 37 (1), 118–125.
Vintró, C., Sanmiquel, L., Freijo, M., 2014. Environmental sustainability in the mining
sector: evidence from Catalan companies. J. Clean. Prod. 84, 155–163.
Wagner, M., Schaltegger, S., 2004. The effect of corporate environmental strategy choice
and environmental performance on competitiveness and economic performance:: an
empirical study of EU manufacturing. Eur. Manag. J. 22 (5), 557–572.
Wasara, T.M., Ganda, F., 2019. The relationship between corporate sustainability
disclosure and firm financial performance in Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE)
listed mining companies. Sustainability 11 (16), 4496.
Welford, R., Gouldson, A., 1993. Environmental Management and Business Strategy.
Pearson Education, London.
Wiklund, J., Shepherd, D.A., 2005. Entrepreneurial orientation and small business
performance: a configurational approach. J. Bus. Ventur. 20, 71–91.
Xie, J., Nozawa, W., Managi, S., 2020. The role of women on boards in corporate
environmental strategy and financial performance: a global outlook. Corp. Soc.
Responsib. Environ. Manag. 27 (5), 2044–2059.
Yang, J., Zhang, F., Jiang, X., Sun, W., 2015. Strategic flexibility, green management, and
firm competitiveness in an emerging economy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 101,
347–356.
Yang, D., Jiang, W., Zhao, W., 2019. Proactive environmental strategy, innovation
capability, and stakeholder integration capability: a mediation analysis. Bus. Strat.
Environ. 28 (8), 1534–1547.
Zhao, X., Lynch Jr., J.G., Chen, Q., 2010. Reconsidering baron and kenny: Myths and
truths about mediation analysis. J. Consum. Res. 37 (2), 197–206.
Zhou, K.Z., Li, J.J., Zhou, N., Su, C., 2008. Market orientation, job satisfaction, product
quality, and firm performance: evidence from China. Strat. Manag. J. 29 (9),
985–1000.
Zhou, M., Govindan, K., Xie, X., Yan, L., 2021. How to drive green innovation in China’s
mining enterprises? Under the perspective of environmental legitimacy and green
absorptive capacity. Resour. Pol. 72, 102038.