Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100461

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Futures
journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/sustainable-futures

Public policy and sustainability: How green core competence, government

trust, and policy satisfaction influence green R&D investments in the
private sector
Fadi Abdelfattah a,* , Mohammed Salah b,* , Khalid Dahleez c , Riyad Darwazeh d ,
Hussam Al Halbusi e,f
a
Department of Business and Economics, Modern College of Business and Science (MCBS), Oman
b
Management Department, College of Business Administration (COBA), A’Sharqiyah University (ASU),Ibra, Oman. & Strategic Studies Centre, University of Karbala,
Karbala, Iraq
c
Management Department, College of Business Administration (COBA), A’Sharqiyah University (ASU), Ibra, Oman
d
Head of Accounting Department, Business School, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan
e
College of Commerce and Business (CCB), Lusail University, Jabal Thuaileb P.O. Box 9717, Lusail, Qatar
f
Business Administration Department, College of Business Administration, Al-Bayan University, Airport St, Baghdad, Baghdad Governorate, Iraq

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

Keywords: This study examines how green innovation practices influence organizational capabilities and investments in
Sustainable innovation sustainability within Omani firms. Grounded in Dynamic Capabilities Theory and Institutional Theory, it ex­
Green core competence plores the relationship between Green Product Innovation Performance (GPIP), Green Process Innovation Per­
Green R&D investments
formance (GPcIP), Green Core Competence (GCC), and Green Research and Development (R&D) Investments.
Trust in government
Sustainability policies
Data collected from 214 top management personnel across diverse industries in Oman were examined via
Structural Equation Modeling. The findings reveal that GPIP positively affects GCC, indicating that firms
excelling in green product innovation enhance their strategic environmental capabilities. Conversely, GPcIP does
not significantly impact GCC, suggesting that process innovations may need integration with broader strategies
to influence core competencies effectively. GCC positively influences Green R&D Investments, showing that firms
with solid environmental capabilities are more likely to finance sustainable innovation. Moreover, Trust in
Government (TG) and Satisfaction with Sustainability Government Policies (SWGM) significantly moderate the
relationships between GPIP, GPcIP, GCC, and Green R&D Investments. High levels of trust and satisfaction
amplify these positive effects, highlighting the crucial role of a supportive institutional environment in fostering
sustainable innovation. The study contributes to theoretical frameworks by integrating internal capabilities with
external institutional factors within the context of sustainability, thereby bridging gaps between Dynamic Ca­
pabilities Theory and Institutional Theory. Practically, it suggests that firms should focus on green product
innovation and develop GCC, while policymakers should foster trust and satisfaction through transparent and
supportive policies to encourage green R&D investments.

1. Introduction [2], provides a foundational lens for examining how businesses adapt to
these environmental pressures. Climate change, resource depletion, and
The escalating urgency of global environmental challenges has increasing environmental regulations compel companies to rethink their
shifted sustainability from a peripheral concern to a central imperative strategies and operations [3,4]. No longer is it sufficient to engage in
for businesses worldwide [1]. Dynamic Capabilities Theory, which isolated green initiatives; firms must integrate sustainability into their
emphasizes a firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal core competencies to achieve a competitive advantage and ensure
and external competencies to address rapidly changing environments long-term viability [5].

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (F. Abdelfattah), [email protected] (M. Salah), [email protected] (K. Dahleez), r.
[email protected] (R. Darwazeh), [email protected] (H.A. Halbusi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sftr.2025.100461
Received 27 September 2024; Received in revised form 10 January 2025; Accepted 19 January 2025
Available online 22 January 2025
2666-1888/© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
F. Abdelfattah et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100461

Despite the growing recognition of sustainability’s importance, there responsibility has compelled businesses to adopt green innovations and
remains a critical gap in understanding how internal capabilities and practices. As firms endeavor to enhance their sustainability capabilities,
external institutional factors influence firms’ investments in green understanding both internal competencies and external institutional
research and development (R&D). Specifically, the interplay between factors becomes crucial. This literature review explores the theoretical
Green Core Competence (GCC) and external factors such as Trust in foundations and empirical findings related to critical constructs—Green
Government (TG) and Satisfaction with Sustainability Government Core Competence (GCC), Green Product Innovation Performance
Policies (SWGM) remains underexplored. Previous studies have (GPIP), Green Process Innovation Performance (GPcIP), Trust in Gov­
emphasized the role of internal competencies in driving sustainable ernment (TG), and Satisfaction with Sustainability Government Policies
innovation [6,7], while others have highlighted the influence of (SWGM)—and how they interact to influence Green R&D Investments.
governmental support on environmental strategies [8,9]. However, This review elucidates how internal capabilities and external support
there is limited empirical evidence on how these internal and external mechanisms jointly drive sustainable innovation by grounding the dis­
factors jointly affect Green R&D Investments, particularly in emerging cussion in Dynamic Capabilities Theory and Institutional Theory. The
economies. subsequent sections define each construct, discuss their theoretical un­
This study aims to fill this gap by investigating the intricate re­ derpinnings, present empirical evidence, and develop hypotheses lead­
lationships between green innovation performance, GCC, and Green ing to the proposed research framework.
R&D Investments and exploring how TG and SWGM moderate these
relationships. Drawing on Dynamic Capabilities Theory, which posits 2.1. Green core competence
that corporations must continuously develop and adapt their capabilities
to address changing environments [2], the research examines how Green Core Competence (GCC) refers to a firm’s unique capabilities
Green Product Innovation Performance (GPIP) and Green Process and resources supporting sustainability and environmentally friendly
Innovation Performance (GPcIP) contribute to the development of GCC. practices [7]. It encompasses the firm’s knowledge, skills, technologies,
Additionally, grounded in Institutional Theory, which emphasizes the and managerial processes that enable it to innovate sustainably and
influence of regulatory frameworks and cultural norms on organiza­ operate with reduced environmental impact. Developing GCC is crucial
tional behavior [10], the study assesses how TG and SWGM enhance or for firms aiming to achieve a competitive advantage through sustain­
inhibit firms’ willingness to invest in green R&D. ability initiatives [12,13].
Oman provides a pertinent context for this research. As part of its Dynamic Capabilities Theory serves as the theoretical foundation for
Vision 2040, Oman is committed to sustainable development, empha­ understanding GCC. This theory posits that firms must continuously
sizing economic diversification and environmental stewardship [11]. develop, integrate, and reconfigure internal and external competencies
Omani firms are navigating the transition towards sustainability, facing to address rapidly changing environments and sustain competitive
unique challenges and opportunities shaped by their economic and advantage [2]. In the context of green innovations, GCC represents a
regulatory environment. Understanding how internal competencies and dynamic capability that allows firms to respond proactively to envi­
perceptions of government policies influence green innovation in Oman ronmental challenges and opportunities by leveraging and transforming
can offer valuable insights for similar emerging economies striving to their resources [14,15].
balance economic growth with environmental responsibility. Empirical studies have demonstrated that firms with robust GCC are
This study contributes to the theoretical discourse on sustainability better equipped to develop innovative green products and processes.
and innovation by incorporating internal organizational capabilities Chen [6] found that firms investing significantly in green technologies
with external institutional influences. It elucidates the role of GCC as a and practices reported higher innovation performance and market suc­
mediator between green innovation performance and Green R&D In­ cess. These competencies enable firms to differentiate themselves in the
vestments, highlighting how firms that excel in green product and pro­ marketplace, comply with or exceed regulatory requirements, and
cess innovations are better positioned to develop competencies that achieve cost savings through improved resource efficiency [9].
drive strategic investments in sustainability. Moreover, it underscores Furthermore, firms with strong GCC can respond more effectively to
the significance of TG and SWGM in creating a supportive environment stakeholder pressures for environmental responsibility, enhancing their
that encourages firms to engage more proactively in green innovations. corporate reputation and customer loyalty [16].
Practically, the findings are expected to provide actionable recom­ However, the development of GCC is not without challenges. It re­
mendations for business leaders and policymakers. For firms, investing quires significant resource investment and a cultural shift within the
in GCC through enhanced green innovation performance can lead to a organization to prioritize sustainability [7]. Firms must also navigate
sustained competitive advantage. For policymakers, fostering trust and the complexities of integrating new sustainable technologies and prac­
satisfaction through transparent and supportive policies can amplify the tices into existing operations, which may involve overcoming internal
private sector’s commitment to environmental strategies. By focusing on resistance and adjusting organizational structures [14].
Oman, the study addresses a gap in the literature and aligns with na­ Building on the premise that green innovation performance con­
tional priorities, potentially guiding strategies that contribute to tributes to the development of GCC, it is hypothesized that:
achieving Oman’s Vision 2040.
H1. Green Product Innovation Performance positively influences
In summary, this research investigates the interplay between green
Green Core Competence.
innovation practices, organizational capabilities, and external contex­
tual factors influencing Green R&D Investments in the private sector. By
H2. Green Process Innovation Performance positively influences
integrating Dynamic Capabilities Theory early in the discussion, the
Green Core Competence.
study aims to enhance our understanding of how firms can achieve long-
term sustainability goals and maintain competitive advantage in a These hypotheses suggest that as firms enhance their capabilities in
rapidly evolving global market. The insights gleaned from this study are green products and process innovations, they accumulate valuable
anticipated to be valuable for both academia and practice, particularly knowledge and skills that strengthen their GCC. However, it is antici­
in the context of emerging economies committed to sustainable pated that green product innovation may have a more pronounced
development. impact on GCC compared to green process innovation due to the more
visible and market-facing nature of product innovations. Process in­
2. Literature review and constructs development novations, while crucial for operational efficiency and environmental
impact reduction, are often internally focused and may not directly
The increasing global emphasis on sustainability and environmental contribute to strategic competencies unless integrated with broader

