Environmental innovation (EI) is fundamental to sustainable development goal (SDG) number 9. Indirectly, it contributes to the achievement of SDG 7 by laying the groundwork for producing renewable energy. Firms involve environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and diversity practices to achieve sustainable success. ESG and diversity scores on EI need to be predicted, yet EI predictors are few in the research. Our institutional theory-based study examines whether ESG and diversity scores influence EI scores in multinational organizations. The dataset comprises information from the Refinitiv Eikon database, including 430 publicly traded firms worldwide throughout 2021. The results of our study indicate that the environmental pillar score, ESG, and workforce score are the three most significant factors for calculating enterprises’ EI scores. This research provides valuable insights into enhancing sustainability practices and fostering innovation in global firms, offering a practical roadmap for businesses striving to achieve these objectives.
AguileraR. V.Aragón-CorreaJ. A.MaranoV.TashmanP. A. (2021). The corporate governance of environmental sustainability: A review and proposal for more integrated research. Journal of Management, 47(6), 1468–1497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206321991212
2.
AlbitarK.BorgiH.KhanM.ZahraA. (2023). Business environmental innovation and CO2 emissions: The moderating role of environmental governance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(4), 1996–2007. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3232
3.
AldieriL.CarlucciF.VinciC. P.YigitcanlarT. (2019). Environmental innovation, knowledge spillovers and policy implications: A systematic review of the economic effects literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 239, Article 118051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118051
4.
AliS.JiangJ.RehmanR. U.KhanM. K. (2023). Tournament incentives and environmental performance: The role of green innovation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 30(7), 17670–17680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-23406-w
5.
AmoreM. D.BennedsenM. (2016). Corporate governance and green innovation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 75, 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2015.11.003
BhagatS.HubbardG. (2022). Rule of law and purpose of the corporation. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 30(1), 10–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/corg.12374
BreimanL.FriedmanJ. H.OlshenR. A.StoneC. J. (1984). Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth.
10.
BurrittR. L.SchalteggerS. (2010). Sustainability accounting and reporting: Fad or trend?Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(7), 829–846. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571011080144
11.
ChaudhryI. S.PaquibutR. Y.TunioM. N. (2021). Do workforce diversity, inclusion practices, & organizational characteristics contribute to organizational innovation? Evidence from the U.A.E. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), 1947549. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1947549
12.
ChoC. H.GuidryR. P.HagemanA. M.PattenD. M. (2012). Do actions speak louder than words? An empirical investigation of corporate environmental reputation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2011.12.001
13.
ChoC. H.LaineM.RobertsR. W.RodrigueM. (2015). Organized hypocrisy, organizational façades, and sustainability reporting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 40, 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2014.12.003
14.
ChoS.KimA.Mor BarakM. E. (2017). Does diversity matter? Exploring workforce diversity, diversity management, and organizational performance in social enterprises. Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 11(3), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/aswp.12125
15.
CholletP.SandwidiB. W. (2018). CSR engagement and financial risk: A virtuous circle? International evidence. Global Finance Journal, 38(3), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2018.03.004
16.
ChristensenD. M.SerafeimG.SikochiA. (2022). Why is corporate virtue in the eye of the beholder? The case of ESG ratings. The Accounting Review, 97(1), 147–175. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2019-0506
17.
ClarksonP. M.FangX.LiY.RichardsonG. (2013). The relevance of environmental disclosures: Are such disclosures incrementally informative?Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 32(5), 410–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2013.06.008
18.
ClémentA.RobinotÉ.TrespeuchL. (2023). The use of ESG scores in academic literature: A systematic literature review. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy. Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-10-2022-0147
DangelicoR. M. (2016). Green product innovation: Where we are and where we are going: Green product innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(8), 560–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1886
21.
del RioM.InfanteJ.Gil-AlanaL. A. (2021). Gender diversity index. measuring persistence. Research in International Business and Finance, 58(1), 101474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2021.101474
22.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
EliwaY.AboudA.SalehA. (2021). ESG practices and the cost of debt: Evidence from EU countries. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 79, 102097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2019.102097
25.
