The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1460-1060.htm

Knowledge management enablers Knowledge

management
and knowledge management and green
innovation
processes: a direct and
configurational approach 123
to stimulate green innovation Received 12 February 2022
Revised 22 April 2022
16 May 2022
Muhammad Usman Shehzad and Jianhua Zhang Accepted 30 May 2022
School of Management Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
Mir Dost and Muhammad Shakil Ahmad
Faculty of Business, Sohar University, Sohar, Oman, and
Sajjad Alam
School of Management Engineering, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China

Abstract
Purpose – Given the critical importance of green innovation (GI) for organizations in developing economies,
this study aims to examine the interrelationship between knowledge management (KM) enablers, KM
processes and GI. The research also indicates that certain combinations of KM enabler dimensions and KM
processes can lead to better GI.
Design/methodology/approach – The study sample consists of 328 participants from Pakistan’s medium-
and large-sized manufacturing enterprises. Smart PLS 3.2.9 is used to verify the relationships. Moreover, the
fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) investigates configurational paths for improving GI.
Findings – The results demonstrate that KM enablers significantly affect two aspects of GI – green product
and process innovation – and KM processes. Moreover, KM processes significantly enhance two aspects of GI.
The fsQCA findings indicate multiple combinations of KM enablers and KM processes dimensions that result
in better GI.
Research limitations/implications – To better understand the critical role of knowledge resources, future
studies should explore the potential mediating mechanisms of KM processes or the moderating effects of
strategic organizational factors in the relationship between KM enablers and GI.
Practical implications – The study offers valuable insight and a unique approach for policymakers and
executives of corporations in developing countries to enhance their organizations’ GI capacity through KM
enablers and KM processes.
Originality/value – This research contributes to bridging research gaps in the literature and advances
insights into the interrelationship among KM enablers, KM processes and GI. In addition, the study offers
methodological significance by combining direct and configurational techniques to address two distinct facets
of GI.
Keywords Knowledge management enablers, Knowledge management processes, fsQCA, Green product
innovation, Green process innovation
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Green innovation (GI) is an unavoidable reaction to strict environmental laws and long-term
production and consumption patterns. It allows businesses to develop products and
manufacturing processes that are less environmentally destructive, use less energy, recycle
easily and utilize reconditioned materials (Huang and Li, 2017). Multinational firms have European Journal of Innovation
Management
Vol. 27 No. 1, 2024
pp. 123-152
The project is supported by the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No. 19BTQ035). Moreover, © Emerald Publishing Limited
1460-1060
the first author wishes to express his gratitude to his parents for their support during his research career. DOI 10.1108/EJIM-02-2022-0076
EJIM benefited from the adoption and implementation of GI, which has increased revenue
27,1 possibilities while lowering climate damage (Williams, 2015). Furthermore, green product
innovation (GPDI) (i.e. energy-saving, pollution-prevention, waste recycling and firm
environmental management) and green process innovation (GPCI) (i.e. recycling waste and
emissions; new technologies for alternative energy sources and preventing air, water and soil
pollution) have created a plethora of possibilities for businesses to mobilize resources to
conserve natural resources and promote prosperity (Awan et al., 2021). GPDI and GPCI seem
124 to have the ability to address environmental issues (Chen, 2008). Therefore, GPDI and GPCI
are becoming more critical phenomena contributing significantly to environmental
sustainability.
In the contemporary era, where consumer and stakeholder expectations are constantly
changing, firms should acquire unique and creative expertise to enhance the overall
performance of their current products and produce more ecologically friendly products (Xie
et al., 2019). For this purpose, prior studies examined various aspects of a firm’s GI, such as
green technology innovation (Abbas and Sa
gsan, 2019; Siva et al., 2016), green management
innovation (Qi et al., 2010), green radical and incremental innovation (Guo et al., 2020), and GI
innovation at firms’ level (Shahzad et al., 2020). Few, however, have explored it from the
viewpoint of GPDI and GPCI (Awan et al., 2021). Furthermore, in today’s volatile corporate
climate, GI is not only challenging but also error-prone. As a result, it is difficult for a
company to develop a clear strategy that links creative efforts to long-term objectives
(Lampikoski et al., 2014).
Literature suggests the extent of research that have examined the external factors of GI,
such as the level of technology of the firm (Singh et al., 2015), meeting societal requirements
(Bossle et al., 2016) and achieving legitimacy (Ashford and Hall, 2011). However, these
external factors are not the primary motives for businesses to embrace GI (Zhou et al., 2018).
Among the key factors, knowledge management (KM) is considered one of the most
significant driving forces and a critical driver of GI (Abbas and Sa
gsan, 2019; Shahzad et al.,
2020). Scholars often describe and evaluate an organization’s KM capability through KM
processes and KM enablers (Gold et al., 2001). KM processes are activities associated with
knowledge creation, acquisition, sharing and application to improve corporate performance
(Sahibzada et al., 2020a, b). KM enablers include culture, leadership, entrepreneurial
orientation (EO), etc., facilitating KM processes (Iqbal et al., 2018). Several studies focus on
KM and its enablers in enhancing organizational performance, with little attention paid to the
role of KM in GI (Abbas, 2020; Davenport et al., 2019). As a result, the present study will
explore the pathways and sufficient conditions to promote specific components of GI (e.g.
GPDI and GPCI) by investigating the influence of KM enablers (knowledge-oriented
leadership [KOL] and green entrepreneurial orientation [GEO]) and KM processes (knowledge
creation, acquisition, sharing and application) in the following ways.
First, environmental management’s motivations are dependent on effective leadership
that helps firms develop sustainable environmental strategies that benefit both the
environment and businesses (Singh et al., 2020). Leadership significantly impacts the firm’s
innovation capacity through cognitive stimulation, promoting employee openness and
motivating workers’ innovative behavior (Choi et al., 2016; Vera and Crossan, 2004). Due to
the leadership transition from the industrial age to the knowledge era, KOL has emerged as a
critical factor in organizational capabilities in balancing corporate goals with social and
environmental objectives (Naqshbandi and Jasimuddin, 2018; Shehzad et al., 2021a). Arici and
Uysal’s (2021) research also emphasized the need to examine different leadership styles to
determine the best predictor of GI.
Second, GEO has cultural significance and the capacity to stimulate corporate GI
processes (Silajdzic et al., 2015). It motivates firms to take voluntary and constructive steps
toward sustainability. Moreover, GEO helps organizations improve social, economic and
environmental performance (Asadi et al., 2020; Jiang et al., 2018) and plays a vital role in Knowledge
advancing GI (Guo et al., 2020). However, little is known about how GEO as a strategic posture management
impacts the advancement of GI (Muangmee et al., 2021), and further research is needed to
explore the possible effects of GEO on different aspects of GI (Asadi et al., 2020).
and green
Third, recent literature highlights the gap in research into strengthening the relationship innovation
of various KM enablers with the effective implementation of KM processes, particularly in
developing countries’ contexts (Iqbal et al., 2018; Sahibzada et al., 2020b, c; Latif et al., 2020).
For example, GEO and KOL are critical facilitators for efficiently managing and using 125
knowledge to achieve better organizational performance and minimize unpredictable
circumstances (Donate and de Pablo, 2015; Jiang et al., 2018). Green technology dynamism is
identified as a highly dynamic technological environment, and KM is viewed as obtaining,
recognizing, absorbing and transferring information into new organizational activities
(Nieves and Haller, 2014; Sheng et al., 2011). It is observed that KM practices are primarily
influenced by the firm’s entrepreneurial activities (Latif et al., 2020). Firms that implement a
strong GEO likely gain a competitive advantage by improving their eco-knowledge
absorption capacity (Perez-Lu~ no et al., 2011). Similarly, firms that use GEO can gain a
competitive advantage by utilizing the firm’s information to develop new knowledge and
provide a foundation for innovation (Jiang et al., 2018; Clercq et al., 2015). Moreover, in
emerging economies, where most firms are small- and medium-sized, with limited resources
for innovation and growth (Lei et al., 2021; Le and Lei, 2019), KOL can be critical in developing
KM processes and removing organizational barriers (Donate and de Pablo, 2015). Despite
this, little is known about the influence of these enablers on KM practices, particularly in
emerging countries contexts (Iqbal et al., 2018; Sahibzada et al., 2020a). Therefore, to better
understand the antecedent condition of KM processes, it is necessary to investigate the
connection between KM enablers (GEO and KOL) and KM processes (knowledge creation,
acquisition, sharing and application).
Fourth, KM and KMP have been considered necessary components in designing and
developing new products and services (Mardani et al., 2018) and managing operational
processes in today’s corporate environment (Almahamid and Qasrawi, 2017). Therefore,
firms strive to adopt innovative and effective KM approaches to accomplish long-term goals
(Chen et al., 2009). Knowledge resources and competencies serve as the foundation for a firm’s
ability to innovate sustainably (Shahzad et al., 2021). Recent studies highlight that KMP helps
companies develop the skills required for GI (Shahzad et al., 2020), which further improves
corporate sustainable performance (Abbas and Sa
gsan, 2019). Moreover, evidence indicates
that GI generated from KMP has significantly contributed to developing environmentally
friendly products (Shahzad et al., 2021). Despite the significance of KMP for GI, little attention
is paid to examining the association between KMP and distinct elements of GI, namely GPDI
and GPCI. Shahzad et al. (2021), Mardani et al. (2018) and Davenport et al. (2019) emphasized
the need to expand the scarce literature on KM and GI.
This research aims to fill the identified research gaps and augment the present literature
on KM and GI by constructing an integrated model based on the theories of the resource-
based view (RBV) (Barney, 1991) and KM capability (KMC) (Gold et al., 2001). Moreover, this
study examines the relationship between KM enablers, KM processes and two distinct types
of GI (GPDI and GPCI). Further, the present study contributes to the body of knowledge in
various ways. First, structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis is performed to assess
the potential of the causal path, e.g. the direct impacts of the constructs under study, namely,
KM enablers and KM processes, on two distinct forms of GI. Second, PLS-SEM is used to
confirm and validate causal pathways. In contrast, fuzzy-set qualitative comparative
analysis (fsQCA) is also employed to understand the intricate, nonlinear and synergistic
effects of KM enablers and KM process dimensions on two different types of GI (GPDI and
GPCI). Finally, by employing the SEM-FSQCA method in a developing economy,
EJIM management recommendations and strategies to enhance GI competence are suggested to
27,1 company managers.
Based on the identified gaps, the study’s research questions are as follows:
RQ1. Do KM enablers (GEO and KOL) significantly affect KM processes (creation,
acquisition, sharing and application) and two aspects of GI capability?
RQ2. Is there a direct impact of KM processes (creation, acquisition, sharing and
126 application) on two aspects of GI capability?
RQ3. What multiple pathways exist to attain higher GPDI and GPCI capability?

