Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
FrancoAngeli Journals

Articles

No. 1 (2020)

Environmental sustainability and board independence: What effects on innovation ambidexterity?

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/cgrds1-2020oa10134
Submitted
luglio 11, 2020
Published
2020-11-25

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the relationship between environmental sustainability (ES) and innovation ambidexterity (IA), also considering the role of board independence (BI) in moderating this relationship. To this end, a research model is developed by drawing on both the natural resource-based view theory and agency theory. A survey is conducted on 111 Italian companies listed on the Milan Stock Exchange. A moderated hierarchical regression has revealed that ES positively influences exploitation innovation and exploration innovation. Moreover, BI strengthens the effect of ES on IA. These findings contribute to the IA literature identifying ES as strategic key to resolve the tensions between exploitation and exploration in firms’ innovations as well as suggesting that the increasing presence of independent directors on the board foster the joint pursuit of the two contradictory activities.

References

  1. Aiken L.S., West S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
  2. Akhtar P., Ullah S., Amin S.H., Kabra G., Shaw S. (2020). Dynamic capabilities and environmental sustainability for emerging economies’ multinational enterprises. International Studies of Management & Organization, vol. 50, n. 1, pp. 27-42. DOI: 10.1080/00208825.2019.1703376.
  3. Aktin T., Gergin Z. (2016). Mathematical modelling of sustainable procurement strategies: three case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 767-780. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.057.
  4. Albort-Morant G., Leal-Millán A., Cepeda-Carrión G. (2016). The antecedents of green innovation performance: A model of learning and capabilities. Journal of Business Research, vol. 69, n. 11, pp. 4912-4917. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.052.
  5. Andriopoulos C., Lewis M.W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, vol. 20, n. 4, pp. 696-717. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0406.
  6. Baalouch F., Ayadi S.D., Hussainey K. (2019). A study of the determinants of environmental disclosure quality: evidence from French listed companies. Journal of Management and Governance, vol. 23, n. 4, pp. 939-971. DOI: 10.1007/s10997-019-09474-0.
  7. Bakos J., Siu M., Orengo A., Kasiri N. (2020). An analysis of environmental sustainability in small & medium‐sized enterprises: Patterns and trends. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 29, n. 3, pp. 1285-1296. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2433.
  8. Balsmeier B., Fleming L., Masno G. (2017). Independent boards and innovation. Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 123, n. 3, pp. 536-557. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.12.005.
  9. Baron R.M., Kenny D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 51, n. 6, pp. 1173-1182. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
  10. Ben‐Amar W., Chang M., McIlkenny, P. (2017). Board gender diversity and corporate response to sustainability initiatives: Evidence from the carbon disclosure project. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 142, n. 2, pp. 369-383. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-015-2759-1.
  11. Ben‐Amar W., McIlkenny P. (2015). Board effectiveness and the voluntary disclosure of climate change information. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 24, n. 8, pp. 704-719. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1840.
  12. Benner M.J., Tushman M. (2003). Exploitation, exploration and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, vol. 28, n. 2, pp. 238-256. DOI: 10.5465/amr.2003.9416096.
  13. Berraies S., Bchini B. (2019). Effect of leadership styles on financial performance: mediating roles of exploitative and exploratory innovations case of knowledgeintensive firms. International Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 23, n. 3, pp. 1-33. DOI: 10.1142/S1363919619500208.
  14. Berraies S., Rejeb B.W. (2019). Boards of directors’ roles and size: What effects on exploitative and exploratory innovations? Case of listed Tunisian firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, vol. 23, n. 2, pp. 161-179. DOI: 10.1504/IJEIM.2019.098148.
  15. Bilgili F., Ulucak R (2020) The Nexus between biomass–footprint and sustainable development. In: Saleem Hashmi, Imtiaz Ahmed Choudhury, editor, Encyclopedia of Renewable and Sustainable Materials. Volume 2, 2020, pp. 175-192, DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.10600-9.