El-KassarA.SinghS. K. (2019). Green innovation and organizational performance: The influence of big data and the moderating role of management commitment and HR practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 144(3), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.016
26.
Erauskin-TolosaA.Zubeltzu-JakaE.Heras-SaizarbitoriaI.BoiralO. (2020). ISO 14001, EMAS and environmental performance: A meta-analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 1145–1159. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2422
27.
Escrig-OlmedoE.Fernández-IzquierdoM.Ferrero-FerreroI.Rivera-LirioJ.Muñoz-TorresM. (2019). Rating the raters: Evaluating how ESG rating agencies integrate sustainability principles. Sustainability, 11(3), 915. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030915
28.
FarzaK.FtitiZ.HliouiZ.LouhichiW.OmriA. (2022). The effect of corporate board characteristics on environmental innovation. Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 27(6), 1021–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-022-09836-3
29.
FauziA. A.ShengM. L. (2022). The digitalization of micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs): An institutional theory perspective. Journal of Small Business Management, 60(6), 1288–1313. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2020.1745536
30.
FlacheneckerF.KornejewM.JaniriM. L. (2022). The effects of publicly supported environmental innovations on firm growth in the european union. Journal of Cleaner Production, 372, 133429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133429
31.
FosterB. P.ManikasA. S.KroesJ. R. (2023). Which diversity measures best capture public company value?Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(1), 236–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2351
32.
FriedmanJ. H. (2001). Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. TheAnnals of Statistics, 29(5), 1189–1232. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013203451
33.
FriedmanJ. H.MeulmanJ. J. (2003). Multiple additive regression trees with application in epidemiology. Statistics in Medicine, 22(9), 1365–1381. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1501
34.
García-MecaE.López-IturriagaF. J.Santana-MartínD. J. (2022). Board gender diversity and dividend payout: The critical mass and the family ties effect. International Review of Financial Analysis, 79(2), 101973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2021.101973
35.
Gómez-BolañosE.EllimäkiP.Hurtado-TorresN. E.Delgado-MárquezB. L. (2022). Internationalization and environmental innovation in the energy sector: Exploring the differences between multinational enterprises from emerging and developed countries. Energy Policy, 163, 112867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112867
36.
GrewalR.DharwadkarR. (2002). The role of the institutional environment in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.66.3.82.18504
37.
GrubingerT.ZeileisA.PfeifferK.-P. (2014). evtree: Evolutionary learning of globally optimal classification and regression trees in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 61(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v061.i01
38.
HashemiS. H.KarimiA.TavanaM. (2015). An integrated green supplier selection approach with analytic network process and improved grey relational analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 159, 178–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.09.027
39.
HashmiR.AlamK. (2019). Dynamic relationship among environmental regulation, innovation, CO2 emissions, population, and economic growth in OECD countries: A panel investigation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 231, 1100–1109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.325
40.
HastieT.TibshiraniR.FriedmanJ. H.FriedmanJ. H. (2009). The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction (Vol. 2). Springer.
41.
HearstM. A.DumaisS. T.OsunaE.PlattJ.ScholkopfB. (1998). Support vector machines. IEEE Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, 13(4), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1109/5254.708428
42.
Hizarci‐PayneA. K.İpekİ.Kurt GümüşG. (2021). How environmental innovation influences firm performance: A meta‐analytic review. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(2), 1174–1190. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2678
43.
HorbachJ. (2008). Determinants of environmental innovation—New evidence from german panel data sources. Research Policy, 37(1), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.08.006
44.
HothornT.ZeileisA. (2015). partykit: A modular toolkit for recursive partytioning in R. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 16(1), 3905–3909. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1947549
45.
HuangC.DavisL. S.TownshendJ. R. G. (2002). An assessment of support vector machines for land cover classification. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 23(4), 725–749. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160110040323
46.
