International journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN:2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 6, Issue 7 (July 2019), Pages: 10-18

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

 Title: Investigating the impact of dynamic and relational learning capabilities on green innovation performance of SMEs

 Author(s): Harcharanjit Singh *, Naha Abu Mansor, Morro Krubally, Nazdar Balder, Haseeb Ullah

 Affiliation(s):

 Azman Hashim International Business School, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6732-1023

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2019.07.002

 Abstract:

As a country that is quickly developing, the Malaysia government has shown serious commitment to green innovation performance. The government has continuous efforts in advancing the green technology in all small and medium enterprise (SME) sectors in Malaysia. This advancement aligns with the expectation that the green technology sector will be a key driver for improving the national economy through the promotion of sustainable development. Many companies from different sectors in Malaysia has been encouraged to adopt green innovation practices. SMEs that adopts green innovation strategies quickly would definitely obtain competitive advantages against their competitor. Thus, increasing green innovation performance will enable SMEs to increase their efficiency and effectiveness while maintaining its core competency. This research investigates the relationship between dynamic capabilities, relational learning capabilities, and green innovation performance. In addition, the research also investigated the mediation impact of relational learning capabilities between dynamic capabilities and green innovation performance. This study applied variance based equation modeling through partial least square to a sample of 249 from the manufacturing SMEs in Malaysia. The results suggest that there is a positive and significant relationship between dynamic capabilities and green innovation performance. In addition, the research found a positive and significant relationship between dynamic capabilities and relational learning capabilities. Moreover, there is also a positive and significant relationship between relational learning capabilities and green innovation performance. Furthermore, the research found that relational learning capabilities mediate the relationship between dynamic capabilities and green innovation performance. These results could enlighten owner/managers of SMEs manufacturing industry in adoption of green innovation performance practices especially from the dynamic capabilities and relational learning capabilities landscape. 

 © 2019 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Dynamic capabilities, Relational learning capabilities, Green innovation performance, SMEs, Malaysia

 Article History: Received 16 January 2019, Received in revised form 20 April 2019, Accepted 25 April 2019

 Acknowledgement:

No Acknowledgement.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest:  The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

 Citation:

 Singh H, Mansor NA, Krubally M et al. (2019). Investigating the impact of dynamic and relational learning capabilities on green innovation performance of SMEs. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 6(7): 10-18

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5

----------------------------------------------

 References (49) 