  16. Burritt R.L., Christ K.L., Rammal H.G., Schaltegger S. (2018). Multinational enterprise strategies for addressing sustainability: The need for consolidation. Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 1-22. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-018-4066-0.
  17. Cabrera-Suárez M.K., Martín-Santana J.D. (2015). Board composition and performance in Spanish non-listed family firms: The influence of type of directors and CEO duality. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, vol. 18, n. 4, pp. 213-229. DOI: 10.1016/j.brq.2014.08.001.
  18. Calza F., Profumo G., Tutore I. (2016). Corporate ownership and environmental proactivity. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 25, n. 6, pp. 369-389. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1873.
  19. Cantarello S., Carretti C., Giannantonio R., Nosella, A. (2012). Organisational ambidexterity in the search phase of the innovation process: evidence from a leading case study. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, vol. 5, n. 1/2, pp. 133-153. DOI: 10.1504/IJKMS.2012.051951.
  20. Cao Q., Gedajlovic E., Zhang H.P. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, vol. 27, n. 4, pp. 1-16. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0426.
  21. Chen H.L. (2011). Does board independence influence the top management team? Evidence from strategic decisions toward internationalization. Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 19, n. 4, pp. 334-350. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2011.00850.x.
  22. Chen H.L. (2013). CEO tenure, independent directors and strategic decisions toward R&D. 3rd International Conference on Business Strategy and Organizational Behaviour, April 22–23, Singapore.
  23. Chen H.L., Hsu W.T. (2009). Family ownership, board independence, and R&D investment. Family Business Review, 22, pp. 347-362. DOI: 0.1177/0894486509341062.
  24. Ciasullo Maria V., Montera R., Cucari N., Polese F. (2020). How an international ambidexterity strategy can address the paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Evidence from Chinese emerging market multinationals, Business Strategy and The Environment, pp. 1-20. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2490.
  25. Clementino E., Perkins R. (2020). How do companies respond to environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics, pp. 1-19. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-020-04441-4.
  26. Collins E., Roper J., Lawrence S. (2010). Sustainability practices: Trends in New Zealand businesses. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 19, n. 8, pp. 479-494. DOI: 10.1002/bse.653.
  27. Cucari N., Esposito De Falco S., Orlando B. (2018). Diversity of board of directors and environmental social governance: Evidence from Italian listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 25, n. 3, pp. 250-266. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1452.
  28. Demirel P., Kesidou E. (2019). Sustainability‐oriented capabilities for ecoinnovation: Meeting the regulatory, technology, and market demands. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 28, n. 5, pp. 847-857. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2286.
  29. De Stefano C.M., Montes-Sancho M.J., Busch T. (2016). A natural resource-based view of climate change: Innovation challenges in the automobile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 139, pp. 1436-1448. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.023.
  30. Duque Grisales E., Aguilera Caracuel J., Guerrero Villegas J., García Sánchez E. (2020). Can proactive environmental strategy improve Multilatinas’ level of internationalization? The moderating role of board independence. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 29, pp. 291-305. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2377.
  31. Eide A.E., Saether E.A., Aspelund A. (2020). An investigation of leaders’ motivation, intellectual leadership, and sustainability strategy in relation to Norwegian manufacturers’ performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 254, pp. 1-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120053.
  32. Elkington J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of the 21st Century. New Society Publishers, Stoney Creek, CT.
  33. Elkington J. (2006). Governance for sustainability. Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 14, n. 6, pp. 522-529. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2006.00527.x.
  34. Endrikat J., De Villiers C., Guenther T. W., Guenther E. M. (2020). Board characteristics and corporate social responsibility: a meta-analytic investigation. Business & Society, pp. 1-37. DOI: 10.1177/0007650320930638.
  35. Fama E.F., Jensen M.C. (1983). Agency problems and residual claims. The Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 26, n. 2, pp. 327-349. DOI: 10.1086/467038.