2. Theoretical underpinnings
This study extends a research framework based on (1) the resource-based view (RBV) theory
(Barney, 1991) and (2) the KM capability model (Gold et al., 2001) to illustrate the links
between KM enablers, KM processes and two components of GI (i.e. GPDI and GPCI).
According to the RBV, an organization is seen as a collection of productive resources
(Barney, 1991). The RBV theory indicates that a firm’s competitive advantages are
determined by the firm’s unique resources (both tangible and intangible) (Peteraf, 1993).
Specifically, organizational resources refer to all assets, capabilities, operational structure,
information, firm attributes and knowledge that an organization has and that enable it to
“conceive and execute strategies that increase its operational efficiency” (Barney, 1991).
Considering an RBV viewpoint, environmentalists believe that GI may increase
competitiveness and enhance long-term performance. However, it is also dependent on
pertinent and essential organizational resources (Sarkis et al., 2011). According to Gavronski
et al. (2011), the resources available to manufacturing companies, such as top management
support and ecological investments, are critical to the GI process. Firms have widely
implemented the RBV to examine the association between their resources and economic
outcome (Hansen et al., 2004).
In today’s knowledge-based economy, concentrating on the KM process is the ideal
approach for GI. Furthermore, in this volatile corporate climate, when consumers’ and
stakeholders’ expectations change regularly and fast, organizations must acquire unique and
creative information to enhance their current products and develop ecologically acceptable
products (Xie et al., 2019). KM process is regarded as a deliberate and coordinated attempt to
use the organization’s knowledge to provide services to the community and improve
performance (Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004). KM process is a means of generating,
acquiring, disseminating and effectively using firm knowledge assets that are the strongest
predictor of innovation (Darroch, 2005). In line with previous research, this study included the
KM process (knowledge creation, acquisition, sharing and application) (Shahzad et al., 2020)
and KM enablers (KOL and GEO) (Latif et al., 2020) as a critical resources for GI enhancement.
Moreover, knowledge-driven companies promote employee involvement, incorporate issues
and offer feasible solutions on a dynamic basis. Environmentalists and sociologists argue
that unsustainable product utilization contributes to climatic changes, pollution and bad air
quality (Li et al., 2019). Therefore, an RBV substantiates the conceptual framework that an
organization with a high KM process and KM enablers has a higher probability and
capability of manufacturing green and sustainable goods. Additionally, a recent study by
Shahzad et al. (2020) asserts that GI, through the KM process, results in more sustainable
development with less impact on the ecological and social sectors, thus enhancing GPD and
GPC innovation capacity.
Furthermore, Gold et al. (2001) divided KM capabilities into two categories: knowledge
infrastructure capabilities and knowledge process capabilities. Capabilities of knowledge
infrastructure, such as KOL and GEO, are viewed as enablers (Latif et al., 2020; Sahibzada Knowledge
et al., 2021), while knowledge processes capabilities include knowledge creation, acquisition, management
sharing and application (Sahibzada et al., 2020b; Abbas and Sa
gsan, 2019). According to the
KM capability model, administrative competency varies greatly depending on knowledge
and green
substructure capacity. It fosters an enabling environment conducive to KM procedures that innovation
continuously improve an organization’s innovative capability (Shujahat et al., 2019;
Naqshbandi and Jasimuddin, 2018).
127
3. Hypotheses development
The research model in Figure 1 illustrates the impact of KM enablers (KOL and GEO) on two
dimensions of GI (Green product and process innovation) and four dimensions of KM
processes (creation, acquisition, sharing and application). Further, it illustrates the effect of
KM processes (creation, acquisition, sharing and application) on two dimensions of GI (Green
product and process innovation) following the RBV and KM capability. Furthermore, it
represents the diverse configurations and causal combinations of components of KM
enablers and KM processes to generate GPDI and GPCI.

3.1 KM enablers and green innovation

3.1.1 Knowledge-oriented leadership and green innovation. The RBV theory considers
leadership an essential resource for environmental management and firm performance and
critical for coordinating activities among stakeholders (Bowersox and Closs, 1996). Waldman
et al. (2001) assert leadership is a crucial element in an organization’s competitive advantage
and success. According to Ribiere and Sitar (2003), corporate leadership in knowledge
organizations entails leading through a knowledge lens to maximize the value of information
exploration and exploitation processes. In other words, leaders of a business must motivate
knowledgeable employees to acquire and apply information, ultimately accomplishing the
firm’s knowledge objectives. Ribiere and Sitar (2003) propose that knowledge leaders
combine diverse behaviors to enhance the firm’s creativity, depending on the situation’s
needs. Because highly creative companies must combine exploration and exploitation efforts
to achieve organizational ambidexterity (Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008), they must direct
members toward goals in various settings with various task needs (Rosing et al., 2011). In this
line, Ho (2009) stresses the need for leaders as both creators and facilitators of KM who design
and facilitate knowledge processes via incentive systems. KOL is a type of leadership that

Control variable
Firm Size

Knowledge Management
Processes
Knowledge Management Knowledge Creation Green Innovation
Enablers (KCR)
Knowledge Oriented Leadership Green Product Innovation
(KOL) Knowledge Acquisition (GPDI)
(KAC)

Green Entrepreneurial Orientation Knowledge Sharing Green Process Innovation

(GEO) (KSH) (GPCI)

Knowledge Application
(KAP)
Figure 1.
Research model
EJIM blends transformational and transactional leadership and is identified by a leader’s emphasis
27,1 on better collaboration about employee expectations and the firm’s goals (Naqshbandi and
Jasimuddin, 2018). Mabey et al. (2012) indicated that
KOL is a joint or individual attitude or action, observed or charged, that stimulates some latest and
the most critical knowledge to be shared, created, and used to change the collective thinking
outcome.
128 In terms of GI, most studies have focused on positive leadership styles (green
transformational leadership and servant leadership) (Jia et al., 2018). Due to the absence of
studies of multiple leadership factors, it is unclear which leadership styles are the most
predictive of GI and creativity. Arici and Uysal’s (2021) systematic literature assessment
reveals that most research has concentrated on assessing leadership styles as a unified
framework (ignoring the different dimensions of transformational, transactional, servant and
authentic leadership). This deficiency should be addressed by paying attention to how the
constituents of leadership styles interact and influence GI and creativity together and
individually.
KOL stresses the importance of knowledge workers’ motivation and the importance of
followers’ knowledge growth (Donate and de Pablo, 2015). The leader’s critical role in
inspiring and encouraging followers to achieve the firm’s objectives improves innovation
results (Ribiere and Sitar, 2003). KOL does this by developing, exemplifying, recognizing,
appreciating and rewarding new and creative ideas generated by followers (Ho, 2009; Ribiere
and Sitar, 2003). Additionally, leaders assist followers in learning and integrating
information, which results in compelling knowledge exploration and exploitation (Donate
and de Pablo, 2015). KOL inspire their followers by stimulating their intellect and giving them
the confidence to take risks when implementing new ideas, which helps spread and
commercialize information more effectively (Naqshbandi and Jasimuddin, 2018). Hence, the
below hypotheses are proposed:
H1a. KOL is positively associated with GPDI.
H1b. KOL is positively associated with GPCI.
3.1.2 Green entrepreneurial orientation and green innovation. GEO refers to a “firm-level
proactive strategic inclination to identify and grasp the eco-friendly business opportunity
based on the comprehensive consideration of risks and benefits” (Covin and Slevin, 1989).
Strategic planning, consumer focus, social concerns and administrative measures
significantly contribute to achieving a balance between financial development and
environmental sustainability. GEO results in higher organizational effectiveness via three
approaches connected with three EO characteristics: innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-
taking (Covin and Lumpkin, 2011). First, innovativeness refers to a propensity for pursuing
novel ideas, experimenting and fostering creative processes (Jiang et al., 2018). Second,
proactiveness implies a drive to surpass the competition, therefore seizing new possibilities
faster than competitors (Woldesenbet et al., 2012). Third, risk-taking demonstrates a
proclivity to take an active stance when investing in initiatives fraught with uncertainty
(Jiang et al., 2018). Although bringing a green invention to completion is often connected with
challenging conditions and risks, it has the potential to bring in new consumers and money
(Wong, 2012).
Prior research considered technological innovation outcomes to indicate entrepreneurship
(Schumpeter, 1934) and supported (Drucker, 1985) belief in the significance of entrepreneurial
function on a firm’s innovation. Companies with a GEO are more likely to accomplish GI
faster than those whose primary goal is to maximize revenues (Drucker, 1998). According to
the VRIO framework (i.e. valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable resources may
provide competitive advantage), EO describes how businesses are structured to identify and Knowledge
capture opportunities (Wiklund and Shepherd, 2003). More precisely, entrepreneurial management
activities comprise radical noncontinuous innovations and incremental changes and
enhancements to existing procedures (Brazeal and Herbert, 1999), implying that EO can
and green
stimulate product and process innovation in firms. Therefore, as a strategic move, GEO may innovation
assist firms in developing an organizational force to create as many innovative green
products as conceivable.
The GEO empowers an organization to take the chance and effectively use current 129
technology for optimal resource utilization to create environment-friendly products and eco-
friendly processes (Teece, 2016). Additionally, the organization’s implementation of
ecological technology is a consequence of consumer interest and regulatory measures
(Demirel et al., 2019). Therefore, GEO may help enterprises increase process effectiveness,
reduce waste and lower costs via GI practices (Jiang et al., 2018). Even though the primary
objective of green entrepreneurial firms is a financial advantage (Schaltegger and Wagner,
2011), they find it simpler to accomplish GI than those whose primary objective is an
economic advantage (Drucker, 1998). Although GEO is focused on technological
advancement and cost reduction, it may unintentionally or deliberately encourage GI in
products, processes and operations (Bos-Brouwers, 2010). Thus, firms with a strong GEO will
show eco-friendly management and innovation in their products, methods, procedures,
approaches and business paradigms, referred to as GI. Thus, the following hypotheses are
proposed:
H2a. GEO is positively associated with GPDI.
H2b. GEO is positively associated with GPCI.

