This study investigates the interplay between environmental compliance, external knowledge transfer from customers, knowledge quality and corporate innovation, and their collective impact on business performance. Using institutional and social network theory, a research model was tested with data collected from management teams within the Vietnamese manufacturing sector through structural equation modelling. The results reveal that environmental compliance significantly enhances external knowledge transfer from customers and improves business performance via knowledge adoption. Furthermore, the study highlights that high-quality knowledge and corporate innovation both directly and indirectly contribute to increased business success. Specifically, the adoption of high-quality knowledge facilitates the development of innovative products and services, thereby strengthening competitive advantage. These findings offer practical insights for firms on how to effectively integrate knowledge quality strategies into their operations, adhere to environmental regulations and drive corporate innovation. By doing so, organizations can not only ensure environmental compliance and sustainability but also enhance their overall performance and market position.
Albort-MorantG., Leal-MillánA., & Cepeda-CarriónG. (2016). The antecedents of green innovation performance: A model of learning and capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4912–4917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.052
2.
AliasgharO., RoseE. L., & AsakawaK. (2022). Sources of knowledge and process innovation: The moderating role of perceived competitive intensity. International Business Review, 31(2), 101920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2021.101920
3.
Arias-PérezJ., Velez-OcampoJ., & Cepeda-CardonaJ. (2021). Strategic orientation toward digitalization to improve innovation capability: Why knowledge acquisition and exploitation through external embeddedness matter. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25(5), 1319–1335. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2020-0231
4.
BaierleI. C., BenitezG. B., NaraE. O. B., SchaeferJ. L., & SellittoM. A. (2020). Influence of open innovation variables on the competitive edge of small and medium enterprises. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(4), 179. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040179
5.
BashirM. F., ShahbazM., MaB., & AlamK. (2024). Evaluating the roles of energy innovation, fossil fuel costs and environmental compliance towards energy transition in advanced industrial economies. Journal of Environmental Management, 351, 119709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119709
6.
BerroneP., & Gomez-MejiaL. R. (2009). Environmental performance and executive compensation: An integrated agency-institutional perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 52(1), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.36461950
7.
BigliardiB., DolciV., FilippelliS., PetroniA., PiniB., & TaglienteL. (2023). The adoption of open innovation in manufacturing: A review. Procedia Computer Science, 217, 1765–1774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.12.376
8.
CamilleriM. A. (2020). European environment policy for the circular economy: Implications for business and industry stakeholders. Sustainable Development, 28(6), 1804–1812. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2113
9.
CampbellJ. L. (2007). Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways?: An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 946–967. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275684
10.
ChaithanapatP., PunnakitikashemP., Khin Khin OoN. C., & RakthinS. (2022). Relationships among knowledge-oriented leadership, customer knowledge management, innovation quality and firm performance in SMEs. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(1), 100162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100162
11.
ChaudhuriR., ChatterjeeS., GuptaS., & KambleS. (2023). Green supply chain technology and organization performance: Moderating role of environmental dynamism and product-service innovation capability. Technovation, 128, 102857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102857
12.
ChengD., ChengF., ZhouZ., & WuY. (2020). Reaching a minimum adjustment consensus in social network group decision-making. Information Fusion, 59, 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2020.01.004
13.
ChinW. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. In VinziV. E., ChinW. W., HenselerJ., & WangH. (Eds.), Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 655–690). Springer.
14.
ChouC.-H., WangY.-S., & TangT.-I. (2015). Exploring the determinants of knowledge adoption in virtual communities: A social influence perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 35(3), 364–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.02.001
15.
CohenW. M., & LevinthalD. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
16.
DabićM., ObradovićPosinković, T., VlačićB., & GonçalvesR. (2023). A configurational approach to new product development performance: The role of open innovation, digital transformation and absorptive capacity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 194, 122720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122720
17.
DahlanderL., & GannD. M. (2010). How open is innovation?Research Policy, 39(6), 699–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013
18.
DashG., & PaulJ. (2021). CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121092
19.
DenicolaiS., ZucchellaA., & StrangeR. (2014). Knowledge assets and firm international performance. International Business Review, 23(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2013.08.004
20.
de ZubielquiG. C., LindsayN., LindsayW., & JonesJ. (2019). Knowledge quality, innovation and firm performance: A study of knowledge transfer in SMEs. Small Business Economics, 53(1), 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0046-0
21.
