Keywords

Green Intellectual Capital, Environmental Sustainability, Business Sustainability, Sustainable Practices, Sustainability Development Goals.

Introduction

Business sustainability by adopting green approaches ensures the going concern of business and economic growth. According to the Nigerian exchange, sustainable business and reporting of such to stakeholders would promote transformational initiatives for the Nigerian economy (Iheanachor, 2020; Oji, 2022). Therefore, capital market collaboration with companies, regulators and investors would enhance better understanding of the relationships and move best practices for sustainable development (Alqubaisi, 2021). The emergence of industrial revolution has led to mass efficiency but also global adverse effect in the form of resources depletion, industrial pollution, and extensive energy utilization. The rise in technology actually revealed breakthrough of processing efficiencies and production with lucrative growth, but the enormous utilization of natural resources and high dependency on energy has resulted in great environmental burden (Roeshartono et al., 2019; Yadiati et al., 2019). The goal of firms in maximizing the economic profits has improved the prosperity of many businesses even though with adverse effects on social and environment inequality (Sullivan et al., 2018).

Gong et al. (2018) revealed that the ecosystem has been degraded to the tune of 60% worldwide, which if no attention and redress are put in place to control the situation, it will continue to get worse (Sabir et al., 2020; Yusoff et al., 2019). However, many organisations claim that their operations do not impose negative consequences on environmental protection and thereby ignore or pay little attention to the issues relating to business sustainability. In fact, there are differences in business landscape when compared to the period before now with limitation of resources, high rate of technological development and disruptions in the new way of business model from the conventional method (Sullivan et al., 2018).

This current situation has increased environmental awareness resulting to increase in the ecological regulations world-wide with the tendency of impacting on industries globally. In compliance with the rapid reduction in the prevailing state of ecology, a shift of trend exists in the modern business for the notion of sustainability. Therefore, with the current environmental era, businesses are prone towards eco-friendly means of achieving organisational goals to ensure the sustainability prospect (Mushtaq et al., 2019; Yusoff et al., 2019). Whereas, the SDGs developed by the united nations (UN) focus on devising and ensuring that organisations are responsible in terms of production to overcome the adverse effects of operational activities of firms on the environment (UNSD, 2016). The increase in environmental awareness has encouraged enterprises in attaining the objective of becoming ‘green’ in order to fulfil the organisational goals aligning with the prospect of sustainability development (SD) (Roeshartono et al., 2019). The notion of becoming green has spread across industries globally, which is gradually altering and replacing the orthodox organisational practices and resources’ utilisation.

There are several motives behind industries’ inspiration of becoming green which include the internal consciousness of reducing ecological pressures and improving the environmental conditions. Secondly, organisations’ green label can be adopted as a result of consumers’ increase demand for eco-friendly product with the intention of providing a positive image to the consumers. Thirdly, it can be an accepted notion by firms due to obligatory requirements from both the national and international regulatory to drive businesses towards sustainable corporate procedures (Jahanshahi et al., 2019; Roeshartono et al., 2019). Manufacturing companies are imperative to the growth and development of nations as dearth of manufacturing companies can affect the survival of nations’ economy (Mbang et al., 2020). In Nigeria, many of these companies face challenges in achieving growth as an effect to offset the environmental challenges obtainable from their operational activities which might swallow up the environment and the economy on the long run. Actions of Nigerian Government through several strategies with the aim of supporting the manufacturing industries have all proved abortive and Nigerian manufacturing companies are lagging behind and missing out opportunities that will enhance win-win competitiveness (Mbang et al., 2020).

Although, the environmental management practices in Nigeria are growing gradually as the government of Nigeria took some proactive measures ensuring the preservation and protection of environment. For instance, the state environmental protection agency (SEPA) was established in each of the 36 states with the aid of the federal environmental protection agency (FEPA). The FEPA and SEPA were both charged with the responsibilities of managing the environment, biodiversity, protection and preservation of environmental assets (Obamen et al., 2021). Some other programmes of government in Nigeria aimed to achieve sustainability development include National Poverty Eradication Programme (NAPEP) established in 2002, the NEEDS was introduced in 2004 and the millennium development goals (MDGs).