3.2 KM enablers and KM processes

3.2.1 Knowledge-oriented leadership and KM processes. KMP is defined as a systematic and
structured effort to use the firm’s knowledge to provide services to the community and
improve effectiveness (Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004). KM processes are well-defined as
practices associated with its components (i.e. knowledge creation, acquisition, sharing and
application), all of which contribute to the organization’s success (Sahibzada et al., 2020a;
Shehzad et al., 2021b). As a result of the extensive literature review, the present study employs
four dimensions of KM processes: knowledge creation, acquisition, sharing and application
and identifies the typical definitions of these constructs.
(1) “Knowledge creation is the result of interaction between knowledge and the act of
knowing, which is done through action, practice and interacting with people
(Maravilhas and Martins, 2019).”
(2) “Knowledge acquisition implies the aptitude to recognize and attain new knowledge,
which is crucial for effective organizational processes (Attia and Salama, 2018).”
(3) “Knowledge sharing is the process through which explicit or tacit knowledge is
communicated to an individual or group of people for making improvements (Jarrahi,
2017).”
(4) “Knowledge application process refers to making information more vigorous and
appropriate for the organization to create a competitive edge and satisfy customers’
demands (Darroch, 2005)”.
The working environment is critical for any firm committed to effective submission and
execution of KM processes. Dessler (2002) defined leadership as encouraging people to work
diligently to achieve critical objectives. As a result, leadership entails establishing a clear
EJIM management strategy for workers and motivating them to follow the leader to achieve the
27,1 company’s goals. According to Ribiere and Sitar (2003), leadership comprises numerous
characteristics, including leadership style, motivation and collaboration. Leadership is
crucial in knowledge firms because individual employees consider leaders actively involved
and committed to promoting learning and knowledge efforts. Donate and de Pablo (2015)
endorsed Gold et al. (2001)’s KM capabilities agenda by arguing that the KOL, as a reactant,
eliminates barriers to knowledge improvement activities inside organizations. KOL
130 stimulates KM processes and motivates employees to generate, acquire, store, share, and
use their knowledge, skills, and expertise.
Leadership is defined in the KM framework as an organization’s capacity to influence KM
behaviors, categorize knowledge opportunities, promote KM values and support
organizational learning (Latif et al., 2020). The concept of knowledge-based leadership is a
relatively recent development (Donate and de Pablo, 2015; Sahibzada et al., 2020b). KOL is
described as a combined or particular method or act, pragmatic or electric, that fosters the
most recent and robust information to be shared, produced and utilized in such a manner that
there is a rapid differential in the distinguishing and community outcome (Naqshbandi and
Jasimuddin, 2018). The KOL can advance knowledge storage, transmission and application
practices.
KOL is at ease in a relationship-based setting focused on collaborating with and assisting
individuals and teams in initiating an admirable knowledge process approach, thus
guaranteeing a flourishing knowledge process culture (Sahibzada et al., 2022). Recent
literature highlights that KOL assists the process of KM and emphasizes the importance of
leaders encouraging followers to share their knowledge, abilities, talents and experiences
with coworkers to foster a healthy and positive work environment (Sahibzada et al., 2020b,
2022). KOL is considerate and effective at finding and assessing knowledge-required
circumstances. Effective KOL effectively manages information flows and efficiently
implements knowledge procedures that are adequately systematized. It has also been
observed that KOLs reduce community expenditures while increasing knowledge
codification and legitimacy (Sarabia, 2007). Therefore, knowledge leaders are required in
organizations to facilitate the creation, acquisition, sharing and application of knowledge
(Latif et al., 2020; Donate and de Pablo, 2015). Thus, the below hypotheses are proposed:
H3a. KOL is positively associated with KCR.
H3b. KOL is positively associated with KAC.
H3c. KOL is positively associated with KSH.
H3d. KOL is positively associated with KAP.
3.2.2 Green entrepreneurial orientation and KM processes. Entrepreneurship implies taking
risks and is associated with basic procedures and norms that enable entrepreneurs to create
entrepreneurial activities that result in a strategic advantage (Martens et al., 2018). Market
and technological knowledge are stressed as facilitating factors in achieving competitiveness.
Because entrepreneurial efforts may result in knowledge gaps, a mix of varied sources of
information is critical for the invention of novel ideas. As a result, new information must be
created to fill these gaps. It is believed that the results of entrepreneurial activity are
determined mainly by the firm’s knowledge-based resources (Bojica and Fuentes, 2012). If an
organization manages knowledge correctly, GEO will positively impact firm performance by
generating and disseminating new knowledge inside the organization (Jiang et al., 2016). On
the other hand, if there are impediments to knowledge transmission and integration,
organizational capacities such as learning and creativity are hampered. Firms cannot
continue to benefit from their green entrepreneurship efforts due to a lack of grasp of markets
and technology (Alegre and Chiva, 2013). According to Stam and Elfring (2008), improved Knowledge
capability in the appraisal, reintegration and utilization of knowledge by highly successful management
firms operating through intra-industry links may reinforce entrepreneurial orientation and
success.
and green
Firms must be able to update or restructure current knowledge resources to continue innovation
exploiting new coming possibilities (Teece, 2016). Customers’ concerns, requests and
preferences are part of market knowledge. It is suggested that a corporation with market
expertise can estimate the worth of newly uncovered prospects. Simultaneously, market 131
information may effectively serve a new market (Jiang et al., 2018). As a result, developing
specialized knowledge sets is crucial for maintaining a competitive advantage. KM capacity
enables the dispersion of essential knowledge resources, allowing access to various
information sources. Firms implementing GEO may improve their capacity to analyze and
uncover possible green opportunities in such an environment, reaping first-mover
advantages. Conversely, if there are numerous hurdles to the transmission and integration
of KM, organizations may have a limited capacity to identify possibilities proactively. Under
such circumstances, they may not address their customers’ demands adequately.
Consequently, GEO will not be able to gain a competitive edge (Jiang et al., 2018). Based on
the arguments mentioned above, we presented the following hypotheses:
H4a. GEO is positively associated with KCR.
H4b. GEO is positively associated with KAC.
H4c. GEO is positively associated with KSH.
H4d. GEO is positively associated with KAP.

3.3 KM processes and green innovation

GI not only provides a competitive advantage, but it also offers environmental advantages as
well as social well-being (Cillo et al., 2019). Moreover, it is also regarded as “the achievement to
minimize nature damage, gain a substantial market dominance, fiscal, and procedural
knowledge at all stages of the execution of innovation (Cancino et al., 2018)”. According to
Fernando et al. (2019) GI is one of the primary strategies firms attempt to reduce or eliminate
the negative environmental impact of their manufacturing activities.
For the study purpose, GPDI and GPCI are defined in the following ways.
(1) “GPDI refers to the generation of advanced products involving less harmful material,
improved packaging, and recycling and remanufactured parts and components
(Chen, 2008).”
(2) “GPCI describes the firm propensity to improve the production process, saving and
prevent pollution, and use less energy consumption (Chen, 2008).”
Knowledge creation encompasses the development of new knowledge content or the
replacement of current knowledge material in an organization’s explicit or tacit knowledge
stream (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). KM creation activities are usually associated with the
organizational production of knowledge through research and development (Darroch, 2003).
Furthermore, KCR is pivotal for organizations to devote appropriate funding to knowledge
creation since it strengthens their innovation skills and the development of new products
(Habib et al., 2019), which eventually enables them to attain sustainable development. Firms
must encourage their staff to develop a knowledge-creation atmosphere by providing a
platform that allows them to practice the production of new knowledge and by rewarding
them financially and non-financially for coming up with innovative ideas or approaches
(Jarrahi, 2017). Knowledge-intensive organizations strive to maximize resource efficiency and
EJIM operate environmentally responsibly (Albort-Morant et al., 2018). These organizations
27,1 promote the creation of green products and are continuously concerned with the
environmental effect of their activities (Tseng, 2014). KM approaches that foster the
development of new knowledge and organizational learning is critical for attaining GI-based
competitive advantages (Abbas and Sa
gsan, 2019; Shahzad et al., 2020). Therefore, KM based
on internal R&D processes for knowledge creation (e.g. investments in technology, recruiting
and training research people, and project evaluation) is essential for the organization to
132 enhance its innovation capability. Thus, we expect the following:
H5a. KCR is positively associated with GPDI.
H5b. KCR is positively associated with GPCI.
Furthermore, considering shifting consumer demands and a competitive business climate,
companies gather information from workers, consumers and partners to consistently
optimize the performance of their products and services (Almahamid and Qasrawi, 2017).
Acquiring knowledge helps organizations increase their capabilities and address their
limitations (Albort-Morant et al., 2018). Most employees get their information from their
organizations, such as coworkers and team members. Moreover, information gained from
external sources relates to knowledge obtained from consumers, rivals, manufacturers,
collaborators and specialists (Abbas and Sa
gsan, 2019). The goal of knowledge acquisition is
to comprehend the requirements of consumers and their interactions with organizational
services and products. By doing so, firms may affect necessary adjustments to ensure
consumer happiness (Wijethilake, 2017). Several studies have shown a beneficial solid
relationship between KAC from various stakeholders and external markets and
innovativeness (Shahzad et al., 2020, 2021). Darroch (2005) argued that KAC is critical for
capacity development, creative behavior and continuous performance improvement.
Similarly, Zhang et al.’s (2010) research on German companies indicated that KAC from
partner stakeholders influenced the organization’s KAP process, which improved creative
firm performance. Shahzad et al. (2020) assert that an organization’s capacity to acquire and
absorb information has a beneficial effect on a firm’s performance. Thus, we posit the
following:
H6a. KAC is positively associated with GPDI.
H6b. KAC is positively associated with GPCI.
KSH is a frequently used social interaction approach in firms since it enables employees to
solve issues creatively (Attia and Salama, 2018). It also offers excellent assistance for
developing plans, making choices and creating a learning atmosphere (Bolisani and Bratianu,
2018). Additionally, prior research has highlighted the importance of KSH in fostering and
improving innovative skills. According to Wang and Wang (2012), innovation efforts are
mainly the result of exchanging information, expertise and skill. The firm’s capacity for
knowledge transformation and application may indicate its degree of innovative capabilities.
Choi et al. (2016) asserted that employees’ KSH process offers many possibilities for
generating new ideas and improving the firm’s innovation capacities when they share task-
related skills and knowledge with colleagues. Dynamic organizations see information sharing
as a social duty and frequently engage in social awareness initiatives (Khodadadi and Feizi,
2015). To foster collaborative innovation and a winning culture, learning organizations make
their experimental findings publicly available so that other companies may utilize them
creatively (Al-Busaidi and Olfman, 2017). Recent studies have shown that by incorporating
KSH into organizational learning, Pakistani firms can use the collective knowledge and
substantially improve their GI capacity and competitive advantage (Abbas and Sa
gsan, 2019;
Shahzad et al., 2020).
 H7a. KSH is positively associated with GPDI. Knowledge
H7b. KSH is positively associated with GPCI. management
Because of its complexity, ambiguity and distinctiveness, knowledge application evolves as a
and green
distinctive component of KM with considerable potential for creating long-term competitive innovation
advantages through innovation (Fahey and Prusak, 1998). It is also defined as an
organization’s ability to respond quickly to functional modifications through information and
strategy and use these changes to create innovative products and services. Knowledge 133
application is also a significant source for firms to develop creative core skills and improve
their financial performance (Shehzad et al., 2021b). Recent studies have specified that KAP
has been used to facilitate a firm’s sustainable practices to obtain GI outcomes (Abbas and
Sa
gsan, 2019; Shahzad et al., 2020). Firms may identify innovative methods that substantially
enhance their competitiveness by using knowledge. Consider the interests of stakeholders
while developing new processes and technologies. Dynamic organizations have embraced
environmentally friendly practices and incorporated current and new information in research
and development efforts (Albort-Morant et al., 2018). This makes it possible for companies to
create high-quality goods while using the least available resources, which benefits both the
environment and the firm (Mardani et al., 2018). Hence, the below hypotheses are proposed:
H8a. KAP is positively associated with GPDI.
H8b. KAP is positively associated with GPCI.

3.4 Asymmetric modeling

Apart from assessing the direct impact of KM enablers on KM processes and two distinct
aspects of GI, as well as the influence of KM processes on two components of GI, this research
uses fsQCA to provide potential causal recipes that may lead to enhanced GPDI and GPCI via
the combination of KM enablers and KM processes dimensions.
The fsQCA method is an asymmetric modeling technique that incorporates fuzzy sets and
fuzzy logic. The fsQCA is significant for many reasons: First, the effectiveness of symmetric
methods, such as “structural equation modeling” (SEM) or “multiple regression analysis”
(MRA), in evaluating a model with various independent constructs and a strong correlation
between them is controversial owing to the confounding impact of collinearity (Pappas and
Woodside, 2021). As a result, in SEM and MRA, high sample size is insufficient to account for
confounding factors like gender, age and education (Woodside, 2013). Second, correlation and
beta coefficients alone are not only adequate by themselves to describe the relationship
between two or more constructs (“likely due to a non-linear association between independent
and dependent variables”). This can be solved via fuzzy sets since this technique allows for
many solutions that all lead to the same outcome (Wu et al., 2014). As a result, regression
analysis cannot identify an independent variable that only influences the outcome measure in
a limited number of cases (Pappas et al., 2017).
Third, in the current study, fsQCA may be especially significant since each KM enabler
(KOL and GEO) and KM processes (KCR, KAC, KSH and KAP) dimension may play a specific
role in the organization. The combinations of these constructs may assist management in
identifying a configuration for attaining the desired result (Latif et al., 2020). The results of
fsQCA will reveal a distinct pattern of equifinality (i.e. different configurations lead to the
same outcome) (Cabrilo and Dahms, 2018). Various configurations of KM enablers and KM
processes dimensions may improve GI capacity. Instead of a biased number of two- and three-
way interchanges, the fsQCA examines each preceding state’s potential dependence. This
method is necessary to ascertain the state of KM processes since organizations may not have
all KM processes and GI simultaneously.
EJIM H9. Various configurations of the KM enablers (KOL and GEO) and KM processes (KCR,
27,1 KAC, KSH and KAP) are associated with the GPDI and GPCI.