JaveedS. A.TehB. H.OngT. S.ChongL. L.Abd RahimM. F. B.LatiefR.LatiefR. (2022). How does green innovation strategy influence corporate financing? Corporate social responsibility and gender diversity play a moderating role. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(14), 8724. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19148724
47.
Jell‐OjoborM.RahaA. (2022). Being good at being good—the mediating role of an environmental management system in value‐creating green supply chain management practices. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(5), 1964–1984. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2993
48.
JohanssonJ.GullbergT. (2002). Multiple tree handling in the selective felling and bunching of small trees in dense stands. International Journal of Forest Engineering, 13(2), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/14942119.2002.10702460
49.
KempR.ArundelA.RammerC.MiedzinskiM.TapiaC.BarbieriN.TurkeliS.BassiA. M.MazzantiM.ChapmanD.Díaz LópezF. J.McDowallW. (2019). Measuring eco-innovation for a green economy. Wirtschaftspolitische Blätter, 66(4), 391–404.
50.
KhanraS.KaurP.JosephR. P.MalikA.DhirA. (2022). A resource‐based view of green innovation as a strategic firm resource: Present status and future directions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(4), 1395–1413. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2961
51.
KirchnerA.SignorinoC. S. (2018). Using support vector machines for survey research. Survey Practice, 11(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.29115/sp-2018-0001
52.
KolkA.LevyD.PinkseJ. (2008). Corporate responses in an emerging climate regime: The institutionalization and commensuration of carbon disclosure. European Accounting Review, 17(4), 719–745. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180802489121
53.
KonaduR.AhinfulG. S.BoakyeD. J.ElbardanH. (2022). Board gender diversity, environmental innovation and corporate carbon emissions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174(12), 121279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121279
54.
KonaduR.Owusu‐AgyeiS.LarteyT. A.DansoA.AdomakoS.Amankwah‐AmoahJ. (2020). CEOs’ reputation, quality management and environmental innovation: The roles of stakeholder pressure and resource commitment. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2310–2323. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2504
LeathwickJ. R.ElithJ.FrancisM. P.HastieT.TaylorP. (2006). Variation in demersal fish species richness in the oceans surrounding New Zealand: An analysis using boosted regression trees. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 321, 267–281. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps321267
60.
LiD.ZhaoY.ZhangL.ChenX.CaoC. (2018). Impact of quality management on green innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 170(4), 462–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.158
61.
LiR.ShiQ.SunW.ZhaiJ. (2023). Hybridity and multiscale compatibility in landscape infrastructure for mountain river restoration: A pathway toward environmental and socio-ecological sustainability. The Journal of Environment & Development, 32(4), 343–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/10704965231197670
62.
LiY. (2014). Environmental innovation practices and performance: Moderating effect of resource commitment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 66, 450–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.044
63.
LiY.SingalM. (2022). Corporate governance in the hospitality and tourism industry: Theoretical foundations and future research. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 46(7), 1347–1383. https://doi.org/10.1177/10963480211011718
64.
LiaoZ. (2018). Institutional pressure, knowledge acquisition and a firm’s environmental innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(7), 849–857. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2036
65.
LiaoZ.LiuY. (2021). What drives environmental innovation? A meta‐analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(4), 1852–1864. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2720
66.
LohrS.HsuV.MontaquilaJ. (2015). Using classification and regression trees to model survey nonresponse. Joint Statistical Meetings. In Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section (pp. 2071–2085). American Statistical Association.
67.
ManigandanP.AlamM. S.AlagirisamyK.PachiyappanD.MurshedM.MahmoodH. (2023). Realizing the sustainable development goals through technological innovation: Juxtaposing the economic and environmental effects of financial development and energy use. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 30(3), 8239–8256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22692-8
68.
ManoharanA.SingalM. (2017). A systematic literature review of research on diversity and diversity management in the hospitality literature. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 66(1), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.07.002
69.
Martínez-FerreroJ.García-SánchezI. (2017). Coercive, normative and mimetic isomorphism as determinants of the voluntary assurance of sustainability reports. International Business Review, 26(1), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.05.009
70.