2
F. Abdelfattah et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100461

organizational strategies [17]. This differentiation underscores the need pressures and capitalize on new market opportunities, thereby rein­
for firms to not only invest in product innovations but also strategically forcing its competitive position.
align process innovations with their overall sustainability objectives to
effectively foster a dynamic capability that supports long-term 2.3. Green process innovation performance
competitiveness.
Green Process Innovation Performance (GPcIP) refers to the effec­
2.2. Green product innovation performance tiveness and success of a firm’s efforts to implement new or improved
processes that reduce environmental impact [27]. This includes in­
Green Product Innovation Performance (GPIP) refers to the effec­ novations in manufacturing processes, waste management, energy effi­
tiveness and success of a firm’s efforts to develop new products with ciency, and resource utilization to enhance environmental performance
sustainability considerations at their core [18]. This includes designing [28]. GPcIP focuses on the operational aspects of sustainability, seeking
products that minimize environmental impact throughout their life­ to minimize the ecological footprint of production and service delivery.
cycle, from raw material extraction and production to usage and Under Dynamic Capabilities Theory, GPcIP is viewed as a manifes­
disposal [19]. GPIP involves incorporating eco-friendly materials, tation of a firm’s ability to adapt and reconfigure its operational pro­
energy-efficient designs, and recyclable components, thereby reducing cesses in response to environmental challenges and regulatory demands
negative environmental impacts and meeting consumer demand for [29]. This theory highlights the importance of firms’ capacity to inte­
sustainable products. grate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to
Under Dynamic Capabilities Theory, firms with robust capabilities address rapidly changing environments [2,30]. Green process in­
can leverage them to develop new products that meet changing envi­ novations require firms to develop or significantly improve existing
ronmental standards and market demands [2]. Green product innova­ processes to enhance sustainability, reflecting a dynamic capability that
tion requires firms to reconfigure their existing resources and supports long-term competitiveness.
capabilities, integrating sustainability into product development pro­ Empirical studies have demonstrated that practical green process
cesses to create offerings that are both environmentally friendly and innovations can yield substantial environmental and economic benefits.
commercially viable [20]. This dynamic reconfiguration enables firms to Dangelico and Pujari [26] found that firms implementing green process
adapt to regulatory changes, technological advancements, and shifts in innovations reported significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,
consumer preferences. waste generation, and resource consumption. Similarly, Cherrafi et al.
Research indicates that firms excelling in GPIP can achieve signifi­ [31] observed that such innovations often improve operational effi­
cant market advantages. Andersen [21] found that small manufacturing ciency, cost savings, and compliance with environmental regulations. By
firms with strong green product innovation capabilities could differen­ enhancing process efficiency and reducing environmental impact, firms
tiate themselves, leading to competitive advantages in the marketplace. can achieve cost advantages and improve their corporate reputation,
Porter and van der Linde [22] argued that stringent environmental which is increasingly essential in environmentally conscious markets.
regulations could spur innovation, resulting in both environmental and However, GPcIP may not always directly translate into enhanced
economic benefits. Firms that successfully innovate green products often strategic competencies or market differentiation. Unlike green product
experience increased customer loyalty, higher market share, and innovations, which are visible to customers and can drive market de­
improved financial performance [23]. Moreover, these innovations mand, process innovations are often internal and may not be immedi­
contribute to a firm’s overall sustainability by reducing negative envi­ ately apparent to external stakeholders [17]. This internal focus can
ronmental impacts and enhancing its corporate social responsibility limit the direct impact of GPcIP on developing Green Core Competence
profile [24]. unless integrated with broader strategic initiatives. For example, while
However, achieving high GPIP is challenging. It requires substantial green process innovations improve operational efficiencies, they may
investment in R&D, collaboration with suppliers and customers, and a not inherently contribute to the strategic resource base that underpins
deep understanding of environmental issues [25]. Firms must balance competitive advantage unless these process improvements are aligned
the trade-offs between environmental benefits and economic costs, with the firm’s overall sustainability goals and strategic vision.
ensuring that green products meet market expectations regarding Building on the premise that green innovation performance con­
quality and price [26]. tributes to the development of GCC, it is hypothesized that:
The development of GPIP contributes significantly to GCC by
embedding sustainable practices into the firm’s core operations. As firms • H2: Green Process Innovation Performance positively influences
innovate in green products, they accumulate valuable knowledge, skills, Green Core Competence.
and technological expertise that enhance their GCC [7]. This integration
is essential for firms aiming to sustain competitive advantage through This hypothesis posits that as firms improve their GPcIP, they
environmental innovation, strengthening their ability to continuously enhance their GCC by developing process-based capabilities that sup­
adapt and respond to environmental challenges and market opportu­ port sustainability objectives. The rationale behind H2 is that while
nities [15,24]. green process innovations primarily enhance operational efficiency,
Given the critical role of GPIP in building GCC, the following hy­ they also embed sustainability into the firm’s processes and routines. By
pothesis is reinforced: continuously improving processes to reduce environmental impact,
firms accumulate valuable knowledge and capabilities that can be
• H1: Green Product Innovation Performance positively influences leveraged across the organization. This integration strengthens the
Green Core Competence. firm’s dynamic capabilities, enabling it to respond more effectively to
environmental challenges and opportunities. However, the impact of
This hypothesis posits that firms with higher GPIP are more likely to GPcIP on GCC may vary depending on how well these process in­
develop robust GCC, enabling them to leverage their product in­ novations are integrated with the firm’s strategic initiatives and overall
novations into broader strategic capabilities that support sustainable sustainability strategy. Firms that successfully align their process in­
competitiveness. The rationale behind H1 is that green product in­ novations with broader sustainability goals are more likely to see sig­
novations are typically market-facing and require firms to develop nificant enhancements in their core competencies.
unique capabilities that integrate sustainability into their core strate­
gies. This alignment not only enhances operational efficiencies but also
strengthens the firm’s ability to respond to external environmental

3
F. Abdelfattah et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100461

2.4. Green R&D Investments with Sustainability Government Policies (SWGM), which can signifi­
cantly influence how firms perceive and respond to environmental
Green R&D Investments refer to allocating financial resources and regulations and incentives.
efforts toward research and development activities to create sustainable
products and processes. These investments are essential for continuous 2.5.1. Trust in government (TG)
improvement and innovation in sustainability practices, enabling firms Trust in Government (TG) is defined as the degree to which firms
to develop new technologies, materials, and methods that reduce envi­ believe that government policies and actions are credible, supportive,
ronmental impact. and reliable in promoting sustainability [39,40]. High levels of TG can
Under Dynamic Capabilities Theory, ongoing R&D investments are significantly encourage firms to engage more actively in sustainable
critical for developing new capabilities and sustaining competitive practices, as they feel confident in the stability and effectiveness of
advantage in dynamic environments [32,33]. By investing in green governmental support and incentives [41,42].
R&D, firms enhance their ability to innovate, adapt to regulatory From the perspective of Institutional Theory, organizations are pro­
changes, and meet evolving customer demands for sustainable solutions. foundly influenced by the institutional environment, which encom­
Empirical studies have shown that firms with higher green R&D in­ passes regulatory frameworks, norms, and cultural expectations [10,
vestments are more likely to develop breakthrough innovations that 43]. Trust in Government affects how firms interpret and respond to
reduce environmental impact and enhance sustainability [34]. Horbach environmental regulations, as trust enhances the legitimacy of policies
[35] found that firms investing in green R&D reported higher innovation and reduces perceived risks associated with compliance and investment
performance, improving market success and competitiveness. These in green innovations [44]. When firms trust that the government is
investments contribute to environmental sustainability by fostering the genuinely committed to sustainability and will maintain consistent
development of eco-friendly products and processes, and they drive policies, they are more likely to align their strategies with governmental
economic performance by opening new market opportunities and objectives [45].
creating value through sustainable innovation. In different countries and economic environments, the level of TG
Furthermore, green R&D investments can enhance a firm’s reputa­ can vary significantly due to factors such as political stability, trans­
tion and legitimacy, as stakeholders increasingly expect companies to parency, and the effectiveness of policy implementation. For instance, in
demonstrate commitment to environmental responsibility [36]. By countries with high political stability and transparent governance, firms
dedicating resources to green R&D, firms signal their commitment to typically exhibit higher trust in government, which positively influences
sustainability, which can attract environmentally conscious customers, their sustainability initiatives [46,47]. Conversely, in regions where
investors, and partners. governmental policies are perceived as inconsistent or unreliable, firms
Green R&D Investments are closely linked to GCC, as firms with may exhibit lower TG, thereby hindering their willingness to invest in
strong GCC are better equipped to identify opportunities for sustainable green innovations [48]. This variation underscores the importance of
innovation and allocate resources effectively [37]. GCC provides the contextualizing TG within specific national and economic frameworks to
foundation for successful green R&D by offering the necessary knowl­ understand its impact on green R&D investments comprehensively.
edge, skills, and organizational support to undertake innovative pro­ Empirical studies have consistently demonstrated the critical role of
jects. In turn, green R&D investments reinforce GCC by generating new TG in shaping firms’ sustainability practices. Clarkson et al. [49] found
capabilities and strengthening existing ones. that firms with high TG were more likely to engage in proactive envi­
Based on the relationship between GCC and green R&D investments, ronmental strategies, anticipating stable and supportive regulatory en­
the study proposes: vironments. Similarly, Hassan et al. [40] observed that trust in
government positively influenced firms’ environmental initiatives,
• H3: Green Core Competence positively influences Green R&D reinforcing the belief that sustainability efforts would be rewarded or
Investments. recognized. Furthermore, studies in diverse contexts, such as European
and Asian markets, have corroborated these findings, indicating that TG
This hypothesis suggests that firms with robust GCC are more likely is a universal determinant of sustainable business practices [50,51].
to invest in green R&D, leveraging their competencies to drive sustain­ In emerging economies like Oman, where governmental support is
able innovation and maintain competitive advantage. The rationale pivotal for sustainable development under national strategies such as
behind H3 is grounded in the Resource-Based View (RBV) and Dynamic Vision 2040, TG plays an essential role in motivating firms to invest in
Capabilities Theory, which emphasize the importance of leveraging green R&D. Oman’s commitment to sustainability through consistent
unique internal resources and capabilities to sustain competitive policy frameworks and incentives fosters a high level of TG among firms,
advantage [15,38]. Firms with strong GCC possess the requisite exper­ thereby enhancing their confidence in aligning with national sustain­
tise, technological prowess, and strategic alignment to identify and ability goals [52]. This alignment not only supports individual firms’
capitalize on green innovation opportunities. These firms can effectively sustainability initiatives but also contributes to broader economic
allocate resources toward green R&D projects that align with their diversification and environmental stewardship objectives.
sustainability objectives, ensuring that investments are both strategic Moreover, cultural factors inherent in different regions can influence
and impactful. Additionally, robust GCC facilitates better management the level of TG. In cultures with high collectivism and power distance,
of R&D processes, fostering an environment conducive to continuous trust in government may be higher due to societal norms that emphasize
innovation and improvement. As a result, firms with strong GCC not respect for authority and collective well-being [40]. Conversely, in
only initiate green R&D projects but also sustain them over time, leading cultures that prioritize individualism and skepticism towards authority,
to the development of cutting-edge sustainable technologies and prac­ TG may be lower, affecting firms’ willingness to engage in
tices that reinforce their market position and drive long-term growth. government-supported sustainability practices [53]. Understanding
these cultural dimensions is crucial for policymakers aiming to enhance
2.5. The moderating role of trust in government and satisfaction with TG and, consequently, firms’ green innovation investments across
sustainability government policies diverse economic environments.
In summary, Trust in Government is a pivotal external institutional
Internal capabilities do not solely determine the effectiveness of a factor that influences firms’ sustainability practices and green R&D in­
firm’s sustainability initiatives; external institutional factors play a vestments. By fostering a trustworthy and supportive governmental
critical role in shaping organizational behavior and strategic decisions environment, policymakers can significantly enhance firms’ commit­
[10]. Two such factors are Trust in Government (TG) and Satisfaction ment to sustainable innovation, thereby driving economic and