4. Methodology
4.1 Target population and sample design
134 The current study’s targeted population consists of SMEs industrial companies recognized
by Pakistan’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SECP). SECP is Pakistan’s leading and
most comprehensive directory of industries. Only companies that are ISO 9001 certified and
have applied for or plan to apply for ISO 14001 (environmental management) and ISO 26000
(Social responsibility) certifications were contacted by the researcher. The reason for
choosing certified manufacturing was because Pakistan’s manufacturing sector is the second
leading sector after agriculture, accounting for a significant portion of the country’s economy.
This sector accounts for almost 95% of all SMEs in Pakistan, and as such, SMEs are regarded
the primary drivers of economic development, contributing to 40% of the country’s GDP
(Anwar and Ali Shah, 2020). Therefore, manufacturing SMEs contribute significantly to
Pakistan’s environmental pollution. Because most of these SMEs’ manufacturing plants are
located along the shore or on riverbanks, industrial waste is discharged directly into the
water, posing a threat to marine life, crops and other living organisms (Sahibzada and Qutub,
1993). Moreover, SMEs produce a large amount of CO2, the primary source of air pollution.
The high level of environmental pollution produced by SMEs results from a lack of
knowledge and a lack of compliance with environmental laws (Ortolano et al., 2014). As a
result, this research aims to investigate how top certified companies think about the GI that
emerges from KM enablers and KM processes. Because innovation is mainly derived from
learning and implementing information, which eventually results in sustainable
performance, it may aid in understanding the unique condition of green practices and
provide regulatory implications for other uncertified firms in Pakistan.
Using a nonprobability convenience sampling method, the researcher gathered data from
five main business cities in Pakistan, namely Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore, Gujranwala and
Faisalabad. The researcher contacted junior, middle and senior managers at these companies
through personal visits and online methods (such as e-mail) and asked them to rate their
organization’s performance on a seven-point Likert scale for KM enablers, KM processes and
GI activities. The data was gathered only from management personnel since they are the most
knowledgeable about the firms’ rules and procedures. Additionally, managers are accountable
for communicating and executing organizational practices inside their divisions. Data were
gathered between April and August 2021 using a non-probability convenience sampling
method. Out of 328 useable answers, 175 were from medium-sized organizations and 153 were
from big organizations. Additionally, 188 respondents were male and 140 respondents were
female. Table 1 contains comprehensive demographic information of the respondents.

4.2 Measurement instrument

The questionnaire was categorized into four parts. The first part included the respondents’
demographic information. The second part included 11 questions that covered two aspects of
KM enablers, namely KOL and GEO. These items were drawn from the work of Donate and
de Pablo (2015), Jiang et al. (2018) and Li et al. (2010), respectively. The third part included 22
questions related to the four KM processes, namely knowledge creation, acquisition, sharing
and application. Knowledge creation and acquisition were assessed using five questions for
each dimension, while knowledge sharing and application were evaluated using six questions
for each dimension. This section’s items originated from Abbas and Sa
gsan’s (2019) study.
Moreover, the fourth part included eight questions relating to the two dimensions of GI,
Characteristics Description Frequency %
Knowledge
management
Gender Male 188 57.3 and green
Female 140 42.7
Total 328 100.0 innovation
Age 18–25 Year 43 13.1
26–35 Year 124 37.8
36–45 Year 110 33.5 135
>45 Year 51 15.5
Total 328 100.0
Education Bachelor 158 48.2
Master 142 43.3
Doctorate 28 8.5
Total 328 100.0
Firm size Medium Size firm 175 53.4
Large size firm 153 46.6
Total 328 100.0
Position Lower Management 168 51.2
Middle Management 129 39.3 Table 1.
Top Management 31 9.5 Demographic
Total 328 100.0 attributes

namely GPDI and GPCI, which were obtained from the studies of Chen (2008) and Chen et al.
(2006). According to Hinkin (1998)’s suggestion to ensure the reliability and validity of the
chosen items from the perspective of Pakistan, the researcher conducted a pilot study. The
researcher gathered data from 40 Lahore-based manufacturing firms. The initial analysis
revealed a value of 0.744–0.924 for the internal consistency of the variables, which meets Hair
et al. (2014)’s criterion of a minimum value of 0.7. The researcher initiated a thorough survey
after considering the pilot study’s findings.

4.3 Control variables

Following Ooi’s (2014) suggestion, firm size is used as a control variable since large firms have
more infrastructure and capabilities than small firms. The researcher classified firms into large
and medium groups based on the number of workers, as recommended by Hoang et al. (2006).

4.4 Common method variance bias

One of the most significant concerns in survey research is common method variance (CMV)
bias. According to Podsakoff et al. (2003), this problem occurred when data were gathered
from a single source. The research used SPSS 25 to conduct the “Harman’s single-factor test,”
as proposed by Harman (1976), to determine the existence of CMV among constructs.
The computed results (principal axis factoring and extraction technique) showed 41 unique
factors. The first unrotated component accounted for 40.432% of the variation in the data set,
less than the 40% threshold (Hair et al., 2016). We also ran a complete collinearity evaluation
test in Smart-PLS. It is a more contemporary and trustworthy method proposed by Kock (2015)
and supported by several social science experts (Zafar et al., 2021). All VIF scores are lower
than the cutoff value of 5, indicating that common method bias is not a problem in our model.

5. Data analysis and results

This research employs symmetric (e.g. PLS-SEM) and asymmetric (fsQCA) methods to obtain
deeper insights into the connection between KM enablers, KM processes and GI components.
EJIM The PLS-SEM was used because of the model’s ability to predict and its complexity (Hair
27,1 et al., 2014). PLS-SEM is performed in this research using the software package Smart PLS
3.2.9. In the discipline of KM and innovation, PLS-SEM is the most often used technique for
data analysis (Shehzad et al., 2022a, b; Shujahat et al., 2019). In contrast to PLS-SEM, the
fsQCA was used to get more profound findings and determine adequate configurations and
causal combinations of KM enablers and KM processes components to generate GPDI and
GPCI (Pappas and Woodside, 2021). The fsQCA 3.0 software was employed to determine
136 appropriate causal combinations of antecedents to produce outcomes.

5.1 Measurement model assessment

This study’s research model includes eight reflective constructs: KOL, GEO, KCR, KAC, KSH,
KAP, GPDI and GPCI. The loadings of items of each construct, the Cronbach’s alpha (Cα), the
composite reliability (CR) and the average variance extracted (AVE) are assessed to examine
the measurement model of reflective constructs. The values of these parameters should be
higher than 0.6, 0.7, 0.7 and 0.5, respectively, to establish reliability and convergent validity
(Hair et al., 2016). Table 2 summarizes the findings of the measurement model evaluation for
eight reflective constructs, showing that all constructs have adequate reliability and
convergent validity. Moreover, as indicated in Table 3, discriminant validity is validated
using the criteria proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Thus, the overall results of the
measurement model indicate that the model is adequate for structural model evaluation.
The study examined the variance inflation factor (VIF) results to evaluate the model’s
collinearity concerns. According to Hair et al. (2014), if the inner VIF values are less than 5,
there are no collinearity issues in the data. The study found that the inner VIF values of
constructs ranged from 1.562 to 3.469. Thus, it demonstrates no collinearity issue in the
current study’s data and validates the model’s robustness. The R2 and Q2 values of KCR 0.318
(Q2 5 0.314), KAC 0.669 (Q2 5 0.667), KSH 0.476 (Q2 5 0.472), KAP 0.325 (Q2 5 0.321), GPDI
0.691 (Q2 5 0.685) and GPCI 0.548 (Q2 5 0.540) which support the model’s in-sample
predictive power. Results of blindfolding with an omission distance of seven (Table 4) show
the model’s predictive significance in terms of out-of-sample prediction (Q2 values
significantly above zero) (Hair et al., 2014).

5.2 Structural model assessment

Following the mandatory evaluation of the measurement model, the second phase included a
structural model evaluation. To demonstrate the significance of direct associations, the study
used a bootstrap resampling approach with 5,000 subsamples (Hair et al., 2016). Table 5
summarizes the results of tests conducted on hypotheses involving direct relationships.
As shown in Table 5, hypotheses H1a, H1b, H2a and H2b related to KOL and GEO’s
positive effect on two aspects of GI, namely GPDI and GPCI. The results reveal that KOL has
significant associations with GPDI (β 5 0.605; p < 0.001), but insignificant association with
GPCI (β 5 0.059; p 5 0.347). On the other hand, GEO has significant associations with two
aspects of GI. Specifically, GEO’s influence on GPCI (β 5 0.184; p < 0.029) is comparatively
more significant than its effect on GPDI (β 5 0.111; p 5 0.037). Hence, H1a, H2a and H2b are
accepted, while H1b is rejected.
Hypotheses H3a, H3b, H3c and H3d relating to the effects of KOL on KCR, KAC, KSH and
KAP are supported. Specifically, the results showed that the KOL impact on KAC (β 5 0.448;
p < 0.001) is comparatively more significant than its impact on KCR (β 5 0.188; p < 0.001),
KSH (β 5 0.364; p < 0.001) and KAP (β 5 0.283; p < 0.001). Similarly, hypotheses H4a, H4b,
H4c and H4d relating to the effects of GEO on KCR, KAC, KSH and KAP are also supported.
Notably, the results revealed that the GEO impact on KAC (β 5 0.481; p < 0.001) is also
comparatively more significant than its impact on KCR (β 5 0.438; p < 0.001), KSH (β 5 0.418;
p < 0.001) and KAP (β 5 0.363; p < 0.001).
Constructs Items Loadings Cα CR AVE
Knowledge
management
Knowledge-oriented leadership 0.898 0.915 0.687 and green
KOL2 0.647***
KOL3 0.887*** innovation
KOL4 0.902***
KOL5 0.888***
KOL6 0.793*** 137
Green entrepreneurial 0.810 0.874 0.635
orientation
GEO1 0.745***
GEO2 0.842***
GEO3 0.843***
GEO4 0.752***
Knowledge creation 0.864 0.900 0.644
KCR1 0.781***
KCR2 0.768***
KCR3 0.828***
KCR4 0.820***
KCR5 0.813***
Knowledge acquisition 0.701 0.813 0.521
KAC1 0.732***
KAC2 0.671***
KAC3 0.721***
KAC4 0.759***
Knowledge sharing 0.884 0.910 0.670
KSH1 0.792***
KSH2 0.885***
KSH3 0.760***
KSH4 0.843***
KSH5 0.805***
Knowledge application 0.916 0.935 0.708
KAP1 0.861***
KAP2 0.873***
KAP3 0.911***
KAP4 0.881***
KAP5 0.855***
KAP6 0.639***
Green product innovation 0.879 0.916 0.734
GPDI1 0.702***
GPDI2 0.896***
GPDI3 0.916***
GPDI4 0.896***
Green process innovation 0.880 0.923 0.801
GPCI2 0.897***
GPCI3 0.891*** Table 2.
GPCI4 0.897*** Assessment of
Note(s): *** < 0.001; Cα: Cronbach’s alpha, CR: composite reliability, AVE: average variance extracted measurement model

