Contemporary organizations are actively striving to achieve a higher level of environmental performance (the extent to which the organization reduces and minimizes its negative impact on the natural environment). This pursuit is not only driven by the need to comply with governmental climate change regulations but also by the desire to gain a competitive advantage. While a limited number of studies have acknowledged the importance of top executives’ strategy-making on firms’ environmental performance, questions still persist regarding how the role structure of the top management team (TMT) promotes the disclosure of environmental policies, and subsequently enhances firm environmental performance. Based on the attention-based view and resource-dependency perspective, this study aims to examine how TMT functional diversity is beneficial for formulating better environmental disclosures, which in turn, is expected to increase environmental performance. Additionally, we explore the extent to which external resources (i.e., government subsidies) can strengthen this relationship. We employed an archival dataset from 406 Chinese manufacturing firms over a ten-year period (2010–2019) and tested a moderated mediation model. Our findings suggest that greater functional diversity within TMTs positively influences firm environmental performance through the improved environmental disclosures, and this indirect effect is amplified when firms receive higher levels of government subsidies. Our study contributes to the existing literature on environmental governance by demonstrating that (1) functional diversity within the TMT can predict more favorable environmental performance metrics; and (2) government financial support can particularly be a booster for the relationship between TMT environmental disclosures and firm environmental performance.
AkgünA. E.LynnG. S.ByrneJ. C. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of unlearning in new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00182.x
2.
Ali MemonM.CheahJ.-H.RamayahT.TingH.ChuahF. (2018). Mediation analysis issues and recommendations. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, 2(1), 2590–4221. https://doi.org/10.47263/jasem.2(1)01
3.
AnvariA.ZulkifliN.Mohd YusuffR. (2011). Evaluation of approaches to safety in lean manufacturing and safety management systems and clarification of the relationship between them. World Applied Sciences Journal, 15(1), 19–26.
4.
ArocenaP.OrcosR.ZouaghiF. (2021). The impact of ISO 14001 on firm environmental and economic performance: The moderating role of size and environmental awareness. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(2), 955–967. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2663
5.
AuhS.MengucB. (2005). The influence of top management team functional diversity on strategic orientations: The moderating role of environmental turbulence and inter-functional coordination. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(3), 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2004.12.003
6.
BooneC.HendriksW. (2009). Top management team diversity and firm performance: Moderators of functional-background and locus-of-control diversity. Management Science, 55(2), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0899
7.
BraamG. J. M.Uit De WeerdL.HauckM.HuijbregtsM. A. J. (2016). Determinants of corporate environmental reporting: The importance of environmental performance and assurance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 129, 724–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.039
8.
BuylT.BooneC.HendriksW.MatthyssensP. (2011). Top management team functional diversity and firm performance: The moderating role of CEO characteristics. Journal of Management Studies, 48(1), 151–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00932.x
9.
CampbellK.Mínguez-VeraA. (2008). Gender diversity in the boardroom and firm financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(3), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9630-y
10.
CannellaA.ParkJ.LeeH. (2008). Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance: Examining the roles of team member colocation and environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 768–784. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2008.33665310
11.
CarmeliA.SheafferZ.Yitzack HaleviM. (2009). Does participatory decision-making in top management teams enhance decision effectiveness and firm performance?Personnel Review, 38(6), 696–714. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480910992283
12.
CarpenterM. A.GeletkanyczM. A.SandersW. G. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30(6), 749–778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.001
13.
CarpenterM. A.SandersW. G. (2004). The effects of top management team pay and firm internationalization on MNC performance. Journal of Management, 30(4), 509–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.02.001
14.
ChenX.GongX.LiD.ZhangJ. (2019). Can information and communication technology reduce CO 2 emission? A quantile regression analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 26(32), 32977–32992. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-06380-8
15.
CottiC.SkidmoreM. (2010). The impact of state government subsidies and tax credits in an emerging industry: Ethanol production 1980–2007. Southern Economic Journal, 76(4), 1076–1093. https://doi.org/10.4284/sej.2010.76.4.1076
16.
CuervaM. C.Triguero-CanoÁ.CórcolesD. (2014). Drivers of green and non-green innovation: Empirical evidence in Low-Tech SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 68, 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.049
17.