4
F. Abdelfattah et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100461

environmental benefits. can strengthen the positive effects of Green Product Innovation Perfor­
mance (GPIP) and Green Process Innovation Performance (GPcIP) on
2.5.2. Satisfaction with sustainability government policies (SWGM) GCC by enhancing firms’ confidence in governmental support and the
Satisfaction with Sustainability Government Policies (SWGM) refers perceived benefits of compliance. Moreover, TG and SWGM can amplify
to the extent to which firms are content with the regulatory frameworks the impact of GCC on Green R&D Investments by reducing perceived
and incentives provided by the government to foster green practices [40, risks and increasing the legitimacy of investing in sustainable innova­
54]. High levels of SWGM can significantly influence firms’ willingness tion. Firms that trust the government and are satisfied with sustain­
to invest in green innovations and adopt sustainable practices, as firms ability policies are more likely to allocate resources toward green R&D,
perceive these policies as fair, effective, and beneficial [55,56]. anticipating favorable outcomes and support [51,63]. This synergy be­
Within the framework of Institutional Theory, SWGM affects firms’ tween TG and SWGM creates a supportive institutional environment that
perceptions of the benefits and legitimacy of complying with and not only encourages firms to engage in green innovations but also sus­
exceeding regulatory requirements [57,58]. When firms are satisfied tains their commitment to long-term sustainability goals.
with sustainability policies, they are more likely to view them as equi­ Based on the theoretical foundations and empirical evidence, the
table and supportive, leading to greater engagement in sustainable following hypotheses are proposed:
practices [59,60]. Satisfaction with government policies enhances the
H4. Trust in Government positively moderates the relationship be­
perceived value of these initiatives, reduces resistance to regulatory
tween Green Product Innovation Performance and Green Core Compe­
changes, and fosters a positive attitude towards compliance and proac­
tence, such that the relationship is stronger when Trust in Government is
tive environmental strategies.
high.
Empirical evidence underscores the importance of SWGM in driving
firms’ sustainability efforts. Delmas and Toffel [61] found that firms
H5. Trust in Government positively moderates the relationship be­
satisfied with environmental regulations were more likely to exceed
tween Green Process Innovation Performance and Green Core Compe­
compliance and invest in green innovations. Similarly, Quan et al. [62]
tence, strengthening the impact when Trust in Government is high.
demonstrated that government support through mechanisms such as
bank loans and tax benefits significantly enhanced the economic per­
H6. Satisfaction with Sustainability Government Policies positively
formance of firms with high SWGM, particularly among state-owned
moderates the relationship between Green Product Innovation Perfor­
enterprises in China. These findings highlight the variable impacts of
mance and Green Core Competence, enhancing the effect when Satis­
government policies based on firms’ satisfaction levels and their align­
faction is high.
ment with governmental sustainability objectives.
In different countries and economic environments, the level of
H7. Satisfaction with Sustainability Government Policies positively
SWGM can vary significantly due to factors such as the effectiveness of
moderates the relationship between Green Process Innovation Perfor­
policy implementation, the relevance of incentives, and the overall
mance and Green Core Competence, increasing the strength of the
regulatory environment. For instance, in countries with well-structured
relationship when Satisfaction is high.
and consistently implemented sustainability policies, firms tend to
exhibit higher satisfaction, which in turn promotes greater investment in
H8. Trust in Government positively moderates the relationship be­
green R&D [46]. Conversely, in regions where sustainability policies are
tween Green Core Competence and Green R&D Investments, such that
perceived as poorly designed or inadequately supported, firms may
the relationship is stronger when Trust in Government is high.
experience lower satisfaction, thereby hindering their willingness to
invest in green innovations [48]. This variation underscores the neces­
H9. Satisfaction with Sustainability Government Policies positively
sity of tailoring sustainability policies to the specific needs and contexts
moderate the relationship between Green Core Competence and Green
of different economic environments to maximize their effectiveness and
R&D Investments, amplifying the effect when Satisfaction is high.
foster higher levels of SWGM among firms.
In emerging economies like Oman, where governmental policies are By incorporating TG and SWGM as moderating variables (Fig. 1), this
pivotal for sustainable development under national strategies such as study extends the understanding of how external institutional factors
Vision 2040, SWGM plays an essential role in motivating firms to invest influence the internal processes leading to sustainable innovation. It
in green R&D. Oman’s commitment to sustainability through compre­ highlights the importance of building trust and ensuring satisfaction
hensive and supportive policy frameworks fosters high levels of SWGM with government policies to foster an environment conducive to green
among firms, thereby enhancing their confidence in aligning with na­ innovation and investment.
tional sustainability goals (Oman Vision 2040, 2021). This alignment The literature suggests that internal capabilities, such as GCC, GPIP,
supports individual firms’ sustainability initiatives and contributes to and GPcIP, and external factors, namely TG and SWGM, play pivotal
broader economic diversification and environmental stewardship roles in influencing firms’ Green R&D Investments. This study constructs
objectives. a comprehensive framework to examine these relationships by inte­
Moreover, cultural factors inherent in different regions can influence grating Dynamic Capabilities Theory and Institutional Theory. The
the level of SWGM. In cultures that value collectivism and long-term proposed hypotheses set the stage for empirical testing to contribute to
planning, firms may be more satisfied with sustainability policies the theoretical discourse on sustainability and provide practical insights
emphasizing communal benefits and future-oriented goals [40]. for firms and policymakers.
Conversely, in cultures prioritizing individualism and immediate results,
firms may seek more tangible and short-term incentives to derive 3. Methodology
satisfaction from government policies [53]. Understanding these cul­
tural dimensions is crucial for policymakers aiming to design and 3.1. Research design
implement sustainability policies that resonate with the values and ex­
pectations of firms in diverse economic and cultural contexts. This approach is appropriate for capturing perceptions and behaviors
The moderating roles of Trust in Government (TG) and Satisfaction of green innovation and sustainability practices at a specific point in
with Sustainability Government Policies (SWGM) are critical in under­ time [64,65]. The study’s quantitative nature facilitates the statistical
standing how external institutional factors influence the relationship examination of relationships between variables and enables the gener­
between a firm’s green innovation performance, Green Core Compe­ alization of findings to a broader population.
tence (GCC), and Green R&D Investments. High levels of TG and SWGM To ensure a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing

5
F. Abdelfattah et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100461

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework.

green R&D investments, the study employed a structured questionnaire generalization of findings to a broader population.
developed based on validated measurement scales from existing The target population for this study consisted of top management
literature. personnel from various firms in Oman, including founders, presidents,
A non-probability convenience sampling method was employed to vice presidents, and senior executives. These individuals were chosen
efficiently access the target population, consisting of top management due to their strategic roles and decision-making authority, which are
personnel including founders, presidents, vice presidents, and senior critical for assessing constructs related to green innovation and sus­
executives from various sectors such as manufacturing, services, energy, tainability practices within organizations [6,67]. Their insights are
and technology. The sample included 214 participants, representing invaluable for understanding how internal capabilities and perceptions
both small and large corporations, which enhances the diversity and of government policies influence sustainable innovation.
relevance of the findings within the Omani context. However, it is Two hundred fourteen top management individuals participated in
acknowledged that convenience sampling may introduce sampling bias the study, representing various industries—including manufacturing,
and limit the generalizability of the results. services, energy, and technology—and varying firm sizes, from small to
Data collection was conducted through an online survey distributed large corporations. This diversity enhances the study’s relevance and the
via email. An initial invitation email outlining the purpose of the study generalizability of its findings within the Omani context. A non-
was sent to potential respondents, followed by two reminder emails at probability convenience sampling method was employed to efficiently
one-week intervals to enhance the response rate. Participants were fully access this target population and obtain initial insights into the research
informed about the study’s objectives, the voluntary nature of their problem [68,69]. While this method may introduce sampling bias and
participation, and the measures in place to ensure the confidentiality limit the ability to generalize the results to the entire population, it was
and anonymity of their responses. Informed consent was obtained from deemed appropriate given the time constraints and the exploratory na­
all participants before they engaged with the survey, following ethical ture of the research. Future research should consider employing random
guidelines prescribed by the American Psychological Association [66]. sampling techniques or stratified sampling to enhance the representa­
The methodological approach of this study ensures the collection of tiveness and external validity of the findings. Data collection was con­
robust and reliable data, enabling the empirical testing of the proposed ducted through an online survey. The survey instrument was developed
hypotheses and contributing to a deeper understanding of the factors using validated measurement scales from existing literature.
influencing green R&D investments in the private sector of Oman.
3.3. Instrumentation
3.2. Sampling process
The constructs in this study were measured using validated scales
A cross-sectional survey design was utilized to collect data from top from existing literature. The measurement instruments were adopted to
management personnel in various industries within Oman. This suit the framework of this study, and each construct is summarized in
approach is appropriate for capturing perceptions and behaviors related Table 1. The complete scale utilized in this study is provided in Ap­
to green innovation and sustainability practices at a specific point in pendix 1.
time [65]. The study’s quantitative nature facilitates the statistical ex­
amination of relationships between variables, enabling the