Several studies have revealed how GIC components which include the green human capital (GHC), green organisational capital (GOC) and green relational capital (GRC) relate with environmental sustainability in countries globally (Bombiak, 2022; Muhamad, 2017; Nawangsari et al., 2022; Secundo et al., 2020; Yusmazida, 2019). According Hussain et al., (2021), the GHC with green innovation as a mediating variable has a relationship with the sustainability. There is a need for organisations to institute green initiatives in their employees which is a core strategy in green human capital management (GHCM) as it necessitates the behaviour of employees to attain the organisations’ green goals of boosting the triple bottom lines especially the environmental performance (Chaudry, 2020; Dumont et al., 2017; Roscoe et al., 2019). The study evaluated the effect of green intellectual capital on the environmental sustainability of the listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. The study provided an answer to this research question “What is the effect of green intellectual capital on the environmental sustainability performance of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria?” This hypothesis was tested in the study:

H₀₁: Green intellectual capital has no significant effect on the environmental sustainability performance of the listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria.

Literature Review

Conceptual Review

Environmental sustainability (ENS)

A crucial foundation for sustainable development and alleviation of poverty is environmental preservation and when there is a failure in achieving stability of biodiversity as an example can destruct efforts towards both the social and economic development. In the same vein, when resources like forests are properly controlled it sustain the environmental health by ensuring the climate change mitigation, biological diversity conservation, maintenance of reliable and clean water resources, control of the erosion, protection of agricultural soils, provision of renewable and low-costs energy and finally enhancing the development of urban environment (Kanayo et al., 2013). Regrettably, the uncontrolled natural resources exploitation which include land, water, forests and fisheries by powerful few globally has caused serious change in the natural world of nowadays and most vulnerable people have been seriously affected who depend only on the natural resources as a means of livelihood.

ENS ensures that the processes of interaction with the present environment is with ideal behaviour of ensuring keeping the natural resources and environment from disaster. It entails maintaining integrity towards the environmental systems for proper functioning and beneficial consumption of both the current and upcoming generations. According to Mehra & Sharma (2021), environmental sustainability in the healthcare context entails practices which include the adoption of circular practices such as re-use, recycling, repair, refurbishment of products, utilization of resources efficiently, natural resources conservation such as water conservation. These practices have resulted in products’ life improvement, products sharing, treatment of products in terms of services and waste prevention (Elabed et al., 2019; Ertz & Patrick, 2019; Giusti et al., 2020; Singh, 2019).

Green Intellectual Capital

Jermsittiparset (2017) posited that GIC is the only way out and viable solutions to sustainable issues globally and therefore described GIC as the unquantifiable relationships, reserves, expertise, information relating to green protection and ecological uprising measured through the combination of management of IC and social responsibilities of firms (Dewi et al., 2021). GIC also entails steps taken by organisations in improving their green awareness and CA. Therefore, firms should improve on their green modernisation and thereby increase their green picture (Jermsittiparset, 2017).

Cahyono & Hakim (2019) indicated that firms that invest judiciously in GIC will not only comply and meet up with the strict environmental regulations requirements but will also win corporate competitive advantages. Yusoff et al. (2018) described the GIC as all the knowledge and tangible assets that are related to green innovation and green protection which include the GHC, GSC and the GRC and that all these elements of GIC contribute positively and greatly into the level of firms’ CA. The study of Bombiak (2022) defined the GIC as the total knowledge required in the process of managing the environment for the attainment of CA. The Knowledge is revealed in different ways which include database information, employees, external and internal relations, systems or processes (Allameh, 2018).

Theoretical Review

The study was underpinned by stakeholder theory

The stakeholder theory or stakeholder thinking emerged as a narrative of understanding and providing solution to three interconnected problems in business which include the problem of having understanding as to how value can be created within an organisation, the problem relating to capitalism and ethics and finally the problem concerning how managers could be assisted in providing solutions to the first two enumerated problems (Parmar et al., 2010). These problems are very important and their effect cannot be confined alone in the management theory but cut across several disciplines and a need to revisit how the capitalism need to be perceived. Therefore, Freeman (1984) and other scholars suggested that managers need to adopt a concept refer to as stakeholder to address the aforementioned three problem facing businesses.

The study of Baranova & Meadows (2017) emphasised that some stakeholders have roles in organisational environmental capabilities and therefore such could be referred to as environmental stakeholders categorised into four which include the local and national green pressure group, regulators and governments, the green interest stakeholders such as the customers, economic or financial stakeholder, media and the suppliers (Fineman & Clarke, 1996; Muntari et al., 2021) Figure 1.