  36. Galdeano-Gómez E., Aznar-SánchezJ. A., Pérez-Mesa J.C. (2013). Sustainability dimensions related to agricultural-based development: the experience of 50 years of intensive farming in Almería (Spain). International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, vol. 11, n. 2, pp. 125-143. DOI: 10.1080/14735903.2012.704306.
  37. Galia F., Zenou E. (2012). Board composition and forms of innovation: does diversity make a difference? European Journal of International Management, vol. 6, n. 6, pp. 630-650. DOI: 10.1504/EJIM.2012.050425.
  38. Galia F., Zenou E., Ingham M. (2015). Board composition and environmental innovation: does gender diversity matter? International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, vol. 24, n. 1, pp. 117-141. DOI: 10.1504/IJESB.2015.066152.
  39. García Martín C.J., Herrero B. (2019). Do board characteristics affect environmental performance? A study of EU firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 27, pp. 74-94. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1775.
  40. Garcia Osma B. (2008). Board independence and real earnings management: The case of R&D expenditure. Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 16, n. 2, pp. 116-131. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2008.00672.x.
  41. Goodland R. (1995). The concept of environmental sustainability. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, vol. 26, n. 1, pp. 1-24. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.es.26.110195.000245.
  42. Graafland J. (2018). Does corporate social responsibility put reputation at risk by inviting activist targeting? An empirical test among European SMEs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 25, n. 1, pp. 1-13. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1422.
  43. Gupta A.K., Gupta N. (2020). Effect of corporate environmental sustainability on dimensions of firm performance. Towards sustainable development: Evidence from India. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 253, pp. 1-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119948.
  44. Gupta A.K., Smith K.G., Shalley C.E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 49, n. 4, pp. 693-706. DOI: 10.2307/20159793.
  45. Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L. (1998). Multivariate data analysis, Pearson, NJ: Prentice hall.
  46. Haque F., Ntim C.G. (2018). Environmental policy, sustainable development, governance mechanisms and environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 27, n. 3, pp. 415-435. DOI: 10.1002/bse.2007.
  47. Hart S.L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, n. 4, pp. 986-1014. DOI: 10.5465/amr.1995.9512280033.
  48. Hart S.L., Dowell G. (2011). Invited Editorial: A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Journal of Management, vol. 37, n. 5, pp. 1464–1479. DOI: 10.1177/0149206310390219.
  49. Hill C.W., Jones T.M. (1992). Stakeholder‐agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, vol. 29, n. 2, pp. 131-154. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00657.x.
  50. Holdren J.P., Daily G.C., Ehrlich P.R. (1995), “The meaning of sustainability: biogeophysical aspects”. In: Munasingha, M., Shearer, W. (Eds.), Defining and measuring sustainability, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
  51. Hoskisson R.E., Hitt M.A., Johnson R.A., Grossman W. (2002). Conflicting voices: The effects of institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation strategies. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 45, n. 4, pp. 697-716. DOI: 10.5465/3069305.
  52. Hussain N., Rigoni U., Cavezzali E. (2018). Does it pay to be sustainable? Looking inside the black box of the relationship between sustainability performance and financial performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 25, n. 6, pp. 1198-1211. DOI: doi.org/10.1002/csr.1631.
  53. Jansen J.J., Van Den Bosch F.A., Volberda H.W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, vol. 52, n. 11, pp. 1661-1674. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576.
  54. Ji Q., Zhang D. (2019). How much does financial development contribute to renewable energy growth and upgrading of energy structure in China? Energy Policy, vol. 128, pp. 114-124. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.12.047.
  55. Jiraporn P., Lee S.M., Park K.J., Song H. (2018). How do independent directors influence innovation productivity? A quasi-natural experiment. Applied Economics Letters, vol. 25, n. 7, pp. 435-441. DOI: 10.1080/13504851.2017.1329927.
  56. Kassinis G., Vafeas N. (2002). Corporate boards and outside stakeholders as determinants of environmental litigation. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 23, n. 5, pp. 399-415. DOI: 10.1002/smj.230.