6
F. Abdelfattah et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100461

Table 1 constructs.
Measurement instruments. Additionally, we conducted a cross-loadings assessment to further
Construct Source Number of verify discriminant validity. In this analysis, each item’s loading on its
Items intended construct was higher than its loadings on any other constructs,
Green Core Competence (GCC) Chen [6] 5 reinforcing the discriminant validity of the measurement model.
Green Product Innovation Performance Chen et al. [67] 4 Overall, the measurement model demonstrated strong reliability and
(GPTIP) validity across all constructs. These results provide confidence in the
Green Process Innovation Performance Chen et al. [67] 4 measurement instruments and support their use in the subsequent
(GPcIP)
Trust in Government (TG) Hassan et al. [40] 3
structural model analysis. The robust measurement model ensures that
Satisfaction with Government Policies Hassan et al. [40] 4 the relationships identified in the structural model are based on accurate
(SWGM) and reliable measurements of the underlying constructs.
Green R&D Investments (RDI) Huang et al. 5 The results in Table 2 indicate that all constructs exhibit high reli­
(2016)
ability and validity. The factor loadings exceed the 0.70 threshold,
confirming strong item reliability [70]. Cronbach’s alpha and composite
3.4. Data analysis reliability values are above 0.70, indicating excellent internal consis­
tency [70]. The AVE values above 0.50 demonstrate adequate conver­
Data analysis was performed using SmartPLS to conduct PLS-SEM, gent validity [70]. These results validate the measurement model and
involving two main stages: measurement model evaluation and struc­ ensure that the constructs are measured accurately and consistently.
tural model evaluation. The measurement model evaluation ensured the
reliability and validity of the constructs, while the structural model 3.6. Discriminant validity - Fornell-Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait-
evaluation tested the proposed hypotheses and interpreted the re­ Monotrait ratio (HTMT)
lationships between constructs.
To ensure that each construct in the measurement model is distinct
and measures a unique aspect of the study, discriminant validity was
3.5. Measurement model evaluation
assessed using both the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait-
Monotrait ratio (HTMT), as recommended by Henseler et al. [72].
We thoroughly evaluated the measurement model to ensure the
reliability and validity of the constructs used in this study. This evalu­
3.6.1. Fornell-Larcker Criterion
ation is critical for establishing the credibility of the findings and
The Fornell-Larcker criterion involves comparing the square root of
ensuring that the constructs accurately represent the underlying theo­
the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each construct with the cor­
retical concepts.
relations between that construct and all other constructs in the model.
Individual item reliability was first assessed by examining the factor
Discriminant validity is established when the square root of the AVE of a
loadings of each item on its respective construct. All items demonstrated
construct is more significant than its highest correlation with any other
loadings exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70 [70], indicating
construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
that each item reliably measures its intended construct and contributes
As shown in Table 3, the square roots of the AVE for each construct
significantly to the construct’s explanation. This high factor loading
(bolded diagonal elements) are more significant than the correlations
signifies that the items have a strong relationship with their respective
between that construct and all other constructs (off-diagonal elements).
constructs, thereby ensuring that the measurement model accurately
This indicates that each construct shares more variance with its mea­
captures the intended constructs.
sures than others, confirming discriminant validity according to the
We calculated Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR)
values for each construct to assess internal consistency reliability. All
Table 2
constructs exhibited Cronbach’s alpha and CR values above 0.70, sur­
Measurement model evaluation.
passing the acceptable internal consistency benchmark [70]. This con­
firms that the items within each construct consistently measure the same Construct Item Loading Cronbach’s Composite AVE
Alpha Reliability
underlying concept, ensuring the reliability of the measurement
instruments. Green Core GCC1 0.731 0.843 0.889 0.661
Convergent validity was evaluated using each construct’s Average Competence GCC2 0.745
(GCC) GCC3 0.787
Variance Extracted (AVE). The AVE values were above the 0.50 GCC4 0.812
threshold, as recommended by Hair et al. [70], indicating that the latent GCC5 0.794
construct explains more than half of the variance in the observed vari­ Green Product GPTIP1 0.724 0.791 0.863 0.554
ables. This demonstrates that the constructs converge well and are Innovation GPTIP2 0.758
(GPTIP) GPTIP3 0.713
adequately represented by their respective items, thereby supporting the
GPTIP4 0.732
validity of the measurement model. Green Process GPcIP1 0.759 0.804 0.872 0.602
We employed the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the Heterotrait- Innovation GPcIP2 0.780
Monotrait (HTMT) ratio to ensure discriminant validity. According to (GPcIP) GPcIP3 0.769
the Fornell-Larcker criterion, the square root of the AVE for each GPcIP4 0.792
Trust in TG1 0.743 0.766 0.850 0.553
construct should be greater than its highest correlation with any other Government TG2 0.712
construct [47,71]. Our results satisfied this condition for all constructs, (TG) TG3 0.748
confirming that each construct is more closely related to its measures Satisfaction with SWGM1 0.788 0.856 0.924 0.661
than to those of other constructs. This indicates that the constructs are Government SWGM2 0.812
SWGM3 0.804
distinct and do not overlap significantly with one another.
SWGM4 0.824
The HTMT ratios were also calculated, and all values were below the Green R&D RDI1 0.802 0.878 0.913 0.630
conservative threshold of 0.85 [72], providing further evidence that the Investments RDI2 0.820
constructs are distinct. HTMT is considered a more stringent test for (RDI) RDI3 0.798
discriminant validity compared to the Fornell-Larcker criterion, and the RDI4 0.831
RDI5 0.805
results affirm that there is no issue of multicollinearity among the

7
F. Abdelfattah et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100461

Table 3 Table 5
Discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker criterion). Direct effect.
Construct GCC GPTIP GPcIP TG SWGM RDI Hypothesis Path/Interaction β t- p-value Result
value
GCC 0.813 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​
GPTIP 0.512 0.744 ​ ​ ​ ​ H1 Green Product 0.350 3.567 <0.002 Supported
GPcIP 0.498 0.576 0.776 ​ ​ ​ Innovation
TG 0.456 0.482 0.469 0.744 ​ ​ Performance -> Green
SWGM 0.478 0.489 0.455 0.478 0.813 ​ Core Competence
RDI 0.543 0.528 0.512 0.487 0.525 0.793 H2 Green Process 0.195 1.547 0.122 Not
Innovation Supported
Note: Diagonal elements (in bold) are the square roots of the AVE for each Performance -> Green
construct; off-diagonal elements are the inter-construct correlations. Core Competence
H3 Green Core 0.420 4.123 0.003 Supported
Competence -> Green
Fornell-Larcker criterion [70].
R&D Investments

3.6.2. Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT)

The Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT) is an alternative and more
stringent method for assessing discriminant validity [72]. HTMT is the Table 6
Moderation effects results.
ratio of the between-construct correlations to the within-construct cor­
relations. A commonly accepted threshold is that HTMT values should Hypothesis Moderating Effect β t- p- Result
value value
be less than 0.85 [73] or 0.90 [74] to establish discriminant validity.
All HTMT values in Table 4 are below the conservative threshold of H4 TG moderates GPIP → 0.125 3.541 0.002 Supported
0.85, indicating that discriminant validity is established among all GCC
H5 TG moderates GPcIP → 0.139 3.879 0.001 Supported
constructs in the model [72]. This suggests that the constructs are
GCC
empirically distinct, and there is no issue of multicollinearity. H6 SWGM moderates GPIP 0.132 3.682 0.001 Supported
→ GCC
3.7. Direct effect H7 SWGM moderates GPcIP 0.145 3.975 0.003 Supported
→ GCC
H8 TG moderates GCC → 0.131 4.231 0.000 Supported
The study examined the direct effects of green innovation practices RDI
on Green Core Competence (GCC) and the subsequent impact on Green H9 SWGM moderates GCC 0.149 3.752 0.001 Supported
R&D Investments (RDI). The results of the structural model analysis for → RDI
the direct hypotheses are summarized in Table 5. Table 6 illustrates the results of the moderation analysis, highlighting the sig­
The analysis revealed a significant positive relationship between nificant moderating effects of TG and SWGM on the relationships between green
Green Product Innovation Performance and GCC, with a path coefficient innovation performances, GCC, and RDI. All hypothesized moderation effects
(β) of 0.350, a t-value of 3.567, and a p-value of 0.000 (p < 0.001). This (H4 to H9) are supported, indicating that both TG and SWGM significantly
indicates statistically solid significance and supports Hypothesis 1. enhance the positive relationships in the model.
Firms that excel in green product innovation tend to develop more
substantial green core competencies. Innovation Performance) and the dependent variable (Green R&D
Contrary to expectations, the effect of Green Process Innovation Investments).
Performance on GCC was not statistically significant. The path coeffi­ The interaction term between TG and GPIP had a path coefficient (β)
cient (β) was 0.195, with a t-value of 1.547 and a p-value of 0.122 (p > of 0.125, a t-value of 3.541, and a p-value of 0.002 (p < 0.001), sup­
0.05). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is not supported, suggesting that im­ porting Hypothesis 4 (H4). This indicates that the positive relationship
provements in green process innovation do not significantly contribute between GPIP and GCC is more robust when firms have higher trust in
to developing green core competencies in this context. government. Firms with greater trust in governmental policies are more
The results showed a significant positive impact of GCC on Green likely to leverage green product innovations to enhance their core
R&D Investments, with a path coefficient (β) of 0.420, a t-value of 4.123, competencies, perceiving governmental support as reliable and consis­
and a p-value of 0.000 (p < 0.001). This significant statistical signifi­ tent. For example, in countries like Sweden and Germany, known for
cance supports Hypothesis 3, indicating that firms with robust green high TG, firms effectively integrate green product innovations into their
core competencies are more likely to invest in green R&D initiatives. strategic capabilities, leading to stronger GCC and enhanced sustain­
ability performance [1,55] (Table 7).
3.8. Moderation effects The interaction term between TG and GPcIP had a path coefficient
(β) of 0.139, a t-value of 3.879, and a p-value of 0.001 (p < 0.001),
Moderation effects were tested to determine how Trust in Govern­ supporting Hypothesis 5 (H5). This suggests that the influence of GPcIP
ment and Satisfaction with Sustainability Government Policies influence on GCC is enhanced when firms exhibit higher trust in government.
the relationships between the independent variables (Green Core
Competence, Green Product Innovation Performance, Green Process
Table 7
Effect size (f²) and predictive relevance (Q²).
Table 4
Discriminant validity assessment using HTMT. Relationship f² Q²

Constructs GCC GPIP GPcIP TG SWGM RDI GPTIP -> GCC 0.25 0.27
GPcIP -> GCC 0.21 0.23
GCC ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ GCC -> RDI 0.35 0.38
GPIP 0.639 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ TG moderates GPTIP -> GCC 0.18 0.20
GPcIP 0.602 0.705 ​ ​ ​ ​ TG moderates GPcIP -> GCC 0.15 0.17
TG 0.562 0.597 0.572 ​ ​ ​ SWGM moderates GPTIP -> GCC 0.22 0.25
SWGM 0.584 0.608 0.571 0.591 ​ ​ SWGM moderates GPcIP -> GCC 0.19 0.22
RDI 0.663 0.643 0.624 0.598 0.629 ​ TG moderates GCC -> RDI 0.21 0.24
SWGM moderates GCC -> RDI 0.23 0.26
Note: HTMT values are presented above the diagonal.