The engagement of stakeholders in organisational operations is a mechanism to ensure environmental capacity building and enhancement of sustainability (Freeman et al., 2021). The categories of stakeholders can be on how firms engage them most especially in the green economy where green technological development, green innovation, environmental management, green skills and green financing become more prominent for successful and sustainable business strategies. The Figure 1 above indicated how environmental stakeholders could be grouped by organisations due to closeness to enhance sustainability or build environmental capabilities.

Empirical Review

Green Intellectual Capital (GIC) and Environmental Sustainability (ENS)

Studies have established that three components of the GIC positively affect environmental sustainability of firms (Asieai et al., 2022b; Asiaei et al., 2021; Asiaei & Jusoh, 2017; Chen, 2008; Eugenio et al., 2021; Nikolaos et al., 2021; Tang et al., 2017; Yadiati et al., 2019; Yusliza, 2020). Studies revealed the GHC’s effect on the social and environmental performance of firms (Asiaei et al., 2021; Asiaei et al., 2022; Hussain et al., 2021; Paille et al., 2020; Shah et al., 2021; Shoaib et al., 2021; Yadiati et al., 2019). Studies also indicated how green organisational capital impacted firms’ environmental sustainability (Asieai et al., 2021; Asieai et al., 2022a; Yadiati et al., 2019).

Green Organisational Capital impacted positively on the green service innovation (GSI), green process innovation performance (GPIP) as well as business innovation of firms (Mushtaq et al., 2019; Nadeem et al., 2021). A bi-directional effect of GOC on BS by stating that when firms are environmentally conscious and socially responsible, it enhances the green organizational capital of such firms was indicated (Sudibyoa & Sutanto, 2020).

Studies revealed that green transformational leaders involve the leadership trait of supporting the development needs that ensure the achievement of organizational environmental goals and innovations (Le & Lei, 2018; Dranev et al., 2018; Martinez-Conesa et al., 2017). Studies showed that environmental management abilities include effective education and training for employees and the involvement of suppliers in the environmental practices and enhancement of employees’ adaptive performance (Alabri et al., 2022; De Oliveira et al., 2018).

Studies indicated that firms’ collaboration and communication with different stakeholders especially the external partners are critical in determining the standard and eco-innovation of firms which ensures mutual benefits, cost reduction as well as enhancement of environmental capabilities of firms (Acebo et al., 2022; Baranova & Meadows, 2017; Hofman et al., 2020). Albertini (2021) stated clearly that managerial competencies in ensuring corporate sustainability include the management’s ability to develop environmentally friendly products and are capable of linking wider and more complex adaptive systems to organizational sustainability.

Mutuku et al. (2019), affirmed that compliance with environmental policies affected firms’ performance. Some studies have limitations by testing only the relationship between the variable of interest. However, a need to determine the causal effect of variables is required. The scope of coverage was only limited to SMEs which needs to be extended to other manufacturing companies. Some studies need to be empirically tested while some were limited in the measurement of GIC.

Methodology

Survey research design was adopted by this study through the instrument of a questionnaire administered to the employees of some selected manufacturing companies listed on the Nigeria Exchange Group. The population size of this study includes 77 manufacturing companies listed in Nigeria Exchange Group as at January 27^th, 2023 which include conglomerates, consumer goods, healthcare, industrial goods and oil and gas companies. Therefore, the population of 53,404 obtained from their annual report and companies’ websites will be considered for this study based on certain criteria. In order to determine a sample size suitable, stratified random sampling technique will be adopted. The selected companies considered were chosen on the basis of those that have been incorporated and continuously listed for a period of not less than 10 years, having the staff strength of more than 50 and above as well as having easy access to the location. Adjusted Taro Yamane sample size determination formula was adopted (Yamane, 1967; 1973) and 665 staff were selected. However, Adam (2020) proposed an adjustment to the error margin in Taro Yamane formula of 1967 for optimum sample size determination at all levels of confidence with the development of an adjusted minimum sample size table. Hence adjusted Taro Yamane’ formula for sample size determination was employed at 1% margin of error Figure 2.

Researcher’s Conceptual Model

Model Specification

In order to test and determine the hypotheses stated for the study, the regression model stated below examined the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable Table 1.

