CEO characteristics influence their strategic preferences, which are crucial for promoting corporate green innovation (GI). However, the influence and its mechanisms of CEO green experience (GreCEO) on GI of energy firms, especially when comparing different firm types holistically, remain understudied. This study used a moderated mediation model with fixed effects to examine the relationship between GreCEO and GI of energy firms, based on the unbalanced panel data of 821 listed Chinese energy firms during 2004–2021. We find that: (1) GreCEO positively affects energy firms’ GI. (2) Heterogeneity exists in the GI effect of GreCEO regarding business ownership and industry characteristics, and this effect is more prominent in non-state-owned energy firms and high-tech energy firms. (3) Green management (GM) and debt-to-asset ratio (DAR) partially mediate GreCEO's impact on GI of energy firms. (4) Renewable energy policy (REP) moderates the relationship between GreCEO and GI of energy firms, and its influencing mechanisms. In contrast to studies that focus on the direct effect of CEO characteristics on GI, this study identifies the potential influencing mechanisms through which GreCEO affects GI of energy firms. In addition, the moderation analysis reveals the boundary condition that GreCEO affects GI, enriching our understanding of GreCEO's effect on GI from the perspective of a firm's internal conditions and external policy environment. Regarding green development, CEOs’ early experience should be included in the management system and evaluation criteria of energy firms. The Chinese government should continue to implement the REP and accelerate energy firms’ green transition.
BarutACitilMAhmedZ, et al.How do economic and financial factors influence green logistics? A comparative analysis of E7 and G7 nations. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 1011–1022.
2.
LiCSampeneAKAgyemanFO, et al.The role of green finance and energy innovation in neutralizing environmental pollution: empirical evidence from the MINT economies. J Environ Manag2022; 317: 115500.
3.
AdebayoTSKartalMTAgM, et al.Role of country risks and renewable energy consumption on environmental quality: evidence from MINT countries. J Environ Manag2023; 327: 116884.
4.
IrfanMUllahSRazzaqA, et al.Unleashing the dynamic impact of tourism industry on energy consumption, economic output, and environmental quality in China: a way forward towards environmental sustainability. J Clean Prod2023; 387: 135778.
5.
ZhangDYKongQX. How does energy policy affect firms’ outward foreign direct investment: an explanation based on investment motivation and firms’ performance. Energy Policy2021; 158: 112548.
6.
GaoSQiaoRLimMK, et al.Integrating corporate website information into qualitative assessment for benchmarking green supply chain management practices for the chemical industry. J Clean Prod2021; 311: 127590.
7.
ZhangDYKongQX. Renewable energy policy, green investment, and sustainability of energy firms. Renew Energy2022; 192: 118–133.
8.
ZhangSLLiuXFDuYN. When and how authoritarian leadership influences employee innovation behavior in the context of Chinese culture. Leadersh Organ Dev J2021; 42: 722–734.
9.
LuJCJiangGS. Can CEO green experience promotes the green innovation?Bus Manag J2022; 44: 106–121.
10.
LiXGuoFWangJQ. A path towards enterprise environmental performance improvement: how does CEO green experience matter?Bus Strat Environ2023; 1-19. forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3524
11.
ZhaoXLZhaoYZengSX, et al.Corporate behavior and competitiveness: impact of environmental regulation on Chinese firms. J Clean Prod2015; 86: 311–322.
12.
BeladiHDengJHuM. Cash flow uncertainty, financial constraints and R&D investment. Int Rev Financ Anal2021; 76: 101785.
13.
XiangXJLiuCJYangM. Who is financing corporate green innovation?Int Rev Econ Finance2022; 78: 321–337.
14.
CitilMIlbasmisMVOO, et al.Does green finance and institutional quality play an important role in air quality. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 53962–53976.
15.
BarutAKayaEBekunFV, et al.Environmental sustainability amidst financial inclusion in five fragile economies: evidence from lens of environmental Kuznets curve. Energy2023; 269: 126802.
16.
WenZLHauKTZhangL. A comparison of moderator moderator mediator and their applications. Acta Psychol Sin2005; 37: 268–274.
17.