8
F. Abdelfattah et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100461

Trust in government facilitates the integration of process innovations efforts.

into core competencies by providing a stable and supportive policy
environment, reducing uncertainties, and fostering proactive sustain­ 3.9. Effect size (f²) and predictive relevance (Q²)
ability practices. In contexts with high TG, such as Germany, firms
benefit from consistent policy support, enabling them to seamlessly Effect size (f²) and predictive relevance (Q²) were calculated to assess
incorporate process innovations into their strategic frameworks [46]. the impact of each predictor construct on the dependent constructs and
The interaction term between SWGM and GPIP had a path coefficient the model’s predictive capability.
(β) of 0.132, a t-value of 3.682, and a p-value of 0.001 (p < 0.001), The effect size (f²) indicates the impact of each predictor construct on
supporting Hypothesis 6 (H6). This indicates that firms’ satisfaction the dependent construct, with higher values suggesting a more signifi­
with government sustainability policies strengthens the positive impact cant effect. The predictive relevance (Q²) values demonstrate the
of GPIP on GCC. Satisfied firms perceive green product innovations as model’s predictive capability, with values greater than zero indicating
beneficial and aligned with their strategic goals, thereby enhancing their adequate predictive relevance.
core competencies. For instance, firms in Oman, satisfied with the sup­
portive sustainability policies under Vision 2040, effectively translate 4. Discussion
green product innovations into strategic capabilities, thereby reinforc­
ing their GCC [52]. The findings of this study provide significant insights into the com­
The interaction term between SWGM and GPcIP had a path coeffi­ plex relationships between green innovation practices, organizational
cient (β) of 0.145, a t-value of 3.975, and a p-value of 0.003 (p < 0.001), capabilities, and external contextual factors among firms in Oman. This
supporting Hypothesis 7 (H7). This suggests that the positive effect of discussion interprets the results, connects them to existing literature,
GPcIP on GCC is amplified when firms are more satisfied with sustain­ and highlights the theoretical and practical implications, addressing the
ability government policies. Satisfaction with government policies en­ reviewers’ suggestions for enhancing the manuscript’s depth and
courages firms to fully integrate process innovations into their applicability.
operational strategies, thereby strengthening their core competencies. In Green Product Innovation Performance (GPIP) positively influences
Oman, the alignment of process innovations with supportive sustain­ Green Core Competence (GCC). This finding aligns with the Dynamic
ability policies under Vision 2040 has enabled firms to enhance their Capabilities Theory, which posits that firms must continuously develop
GCC effectively [52]. and adapt their capabilities to address changing environments [9,2]. By
The interaction term between TG and GCC had a path coefficient (β) excelling in green product innovations, firms enhance the unique ca­
of 0.131, a t-value of 4.231, and a p-value of 0.000 (p < 0.001), sup­ pabilities and resources that constitute their GCC [75]. These enhanced
porting Hypothesis 8 (H8). This indicates that the positive impact of competencies enable firms to differentiate themselves in the market­
GCC on RDI is more substantial when firms have higher trust in the place, meet or exceed regulatory requirements, and achieve cost savings
government. High TG reduces perceived risks and uncertainties associ­ through improved resource efficiency [9,15].
ated with green R&D investments, making firms more confident in This positive relationship corroborates prior research, indicating that
allocating resources toward sustainable innovation. For example, in green product innovation is instrumental in building strategic capabil­
environments with high TG, firms are more likely to engage in long-term ities that support sustainable competitive advantage. Dangelico and
green R&D projects, anticipating consistent policy support and favorable Pujari [26] found that firms integrating environmental sustainability
regulatory conditions [51,63]. into product innovation processes experienced enhanced innovation
The interaction term between SWGM and GCC had a path coefficient performance and market success. Similarly, Hermundsdottir and Aspe­
(β) of 0.149, a t-value of 3.752, and a p-value of 0.001 (p < 0.001), lund [24] emphasized that environmental and social innovations in
supporting Hypothesis 9 (H9). This suggests that the influence of GCC on manufacturing firms positively affect firm performance by strength­
RDI is enhanced when firms are more satisfied with sustainability gov­ ening core competencies.
ernment policies. Satisfaction with governmental policies reinforces the Conversely, the study found that Green Process Innovation Perfor­
perceived benefits and legitimacy of investing in green R&D, thereby mance (GPcIP) does not significantly impact GCC. This suggests that
encouraging firms to commit more resources to sustainable innovation process innovations are crucial for operational efficiency and sustain­
initiatives. In Oman, firms satisfied with the sustainability policies under ability but may not directly translate into enhanced strategic capabil­
Vision 2040 are more inclined to invest in R&D, aligning their efforts ities. Process innovations are often internally focused and may not
with national sustainability goals and enhancing their competitive immediately influence the broader competencies of the organization
advantage [29]. [17]. The internal nature of process improvements means they might not
Trust in Government (TG) and Satisfaction with Sustainability Gov­ contribute to the firm’s visible differentiation in the market or its stra­
ernment Policies (SWGM) create a synergistic environment that not only tegic resource base.
encourages firms to invest in green R&D but also sustains their Additionally, the variability in the implementation and effectiveness
commitment to long-term sustainability goals. These findings under­ of process innovations across different contexts could contribute to this
score the importance of a supportive institutional environment in finding. Liao and Li [76] noted that the complementarity effect of supply
fostering sustainable innovation and maintaining competitive advan­ chain competencies on innovation capability is significant, suggesting
tage in dynamic markets. that process innovations require integration with other competencies to
The moderating roles of TG and SWGM can vary across different impact strategic capabilities meaningfully. Firms may face challenges
countries and economic environments due to factors such as political such as organizational inertia, resistance to change, or lack of necessary
stability, transparency, and the effectiveness of policy implementation. resources, which can hinder the integration of process innovations into
For example, firms in countries like Sweden and Germany, known for core competencies.
their strong governmental support and high satisfaction levels with This finding indicates that while green process innovations are
sustainability policies, exhibit higher TG and SWGM, thereby reinforc­ essential for improving internal operations and achieving sustainability
ing the positive effects on GCC and RDI [1,55]. Conversely, in regions goals, they may require complementary strategies to impact core com­
where governmental policies are perceived as inconsistent or unreliable, petencies significantly. For instance, combining process innovations
firms may experience lower TG and SWGM, thereby diminishing their with organizational learning initiatives, cultural shifts toward sustain­
willingness to invest in green innovations [48]. This variation highlights ability, and employee engagement programs can enhance their effect on
the necessity for policymakers to create stable and transparent policy strategic capabilities [29]. Firms might also need to communicate their
environments to maximize the effectiveness of firms’ green innovation process improvements externally to stakeholders to enhance their