Where:

ENS_i = Environmental Sustainability
GHC_i = Green Human Capital
GOC_i = Green Organisational Capital
GRC_i = Green Relational Capital
EMC_i = Environmental Managerial Competencies
STI_i = Stakeholders Integration
GRMi = Green Marketing

Data Analysis, Results and Discussion of findings

Test of Hypothesis (H₀₁)

1. Research Objective: To examine the effect of the green intellectual capital on the environmental sustainability of the listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria.

2. Research Question: What is the effect of the green intellectual capital on environmental sustainability of the listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria

3. Research Hypothesis (H₀₁): Green intellectual capital has no significant effect on environmental sustainability of the listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria.

Model

A Priori Expectation: β₁ – β₆ ? 0

This means that a positive association is expected to exist between the green intellectual capital proxies and environmental sustainability. From the Table 1 the regression estimates result showed that the proxies of green intellectual capital have positive effect on environmental sustainability as all the components of GIC have coefficients that are above 0.

Table 1 Regression Result
	Model 1
Variable	Coeff	Std. Err	T-Stat	Prob
Constant	0.730	0.205	3.559	0.000
GHC	0.197	0.052	3.786	0.000
GOC	0.103	0.047	2.186	0.029
GRC	0.178	0.056	3.203	0.001
EMC	0.088	0.049	1.797	0.073
STI	0.117	0.048	2.459	0.014
GRM	0.150	0.048	3.115	0.002
Adj R2	0.423
F-Stat (Prob) (D.F)	53.176 (0.000) (6, 421)

This is indicated by the signs of the coefficients, which are 0.197 + 0.103 + 0.178 + 0.088 + 0.117 + 0.150 (that is : β₁ – β₆ > 0). These results : β₁ – β₆ ? 0 are consistent with the a priori expectation for the study.

Interpretation

From the multiple linear regression estimates of the model, the signs of the coefficient of the independent variables shows that the green human capital (GHC) had a positive effect on the environmental sustainability with coefficient of 0.197. The positive effect is statistically significant at t-statistics level of 3.786 and p-value of 0.000 which is less than 0.05 level of significance. The green organisational capital (GOC) has a positive effect on the environmental sustainability with a coefficient of 0.103. The positive effect is statistically significant at the t-statistics of 2.186 and a p-value of 0.029 which is less than 0.05 level of significance. The green relational capital (GRC) has a positive effect on the environmental sustainability with a coefficient of 0.178. The positive effect is statistically significant at the t-statistics of 3.203 and a p-value of 0.001 which is less than 0.05 level of significance. The environmental managerial competence (EMC) has a positive effect on the environmental sustainability with a coefficient of 0.088. The positive effect is statistically insignificant at the t-statistics of 1.797 and a p-value of 0.073 which is greater than 0.05 level of significance. The stakeholders’ integration (STI) has a positive effect on the environmental sustainability with a coefficient of 0.117. The positive effect is statistically significant at the t-statistics of 2.459 and a p-value of 0.014 which is less than 0.05 level of significance. The green marketing (GRM) has a positive effect on the environmental sustainability with a coefficient of 0.150. The positive effect is statistically significant at the t-statistics of 3.115 and a p-value of 0.002 which is less than 0.05 level of significance.

Therefore, hypothesis of this study aimed to determine if Green intellectual capital has a significant effect on environmental sustainability performance of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. Considering the signs of the estimated parameters, all the measurements of Green intellectual capital have a positive effect on Environmental Sustainability (ENS). This is reflected by the signs of the coefficients β₁, β₂, β₃, β₄, β₅ and β₆ i.e. 0.197GHC_i + 0.103GOC_i + 0.178GRC_i + 0.088EMC_i + 0.117STI_i + 0.150GRM_i respectively. It is worthy of note that the positive relationships of the sub-variables GHC, GOC, GRC, STI and GRM with Environmental Sustainability (ENS) from model three were all significant as depicted by their p-values (0.000, 0.029, 0.001, 0.014 & 0.002) being less than the 5% level of significance for this study, while EMC was not significant as depicted by its p-values of 0.073 bring greater than the 5% respectively.

The adjusted R² values for the models show the change in the dependent variable caused by the collective interactions of the independent variables. Model 3 having adjusted R₂ value 0.423 meant that only 42.3% variations of Environmental Sustainability (ENS) of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria is attributed to the collective interactions of all the independent variables (i.e. all Green intellectual capital proxies) utilized in this model. The remaining 57.7% variation in Environmental Sustainability (ENS) are caused by other variables not put into consideration in this study.