DasNGangopadhyayPAlghamdiT, et al.Understanding the role of efficiency in the electricity generation process for promoting human development in India: findings from the novel multiple threshold nonlinear ARDL modelling. Util Policy2023; 82: 101554.
18.
ZhangDYKongQX. Green energy transition and sustainable development of energy firms: an assessment of renewable energy policy. Energy Econ2022; 111: 106060.
19.
AdebayoTSKartalMTUllahS. Role of hydroelectricity and natural gas consumption on environmental sustainability in the United States: evidence from novel time-frequency approaches. J Environ Manag2023; 328: 116987.
20.
WangYYuLH. Can the current environmental tax rate promote green technology innovation? - Evidence from China’s resource-based industries. J Clean Prod2021; 278: 123443.
21.
AlolaAAAdebayoTS. Analysing the waste management, industrial and agriculture greenhouse gas emissions of biomass, fossil fuel, and metallic ores utilization in Iceland. Sci Total Environ2023; 887: 164115.
22.
WangZCLiXYXueXH, et al.More government subsidies, more green innovation? The evidence from Chinese new energy vehicle enterprises. Renew Energy2022; 197: 11–21.
23.
YangQCZhengMBChangCP. Energy policy and green innovation: a quantile investigation into renewable energy. Renew Energy2022; 189: 1166–1175.
24.
YanXZhangY. The effects of green innovation and environmental management on the environmental performance and value of a firm: an empirical study of energy-intensive listed companies in China. Environ Sci Pollut Res2021; 28: 35870–35879.
25.
AdebayoTSUllahS. Formulating sustainable development policies for China within the framework of socioeconomic conditions and government stability. Environ Pollut2023; 328: 121673.
26.
YuCHWuXQZhangDY, et al.Demand for green finance: resolving financing constraints on green innovation in China. Energy Policy2021; 153: 112255.
27.
YanZMSunZShiR, et al.Smart city and green development: empirical evidence from the perspective of green technological innovation. Technol Forecast Soc Change2023; 191: 122507.
28.
HambrickDCMasonPA. Upper echelons: the organization as a reflection of its top managers. Acad Manag Rev1982; 1982: 12–16.
29.
QuanXFKeYQianYT, et al.CEO Foreign experience and green innovation: evidence from China. J Bus Ethics2023; 182: 535–557.
30.
ZhangYMLiuHLiMH. Does chief executive officer turnover affect green innovation quality and quantity? Evidence from China’s manufacturing enterprises. Environ Sci Pollut Res2022; 30: 81760–81782.
31.
GalbreathJ. Drivers of green innovations: the impact of export intensity, women leaders, and absorptive capacity. J Bus Ethics2019; 158: 47–61.
32.
RenSGWangYHuYC, et al.CEO Hometown identity and firm green innovation. Bus Strateg Environ2021; 30: 756–774.
33.
KissANCortesAFHerrmannP. CEO Proactiveness, innovation, and firm performance. Leadersh Quart2022; 33: 101545.
34.
Al MamunMBoubakerSGhafoorA, et al.Is marriage a turning point? Evidence from cash holdings behaviour. British J Manag2023; 0: 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12732
35.
ChenYZHuangSH. CEO Reputation and corporate risk-taking: managerial competence or managerial defence?Emerg Mark Finance Trade2023; forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2022.2164691
36.
LeeHChoiDLeeH-Y, et al.CEO overconfidence, loan-loss provisions, and the effect of country corruption: an international investigation. Emerg Mark Finance Trade2023; 59: 1835–1851.
37.
ChenJ. A juggling act: CEO polychronicity and firm innovation. Leadersh Quart2022; 33: 101380.
38.
JahangerAHossainMRAwanA, et al.Linking tourist’s footprint and environmental tragedy through transportation, globalization and energy choice in BIMSTEC region: directions for a sustainable solution using novel GMM-PVAR approach. J Environ Manag2023; 345: 118551.
39.
GuYHoKCYanC, et al.Public environmental concern, CEO turnover, and green investment: evidence from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Energy Econ2021; 100: 105379.
40.
ZhouMLChenFLChenZF. Can CEO education promote environmental innovation: evidence from Chinese enterprises. J Clean Prod2021; 297: 126725.
41.