DemirelP.KesidouE. (2011). Stimulating different types of eco-innovation in the UK: Government policies and firm motivations. Ecological Economics, 70(8), 1546–1557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.019
Díaz-FernándezM. C.González-RodríguezM. R.SimonettiB. (2016). The role played by job and non-job-related TMT diversity traits on firm performance and strategic change. Management Decision, 54(5), 1110–1139. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-10-2015-0464
20.
Dixon-FowlerH. R.EllstrandA. E.JohnsonJ. L. (2017). The role of board environmental committees in corporate environmental performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 140(3), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2664-7
21.
DmytriyevS. D.FreemanR. E.HörischJ. (2021). The relationship between stakeholder theory and corporate social responsibility: Differences, similarities, and implications for social issues in management. Journal of Management Studies, 58(6), 1441–1470. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12684
22.
DoughertyD. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.2.179
23.
DragomirV. D. (2018). How do we measure corporate environmental performance? A critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 1124–1157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.014
24.
ElmagrhiM. H.NtimC. G.ElamerA. A.ZhangQ. (2019). A study of environmental policies and regulations, governance structures, and environmental performance: The role of female directors. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 206–220. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2250
25.
EpsteinM. J.RoyM.-J. (2003). Improving sustainability performance: Specifying, Implementing and measuring key principles. Journal of General Management, 29(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630700302900101
26.
EvansW. R.CarsonC. M. (2005). A social capital explanation of the relationship between functional diversity and group performance. Team Performance Management: International Journal, 11(7/8), 302–315. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590510635170
27.
EwejeG.SakakiM. (2015). CSR in Japanese companies: Perspectives from managers. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24(7), 678–687. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1894
28.
FuR.TangY.ChenG. (2020). Chief sustainability officers and corporate social (Ir)responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 41(4), 656–680. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3113
29.
GabaldonP.KanadlıS. B.BankewitzM. (2018). How does job-related diversity affect boards’ strategic participation? An information-processing approach. Long Range Planning, 51(6), 937–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.02.005
30.
GaoS. S.ZhangJ. J. (2006). Stakeholder engagement, social auditing and corporate sustainability. Business Process Management Journal, 12(6), 722–740. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150610710891
GuadalupeM.LiH.WulfJ. (2014). Who lives in the C-suite? Organizational structure and the division of labor in top management. Management Science, 60(4), 824–844. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1795
33.
GunninghamN. (2009). Shaping corporate environmental performance: A review. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(4), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.510
34.
GuoF.ZouB.ZhangX.BoQ.LiK. (2020). Financial slack and firm performance of SMMEs in China: Moderating effects of government subsidies and market-supporting institutions. International Journal of Production Economics, 223, 107530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107530
35.
HayesA. (2013). Integrating mediation and moderation analysis: Fundamentals using PROCESS. Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis. Guilford Publications.
36.
HeG.LuY.MolA. P. J.BeckersT. (2012). Changes and challenges: China’s environmental management in transition. Environmental Development, 3, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2012.05.005
37.
HechtT. D.AllenN. J. (2009). Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 839–862. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.579
38.
HenryL. A.BuylT.JansenR. J.JansenJ. G. (2019). Leading corporate sustainability: The role of top management team composition for triple bottom line performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2247
39.
HerrmannP.NadkarniS. (2010). CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The case of the Indian business process outsourcing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1050–1073. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.54533196
40.
HittM. A.TylerB. B. (1991). Strategic decision models: Integrating different perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 12(5), 327–351.
41.
HodgeM. M.PiccoloR. F. (2005). Funding source, board involvement techniques, and financial vulnerability in nonprofit organizations: A test of resource dependence. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 16(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.99
42.
HombergF.BuiH. T. M. (2013). Top management team diversity: A systematic review. Group & Organization Management, 38(4), 455–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601113493925
43.
HongT.HoangV.PrzychodzenW.PrzychodzenJ.SegbotangniE. A. (2021). Environmental transparency and performance: Does the corporate governance matter?Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 10, 100123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2021.100123
44.
HuD.QiuL.SheM.WangY. (2021). Sustaining the sustainable development: How do firms turn government green subsidies into financial performance through green innovation?Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(5), 2271–2292. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2746
45.
HuangZ.LiaoG.LiZ. (2019). Loaning scale and government subsidy for promoting green innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 144, 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.04.023
46.