The F-statistics which measures the combined significance of all the independent variables on Environmental Sustainability (ENS) of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria showed a value of 53.176. The significance of this F-statistics value depicted by its corresponding p-value was 0.000, which is less than the 5%, showing that the combined proxies of Green intellectual capital has a significant effect on Environmental Sustainability (ENS) in the performance of listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria.

Decision

At 0.5 level of significance and degree of freedom (6,421), the F-statistics is 53.176 while the p-value = 0.000 which is less than 0.05. This implies that the cumulative effect of the green intellectual capital has a positive significant effect on environmental sustainability of the listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. Therefore, the study rejected the null hypothesis and conclude that green intellectual capital has significant effect on environmental sustainability of the listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria.

Discussion of Findings

The statistical results of Table 1 showed that the prediction of hypothesis 3 indicated a significant effect of the green intellectual capital on environmental sustainability of the listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria. Therefore, the study rejected the null hypothesis and concluded that there is a significant effect of green intellectual capital on the environmental sustainability of the listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria.

The outcome of this study was supported by some studies on the subject matter especially at international context. For instance, the study of Avagyan et al. (2021) discovered that firms’ actions on environmental innovation and environmental marketing enhanced the overall performance of firms under consideration. Asieai et al. (2022) discovered that the three major elements of the GIC which include the GHC, GOC and GRC had positive but indirect link with environmental performance of firms under consideration. Scarpellini et al. (2019) discovered a positive link between the dynamic capabilities of firms and business sustainability.

Asiaei et al. (2021) discovered that the GIC components are positively related with the environmental accounting and performance of firms. The study of Khan& Sarfraz (2019) established the positive and significant effect of environmental corporate social responsibility on environmental performance of firms in Pakistan. Nawangsari et al established that positive and significant effect of GSC and GRC on business sustainability including the environmental sustainability of SMEs. Asiaei et al. (2021d) conducted the study of 105 listed firms in Iran and established the effect of GHC and GSC on environmental performance of firms. Acebo et al. (2022) conducted the same study on 10918 innovative firms in Spain and concluded that collaboration with different stakeholders which is social capital will better the overall performance of firms including the environmental innovation of firms.

Wang et al. (2021) conducted the same study on 125 manufacturing firms in China. The study confirmed that when organisations’ management are environmentally oriented it helps in improving environmental innovation of firms. Garces-Ayerbe et al. (2017) discovered a significant effect of effective communication and collaborations with different stakeholders enhance eco-innovation performance of firms in Spain. Singha et al. (2020) conducted same study on 309 SMEs and discovered a significant effect of green transformational leaders on green innovation of firms through the mediation effect of GHRM.
The study of Khan & Sarfraz (2021) indicated that GIC ensures firms compliance with environmental regulations and policies. Nadeem et al. (2021) after conducting an empirical investigation on some selected US-based companies concluded that GOC is highly imperative in the improvement of environmental performance of firms. Mbinya (2017) after conducting a longitudinal research study for the period of 2011 – 2015 affirmed that when environmental management system is established in firms it promotes organisational competitiveness in the dynamic business world.

Shah et al. (2021) established the effect of green human resources practices of firms on environmental and economic performance having conducted a survey on 480 employees of different status. The study of Baranova & Meadows (2017) when firms engage with wider scope of stakeholders it ensures new capabilities for making strategic decisions and build higher level of organisational environmental capabilities.

Conclusion

The relationship between the green intellectual capital (GIC) and environmental sustainability of the listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria was statistically significant and positive, at a significance level of 0.05, the F-statistics is 53.176, the P-value of the F-statistics is 0.000 which is less than 0.05. The study rejected the null hypothesis and concluded that the GIC has significant effect on environmental sustainability of the listed manufacturing firms in Nigeria. Therefore, the statistical findings of this study revealed a positive and significant effect of the green intellectual capital on environmental sustainability of the listed manufacturing companies in Nigeria at p-value of 0.000 which is less than 5% minimum required for this study.