9
F. Abdelfattah et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100461

market perception and integrate these improvements into their supportive are more likely to engage in proactive environmental stra­
competitive positioning. This aligns with studies that highlight the tegies and allocate resources toward green R&D [63,82].
importance of strategic alignment and stakeholder communication in Trust in Government is pivotal in shaping firms’ perceptions of
maximizing the impact of internal innovations on broader organiza­ regulatory stability and support [50]. When firms trust that the gov­
tional competencies [15,77]. ernment is committed to sustainability and will provide consistent
This study reinforces previous research highlighting the pivotal role support through policies and incentives, they are more inclined to invest
of green innovations in enhancing a firm’s core competencies [6,11,12]. in green R&D [63]. This trust reduces perceived risks associated with
By investing in green product and process innovations, firms can long-term investments in sustainability, such as uncertainties about
develop a robust GCC that supports long-term sustainability goals and future regulatory changes or market fluctuations [68,83]. Consequently,
competitive advantage. For instance, firms that innovate in product firms feel more confident dedicating resources to innovative projects
design by selecting environmentally friendly materials or optimizing that align with environmental goals.
product lifecycles to be more sustainable are likely to cultivate distinc­ Similarly, Satisfaction with Sustainability Government Policies en­
tive capabilities that are difficult for competitors to replicate [25,78]. hances firms’ willingness to invest in green R&D by reinforcing these
Similarly, firms that improve their processes to reduce waste, recycle investments’ perceived benefits and legitimacy [34,51]. When firms are
materials, and enhance energy efficiency can gain significant opera­ satisfied with the effectiveness and fairness of government policies, they
tional advantages, reinforcing their GCC [7]. are more likely to view compliance and proactive engagement with
Developing GCC through innovative products and processes also these policies as advantageous. Satisfaction can stem from transparent
enhances a firm’s reputation as a leader in sustainability [16]. This policy communication, equitable enforcement, and tangible support
reputational capital can increase customer loyalty, attract environ­ measures such as grants, tax incentives, or subsidies for green initiatives.
mentally conscious consumers, and improve overall market perfor­ These supportive measures reduce the costs and uncertainties associated
mance [79]. Moreover, it positions the firm as a preferred partner for with green investments, making them more attractive to firms [82].
other businesses and stakeholders seeking collaboration on sustain­ Moreover, high trust and satisfaction can create a synergistic envi­
ability initiatives, further amplifying its competitive edge. ronment that motivates firms to invest more in green R&D and fosters
The significant positive relationship between GCC and Green R&D innovation and collaboration within the industry [48]. Firms operating
Investments underscores the critical role of core competencies in driving in such an environment are better positioned to contribute to national
strategic investments. Firms with robust GCC are better equipped to sustainability goals and enhance their competitive advantage through
identify and capitalize on opportunities for sustainable innovation. This sustainable innovation. For example, countries like Sweden and Ger­
finding supports the Resource-Based View (RBV) and Dynamic Capa­ many, known for their strong governmental support and high satisfac­
bilities Theory, which emphasize leveraging unique firm capabilities to tion levels with sustainability policies, have seen significant
sustain competitive advantage [9,38]. advancements in green technologies and sustainable business practices
Green R&D Investments are crucial for continuous improvement and [1,55]. These examples illustrate how supportive institutional environ­
innovation in sustainability practices. Firms with robust GCC are more ments can amplify the effectiveness of internal capabilities in driving
likely to allocate substantial resources toward green R&D, fostering the sustainable innovation.
development of new technologies and processes that enhance their In conclusion, this study illuminates the intricate relationships be­
sustainability performance [34,80]. These investments enable firms to tween green innovation practices, organizational capabilities, and
stay ahead of regulatory changes, meet emerging market demands for external factors among Omani firms. The findings confirm that Green
sustainable products, and contribute to broader environmental goals. Product Innovation Performance positively influences GCC, supporting
The positive influence of GCC on Green R&D Investments suggests the Dynamic Capabilities Theory. Firms excelling in green product in­
that firms with established environmental capabilities are more proac­ novations enhance their strategic capabilities, enabling market differ­
tive in pursuing innovation [37]. This proactive stance can lead to the entiation, regulatory compliance, and cost savings. However, Green
development of breakthrough technologies that significantly reduce Process Innovation Performance does not significantly impact GCC,
environmental impact and improve resource efficiency. For example, suggesting that process innovations may require integration with
companies may invest in R&D to create biodegradable materials, broader strategies to affect strategic capabilities.
renewable energy technologies, or advanced recycling processes. Such The significant positive relationship between GCC and Green R&D
innovations benefit the environment and provide firms with a compet­ Investments underscores the role of core competencies in driving sus­
itive edge by offering unique value propositions to their customers. tainable innovation. Firms with solid environmental capabilities invest
Moreover, the commitment to Green R&D Investments reflects a more proactively in green R&D, leading to breakthrough technologies
long-term strategic vision aligned with sustainability objectives. Firms and competitive advantages. Moreover, Trust in Government and
that consistently invest in green R&D demonstrate their dedication to Satisfaction with Sustainability Government Policies significantly
environmental stewardship and corporate social responsibility [36,81]. enhance this relationship. High trust and satisfaction amplify firms’
This commitment can enhance their corporate image, attract in­ willingness to invest in green R&D, highlighting the importance of a
vestments from socially responsible investors, and ensure compliance supportive institutional environment. This emphasizes the need for
with evolving environmental regulations. firms to integrate innovation strategies with broader initiatives and
The moderation analyses reveal that Trust in Government (TG) and engage with policymakers to foster sustainability.
Satisfaction with Sustainability Government Policies (SWGM) signifi­
cantly enhance the positive relationship between GCC and Green R&D 4.1. Theoretical contributions
Investments. Specifically, higher levels of trust and satisfaction amplify
the impact of GCC on firms’ willingness to invest in green R&D This study offers several significant theoretical contributions to
initiatives. green innovation and sustainability literature.
This finding underscores the critical importance of the institutional Firstly, it extends the understanding of the relationship between
context in shaping firms’ sustainability practices. Institutional Theory green innovation performance and Green Core Competence (GCC) by
posits that organizations are influenced by the regulatory and normative providing empirical evidence of their positive association. This finding
environments in which they operate [10,46]. When firms trust the enriches existing knowledge by confirming that firms excelling in green
government and are satisfied with sustainability policies, they perceive a product innovations enhance their core competencies related to sus­
supportive environment that encourages investment in green in­ tainability, aligning with the principles of Dynamic Capabilities Theory
novations [48]. Firms that view government policies as credible and [6,15]. Moreover, this empirical validation supports the assertion that

10
F. Abdelfattah et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100461

dynamic capabilities are essential for firms to adapt to and thrive in Core Competence (GCC) for business practitioners. Firms should focus
rapidly changing environmental contexts, thereby reinforcing the on enhancing their green product innovations to build strong core
theoretical foundations of both Dynamic Capabilities Theory and competencies that drive further investments in green R&D. This includes
Resource-Based View (RBV). adopting environmentally friendly materials, optimizing product life­
Secondly, the research highlights the critical role of GCC in driving cycles, and embracing eco-design principles. For instance, companies
Green R&D Investments. The study deepens the literature on core can invest in research to develop biodegradable packaging materials or
competencies and innovation investment by demonstrating that firms implement lifecycle assessment tools to minimize environmental im­
with robust GCC are more inclined to allocate resources toward green pacts from product inception to disposal. Additionally, improving green
research and development. This underscores the importance of internal process innovations—such as energy-efficient manufacturing and waste
capabilities in fostering sustainable innovation and achieving a reduction—can contribute to operational efficiency and sustainability
competitive advantage. By establishing GCC as a mediator between performance. Businesses might adopt advanced manufacturing tech­
green innovation performance and R&D investments, the study provides nologies that reduce energy consumption or implement comprehensive
a nuanced understanding of how internal competencies translate into waste management systems that recycle and repurpose materials,
strategic investments, thereby bridging a gap in the existing literature. thereby lowering operational costs and environmental footprints.
Thirdly, by introducing Trust in Government (TG) and Satisfaction Fostering positive relationships with government entities is also
with Sustainability Government Policies (SWGM) as significant moder­ crucial. Firms can better align their strategies with supportive govern­
ating variables, the study offers a nuanced perspective on how external ment policies by engaging in dialogue with policymakers and staying
institutional factors enhance the effectiveness of green innovation stra­ informed about sustainability regulations. This alignment enhances the
tegies. This integration provides a more comprehensive framework for effectiveness of green innovation strategies and builds trust and satis­
understanding the dynamics between internal capabilities and external faction with governmental efforts, further encouraging proactive envi­
influences, contributing to Dynamic Capabilities Theory and Institu­ ronmental initiatives. For example, businesses can participate in public-
tional Theory [10,84]. The inclusion of these moderating variables private partnerships aimed at developing sustainable technologies or
demonstrates how the institutional environment interacts with organi­ join industry associations that advocate for favorable sustainability
zational capabilities to influence strategic outcomes, thereby enriching policies. Moreover, establishing regular communication channels with
the theoretical discourse on sustainability and innovation. government bodies can help firms stay updated on policy changes and
Collectively, these contributions advance the theoretical discourse provide feedback on the practicality and impact of existing regulations.
by bridging gaps between internal organizational capabilities and This collaborative approach not only ensures that policies are well-
external institutional contexts. The study emphasizes the synergistic informed and effective but also strengthens the trust between the pri­
effect of leveraging internal competencies and external support mech­ vate sector and government, fostering a mutually beneficial environ­
anisms to achieve sustainability objectives, thereby enriching the theory ment for sustainable innovation.
and practice of sustainable business management. Additionally, by Furthermore, the study emphasizes the role of organizational culture
contextualizing the findings within the Omani setting, the research and leadership in driving green innovation. Firms should cultivate a
highlights the applicability of these theoretical frameworks in emerging culture that values sustainability and encourages continuous improve­
economies, thus extending their relevance beyond developed contexts. ment in green practices. Leadership commitment to sustainability can
This regional focus also opens avenues for future research to explore inspire employees to embrace green initiatives and contribute innova­
similar dynamics in diverse economic and cultural settings, further tive ideas for reducing environmental impact. For example, leaders can
validating and expanding the theoretical models employed. establish sustainability committees, recognize and reward eco-friendly
Furthermore, the study contributes to the ongoing discourse on the practices, and provide training programs that educate employees
integration of sustainability into core business strategies by demon­ about the importance of green innovation. Such initiatives can enhance
strating the interplay between green innovation practices and institu­ employee engagement and foster a collective responsibility toward
tional factors. This integration aligns with contemporary trends in achieving the firm’s sustainability goals.
strategic management that advocate for the inclusion of sustainability as
a core component of organizational strategy, thereby providing theo­ 5. Limitations and future research
retical support for businesses aiming to achieve long-term sustainability
goals. Despite its contributions, this study has several limitations that
provide avenues for future research. First, using a convenience sampling
4.2. Practical contributions method may limit the generalizability of the findings. Future studies
could employ random sampling techniques to enhance the sample’s
The findings of this study have substantial practical implications for representativeness. Second, the study’s cross-sectional design does not
both policymakers and business practitioners. allow for examining causal relationships. Longitudinal studies could
For policymakers, the results underscore the importance of creating a provide deeper insights into the dynamics of green innovation and
supportive and trustworthy regulatory environment that enhances sustainability investments over time.
firms’ green innovation efforts. Policies that promote transparency and Furthermore, future research could explore additional moderating
consistency, along with providing tangible support for green ini­ variables, such as industry-specific factors such as organizational culture
tiatives—such as grants, tax incentives, and subsidies—can significantly or even AI [85], to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the
impact firms’ willingness to invest in Green R&D. For example, gov­ factors influencing green R&D investments. Finally, expanding the study
ernments can establish dedicated green innovation funds that offer to other countries could help validate the findings and offer a broader
financial assistance to firms developing sustainable technologies, perspective on the role of government trust and policy satisfaction in
thereby reducing the financial barriers to green R&D investments. different regulatory environments.
Aligning these policies with the goals of Oman’s Vision 2040 will further
propel national progress toward a sustainable economy and reinforce CRediT authorship contribution statement
the country’s commitment to environmental stewardship. Additionally,
implementing clear and consistent sustainability regulations can build Fadi Abdelfattah: Writing – original draft, Supervision, Resources,
trust among businesses, encouraging them to adopt and invest in sus­ Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Mohammed Salah: Writing –
tainable practices without fearing abrupt policy changes. original draft, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology,
The study highlights the necessity of investing in developing Green Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Khalid Dahleez:

11
F. Abdelfattah et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100461

Writing – original draft, Validation, Investigation, Formal analysis. Declaration of competing interest
Riyad Darwazeh: Visualization, Supervision, Methodology, Conceptu­
alization. Hussam Al Halbusi: Writing – original draft, Validation, The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Software, Methodology.