SarfrazMHeBShahSGM. Elucidating the effectiveness of cognitive CEO on corporate environmental performance: the mediating role of corporate innovation. Environ Sci Pollut Res2020; 27: 45938–45948.
42.
CainelliGDe MarchiVGrandinettiR. Does the development of environmental innovation require different resources? Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. J Clean Prod2015; 94: 211–220.
43.
RenSTangGJacksonSE. Effects of green HRM and CEO ethical leadership on organizations’ environmental performance. Int J Manpow2021; 42: 961–983.
44.
YiLQLiTZhangXY, et al.CEO Power and corporate green governance from the perspective of input-output efficiency. Emerg Mark Finance Trade2022; 59: 836–847.
45.
ZhaoZBWangLQWuJ, et al.The threshold effect of financing channels on the R&D investment: evidence from the manufacturing companies in China. Technol Anal Strateg Manag2023; 35: 1024–1037.
46.
JiaNHuangKGZhangCM. Public governance, corporate governance, and firm innovation: an examination of state-owned enterprises. Acad Manag J2019; 62: 220–247.
47.
LeeKHMinB. Green R&D for eco-innovation and its impact on carbon emissions and firm performance. J Clean Prod2015; 108: 534–542.
48.
HuangMLiMYLiaoZH. Do politically connected CEOs promote Chinese listed industrial firms’ green innovation? The mediating role of external governance environments. J Clean Prod2021; 278: 123634.
49.
ShahzadMQuYZafarAU, et al.Exploring the influence of knowledge management process on corporate sustainable performance through green innovation. J Knowl Manag2020; 24: 2079–2106.
50.
JiakuiCAbbasJNajamH, et al.Green technological innovation, green finance, and financial development and their role in green total factor productivity: empirical insights from China. J Clean Prod2023; 382: 135131.
51.
XiaLGaoSWeiJC, et al.Government subsidy and corporate green innovation - does board governance play a role?Energy Policy2022; 161: 113115.
52.
XiLSZhaoH. Senior executive dual environmental cognition, green innovation and enterprise sustainable development performance. Bus Manag J2022; 44: 139–158.
53.
TevisSERogersAPCarchmanEH, et al.Clinically competent and fiscally at risk: impact of debt and financial parameters on the surgical resident. J Am Coll Surg2018; 227: 163–171e7.
54.
DengYLYouDMWangJJ. Optimal strategy for enterprises’ green technology innovation from the perspective of political competition. J Clean Prod2019; 235: 930–942.
55.
FariaJRTindallGTerjesenS. The Green Tobin’s q: theory and evidence. Energy Econ2022; 110: 106033.
WenZLFangJXieJY, et al.Methodological research on mediation effects in China’s mainland. Adv Psychol Sci2022; 30: 1692–1702.
58.
JovanovicB. Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica1982; 50: 649–670.
59.
PellegrinoG. Barriers to innovation in young and mature firms. J Evol Econ2018; 28: 181–206.
60.
FeldJZölitzU. Understanding peer effects: on the nature, estimation, and channels of peer effects. J Labor Econ2017; 35: 387–428.
61.
HeckmanJJUrzuaSVytlacilE. Understanding instrumental variables in models with essential heterogeneity. Rev Econ Stat2006; 88: 389–432.
62.
CarneiroPHeckmanJJVytlacilEJ. Estimating marginal returns to education. Am Econ Rev2011; 101: 2754–2781.
63.
BrinchCNMogstadMWiswallM. Beyond LATE with a discrete instrument. J Polit Econ2017; 125: 985–1039.
64.
MeyerRDDalalRSHermidaR. A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. J Manag2010; 36: 121–140.
65.
TangYKAkramACiocaL-I, et al.Whether an innovation act as a catalytic moderator between corporate social responsibility performance and stated owned and non-state owned enterprises’ performance or not? An evidence from Pakistani listed firms. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag2021; 28: 1127–1141.
66.
PanXChengWYGaoYN. The impact of privatization of state-owned enterprises on innovation in China: a tale of privatization degree. Technovat2022; 118: 102587.
67.
LawKMYLauAKWIpAWH. The impacts of knowledge management practices on innovation activities in high- and low-tech firms. J Glob Inf Manag2021; 29: 1–25.