Recommendations

Sustainability performance goals should be created by firms as part of their rewards system which will encourage employees to participate in sustainability thinking and environmental protection. However, environmental performance can be improved on when emphasis is laid recruitment and selection procedures and thereby opportunities for the recruitment of employees that are environmentally-friendly. Organisations should consider adequate investment in environmental systems and processes. However, environmental performance can be improved on when emphasis is laid on recruitment and selection procedures and thereby create opportunities for the recruitment of employees that are environmentally-friendly. Firms should ensure that the level of staff competence is evaluated from time to time in order to ensure effectiveness of organisational task which can be implemented in the organisational procedures and process. A comprehensive zero waste action should be created by firms with the tendencies of recycling, re-use and rebuilt when products are designed.

Contribution to Future Research

Future research should test the relationship between the variable of interest. Other construct for both the green intellectual capital ans business sustainability could be considered while other sector which include banking, IT, healthcare as well as SMEs can be investigated.

References

Acebo, E., Miguel-Davila, J., & Nieto, M. (2021). External stakeholder engagement: Complementary and substitutive effects on firms’ eco-innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(2021), 2671-2687.

Adam, A.M. (2020). Sample size determination in survey research. Journal of Scientific Research & Reports, 26(5), 90-97.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Alabri, I., Siron, R., & Alam, M.N. (2022). Human resource management (HRM) practices and employees’ adaptive performance: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Webology, 19(2022), 6215–6245.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Allameh, S.M. (2018). Antecedents and consequences of intellectual capital: The role of social capital, knowledge sharing and innovation. Journal of Intellectual Capital 19(2018), 858–874.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Aqubaisi, N.A. (2021). Sustianability and Capital Market. Abu Dhabi University.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Asiaei, K., & Jusoh, R. (2017). Using a robust performance measurement system to illuminate intellectual capital. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 26(2018), 1-19.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Asiaei, K., Barani, O., Bontis, N. & Arabahmadi, M. (2021). Unpacking the black box. How intrapreneurship intervenes in the intellectual capital performance relationship. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 21(6), 809-834.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Asiaei, K., Bontis, N., Alizadeh, R. & Yaghoubi, M. (2021). Green intellectual capital and environmental management accounting: Natural resource orchestration in favour of environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1), 1-18.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Asiaei, K., Jusoh, R., Barani, O., & Asiaei, A. (2022a). How does green intellectual capital boost performance? The mediating role of environmental performance measurement systems. Business Strategy and theEnvironment, 1–20.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Asiaei, K., O'Connor, N.G., Barani, O., & Joshi, M. (2022b). Green intellectual capital and ambidextrous green innovation: The impact on environmental performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 1-18.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Baranova, P. and Meadows, M. (2017). Engaging with environmental stakeholders: Routes to building environmental capabilities in the context of the low carbon economy. Business Ethics: A European Review, 26(2), 112.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bombiak, E., & Marciniuk-Kluska, A. (2018). Green human resource management as a tool for the sustainable development of enterprises: Polish young company experience. Sustainability, 10(2018), 1739.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Cahyono, B., & Hakim, A. (2019). Green intellectual capital and competitive advantage: The moderating effect of Islamic business ethics. 3rd Asia Pacific International Conference of Management and Business Science (AICMBS 2019). Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, 135.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Chanuan, U., Kajohnsak, C., & Nittaya, S. (2021). Sample size estimation using Yamane and Cochran and Krejice and Morgan and Green Formulas and Cohen Statistical Power Analysis by G Power and Comparisons. Apheit International Journal, 10(2), 76-88.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Chaudhary, R. (2019). Green human resource management and job pursuit intention: Examining the underlying processes. Corporate Social Responsibility Environmental Management, 26(4), 929–937.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Chen, Y.S. (2008). The Positive Effect of Green Intellectual Capital on Competitive Advantages of Firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(3), 271–286.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Chen, Y.S., Lai, S.B., Wen, C.T. (2006). The Influence of Green Innovation Performance on Corporate Advantage in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(4), 331-339.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

D’Angelo, E., Gangi F., Daniele L.M. & Varrone N. (2021). The Virtuous Circle of Intellectual Capital and Corporate Environmentalism: Evidence from the Food Industry. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 17(1), 1.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