Moreover, hypotheses H5a, H5b, H6a and H6b study proposed the positive impact of KCR and
KACs on two distinct types of GI, namely GPDI and GPCI. The findings showed that KCR has
insignificant associations with two aspects of GI, while KAC has a significant association
with GPDI (β 5 0.235; p < 0.01) and GPCI (β 5 0.186; p 5 0.019). Therefore, H5a and H5b are
not supported, whereas H6a and H6b are supported. Similarly, hypotheses H7a, H7b, H8a and
H8b related to KSH and KAP’s positive effects on two aspects of GI, namely GPDI and GPCI.
EJIM Constructs GEO GPCI GPDI KAC KAP KCR KOL KSH
27,1
GEO 0.797
GPCI 0.617 0.895
GPDI 0.579 0.603 0.857
KAC 0.728 0.674 0.707 0.722
KAP 0.519 0.562 0.511 0.609 0.841
138 KCR 0.542 0.540 0.457 0.688 0.472 0.802
KOL 0.552 0.537 0.794 0.713 0.483 0.429 0.829
KSH 0.619 0.648 0.503 0.712 0.604 0.567 0.595 0.818
Note(s): KOL 5 Knowledge oriented leadership; GEO 5 Green entrepreneurial orientation;
Table 3. KCR 5 Knowledge creation; KAC 5 Knowledge acquisition; KSH 5 Knowledge sharing;
Discriminant validity KAP 5 Knowledge application; GPDI 5 Green product innovation; GPCI 5 Green process innovation

Endogenous constructs R2 Q2

Knowledge creation 0.318 0.314

Knowledge acquisition 0.669 0.667
Table 4. Knowledge sharing 0.476 0.472
Coefficient of Knowledge application 0.325 0.321
determination and Green product innovation 0.691 0.685
predictive relevance Green process innovation 0.548 0.540

Hypotheses IV → DV Path coefficient [t-value] p Value BCI LL, BCI UL Supported

H1a KOL → GPDI 0.605 [10.008] 0.000 [0.486, 0.724] Yes

H1b KOL → GPCI 0.059 [0.940] 0.347 [
0.058, 0.185] No
H2a GEO → GPDI 0.111 [2.083] 0.037 [0.007, 0.218] Yes
H2b GEO → GPCI 0.184 [2.188] 0.029 [0.020, 0.350] Yes
H3a KOL → KCR 0.188 [2.801] 0.005 [0.059, 0.322] Yes
H3b KOL → KAC 0.448 [10.464] 0.000 [0.363, 0.532] Yes
H3c KOL → KSH 0.364 [6.139] 0.000 [0.244, 0.476] Yes
H3d KOL → KAP 0.283 [4.303] 0.000 [0.151, 0.406] Yes
H4a GEO → KCR 0.438 [7.271] 0.000 [0.314, 0.554] Yes
H4b GEO → KAC 0.481 [11.878] 0.000 [0.400, 0.557] Yes
H4c GEO → KSH 0.418 [8.200] 0.000 [0.317, 0.516] Yes
H4d GEO → KAP 0.363 [6.657] 0.000 [0.257, 0.474] Yes
H5a KCR → GPDI 0.019 [0.345] 0.730 [
0.087, 0.125] No
H5b KCR → GPCI 0.089 [1.543] 0.123 [
0.022, 0.204] No
H6a KAC → GPDI 0.235 [2.666] 0.008 [0.066, 0.414] Yes
H6b KAC → GPCI 0.186 [2.351] 0.019 [0.039, 0.346] Yes
H7a KSH → GPDI 0.171 [3.339] 0.001 [0.269, 0.170] Yes
H7b KSH → GPCI 0.229 [2.984] 0.003 [0.067, 0.371] Yes
H8a KAP → GPDI 0.112 [2.096] 0.036 [0.006, 0.214] Yes
H8a KAP → GPCI 0.145 [3.180] 0.001 [0.054, 0.235] Yes
Control effects
þ Firm Size → GPDI 0.049 [1.421] 0.156 [
0.049, 0.304] No
þ Firm Size → GPCI 0.009 [0.230] 0.818 [
0.139, 0.176] No
Table 5. Note(s): KOL 5 Knowledge oriented leadership; GEO 5 Green entrepreneurial orientation;
Hypothesis testing KCR 5 Knowledge creation; KAC 5 Knowledge acquisition; KSH 5 Knowledge sharing;
results KAP 5 Knowledge application; GPDI 5 Green product innovation; GPCI 5 Green process innovation
Results revealed that KSH’s impacts on GPCI (β 5 0.229; p 5 0.003) is more significant as Knowledge
compared to its impact on GPDI (β 5 0.171; p 5 0.001); and KAP’s influence on GPCI management
(β 5 0.145; p 5 0.001) is also more significant than its effect on GPDI (β 5 0.112; p 5 0.036).
Based on these results, it can be concluded that H7a, H7b, H8a and H8b are supported.
and green
Additionally, taking into account the contextual impact, the researcher classified the innovation
firm’s data into medium and large firms based on their personnel count. When company size
was included as a control variable, the results for businesses’ GPDI and GPCI were
inconsequential. This suggests that KM enablers and KM processes, rather than firm size, 139
affect the level of corporate GPDI and GPCI.

5.3 fsQCA approach

The research employed fsQCA to evaluate the antecedent conditions (KM enablers and KM
processes) to explain two aspects of (GI), namely GPDI and GPCI.
5.3.1 Calibration. The fsQCA begins with the regulation/calibration of data into fuzzy sets,
distinguishing instances as completely in, totally out, or between specified groups. The fuzzy
sets can take any value from zero to one (Woodside, 2013). The variables in a set may be
calibrated either explicitly (i.e. the variability belonging to a category is defined in binary
form: 0 for “non-membership” and 1 for “complete membership” or fuzzily (variabilities take
various degrees of belonging to a range of zero to one) (Skarmeas et al., 2014). The fuzzy sets
analysis usually uses three calibration limit values 0.05 for full non-membership, 0.50 as a
crossover point, and 0.95 for full membership (Ragin, 2000). The process for allocating fuzzy
values to corresponding cases and selecting input parameters is subject to the researcher’s
discretion, but the process must be transparent enough for others to verify and replicate
(Ragin, 2000). The direct approach for calibration of data was employed in this study (Rihoux
and Ragin, 2008). We used the percentiles score to choose the cut-off values (Beynon et al.,
2016). In this research, the 95th percentile was used as the complete membership threshold,
the 50th percentile as a crossover point and the 5th percentile as the non-membership
threshold.
5.3.2 Necessity conditions. Once calibration is performed, the next step is to determine
whether or not the conditions are sufficient and necessary. Table 6 presents the results of the
necessary condition analysis. None of the conditions has a consistency value greater than 0.9,

Outcome: GPDI Outcome: GPCI

Conditions Consistency Coverage Consistency Coverage

KOL 0.857 0.835 0.770 0.822

∼KOL 0.509 0.551 0.510 0.605
GEO 0.780 0.785 0.746 0.822
∼GEO 0.548 0.574 0.530 0.608
KCR 0.781 0.772 0.744 0.805
∼KCR 0.549 0.586 0.523 0.611
KAC 0.815 0.795 0.782 0.835
∼KAC 0.518 0.561 0.493 0.584
KSH 0.758 0.780 0.743 0.837
∼KSH 0.561 0.574 0.516 0.578
KAP 0.797 0.821 0.765 0.863 Table 6.
∼KAP 0.534 0.546 0.501 0.561 Necessary conditions
Note(s): ∼ indicates the absence of a condition. KOL 5 Knowledge oriented leadership; GEO 5 Green for predicting green
entrepreneurial orientation; KCR 5 Knowledge creation; KAC 5 Knowledge acquisition; KSH5Knowledge product and process
sharing; KAP 5 Knowledge application; GPDI 5 Green product innovation; GPCI 5 Green process innovation innovation
EJIM implying that none of them is necessary (Ragin, 2009). It also demonstrates that neither a
27,1 single condition can explain the two distinct aspects of GI by itself. The results are presented
in Table 6.
Next, consistency and coverage were computed for all configurations, and sufficient
configurations with coverage higher than 0.2 and consistency greater than 0.8 were identified
(Pappas and Woodside, 2021). The fsQCA generates three kinds of outputs from sufficient
configurations known as solutions: complex, intermediate and parsimonious solutions. “A
140 solution is a set of configurations that is supported by a large number of cases and follows the
rule that ‘the combination leads to the outcome’” (Pappas and Woodside, 2021). Since the
literature recommends the intermediate solution (Rasoolimanesh et al., 2021), the intermediate
results were selected for the study.
5.3.3 Solution. Table 7 for GPDI and Table 8 for GPCI summarize the findings of the
fsQCA analysis using Ragin and Fiss’s (2008) notation. The overall solution consistency for
the GPDI was 0.887, and the overall solution consistency for the GPCI was 0.878, with each
portion of the overall solution for both outcomes having consistency of more than 0.80 (Ragin,
2008). The four potential solutions for GPDI and GPCI each have a unique set of conditions,
and the presence of several solutions is sufficient for both outcomes to equifinality (Fiss,
2011). As a result, H9 is supported. The fsQCA analysis shows that for the GPDI, KOL was
identified as a core condition and was found in all four configurations. KAC and KAP were
identified as peripheral conditions in three of four configurations. GEO, KCR and KSH were
also peripheral conditions in two of the four configurations. Furthermore, the fsQCA analysis
showed that GEO and KSH were recognized as core conditions for GPCI and were found in
three out of four configurations. KOL, KCR, KAC and KAP were recognized as peripheral
conditions in two of the four configurations. In terms of coverage values, the fsQCA yields an
overall solution coverage score of 0.739 for GPDI and 0.622 for GPCI, respectively, implying
that the four configurations of causal conditions “explain” 73.9% of GPDI and 0.622% of
GPCI, both of which fall within the suggested limit of 0.25–0.90 (Ragin, 2009).