ErenaO. T., KalkoM. M., & DebeleS. A. (2023). Organizational factors, knowledge management and innovation: Empirical evidence from medium- and large-scale manufacturing firms in Ethiopia. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(4), 1165–1207. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-11-2021-0861
22.
FengT., CaiD., ZhangZ., & LiuB. (2016). Customer involvement and new product performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(8), 1700–1718. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-11-2015-0457
23.
FidelP., SchlesingerW., & EmiloE. (2018). Effects of customer knowledge management and customer orientation on innovation capacity and marketing results in SMEs: The mediating role of innovation orientation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 22(07), 1850055. https://doi.org/10.1142/S136391961850055X
24.
FornellC., & LarckerD. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313
25.
GangulyA., TalukdarA., & ChatterjeeD. (2020). Social capital, knowledge quality, knowledge sharing, and innovation capability: An empirical study of the Indian pharmaceutical sector. Knowledge and Process Management, 27(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1614
26.
GaoJ., FengQ., GuanT., & ZhangW. (2023). Unlocking paths for transforming green technological innovation in manufacturing industries. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100394
27.
GonçalvesR., VlačićB., González-LoureiroM., & SousaR. (2024). The impact of open innovation on the environmental sustainability practices and international sales intensity nexus: A multicountry study. International Business Review, 102279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2024.102279
28.
GorryG. A., & WestbrookR. A. (2013). Customers, knowledge management, and intellectual capital. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 11(1), 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.14
GuptaA. K., & GuptaN. (2020). Effect of corporate environmental sustainability on dimensions of firm performance—Towards sustainable development: Evidence from India. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, 119948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119948
31.
HairJ. F., RisherJ. J., SarstedtM., & RingleC. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
32.
HansenM. T., MorsM. L., & LøvåsB. (2005). Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 776–793. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803922
33.
HenselerJ., RingleC. M., & SarstedtM. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
34.
HolmD. B., ErikssonK., & JohansonJ. (1999). Creating value through mutual commitment to business network relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 467–486. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199905)20:5<467::AID-SMJ38>3.0.CO;2-J
35.
IdreesH., XuJ., & HaiderS. A. (2024). Impact of knowledge management infrastructure and processes on automobile manufacturing firm innovative performance through the mediating role of agile project management practice. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2023-1166
36.
JiangZ., WangZ., & ZengY. (2020). Can voluntary environmental regulation promote corporate technological innovation?Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 390–406. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2372
37.
KockN. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
38.
KostopoulosK., PapalexandrisA., PapachroniM., & IoannouG. (2011). Absorptive capacity, innovation, and financial performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1335–1343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.12.005
39.
Maldonado-GuzmánG., Garza-ReyesJ. A., Pinzón-CastroS. Y., & KumarV. (2019). Innovation capabilities and performance: Are they truly linked in SMEs?International Journal of Innovation Science, 11(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-12-2017-0139
40.
MarrucciL., IannoneF., DaddiT., & IraldoF. (2022). Antecedents of absorptive capacity in the development of circular economy business models of small and medium enterprises. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2908
41.
Merín-RodrigáñezJ., DasíÀ., & AlegreJ. (2024). Digital transformation and firm performance in innovative SMEs: The mediating role of business model innovation. Technovation, 134, 103027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2024.103027
42.
MuningerM.-I., HammediW., & MahrD. (2019). The value of social media for innovation: A capability perspective. Journal of Business Research, 95, 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.012
43.
NguyenT. P. T., HuangF., & TianX. (2023). Intellectual property protection need as a driver for open innovation: Empirical evidence from Vietnam. Technovation, 123, 102714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102714
44.
ObesoM., Hernández-LinaresR., López-FernándezM. C., & Serrano-BediaA. M. (2020). Knowledge management processes and organizational performance: The mediating role of organizational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(8), 1859–1880. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2019-0553
45.
PlecheroM., & GrillitschM. (2023). Advancing innovation in manufacturing firms: Knowledge base combinations in a local productive system. European Planning Studies, 31(6), 1247–1269. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2122705
46.
PodsakoffP. M., MacKenzieS. B., LeeJ.-Yeon, & PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 903–978. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
47.