  57. King A., Lenox M. (2002). Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction. Management Science, vol. 48, n. 2, pp. 289-299. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.48.2.289.258.
  58. Kortmann S. (2015). The mediating role of strategic orientations on the relationship between ambidexterity-oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 32, n. 5, pp. 666–684. DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12151.
  59. Kuntadi Y., Sumarwan U., Najib M., Jahroh S. (2020). The effects of gender and tenure on the relationship between decision-makers’ behavioral preferences and university’s innovations adoption. Management Science Letters, vol. 10, n. 14, pp. 3445-3452. DOI: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.5.033.
  60. Lavie D., Stettner U., Tushman M.L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, vol. 4, n. 1, pp. 109-155. DOI: 10.5465/19416521003691287.
  61. Lavrakas P.J. (2008). Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  62. Levinthal D.A., March J.G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 14 (S2), pp. 95–112. DOI: 10.1002/smj.4250141009.
  63. Liao L., Luo L., Tang Q. (2015). Gender diversity, board independence, environmental committee and greenhouse gas disclosure. The British Accounting Review, vol. 47, n. 4, pp. 409-424. DOI: /10.1016/j.bar.2014.01.002.
  64. March J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, vol. 2, n. 1, pp. 71-87. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71.
  65. Moldan B., Janoušková S., and Hák T. (2012). How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets. Ecological Indicators, vol. 17, pp. 4-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.033.
  66. Mollenkopf D., Stolze H., Tate W.L., Ueltschy M. (2010). Green, lean, and global supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, vol. 40, n. 1/2, pp. 14-41. DOI: 10.1108/09600031011018028.
  67. Nidumolu R., Prahalad K., Rangaswami M. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, vol. 87, n. 9, pp. 56-64. DOI: 10.1109/EMR.2015.7123233.
  68. Nunnally J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory. 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.
  69. OECD (2001). Environmental strategy for the first decade of the 21st century. OECD, Paris.
  70. OECD (2020). Enterprises by business size (indicator). DOI: 10.1787/31d5eeaf-en (Accessed on 26 August 2020).
  71. Oehmichen J., Heyden M.L.M., Georgakakis D., Volberda H.W. (2017). Boards of directors and organizational ambidexterity in knowledge-intensive firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 28, n. 2, pp. 283-306. DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1244904.
  72. Ortiz de Mandojana N., Aragón Correa J.A., Delgado Ceballos J., Ferrón Vílchez V. (2012). The effect of director interlocks on firms’ adoption of proactive environmental strategies. Corporate Governance: An International Review, vol. 20, n. 2, pp. 164-178. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8683.2011.00893.x.
  73. Ortiz-de-Mandojana N., Aragón-Correa J. A. (2015). Boards and sustainability: the contingent influence of director interlocks on corporate environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 24, n. 6, pp. 499-517. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1833.
  74. Parboteeah, K., Helena A., Cullen J. (2012). Propensity to support sustainability initiatives: A cross-national model. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 105, n. 3, pp. 403-413. DOI: 0.1007/s10551-011-0979-6.
  75. Pérez-Valls M., Céspedes-Lorente J., Moreno-García J. (2015). Green practices and organizational design as sources of strategic flexibility and performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, vol. 25, n. 8, pp. 529-544. DOI: 10.1002/bse.1881.
  76. Pisano G.P. (2015). You need an innovation strategy. Harvard Business Review, vol. 93, p. 22.
  77. Prado Lorenzo J.M., Garcia Sanchez I.M. (2010). The role of the board of directors in disseminating relevant information on greenhouse gases. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 97, n. 3, pp. 391-424. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-010-0515-0.
  78. Purvis B., Mao Y., Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, vol. 14, n. 3, pp. 681-695. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5.
  79. Quattrociocchi B., Sergiacomi S., Mercuri F. (2019). The influence of corporate board on non-financial disclosure according to the main organizational theories. Corporate Governance and Research & Development studies, vol. 1, pp. 19-36.