Note(s): ● = core conditions, ● = peripheral conditions, absent; and blank space suggests
“do not care.” KOL = Knowledge oriented leadership; GEO = Green entrepreneurial
orientation; KCR = Knowledge creation; KAC = Knowledge acquisition; KSH = Knowledge
Table 7. sharing; KAP = Knowledge application; GPDI = Green product innovation; GPCI = Green
Results intermediate
solution process innovation
 Knowledge
management
and green
innovation

141

Note(s): ● = core conditions, ● = peripheral conditions, absent; and blank space suggests
“do not care.” KOL = Knowledge oriented leadership; GEO = Green entrepreneurial orientation;
KCR = Knowledge creation; KAC = Knowledge acquisition; KSH = Knowledge sharing;
KAP = Knowledge application; GPDI = Green product innovation; GPCI = Green process Table 8.
Results intermediate
innovation solution

6. Discussion and implications

Current research developed and tested a conceptual model by analyzing the
multidimensional association between KM enablers, KM processes and two distinct facets
of GI–GPDI and GPCI. The findings contributed to a broad question; why are KM enablers
important for KM processes, and how do KM processes impact GI? Further, it explains the
combination of KM enabling dimensions and KM processes to check how it improves GI
further. The research incorporates two theoretical approaches: RBV (Barney, 1991) and the
KM capabilities model (Gold et al., 2001). The findings confirm the significant and beneficial
impact of KM enablers on KM processes and provide further insight into how KM enablers
and KM processes affect two elements of GI.
The findings suggest KM enablers’ effects on GI and imply the importance of KM enablers
in establishing environmental innovation initiatives. KOL displayed a positive influence on
GPDI. It means that organizations with KOL perform better in managing knowledge within
and outside firm boundaries. This result is consistent with previous research in the broader
context (Singh et al., 2020; Naqshbandi and Jasimuddin, 2018; Garcıa-Morales et al., 2006),
which emphasized the importance of leadership in encouraging the development and
acceptance of new ideas by exemplifying desirable behaviors and inspiring followers to
generate and share information. The finding on KOL and GPCI contradicts the results of
Bahzar’s (2019) research, which found a significant relationship between green
transformational and ethical leadership and green creativity and eco-innovation. However,
the findings are consistent with prior studies (Muangmee et al., 2021; Guo et al., 2020). These
results suggest that GEO can be used to promote both facets of corporate GI. Additionally,
green entrepreneurs consolidate different resources and mitigate environmental effects,
allowing them to identify and capitalize on GI possibilities via deploying and arranging more
controlled resources (Zhou et al., 2018).
The results suggest a significant impact of KOL on KM processes (KCR, KAC, KSH and
KAP). It may be explained that organizational factors are critical for the efficacy of KM
EJIM processes, with leadership standing out as a descriptive, clear path for employees to
27,1 efficiently accomplish their responsibilities and roles (Dessler, 2002). From a broader
perspective, these results confirm prior studies that leadership has a substantial influence on
KM processes (Latif et al., 2020; Iqbal et al., 2018; Donate and de Pablo, 2015). It also shows
that such leadership integrating transformational and transactional leadership
characteristics and aspects of compelling motivation and communication is an efficient
antecedent to KM processes of creation, acquisition, sharing and application. The importance
142 of KOLs may be highlighted further in light of RBV since managers often struggle to
coordinate and integrate information possessed by different sources (Miles, 2012). A leader
may contribute to and improve this challenging situation by demonstrating top-level
dedication and leadership in KM-related initiatives. Additionally, the research findings
revealed the significant impact of GEO on KM processes. These findings are consistent with
the studies of Latif et al. (2020) and Stuetzer et al. (2018), who discovered that management
efforts like experimentation and risk-taking, which are essential components of GEO, impact
how knowledge is produced and shared. From a KM standpoint, an organization’s structure
that promotes risk-taking and experimentation may assist both learning and knowledge
creation and distribution (Miles, 2012).
The findings of KM processes – KAC, KSH and KAP – showed significant associations
with two components of GI, namely GPDI and GPCI, while KCR has an insignificant
relationship with GPDI and GPCI. The insignificant effect of KCR on both GI aspects
contradicts Brix’s (2017) research but is consistent with Abbas and Sa
gsan’s (2019) research.
Findings show that participating firms do not allocate sufficient time and resources to
developing new knowledge that may substantially improve social and organizational
environments. It means that sampled organizations’ management should revaluate their
strategies toward knowledge creation and environmental sustainability. Findings further
show that KAC has a significant relationship with both facets of GI, verifying prior research
(Shahzad et al., 2020, 2021; Abbas and Sa
gsan, 2019). Advanced knowledge augmented
different aspects of business, including finances, employee professional growth and
consumer preferences (Darroch, 2003). According to Tseng’s (2014) research, KAC is a critical
tool for workers to cooperate and maintain continuous development throughout the
organization’s divisions.
Furthermore, results demonstrate that KSH has a significant impact on GPDI and GPCI.
The findings are in line with previous research (Shahzad et al., 2020; Abbas and Sa
gsan, 2019;
Zhang et al., 2019; Le and Lei, 2019) and suggest that if companies effectively share
knowledge among all individuals, it will improve their functional, financial and non-financial
performance and coordination among various stakeholders, leading to eco-innovation
(Tseng, 2014). It indicates that firms prioritize knowledge sharing inside and outside their
organizations, frequently educate their workers and motivate them to acquire and share
knowledge. These firms’ employees consider information sharing a societal duty, and these
organizations experience increased customer loyalty and satisfaction. Moreover, the findings
reveal the positive influence of KAP on GPDI and GPCI. The results are in line with (Shahzad
et al., 2020, 2021; Abbas and Sa
gsan, 2019; Madhoushi et al., 2011), suggesting that to improve
performance, companies must use already obtained knowledge timely and efficiently to reach
the optimum level of customer satisfaction (Kuo, 2011). According to Darroch (2005), KAP is a
critical element that enables organizations to develop green products using innovative and
digital manufacturing technology.
The contextual analysis revealed an insignificant association between organizational size
and both aspects of GI (GPDI and GPCI). This implies that both knowledge enablers and KM
processes are critical for all firms to improve organizational GI capability. The findings in
Table 5 further show that company size does not affect organizational capabilities for GPDI
and GPCI.
 From the fsQCA, we deduce that none of the conditions that are neither KM enablers Knowledge
dimensions nor KM processes is sufficient to explain high-level GPDI or GPCI on their own. management
Instead, our most robust solutions for high GPDI (Solution 1 in Table 7) indicate that for
59.3% of respondents in our sample, high KOL and GEO, along with KAC and KSH, lead to
and green
high GPDI. This finding tells us that the surveyed respondents believe that firms can achieve innovation
higher GPDI through an increased focus on KOL and GEO combined with KAC and KSH
processes. Moreover, for high GPCI, our most robust solution (Solution 2 in Table 8) indicates
that for 50.8% of respondents in our sample, high KOL, and GEO, along with KAC, KSH and 143
KAP, lead to high GPCI. This finding suggests that the surveyed firms can achieve higher
GPCI through an increased focus on KOL and GEO combined with KAC, KSH and KAP
practices. The fsQCA analysis reveals that for GPDI, KOL was identified as a core condition
in all four configurations, whereas for GPCI, GEO and KSH were identified as core conditions
in three out of four configurations. Moreover, KCR was identified to have an insignificant
influence on both aspects of GI, namely, GPCI and GPDI, suggesting that on its own, KCR is
not sufficient to enhance GI but when in combination with other factors, KCR can be a
valuable resource to lead to better GI outcome (Abbas and Sa
gsan, 2019). The result extends
earlier studies (Shahzad et al., 2021, 2020; Abbas and Sa
gsan, 2019; Donate and de Pablo,
2015), demonstrating that KOL and KM processes stimulate GI innovation. The existence of
equifinality, which is progressively getting momentum in the management literature (Fiss,
2011), can be seen in our study, where combinations of KM enablers and KM processes result
in a high degree of both facets of GI (GPDI and GPCI). The findings endorsed the notion that
there are many paths to enhance GI, emphasizing the need to expand fsQCA in KM and GI
literature (Cabrilo and Dahms, 2018).

6.1 Theoretical contributions

The research provides a deeper understanding of some related constructs about KM enablers,
KM processes and GI that have not been thoroughly examined in prior studies. Thus, in
response to Shahzad et al. (2020, 2021), and Abbas and Sa
gsan (2019) we advocate for further
research on the impact of knowledge and KM processes in improving GI in manufacturing
firms. Theoretically, this research expands and improves KM enablers, KM processes and GI
literature. First to begin, this study presented a conceptual model based on RBV and KM
capability theory, which provided some new relationships while filling a gap in the existing
literature in GI. Second, this study is one of the earliest to demonstrate that KM enablers may
assist in successfully achieving and using knowledge resources by optimizing operations,
enhancing KM processes and stimulating two elements of GI, especially in manufacturing
sectors. Third, this research advances awareness of the critical role of particular KM
processes (such as acquisition, sharing and application) in enhancing a firm’s GI capability.
Finally, due to effective KM among participants, firms can improve their production
processes to include sustainable development practices and determine how and where waste
can be utilized to create a by-product or mitigate its negative environmental impact (Shahzad
et al., 2021).

6.2 Methodological contributions

This research highlights a modern trend from a methodological standpoint combining PLS-
SEM and fsQCA statistical techniques to understand better organizational problems in GI
areas (Woodside, 2013). For example, the fsQCA analyses organizational likelihoods and
connections more thoroughly than conventional symmetric techniques (Ling, 2013). The use
of fsQCA addresses the limitations of symmetric methods, which fail to discover the
combination of variables that may assist in achieving the intended outcome (Fiss, 2011). By
combining two methodologies (PLS-SEM and fsQCA), this research generates new insights
EJIM and demonstrates the importance of each exogenous construct contributing to GI separately.
27,1 Thus, enriching the KM literature by identifying multiple configurations/recipes through
which one can achieve improved GPDI and GPCI.

6.3 Practical implications

The present study has several implications for manufacturers and industry professionals.
144 First, it demonstrates the relationship between KM enablers and KM processes. It describes
how KM processes help organizations develop innovative products and processes that are
less harmful and eco-friendly. According to the findings, firms should guarantee that all KM
processes are implemented to create such innovative manufacturing processes. Second,
policymakers should be attentive after understanding the importance of KM processes and
create specialized training and development programs for employee development to evolve a
sustainable company that follows a green growth strategy to produce more revenue while
reducing its environmental effect. Third, although this research urges senior management
and professionals to include sustainable development practices, effective implementation
depends on acquiring, sharing and applying knowledge to their operations. This will aid in
the development of a robust system for penalizing and compensating industrial companies
that breach applicable environmental regulations. Regulatory authorities should offer tax
breaks and low-interest loans to stakeholders to encourage them to incorporate sustainable
practices into their operations. Finally, the present research highlights the significant role of
GI in assisting organizations in achieving competitive advantage via KM. GI enables
organizations to adopt new technologies that allow employees to create high-quality, eco-
friendly products/services, thus ensuring a sustainable environment. Additionally, the
present research reassures executives of small and midsize enterprises that they may get
comparable advantages from KM as big businesses establish organizational competitive
advantage.
Moreover, in today’s knowledge-based economy, the capacity to innovate has become a
critical competitive advantage. The continuous renewal of practically all company areas is
necessary by new technology and services, increasing worldwide competition, changing
consumer wants and changing employee expectations. Simultaneously, businesses are
increasingly required to match their operations with current and future societal demands.
These concerns extend beyond traditional financial measures, employment creation and the
supply of goods and services to various environmental and social issues (Carroll and
Shabana, 2010). Businesses throughout the globe are being influenced more and more by
corporate social responsibility and environmental concerns in their fundamental operations
(Schaltegger and Burritt, 2018). Our paradigm for values-based innovation management
redefines management in general, and innovation in particular, by emphasizing the critical
role of values in moral, strategic and operational innovation, as well as their management.