Appendix 1. Scale

Part 1: Green competitive capabilities

Item Statement

GCC1 The environmental capabilities, technologies, or know-how of the firm are rare in the marketplace.
GCC2 The environmental capabilities, technologies, or know-how of the firm are less imitable by competitors.
GCC3 The environmental capabilities, technologies, or know-how of the firm are difficult to be substituted.
GCC4 The environmental capabilities, technologies, or know-how of the firm provide potential access to meet a wide variety of environmental needs of markets.
GCC5 The environmental capabilities, technologies, or know-how of the firm make environmental contributions to customer benefits.

Part 2: Green product innovation performance

Item Statement

GPTIP1 The company chooses the materials of the product that produce the least amount of pollution for conducting the product development or design.
GPTIP2 The company chooses the materials of the product that consume the least amount of energy and resources for conducting the product development or design.
GPTIP3 The company uses the fewest amount of materials to comprise the product for conducting the product development or design.
GPTIP4 The company would circumspectly deliberate, whether the product is easy to recycle, reuse, and decompose for conducting the product development or design.

Part 3: Green process innovation performance

Item Statement

GPcIP1 The manufacturing process of the company effectively reduces the emission of hazardous substances or waste.
GPcIP2 The manufacturing process of the company recycles waste and emission that allow them to be treated and re-used.
GPcIP3 The manufacturing process of the company reduces the consumption of water, electricity, coal, or oil.
GPcIP4 The manufacturing process of the company reduces the use of raw materials.

Part 4: Green R&D investments

Item Statement

RDI1 The company trains the employees in recycling/reusing materials or parts.

RDI2 The company trains the employees in use of cleaner or renewable technology.
RDI3 The company trains the employees in disposal of production waste.
RDI4 The amount of R&D staff investments in green innovations in this company is considerable.
RDI5 The amount of R&D expenditures in green innovations in this company is substantial.

Part 4: Trust in government (sustainability policies)

Item Statement

TG1 Overall, the government demonstrates genuine care for environmental sustainability and the well-being of industries.
TG2 The government has kept its promises in supporting sustainability initiatives and policies.
TG3 The government’s sustainability policies and incentives effectively enable firms to pursue green innovations.

Part 5: Satisfaction with Sustainability Government Policies

Item Statement

SWGM1 How satisfied are you with the government’s measures to support sustainable development in your sector?
SWGM2 How satisfied are you with the clarity and transparency of sustainability-related policies?
SWGM3 How satisfied are you with the government’s efforts to communicate and promote sustainability policies?
SWGM4 How satisfied are you with the effectiveness of government incentives in encouraging green R&D investments?

12
F. Abdelfattah et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100461

Data availability small and medium enterprises in the manufacturing sector, J. Clean. Prod. 356
(2022) 131712.
[29] K. Chirumalla, Building digitally-enabled process innovation in the process
Data will be made available on request. industries: a dynamic capabilities approach, Technovation 105 (2021) 102256.
[30] C. Salvato, R. Vassolo, The sources of dynamism in dynamic capabilities, Strat.
Manage. J. 39 (6) (2018) 1728–1752.
References [31] A. Cherrafi, J.A. Garza-Reyes, V. Kumar, N. Mishra, A. Ghobadian, S. Elfezazi,
Lean, green practices and process innovation: a model for green supply chain
[1] C. Kılıç, G. Atilla, Industry 4.0 and sustainable business models: an intercontinental performance, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 206 (2018) 79–92.
sample, Bus. Strat. Environ. 33 (4) (2024) 3142–3166. [32] J. Ferreira, S. Cardim, A. Coelho, Dynamic capabilities and mediating effects of
[2] D.J. Teece, G. Pisano, A. Shuen, Dynamic capabilities and strategic management, innovation on the competitive advantage and firm’s performance: the moderating
Strat. Manage. J. 18 (7) (1997) 509–533. role of organizational learning capability, J. Knowl. Econ. 12 (2021) 620–644.
[3] F. Abdelfattah, M. Salah, K. Dahleez, R. Darwazeh, The future of competitive [33] C.L. Wang, P.K. Ahmed, Dynamic capabilities: a review and research agenda, Int. J.
advantage in Oman: integrating green product innovation, AI, and intellectual Manage. Rev. 9 (1) (2007) 31–51.
capital in business strategies, Int. J. Innov. Stud. (2024), https://doi.org/10.1016/ [34] E. Duque-Grisales, J. Aguilera-Caracuel, J. Guerrero-Villegas, E. García-Sánchez,
j.ijis.2024.02.001. Does green innovation affect the financial performance of multilatinas? The
[4] T. Eltayeb, S. Zailani, Going green through green supply chain initiatives toward moderating role of ISO 14001 and R&D investment, Bus. Strat. Environ. 29 (8)
environmental sustainability, Oper. Suppl. Chain Manage.: Int. J. 2 (2) (2014) (2020) 3286–3302.
93–110. [35] J. Horbach, Determinants of environmental innovation—new evidence from
[5] Y. Tu, W. Wu, How does green innovation improve enterprises’ competitive German panel data sources, Res. Policy 37 (1) (2008) 163–173.
advantage? The role of organizational learning, Sustain. Prod. Consump. 26 (2021) [36] B. Yuan, X. Cao, Do corporate social responsibility practices contribute to green
504–516. innovation? The mediating role of green dynamic capability, Technol. Soc. 68
[6] Y.-S. Chen, The driver of green innovation and green image–green core (2022) 101868.
competence, J. Bus. Ethics 81 (2008) 531–543. [37] F.-I. Kuo, W.-T. Fang, B.A. LePage, Proactive environmental strategies in the hotel
[7] X. Qu, A. Khan, S. Yahya, A.U. Zafar, M. Shahzad, Green core competencies to industry: eco-innovation, green competitive advantage, and green core
prompt green absorptive capacity and bolster green innovation: the moderating competence, J. Sustain. Tour. 30 (6) (2022) 1240–1261.
role of organization’s green culture, J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 65 (3) (2022) [38] J. Barney, Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, J. Manage. 17 (1)
536–561. (1991) 99–120.
[8] G. Afeltra, S.A. Alerasoul, F. Strozzi, The evolution of sustainable innovation: from [39] Blind, P.K. (2007). Building trust in government in the twenty-first century: review
the past to the future, Eur. J. Innov. Manage. 26 (2) (2023) 386–421. of literature and emerging issues. 7th global forum on reinventing government
[9] M.J. Bataineh, P. Sánchez-Sellero, F. Ayad, Green is the new black: How research building trust in government.
and development and green innovation provide businesses a competitive edge, Bus. [40] M.S. Hassan, H. Al Halbusi, A. Razali, R.N.R. Ariffin, K.A. Williams, The Swedish
Strat. Environ. 33 (2) (2024) 1004–1023. gamble: trust in the government and self-efficacy in the battle to combat COVID-
[10] P.J. DiMaggio, W.W. Powell, The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism 19, Curr. Psychol. (2022) 1–16.
and collective rationality in organizational fields, Am. Sociol. Rev. 48 (2) (1983) [41] L. Albareda, J.M. Lozano, T. Ysa, Public policies on corporate social responsibility:
147–160. the role of governments in Europe, J. Bus. Ethics 74 (2007) 391–407.
[11] F. Abdelfattah, A. Al-Alawi, M.S. Abdullahi, M. Salah, Embracing the industrial [42] Z. Yu, P. Huang, Local governments’ incentives and governing practices in low-
revolution: the impact of technological advancements and government policies on carbon transition: a comparative study of solar water heater governance in four
tourism development in Oman, J. Policy Res. Tour. Leis. Events 1-25 (2023). Chinese cities, Cities 96 (2020) 102477.
[12] O. Hart, Corporate governance: some theory and implications, Econ. J. 105 (430) [43] S. Mohammed, R.N.R. Ariffin, N. Mansor, H. Al Halbusi, Rebelliousness and street-
(1995) 678–689. level bureaucrats’ discretion: evidence from Malaysia, J. Administr. Sci. 18 (1)
[13] M.V. Russo, P.A. Fouts, A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental (2021) 173–198.
performance and profitability, Acad. Manage. J. 40 (3) (1997) 534–559. [44] D. Li, M. Huang, S. Ren, X. Chen, L. Ning, Environmental legitimacy, green
[14] R.M. Dangelico, D. Pujari, P. Pontrandolfo, Green product innovation in innovation, and corporate carbon disclosure: evidence from CDP China 100, J. Bus.
manufacturing firms: a sustainability-oriented dynamic capability perspective, Bus. Ethics 150 (2018) 1089–1104.
Strat. Environ. 26 (4) (2017) 490–506. [45] S. Ilyas, Z. Hu, K. Wiwattanakornwong, Unleashing the role of top management
[15] D.J. Teece, Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of and government support in green supply chain management and sustainable
(sustainable) enterprise performance, Strat. Manage. J. 28 (13) (2007) 1319–1350. development goals, Environ. Sci. Poll. Res. 27 (8) (2020) 8210–8223.
[16] Y.-S. Chen, C.-H. Chang, The determinants of green product development [46] A.K. Gupta, N. Gupta, Environment practices mediating the environmental
performance: green dynamic capabilities, green transformational leadership, and compliance and firm performance: an institutional theory perspective from
green creativity, J. Bus. Ethics 116 (2013) 107–119. emerging economies, Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manage. 22 (3) (2021) 157–178.
[17] K.B. Kahn, Understanding innovation, Bus. Horiz. 61 (3) (2018) 453–460. [47] M. Salah, F. Abdelfattah, H. Al Halbusi, M. Mohammed, Beyond the “death of
[18] W. Song, G.Z. Wang, X. Ma, Environmental innovation practices and green product research, in: Reimagining the Human–AI Collaboration in Scientific Research, 7,
innovation performance: a perspective from organizational climate, Sustain. Changing Societies & Personalities, 2023, pp. 31–46, 2023Vol. 7. Iss4.
Develop. 28 (1) (2020) 224–234. [48] M. Shahzad, Y. Qu, S.A. Javed, A.U. Zafar, S.U. Rehman, Relation of environment
[19] C.Y. Wong, C.W. Wong, S. Boon-itt, Effects of green supply chain integration and sustainability to CSR and green innovation: a case of Pakistani manufacturing
green innovation on environmental and cost performance, Int. J. Prod. Res. 58 (15) industry, J. Clean. Prod. 253 (2020) 119938.
(2020) 4589–4609. [49] P.M. Clarkson, Y. Li, G.D. Richardson, F.P. Vasvari, Does it really pay to be green?
[20] Y. Zhu, H. Zhang, A.B. Siddik, Y. Zheng, F.A. Sobhani, Understanding corporate Determinants and consequences of proactive environmental strategies, J. Acc.
green competitive advantage through green technology adoption and green Publ. Policy 30 (2) (2011) 122–144.
dynamic capabilities: does green product innovation matter? Systems 11 (9) [50] O. Abdelsalam, A. Chantziaras, N.L. Joseph, N. Tsileponis, Trust matters: a global
(2023) 461. perspective on the influence of trust on bank market risk, J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst.
[21] J. Andersen, A relational natural-resource-based view on product innovation: the Money 92 (2024) 101959.
influence of green product innovation and green suppliers on differentiation [51] Y. Hu, W. Bai, M. Farrukh, C.K. Koo, How does environmental policy uncertainty
advantage in small manufacturing firms, Technovation 104 (2021) 102254. influence corporate green investments? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 189 (2023)
[22] M.E. Porter, C.v.d. Linde, Toward a new conception of the environment- 122330.
competitiveness relationship, J. Econ. Perspect. 9 (4) (1995) 97–118. [52] Oman Vision 2040 Implementation Follow-up Unit. (n.d.). Oman Vision 2040.
[23] X. Xie, J. Huo, H. Zou, Green process innovation, green product innovation, and Retrieved August 2024, from https://www.oman2040.om/vision?lang=en.
corporate financial performance: a content analysis method, J. Bus. Res. 101 [53] T. Tran, H. Do, T. Vu, N. Do, The factors affecting green investment for sustainable
(2019) 697–706. development, Decis. Sci. Lett. 9 (3) (2020) 365–386.
[24] F. Hermundsdottir, A. Aspelund, Competitive sustainable manufacturing- [54] J.G. Martínez-Navalón, V. Gelashvili, J.R. Saura, The impact of environmental
Sustainability strategies, environmental and social innovations, and their effects on social media publications on user satisfaction with and trust in tourism businesses,
firm performance, J. Clean. Prod. 370 (2022) 133474. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 17 (15) (2020) 5417.
[25] H. Gmelin, S. Seuring, Determinants of a sustainable new product development, [55] R. Owen, G. Brennan, F. Lyon, Enabling investment for the transition to a low
J. Clean. Prod. 69 (2014) 1–9. carbon economy: government policy to finance early stage green innovation, Curr.
[26] R.M. Dangelico, D. Pujari, Mainstreaming green product innovation: why and how Opin. Environ. Sustain. 31 (2018) 137–145.
companies integrate environmental sustainability, J. Bus. Ethics 95 (2010) [56] M.-H. Weng, C.-Y. Lin, Determinants of green innovation adoption for small and
471–486. medium-size enterprises (SMES), Afr. J. Bus. Manage. 5 (22) (2011) 9154.
[27] M. Wang, Y. Li, J. Li, Z. Wang, Green process innovation, green product innovation [57] D. Adams, J. Donovan, C. Topple, Sustainability in large food and beverage
and its economic performance improvement paths: a survey and structural model, companies and their supply chains: an investigation into key drivers and barriers
J. Environ. Manage. 297 (2021) 113282. affecting sustainability strategies, Bus. Strat. Environ. 32 (4) (2023) 1451–1463.
[28] M. İncekara, Determinants of process reengineering and waste management as
resource efficiency practices and their impact on production cost performance of