  80. Raisch S., Birkinshaw J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, vol. 34, n. 3, pp. 375-409. DOI: 10.1177/0149206308316058.
  81. Rantala T., Ukko J., Saunila M., Havukainen J. (2018). The effect of sustainability in the adoption of technological, service, and business model innovations. Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 172, pp. 46-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.009.
  82. Rejeb W.B., Berraies S., Talbi D. (2019). The contribution of board of directors’roles to ambidextrous innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, pp. 1-27. DOI: 10.1108/EJIM-06-2018-0110.
  83. Schamberger D.K., Cleven N.J., Brettel M. (2013). Performance effects of exploratory and exploitative innovation strategies and the moderating role of external innovation partners. Industry and Innovation, vol. 20, n. 4, pp. 336-356. DOI: 10.1080/13662716.2013.805928.
  84. Scherer A.G., Voegtlin C. (2020). Corporate governance for responsible innovation: approaches to corporate governance and their implications for sustainable development. Academy of Management Perspectives, vol. 34, n. 2, pp. 182-208. DOI: 10.5465/amp.2017.0175.
  85. Serageldin I., Streeter A. (1993). Valuing the environment: proceedings of the first annual conference on environmentally sustainable development. Environmentally Sustainable Development Proceedings, Series. No. 2, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
  86. Shaukat A., Qiu Y., Trojanowski G. (2016). Board attributes, corporate social responsibility strategy, and corporate environmental and social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 135, n. 3, pp. 569-585. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-014-2460-9.
  87. Sulphey M.M., Alkahthani N.S. (2017). Organizational ambidexterity as a prelude to corporate sustainability. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues, vol. 7, n. 2. DOI: 10.9770/jssi.2017.7.2(13).
  88. Triguero A., Moreno-Mondéjar L., Davia M.A. (2013). Drivers of different types of eco-innovation in European SMEs. Ecological Economics, vol. 92, pp. 25-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.009.
  89. Tsai M.T., Huang Y.C. (2008). Exploratory learning and new product performance: The moderating role of cognitive skills and environmental uncertainty. Journal of High Technology Management Research, vol. 19, pp. 83-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.hitech.2008.10.001.
  90. Turner N., Swart J., Maylor H. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 15, n. 3, pp. 317–332. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00343.x.
  91. Tushman M.L., O’Reilly C. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, vol. 38, pp. 8-30. DOI: 10.2307/41165852.
  92. UN (2002), Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 26 August–4 September 2002. United Nations, New York.
  93. Wang H., Li J. (2008). Untangling the effects of overexploration and overexploitation on organizational performance: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. Journal of Management, vol. 34, n. 5, pp. 925-951. DOI: 10.1177/0149206308321547.
  94. Wong Y.J., Lee C.Y., Chang S.C. (2017). CEO overconfidence and ambidextrous innovation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, vol. 24, n. 3, pp. 414-430. DOI: 10.1177/1548051817692329.
  95. World Bank (1992). World development report 1992: Development and the environment. Washington, DC: World Bank and Oxford University Press.
  96. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.
  97. Zahra S., Neubaum D.O., Huse M. (2000). Entrepreneurship in medium-size companies: exploring the effects of ownership and governance systems. Journal of Management, vol. 26, n. 5, pp. 947-976. DOI: 10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00064-7.
  98. Zeng D., Hu J., Ouyang T. (2017). Managing innovation paradox in the sustainable innovation ecosystem: A case study of ambidextrous capability in a focal firm. Sustainability, vol. 9, n. 11, 2091. DOI: 10.3390/su9112091.
  99. Zhang J.Q., Zhu H., Ding H. (2013). Board composition and corporate social responsibility: an empirical investigation in the post Sarbanes-Oxley era. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 114, n. 3, pp. 381–392. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1352-0.
  100. Zhao X.F., Wen J. (2011). Board of directors governance and technological innovation: theory and evidence. Modern Economic Science, vol. 33, n. 3, pp. 110-116.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...