6.4 Limitations and future directions

Although this study is based on a comprehensive investigation, it does have certain
limitations that point to future research directions. First, it employed a cross-sectional
approach to examine the relationship between the variables. This may seem to be the
capability for causal relationships to change over time. Longitudinal research would solve
this issue and allow for the consolidation of findings. Second, this study incorporates both
symmetrical and asymmetrical techniques into GI research. We believe that future research
can utilize this method in various management-related areas of study. Third, this research
only examines the connection between the variables using firm size as a control variable to
account for variations in GI capability, without considering the moderating impacts or the
other moderating roles of strategic factors such as ownership form, organizational supports
or organization agility. Future studies should investigate the correlations between the Knowledge
constructs in the context of these variables’ moderating effects to better understand their management
association. Finally, according to the authors, the fundamental values of KM may be a
significant source of many organizations’ outcomes. Future studies should examine its
and green
distinct benefits to other strategic outcomes, including green competitive advantage, green innovation
radical and incremental innovation, and green performance of firms.
145
References
Abbas, J. (2020), “Impact of total quality management on corporate green performance through the
mediating role of corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 242, p.
118458.
gsan, M. (2019), “Impact of knowledge management practices on green innovation
Abbas, J. and Sa

and corporate sustainable development: a structural analysis”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 229, pp. 611-620.
Al-Busaidi, K.A. and Olfman, L. (2017), “Knowledge sharing through inter-organizational knowledge
sharing systems”, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems.
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), “Knowledge management and knowledge management systems:
conceptual foundations and research issues”, MIS Quarterly, pp. 107-136.
Albort-Morant, G., Leal-Rodrıguez, A.L. and Marchi, V.D. (2018), “Absorptive capacity and
relationship learning mechanisms as complementary drivers of green innovation
performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management.
Alegre, J. and Chiva, R. (2013), “Linking entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: the role of
organizational learning capability and innovation performance”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 491-507.
Almahamid, S.M. and Qasrawi, S.T. (2017), “The impact of TQM practices and KM processes on
organisational performance: an empirical investigation”, International Journal of Quality and
Reliability Management.
Anwar, M. and Ali Shah, S.Z. (2020), “Managerial networking and business model innovation:
empirical study of new ventures in an emerging economy”, Journal of Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 265-286.
Arici, H.E. and Uysal, M. (2021), “Leadership, green innovation, and green creativity: a systematic
review”, The Service Industries Journal, pp. 1-41.
Asadi, S., Pourhashemi, S.O., Nilashi, M., Abdullah, R., Samad, S., Yadegaridehkordi, E., Aljojo, N. and
Razali, N.S. (2020), “Investigating influence of green innovation on sustainability performance: a
case on Malaysian hotel industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 258, p. 120860.
Ashford, N.A. and Hall, R.P. (2011), “The importance of regulation-induced innovation for sustainable
development”, Sustainability, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 270-292.
Attia, A. and Salama, I. (2018), “Knowledge management capability and supply chain management
practices in the Saudi food industry”, Business Process Management Journal.
Awan, U., Arnold, M.G. and G€olgeci, I. (2021), “Enhancing green product and process innovation:
towards an integrative framework of knowledge acquisition and environmental investment”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 1283-1295.
Bahzar, M. (2019), “Effects of green transformational and ethical leadership on green creativity, eco-
innovation and energy efficiency in higher education sector of Indonesia”, International Journal
of Energy Economics and Policy, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 408-414.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
EJIM Beynon, M.J., Jones, P. and Pickernell, D. (2016), “Country-based comparison analysis using fsQCA
investigating entrepreneurial attitudes and activity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69
27,1 No. 4, pp. 1271-1276.
Bolisani, E. and Bratianu, C. (2018), “The elusive definition of knowledge”, Emergent Knowledge
Strategies, Springer, pp. 1-22.
Bojica, A.M. and Fuentes, M.D.M.F. (2012), “Knowledge acquisition and corporate entrepreneurship:
insights from Spanish SMEs in the ICT sector”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 47 No. 3,
146 pp. 397-408.
Bos-Brouwers, H.E.J. (2010), “Corporate sustainability and innovation in SMEs: evidence of themes
and activities in practice”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 417-435.
Bossle, M.B., Barcellos, M.D.D., Vieira, L.M. and Sauvee, L. (2016), “The drivers for adoption of eco-
innovation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 113, pp. 861-872.
Bowersox, D.J. and Closs, D.J. (1996), Logistical Management: The Integrated Supply Chain Process,
McGraw-Hill College.
Brazeal, D.V. and Herbert, T.T. (1999), “The genesis of entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 29-46.
Brix, J. (2017), “Exploring knowledge creation processes as a source of organizational learning: a
longitudinal case study of a public innovation project”, Scandinavian Journal of Management,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 113-127.
Cabrilo, S. and Dahms, S. (2018), “How strategic knowledge management drives intellectual capital to
superior innovation and market performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management.
Cancino, C.A., La Paz, A.I., Ramaprasad, A. and Syn, T. (2018), “Technological innovation for
sustainable growth: an ontological perspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 179,
pp. 31-41.
Carroll, A.B. and Shabana, K.M. (2010), “The business case for corporate social responsibility: a review
of concepts, research and practice”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 85-105.
Chen, Y.-S. (2008), “The driver of green innovation and green image – green core competence”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 531-543.
Chen, Y.-S., Lai, S.-B. and Wen, C.-T. (2006), “The influence of green innovation performance on
corporate advantage in Taiwan”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 331-339.
Chen, Y.-S., Lin, M.-J.J. and Chang, C.-H. (2009), “The positive effects of relationship learning and
absorptive capacity on innovation performance and competitive advantage in industrial
markets”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 152-158.
Choi, S.B., Kim, K., Ullah, S.E. and Kang, S.-W. (2016), “How transformational leadership facilitates
innovative behavior of Korean workers: examining mediating and moderating processes”,
Personnel Review.
Cillo, V., Petruzzelli, A.M., Ardito, L. and Del Giudice, M. (2019), “Understanding sustainable
innovation: a systematic literature review”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 1012-1025.
Clercq, D.D., Dimov, D. and Thongpapanl, N. (2015), “Structural and relational interdependence and
entrepreneurial orientation in small and medium-sized enterprises: the mediating role of
internal knowledge-sharing”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 514-536.
Covin, J.G. and Lumpkin, G.T. (2011), “Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: reflections on
a needed construct”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 855-872.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), “Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign
environments”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 75-87.
Darroch, J. (2003), “Developing a measure of knowledge management behaviors and practices”,
Journal of Knowledge Management.
Darroch, J. (2005), “Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance”, Journal of Knowledge Knowledge
Management.
management
Davenport, M., Delport, M., Blignaut, J.N., Hichert, T. and van der Burgh, G. (2019), “Combining theory
and wisdom in pragmatic, scenario-based decision support for sustainable development”,
and green
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 692-716. innovation
Demirel, P., Li, Q.C., Rentocchini, F. and Tamvada, J.P. (2019), “Born to be green: new insights into the
economics and management of green entrepreneurship”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 52
No. 4, pp. 759-771. 147
Dessler, G. (2002), A Framework for Management, Prentice-Hall.
Donate, M.J. and de Pablo, J.D.S. (2015), “The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge
management practices and innovation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 360-370.
Drucker, P.F. (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship; Practice and Principles, Harper & Row,
New York.
Drucker, P.F. (1998), “The discipline of innovation”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76 No. 6,
pp. 149-157.
Fahey, L. and Prusak, L. (1998), “The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management”, California
Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 265-276.
Fernando, Y., Jabbour, C.J.C. and Wah, W.-X. (2019), “Pursuing green growth in technology firms
through the connections between environmental innovation and sustainable business
performance: does service capability matter?”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
Vol. 141, pp. 8-20.
Fiss, P.C. (2011), “Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization
research”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 393-420.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Garcıa-Morales, V.J., Llorens-Montes, F.J. and Verd
u-Jover, A.J. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences
of organizational innovation and organizational learning in entrepreneurship”, Industrial
Management and Data Systems.
Gavronski, I., Klassen, R.D., Vachon, S. and do Nascimento, L.F.M. (2011), “A resource-based view of
green supply management”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, Vol. 47 No. 6, pp. 872-885.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), “Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 185-214.
Guo, Y., Wang, L. and Chen, Y. (2020), “Green entrepreneurial orientation and green innovation: the
mediating effect of supply chain learning”, SAGE Open, Vol. 10 No. 1, 2158244019898798.
Habib, M., Abbas, J. and Noman, R. (2019), “Are human capital, intellectual property rights, and
research and development expenditures really important for total factor productivity? An
empirical analysis”, International Journal of Social Economics.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Hair, J.F.J., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed., SAGE Publications, New York, NY.
Hansen, M.H., Perry, L.T. and Reese, C.S. (2004), “A Bayesian operationalization of the resource-based
view”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 13, pp. 1279-1295.
Harman, H.H. (1976), Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press.
Hinkin, T.R. (1998), “A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey
questionnaires”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 104-121.
EJIM Ho, C.-T. (2009), “The relationship between knowledge management enablers and performance”,
Industrial Management and Data Systems.
27,1
Hoang, D.T., Igel, B. and Laosirihongthong, T. (2006), “The impact of total quality management on
innovation: findings from a developing country”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management.
Huang, J.-W. and Li, Y.-H. (2017), “Green innovation and performance: the view of organizational
capability and social reciprocity”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 145 No. 2, pp. 309-324.
148
Iqbal, A., Latif, F., Marimon, F., Sahibzada, U.F. and Hussain, S. (2018), “From knowledge
management to organizational performance: modelling the mediating role of innovation and
intellectual capital in higher education”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management.
Jarrahi, M.H. (2017), “Social media, social capital, and knowledge sharing in enterprise”, IT
Professional, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 37-45.
Jia, J., Liu, H., Chin, T. and Hu, D. (2018), “The continuous mediating effects of GHRM on employees’
green passion via transformational leadership and green creativity”, Sustainability, Vol. 10
No. 9, p. 3237.
Jiang, X., Yang, Y., Pei, Y.-L. and Wang, G. (2016), “Entrepreneurial orientation, strategic alliances, and
firm performance: inside the black box”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 103-116.
Jiang, W., Chai, H., Shao, J. and Feng, T. (2018), “Green entrepreneurial orientation for enhancing firm
performance: a dynamic capability perspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 198,
pp. 1311-1323.
Khodadadi, M. and Feizi, M. (2015), “The impact of knowledge management on social responsibility at
social security organization in East Azarbaijan province”, Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of
Business and Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 6, pp. 165-169.
Kock, N. (2015), “Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach”,
International Journal of e-Collaboration (ijec), Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Kuo, T.-H. (2011), “How to improve organizational performance through learning and knowledge?”,
International Journal of Manpower.
Lampikoski, T., Westerlund, M., Rajala, R. and M€oller, K. (2014), “Green innovation games: value-
creation strategies for corporate sustainability”, California Management Review, Vol. 57 No. 1,
pp. 88-116.
Latif, K.F., Afzal, O., Saqib, A., Sahibzada, U.F. and Alam, W. (2020), “Direct and configurational paths
of knowledge-oriented leadership, entrepreneurial orientation, and knowledge management
processes to project success”, Journal of Intellectual Capital.
Le, P.B. and Lei, H. (2019), “Determinants of innovation capability: the roles of transformational
leadership, knowledge sharing and perceived organizational support”, Journal of Knowledge
Management.
Lei, H., Gui, L. and Le, P.B. (2021), “Linking transformational leadership and frugal innovation: the
mediating role of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing”, Journal of Knowledge Management.
Li, Y., Wei, Z. and Liu, Y. (2010), “Strategic orientations, knowledge acquisition, and firm performance:
the perspective of the vendor in cross-border outsourcing”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 1457-1482.