Martínez‐RosE.KunapatarawongR. (2019). Green innovation and knowledge: The role of size. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(6), 1045–1059. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2300
71.
NadeemM.BahadarS.GullA. A.IqbalU. (2020). Are women eco‐friendly? Board gender diversity and environmental innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 3146–3161. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2563
72.
ParkS.ParkS.ShryackJ. (2022). Measures of climate for inclusion and diversity: Review and summary. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 34(4), 463–480. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21493
73.
PearceJ. L.RandelA. E. (2004). Expectations of organizational mobility, workplace social inclusion, and employee job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.232
74.
PhungG.TrinhH. H.NguyenT. H.TrinhV. Q. (2023). Top‐management compensation and environmental innovation strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(4), 1634–1649. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3209
75.
PlumleeM.BrownD.HayesR. M.MarshallR. S. (2015). Voluntary environmental disclosure quality and firm value: Further evidence. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 34(4), 336–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2015.04.004
76.
QuanX.KeY.QianY.ZhangY. (2023). CEO foreign experience and green innovation: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 182(2), 535–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04977-z
77.
RibandoJ. M.BonneG. (2010). A new quality factor: Finding alpha with ASSET4 ESG data. In Starmine research note (p. 31). Thomson Reuters.
78.
TherneauT. M.AtkinsonE. J. (1997). An introduction to recursive partitioning using the RPART routines. Technical report Mayo Foundation.
79.
DacinT. M.GoodsteinJ.Richard ScottW. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2002.6283388
80.
Torrent‐SellensJ.Ficapal‐CusíP.Enache‐ZegheruM. (2023). Boosting environmental management: The mediating role of industry 4.0 between environmental assets and economic and social firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(1), 753–768. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3173
81.
TorresP.AugustoM. (2021). Attention to social issues and CEO duality as enablers of resilience to exogenous shocks in the tourism industry. Tourism Management, 87(3-4), 104400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2021.104400
82.
TsengM.WangR.ChiuA. S. F.GengY.LinY. H. (2013). Improving performance of green innovation practices under uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production, 40, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.009
83.
TumeleroC.SbragiaR.EvansS. (2019). Cooperation in R & D and eco-innovations: The role in companies’ socioeconomic performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 207(2), 1138–1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.146
UrickM. J.HollensbeE. C.MastersonS. S.LyonsS. T. (2017). Understanding and managing intergenerational conflict: An examination of influences and strategies. Work, Aging and Retirement, 3(2), 166–185. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw009
86.
UyarA.KuzeyC.KilicM.KaramanA. S. (2021). Board structure, financial performance, corporate social responsibility performance, CSR committee, and CEO duality: Disentangling the connection in healthcare. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(6), 1730–1748. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2141
87.
WangQ.LiuX. (2015). Screening of feature genes in distinguishing different types of breast cancer using support vector machine. OncoTargets and Therapy, 8, 2311–2317. https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S85271
88.
WestreichD.LesslerJ.FunkM. J. (2010). Propensity score estimation: Neural networks, support vector machines, decision trees (CART), and meta-classifiers as alternatives to logistic regression. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(8), 826–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.020
89.
WijethilakeC.MunirR.AppuhamiR. (2018). Environmental innovation strategy and organizational performance: Enabling and controlling uses of management control systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(4), 1139–1160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3259-7
90.
ZhangY.PengY.MaC.ShenB. (2017). Can environmental innovation facilitate carbon emissions reduction? Evidence from China. Energy Policy, 100, 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.10.005
91.
ZhuQ.SarkisJ. (2004). Relationships between operational practices and performance among early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Journal of Operations Management, 22(3), 265–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2004.01.005
92.
ZhuX.LiuR.ChenJ. (2022). Corporate environmental investment and supply chain financing: The moderating role of environmental innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(4), 1559–1581. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3205
93.
ZuoR.CarranzaE. J. M. (2011). Support vector machine: A tool for mapping mineral prospectivity. Computers & Geosciences, 37(12), 1967–1975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2010.09.014