HuseM. (2005). Accountability and creating accountability: A framework for exploring behavioural perspectives of corporate governance. British Journal of Management, 16(s1), S65–S79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00448.x
47.
IlinitchA. Y.SoderstromN. S.E ThomasT. (1998). Measuring corporate environmental performance. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 17(4–5), 383–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0278-4254(98)10012-1
48.
JansenJ. J. P.Van Den BoschF. A. J.VolberdaH. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576
49.
JohannessenA.KuiperI. N.AccordiniS.BertelsenR. J.ForsbergB.GislasonT.HeinrichJ.HolmM.JögiR.KirkeleitJ.MalinovschiA.MarconA.MarkevychI.OudinA.SchlünssenV.SigsgaardT.SvanesC.TorénK.JansonC. (2018). Long-term air pollution exposure is associated with sick leave 20 years later. European Respiratory Journal, 52(suppl 62), OA5182. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003
50.
KvětoňV.HorákP. (2018). The effect of public R&D subsidies on firms’ competitiveness: Regional and sectoral specifics in emerging innovation systems. Applied Geography, 94, 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.03.015
51.
LarckerD. F.RusticusT. O. (2010). On the use of instrumental variables in accounting research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 49(3), 186–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2009.11.004
52.
LeeD. H. (2018). The effect of safety management and sustainable activities on sustainable performance: Focusing on suppliers. Sustainability, 10(12), 4796. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124796
53.
MaS.KorY. Y.SeidlD. (2022). Top management team role structure: A vantage point for advancing upper echelons research. Strategic Management Journal, 43(8), O1–O28. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3368
54.
MaY.ZhangQ.YinQ. (2021). Top management team faultlines, green technology innovation and firm financial performance. Journal of Environmental Management, 285, 112095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112095
McKinsey. (2021). McKinsey global surveys, 2021: A year in review. McKinsey.
58.
MenzM. (2012). Functional top management team members: A review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(1), 45–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311421830
National Research Council. (2011). Prudent practices in the laboratory: Handling and management of chemical hazards: Updated version. National Academies Press (US). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK55873/
62.
NguyenT. H. H.ElmagrhiM. H.NtimC. G.WuY. (2021). Environmental performance, sustainability, governance and financial performance: Evidence from heavily polluting industries in China. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(5), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2748
63.
NielsenB. B.NielsenS. (2013). Top management team nationality diversity and firm performance: A multilevel study. Strategic Management Journal, 34(3), 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2021
64.
NielsenS. (2010). Top management team diversity: A review of theories and methodologies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(3), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00263.x
65.
NuberC.VelteP. (2021). Board gender diversity and carbon emissions: European evidence on curvilinear relationships and critical mass. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(4), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2727
66.
O’BrienR. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality and Quantity, 41(5), 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
PetersK.BuijsP.Kristian PetersC. (2021). Strategic ambidexterity in green product innovation: Obstacles and implications. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2881
70.
QianC.CaoQ.TakeuchiR. (2013). Top management team functional diversity and organizational innovation in China: The moderating effects of environment. Strategic Management Journal, 34(1), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1993
71.
RajagopalanN.DattaD. (1996). CEO characteristics: Does industry matter. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.5465/256636
72.
RenS.WangY.HuY.YanJ. (2021). CEO hometown identity and firm green innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(2), 756–774. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2652
73.
RichardO.WuJ.MarkoczyL. A.ChungY. (2019). Top management team demographic-faultline strength and strategic change: What role does environmental dynamism play?Strategic Management Journal, 40(6), 987–1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3009
74.
RivaF.MagrizosS.RubelM. R. B. (2021). Investigating the link between managers’ green knowledge and leadership style, and their firms’ environmental performance: The mediation role of green creativity. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(7), 3228–3240. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2799
75.
RussoM. V.FoutsP. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 534–559. https://doi.org/10.2307/257052
76.
SchalteggerS.WagnerM. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.682
77.
SchusterT.HoltbrüggeD. (2014). Resource dependency, innovative strategies, and firm performance in BOP markets. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(S1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12191
78.
ShahabY.NtimC. G.ChengangY.UllahF.FosuS. (2018). Environmental policy, environmental performance, and financial distress in China: Do top management team characteristics matter?Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(8), 1635–1652. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2229
79.
ShengS.ZhouK. Z.LiJ. J. (2010). The effects of business and political ties on firm performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Marketing, 75(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.1.1
80.