Li, J., Li, Y., Yu, Y. and Yuan, L. (2019), “Search broadly or search narrowly? Role of knowledge search
strategy in innovation performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management.
Ling, Y.-H. (2013), “The influence of intellectual capital on organizational performance—knowledge
management as moderator”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 937-964.
Mabey, C., Kulich, C. and Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (2012), “Knowledge leadership in global scientific
research”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp.
2450-2467.
Madhoushi, M., Sadati, A., Delavari, H., Mehdivand, M. and Mihandost, R. (2011), “Entrepreneurial Knowledge
orientation and innovation performance: the mediating role of knowledge management”, Asian
Journal of Business Management, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 310-316. management
Maravilhas, S. and Martins, J. (2019), “Strategic knowledge management in a digital environment: tacit
and green
and explicit knowledge in Fab Labs”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 94, pp. 353-359. innovation
Mardani, A., Nikoosokhan, S., Moradi, M. and Doustar, M. (2018), “The relationship between
knowledge management and innovation performance”, The Journal of High Technology
Management Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 12-26. 149
Martens, C.D.P., Machado, F.J., Martens, M.L. and de Freitas, H.M.R. (2018), “Linking entrepreneurial
orientation to project success”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 255-266.
Miles, J.A. (2012), Management and Organization Theory: A Jossey-Bass Reader, Vol. 9, John Wiley
& Sons.
Muangmee, C., Dacko-Pikiewicz, Z., Meekaewkunchorn, N., Kassakorn, N. and Khalid, B. (2021),
“Green entrepreneurial orientation and green innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs)”, Social Sciences, Vol. 10 No. 4, p. 136.
Naqshbandi, M.M. and Jasimuddin, S.M. (2018), “Knowledge-oriented leadership and open innovation:
role of knowledge management capability in France-based multinationals”, International
Business Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 701-713.
Nieves, J. and Haller, S. (2014), “Building dynamic capabilities through knowledge resources”,
Tourism Management, Vol. 40, pp. 224-232.
Ooi, K.-B. (2014), “TQM: a facilitator to enhance knowledge management? A structural analysis”,
Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 41 No. 11, pp. 5167-5179.
Ortolano, L., Sanchez-Triana, E., Afzal, J., Ali, C.L. and Rebellon, S.A. (2014), “Cleaner production in
Pakistan’s leather and textile sectors”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 68, pp. 121-129.
Pappas, I.O. and Woodside, A.G. (2021), “Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA):
guidelines for research practice in information systems and marketing”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 58, p. 102310.
Pappas, I.O., Kourouthanassis, P.E., Giannakos, M.N. and Lekakos, G. (2017), “The interplay of online
shopping motivations and experiential factors on personalized e-commerce: a complexity theory
approach”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 730-742.
no, A., Wiklund, J. and Cabrera, R.V. (2011), “The dual nature of innovative activity: how
Perez-Lu~
entrepreneurial orientation influences innovation generation and adoption”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 555-571.
Peteraf, M.A. (1993), “The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 179-191.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, p. 879.
Qi, G.Y., Shen, L.Y., Zeng, S.X. and Jorge, O.J. (2010), “The drivers for contractors’ green innovation: an
industry perspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 No. 14, pp. 1358-1365.
Ragin, C.C. (2000), Fuzzy-set Social Science, University of Chicago Press.
Ragin, C.C. (2008), Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL.
Ragin, C.C. (2009), “Redesigning social inquiry”, Redesigning Social Inquiry, University of
Chicago Press.
Ragin, C.C. and Fiss, P.C. (2008), “Net effects analysis versus configurational analysis: an empirical
demonstration”, Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond, Vol. 240, pp. 190-212.
EJIM Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J. (2008), “Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and
moderators”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 375-409.
27,1
Rasoolimanesh, S.M., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Olya, H. (2021), “The combined use of symmetric
and asymmetric approaches: partial least squares-structural equation modeling and fuzzy-set
qualitative comparative analysis”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management.
Ribiere, V.M. and Sitar, A.S. (2003), “Critical role of leadership in nurturing a knowledge-supporting
150 culture”, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 39-48.
Rihoux, B. and Ragin, C.C. (2008), Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative
Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, SAGE Publications.
Rosing, K., Frese, M. and Bausch, A. (2011), “Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-
innovation relationship: ambidextrous leadership”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 5,
pp. 956-974.
Sahibzada, S.A. and Qutub, S.A. (1993), “Urbanisation and environmental degradation in Pakistan
[with comments]”, The Pakistan Development Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 639-649.
Sahibzada, U.F., Jianfeng, C., Latif, K.F. and Sahibzada, H.F. (2020a), “Fueling knowledge management
processes in Chinese higher education institutes (HEIs): the neglected mediating role of
knowledge worker satisfaction”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management.
Sahibzada, U.F., Jianfeng, C., Latif, K.F., Shafait, Z. and Sahibzada, H.F. (2020b), “Interpreting the
impact of knowledge management processes on organizational performance in Chinese higher
education: mediating role of knowledge worker productivity”, Studies in Higher
Education, pp. 1-18.
Sahibzada, U.F., Latif, K.F., Xu, Y. and Khalid, R. (2020c), “Catalyzing knowledge management
processes towards knowledge worker satisfaction: fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis”,
Journal of Knowledge Management.
Sahibzada, U.F., Latif, K.F. and Xu, Y. (2021), “Symmetric and asymmetric modeling of knowledge
management enablers to knowledge management processes and knowledge worker
productivity in higher education institutes”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management.
Sahibzada, U.F., Latif, K.F. and Xu, Y. (2022), “Symmetric and asymmetric modeling of knowledge
management enablers to knowledge management processes and knowledge worker
productivity in higher education institutes”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 729-756.
Sarabia, M. (2007), “Knowledge leadership cycles: an approach from Nonaka’s viewpoint”, Journal of
Knowledge Management.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q. and Lai, K.-h. (2011), “An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain
management literature”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Schaltegger, S. and Burritt, R. (2018), “Business cases and corporate engagement with sustainability:
differentiating ethical motivations”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 147 No. 2, pp. 241-259.
Schaltegger, S. and Wagner, M. (2011), “Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation:
categories and interactions”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 222-237.
Schumpeter, J. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard Economic Studies Series,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 46.
Shahzad, M., Qu, Y., Zafar, A.U., Rehman, S.U. and Islam, T. (2020), “Exploring the influence of
knowledge management process on corporate sustainable performance through green
innovation”, Journal of Knowledge Management.
Shahzad, M., Qu, Y., Zafar, A.U. and Appolloni, A. (2021), “Does the interaction between the
knowledge management process and sustainable development practices boost corporate green
innovation?”, Business Strategy and the Environment.
Shehzad, M.U., Davis, K. and Shakil Ahmad, M. (2021a), “Knowledge-oriented leadership and open Knowledge
innovation: the mediating role of knowledge process and infrastructure capability”,
International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, p. 2150028. management
Shehzad, M.U., Zhang, J. and Le, P.B. (2021b), “Role of collaborative culture and knowledge
and green
management process for stimulating radical and incremental innovation: a comparative innovation
moderation approach”, Business Process Management Journal.
Shehzad, M.U., Zhang, J., Le, P.B., Jamil, K. and Cao, Z. (2022a), “Stimulating frugal innovation via
information technology resources, knowledge sources and market turbulence: a mediation- 151
moderation approach”, European Journal of Innovation Management.
Shehzad, M.U., Zhang, J., Alam, S. and Cao, Z. (2022b), “Determining the role of sources of knowledge
and it resources for stimulating firms innovation capability: a PLS-SEM approach”, Business
Process Management Journal.
Sheng, S., Zhou, K.Z. and Li, J.J. (2011), “The effects of business and political ties on firm performance:
evidence from China”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Shujahat, M., Sousa, M.J., Hussain, S., Nawaz, F., Wang, M. and Umer, M. (2019), “Translating the
impact of knowledge management processes into knowledge-based innovation: the neglected
and mediating role of knowledge-worker productivity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 94,
pp. 442-450.
Silajdzic, I., Kurtagic, S.M. and Vucijak, B. (2015), “Green entrepreneurship in transition economies: a
case study of Bosnia and Herzegovina”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 88, pp. 376-384.
Singh, S.K., Del Giudice, M., Chierici, R. and Graziano, D. (2020), “Green innovation and environmental
performance: the role of green transformational leadership and green human resource
management”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 150, p. 119762.
Singh, N., Jain, S. and Sharma, P. (2015), “Motivations for implementing environmental management
practices in Indian industries”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 109, pp. 1-8.
Siva, V., Gremyr, I., Bergquist, B., Garvare, R., Zobel, T. and Isaksson, R. (2016), “The support of
Quality Management to sustainable development: a literature review”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 138, pp. 148-157.
Skarmeas, D., Leonidou, C.N. and Saridakis, C. (2014), “Examining the role of CSR skepticism using
fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 9,
pp. 1796-1805.
Stam, W. and Elfring, T. (2008), “Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: the
moderating role of intra-and extraindustry social capital”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 97-111.
Stuetzer, M., Audretsch, D.B., Obschonka, M., Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P.J. and Potter, J. (2018),
“Entrepreneurship culture, knowledge spillovers and the growth of regions”, Regional Studies,
Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 608-618.
Syed-Ikhsan, S.O.S. and Rowland, F. (2004), “Knowledge management in a public organization: a
study on the relationship between organizational elements and the performance of knowledge
transfer”, Journal of Knowledge Management.
Teece, D.J. (2016), “Dynamic capabilities and entrepreneurial management in large organizations:
toward a theory of the (entrepreneurial) firm”, European Economic Review, Vol. 86, pp. 202-216.
Tseng, S.-M. (2014), “The impact of knowledge management capabilities and supplier relationship
management on corporate performance”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 154, pp. 39-47.
Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2004), “Strategic leadership and organizational learning”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 222-240.
Waldman, D.A., Ramirez, G.G., House, R.J. and Puranam, P. (2001), “Does leadership matter? CEO
leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental
uncertainty”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 134-143.
EJIM Wang, Z. and Wang, N. (2012), “Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance”, Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 8899-8908.
27,1
Wijethilake, C. (2017), “Proactive sustainability strategy and corporate sustainability performance: the
mediating effect of sustainability control systems”, Journal of Environmental Management,
Vol. 196, pp. 569-582.
Wiklund, J. and Shepherd, D. (2003), “Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the
performance of small and medium-sized businesses”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24
152 No. 13, pp. 1307-1314.
Williams, E. (2015), Green Giants: How Smart Companies Turn Sustainability into Billion-Dollar
Businesses, Amacom.
Woldesenbet, K., Ram, M. and Jones, T. (2012), “Supplying large firms: the role of entrepreneurial and
dynamic capabilities in small businesses”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 30 No. 5,
pp. 493-512.
Wong, S.K.-S. (2012), “The influence of green product competitiveness on the success of green product
innovation: empirical evidence from the Chinese electrical and electronics industry”, European
Journal of Innovation Management.
Woodside, A.G. (2013), “Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: calling for
adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and
crafting theory”, Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, Vol. 66 No. 4.
Wu, P.-L., Yeh, S.-S. and Woodside, A.G. (2014), “Applying complexity theory to deepen service
dominant logic: configural analysis of customer experience-and-outcome assessments of
professional services for personal transformations”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 8,
pp. 1647-1670.
Xie, X., Huo, J. and Zou, H. (2019), “Green process innovation, green product innovation, and corporate
financial performance: a content analysis method”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 101,
pp. 697-706.
Zafar, A.U., Qiu, J., Li, Y., Wang, J. and Shahzad, M. (2021), “The impact of social media celebrities’
posts and contextual interactions on impulse buying in social commerce”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 115, p. 106178.
Zhang, H., Shu, C., Jiang, X. and Malter, A.J. (2010), “Managing knowledge for innovation: the role of
cooperation, competition, and alliance nationality”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 74-94.
Zhang, D., Rong, Z. and Ji, Q. (2019), “Green innovation and firm performance: evidence from listed
companies in China”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 144, pp. 48-55.
Zhou, Y., Hong, J., Zhu, K., Yang, Y. and Zhao, D. (2018), “Dynamic capability matters: uncovering its
fundamental role in decision making of environmental innovation”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 177, pp. 516-526.

Corresponding author
Muhammad Usman Shehzad can be contacted at: md38298@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com