  1. Abdullah M, Zailani S, Iranmanesh M, and Jayaraman K (2016). Barriers to green innovation initiatives among manufacturers: The Malaysian case. Review of Managerial Science, 10(4): 683-709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-015-0173-9   [Google Scholar]
  2. Albort-Morant G, Henseler J, Leal-Millán A, and Cepeda-Carrión G (2017). Mapping the field: A bibliometric analysis of green innovation. Sustainability, 9(6): 1011-1025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061011   [Google Scholar]
  3. Albort-Morant G, Leal-Millán A, and Cepeda-Carrión G (2016). The antecedents of green innovation performance: A model of learning and capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 69(11): 4912-4917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.052   [Google Scholar]
  4. 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, 51(4): 491-507. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12005   [Google Scholar]
  5. Baron RM and Kenny DA (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173   [Google Scholar] PMid:3806354
  6. Bhupendra KV and Sangle S (2015). What drives successful implementation of pollution prevention and cleaner technology strategy? The role of innovative capability. Journal of Environmental Management, 155: 184-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.03.032   [Google Scholar] PMid:25837297
  7. Bossink B (2018). The influence of knowledge flow on sustainable innovation in a project-based industry: From demonstration to limited adoption of eco-innovations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 193: 249-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.063   [Google Scholar]
  8. Cainelli G, De Marchi V, and Grandinetti R (2015). Does the development of environmental innovation require different resources? Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 94: 211-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.008   [Google Scholar]
  9. Chahal H and Bakshi P (2015). Examining intellectual capital and competitive advantage relationship: Role of innovation and organizational learning. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 33(3): 376-399. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-07-2013-0069   [Google Scholar]
  10. Chang CH (2011). Green innovation performance: Antecedent and consequence. In the 2011 Proceedings of PICMET '11: Technology Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET), IEEE, Portland, USA: 1-8.   [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen YS, Chang CH, and Lin YH (2014). The determinants of green radical and incremental innovation performance: Green shared vision, green absorptive capacity, and green organizational ambidexterity. Sustainability, 6(11): 7787-7806. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6117787   [Google Scholar]
  12. Chen YS, Lai SB, and Wen CT (2006). The influence of green innovation performance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(4): 331-339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9025-5   [Google Scholar]
  13. Chiva R and Alegre J (2009). Organizational learning capability and job satisfaction: An empirical assessment in the ceramic tile industry. British Journal of Management, 20(3): 323-340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2008.00586.x   [Google Scholar]
  14. Dangelico RM, Pujari D, and Pontrandolfo P (2017). Green product innovation in manufacturing firms: A sustainability‐oriented dynamic capability perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(4): 490-506. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1932   [Google Scholar]
  15. Fang W, Tang L, Cheng P, and Ahmad N (2018). Evolution decision, drivers and green innovation performance for collaborative innovation center of ecological building materials and environmental protection equipment in Jiangsu province of China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(11): E2365. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112365   [Google Scholar] PMid:30366457 PMCid:PMC6266843
  16. Fernando Y and Wah WX (2017). The impact of eco-innovation drivers on environmental performance: Empirical results from the green technology sector in Malaysia. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 12: 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2017.05.002   [Google Scholar]
  17. Fornell C and Larcker DF (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104   [Google Scholar]
  18. Gabler CB, Richey Jr RG, and Rapp A (2015). Developing an eco-capability through environmental orientation and organizational innovativeness. Industrial Marketing Management, 45: 151-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.02.014   [Google Scholar]
  19. Ghazilla RAR, Sakundarini N, Abdul-Rashid SH, Ayub NS, Olugu EU, and Musa SN (2015). Drivers and barriers analysis for green manufacturing practices in Malaysian SMEs: A preliminary findings. Procedia CIRP, 26: 658-663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.085   [Google Scholar]
  20. Gomes G and Wojahn RM (2017). Organizational learning capability, innovation and performance: Study in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMES). Revista de Administração (São Paulo), 52(2): 163-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.12.003   [Google Scholar]
  21. Habidin NF, Hashim S, Zainol Z, Mustaffa WSW, Ong SYY, and Hudin NS (2017). Measuring the innovation performance of Malaysian automotive industry. Geografia-Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 11(11): 14-23. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v6-i11/2385   [Google Scholar]
  22. Hair JF, Ringle CM, and Sarstedt M (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2): 139-152. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202   [Google Scholar]
  23. Hair JF, Ringle CM, and Sarstedt M (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1-2): 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001   [Google Scholar]
  24. Hair JF, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, Kuppelwieser VG (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2): 106-121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128   [Google Scholar]
  25. Handfield RB, Cousins PD, Lawson B, and Petersen KJ (2015). How can supply management really improve performance? A knowledge‐based model of alignment capabilities. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(3): 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12066   [Google Scholar]
  26. Hasan Z and Ali NA (2015). The impact of green marketing strategy on the firm's performance in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 172: 463-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.382   [Google Scholar]
  27. Hashim R, Bock AJ, and Cooper S (2015). The relationship between absorptive capacity and green innovation. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 9: 1040-1047.   [Google Scholar]
  28. He X, Huang SZ, Zhao K, and Wu X (2018). The relationship between learning orientation and dynamic capability based on environmental education. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6): 2193-2202. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/85938   [Google Scholar]
  29. Henseler J, Ringle CM, and Sarstedt M (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43(1): 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8   [Google Scholar]
  30. Hepburn C, Pless J, and Popp D (2018). Policy brief-encouraging innovation that protects environmental systems: Five policy proposals. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 12(1): 154-169. https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rex024   [Google Scholar]
  31. Horowitz C, Shameer K, Gabrilove J, Atreja A, Shepard P, Goytia C, and Galvez M (2017). Accelerators: Sparking innovation and transdisciplinary team science in disparities research. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(3): E225. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030225   [Google Scholar] PMid:28241508 PMCid:PMC5369061
  32. Inan GG and Bititci US (2015). Understanding organizational capabilities and dynamic capabilities in the context of micro enterprises: A research agenda. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 210: 310-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.371   [Google Scholar]
  33. Kazadi K, Lievens A, and Mahr D (2016). Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders. Journal of Business Research, 69(2): 525-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.009   [Google Scholar]
  34. Lages LF, Silva G, and Styles C (2009). Relationship capabilities, quality, and innovation as determinants of export performance. Journal of international Marketing, 17(4): 47-70. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.17.4.47   [Google Scholar]
  35. Leal-Millán A, Roldán JL, Leal-Rodríguez AL, and Ortega-Gutiérrez J (2016). IT and relationship learning in networks as drivers of green innovation and customer capital: Evidence from the automobile sector. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(3): 444-464. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2015-0203   [Google Scholar]
  36. Li Y (2014). Environmental innovation practices and performance: moderating effect of resource commitment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66: 450-458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.044   [Google Scholar]
  37. Lin HF, Su JQ, and Higgins A (2016). How dynamic capabilities affect adoption of management innovations. Journal of Business Research, 69(2): 862-876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.004   [Google Scholar]
  38. Lin Y and Wu LY (2014). Exploring the role of dynamic capabilities in firm performance under the resource-based view framework. Journal of Business Research, 67(3): 407-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.019   [Google Scholar]
  39. Nunnally J and Bernstein I (1994). Psychometric theory. 3rd Edition, MacGraw-Hill, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  40. Pavlou PA and El Sawy OA (2011). Understanding the elusive black box of dynamic capabilities. Decision sciences, 42(1): 239-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2010.00287.x   [Google Scholar]
  41. Reinartz W, Haenlein M, and Henseler J (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(4): 332-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.08.001   [Google Scholar]
  42. Roni M, Jabar J, Muhamad MR, and Murad M (2017). Sustainable manufacturing drivers and firm performance: Moderating effect of firm size. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 4(12): 243-249. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2017.012.042   [Google Scholar]
  43. Selnes F and Sallis J (2003). Promoting relationship learning. Journal of Marketing, 67(3): 80-95. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.3.80.18656   [Google Scholar]
  44. Seman NAA, Zakuan N, Rashid UK, Nasuredin J, and Ahmad N (2018). The level of adoption of green supply chain management and green innovation in Malaysian manufacturing industries. International Journal of Research, 5(20): 1556-1572.   [Google Scholar]
  45. Sok P, O’Cass A, and Sok KM (2013). Achieving superior SME performance: Overarching role of marketing, innovation, and learning capabilities. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 21(3): 161-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2013.04.001   [Google Scholar]
  46. Tariq A, Badir YF, Tariq W, and Bhutta US (2017). Drivers and consequences of green product and process innovation: A systematic review, conceptual framework, and future outlook. Technology in Society, 51: 8-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.06.002   [Google Scholar]
  47. Trumpp C and Guenther T (2017). Too little or too much? Exploring U‐shaped relationships between corporate environmental performance and corporate financial performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(1): 49-68. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1900   [Google Scholar]
  48. Winter SG (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 991-995. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.318   [Google Scholar]
  49. Zollo M and Winter SG (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3): 339-351. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.339.2780   [Google Scholar]