RehmanS. U., KrausS., ShahS. A., KhaninD., & MahtoR. V. (2021). Analyzing the relationship between green innovation and environmental performance in large manufacturing firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 120481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120481
48.
RosenbuschN., BrinckmannJ., & BauschA. (2011). Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(4), 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.12.002
49.
SeitzS. R., & MisraK. (2020). Knowledge sharing in social networks: Considering the role of political skill and trust. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 23(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOTB-07-2019-0091
50.
StålH. I. (2015). Inertia and change related to sustainability: An institutional approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 99, 354–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.035
51.
SzulanskiG., RingovD., & JensenR. J. (2016). Overcoming stickiness: How the timing of knowledge transfer methods affects transfer difficulty. Organization Science, 27(2), 304–322. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1049
52.
TippakoonP., Sang-ArunN., & VishuphongP. (2023). External knowledge sourcing, knowledge management capacity and firms’ innovation performance: Evidence from manufacturing firms in Thailand. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 17(1), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-08-2021-0350
53.
TruongB. T. T., & NguyenP. V. (2024). Driving business performance through intellectual capital, absorptive capacity, and innovation: The mediating influence of environmental compliance and innovation. Asia Pacific Management Review, 29(1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2023.06.004
54.
TruongB. T. T., NguyenP. V., & VrontisD. (2024). Enhancing firm performance through innovation: The roles of intellectual capital, government support, knowledge sharing and knowledge management success. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 25(1), 188–209. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-08-2023-0181
55.
TruongB. T. T., NguyenP. V., VrontisD., & InuwaI. (2024). Exploring the interplay of intellectual capital, environmental compliance, innovation and social media usage in enhancing business performance in Vietnamese manufacturers. Journal of Intellectual Capital. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-10-2023-0233
56.
TruongB. T. T., NguyenP. Van, VrontisD., & AhmedZ. U. (2024). Unleashing corporate potential: The interplay of intellectual capital, knowledge management, and environmental compliance in enhancing innovation and performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 28(4), 1054–1073. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2023-0389
57.
VahterP., LoveJ. H., & RoperS. (2014). Openness and innovation performance: Are small firms different?Industry and Innovation, 21(7–8), 553–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2015.1012825
58.
WangX., BanT., ChenL., UsmanM., WuT., ChenQ., & ChenH. (2023). A distribution-based representation of knowledge quality. Knowledge-Based Systems, 281, 111054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2023.111054
59.
WangC., ChinT., & LinJ.-H. (2020). Openness and firm innovation performance: The moderating effect of ambidextrous knowledge search strategy. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(2), 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2019-0198
60.
WangC., & HuQ. (2020). Knowledge sharing in supply chain networks: Effects of collaborative innovation activities and capability on innovation performance. Technovation, 94–95, 102010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.12.002
61.
WangY., & XinL. (2024). Shadow of the giant: How global value chain participation influences the knowledge structure of SMEs. International Business Review, 33(3), 102270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2024.102270
62.
WechtlerH., MarodinJ. K., & LehtonenM. J. (2023). Systematic literature review on networks of innovative teams: Current trends and future research avenues. European Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.08.007
63.
WestJ., & BogersM. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814–831. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12125
64.
XieX., WangH., & GarcíaJ. S. (2021). How does customer involvement in service innovation motivate service innovation performance? The roles of relationship learning and knowledge absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Research, 136, 630–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.009
65.
YooD. K., VonderembseM. A., & Ragu-NathanT. S. (2011). Knowledge quality: Antecedents and consequence in project teams. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111119727
66.
YusrM. M., MokhtarS. S. M., PerumalS., & SalimonM. G. (2022). The impact of customer knowledge management, TQM and marketing capabilities on product innovation performance of Malaysian SMEs: An empirical study. International Journal of Innovation Science, 14(2), 316–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-03-2021-0053
67.
ZhangJ., LiangG., FengT., YuanC., & JiangW. (2020). Green innovation to respond to environmental regulation: How external knowledge adoption and green absorptive capacity matter?Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2349
68.
ZhaoE. Y., FisherG., LounsburyM., & MillerD. (2017). Optimal distinctiveness: Broadening the interface between institutional theory and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2589
69.
ZhaoX., ZhaoY., ZengS., & ZhangS. (2015). Corporate behavior and competitiveness: Impact of environmental regulation on Chinese firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 86, 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.074