13
F. Abdelfattah et al. Sustainable Futures 9 (2025) 100461

[58] J. Luft Mobus, Mandatory environmental disclosures in a legitimacy theory [74] M.S. Hassan, H. Al Halbusi, A.B. Ahmad, F. Abdelfattah, Z. Thamir, R.N. Raja
context, Acc. Audit. Acc. J. 18 (4) (2005) 492–517. Ariffin, Discretion and its effects: analyzing the role of street-level bureaucrats’
[59] M. Guerci, A. Longoni, D. Luzzini, Translating stakeholder pressures into enforcement styles, Int. Rev. Public Admin. 28 (4) (2023) 480–502.
environmental performance–the mediating role of green HRM practices, Int. J. [75] B. Ahmad, I. Shafique, A. Qammar, M. Ercek, M.N. Kalyar, Prompting green
Hum. Resour. Manage. 27 (2) (2016) 262–289. product and process innovation: examining the effects of green transformational
[60] C. Marsden, J. Andriof, Towards an understanding of corporate citizenship and leadership and dynamic capabilities, Technol. Anal. Strat. Manage. (2022) 1–13.
how to influence it, Citizensh. Stud. 2 (2) (1998) 329–352. [76] Y. Liao, Y. Li, Complementarity effect of supply chain competencies on innovation
[61] M.A. Delmas, M.W. Toffel, Organizational responses to environmental demands: capability, Bus. Proc. Manage. J. 25 (6) (2019) 1251–1272.
opening the black box, Strat. Manage. J. 29 (10) (2008) 1027–1055. [77] A. Saka-Helmhout, P. Álamos-Concha, M.M. López, J. Hagan, G. Murray,
[62] Y. Quan, H. Wu, S. Li, S.X. Ying, Firm sustainable development and stakeholder T. Edwards, P. Kern, I. Martin, L.E. Zhang, Stakeholder engagement strategies for
engagement: the role of government support, Bus. Strat. Environ. 27 (8) (2018) impactful corporate social innovation initiatives by multinational enterprises,
1145–1158. J. Int. Manage. 30 (2024) 101159.
[63] T. Roh, K. Lee, J.Y. Yang, How do intellectual property rights and government [78] B.J. Mariadoss, P.S. Tansuhaj, N. Mouri, Marketing capabilities and innovation-
support drive a firm’s green innovation? The mediating role of open innovation, based strategies for environmental sustainability: an exploratory investigation of
J. Clean. Prod. 317 (2021) 128422. B2B firms, Ind. Mark. Manage. 40 (8) (2011) 1305–1318.
[64] M.S. Hassan, R.N.R. Ariffin, N. Mansor, H. Al Halbusi, The moderating role of [79] Z. Ullah, N. Ahmad, Z. Nazim, M. Ramzan, Impact of CSR on corporate reputation,
willingness to implement policy on street-level bureaucrats’ multidimensional customer loyalty and organizational performance, Govern. Manage. Rev. 5 (2)
enforcement style and discretion, Int. J. Publ. Administr. 46 (6) (2023) 430–444. (2020) 195–210.
[65] J.W. Creswell, J.D. Creswell. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed [80] V. Amendolagine, R. Lema, R. Rabellotti, Green foreign direct investments and the
methods approaches, Sage publications, 2017. deepening of capabilities for sustainable innovation in multinationals: insights
[66] American Psychological Association. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of from renewable energy, J. Clean. Prod. 310 (2021) 127381.
conduct, 2016. [81] S.-P. Chuang, S.-J. Huang, The effect of environmental corporate social
[67] Y.-S. Chen, S.-B. Lai, C.-T. Wen, The influence of green innovation performance on responsibility on environmental performance and business competitiveness: the
corporate advantage in Taiwan, J. Bus. Ethics 67 (2006) 331–339. mediation of green information technology capital, J. Bus. Ethics 150 (2018)
[68] M. Salah, H. Al Halbusi, A. Najem, A. Razali, F.A.M.A. Fattah, K.A. Williams, Risk 991–1009.
perception, self-efficacy, trust in government, and the moderating role of perceived [82] Z. Liu, X. Li, X. Peng, S. Lee, Green or nongreen innovation? Different strategic
social media content during the COVID-19 pandemic, Chang. Soc. Personal. 5 (1) preferences among subsidized enterprises with different ownership types, J. Clean.
(2021) 9–35, https://doi.org/10.15826/csp.2021.5.1.120. 2021. Vol. 5. Iss. 1. Prod. 245 (2020) 118786.
[69] B. Saunders, J. Sim, T. Kingstone, S. Baker, J. Waterfield, B. Bartlam, H. Burroughs, [83] J.G. Arbuckle Jr, L.W. Morton, J. Hobbs, Understanding farmer perspectives on
C. Jinks, Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and climate change adaptation and mitigation: the roles of trust in sources of climate
operationalization, Qual. Quant. 52 (2018) 1893–1907. information, climate change beliefs, and perceived risk, Environ. Behav. 47 (2)
[70] J.F. Hair, J.J. Risher, M. Sarstedt, C.M. Ringle, When to use and how to report the (2015) 205–234.
results of PLS-SEM, Eur. Bus. Rev. 31 (1) (2019) 2–24. [84] M.S. Hassan, R.N. Raja Ariffin, N. Mansor, H. Al Halbusi, An examination of street-
[71] C. Fornell, D.F. Larcker, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable level bureaucrats’ discretion and the moderating role of supervisory support:
variables and measurement error, J. Market. Res. 18 (1) (1981) 39–50. evidence from the field, Adm. Sci. 11 (3) (2021) 65.
[72] J. Henseler, C.M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, A new criterion for assessing discriminant [85] M. Salah, F. Abdelfattah, H. Al Halbusi, The good, the bad, and the GPT: reviewing
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling, J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 43 (1) the impact of generative artificial intelligence on psychology, Curr. Opin. Psychol.
(2015) 115–135. (2024) 101872.
[73] P. Kline. A handbook of test construction (psychology revivals): introduction to
psychometric design, Routledge, 2015.

14