De Oliveira Rebula, U., Espindola Souza, L., da Silva Rocha, I., da Silva Nostorio, I. and Rocha Martins, H. (2018). A systematic literature review on green supply chain management: research implication and future perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 187(2018), 537-561.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Dewi, R.R., Murwaningsari, E., & Mayangsari, S. (2021). Green Intellectual Capital on Value Relevance in Indonesia’s Manufacturing Companies, Accounting and Finance Review, 6(3), 120–136.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Dranev, Y., Izosimova, A., & Meissner, D., (2018). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: assessment approaches and empirical evidence. Journal of Knowledge Economy 1-16.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Elabed, S., Belal, A., Shamayieh, A. (2019). Sustainability of Medical Equipment in the Healthcare industry: An overview. IEEE, 1-4.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Ertz, M., & Patrick, K., (2019). The future of sustainable healthcare: extending product lifecycles. Resource Conservative Recycle, 153, 104589.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Fineman, S., & Clarke, K. 1996. Green Stakeholders: industry Interpretations and Response. Journal of Management Studies, 33(6), 715-730.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach(1st ed.). Boston, IL: Pitman.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Freeman, R.E., & Mcvea, J. (2001). Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management. Darden Graduate School of Business Administration University of Virginia Working Paper No. 01-02 A.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Freeman, R.E., Dmytrivev, S.D., & Phillips, R.A. (2021). Stakeholder theory and the Resource-Based View of the firm. Journal of Management, 1-14.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Gong, M., Simpson, A., Koh, L., Tan, K.H. (2018). Inside out: the interrelationships of sustainable performance metrics and its effect on business decision making: theory and practice. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 128, 155e166.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hofman, P.S., Blome, C., Schleper, M.C., & Subramanian, N. (2020). Supply chain collaboration and eco-innovations: An institutional perspective from China. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(6), 2734–2754.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hussain, I., Nazir, M., Khan, Q., & Shah S. (2021). Linking Green Human Resource Practices and Environmental Performance: The Role of Green Innovation as Mediator and Environmental Strategy as Moderator. RADS Journal of Business Management,3(2), 1-15.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hussain, S.T., et al. (2021). Transformational leadership and organizational change examining the mediational approach of knowledge sharing. International Journal of Asian Business and Information Management, 12(2), 84–95.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Iheanachor, I. (2020). Sustainable business practices by Nigerian organisations.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Jermsittiparsert, K. (2017). Green Intellectual Capital Factors Leading to Business Sustainability. E3S Web of Conferences 277, 06009 (2021). ICEES 2021, 1-10.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Kanayo, O., Kizito, E.U., & Udefuna, P. (2013). The challenges and implications of sustainable development in Africa: Policy options for Nigeria. Journal of Economic Cooperation and Development, 34(4), 77-112.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Le, P.B., & Lei, H., (2018). The mediating role of trust in stimulating the relationship between transformational leadership and knowledge sharing processes. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(3), 521-537.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Martinez-Conesa, I., Soto-Acosta, P., & Palacios-Manzano, M. (2017). Corporate social responsibility and its effect on innovation and firm performance: an empirical research in SMEs. Journal ofCleaner Production, 142(2017), 2374-2383.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Mbang, U.B., Ogbo, A.I., Emeh, N.C., Gabriel, O.C.O., Iheonkhan, I.S., & Afolabi A.A., (2020). Green Manufacturing: Rethinking the Sustainability of Nigerian Manufacturing Firms, International Journal of Management, 11(12), 132-142.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Mehra, R., & Sharma, M.K. (2021). Measures of sustainability in Healthcare. Sustainability Analytics and Modeling, 1(2021), 100001.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Muntari, B., Ho, T.C.F., Teo, P.C., Rizal, A.M., & Hee, O.C. (2021). The Link Between Green Human Resource Management and Green Management Practices in Achieving Green Competitive Advantage: The Moderating role of Stakeholder Pressure. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 11(8), 1392–1401.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Mushtaq, S., Zubair, S.S., Khan, M.A. & Khurram, S. (2019). Mediating role of environmental commitment between green organizational identity and green innovation performance, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences(PJCSS), ISSN 2309-8619, Johar Education Society, Pakistan (JESPK), Lahore, 13(2), 385-408.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Nawangsari, L.C., Sutawidjaya, A.H. & Young, F.C. (2022). Increasing business sustainability through green intellectual capital and competitive advantage in SMEs. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(3), 326-337.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Oji, H. (2022). Sustainable business practices will promote economic transformation. https://guardian.ng/business-services/sustainable-business-practices-will-promote-economic-transformation/