SiebenhünerB.ArnoldM. (2007). Organizational learning to manage sustainable development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 16(5), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.579
81.
SimmouW.GovindanK.SameerI.HussaineyK.SimmouS. (2023). Doing good to be green and live clean! - linking corporate social responsibility strategy, green innovation, and environmental performance: Evidence from Maldivian and Moroccan small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 384, 135265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135265
82.
SongM.YangM. X.ZengK. J.FengW. (2020). Green knowledge sharing, stakeholder pressure, absorptive capacity, and green innovation: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 1517–1531. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2450
SuchmanM. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/258788
TakaloT.TanayamaT. (2010). Adverse selection and financing of innovation: Is there a need for R&D subsidies?The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 16–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9112-8
87.
TonnB.EnglishM.TravisC. (2010). Understanding and improving environmental decision making. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(2), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560010658
88.
TrianaM. d. C.RichardO. C.SuW. (2019). Gender diversity in senior management, strategic change, and firm performance: Examining the mediating nature of strategic change in high tech firms. Research Policy, 48(7), 1681–1693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.013
89.
TrumppC.EndrikatJ.ZopfC.GuentherE. (2015). Definition, conceptualization, and measurement of corporate environmental performance: A critical examination of a multidimensional construct. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1931-8
90.
TsaiK. H.LiaoY. C. (2017). Sustainability strategy and eco-innovation: A moderation model. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(4), 426–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1926
91.
Úbeda-GarcíaM.Marco-LajaraB.Zaragoza-SáezP. C.Manresa-MarhuendaE.Poveda-ParejaE. (2021). Green ambidexterity and environmental performance: The role of green human resources. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2171
92.
Van KnippenbergD.SchippersM. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annu. Rev. Psychol, 58, 515–541.
93.
VandekerkhofP.SteijversT.HendriksW.VoordeckersW. (2019). The effect of nonfamily managers on decision-making quality in family firm TMTs: The role of intra-TMT power asymmetries. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 10(3), 100272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2019.01.002
WangT.LibaersD.JiaoH. (2015). Opening the black box of upper echelons in China: TMT attributes and strategic flexibility. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(5), 685–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12152
96.
WangY.LiJ.FurmanJ. L. (2017). Firm performance and state innovation funding: Evidence from China’s innofund program. Research Policy, 46(6), 1142–1161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.05.001
97.
WeiL. Q.WuL. (2013). What a diverse top management team means: Testing an integrated model. Journal of Management Studies, 50(3), 389–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12013
98.
WuJ.Liu ChengM. (2011). The impact of managerial political connections and quality on government subsidies Evidence from Chinese listed firms. Chinese Management Studies, 5(2), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506141111142834
99.
WuW.WuC.ZhouC.WuJ. (2012). Political connections, tax benefits and firm performance: Evidence from China. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 31(3), 277–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2011.10.005
100.
WuY.WeiZ.LiangQ. (2011). Top management team diversity and strategic change: The moderating effects of pay imparity and organization slack. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 24(3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534811111132686
101.
XieX.ZhuQ.WangR. (2019). Turning green subsidies into sustainability: How green process innovation improves firms’ green image. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(7), 1416–1433. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2323
102.
YanZ.LiY. (2018). Signaling through government subsidy: Certification or endorsement. Finance Research Letters, 25, 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2017.10.007
103.
ZhangB.BiJ.YuanZ.GeJ.LiuB.BuM. (2007). Why do firms engage in environmental management? An empirical study in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 6(16), 1037–1044.
104.
ZhangF.ZhuL. (2019). Enhancing corporate sustainable development: Stakeholder pressures, organizational learning, and green innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(6), 1012–1026. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2298
105.
ZhangL.RenS.ChenLiYinX. D. D.LiD.YinD. (2020). CEO hubris and firm pollution: State and market contingencies in a transitional economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 161(2), 459–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3987-y
106.
ZhangY.LiH.LiY.ZhouL. A. (2010). FDI spillovers in an emerging market: The role of foreign firms’ country origin diversity and domestic firms’ absorptive capacity. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9), 969–989. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.856
107.
ZhaoW.FengT.XinX.HaoG. (2021). How to respond to competitors’ green success for improving performance: The moderating role of organizational ambidexterity. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(1), 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2633
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