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Paille, P., Valeau, P., & Wenrick, D.W. (2020). Leveraging green human resource practices to achieve environmental sustainability. Elsevier, 1-44.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Parmar, B.L., Freeman, E.R., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Colle, S.D. & Purnell, L. (2010). Stakeholders’ theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Roespinoedji, R., Saudi, M.H.M., Hardika, A.L., & Zulhazmi, A. (2019). The Effect of Green Organizational Culture and Green Innovation in influencing Competitive Advantage and Environmental Performance. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 8(1), 278-286.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Scarpellini, S., Marín-Vinuesa, L. M., Aranda-Us_on, A., & Portillo-Tarragona, P. (2020). Dynamic capabilities and environmental accounting for the circular economy in businesses. Sustainability Accounting,Management and Policy Journal, 11(7), 1129–1158.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Secundo, G., Ndou, V., Del Vecchio, P., & De Pascale, G. (2020). Sustainable development, intellectual capital and technology policies: a structured literature review and future research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,153(2020), 119917.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Shah, Jiang, Wu, Ahmed, Ullah & Adebayo (2021). Linking GHR Practices and Environmental Economic Performance: The Role of Green Economic Organisational Culture and Green Psychological Climate.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Shoaib, M., Zamecnik, R., Abbas, Z., Javed, M. & Rehman, A.U. (2021). Green human resource management and green human capital: A systematic literature review. International Scientific Conference Contemporary Issues in Business, Management and Economics Engineering 2021, 13-14.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Sullivan, K., Thomas, S., & Rosano, M. (2018). Using industrial ecology and strategic management concepts to pursue the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 237-246.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Tang, M., Walsh, G., Lerner, D., Fitza, M.A., & Li, Q. (2018). Green Innovation, Managerial Concern and Firm Performance: An Empirical Study. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(1), 39-51.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Tang, Y., Yang, R., Chen, Y., Du, M., Yang, Y., & Miao, X. (2020). Greenwashing of local government: The human-caused risks in the process of environmental information disclosure in China. Sustainability, 12(16), 6329.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Wang, Y., Agyemang, M., Jia, F. (2021). Resource Orchestration in Supply Chain Service-Based Business Model: The Case of a Cross-Border E-Commerce Company. Sustainability, 13(2021), 11820.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Yadiati, W., Nissa, N., Paulus, S., Suharman, H., & Meiryani, M. (2019). The role of green intellectual capital and organizational reputation in influencing environmental performance. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 9(2019), 261-268.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Yamane, T. (1973), Statistics: An Introductory Analysis. London: John Weather Hill, Inc.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Yusliza, M.Y., Norazmi, N.A., Jabbour, C.J.C., Fernando, Y., Fawehinmi, O., & Seles, B.M. (2019). Top management commitment, corporate social responsibility and green human resource management. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 26(6), 2051-2078.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Yusliza, M.Y., Yong, J.Y., Tanveer, M.I., Ramayah, T., Faezah, J.N., & Muhammad, Z. (2020). A structural model of the impact of green intellectual capital on sustainable performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 249(2020), 119334.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Yusoff, Y.M., Omar, M.K., & Zaman, M.D.K. (2018). Practice of green intellectual capital. Evidence from Malaysian manufacturing sector. 1st International Postgraduate Conference on Mechanical Engineering (IPCME2018). IOP conference series: materials and Engineering, 469(2019).

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Yusoff, Y.M., Omar, M.K., & Zaman, M.D.K. (2019a). Practice of green intellectual capital. Evidence from Philippine n manufacturing sector. International Postgraduate Conference on Mechanical Engineering, IOP Publishing.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Yusoff, Y.M., Omar, M.K., & Zaman, M.D.K. (2019b). Nexus between Green Intellectual Capital and Organizational Learning Capability. Evidence from Malaysian Manufacturing Sector. IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 697(2019) 012009 IOP Publishing.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Received: 07-Jun-2023 Manuscript No. AAFSJ-23-13671; Editor assigned: 09-Jun-2023, PreQC No. AAFSJ-23-13671(PQ); Reviewed: 23-Jun-2023, QC No. AAFSJ-23-13671; Revised: 27-Jun-2023, Manuscript No. AAFSJ-23-13671(R); Published: 30-Jun-2023